Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
US fisherman hooks live missile
The missile, in images taken by Mr Solomon (image courtesy WTSP)
Mr Solomon strapped the missile to his boat, wanting to keep it as a souvenir (images courtesy WTSP news)
A commercial fisherman in Florida had a lucky escape after netting an unusual catch - a live air-to-air missile.
Long-line fishing boat captain Rodney Solomon reeled in the missile in the Gulf of Mexico, about 50 miles (80km) off Panama City in Florida.
Finding a hole in the missile, Mr Solomon assumed it had gone off. He kept it as a souvenir and went on fishing for more than a week.
He said it was "a fright" to discover that "any time it could have exploded".
The local fire chief, Derryl O'Neal, told the BBC that Mr Solomon had reported the find on his return from his trip.
Rodney Solomon with a more usual catch (image courtesy local news station WTSP)
Mr Solomon admitted the experience "was kind of a fright"
"He actually came to the fire station and told us he had caught a Tomahawk missile, but it turned out not to be - it was an air-to-air guided missile" known as a Sidewinder, Mr O'Neal said.
Mr O'Neal's staff quickly secured the area around the missile and told people to leave.
"We were very worried - and even more when the air force confirmed to us that it was live," he said.
But the missile was safely dismantled.
The area in which the missile was discovered is in or near a zone used by defence forces for testing.
'Nothing scares us!'
"Occasionally this does happen - I remember a missile was discovered some 15 or 16 years ago," Mr O'Neal said.
"But really it's a rare event and we're not concerned that it will happen again any time soon."
Local fishermen are being advised not to bring in any similar discovery, but to alert authorities to its exact location.
Mr Solomon says fishermen are used to being in danger and are usually unflappable.
"We're fishermen, nothing scares us!", he told local news organisation WTSP.
But this experience "was kind of a fright".
He said: "It was like, 'wow man, you all took a big chance bringing in this missile. You had it on your boat for 10 days and any time it could have exploded on you'."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8092123.stm
i used a 22 round to put one of my dogs down that was quiet enough to be used in the city. and no one heard a thing. not sure what kind of round it was i used my uncle's rifle
The Army-Navy Game In Britain
June 8, 2009: In Britain, the commanders of the army and navy are feuding over the defense budget. Army commander General Sir Richard Dannatt has pointed out that only ten percent of spending on new equipment goes to the army (based on actual and planned spending between 2003-18). This, despite the fact that it's the army that is doing most of the fighting during this period. Although the army recently pulled out of Iraq (where it had been since 2003), it is still in Afghanistan, and more troops are headed there. The navy has not been involved in active combat since 1982 (in the Falklands).
The British armed forces have 191,000 on active service. Of those, 38,000 are in the Royal Navy, 109,000 in the Army, 41,000 in the Royal Air Force, and the rest in joint staffs and operations. The annual defense budget is about $58 billion.
While the army gets the largest portion of the budget, because most of the money goes to personnel, the navy and air force get most of the procurement money to pay for ships and aircraft. What annoys the army the most is the continued effort to maintain Britain as a major naval power. The generals can understand the need for destroyers, frigates and submarines to defend the seas that surround the British isles, but they chafe at the nearly $40 billion spent on four SSBNs (ballistic missile nuclear subs) and two aircraft carriers (and their escorts). To fund this, on a shrinking defense budget, the army is starved for modern combat equipment. This is allowed to happen while thousands of British troops are in combat.
The army wants Britain to recognize that, in the last century, the United States replaced Britain as the dominant naval power. U.S. naval power is stronger, compared to every other fleet on the planet, than the Royal Navy ever was. The U.S. has more nuclear weapons (in ICBMs and SSBNs) than everyone else (many of Russia's are technically in service, but are not fit to use.)
While many Britons like the idea of the country having its own nuclear deterrent (the nuclear missiles on the SSBNs) and aircraft carriers, the army commanders point out that the nation's first duty should be to troops are in harm's way. So far, the government does not agree.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20090608.aspx
Chinese Mystery On The Russian Border
June 7, 2009: China completed a large, phased array, radar station near its western border with Russia, four years ago. The Chinese won't say what the radar is for, but the location indicates that a radar that size could be used to detect incoming ballistic missiles, or simply to observe Russian missile tests that take place in eastern Russia or Central Asia (where Russia still has access to some Soviet era test sites.) The radar might also be part of an anti-satellite weapons system. To destroy satellites, you have to know where they are, and the radars, telescopes and computers that do this can be just about anywhere (although you need radars and telescopes all over the planet to cover all possible orbits).
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20090607.aspx
glad to see some states still believe in self defense
Death To The F-35
June 7, 2009: The U.S. Air Force is under growing pressure to build fewer of its next fighter, the F-35. The air force has been ordered to reexamine the future needs for F-35s during the current Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). This is a planning exercise that takes into account all the nations military and civil resources as applied to a list of potential opponents and in wars that could break out in the next decade. This analysis is used to determine what weapons will be needed in the future. The QDR also has to take into account the "guidance" from the president and Congress. The air force believes that a more optimistic (about world peace) government will provide guidance that indicates a need for fewer F-35s (currently the air force plans to buy 1,763.)
Another problem is that many people, including some generals in the air force, believe that its next generation fighter will not have a pilot on board. Many air force generals admit that the F-35 is probably the last manned fighter. But some believe that the F-35 will be facing stiff competition from pilotless fighters before F-35 production is scheduled to end in 2034.
UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) are not particularly popular with many U.S. Air Force leaders, but that is not the case in many other countries. Air force generals around the world see the unpiloted jet fighter as a way to break the monopoly the U.S. Air Force has had on air supremacy for the last sixty years. Most Americans don't even think of this long domination of the air, but potential enemies of the United States are well aware of it, and that domination has a profound effect on how those nations do their military planning. In effect, if you think about going to war with the United States, you take for granted that American aircraft will control the skies above. Robotic jet fighters could change that. And this is forcing American air force generals to confront a very unsavory prospect; a sixth generation fighter that is flown by software, not a pilot.
It's not just that most of the those American air force generals began their careers as fighter pilots. No, the reason is more practical. American air superiority has largely been the result of superior pilots. The U.S. didn't always have the best aircraft, but they always had the most talented and resourceful pilots. And that's what gave the U.S. its edge. Will that translate to software piloted fighters? Research to date seems to indicate it will.
Meanwhile, simulations, using fighter flown by software, versus those flown by humans, have been used for over two decades. The "software pilots" have gotten better, and better. Moreover, a fighter without a pilot is more maneuverable (because some maneuvers are too stressful on the human body.) UAV fighters can be smaller, cheaper, stealthier and more expendable. But the key to software pilots is the development of superior tactics, and artificial intelligence (AI) that is more capable than anything your opponent can come up with.
The U.S. Air Force, and several other air forces, have already created fighter pilot software, and now the United States, and Russia, are creating pilotless fighters. Many air force generals are convinced that the pilotless fighters will perform as well for real, as they have in the simulations. So convinced are U.S. Air Force generals, that they are seriously considering a sixth generation fighter that will not carry a human pilot. Otherwise, enemy pilotless fighters would have an edge over the U.S. sixth generation aircraft.
The potential superiority of U.S. pilotless fighters is partly driven by the fact that most American fighter pilots are geeks. Many can create software, and have a deep understanding of the many computers, and their software, that modern aircraft contain. It's the fighter pilots who will play a key role in creating the best "software pilots." Thus the thinking is that American control of the air will be maintained by a new generation combat aircraft controlled by software, not someone in a cockpit.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20090607.aspx
impressive, makes you wonder what they arent telling you
bad ass song!
You Have Been Warned
June 2, 2009: There's an easy way to find out what the U.S. Department of Defense, CIA and State Department think about where the danger lies around the world. Just go to the State Department web site and look at the list of countries that Americans are warned to avoid visiting. These are dangerous places, where bad things are happening. The list currently contains the following places (and the date of the latest warning);
Nepal (05/22/2009), Lebanon (05/13/2009), Yemen (04/24/2009), Georgia (04/09/2009), Sudan (04/08/2009), Central African Republic (04/01/2009), Colombia (03/25/2009) Madagascar (03/17/2009), Saudi Arabia (03/04/2009), Algeria (03/04/2009), Pakistan (02/25/2009), Eritrea (02/18/2009), Syria (02/12/2009), Congo (the large one, 02/05/2009), Haiti (01/28/2009), Philippines (01/27/2009), Israel, at least the West Bank and Gaza (01/15/2009), Burundi (01/08/2009), Sri Lanka (12/22/2008), Cote d'Ivoire (12/15/2008), Nigeria (12/02/2008), Somalia (11/15/2008), Chad (11/14/2008), Kenya (11/14/2008), Iran (09/15/2008), Afghanistan (09/10/2008), Uzbekistan (07/03/2008), Iraq (06/13/2008).
You have been warned.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20090602.aspx
NK Military Options Look Bleak
NK Military Options Look Bleak
By Colin Clark Monday, June 1st, 2009 1:32 pm
Posted in Air, Intelligence, International, Land, Naval, Policy, Rumors
As North Korea continues to play the DefCon game, it’s time to analyze what kind of military response the U.S. might be able to mount should something really bad happen. Bottom line: the response would probably have to rely on the fear factor of killing some of the 58,000 troops in South Korea, on what China would do and how the good ole international community would react. The reasons for that prognosis are fairly simple: the US has committed so much of its troops and treasure to Iraq and Afghanistan for so long that the conventional military has little stretch left in it.
The North Korea situation is clearly at the point where serious may become deadly. Defense Secretary Robert Gates rose in Singapore to declare that, “We will not stand idly by as North Korea builds the capability to wreak destruction on any target in Asia — or on us.” There are whispers about that US intelligence assets have detected the early stages of ground force mobilization by the North Koreans, but I stress those are still rumors. And today there are reports that North Korea is readying another ICBM test, which would send ripples of tension throughout the Pacific basin.
The Financial Times quoted Gates about the game played by North Koreans. “We have to be very tough minded about this. Everyone in this room is familiar with the tactics that the North Koreans use,” he said. “They create a crisis and then the rest of us pay a price to return to the status quo ante … I am tired of buying the same horse twice.”
While few in the military are willing to talk about specific options being considered, the strained US military will find it difficult to respond quickly to any major provocation by North Korea. Here’s the evidence. Item: Gen. George Casey, Army chief of staff, said last week that it would take about 90 days to get more troops to the Korean peninsula.
Item: During a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee Army Gen. Peter Chiarelli, vice chief of staff, and Gen. James Amos, assistant commandant of the Marines, delivered a sobering assessment in direct response to questions about the country’s ability to respond to a North Korean crisis.
“I think it would be very difficult, challenging — I don’t think there is any question about it,” Amos said, adding that it would “emasculate all our strategic reserves.” For those who remember Gen. Macarthur’s brilliant gambit at Inchon (pictured), Amos delivered a truly worrying assessment that has since been echoed by the deputy commandant. The toll of the last seven years of combat has forced the service to sacrifice its traditionally vaunted capabilities in combined arms operations and large-scale amphibious operations to be the excellent counterinsurgency force it has become.
The current deployments to Afghanistan and the toll of Iraq have done nothing to lighten that load, Amos made clear.
The stress of combat and the greatly increased use of air and ground equipment are beginning to affect the availability of “critical” equipment, he said.
Item: When the Corps sent the 2nd MEB to Afghanistan it had to pull 14 percent of the equipment needed from non-deployed units. And in a move that showed just how little room for maneuver the Marines have, 51 percent of the equipment for the brigade rolled right off of production lines to the Marines, not from inventory.
Marine aircraft “are flying at utilization rates far beyond those for which they were designed. We are nearly tripling the utilization rates of our workhorses – the F/A-18C and D; the KC-130 cargo and aerial refueling platform; our EA-6B electronic warfare aircraft; and even the new MV-22 Osprey,” Amos said in his prepared testimony. To keep deployed squadrons fully equipped the Corps has cut aircraft and parts to non-deployed squadrons. In all, the service is short 248 aircraft.
The Army is in slightly better shape, but only because it so much larger. But there is little wiggle room, Chiarelli made chillingly clear: “We are consuming our readiness as soon as we get it.”
On top of all this, consider how many strategic assets such as squadrons of F-22, B-1 and B-52 stand ready to respond in the Korean theater. The exact answer is classified but there aren’t many.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/01/nk-military-options-look-bleak/
The U.S. Navy Comes Apart At The Seams
June 1, 2009: The U.S. Navy has yet another ship building disaster on its hands. This time it involves quality control, or, rather, that lack of same. A weld inspector at the Newport News shipyard was recently found to be falsifying the inspection of welding jobs on four Virginia class submarines and a Nimitz class carrier. Some 10,000 welds have to be re-inspected, as these are how many the now dismissed inspector handled in four years on the job. Each Virginia class sub has about 300,000 welds that have to be inspected. Normally, only a few will fail inspection and have to be redone.
