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.
U.S. rearms Iraq, but worries abound
On Feb. 14 the U.S. military announced it would be supplying Baghdad's forces with 140 M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks, F-16 Fighting Eagles combat jets and a plethora of high-tech weapons systems worth around $5 billion.
by Staff Writers
Baghdad (UPI) Jun 30, 2009
If Iraq's new-age armed forces prove to be incapable of maintaining security as the U.S. military withdrawal gets under way, it won't be because they lack weapons.
On Feb. 14 the U.S. military announced it would be supplying Baghdad's forces with 140 M1A2 Abrams main battle tanks, F-16 Fighting Eagles combat jets and a plethora of high-tech weapons systems worth around $5 billion.
That's one of the biggest rearmament programs ever in the Middle East, whose collective and constant requirement for weapons keeps the arms industries of the United States, Russia, Britain and France in business.
On May 13 the U.S. Department of Defense awarded a $60.3 million contract to Bell Helicopter Textron for 24 Bell 407 gunships armed with Hellfire missiles and 2.75-inch rockets for the nascent Iraqi air force. There was an option for another 26 in various configurations that would raise the contract value to some $300 million.
Two days later the Iraqi navy took delivery of the first of four Italian Saettia MK4 patrol craft built by the Fincantieri shipyard of Le Spezia. The 160-foot, 390-ton Fateh (Victory) will become the flagship of the new navy. The other three craft will be delivered at three-monthly intervals with a couple of dozen smaller patrol boats for the expanded 6,000-man navy.
All told, U.S. military aid to Iraq -- mostly through the Foreign Military Sales program, which requires congressional approval -- will total around $8.7 billion over the next few years.
However, the rearmament of Iraq could be threatened by the slump in oil prices that began in late 2008 -- from almost $150 a barrel to around $40 and currently running at $60.
Baghdad, which relies on oil exports for 90 percent of its revenue, has been badly hit. The 2009 budget was slashed from $79 billion to $58.6 billion and may be cut further. So some weapons programs may have to be delayed until the crisis is over.
And with the bulk of U.S. forces scheduled to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011, U.S. and Iraqi commanders are having to make some tough choices on prioritizing what is needed to give the Iraqis the firepower to maintain security on their own.
U.S. President Barack Obama is concentrating military capabilities on the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater of operations, which has become the main battleground in the war against militant Islam, so Washington will not be able to finance the Iraqis' budget shortfall.
The Iraqis are cutting unbelievably bloated payrolls at the key ministries concerned with security -- Defense and Interior -- but these may not be sufficient to give the armed forces what they need to contain external threats by 2012, which had been the target date.
Just keeping the equipment they have, or will shortly get, in working condition will consume hundreds of millions of dollars.
But corruption, endemic throughout the Iraqi government, is often as much an enemy as the insurgents and jihadists who plague the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
The Iraqi army has a strength on paper of 262,000 -- although since soldiers are paid in cash, their commanders often inflate the size of their units and pocket the difference. Some embezzle up to $70,000 a month this way. No one really knows the true strength of the army.
Billions of dollars in funds have disappeared from the Defense and Interior ministries in the last five years, seriously impeding the purchase of arms and equipment.
Training has suffered too. As of mid-May about one-quarter of the Iraqi army failed to meet its own minimum qualifications for soldiers.
"A small number are overage, a little bigger number of them would be medically disqualified, and then somewhere -- around 15 percent -- are illiterate," said Brig. Gen. Steven Salazar, a U.S. officer who is deputy commander of the Multinational Security Transition Command-Iraq.
Poor control over the flow of U.S. and other weapons into Iraq for the new armed forces has also meant vast numbers of arms cannot be accounted for.
At the heart of an ever-widening investigation by a posse of U.S. agencies is a mushrooming scandal in Iraq that has seriously eroded U.S. credibility in the Middle East -- the disappearance in 2004-05 of some 190,000 U.S.-supplied weapons intended for Iraqi security forces.
There is evidence that some of the missing 110,000 AK-47 assault rifles and 80,000 pistols ended up in the hands of anti-U.S. insurgents and sectarian death squads.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_rearms_Iraq_but_worries_abound_999.html
Wiki Goes To War
July 2, 2009: Later this month, the U.S. Army is activating a Wikipedia for seven of their 550 manuals. There will be a 90 day experiment, where troops can edit manuals, and leave comments. All those who make edits or leave comments will be identified, because the only ones who can access the wiki are army personnel with a military email address.
The branch that is responsible for the manual has the final say on which changes become permanent. But because of the open (at least to military personnel) nature of the wiki, there will be pressure to go with needed changes.
Aside from getting errors or unintelligible stuff out of the manuals, the army also realizes that everything is changing so quickly, that wiki based manuals are the only way to keep up. If the experiment works, more manuals will be added to the wiki.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htcbtsp/articles/20090702.aspx
china thinks long range, and they are planning on becoming the big dogs in the indian ocean and south pacific, imo
the Aegis ships should be able to handle this without batting an eye
there has to be some way to figure out what is going on. the least you could get is its classified
send her out in a blindfold. lol
Naval Supremacy Without Ships
July 1, 2009: For the last six years, Chinese military planners have been openly discussing the development of an ASBM (an anti-ship ballistic missile.) The way this weapon works is pretty simple. First you have to detect, and track, an American carrier at sea. This can be done with space or ground based radar, or electronic monitoring equipment. One could also do it with submarines (which would stalk the carriers, at a distance, and use satellite comm to send location updates back to China). Once you know where the carrier is, and where it is heading, you put that data into the navigation system of one or more ASBMs and launch. Less than half an hour later, the warhead is plunging earthward, and using its targeting sensors to detect the carrier below. Unless the carrier turned around and hauled ass at full speed about the time the ASBM was launched, the warhead will detect the carrier and hit it, while travelling at several times faster than a rifle bullet. If that doesn't sink the carrier, it certainly puts it out of action for months.