A few defective welds can cause the loss of a submarine, or serious damage aboard a carrier. Two methods are used to inspect welds, magnetism, or a special liquid. It's easy to fake the inspection, thus these quality control inspectors must be carefully selected.
For several decades now, the navy has had growing ship construction problems, with poor quality, delays and inflated prices making it difficult to maintain the size and effectiveness of the fleet. One of the major problems is the practice of "low balling." This is where the shipbuilder gives the navy a very low estimate of what a proposed ship is going to cost. Then, when construction is under way, costs creep up, often resulting in the ship costing more than twice the original estimate. When this practice began, after World War II, it was with the cooperation of the navy, that wanted to have an easier time convincing Congress to allow construction of new ships.
For the past decade, the navy has been saying, "no more", while the ship builders say, "OK." But the low balling continues. All current ship building projects over budget. The worst case is the LCS (Littoral Combat Ship), which was to be the poster boy for doing it right. Didn't work out that way. Four years ago, when building plans for the LCS were laid out, each one was to cost $223 million. Now the estimated price is $460 million, and the navy is confident that the ultimate price will be higher. Congress is outraged, and are demanding that the admirals do something.
The real problem is "sole source" procurement of big deck vessels (plus the Navy's penchant for frequently changing design specifications). The problem goes back to when the navy destroyed the Navy Yard system, which was the best check on corruption and carelessness in shipbuilding. How does one bring back quality production, or even prove it can be done better, if there are no government owned ship yards that enable the navy to find out how it can be done better?
The shipbuilding industry will sometimes blame the unions. But Norway, Denmark, Japan, Korea, etc., maintain effective, efficient shipbuilding operations and have strong unions. But the basic notion of having navy-owned yards was so that the service (and the taxpayer) could have an independent "authority" on ship construction and repair.
Examples abound. Back in the '30s, with substantial construction contracts being let again, the Navy placed orders for three very similar classes of destroyers, two to be built in private yards and one in navy yards. There were about a dozen ships all together. The end result was that the navy-built ships came in on time, on budget, and with few teething problems, while the privately built ones ran over in time and money and required some additional work after completion.
Post-World War II, the shipbuilding industry decided it needed the work more than the navy yards did. A series of interesting laws got passed that marginalized the navy yards. One good one was a law that came out of the Virginia congressional delegation that mandated that modernization, maintenance, and repair jobs be done at yards in proximity to where ships were based. This was very good for Newport News, but meant that navy yards in places like New York, where there were usually no ships based, became "uneconomical." We've only got a few navy-owned yards now, and none of them do construction.
The private shipbuilders and the shipping lines, plus their local members of Congress, have also contributed to the decline of the merchant marine, though they blame the unions, OSHA, EPA, "cheap foreign labor," etc., and so forth. Books have been written about this (like "The Abandoned Ocean: A History of United States Maritime Policy"), but not enough of the right people read them, or wanted to act on the evidence presented. The problem, as in so many areas of military procurement, is politics. The defense budget is seen as a source of votes, above all. No politician will admit it, but the facts speak for themselves.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20090601.aspx
The Violence Declines While The Headlines Persist
June 1, 2009: You'd never know it from reading the headlines, but wars continue to decline worldwide. However, the conflicts that kill the most people (like Congo) get the least media coverage. Reporting tends to be distorted by the need to attract eyeballs, and revenue. For years, Iraq was portrayed as a disaster until, suddenly, the enemy was crushed. Even that was not considered exciting enough to warrant much attention, and that story is still poorly covered by the mass media. Same pattern is playing out in Afghanistan, where the defeats of the Taliban, and triumph of the drug gangs, go unreported and distorted.
Worldwide, violence continues to decline, as it has for the last few years. Violence has also greatly diminished, or disappeared completely, in places like Sri Lanka, Iraq, Nepal, Chechnya, Congo, Indonesia and Burundi. Even Afghanistan, touted as the new war zone, was not nearly as violent this past six months as the headlines would deceive you into believing.
All this continues a trend that began when the Cold War ended, and the Soviet Union no longer subsidized terrorist and rebel groups everywhere. The current wars are basically uprisings against police states or feudal societies, which are seen as out-of-step with the modern world. Many are led by radicals preaching failed dogmas (Islamic conservatism, Maoism), that still resonate among people who don't know about the dismal track records. Iran has not picked much of the lost Soviet terrorist support effort. Hezbollah and Hamas, the Madhi Army and a few smaller groups, and that's it. Terrorists in general miss the Soviets, who really knew how to treat bad boys right.
The War on Terror has morphed into the War Against Islamic Radicalism. This religious radicalism has always been around, for Islam was born as an aggressive movement, that used violence and terror to expand. Past periods of conquest are regarded fondly by Moslems. The current enthusiasm for violence in the name of God has been building for over half a century. Historically, periods of Islamic radicalism have flared up periodically in response to corrupt governments, as a vain attempt to impose a religious solution on some social or political problem. The current violence is international because of the availability of planet wide mass media (which needs a constant supply of headlines), and the fact that the Islamic world is awash in tyranny and economic backwardness. Islamic radicalism itself is incapable of mustering much military power, and the movement largely relies on terrorism to gain attention. Most of the victims are fellow Moslems, which is why the radicals eventually become so unpopular among their own people that they run out of new recruits and fade away. This is what is happening now. The American invasion of Iraq was a clever exploitation of this, forcing the Islamic radicals to fight in Iraq, where they killed many Moslems, especially women and children, thus causing the Islamic radicals to lose their popularity among Moslems.
Normally, the West does not get involved in these Islamic religious wars, unless attacked in a major way. Moreover, modern sensibilities have made that more difficult. For example, fighting back is considered, by Moslems, as culturally insensitive ("war on Islam"), and some of the Western media have picked up on this bizarre interpretation of reality. It gets worse, as, some historians point out, for example, that the medieval Crusades were a series of wars fought in response to Islamic violence against Christians, not the opening act of aggression against Islam that continue to the present. Thus, the current war on terror is, indeed, in the tradition of the Crusades. And there are many other "Crusades" brewing around the world, in the many places where aggressive Islamic militants are making unprovoked war on their Christian neighbors. Political Correctness among academics and journalists causes pundits to try and turn this reality inside out. But a close look at the violence in Africa, Asia and the Middle East shows a definite pattern of Islamic radicals persecuting those who do not agree with them, not the other way around.
While Islamic terrorism grabs most of the headlines, it is not the cause of many casualties, at least not compared to more traditional wars. The vast majority of the military related violence and deaths in the world comes from many little wars that get little media attention outside their region. Actually some of them are not so little. While causalities from terrorism are relatively few (usually 5,000-10,000 dead a year worldwide), the dead and wounded from all the other wars actually comprise about 95 percent of all the casualties. The Islamic terrorism looms larger because the terrorists threaten attacks everywhere, putting a much larger population in harms way, and unhappy with that prospect. But in the West, and most Moslem nations, Islamic terrorism remains more of a threat than reality.
Current wars are listed in alphabetical orders. Text underneath briefly describes current status. Click on country name for more details.
AFGHANISTAN
Last year's headlines of the "Taliban comeback" has become "can the Taliban survive" this year. U.S. and NATO forces are now concentrating on the key Taliban resource; heroin in Helmand province. The Taliban expected drug gang profits, al Qaeda assistance and Pakistani reinforcements to turn the tide. The drug money is threatened, al Qaeda has become a liability (these foreign terrorists kill mainly civilians) and the Pakistan Taliban are under major attack by the Pakistani army. Independent minded tribes, warlords and drug gangs remain a greater threat to peace, prosperity and true national unity, than the Taliban (on both sides of the Pakistan border). The Pakistani campaign against the pro-Taliban tribes and various Islamic terrorist organizations, who have turned most Pakistanis against Islamic radicalism. That reversed the flow of gunmen from Pakistan into Afghanistan. But violence inside Afghanistan is growing, largely because of the growth of the drug gangs, and their support for tribes (especially pro-Taliban ones) that oppose the corrupt national government. The foreign nations, fighting their war on terror in Afghanistan, have finally realized that there has never been an Afghan national government that was not corrupt, and changing that is going to be more difficult than fighting the Taliban or finding bin Laden.
ALGERIA
There aren't many Islamic radicals left in Algeria, and many of those are fleeing to Europe, or south into the desert and across the southern borders into Black Africa. Despite the large amount of uninhabited mountains and forests along the eastern coast, the police and army have been operating there for so long that it's difficult to stay hidden. Too many civilians are hostile to Islamic radicalism, and will phone in a tip. Algeria has become a very dangerous place for Islamic terrorists. Some fight on, but at lower and lower violence levels. Peace has brought with it despair, as Algerians realize that their government is basically a corrupt military dictatorship that uses the national oil wealth to buy enough votes to get elected again and again. So more Algerians are fleeing, or vacillating between despair and a desire to fight.
BALKANS
The Greater Albania Movement is driven by part time Albanian nationalists, full time gangsters, political opportunists, Kosovo separatists and some Islamic radicals. West Europeans got their way, and Kosovo became independent. Serbia disagrees with that, and Big Brother Russia offers all manner of support, and threats. But no one is willing to resume the war, yet. No one is willing to renounce war as an option, either. Bosnia continues to attract Islamic terrorists, despite the local government becoming increasingly hostile to these foreign troublemakers and alien Islamic conservatism.
CENTRAL ASIA
Dictators brew rebellion by suppressing democrats and Islamic radicals. But not much violence so far, just a lot of potential. The dictators in the "Stans" (the former provinces of the Soviet Union that became five independent nations; Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan) have been rebuilding the Soviet era secret police. The new dictators noted that the Soviets never had any problems with Islamic terrorism, or any other kind of terrorism, and are going old school on this new problem.
CHAD
Most of the rebel movements have united, aided by Sudanese support and bases. The Chad government returns the favor by giving refuge to Sudanese Darfur rebels. Neither of these gambits works, despite the Chad and Sudanese rebels crossing the border at least once a year and carrying out yet another failed invasion. Despite all that, the government made peace with Sudan, but not with their own rebels, who continue to resist. European peacekeepers arrived, but lacking sufficient manpower and helicopters, were unable to do much, and are now being replaced by UN peacekeepers. The unrest along the Sudan border is caused by refugees from tribal battles in Sudan, who bring their feuds with them. Prospects for peace are not good, although the UN says it will bring in peacekeepers that will have a license to kick ass and take names. It's uncertain if this will work either.
CHINA
The confrontation with Taiwan was dialed down a notch as kind words and gracious lies were exchanged in the name of commerce. A new government in Taiwan plays down independence, and China responds with soothing words. But China speeds up modernization of its armed forces, but in ways Westerners have a difficult time understanding. China has developed a major Cyber War capability, and has been using it for several years. The targets of this, in Western Europe and the U.S., have figured this out, and a new crises is brewing. China has become major secret supplier of cheap weapons to bad guys everywhere. World class weapons are planned for the future, some 10-20 years from now.
COLOMBIA
After over three decades, leftist rebels more rapidly losing support, recruits and territory. Even leftist demagogue Hugo Chavez of Venezuela pretended to drop support for the Colombian rebels, while still providing sanctuary for them and their cocaine producing allies. The drug gangs and leftist rebels have merged in many parts of the country, and war in increasingly about money, not ideology. The leftist rebels are definitely losing, but all that drug money will keep them in the game for quite a while.
CONGO
Multiple tribal and political militias, plus an increasing number of bandits, continue to roam the countryside, perpetuating the bloodiest (and least reported) war of the post Cold War era (over five million dead, and counting). Peacekeepers and army action have reduced the size of these violent groups, but not eliminated them. There are now fewer places that the bad guys can roam freely. Attempts to merge rebels into the army has not worked well. The last major problem, a Tutsi militia in the east that will not disarm until the government destroys Hutu militias built around Hutu mass murderers who fled neighboring Rwanda in the 1990s, is being disbanded. But the bandits and warlords are not going to disappear completely. The reason is money, the millions of dollars available each year to whoever has gunmen controlling the mines that extract valuable ores and allow the stuff out of the country. UN peacekeepers are criticized for not fighting more, but that’s not their job. Congolese army not up to it yet either, so there it simmers.
ETHIOPIA
Border dispute with Eritrea festers, another invasion of Somalia is possible because of threats from Islamic radical groups. Ethiopia is accustomed to dealing with the Somalis, something the rest of the world should study more closely. Islamic radical groups in southern Somalia are a constant threat, especially because of active support from Eritrea. Ogaden province, right on the Somali border, and full of ethnic Somalis, rebelled again, was pacified again and continues to simmer. Not a big deal, but one more hot spot that burns up troops and scarce cash. These two border wars have been around for centuries, and not likely to go away now.
HAITI
Technically at peace. Peacekeepers keep a lid on two century old violence between the rich and the poor, and the criminal and political gangs. Peacekeepers have busted up many of the gangs, and sharply lowered the crime rate. But the government is still corrupt and prone to breed lawbreakers and disorder. Same pattern of poverty and corruption that has sustained chaos for the past two centuries. No good prospects of breaking the cycle are in sight.
INDIA-PAKISTAN
Pakistan has acknowledged that negotiating with Islamic radicals, especially the Taliban, does not work. For the first time in its history, Pakistan is mounting a major invasion of the tribal territories. While the Taliban issue brave press releases, the army rolls over the fanatic tribesmen. Meanwhile, India has pacified the Islamic radical rebellion in Kashmir, but still has to cope with tribal rebels in the northeast, and Maoist (communist) ones in between. Pakistan has more problems with its Islamic radicals in the north, and rebellious Pushtun and Baluchi tribes along the Afghan border. The Taliban had become stronger in Pakistan, where it originated, than in Afghanistan. The new Pakistani government tried to make peace with the Taliban and when that failed last year, they went to war with the Taliban last Summer. The Taliban have been beat up pretty bad, and the number of terrorist attacks increased in response. Most of these were in the tribal areas, but the Pakistanis are being forced to confront the Islamic demons they have created. India and Pakistan both have nukes, making escalation a potential catastrophe. As a result, recent peace talks have lowered the possibility of war, but both sides continue an arms race. Pakistan has always been a mess, and does not appear to be getting better. But at least it's becoming less hospitable to Islamic radicals. India is turning away from Pakistan, and viewing China as a more dangerous regional rival.
INDONESIA
Basically at peace, but separatism, pirates, Islamic terrorists and government corruption create a volatile situation that could get hot real fast. Islamic terrorists have been greatly diminished, as Islamic moderates flex their traditional popularity. Aceh still has a few diehard separatist rebels. Newly independent East Timor has been unable to govern itself.
IRAN
The basic problem is that an Islamic conservative minority has veto power over the reformist majority. The supply of peaceful solutions is drying up. After that comes another revolution. Half the population consists of ethnic minorities (mainly Turks and Arabs), and these groups are getting more restive and violent. Meanwhile, the Islamic conservatives are determined to support terrorism overseas and build nuclear weapons at home, rather than improving the economy and living standards. Unrest and terrorist violence becoming more common, and government seeks foreign adventures to distract an unhappy population. That is not working, and the recent slump in oil prices is creating more poverty, and young men desperate for a solution.
IRAQ
Islamic terrorists are now a police problem. Even U.S. troops have to get arrest warrants from a judge. Violence continues to be down over 80 percent from the bad old days of two years ago. More areas of the country are now at peace (as some have been since 2003.) The Sunni Arab minority has worked out peace deals with the majority Kurds and Shia Arabs. But some Sunni Arab Islamic radicals are still active, and still determined start a civil war based on religion. Some Sunni Arabs, who had fled the country, are returning, but nearly half the Sunni Arabs are still gone. The Shia militias have been defeated as well, mainly by Iraqi police and troops. Corruption and inept government are now the major problems, with potential Iranian meddling (or even invasion) a permanent threat. The major U.S. TV news operations are pulling out. The war is really over.
ISRAEL
Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah cannot make peace, which prevents the Palestinians from making peace with Israel. More Palestinians are eager to make any kind of peace, in order to reverse the economic disaster they brought on themselves because of their nine year terror campaign against Israel. Polls show that Palestinians are tired of terrorism, even though they still support it (in order to destroy Israel, which remains an article of faith in the Palestinian community). The Palestinian economy has collapsed, as foreign charity was reduced because the people elected the Hamas (Islamic terrorists) party to power. Civil war between radical Hamas and corrupt Palestinian old guard (Fatah) has split Palestinians, but Fatah may end up back in control of Gaza by default. Even Egypt has turned on Hamas, because of Hamas support for Islamic terrorists operating in Egypt. Iran backed Islamic radicals (Hezbollah) in Lebanon have revived fears of civil war up there. Hezbollah threatens to drag Lebanon into another civil war, or another war with Israel. Meanwhile, Israeli economy booms as Israel continues its effective counter-terrorism campaign. This annoys Arabs most of all, and more Arab nations, particularly in the Persian Gulf, see Israel as a potential ally in a united opposition to Iranian expansion.
IVORY COAST
An uneasy truce continues. The north and the south made a deal over money, religion and power, but cannot agree on how, or when, to carry it out. All this is watched over by peacekeepers set up between the factions. A case of peacekeeping creating a situation where there is no war, but no solution to the conflict either.
KOREA
Last year's illness (a stroke) of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has just created more uncertainty. A recent nuclear weapon test made North Korea more of an international pariah. But the rulers of the north don't seem to care. Growing unrest, corruption and privation threaten the iron control that has long kept the north peaceful. North Korea continues to destroy its economy, in order to maintain armed forces capable of invading South Korea and keep its own population in bondage. Continued famine in the north has prompted China to send more and more troops to the border to keep hungry North Koreas out. North Korean military declines in power, as lack of money for maintenance or training cause continuing rot. Government split into reform and conservative factions, making change difficult to achieve. South Koreans are growing tired of the madness that still reigns in the north, but cannot do much. Near universal condemnation of the North Korea nuclear test, but no one can really do anything about it.
KURDISH WAR
Turkish aircraft and troops now operating on the Iraqi side of the border, seeking to either destroy Kurdish separatists, or push their bases further into Iraq. Iraqi Kurds have agreed to crack down on the PKK separatists the Turks have been fighting for over a decade. Kurds continue 5,000 year struggle to form their own country. Iran is cracking down on its Kurds, in cooperation with Turkey. This includes the first Iranian raids across the border. Iraqi Kurds allow all this because they believe they will get control of some Iraqi oil fields, providing cash for all manner of opportunities. But that is opposed by Iraqi Arabs and other minorities in northern Iraq.
MEXICO
The U.S. border is like a war zone. The passing of one-party rule, the growth of drug gangs, and increasing corruption in the security forces, has triggered unprecedented levels of violence and unrest. The government has gone to war with the drug gangs, and the outcome is still in doubt. The government should win, but this is an unprecedented situation that just seems to drag on.
NEPAL
Radical communist rebels succeed in eliminating the monarchy, via an alliance with political parties. Maoists then won control of the government, but refuse to completely disarm their private army. All this has triggered more violence by other unhappy groups (more radical Maoists, hill tribes, ethnic Indians). Maoists have quit the government, because of failed attempts to take over the army. The civil war could resume.
NIGERIA
Too many tribes, not enough oil money and too much corruption creates growing violence. The tribes and gangs (both criminal and political) in the oil producing region (the Niger Delta) are getting organized, and a lot more violent. The northern Moslems want more control over the federal government (and the oil money). Local rebels threaten loss of most oil revenue, which is getting the governments attention. The situation is sliding towards regional civil wars, over money and political power. The military has been more active in the oil region (the Niger river delta), and the gangs are not as much of a threat as the gang leaders thought they were. But the violence has cut oil production by over a third.
POTENTIAL HOT SPOTS
Various places where the local situation is warming up and might turn into a war. Equatorial Guinea, Madagascar, Zimbabwe and Central African Republic are hot right now.
PHILIPPINES
Islamic minority in the south wants its own country, and the expulsion of non-Moslems. Communist rebels in the north fight for social justice and a dictatorship. Both of these movements are losing and the Moslems are negotiating a peace deal that inches closer to a done deal. The communists are taking a beating, and playing hard to get. Rogue Moslem rebels have been attacking Christian villages in the south, which has triggered an army offensive. The rogue Moslem gunmen could not withstand the troops, which reminds everyone of the basic balance of power in the country.
RUSSIA
Rebuilding and reforming the decrepit Soviet era armed forces continues. The war against gangsters and Islamic radicals in Chechnya has been won, but the Islamic radicals continue to operate in other parts of the Caucasus. Russia returns to police state ways, and traditional threatening attitude towards neighbors. Recent drop in oil (and other raw materials) prices seriously slows Russian rearmament efforts, but the government is determined to rebuild the military, and keep the military industries viable.
RWANDA & BURUNDI
All about the violent competition between better organized and more aggressive Tutsis and more numerous Hutu tribes. It's been going on for centuries, but the latest installment has finally ended, with the last Hutu group in Burundi giving up, then changing its mind, but not making nearly as much trouble as in the past. Rwanda blamed for continuing violence in eastern Congo, as they attempt to destroy Hutu terrorists based there. But now Rwanda is cooperating with Congo and the UN peacekeepers to shut down Tutsi militia in eastern Congo.
SOMALIA
A failed state that defies every attempt at nation building. It was never a country, but a collection of clans and tribes that fight each other constantly over economic issues (land and water). The new "transitional" government, was nearly wiped out by an "Islamic Courts" movement (which attempted to put the entire country under the rule of Islamic clergy and Islamic law). When Islamic Courts threatened to expand into Ethiopia, Ethiopia invaded and smashed the Islamic Courts. The Islamic radicals have turned to terrorism, which Eritrea continues to provide support for. A new peace deal gives control of the weak government to moderate religious groups, who are now fighting Islamic radical militias. The country remains an economic and political mess, a black hole on the map. Not much hope in sight, until the pirates (which have been around for a decade) became a major problem. Now the major trading nations have to decide whether to occupy and administer (stamp out piracy) Somalia, or pay several billion dollars a year in ransom, insurance and security costs. At this point, moderate religious groups receiving foreign subsidies from the West, while Islamic radical groups are funded by Iran. Pirates are being chased around, but not stopped from operating.
SRI LANKA
Tamil minority (19th century economic migrants from southern India) battle to partition the island has ended in failure. Tamils (the LTTE) were crushed, as radicals threaten a to return to terrorism and banditry in support of separatism.
SUDAN
Moslems in the north try to suppress separatist tendencies among Christians in the south, and Moslem rebels in the east and west (non-Arab Darfur). All this is complicated by development of oil fields in the south, and Moslem government attempts to drive Christians from the oil region. Battles over land in the west pit Arab herders against black Sudanese farmers. Both sides are Moslem, but the government is backing the Arabs. The government uses Arab nationalism and economic ties with Russia and China to defy the world and get away with driving non-Arab tribes from Darfur. The government believes time is on its side, and that the West will never try anything bold and effective to halt the violence. So far, the government has been proven right.
THAILAND
Malay Moslems in the south are three percent of the population, and different. Most Thais are ethnic Thais and Buddhist. In the south, however, Islamic radicalism has arrived, along with an armed effort to create a separate Islamic state in the three southern provinces. Islamic terrorists grew more powerful month by month for several years, and refuse to negotiate. Security forces persisted and are making progress in identifying and rounding up the terrorists. Meanwhile, civil war brews between urban and rural segments of the population, under the leadership of political parties that differ on how the nation should be run. The minority are elitist urbanite royalists, and they just overthrew an elected government via massive urban demonstrations. Now populist mobs roam the capital. This struggle isn't over.
UGANDA
Religion and tribalism combine to create a persistent rebellion in the north, which was aided by Sudan. But now the northern rebels have been worn down, and the unrest is just about done with. Final peace deal with LRA rebels proved impossible to negotiate. Ugandan army got permission to enter Congo to try and finish the rebels off. The chase continues.
WAR ON TERROR
International terrorism has created a international backlash and a war unlike any other. These days, most terrorist victories are in the media. On the ground, the terrorists are losing ground everywhere. Their last refuges are chaotic, or cynical, places like Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, Gaza, the Sahel, a few of the Philippine islands, and especially tribal regions of Pakistan (where al Qaeda is staging a well publicized last stand). They are being chased out of Iraq, Indonesia and the Philippines. Iran continues to support terrorism in the face of much local disapproval. Syria and Lebanon are in chaos because of Iranian subsidized factions. Gaza went the same way. Islamic radicals are a traditional reaction to tyranny in their region, and the inability of local despots to rule effectively. Economic and diplomatic ties with the West are interpreted as support, leading to attacks on Western targets that created a devastating counterattack. The result of this in the Moslem world has been dramatic, finally forcing leaders and people to confront their self-inflicted problems. Al Qaeda is as self-destructive as its many predecessors. Al Qaeda suicide bomb attacks that continue to kill civilians, continues to turn Moslems against al Qaeda in a big way. But the terrorists justify such dumb attacks because their doctrine holds that Moslems who don’t agree with them, are not really Moslems. You can imagine how well that goes over with the survivors, and the many potential victims. You can, but al Qaeda can’t, and that is what guarantees their demise. That will be well covered by the media, because the Islamic terror groups have learned how to play the media. Many "Islamic terrorists" help out, while safely on the sidelines, with media manipulation and producing propaganda. The Internet has made these efforts possible, and quite popular. Since all this is religion based, and Islam is a faith that calls for world conquest and violent intolerance of other faiths, you have a large pool of ambitious and murderous new recruits. Many Moslems insist they do not support the "world conquest" crowd, but few are willing to confront the maniacs head-on and denounce the killing on religious grounds. Islam has some internal problems that Moslems will have to deal with before all this unpleasantness goes away.