China's principal weapon would be their DF-21 ballistic missile, equipped with a high-explosive warhead and a guidance system that can home in and hit a aircraft carrier at sea. The DF-21 has a range of 1800 kilometers and normally hauls a 300 kiloton nuclear warhead. It's a two stage, 15 ton, solid fuel rocket that could carry a half ton penetrating, high-explosive warhead, along with the special guidance system (a radar and image recognition system).
It is believed that the Chinese have reverse engineered, reinvented or stolen the 1970s technology that went into the U.S. Pershing ballistic missile. This 7.5 ton U.S. Army missile also had an 1,800 kilometers range, and could put its nuclear warhead within 30 meters of its aim point. This was possible because the guidance system had its own radar. This kind of accuracy made the Russians very uncomfortable, as it made their command bunkers vulnerable. The Russians eventually agreed to a lot of nuclear and missile disarmament deals in order to get the Pershings decommissioned in the 1980s.
The Chinese have long been rumored to have a system like this, but there have been no tests. Before deploying these ASBMs, one or more would have to be tested. They could do this by using a large container ship or tanker (older ones, headed for the breakers) and move it to a likely location from which an American carrier would approach. This target ship would be rigged to be operated by remote control. The Chinese might want to send a few smaller freighters, similarly equipped, to represent the carrier escorts. This would test the ASBMs ability to pick out the carrier (the largest ship in the task force.) As part of the test, the Chinese could see if more than one form of tracking works. Then, the ASBM would be given the latest coordinates for the carrier, and launched. Half an hour later, the Chinese would know if they have a real ASBM.
If the Chinese do succeed in creating a "carrier killer" version of the DF-21, the U.S. Navy can modify its Aegis anti-missile system to protect carriers against such attacks. There are also electronic warfare options, to blind the DF-21 radar.
Meanwhile, China appears to be developing an over-the-horizon (OTH) radar that can spot large ships (like American aircraft carriers) as far as 3,000 kilometers away, and use this information to guide ballistic missiles to the area,. Such radars have long been used to detect ballistic missile launches, and approaching heavy bombers. Some OTH radars have been modified to take advantage of the flat surface of an ocean, to pick up large objects, like ships. Cheaper and more powerful computers enable such OTH radars to more accurately identify ships thousands of kilometers away.
China is developing the technologies, and it's only a matter of time, and willingness to devote several billion dollars to the project, before they can actually do it, or at least try to. If the Chinese ASBM works, naval warfare will be changed forever.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hticbm/articles/20090701.aspx
All Your Landmines Are Belong To Us
July 1, 2009: The Taliban have gotten into the mine clearing business, and are chasing away, and sometimes murdering, the Afghan demining teams. Last year, Afghan de-mining teams cleared 82,000 antipersonnel and 900 anti-vehicle mines in Afghanistan. That's 20 percent of all the mines removed since the effort began in 1989. Warlords, drug gangs and the Taliban used to leave the de-miners alone, mainly because the de-mining work is enormously popular with all Afghans. But the Taliban, on the advice of their al Qaeda allies, have adopted the roadside bomb as a major weapon. But, unlike Iraq, there are not a lot of surplus munitions lying about. But there are still thousands of mines. Often, the general location of the mines is known, and the Taliban will go and dig up the mines, and remove the explosives, for use in their bombs. This is dangerous work, and many of these amateur deminers have died from inexperience. But still they persist, and don't want any competition when it comes to finding the mines,
Eight years ago, 140 Afghans a month were being killed or wounded by landmines. Now it is only about fifty (still the highest in the world). In the last twenty years, over 500 square miles have been cleared of mines. The de-mining effort was to be completed in another four years. But that's now in doubt, at least in the south, where the Taliban are seeking to recycle mines. Worse yet, the Taliban do not clear entire minefields. They will search for, and remove what they need, and leave most of the mines in the ground. So, eventually, professional de-miners will have to come in and search the entire minefield to make sure all the mines have been removed.
About a third of the country still has hundreds of minefields to be cleared. Each of these minefields prevents civilians from farming, grazing their herds, or travelling across the area. The mines cleared last year freed over 500 communities from the curse of having an un-cleared minefield in their midst. Even the Taliban would benefit from the de-mining, because the Taliban often travel cross country in areas they are not familiar with. Travelling at night, they might miss signs posted to warn people away from an un-cleared minefield. But the Taliban are more in need of explosives, than of safe travel routes.