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/wars/articles/20090601.aspx
F-22 Raptor Program: Will we learn from it?
By David Crane
defrev (at) gmail (dot) com
May 29, 2009
While Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ decision to halt production of the costly Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor low-observable/stealth fighter aircraft is perhaps not the best long-term strategic decision he could have made, it’s certainly understandable. Given the U.S. government’s–and thus DoD’s–current money crunch vs. the program’s high cost and lack of current combat-utility in Iraq and “Stan” (Afghanistan), cutting the Raptor program’s reported $3.5 billion per year cost certainly has some logic to it. Some programs simply have to go, and we might as well start with the expensive ones that don’t have any seeming immediate tactical or strategic utility for the two wars we’re currently fighting, right? Let’s face it, air superiority is not exactly an issue right now in either theater. We’ve got the air, and we don’t need F-22s to maintain it.
So, what’s wrong with cancelling the Raptor? Well, for one thing, we finally got the production cost down to approximately $143 million per aircraft. If they cancel the F-22 program at 187 total aircraft–56 aircraft short of the 243 aircraft the U.S. Air Force had stated as its requirement–the F-22 Raptor will really come in somewhere around $350 million apiece, with the last four aircraft coming off the line at an estimated cost of approx. $200 million per, due to the $147 million “end-of-production expenses” that will be rolled into their procurement price. Understand that the Air Force originally wanted 750 aircraft, but they wittled that number down to 442 aircraft, then 381, then 243, and then 183, before bring that number back up to 187.
This leads us to the second reason why F-22 Raptor program cancellation is a bad idea. Strategically, 187 F-22 Raptors simply isn’t an adequate number for a future war against China and/or Russia, and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), also made by Lockheed Martin, simply doesn’t have the Raptor’s air-to-air combat capability, so it can’t fulfill the same air-superiority role against the latest Russian fighters, let alone their Gen-5 fighters that are currently either under development or on the drawing board–and Russia likes to export their fighters. DefenseReview would therefore feel much more comfortable with a quiver of at least 1,000 Raptors for a war against the Dragon or the Bear. Both countries are currently developing low-observable, supermaneuvarable 5th Generation fighter aircraft, and Russia’s latest 4th-Gen. Sukhoi and MiG aircraft are arguably superior to our latest F-15 and F-16 fighter aircraft in a number of aspects.
But, having stated the above, do we have any sympathy for the Air Force, Lockheed Martin, or Boeing? No, and here’s why. First, it’s they’re own fault. They brought this situation on themselves. The fact is that the F-22 Raptor took WAY too long and cost WAY too much money to develop, period, end of story. There is simply no reasonable explanation for it to have taken almost 16 years for the F-22 to have entered service from the time of contractor selection. Actually, it really took about 19.5 years if you start the clock from the Air Force’s request for proposal (RFP) in July of 1986, which resulted in the YF-22 and YF-23, and over 24 years if you start the count from the inception of the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) program in 1981.
There is simply no justifiable reason why ANY new tactical fighter aircraft, or any new combat aircraft of any kind, for that matter, should take longer than 5 years to develop from initial concept to combat (production and procurement). And it definitely shouldn’t take longer than 5 years for any aircraft system to go into production from the time the Air Force selects a contractor. Don’t agree? Well, here’s our retort, consisting of four examples:
1) The North American Aviation (NAA) P-51 Mustang, the most advanced piston-engined fighter aircraft of World War II (WWII) was developed in approx. 120 days. That’s 4 months, folks. Wikipedia provides more specifics: “The prototype NA-73X was rolled out just 117 days after the order was placed, and first flew on 26 October 1940, just 178 days after the order had been placed — an incredibly short gestation period.”
2) The Messerschmitt Me-262 Schwalbe (Swallow), the world’s first operational jet fighter aircraft and the most advanced fighter aircraft of WWII went operational within 5 years from the start of development. This was a truly revolutionary aircraft for its time, and was arguably more revolutionary than the F-22 relative to contemporary aircraft of both models.
3) The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird was brought from concept to production by Lockheed Skunk Works as a black project within 5 years. The SR-71 and its precurser aircraft (the A-12 and YF-12A) were truly revolutionary aircraft in a number of ways (design aspects, speed, capability, materials, manufacturing requirements, maintenance requirements, etc.), every bit as revolutionary as the F-22 Raptor, if not more so, relative to their contemperary aircraft.
4) The McDonnell Douglas (now Boeing) F-15 Eagle, our most advanced and capable 4th-Gen. fighter aircraft (and a very large leap ahead of the F-4 Phantom), went into production within 5 years of contractor selection.
So, what happened with the ATF and subsequent F-22 Raptor programs in the 1980’s, 1990’s, and 2000’s? In a word, racketeering. In another word, corporatism. Here’s one more: corruption, corruption of the U.S. military procurement system. Somewhere along the line, someone (or a number of people) somewhere in the U.S. military industrial complex discovered that they could accomplish a number of objectives by dragging system (including aircraft) development time out over many more years, instead of developing and fielding a finished product as quickly as possible. The private sector/contractors figured out that they could make a lot more money, squeezing hundreds of millions to billions of dollars from the Department of Defense (DoD) before ever going into production. After all the development money, the actual production contract was just a bonus, the icing on the cake, if you will. And, the public sector/military folks realized that they could safeguard or prolong careers and create a more advantageous public-sector-exit/private-sector-entry strategy for themselves. Synergy. Of course, you can apply this to pretty much all areas of current U.S. military procurement.
And so went the F-22 Raptor, which has cost the U.S. government approx. $11 billion–that’s “billion” with a “b”–for Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) alone, according to the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). That’s before you even get into production! According to GlobalSecurity.org, “as of 2002, DOD had [already] spent $26 billion of the $69 billion planned for the F-22 program.” $69 billion…for an aircraft program.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy is the F-22 program’s suppression of evolutionary 4th-Gen. figher aircraft design concepts. The F-15 Silent Eagle (F-15SE) is a perfect example. What, you think Boeing just came up with Silent Eagle in the last few months? Anyone reading this who doesn’t think that significant capability and performance upgrades haven’t been available for the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Falcon, and F/A-18 Hornet–including low-observability/stealth upgrades, thrust vectoring, canards, and upgraded flight software and systems, (for supermaneuverability), conformal fuel tanks (CFT), integrated flight and fire control (IFF) and ramjet missiles with tail control, just to name a few–for the last 20-25 years while the F-22 Raptor has been ravenously and rapaciously eating taxpayer dollars, well, let’s just say I’ve got some swamp land in Florida I’d like to sell you. All of a sudden, just as the Raptor is getting cancelled, here it is (Silent Eagle)! As the Church Lady might say, “Well…isn’t that convenient!”
Of course, the F-15 Silent Eagle is only the latest in succession of F-15 and F-16 upgrade/improvement/modernization concepts. It’s been preceded by the F-15 ACTIVE (Advanced Control Technology for Integrated Vehicles), F-15 S/MTD (Short Takeoff and Landing/Maneuver Technology Demonstrator) a.k.a. STOL Eagle, and the AFTI F-16, just to name a few. “AFTI” stands for “Advanced Fighter Technology Integration”, by the way.
Note: DefenseReview has been informed by an aerospace insider that an even lower-observable/stealthier F-15 than the Silent Eagle was flown across the continental United States without detection by radar during the 1980’s, and that it’s possible to make an F-15 just as low-observable/stealthy as an F-22. Since we only have one source and no confirmation or documentation on this ’80’s-era low-observable F-15, we have to consider it as an unconfirmed/unverified report for now, no matter how trustworthy our source is (but this source is very trustworthy). If anyone out there has any more information on this unconfirmed low-observable F-15 project, we’d love to hear from you on it.
The bottom line is that we could have had F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s with low-observable design upgrades, thrust vectoring, canards, conformal fuel tanks, IFF, better missiles etc. a long time ago had these types of upgrades to our 4th-Gen fighter aircraft not been considered a threat to our 5th-Gen fighter program (F-22 Raptor) and therefore suppressed. In other words, F-22 Raptor program survival trumped viable upgrades that would have brought our 4th-Gen. aircraft into flight-capability parity with the latest Russian Sukhoi and Mikoyan fighter aircraft like the Sukhoi Su-30 MKI Flanker-H and Su-35 Flanker-E, and Mikoyan MiG-29OVT, and MiG-35 Fulcrum-F.
So, while Defense Review likes the F-22 and thinks we should build more of them (again, at least 1,000) to be help to ensure U.S. air dominance even if China and/or Russia become a serious military threat or enemy in the future, we’re not going to cry about it, since the Air Force and contractors (Lockheed Martin and Boeing) could have developed the F-22 much more quickly and at significantly lower cost. If they had done it the right way, we could have had operational Raptors by the 1996-1997 time frame and had the full compliment of 750 aircraft–or possibly even DefenseReview’s desired 1,000. Let this be a lesson to the United States Air Force. Do it right, do it better, next time.
Think about it. If another country can develop a next-gen fighter in 5 years, but it takes us 15-25 years to develop one, that puts us at an obvious and very significant deveopment-cycle and cost disadvantage, and potentially a strategic warfighting disadvantage, as well, since the technology might be obsoleted by other countries’ tech by the time development is done. So, U.S. Air Force, give us an operational next-gen aircraft (fighter, CAS, tanker, transport, whatever) within five years. That’s 5 years from concept to combat. We need to be able to do that, and we can do that. After all, we’re still the United States of America, at least for the time being.
http://www.defensereview.com/f-22-raptor-program-cancellation-defensereview-weighs-in/
Drop 2 MCOs Already: Army CoS
Drop 2 MCOs Already: Army CoS
By Greg Grant Friday, May 29th, 2009 9:55 am
Posted in Land, Policy, Uncategorized
It’s high time the Pentagon drop the two major conventional theater war force sizing and shaping construct, according to Army Chief Gen. George Casey. The outdated organizing principle is of little use as a planning tool for generating forces for future conflict and a consensus is building among the service chiefs that DoD should jettison the two war construct in the Quadrennial Defense Review.
“The reality of it is, with the amount of forces we already have deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, one of those MCOs [Major Combat Operations] is already off the table.” The Army has already moved away from the two MCO organizing idea as it builds and equips its future force, Casey said, speaking at CSIS in Washington on Thursday.
“We must shift our focus away from organizations that are primarily designed to win conventional war, because that’s not what we’re going to be doing for the rest of the century,” Casey said. Instead of big conventional wars, future wars will most likely be “hybrid wars,” featuring a blend of guerrilla fighters and high-tech weaponry.
Problem is, the Pentagon’s long entrenched two war construct, also known as the “2 MCO” plan, keeps pulling the Army back towards major conventional war as the central organizing principle. Readiness reports for Army units, demanded by Pentagon planners, are based on how prepared those units are to fight a major conventional war, even though those units are being sent to Iraq and Afghanistan organized, trained and equipped to wage a counterinsurgency campaign, he said.
Cold War force generators planned to fight a multi-theater war against the Soviet Union. The Clinton Administration’s 1992 Bottom Up Review codified a new planning requirement that the military be able to fight and win two nearly simultaneous regional wars, one in the Persian Gulf the other on the Korean peninsula (those interested in the various post Cold War planning constructs should read Krepinevich and Work’s excellent report: A New US Global Defense Posture for the Second Transoceanic Era).
The Army is shifting from a garrison force, the way it’s been organized for the past 60 years, and instead is adopting a rotational cycle, much like the Navy and Marine Corps, Casey said. The active force would be broken down into four force “bins,” with one part of the force out and three back. Each bin, or force pool, would hold one operational headquarters, four tactical headquarters, 14 or 15 Brigade Combat Teams, and about 75,000 enablers, including artillery, engineers, civil affairs and psyops units.
The new rotational cycle would always have one of those bins available for deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan. A second bin would contain the “operational reserve,” units in a ready phase able to quickly work up and deploy if an emergency arose somewhere around the world, on the Korean peninsula for example. The two remaining force bins would be the “strategic reserve,” Casey said, containing a mix of active and reserve units. Each of the bins would contain a mix of heavy units, Stryker equipped brigades and light infantry units using Humvees and MRAPs.
In the first force pool, some of the brigades not committed to other missions, would have a “regional affilation,” so each regional combatant commander would have a brigade to call on to work in conjunction with special forces to train and advise foreign militaries, Casey said. The soldiers in that brigade, drawn from both active and reserve, would undergo regional specific language and cultural training.
The units in each of the bins would have varying degrees of manning and equipping. The “available bin” would be fully manned, trained and equipped, Casey said. The second bin would be manned and equipped at a “C-1 level,” about 90 percent or better. The next “training” bin, would be manned and equipped at about 80 percent, able to do work ups. The last “reset” bin would not be ready at all, those would be units just returned from combat deployment, they would break up temporarily, with soldiers going off to schools or other training, and then come back together after about six months. Casey said he hopes to convince OSD to sign off on the new Army plan in the QDR.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/29/drop-2-mco-planning-construct-already-casey/
Body of WWII soldier to return home Saturday
The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday May 28, 2009 18:10:56 EDT
KANSAS CITY, Kan. — A day after a different soldier’s remains were mistakenly escorted from Kansas City International Airport to a Kansas City, Kan., cemetery, the body of Pvt. Henry E. “Rickey” Marquez is finally home.
The remains of the soldier, who was killed in battle 64 years ago in Germany, arrived at the airport Thursday morning. They were taken to Highland Park Cemetery, where he will be buried Saturday with full military honors.
A mix-up Wednesday led to the remains of the wrong soldier being sent to the cemetery in a grand procession that included Patriot Guard motorcycle riders, Fort Leavenworth soldiers and local police. John Marquez says that when the procession reached the cemetery, military officers realized his brother’s remains were still in Hawaii.
Leavenworth spokesman George Marcec told The Associated Press on Thursday that it’s still not clear whose remains were taken from the airport the previous day. He said that body apparently was on its way to Iowa and that Kansas City was just a stopover.
In a news release Thursday, military officials said only that “casualty assistance personnel from Fort Leavenworth incorrectly received and escorted a set of remains that had arrived at Kansas City International Airport.”
Marquez was killed in November 1944, but his body remained missing until a German citizen searching for war relics found his remains and identification tags, along with those of Pfc. Julian H. Rogers of Bloomington, Ind., in 2007.
Marquez’s remains were given full honors Thursday by a military honor guard, and the fort’s garrison commander “expressed deep regrets to the Marquez family for any grief” the mix-up caused.
Base officials are investigating the “communication gaps” that caused the military to accept the wrong remains, according to the news release.
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/05/ap_wrong_soldier_funeral_052809/
Marines vs Taliban
Marines-fight-AQ-campsLARGE.jpg
One of my Marine buddies from 2-5 sent this to me. I thought I'd share it.
A large group of Taliban fighters is moving down a ravine in the Korengal Valley, in southern Afghanistan, when they hear a hoarse voice call from behind a sand-dune in a mocking tone, "Yo, muj, did you know that one Marine Marine is better than ten of you smelly Talib?"
Insulted to the quick (though he did indeed smell), the Taliban commander sent ten of his best men over the rocky hill, whereupon a gunbattle broke out immediately. The gunbattle was short, but vicious, punctuated by screams of agony and fear in Dari and Pushtu. Then there was silence.
A moment later, there was a snicker, then the same voice called out, "Bad Muj! Didn't you know one grunt is better than any hundred so-called Taliban fighters?"
Furious now, the Taliban commander sent his next best hundred men up and over the incline and instantly a terrible gunfight ensued. The sharp chatter of M-4 fire barked out in counterpoint to the dull clatter of the Kalashnikovs, interspersed with the detonations of grenades and screams of agony and fear in Pushtu and Dari. After a full five minutes of battle, silence reigned heavily across the valley.
A moment later that same mocking voice called out, though to be fair to the muj, the grunt was obviously breathing at least a little bit faster. The voice called out, "Bad Muj, silly muj, you have to know that one grunt is better than one thousand sheep-loving Taliban!"
Thoroughly enraged now, the Taliban commander mustered a full thousand of his fighters and sent them into the fight. RPGs hissed and boomed, hand grenades exploded, echoing down the Korengal Valley and even PKM fire rattled and roared over all the small arms fire. At last, one badly wounded muj fighter appeared, crawling down the military crest of the ridge.
"Don't send any more men," he gasped as the life fled his body, "It's a trap. There's two of them."
I know, I know, it's moto and it's stupid, but I liked it. Anyway, more serious stuff later, just thought I'd throw that out there to provide a little Thursday evening entertainment.
-- BreachBangClear
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004863.html
The CIA Seeks To Hold On To Its Mojo
May 29, 2009: The United States decision, five years ago, to create yet another office (the DNI, or Director of National Intelligence) to control all intelligence has, as expected, diminished the CIAs long time role as the "Central" Intelligence Agency. The latest blow is a recent proposal to allow the chief intelligence officer (the CIA "station chief") at each U.S. embassy be someone other than a CIA officer. The main alternatives are someone from the DIA (the Department of Defense intelligence agency) or the NSA. The problem, as the CIA sees it, is that, if the intelligence station chief is from NSA or DIA, the senior CIA guy there would have another layer of bureaucracy to go through, and this would slow things down. Although the DNI, technically, has the power to order this change, the CIA is, unofficially, threatening to use its considerable influence (in Congress, the media and elsewhere) to oppose the move.
This proposal actually makes some sense. For example, there are a lot of talented espionage operatives in NSA and DIA who would make good station chiefs. Moreover, in many small countries, the DIA has more agents and intelligence operations than the CIA. Same deal with the NSA, whose electronic eavesdropping is often the primary source of intel on some nations.
All of these turf wars are the result of the huge growth in intelligence activities since the end of World War II 64 years ago. As some of these new agencies, especially DIA and NSA, grew quite large, it became a problem getting everyone to play from the same sheet of music. Each intelligence agency has its own little fan club in Congress, and elsewhere in the federal government and among major defense contractors, and knows how to play the media game to get what they want.
With fifteen different intelligence organizations, the problem of coordinating all of them is nothing new. The CIA was created in the 1947 to coordinate intelligence activities for the president. Unfortunately, each of the fifteen organizations has a different boss, a different mission, different traditions and, well, you get the picture. Just to drive the point home, here are the fifteen intelligence agencies, along with short description of what they do, and who they do it for.
- Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The main customer is the White House, but is also supposed to keep the Department of Defense, and everyone else who works for the president, supplied with accurate and up-to-date analysis of what’s going on in the world. But when the CIA analysts present information that does not conform to what people in the White House want to see, there is pressure to modify the conclusions. This causes problems with all the other intelligence agencies. The director of the CIA is also the DCI (Director of Central Intelligence), which is supposed to mean the “intelligence czar.” Doesn’t work out like that because, as new intelligence agencies grew, or were created, over the last half century, the DCI did not control their budgets. In Washington, you really only control an organization if you control its budget.
- National Security Agency (NSA). One of the most underestimated of the intelligence agencies. The NSA collects and sorts out “signals intelligence” (messages sent regularly by radio, telephone, Internet and so on) information. More importantly, NSA develops ciphers (methods to encode secret American messages) and decipher the secret codes of other nations. The United States has always been very good at breaking codes, but doing that is only useful if the other guy doesn’t know you have broken his codes. Thus all the secrecy at NSA.
- National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). A relatively new organization (created from the Defense Mapping Agency and some other small outfits), which takes all those satellite and aerial photos and makes sense of them. NGA exists largely because of all the neat new computer tools for working on digital photos and creating useful maps and videos.
- National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). Builds and maintains spy satellites. NRO gets the biggest chunk of money spent on intelligence, mainly because spy satellites are so expensive. As a result of this, too much emphasis has been placed on information (and its often misinformation) gained from these satellites. NRO just collects the data, and passes it on to other agencies for analysis and interpretation.
- Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). Is something of a Department of Defense CIA. DIA collects and sorts out intelligence information from the various services and tries to eliminate duplication of effort. DIA is also big enough to go head-to-head with the CIA in disputes over resources (getting use of spy satellites) and access to the White House on intelligence matters. The head of the DIA is sort of an “intelligence czar” for all the intel shops connected, in one way or another (like NGA and NRO) to the Department of Defense.
- Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps Intelligence Organizations. Each service collects information it needs for its own operations. The DIA is used to prying stuff from the CIA, NSA and NRO (who will often hold on to material the armed forces could use because it’s “too sensitive.” That’s another way of saying they don’t trust the troops to keep a secret, even if keeping the information from the troops gets some of the troops killed in combat.)
- Coast Guard Intelligence. The Coast Guard becomes part of the navy in wartime, but in peacetime it’s part of the Department of Homeland Security and is mainly interested in information about what’s going on off American coasts.
- Department of Energy. Because the Department of Energy got control over all matters nuclear, it has developed a large intelligence operation that concentrates on what other countries are doing with nuclear weapons and nuclear power. Because of the military importance of all this, the Department of Energy intelligence is seen as part of the military establishment.
- Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The new kid on the block, is supposed to take care of intelligence on terrorism. But so far, DHS is way behind the Big Four and has to beg a lot.
- Department of State. Has always had an intelligence operation, but it was never well organized. Seemed to collect interesting gossip, and considered detailed data too geekish for diplomats. But the State Department does have one enormous advantage in that they understand foreign cultures, and that makes a big difference when they analyze what information they do have.
- Department of Treasury. Collects information that has an impact on American fiscal and monetary policy. Most of this stuff is rather easily obtained from large American financial organizations.
- Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Not really an intelligence organization, and never meant to be one. The FBI is a police and investigative organization. It deals in collecting information, but for the purpose of prosecuting and convicting criminals, not for providing information on anything on a continual basis (which is what intelligence agencies do.) The FBI is trying to get permission, and money, to become a major player in the intelligence area.
Everyone talks about getting the intelligence agencies to work together, but in over half a century, no one has been able to make it happen. In fact, no one, at the moment, is making a serious effort to make it happen. It's also illuminating to remember what one real Russian czar said about the subject, "I do not rule Russia, 10,000 clerks do."
Speaking of Russia, other nations have had similar problems with competing intel agencies. For decades after World War II, the Soviet Union had two different organizations running spies overseas. Most of the effort was from the KGB (a sort of combined CIA/FBI/Border Patrol/Coast Guard/Etc.) and a much smaller GRU (military intelligence). GRU was thought to be more dangerous, perhaps because they were a smaller operation and hustled a bit more as a result. Having two Soviet spy agencies to worry about did make counterintelligence more difficult.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20090529.aspx
heres a link to a video of a new unmanned tank
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid3924348001?bctid=23762071001
and heres the link to the story
http://www.popsci.com/invention
Darpa Plans Triple-Target Missile Demo
May 22, 2009
Graham Warwick graham_warwick@aviationweek.com
A new program to develop a high-speed, long-range airborne weapon that can engage aircraft, cruise missiles and air defenses is part of the U.S. Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency's $3.25 billion Fiscal 2010 budget request.
The Triple Target Terminator (T3) would be carried internally or externally on fighters, bombers and unmanned aircraft, allowing them to switch between air-to-air and air-to-surface capability and increasing the variety of targets engaged on each sortie.
Funding a $7 million is sought in Fiscal 2010 to begin the T3 program, which would look at technologies for propulsion, multi-mode seekers, data links, digital guidance and control and advanced warheads.
Other new program starts sought in Fiscal 2010 include: Autonomous Aerial Refueling, to demonstrate high-altitude refuelling between unmanned aircraft, using probe- and drogue-equipped Global Hawk UAVs; a Transformer Vehicle (TX), a road-able aircraft with hybrid electric ducted-fan propulsion capable of flying for two hours carrying one to four people; and a Submersible Aircraft, seen as capable of flying and submerging.
Another planned new program is Silent Talk, to develop the capability to communicate without speaking by recognizing the neural signals for specific words. "The brain generates word-specific signals prior to sending electrical impulses to the vocal chords," according to Darpa.
The plan is to recognize these "intended speech" signals using electroencephalography (EEG) and translate them into words, allowing covert communications. Initially Darpa wants to identify EEG patterns unique to 100 words commonly used by warfighters.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/TRIPLE052209.xml&headline=Darpa%20Plans%20Triple-Target%20Missile%20Demo&channel=defense
Solving The Honor Guard Shortage
May 24, 2009: The war in Iraq and Afghanistan have eclipsed another military crises, the many veterans who have been passing away since September 11, 2001. The World War II generation is rapidly fading away. Over twelve million men and women served in World War II, and most of them were born between 1915-35. In the last decade, over a thousand a day have been dying of old age. By law, they are entitled to military honors at their burial. This usually involves a small honor guard to fire a ceremonial volley of blanks over the grave, and someone to play taps.
Three years ago, it was realized that barely half of these veterans were able to get military honor guards at their funerals. So the U.S. Department of Defense decided to innovate. For one thing, they allowed veterans organizations to fill in. Actually, veterans had already been helping out unofficially, but now the government would pay them, if an active duty member of the armed forces was available to lead the detail. Under the new program, veterans organizations provide uniformed vets for the honor guards, and these volunteers get $50 for their day long efforts to assist at the funeral. This still left some veterans in rural areas out of luck. Over the last few decades, many rural areas have become depopulated to the point where even local veterans organizations cannot find enough members to operate a chapter.