Foreign contributions pay to train, equip and pay the Afghan de-miners. The only foreigners involved in the operation are technical experts needed to repair gear, or train users on new equipment.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20090701.aspx
something isnt right there
i havent heard whether or not it was legal for their supreme court to oust the other pres
yes i do!! if not it could make for a very bad season
what was the reason they gave you for closing the down the mountain?
why would they close the mountain for "national security" reasons? are the taliban invading that mountain?
and wouldnt locals be the best defense of that mountain in the case of any invasion?
but it will make for an interesting season WHEN the pack beats the bears! i will wear a pakcer jersey into the office just to piss them all off. the sad thing is i will have to take it off and put on the company uniform. lol
Minnesota the next Michigan? with Wisconsin trying to beat them both out!?
with the change in the defensive scheme i think the defense as a whole is a toss up this season. but i am holding out hope.
not to mention i am one of 2 packer fans in an office of 70 or so bear fans. and one of the supervisors played for the pack during the 04 preseason as a running back. the other played for the bears and is a relative of dick butkis
Packers Sign WR Jennings To Long-Term Contract Extension
posted 06/24/2009
The Green Bay Packers have announced the signing of WR Greg Jennings to a long-term contract extension.
A 25-year-old, fourth-year player, Jennings was the Packers' second of two second-round draft picks in 2006. In 43 career games, including 39 starts, he has caught 178 passes for 2,844 yards and 24 touchdowns.
Last season, he established career highs in receptions (80) and receiving yards (1,292) to go along with nine touchdowns.
http://www.packers.com/news/releases/2009/06/24/1/
Notebook: Little Rest For Rodgers
by Mike Spofford, Packers.com
posted 06/23/2009
With the players getting five weeks off, after tomorrow, before the start of training camp, they're looking at their last real vacation during this calendar year.
While many will take advantage of the down time to rest, recuperate, spend time with family, and/or visit someplace exotic, Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers is among those who did that back in January and February. So his focus stays mostly on business in July.
"I've got a group I work out with down in San Diego," Rodgers said as he rattled off a list of NFL players he'll be training with over the next month, including New Orleans quarterback Drew Brees, San Diego running back LaDainian Tomlinson, Tampa Bay tight end Kellen Winslow Jr., and Chicago cornerback Charles Tillman, among others.
"We're all going to start working out together probably about the first of July, and go through about 3½ weeks of pretty intense training."
Granted, working out a few hours a day is nothing like training camp itself, with two-a-day practices at least a couple of times a week. But the break between the end of the offseason program and the start of training camp can be so long that if players aren't careful, they can lose some of the gains they made during all their strength and conditioning work that began back in March.
These days, players are expected to report to training camp in shape and be ready to work, not use training camp to get in shape for the regular season.
"It's a full-time job," Rodgers said. "You have to keep yourself in shape. I want to shave a couple more pounds off and get down to the weight I want to be at for the start of training camp."
Keeping his distance
Receiver Greg Jennings sounds as though he's watching the ongoing contract negotiations between the Packers and his agent from afar, not necessarily confirming, nor being very concerned with, whether a new deal is close to completion.
Heading into the final year of his rookie deal, Jennings has repeatedly said he will not hold out for a new contract. One media report this week indicated a deal was close, but Jennings wasn't entirely certain of that.
"I'm just trying to perform at a high level regardless if the deal is done or not," he said. "Honestly. That's me. Whether the deal is done, in the making, or not in the making, I'm going to be out here practicing, playing hard, trying to give our team the best chance to win. Period."
Jennings attended the vast majority of the voluntary offseason workouts and OTAs, spending some time with his family, which includes a new baby daughter. He has attended everything mandatory and said he'll continue to, including training camp, whether or not his new contract is signed.
Emerging as one of the top performers at his position in the NFC, Jennings said he does sense he's taking on more of a leadership role in the locker room than he has in the past, but he wants to keep himself in the proper place.
"I feel like the quarterback is the leader, but there are other guys that play leadership roles on the team," he said. "I want to be looked upon as a leader and a positive leader at that."
Running with the 1's
Third-year pro Allen Barbre has taken all the reps with the No. 1 offensive line at right tackle throughout OTAs and mini-camp, and although he says he continues to get more comfortable in that spot, he's not taking anything for granted as far as the competition for the starting job.
"I feel like it's a great opportunity for me to play, and that's how I look at it, that's how I approach it," Barbre said. "Just going out and working hard every day, seizing my opportunity.
"Just because I'm running with the 1's doesn't mean anything. I just want to work hard every day and give it all I've got."
Taking the first-team reps does have its advantages, though, and probably has Barbre more prepared for the upcoming training camp competition than he was last year at left guard.
"I get to go against great competition every day," Barbre said. "I go against Aaron Kampman, a great player. He's adjusting to a position as well, and we're sort of growing together.
"He's a two-time Pro Bowler, and I can learn a lot from him. Going against him, that's going to do nothing but make me a better player."
Plays of the day
Players on both sides of the ball made some big plays during team (11-on-11) periods on Tuesday. Here's a brief rundown.
Morning practice: Jennings hauled in a deep post route perfectly in stride from Rodgers, while rookie Kole Heckendorf had the catch of the workout, making a diving grab in the middle of the end zone against tight coverage from Tramon Williams.
Meanwhile Williams and Al Harris both snagged interceptions that likely would have gone for touchdowns the other way.
Advertisement
Lambeau Field Atrium (weddings)
Afternoon practice: Rodgers completed bullets over the middle to both tight end Donald Lee and receiver Donald Driver through tight coverage windows, while both Ruvell Martin and rookie JaRon Harris made similar leaping catches along the left sideline for big gains.