There were other problems to solve. Having the honor guard, to fire a volley over the grave of the veteran, is a often a big thing for the families, and the vets often ask for it before they pass away. For many of these men and women, their war service was a defining moment in their lives. They want it to be remembered, and the honor guard is the most visible way to do that. While it’s easy to get people to fire blanks from a rifle, finding people who can play Taps on a bugle is another matter. Increasingly, Taps has been played on a boom box, much to the chagrin of all in attendance. In an effort to solve the problem, veterans organizations sought high school musicians who can play Taps at these funerals. Auditions are held, and the qualified volunteers are then available to play Taps at these funerals. Some states provide performance fees, in the form of vouchers that can be used to help pay tuition at state colleges. The students feel honored to be able to help out, especially in wartime. There are a much smaller number of military funerals (2-3 a day) for those killed in the current war, and these usually get taps played by military musicians.
Another solution was in the form of a miniaturized digital playback mechanism that is built into a bugle. The special bugle can be brought to the musicians lips, a small button pushed, and out of the bugle comes the melody of Taps as if it were actually being played. No one at the funerals realized that the bugle was an electronic gadget, not a musical instrument.
Another little known way to get military honors at the funeral, is burial at sea. This is available to all veterans, although until now only a few navy veterans took advantage of it. All the family has to do is contact the navy, then have the deceased delivered, in a metal casket, with 150 pounds of weights at the feet (so it sinks feet first), to Norfolk, Virginia, or San Diego, California naval bases. There, the next warship to depart will take on the casket, and once on the high seas, conduct the ancient burial at sea ceremony. This is similar to the one conducted on land, complete with sailors firing 21 rounds from rifles as a salute. After that and the prayer, the casket is sent overboard. The family gets back the American flag that covered the casket, along with the empty rifle shells and a naval chart showing the location of the ship when the ceremony was conducted. About ten veterans a week are buried at sea, and the number is rising. With over a hundred ships at sea at any time, the burial detail doesn't put a strain on the crews, and is often a welcome break from the daily routine, and an opportunity to honor one of those who served before them.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20090524.aspx
High Times
May 24, 2009: The NATO offensive against drug gangs in Afghanistan is underway, and the first major victory was achieved on the 20th, when fifteen tons of opium, heroin and morphine were seized during a raid on the Helmand province town of Marjeh. One of the markets in that city was being openly used by drug gangs to sell large quantities of drugs to wholesalers and smugglers. Heroin is worth $3.5 million a ton, while the opium it is made from is worth only about $100,000 a ton. Morphine is somewhere in between. There's another big crop in Helmand (and the entire region), and that's hashish (the concentrated paste containing the active ingredient of marijuana). This stuff is worth about $1.1 million a ton, and last year, NATO troops seized and destroyed a 260 ton stockpile of the stuff. The marijuana plant is believed to have originated in this region, and has been used for its intoxicating qualities for thousands of years. But now there is a growing export market for hashish, opium and heroin, and the Taliban is staying in business by guarding drug gang operations. This year, NATO plans to spend the Summer using their growing intelligence capabilities to find out where the stockpiles of drugs are, and then send in troops to seize, and later destroy, the stuff. Without the drug money, the Taliban cannot afford to hire thousands of tribesmen to fight for them.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20090524.aspx
Looting The Dead
May 21, 2009: The U.S. Army is bracing itself for the cancellation of its FCS (Future Combat Systems), as an impatient Congress moves to cut off all (over $100 billion) the money. FCS was a broad array of new weapons and equipment, including new vehicles and electronic devices that took advantage of the latest technologies. FCS has been in the works for over a decade, and was supposed to replace existing weapons and equipment between 2015-30. Many in the Department of Defense saw this as another procurement boondoggle (along with the F-22 and the navy's new destroyer). There have already been some cuts in the FCS budget. In response, the army hustled to get into production with some of the FCS gear that was good to go.
For example, the replacement for the half century old M-109 self propelled artillery vehicle, the NLOS-C, will be the first of the eight MGV (Manned Ground Vehicle) systems to enter service, in a year or two. The other seven MGVs may never make it into service, but that won't stop the formation of at least one "FCS combat brigade" within three years. These units have fewer troops (2,500) than the current (and newly implanted) combat brigades (3,500 troops). The FCS brigades depend on automation and more electronics to make up for manpower. If that works, many in the army believe that the NLOS-C will quickly replace the M-109, especially in the newly reorganized Brigade Combat Teams.
The prototype of the 155mm NLOS-C was cobbled together in six months, after the new Crusader SP artillery system was cancelled in 2002. Although the M-109 has been frequently updated, the NLOS-C incorporates many new technologies the M-109 still doesn't have. This includes an auto-loader (from the Crusader) and a more modern 155mm gun (the M-777, a towed, British designed system) and an APC chassis with a hybrid-electric engine (to reduce fuel consumption.) This all weighs 23 tons, about the same as the M-109. But the NLOS only has a two man crew, compared to five in the M-109. The final version of the NLOS-C will be heavier (about 27 tons), because more defense systems have been added, to reflect experience in Iraq. be a ton or two lighter. The M777 howitzer will not be used in the NLOC-C, but an even lighter (by at least half a ton) 155mm gun.
Because of heavy use in Iraq and Afghanistan, the FCS versions of the five pound Raven UAV and PackBot infantry robot, will be arriving ahead of schedule. More problematic is the new wireless data network (think battlefield Internet). Only about half of software has been written so far. Another vaporware type item is the lightweight composite armor that will give the FCS combat vehicles a high degree of protection. This armor is still being tested and developed. Much depends on this stuff working.
Since there's a war going on, and some 200,000 troops are constantly in combat, there is ample opportunity to try new stuff under combat conditions. The current generation of troops grew up with short consumer product development cycles (new products coming out frequently) as civilians, and expect the same thing with their weapons and equipment. Normally, the military takes its time developing new items. But not in wartime. So the army is making the most of this by trying to get a lot of FCS into service before the war ends.
Meanwhile, the army has found out that its current tank, the M-1, is still very useful, even in irregular warfare. And more likely to survive than the proposed FCS replacement. What the last eight years of war have done is expose FCS elements that were not really ready for combat, and quickly move forward the many (UAVs, robots, communications and Internet stuff) that were.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20090521.aspx
In Praise Of Nuclear Weapons
May 21, 2009: Nuclear weapons have only been used twice in war, but their continued existence has created a new dynamic between the major military powers. This nuclear standoff came to be known as "mutually assured destruction" (MAD) during the Cold War. As a result of MAD, there has not been a war between the Great Powers in Europe since the surrender of Nazi Germany on May 8, 1945, a peace that has lasted over 60 years. This is the longest period of major-power peace in Europe since before the fall of Rome 1500 years ago. The second-longest such period of peace among the European Great Powers was 43 years between the armistice that ended the Franco-Prussian War, signed on January 31, 1871, to the Austro-Hungarian declaration of war on Serbia, on July 28, 1914, which signaled the outbreak of the First World War two days later, a total of forty-three years, five months, and twenty-eight days. In effect, since November 5, 1988, every day that the European Great Powers have not been at war with each other has set a new European regional --and pretty much a world-- record for the duration of a peace.
Proposals to get rid of nuclear weapons not only threaten to upset this peacekeeping mechanism, but ignore the fact nukes are seen by more vulnerable nations as the cheapest, and most certain, way to guarantee their survival against threats from more powerful neighbors. Give a nation a choice between guaranteeing their safety with an international treaty, or some nukes, and which option will most choose?
Moreover, you can't eliminate nukes unless you eliminate the knowledge of how to produce nuclear weapons. That cannot be done, because the basic principles of nuclear weapons construction have proliferated beyond the power of anyone to destroy that knowledge. With that knowledge, any industrialized nation can quickly build nuclear weapons.
And then there are the unintended consequences. If you were to succeed in creating an international treaty that really eliminated all nukes, that would provide more incentive to create more powerful chemical and biological weapons. What many people don't want to admit is that the genie is out of the bottle, and you can't put it back.
Since no one has died from nuclear weapons in over 60 years, and you want to eliminate a weapon of mass destruction that has killed lots of people, why not go after the private automobile (which has killed millions since 1945). What have private automobiles done for peace? Nuclear power also produces power with far less pollution, and hardly any fatalities, compared to coal, gas or oil fueled plants. Despite its virtues, all things nuclear have been demonized for several generations. So it's apparently true that good deed don't go unpunished.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htwin/articles/20090521.aspx
Dying For Peace
May 21, 2009: Last year, the UN's peacekeeping army of 112,000 troops suffered 132 combat deaths. More than ten times that number were wounded, injured in accidents or disabled by disease. The peacekeeper combat fatalities come out to about 118 dead per 100,000 troops per year. In Afghanistan, foreign troops are losing about 350, and at the peak of the fighting (2005-7) in Iraq, the losses were 500-600 per 100,000. The rate for U.S. troops in Vietnam and World War II was about 1,500 per 100,000 troops. So the UN peacekeepers are often seeing some considerable violence, but at less than a third of the rate of troops in actual wars.
Meanwhile, the UN is having trouble getting more troops for its peacekeeping force. While the casualties have something to do with this, corruption, and lack of success, are more often discouraging countries from contributing their troops. The corruption angle is interesting, as it pertains both to the corruption within the UN bureaucracy, and the corrupt atmosphere the peacekeepers operate in, and often succumb to. Casualties are expected, but the contributing countries feel a lot of their troop losses are the result of restrictive UN rules that limit what peacekeepers can do. This, in turn, is believed most responsible for a lack of success for the peacekeeping missions.
For some time, most of the peacekeeping troops have come from India and Pakistan. These two nations are not happy with the lack of volunteers from other major nations. The chief reasons for that are the same ones annoying the current peacekeepers (corruption and restrictive rules of engagement). In addition, the major military powers (with the exception of China and Russia) feel they already contribute quite a lot in the form of money to pay the peacekeepers. And the contributors are also upset at the lack of results.
The UN will spend about $7 billion on fifteen peacekeeping operations this year. This pays for a force of over 112,000 troops and support staff. It's actually a pretty cheap way of keeping some conflicts under control. The causes of the unrest may not be resolved by peacekeepers, but at least the problem is contained and doesn't bother the rest of the world too much. This is an increasingly unpopular approach to peacekeeping, except in the UN bureaucracy. Many UN members would rather send peacekeepers to where they are not wanted (by the government, usually a bad one, that is often the cause of the trouble in the first place.)
Most of the money is going to a few large peacekeeping operations. Three of the largest get over half the cash. Thus the Congo operations get 17.5 percent of the money, Darfur (western Sudan) gets 22 percent and southern Sudan gets 12 percent. Africa has the largest number of "failed states" on the planet and, as such, is most in need of outside security assistance. The Middle East is also a source of much unrest. But there the problem isn't a lack of government, just bad government. Most Middle Eastern nations are run by tyrants, who have created police states that at least keep anarchy at bay.
To further complicate matters, religion has become a touchy subject. While Islamic radicalism is more of a problem to fellow Moslems than it is to infidels (non-Moslems), most Middle Eastern governments avoid blaming Islam for these problems. Since it's increasing difficult to pin the blame on "colonialism" or "crusaders," the Middle Eastern nations encourage other UN members to just stay away from the religious angle altogether. This has made it difficult to deal with peacekeeping issues in Moslem nations, since religion usually plays a part in creating the problem. To the UN, this is just another diplomatic problem to be dealt with, not very well.
But overall, the troops and money that keep all the peacekeeping going are in danger of fading away. Frantic diplomacy is underway by the UN to try and makes things all better, but success is not assured.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htun/articles/20090521.aspx
CBO Cites Enduring U.S. Air Superiority
May 15, 2009
By Graham Warwick
Congressional scorekeepers in Washington have issued their latest list of alternative plans for the U.S. military to meet tactical aircraft needs, from accelerating purchases to fill threatened “fighter gaps,” to letting inventories shrink and replacing lost capabilities with bombers and unmanned combat aircraft.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) based its analysis, distributed online May 14, on the Defense Department’s fiscal 2009 plans. But it attached a note that says the new FY ’10 budget request does not change much, except in slightly accelerating the retirement of some U.S. Air Force fighters and the ramp-up of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter production (Aerospace DAILY, April 7).
The analysis begins by noting that under DOD’s 2009 procurement outline, fighter inventories will fall below the armed services’ stated inventory goals, peaking with gaps of 400 aircraft by 2025 for the Air Force and 125 by 2017 for the Navy and Marine Corps. But even if inventories fall, the tactical fighter force may still improve overall as new aircraft vastly outstrip older types.
For instance, CBO calculates that the Air Force’s aggregate ability to carry 2,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) would increase substantially under 2009 plans because of the F-35A’s greater payload and longer range compared to the F-16, as well as by the fact that air-to-air F-15C/Ds will also be replaced by bomb-carrying F-35s.
The Navy and Marines may see less of a jump, however, because their aircraft to be replaced by the JSF are all air-to-ground capable and the Marine Corps’ STOVL F-35Bs will not be able to carry the JDAMs internally. Moreover, while the ability to carry air-to-air missiles in stealthy configuration would “markedly increase” across all three services, total internal and external capacity would remain about the same as now, CBO says.