Then in the two-minute drill, the defense got the best of the offense. With the first units going head-to-head, linebacker Brandon Chillar made a diving interception on a sideline pass intended for Lee, and then with the second units on the field, Williams almost got another interception but batted away a fourth-down pass for Martin to end that drive.
Special teams even got in the playmaking act in the afternoon, as Jeremy Kapinos dropped a pooch punt just short of the goal line, and it was downed by the coverage unit inside the 2.
http://www.packers.com/news/stories/2009/06/23/3/
Court takes case over licensing of NFL apparel
By FREDERIC J. FROMMER, Associated Press Writer Jun 29, 5:21 pm EDT
*
Buzz up! 16 votes
*
Print
WASHINGTON (AP)—In taking a case involving the National Football League’s exclusive licensing deal for sports merchandise, the Supreme Court could go beyond caps and give leagues more leeway in areas such as team relocation, legal scholars said Monday.
“A broad ruling in favor of the NFL could rewrite almost all of sports antitrust law,” said Gabe Feldman, associate law professor and director of the Sports Law Program at Tulane University in New Orleans.
The court will hear an appeal from American Needle Inc., of Buffalo Grove, Ill., which filed an antitrust challenge to an agreement the NFL struck with Reebok International Ltd. American Needle had been one of many firms that manufactured NFL headwear until the league granted an exclusive contract to Reebok in 2001.
The NFL won the case in the federal appeals court in Chicago. But it also asked the Supreme Court to hear the case in a quest for a more sweeping decision that could put an end to what the league considers costly, frivolous antitrust lawsuits.
ADVERTISEMENT
The court decided to take the case against the advice of the U.S. Solicitor General’s office.
The central question is whether the league is essentially a “single entity” that can act collectively, as the NFL argues, or 32 distinct businesses that must be careful about running afoul of antitrust laws.
Matt Mitten, a law professor and director of the National Sports Law Institute at Marquette University in Milwaukee, called the court’s decision to take the case significant.
“This will be the first time the Supreme Court will consider the merits of the single entity defense,” he said, adding that a favorable court decision could give the league “a lot more room not to have to fear suits” on issues such as relocation and ownership requirements.
In a statement, NFL spokesman Greg Aiello said the league looked forward to explaining why the court should extend, on a national basis, favorable appeals court rulings on how antitrust laws apply “to the unique structure of a sports league.”
American Needle did not respond to telephone messages Monday.
Other than Major League Baseball, which has an antitrust exemption dating to a 1922 Supreme Court decision, the other sports leagues have an intense interest in the case. The National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League both asked the court to rule in favor of the NFL.
“We look forward to the Supreme Court finally resolving what has become an oft-litigated, contentious issue in litigation involving professional sports leagues,” said NHL Deputy Commissioner Bill Daly in a statement.
The NBA declined to comment.
Daniel C. Glazer, a lawyer at the New York-based law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler, said an NFL victory on the single entity issue would represent a significant change.
“Certain business activities of the NFL would not be subject to antitrust review by the government, and thus be exempt from potential government intervention and oversight,” said Glazer, who has expertise in intellectual property and sports.
Stephen Ross, director of the Penn State Institute for Sports Law, Policy and Research, said he found the court’s decision to take the case “deeply disturbing.”
“This case did not need to be heard by the court unless it had a broad plan from withdrawing the pro-consumer protections of the antitrust laws to sports fans,” said Ross, a former lawyer for the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department’s antitrust division.
But Mitten, the Marquette professor, said he wouldn’t make any assumptions about what the court would do based on its acceptance of the case.
Reebok was acquired by Adidas AG in 2006 in a $3.8 billion deal that helped the German company expand in the United States.
The case will be argued late this year or early in 2010.
The case is American Needle v. National Football League, 08-661.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Ak_3pSLYXWxehRaqwkDp5wTsYNAF?slug=ap-supremecourt-nfl&prov=ap&type=lgns
F22 sonic boom
Army's Most High-Tech Infantry Unit Set to Touch Down in Afghanistan
By Adrian Covert Posted 06.29.2009 at 6:12 pm 6 Comments
Land Warrior Wearable Military Tech: Peter Haley / The News Tribune
Each equipped with $48,000 worth of GPS components, electronic maps, and wearable computers, troops of the Army's 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division are heading to Afghanistan as part of the resurrected Land Warrior program. The Army is hoping the revised, eight-pound set of gear will be more beneficial than when the $500 million program was canceled in 2006.
As the latest futuristic military program to be made real, Land Warrior gear will allow troops to identify comrades and enemies on the battlefield, receive updated objectives, locate buildings and find the nearest exit--all through a head-mounted eyepiece.
This is the long-awaited realization of the Army's 15 year plus program to help out troops who were previously buying their own walkie-talkies and GPS units to stay in contact with their team.
The problem is, not everyone finds it helpful.
Troops say the technology is more helpful in urban areas such as Iraq, where (presumably), it's easier to become separated from the pack. But in rural Afghanistan, some troops feel carrying the extra 8 pounds around just isn't worth it. I guess Land Warrior's value will be assessed soon enough.
http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-06/teched-out-troops-set-touch-down-afghanistan
Stalemate in Afghan town shows task ahead
By Chris Brummitt - The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday Jun 30, 2009 17:08:31 EDT
NOW ZAD, Afghanistan — Marines patrol slowly along streets laced with land mines and lined with abandoned shops, clinics and homes. As night falls over this Afghan ghost town, the only sounds are the howling of coyotes and the creaking of tin roofs in the wind.