Among CBO’s suggested alternatives, three involve buying more fighters, faster. The first would accelerate and increase F-35 purchases; the second would buy new F-16Es for the Air Force and more F/A-18E/Fs for the Navy, reducing the number of F-35s needed; and the third would cancel the JSF program and replace it with F-16Es and F/A-18E/Fs.
The other CBO alternatives would substantially cut fighter inventories by procuring far fewer F-35s and making up for lost air-to-ground weapons capacity by either buying more than 1,000 MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aircraft for all three services, or a mix of 250 stealthy medium-range bombers for the Air Force and 275 aircraft carrier-capable unmanned combat aircraft for the Navy and Marines.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said a month ago that the current tacair force “is significantly excess to the requirement” — a factor leading to the decision to his budget request to retire 250 of the oldest legacy fighters in its fleet in FY ’10 and halt F-22 production at 187 aircraft (Aerospace DAILY, April 8). The vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, said the new force structure would be a high-medium-low mix of F-22s, F-35s and unmanned aircraft.
Many of the aircraft proposed to be retired will be F-16s and A-10s, according to defense and industry sources. Cartwright said they will be replaced partly with Reapers.
In recent testimony on Capitol Hill, Gates and Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have maintained the unmanned theme. Pressed by defense authorizer and Lockheed Martin aircraft supporter Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) over the need to overcome enemy surface-to-air missiles, Gates noted May 14: “I would say the only defense against surface-to-air missiles is not something that has a pilot in it.”
Mullen noted that some analysts and officials see the JSF as the last, new strictly manned fighter or bomber — and that he was one of them.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/TACAIR051509.xml&headline=CBO%20Cites%20Enduring%20U.S.%20Air%20Superiority
your welcome, glad you enjoy them.
Refueling tops list of LCS crew challenges
By Philip Ewing - Staff writer
Posted : Monday May 18, 2009 13:26:57 EDT
ABOARD THE LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP FREEDOM — The Navy’s first littoral combat ship, Freedom, is so different from other surface ships that even mundane tasks require a whole new way of thinking.
Take, for example, refueling at sea. A regular warship matches speed with an oiler by syncing up the revolutions per minute of the ships’ propellers. The problem? Freedom doesn’t have propellers.
And that’s just the beginning.
VIDEO
“This is a revolution, not an evolution, for the Navy,” said Cmdr. Mike Doran, captain of Freedom’s Gold Crew, which rotated onto the ship in March. “The normal way the Navy does things today doesn’t work for my ship.”
After about six months since it was commissioned in Milwaukee, Freedom’s two crews have had to reinvent just about everything involved with serving aboard a modern surface warship. Blue Crew sailors tackled some of them immediately as they sailed the ship through the Great Lakes, but other jobs had to wait until Freedom entered the saltwater domain for which it was built.
For its first refueling at sea in late April, no one was quite sure how the 3,000-ton LCS would ride when it pulled alongside a 40,000-ton fleet oiler. Even though it’s the fastest ship in the Navy, the flat-bottomed Freedom has a decided roll at slow speed.
To prepare, crew members trained in a simulator and later practiced with the oiler pierside.
Refueling underway will be critical for all the Navy’s littoral combat ships, which achieve their high sprint speed by gulping fuel like Kool-Aid. A deployed LCS could need to refuel as often as every three days, according to some estimates, making its ability to gas up at sea that much more important. Freedom will need to get supplies via helicopter in vertical replenishments, because it isn’t equipped to accept pallets of supplies zipped over from a Military Sealift Command ship in a traditional unrep.
When it was finally time for the refueling at sea, Doran stood on the port bridge wing with a laser rangefinder, measuring distance to Kanawha. With visual cues and constant minor adjustments, Freedom maintained a steady course alongside Kanawha.
“I won’t say that I wasn’t a little white-knuckled for part of the time, but it went very smoothly, it was great,” Doran said.
Another issue: Marine life. Doran said running at 40 knots or more means there is little reaction time if a whale near the surface crosses Freedom’s path, so he keeps lookouts on alert and won’t run the ship at high speed if poor visibility means they might hit a whale.
“If the weather is so bad we have lots of whitecaps, so it’s not as easy to see the blowholes, I’m probably not going to do it … because it’s just not worth it,” Doran said. “Will it hurt the ship? It may hurt the ship, but it’ll certainly hurt the whale.”
Luckily for the ship and crew, Freedom has not hit any animals during its high-speed runs on the ocean. But there are other things the ship also still hasn’t done.
Although it has been qualified to handle aircraft on its flight deck, Doran said Freedom still hasn’t launched and recovered the H-60 Seahawk helicopter it will use on its deployments. And the ship has struggled with side-door launches of the remotely operated vehicle that LCS will use to hunt for enemy submarines.
More than that, sailors still don’t know how fast Freedom can go. The ship’s Blue Crew, under the command of Cmdr. Don Gabrielson, holds the current top speed record of 47 knots, but Doran said he thinks Freedom can beat that.
“The engineering plant is still in a shakedown period,” he said. “And I think that, once we get it all finely tuned, the ship will go faster.”
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/05/navy_lcs_051809w/
Spec ops training in Mich. city rattles some
The Associated Press
Posted : Monday May 18, 2009 10:31:00 EDT
BURTON, Mich. — Military helicopters flying overhead and troops marching through the streets have scared some Burton residents despite announcements that it's part of a weeklong training exercise.
Jaime Boggs and her sister Cassie Baumbach told The Flint Journal that they were terrified Thursday night when three military helicopters buzzed over their house about 50 miles northwest of Detroit.
They say the helicopters were followed by about 50 soldiers holding rifles on their street.
The U.S. Special Operations Command is using the community for a training mission that is expected to end this week. Plans about the operation had been detailed in news reports ahead of the exercise.
The military says the exercises are to prepare troops for unfamiliar urban areas.
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/05/ap_spec_ops_training_051809/
How to land an F-16 with a spinal injury
Pilot won Kolligian Trophy for his final flight
By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writer
Posted : Monday May 18, 2009 5:39:31 EDT
Flying above the Gulf of Mexico in the early afternoon, Maj. Booth Johnston steered his F-16 Fighting Falcon upward at better than 500 mph.
The 9-G turn pushed Johnston, who stands 6-foot-3 and weighs 200 pounds, into the fighter’s seat, a sensation not much different from hundreds of other times during his 2,500 hours in F-16s.
Then something snapped.
Near the top of Johnston’s spine, the disk between the fifth and sixth vertebra suddenly popped out of place, pinching the nerves that connect his brain with his feet and hands.
And just as suddenly, Johnston was fighting for his life. Barely conscious and in excruciating pain, he struggled to maintain control of the plane. Today, he can only guess at how to piece it all together.
“I don’t remember that day much,” recalled Johnston, then assigned to the Texas Air National Guard’s 147th Fighter Wing at Ellington Field Joint Reserve Base near Houston.
Johnston suspects the disk blew out as he turned his head to spot his wingman, Maj. Steve Sambell.
Sambell didn’t realize anything was wrong with Johnston.
“All I could tell was that he was flying the airplane,” said Sambell, also assigned to the 147th.
Then, Sambell heard Johnston declare, “Knock it off!” — the radio call to halt the mock dogfight.
Johnston sounded as if he was in too much pain to explain what happened, Sambell said. When he asked Johnston a question, Johnston grunted back with a “yes” or “no.”
The pilots turned toward Ellington, about 20 minutes away.
Despite the pain and the loss of feeling in both his arms and legs, Johnston kept the F-16 on course.
With Sambell helping guide him and others on the ground communicating with him over the radio, Johnston touched down at Ellington and brought the plane to a safe stop.
The Air Force is recognizing Johnston’s extraordinary efforts on that day, Oct. 16, 2007, with the Koren Kolligian Jr. Trophy, given annually to an aircrew member for outstanding feats of skill, alertness, ingenuity or proficiency that avert an accident or minimize the severity of the mishap.
Named for Lt. Col. Koren Kolligian Jr., who was declared missing in the line of duty when his T-33 aircraft disappeared off the California coast Sept. 14, 1955, the trophy is the service’s only individual safety award personally presented by the Air Force chief of staff. A date for the presentation at the Pentagon hasn’t been set.
The pain from his injury and then three days under heavy sedation have left Johnston without a clear memory of how he landed the plane. Those who heard Johnston’s strained radio calls and watched him land the F-16 believe they know what happened.
“His experience kicked in,” Sambell said. “His second nature kicked in.”
Twenty minutes after calling “Knock it off!” Johnston was being lifted out of the cockpit by emergency crews.
“I remember a snippet of a guy in a silver suit pulling at me,” Johnston said.
Johnston was loaded into an ambulance and taken first to the base medical clinic, then to Memorial Hermann Southeast Hospital, about four miles from the base.
Johnston was injected with morphine, Valium and Vicodin. He was out cold.
“On the third day, I started to realize I was in the hospital,” Johnston said.
“How did I get here?” Johnston recalled thinking.
It took four more days before Johnston could walk a few feet and was allowed to go home, where his parents took care of him. But his treatment was far from over. Civilian doctors struggled for two months to figure out what exactly was wrong.
By Johnston’s count, there were 20 X-rays, two CAT scans, three MRIs and a sampling of spinal fluid.
Looking back, Johnston sees now that the doctors were confused because they had no experience with the effects of high-performance flying.
“It was like a puzzle to them,” he said
Finally, an Air Force flight surgeon advised the doctors that a high-G turn could have the same impact as a sudden blow. That did it: Doctors soon discovered the damage to Johnston’s upper spine.
“They found I blew out a disk, causing a pinched nerve at cervical 5-6,” the pilot said.
An operation to relieve pressure on the nerves was an option. Neurosurgeons warned, though, that he risked paralysis if the nerves were accidentally damaged during the procedure.
He decided against surgery.
Today, without surgery, Johnston has full use of his hands and feet. He’s even back working out.
“When I go to the gym, I can lift about half of what I used to,” he said.
Piercing headaches continue, however, and Johnston can’t sit long without back pain.
Because of his medical problems, Johnston, now a lieutenant colonel, can’t pass a fighter pilot’s rigorous flight physical.
While Johnston recovered, the 147th wing switched from flying F-16s to flying remote-controlled MQ-1 Predators. Even operating an unmanned aerial vehicle from the ground would be too taxing for Johnston because he can’t stay seated for long periods.
Instead, Johnston works as the wing’s special security and anti-terrorism officer. He expects to be medically retired someday because of lingering headaches and back pain.
Johnston can’t even take a final retirement flight in the back seat of an F-16D because he could re-injure his back.
He misses the experience of flight.
“Every time I see an airplane, I miss it,” he said.
“I’m not anxious to get back into an F-16,” Johnston said. “I really want to walk.”
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/05/airforce_kolligian_051709/
Weight issues aside, Army sticks with JLTV
Marine commandant dissatisfied with vehicle’s progress
By Dan Lamothe - Staff writer
Posted : Monday May 18, 2009 13:28:56 EDT
The Joint Light Tactical Vehicle has been viewed as promising more blast protection and mobility than the Humvee in a package light enough to haul by helicopter.
But what if it can’t be made light enough for a helicopter to get it off the ground? Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Conway cast doubt on the JLTV program April 29, saying he does not think industry has “stayed apace of the vision” to develop the JLTV.
“If it comes in at the weight where it is right now, the Marine Corps simply cannot get involved [and] will not buy a joint light tactical vehicle that’s 20,000 pounds,” Conway said.
VIDEO
That’s a departure for the Corps, which is developing the JLTVs with the Army. The Pentagon has called it the centerpiece of the military’s long-term lightweight vehicle needs, with 10 planned variants in three weight classes.
An Army spokeswoman said the service is “moving ahead” with its JLTV plans. The vehicle’s requirements say it must be light enough to be carried by the Army’s CH-47 Chinook and the Corps’ CH-53E Super Stallion, with a curb weight — meaning no armor or payload — of less than 12,000 pounds for the lightweight “A” class and less than 16,600 pounds for the “B” and “C” weight classes.
Other JLTV guidelines say the CH-53E is capable of lifting a JLTV of up to 16,800 pounds externally, while the CH-47F is capable of hauling one up to 17,940 pounds.
The vehicles may exceed 20,000 pounds when payload and armor are added, and officials will test tradeoffs to the “B” and “C” variants to bring those vehicles under 20,000 pounds, said David Branham, a JLTV spokesman.
Lt. Col. Ruben Garza, the Corps’ JLTV program manager, said the finalists for the project — BAE Systems/Navistar, Lockheed Martin and General Tactical Vehicles — are building prototypes to specifications outlined by Army and Marine officials. Each finalist was awarded a contract in October, and is expected to deliver prototypes by May 2010.
The weight requirement is necessary in order for the JLTV to be externally lifted and transported by CH-47 for the Army and CH-53 for the Marine Corpsand internally aboard C-130s, Garza said.