Three years after its residents fled, the once bustling town of Now Zad is the scene of a stalemate between a company of newly arrived Marines and a band of Taliban fighters. The Americans have plenty of firepower. What they don’t have is enough men to hold seized ground.
“We would just be mowing the weeds,” said Capt. Zachary Martin of any move to drive out the Taliban.
The deadlock shows how a shortage of troops has hindered the Afghan war and points to the challenges for the Obama administration as it sends 21,000 extra Marines and soldiers to the south to try to turn around a bogged down, eight-year conflict. The influx will bring U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan to about 68,000 by late summer — roughly half the current level in Iraq, a smaller country than Afghanistan.
It’s unclear if more troops will be deployed to this town in Helmand province, the heart of the Taliban insurgency and the opium poppy trade that funds it. For the meantime at least, it appears Now Zad is too valuable to abandon to the insurgents — but not valuable enough for an all-out offensive.
The 300 or so Marines in Now Zad regularly patrol areas close to the Taliban front lines, skirmishing with them and risking attacks from the area’s biggest killer — IEDs. Over the last month, improvised explosive devices have killed one Marine and wounded seven. Four of the men — including the fatality — suffered double leg amputations.
“Welcome to Hell,” reads one message spray-painted on a wall in the town’s main base by British troops whom the Marines replaced last year.
“Good Luck USA,” reads another.
Along with the new troops and military aircraft, Washington plans a corresponding surge in development projects to convince the largely impoverished Afghan population that the central government— not the insurgents — offers the best hope for the future. The U.S. is also spending more on training the Afghan police and army so they can eventually take on the Taliban.
But with Now Zad’s 10,000 to 35,000 residents long gone, there are no hearts and minds to woo here — even it were safe enough to build schools, clinics and roads. The town also has no local security forces, and no one can say when they will arrive.
“Even in our wildest dreams we are not going to have enough Marines and soldiers to be everywhere,” said Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, the commander of the first wave of 10,000 new troops pouring into Helmand and surrounding provinces. “That is why it is important to have the locals taking more responsibility, saying, ‘This is my neighborhood and I’m going to have to defend it.’“
Like much of Afghanistan, Now Zad was relatively peaceful in the years following the U.S.-led invasion. Water pumps installed by the U.N. World Food Program are dotted around the town, and there is at least one health clinic funded by the European Union.
But in 2006 and 2007 — just when Washington was focused on sectarian bloodshed in Iraq — the Afghan insurgency stepped up a gear and Now Zad became the scene of fierce battles between NATO troops and the Taliban.
Now Zad remains so dangerous that this is the only Marine unit in Afghanistan that brings along two trauma doctors, as well as two armored vehicles used as ambulances and supplies of fresh blood.
Apart from one small stretch of paved road, the Marines patrol only behind an engineer who sweeps the ground with a detector. The men who follow scratch out a path in the sand with their foot to ensure those trailing them do not stray off course. Each carries at least one tourniquet.
“It’s a hell of ride,” said Lance Cpl. Aenoi Luangxay, a 20-year-old engineer on his first deployment. “Every step you think this could be my last,” said Aenoi, who has found six bombs in the company’s four weeks in the town.
Just after midnight recently, the medics were wakened by a familiar report: A patrol had hit an IED in town. Within five minutes, they put on their flak jackets and helmets and were in their vehicles leaving the base.
The bomb blew the legs off Cpl. Matthew Lembke as he walked to a building. Lembke, from Tualatin, Ore., was loaded onto the ambulance. On the trip to the helicopter landing zone, the medics tightened his tourniquets and gave him two units of blood along with antibiotics.
At one point, he stopped breathing. The medical team used equipment on board to pump air into his lungs.
“Our aim and intent is to give the guys the optimum chance of survival from the first minute,” said the commander of the Shock Trauma Platoon, Sean Barbabella, of Chesapeake, Va. “If it was my son or brother out there, that is what I would want.”
Lembke was in stable condition Monday at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland.
The men of Golf Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marines in Now Zad know where to find their enemy — to the north of town, in a maze of compounds and tunnels that back onto lush pomegranate orchards.
The Marines are garrisoned in a base that occupies the town’s former administrative center. They also have fortified observations posts on two hills. In one of them, named ANP hill after the Afghan police who presumably once had a post there, the men sleep in “hobbit holes” dug into the earth. The underground briefing room is partly held up by an aging Russian Howitzer gun.
Each day, the Marines aggressively patrol to limit the Taliban’s freedom of movement. They keep a 24-hour watch on the battlefield using high-tech surveillance equipment and are able to fire mortar rounds at insurgents spotted planting bombs or gathering in numbers.
A recent daylong battle showed the massive difference in firepower between the two sides, as well as the tenacity of the Taliban. It took place close to “Pakistani Alley,” so named because of one-time reports that fighters from across the border were deployed along the road.
The insurgents opened fire from behind high-walled compounds with automatic weapons, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades against five armored vehicles; the Marines responded with machine gunfire and frequently called in airstrikes.
Mindful of the need to engage with what few locals remain in the area, every couple of days a small group of Marines and translators leave the base and walk a mile to a village south of Now Zad where some families who fled the town now stay.
They try to convince them that the Marines are there to help, remind them that Taliban militants plant bombs that kill innocents and discreetly try to gather intelligence. Many of the locals are suspicious and worried about Taliban retribution for talking with the visitors, who are besieged by children demanding candy and notebooks.
Capt. Martin got some encouraging news. One villager said he was a former soldier in the Afghan army and would be willing to fight the Taliban; another said he would like to vote in August elections, though with no local government in place that looks unlikely.
But later, one man accused coalition forces of killing 10 women and children in a bombing last year.
“I take it as a sign of success they are willing to talk to us,” Zachary said. “Before, if you said the word Taliban, they ran away.”
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/06/ap_marines_now_zad_063009/
USMC: GAO V-22 Report Misses The Mark
Jun 29, 2009
By Bettina H. Chavanne
A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report detailing the V-22 Osprey’s shortcomings in reliability and maintainability “misses the mark,” according to Lt. Gen. George Trautman, U.S. Marine Corps deputy commandant for aviation.
“The Osprey’s performance in Iraq over the previous 18 months proved to us, and more importantly, to those 45,000 Marines…who flew in the aircraft that it is safer, faster and can range distances farther than any helicopter,” Trautman says.
He was grilled by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on June 23 over a recent GAO report that described, “challenges to operational effectiveness [during the Iraq deployments] that raise questions about whether the MV-22 is best suited to accomplish the full repertoire of missions of the helicopters it is intended to replace.”
Trautman disagreed, citing the aircraft’s speed, range and “higher flight profile” as advantages over the helicopters it will replace. The V-22 is “tailor-made” for Afghanistan, he added. “Heat and high elevations have an effect on all rotorcraft,” he said. “But we know that even with those considerations, the Osprey is far more capable than the aircraft it replaces.”
The V-22 has suffered numerous critiques in the past, most of which Trautman has acknowledged, including problems with the engines and low mission capable rates. “We have continuously tracked several key components which have been maintenance degraders,” Trautman said, “and we are moving in the right direction with our industry partners to get solutions fielded expeditiously.” As to whether the GAO report revealed anything to either the Marines or Congress that departed from past complaints, Trautman replied unequivocally, “No, we did not learn anything new from the GAO report.”
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/V22-062909-1.xml&headline=USMC:%20GAO%20V-22%20Report%20Misses%20The%20Mark
Fleets Turn to Small Ships for New Conflicts
Jun 30, 2009
By Paul McLeary
During a speech at the U.S. Naval War College in April, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates cited the value of developing a viable force of small warships that are better suited to face current threats in the littorals than vessels designed for blue-water operations.
“You don’t necessarily need a billion-dollar ship to chase down a bunch of teenaged pirates,” he told a group of Navy officers. “The size of the ship in such cases is less important than having Navy Seals on board. To carry out the missions we may face in the future—whether dealing with non-state actors at sea or near shore, or swarming speedboats—we will need numbers, speed and ability to operate in shallow waters.”
The Navy has been working on projects like the Global Fleet Station, a forward operating base at sea capable of surging military forces and humanitarian aid to shore. One example is the Africa Partnership Station, spearheaded by the USS Nashville (LPD-13), an Austin-class amphibious transport dock, which ran from February to May off the west coast of Africa. This is one of the ways the Navy is trying to meet the needs of what analysts and Pentagon leaders call an “era of persistent conflict.”
The need to build up littoral or brown-water assets is an idea that has been kicking around for several years, with many in the Pentagon and elsewhere recognizing the need for the Navy to operate close to shore for counterinsurgency, policing or humanitarian missions. This need is especially acute when considering an estimate by the United Nations Conference on Environment that about half the world’s population lives within 60 km. (37 mi.) of a shoreline, and “many of the world’s poor are crowded in coastal areas.”
The Global Fleet Stations, however, are built around existing vessels, most of which were designed for blue-water service and confronting large peer threats. To have a viable presence in the littorals, and to avoid using billion-dollar ships to chase down boatloads of pirates, police offshore oil platforms and train local coast guards, the Navy will have to look beyond its current fleet to new vessels that are better suited for such missions.
These include smaller, faster and less-expensive platforms like the Joint High-Speed Vessel, M80 Stiletto, Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and the amphibious San Antonio-class Landing Platform Dock (LPD). While most of these ships bear a resemblance to the larger blue-water vessels, they have a number of design features and capabilities that increase their effectiveness in littoral operations.
The USS Freedom LCS, for example, built by Lockheed Martin, is a 3,000-ton vessel with a semiplaning steel monohull, 12-ft. draft and top speed above 45 kt. It adapts to different operational needs by changing mission modules, containers with specialized electronics and equipment that provide a virtual plug-in capability for such operations as mine countermeasures, antisubmarine warfare (ASW) and surface warfare. The ship can also carry two SH-60 Seahawk helicopters and an MQ-8B Fire Scout UAV, and launch and recover manned and unmanned boats off the side and stern.
The Navy’s second LCS, the USS Independence, built by General Dynamics and slated for delivery this fall, is different in design, but shares the same ability to carry helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and, with a 14-ft. draft, bring operations close to shore.