Officials with all three firms said they intend to be compliant with the JLTV program’s requirements.
BAE Systems/Navistar said their first prototype, the Valanx, has a curb weight of about 15,400 pounds. General Tactical Vehicles and Lockheed Martin declined to release specifications.
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/05/army_jltv_051709w/
Lowe’s, Home Depot offer military deals
By Karen Jowers - Staff writer
Posted : Monday May 18, 2009 16:28:13 EDT
The nation’s two largest home improvement stores, Lowe’s and Home Depot, are again offering a 10-percent military discount for Memorial Day, starting Thursday.
Active-duty personnel, National Guard and reserve members, retirees, honorably discharged veterans and immediate family members of all those groups are eligible. Customers who request the discount should show a valid military ID card or other proof of service.
The stores differ in their offers:
• Lowe’s discount is offered from Thursday through May 25 on purchases up to $5,000. That means the maximum discount will be $500. The offer is good for in-store purchases only and it does not apply to online sales, previous sales, purchase of services or gift cards.
• The Home Depot’s discount is offered in stores from Thursday through May 27 on purchases up to $2,000, for a $200 maximum discount.
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/05/military_memorial_day_discounts_051809w/
Brazil aims to build first nuclear sub within 12 years - agency
RIA Novosti
14:1518/05/2009 RIO DE JANEIRO, May 18 (RIA Novosti) - Brazil may build its first nuclear-powered submarine in 12 years, the Estado news agency said Monday, citing military sources.
The Brazilian military, which has five conventionally powered submarines in service with the navy, has been seeking to build a nuclear submarine for decades amid worries about the security of its offshore oil reserves.
According to the Brazilian navy, a decision has been made to construct a new submarine base and a shipyard capable of building diesel-electric and nuclear-powered submarines on one of the islands near the coast of Rio de Janeiro state.
Brazil has been closely cooperating with France on the project. In line with a bilateral agreement announced in December last year, France will help Brazil build the base and four modified Scorpene-type diesel-electric subs under a French license. The first submarine is to be delivered in 2014, and the rest of the class is to follow at two-year intervals.
The same agreement envisions a massive technology transfer from France, which is essential to Brazil's hopes of building a nuclear submarine.
"We need a nuclear submarine because Brazil has a long coast and deep water and we need a submarine with the capacity to go to any part of our waters with agility," Antonio Carlos Frade Carneiro, head of the navy's re-equipment program, said earlier.
While France will participate in designing the nuclear submarine, the official said, the nuclear plant will be an all-Brazilian design. A land-based prototype is set to become operational in 2014, and the submarine's reactor is planned to be ready for installation in 2019, he said.
Brazil, with its nuclear power plants, vast reserves of uranium, advanced refinement capabilities, trained nuclear scientists and various research facilities, and Argentina are the only Latin American countries with significant nuclear capabilities.
If the project succeeds, Brazil will become the first Latin American nation to possess a nuclear-powered submarine.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/05/mil-090518-rianovosti03.htm
Carl Vinson Commences Dock Trials
Navy NewsStand
Story Number: NNS090516-02
Release Date: 5/16/2009 12:54:00 PM
By Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Erin Oberholtzer, USS Carl Vinson Public Affairs
NEWPORT NEWS, Va. (NNS) -- NEWPORT NEWS Va. – USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) Reactor department Mechanical (M) division launched Dock Trials May 4.
The Dock Trials test the main engines and spin the shafts of the propellers as well as test vital communications.
The tests ensure that the main engines are ready for sea trials by using steam to turn the shafts. There are four main engines that run off of steam created in the ship's reactor plants.
"The testing was successful on three out of four engines," said Lt. Luke Sullivan, Reactor department's Chemical Radiological Assistant (CRA). "We're trying to make sure that we have positive control over all our systems."
The tests can be dangerous due to the movement of the ship causing the brow to shift and the ship to vibrate. However, since the aircraft carrier has been tied to the pier with cables, the ship is prevented from moving too much.
"The test is risky because the propellers are developing thrusts," said Lt. Cmdr. Randy Reid, Reactor Departments Reactor Mechanical Assistant (RMA), "but because of extra precautions we've taken the risk is substantially lowered."
The tests enable them to check the power, machines and generators to make sure that they are working properly. The tests are also being used to check the vital communication circuits between the propulsion plant and the bridge.
With the reactors now working, the ship can create steam and sustain itself.
"This is the first time since 2005 that these systems are all active," said Reid. "The ship is now one step closer to being ready for sea."
USS Carl Vinson is completing its scheduled RCOH at Northrop Grumman Newport News shipyard. The RCOH is an extensive yard period that all Nimitz-class aircraft carriers go through near the midpoint of their 50-year life cycle.
During RCOH, Carl Vinson's nuclear fuel has been replenished, and the ship's services and infrastructure upgraded to make her the most state-of-the-art aircraft carrier in the fleet and ready for another 25 years or more of service.
For more news from USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), visit www.navy.mil/local/cvn70/.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/05/mil-090516-nns03.htm
Oshkosh Unveils M-ATV
Oshkosh Unveils M-ATV
By Colin Clark Monday, May 18th, 2009 5:09 pm
Posted in Land
When Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, spoke at the Brookings Institution about equipment that would be going to Afghanistan there was only program he mentioned by name — the M-ATV. In the last three-and-and-half months the M-ATV has gone from idea to concept to RFP to $5.5 billion in the 2010 budget request. That is lightning speed for those who don’t follow Pentagon procurement for a living.
Oshkosh today its M-ATV prototype. I hear at least one competitor showed its vehicle up on Capitol Hill last week but the rules governing the display were so strict that they were not allowed to invite the media.
What struck me — and some Army officials at the display in downtown Washington — was the high percentage of components that come from existing vehicles. The vehicle is derived from the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) for the Marines, which is the corps’ popular workhorse in Afghanistan. The engine, suspension and a host of other basic components come from existing vehicle programs. That makes Army officials happy because they do not want to have to create new logistical trains for the vehicles if they can help it. It also simplifies the training drivers and maintainers will need.
Oshkosh appears pretty confident that it has a good shot when downselect occurs on June 26. The company has already ponied up its own money to begin production of its M-ATV variant and is building vehicles as we speak. Five companies are building vehicles and some of those — including some of three Oshkosh vehicles — are already undergoing testing at Fort Bliss.
The first run of M-ATVs — known as subfactor 1 — is supposed to comprise 2,080 vehicles. The program may generate as many as 10,000 vehicles.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/18/oshkosh-unveils-m-atv/
Turning The Tables On The Taliban
May 18, 2009: Here's a small Afghanistan battle, showing the tactics typical of those used on both sides. On May 12th, in southern Herat province, an Afghan army convoy was ambushed by Taliban forces, using machine-guns and RPGs. The troops in the convoy fired back and called for backup. The nearest quick-reaction force was an Afghan army unit, and they got hit by Taliban who had taken over a village on the other side of the river, from the road the quick reaction force would have to use to reach the trapped convoy. The quick reaction force called for air support, but the warplanes scanned the area with their targeting pods and reported that the Taliban had collected most of the local civilians and were holding them at gunpoint, as human shields.
The Afghan commandos of the quick reaction force then crossed the river and forced the Taliban out of the village, and away from their human shields. The villagers, once free of their captors, told the Afghan troops where the Taliban had set up more fighting positions, and the Afghan soldiers soon chased the Taliban away. Meanwhile, other Afghan and U.S. troops of the Quick Reaction force went ahead to where the supply convoy was still pinned down. The Afghans, and a team of U.S. Special Forces troops, outmaneuvered the ambush force, killed five of the Taliban, and captured six of those they had wounded. Several other Taliban got away.
As the supply went on, they hit two roadside bombs. One vehicle was destroyed, But no one was hurt. Throughout the entire action, no troops (American or Afghan) or civilians were killed. It was the training and leadership of the Afghan troops, and the use of air power (for reconnaissance, not smart bombs) that played a major role in the success of the operation. The American Special Forces troops have been advising and training the Afghan soldiers and, in this case, fighting alongside them.
The Taliban are still basically tribal warriors. In a battle, even those with good shooting skills, will fire wildly. The Taliban fighters are not trained to carry out a lot of moves, and are easily panicked. The Pushtun tribesmen of this part of the world, have a tradition of fleeing a lost battle, and not fighting to the past man. Thus if you can make the Taliban think they are about to be surrounded by ground troops, they will flee. U.S. and Afghan forces not only have better training and leadership, but also know Taliban tactics, and how best to exploit them.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20090518.aspx
The Great Gunship Shortage
May 18, 2009: Because the new U.S. defense budget cut purchases of 16 C-27Js for the air force, plans to convert some of those two engine transports into gunships, have been scrapped. Now the air force plans to convert some existing MC-130 transports (designed for commando missions) to gunships. The MC-130 already has an all-weather capability, and longer range (because of wing tanks and in-flight refueling), making it the easiest C-130s to convert.
Longer term, SOCOMs (Special Operations Command) two dozen gunships (the AC-130) are wearing out because of heavy use in combat. In 5-10 years, all of them will have to be retired, or heavily rebuilt. So the air force portion of SOCOM (AFSOC, Air Force Special Operations Command) has been scrambling to come up with replacement aircraft. That's how they came to consider converting new light (two engine) transports to "light gunships." It turns out that these gunships are very popular for fighting in places like Afghanistan, or any place that harbors Islamic terrorists.
SOCOM wanted to take a C-27J and mount a pair of 30mm automatic cannon on them, along with the AC-130 sensors and communications gear. AC-130s now also mount Hellfire missiles, which the C-27B could also accommodate. The one thing the "AC-XX" (as this experiment was dubbed) will probably not get is the 105mm howitzer, whose recoil was barely contained by the larger C-130. But the missiles were meant to replace the 105mm weapon anyway. Within two years, AFSOC hoped to prove the AC-XX acceptable, and then more aircraft can be ordered to replace the current AC-130 fleet. A bonus with this switch is that the AC-27B will be built so weapons and sensors will be modular, and easily installed, or removed, from any C-27B, making the C-27B fleet more flexible. Now the air force will have to stick with C-130s, and move fast to expand the AC-130 fleet, while also replacing the current ones that are wearing out. However, if they get their C-27Js back, or decide that a twin engine gunship is really important, the AX-XX may yet live.
Gunships first appeared, using World War II era C-47 transports, in the 1960s over Vietnam. The troops called the gunships, which liked to operate at night, "Spooky."
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20090518.aspx
The Hawk Checks Out
May 18, 2009: The American carrier, USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63), after a four month delay, was finally decommissioned in Bremerton, Washington on May 13th. The Kitty Hawk served for 48 years and 13 days. In that time, about 100,000 sailors served on the ship. The ship was the navy's last non-nuclear carrier and, since 1998, the oldest ship in commission. "The Hawk" did not age well, and had lots of breakdowns in its final years. This led members of the crew to nickname the shipr "Shitty Hawk".
The USS Enterprise (CVN 65) now assumes that role of oldest ship in the fleet. For the last decade, the Kitty Hawk had operated out of Yokosuka, Japan. During its career, the Kitty Hawk carried out 448,235 catapult assisted aircraft takeoffs (9,338 a year), and 407,507 arrested carrier landings (8,489 a year).
The Kitty Hawk retirement was delayed because of a fire, last May 22nd, on the carrier USS George Washington (CVN-73), which was to replace the Kitty Hawk in Japan. At the time, the navy still expected to decommission the Kitty Hawk in January, 2009, as scheduled.
The captain and executive officer of the USS George Washington were relieved after a few months, when the details of the fire became clear. The navy inquiry found out that sailors were smoking in an unauthorized area, which was adjacent to where combustible materials were improperly stored. The fire spread so far and so fast because one of the unauthorized items was a container containing 90 gallons of compressor oil. This blaze heavily damaged 80 compartments, and over 400,000 feet of electrical and communications cable. It cost over $70 million, and several months, to repair the damage. The fire delayed, by four months, the George Washington replacing the USS Kitty Hawk. This change over was supposed to take place in August. The schedule was rearranged and the Washington showed up in Japan in September. The Kitty Hawk then returned to the United States in October, and began the decommissioning process, as scheduled, in January of this year.
The Hawk will ride at anchor near Bremerton, in the hope that some organization may turn the ship into a museum. If that doesn't happen, the Hawk will eventually be broken up for scrap. Another long shot is giving the ship to India, which is seeking to expand its carrier fleet.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20090518.aspx
thanks
i have a Genuine Oak wood burning stove i might get my hands on. its 150 yrs old and not in that bad of shape. it does have some rust holes in the thin metal parts, and a bunch of surface rust. the surface rust is easy to take care of and i think the rust holes would be easy to fix. i just dont have the time to do it right now. still debating on whether im going to go get it
i thought the same thing, what a bunch of whiny ass liberals. next they will be outlawing knives or baseball bats