In the Navy’s 2010 budget request, sent to Congress in May, the service called for three more LCS (Gates wants 55 of the ships), two Lewis and Clark-class T-AKE 1 auxiliary dry cargo ships (which are key for the frequent resupply smaller ships require) and one more Joint High-Speed Vessel.
But the big question is: How will these smaller ships be used once they hit the water in large numbers? Cdr. Henry J. Hendrix put forward one idea in the April issue of Proceedings magazine. He calls for the creation of “Influence Squadrons” composed of “an amphibious mother ship (an LPD-17 or cheaper commercial ship with similar capabilities), a destroyer to provide air, surface and subsurface defensive capabilities, an LCS to extend a squadron’s reach into the brown-water environment and provide some mine-warfare capabilities, a Joint High-Speed Vessel to increase lift [capabilities], a coastal patrol ship to operate close in and an M80 Stiletto to provide speed and versatility.”
Hendrix sees the need for 16 such squadrons to operate in the littorals of Africa, Asia and Latin America, training local coast guards, providing humanitarian assistance and spreading U.S. military influence. Naval analyst Raymond Pritchett is a proponent of the idea, which he says builds “layers of capabilities to do some nation-building along the coast . . . without having to establish a footprint on land.”
The investments, particularly when it comes to ships like the small, fast, stealthy M80 Stiletto, are minimal, and the idea would be to give many of these vessels away. The Stiletto, designed as an experimental craft for the Pentagon’s now-defunct Office of Force Transformation by M Ship Co. of San Diego (DTI November/December 2005, p. 14), is an 88-ft. vessel with twin M‑shaped hulls that improve speed (50-60 kt.) and minimize wave shocks. It has a 40-ft. beam and draft of only 3 ft. when fully loaded. The ship has seen action on drug-interdiction missions in South America, but the Navy has no plans to buy more.
The LCS is a great ship for UAVs, Pritchett says, “but I think the Navy is going to have to build something smaller,” something, he adds, that is about 600 tons and costs around $100 million, “basically a small gunfighter [that’s] not really built for major war activity.”
Many navies have, of course, been operating in the littorals. They have developed an array of platforms and technologies that work well in these waters. The Italian navy, for example, operates eight 1,300-ton Minerva-class corvettes and four 1,500-ton Cassiopea-class ships for coastal patrol. Each Cassiopea is powered by two diesel engines, has a top speed of 20 kt., crew of 60 and a combat management system, armament and sensor suite.
Italy recently built four 1,500-ton Bettica-class light frigates, which entered service in 2002. These have stealth design and a top speed of 25 kt. Italy adopted the basic design for the Sirio littoral patrol vessels from Fincantieri, which are similar to the Bettica-class ships but have a less-powerful propulsion system and top speed of 22 kt. The idea was to obtain as much commonality as possible from a single, flexible design to reduce operating, training and nonrecurring costs. The approach was well received in the international market: Sirio has been chosen by the Turkish navy in a buy of four ships that are under construction, while the Bettica class has been selected by the UAE for ASW corvettes.
The Italian navy is considering a new class of vessels to replace the Minerva and Cassiopea ships by around 2020. Concepts call for a 2,000-ton frigate with a combined diesel and diesel powerplant capable of 30 kt., and the ability to add weapons and sensors as needed. If plans come to fruition, they will yield a more modular and scalable design than other second-line combat vessels.
The Italian coast guard operates littoral patrol vessels, including the 350-ton Saettia class, capable of 25 kt. These ships have also done well in the international market, being selected by Malta (a 450-ton version) and the Iraqi navy (a 500-ton variant) for patrol missions in areas like the central Mediterranean and northern Persian Gulf. The vessels can also double as main navy ships.
Italy’s experience shows that the littoral ship is not restricted to a specific class, size or type.
One of the biggest issues about building a littoral force is the commensurate need for a new set of capabilities for operations to be safe, effective and connected with the firepower of the blue-water force. Since the ships will be close to shore, situational awareness is vital due to the threat from shore-based rockets. In 2006, for example, a subsonic C-802 antiship cruise missile fired by Hezbollah hit an Israeli corvette off Lebanon, killing four sailors. Weapons like the Chinese-made C-802, which delivers an explosive payload of up to 165 kg. (363 lb.) as far as 120 km. (75 mi.), along with the threats posed by swarming attacks from small, high-speed boats like those used by Iran, or suicide attacks, loom as major threats to a small, light force near shore.
To counter this, ships in the littorals will need an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance screen to detect fast-developing threats. The Israeli ship, for example, was reportedly operating without all of its electronic support measures activated.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SHIPS063009-2.xml&headline=Fleets%20Turn%20to%20Small%20Ships%20for%20New%20Conflicts&channel=defense
South Korea updates defense plan
New North Korea sanctions will have impact: US
New UN sanctions intended to force North Korea to abandon its nuclear program will have an "impact" when they take full force, the top US envoy to the United Nations said Sunday. Susan Rice also said the United States was closely monitoring a North Korean ship that Washington suspects of transporting weapons and nuclear know-how in what would be a violation of a UN embargo on Pyongyang's arms sales. "We're pursuing and following the progress of that ship very closely," Rice told CBS television's "Face the Nation," declining to provide details on any action the United States might take toward the Kang Nam 1 on the high seas. A US Navy destroyer has been tracking the ship, which is suspected of being headed for Myanmar, for nearly two weeks. The UN Security Council adopted resolution 1874 in response to North Korea's May 25 nuclear test. The resolution establishes a strengthened inspection regime for all cargo coming from or destined for North Korea, whether it is being transported by air, sea or ground. Rice stressed that the new interdiction authorities granted by the resolution are "but one piece of a very tough, very comprehensive sanctions regime that we are going to pursue fully and implement and enforce fully and effectively." The new UN sanctions also include a widening of the existing arms embargo on North Korea. "When this resolution is fully enforced -- not only in terms of potential vessels that may be violating the sanctions but the financial sanctions, the arms embargo, the assets freezes -- this will be a very, very tough package that will have an impact on North Korea," Rice said. South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak said meanwhile that his country and Japan "will never tolerate" a nuclear-armed North Korea after talks in Tokyo with Prime Minister Taro Aso. (AFP Report)
by Staff Writers
Seoul (UPI) Jun 29, 2009
South Korea announced an update of its national defense plan, including an increased potential to hit North Korea's military assets.
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak announced the refinements to the National Defense Reform 2020 plan that Seoul established in 2005.
Since then, however, North Korea has become a nuclear power, and diplomatic moves, many initiated by Lee, have been met with additional threats from the North.
Pyongyang on May 25 carried out an underground nuclear test and has warned foreign shipping to stay away from its coasts for the next two weeks because of possible live fire military tests. Some intelligence sources said North Korea is preparing a long-range missile test that is expected to be fired toward Hawaii.
It is unlikely that Pyongyang has the technical wherewithal to reach the United States, but South Korea faces a much more real threat with a massive army poised on its northern border supported by thousands of artillery tubes. And Pyongyang has been saber-rattling of late, saying any interference with its programs would be seen as an act of war.
Lee traveled to Tokyo for talks Sunday with Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso, whose country is also within Pyongyang's missile range. Lee said the North's actions represent "serious security threats" and are "absolutely unacceptable."
"We will never tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea," Lee said at a news conference.
Lee's comments support South Korea's revamped national defense plan, details of which were made public Friday. The plan, expected to cost about $460 billion, calls for "stemming and eliminating to the maximum degree" threats posed by North Korea's military capabilities, the South Korean Yonhap news agency reported.
Yonhap quoted an unnamed senior official involved in the development of the defense plan as saying, "If it becomes clear that North Korea is moving to hit us with nuclear and missile arsenal, we will hit its bases as quickly as possible to prevent launches no matter where they are."
Most of the new aspects of the plan involved upgrades in equipment and technology. South Korea said it would have 28 army divisions, unless an emergency develops, in which case an additional 10 divisions of reserves would be called upon. There would be a reduction in the number of active-duty personnel.
However, Seoul is looking to substantially increase its hardware, including artillery deemed necessary to stop a potential North Korean long-range bombardment from just north of the demilitarized zone.
South Korean defense officials are also looking to add intelligence-gathering assets, including satellites, early warning aircraft and unmanned drones. Improvements in missile defense systems are planned.
The South Korean Defense Ministry said it may upgrade its antimissile capability with the PAC-3 missile interceptor system, made by U.S. company Lockheed Martin, and SM-3 and SM-6 missiles, manufactured by Raytheon, another U.S. company. Those are part of a system designed to thwart incoming missile attacks.
All are to be in place in 11 years, the same timeframe set out in the 2005 version of the National Defense Reform 2020.
South Korean officials stressed any action against the North would depend on signs of an impending attack by Pyongyang. However, should "unusual movement" be detected, South Korean aircraft would be ordered to target areas of greatest threats, the new plan says.
North Korea has yet to react to the South's change in defense plans and has continued to use its state media to blame the United States for Pyongyang's military moves. North Korea has long stated a fear of an American invasion.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/South_Korea_updates_defense_plan_999.html
Oshkosh Wins $1B MATV Deal
Oshkosh Wins $1B MATV Deal
By Colin Clark Tuesday, June 30th, 2009 5:10 pm
Posted in International, Land
UPDATED: DoD Announces Oshkosh M-ATV Winner.
Here’s the official contract announcement:
Oshkosh Corporation., Oshkosh, WI is being awarded a $1,055,910,053 Firm Fixed Priced Delivery Order Number 0002 under Contract W56HZV-09-D-0111 for the purchase of 2,244 MRAP All Terrain Vehicles (M-ATVs), Basic Issue Items, Field Service Representative Support, Equipment, Engineering, Authorized Stocking List Parts Packages and Prescribed Load List parts packages. The US Army Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity.
The Defense Department announced Tuesday evening that Oshkosh has won a decision — the initial M-ATV contract — with the potential to reshape the Army and Marines for the next decade. Oshkosh won a deal worth $1 billion to build and support 2,244 M-ATVs, a little more than half of the recently pegged requirement.
The Joint Requirements Oversight Committee announced earlier this month that the requirements for M-ATVs is an impressive 5,200 vehicles, which may mean as much as $5 billion is at stake just for the M-ATV award. Given what Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said about MRAPs becoming the new vehicle for the FCS follow-on, the M-ATV award may become as important to the Army as the decision to cancel the Manned Ground Vehicle has become.
The players in this part of the drama are BAE Systems; Oshkosh Corp., Navistar International and Force Dynamics, a joint venture between Force Protection Inc. and General Dynamics. Each company was contracted to build at least several test vehicles.
If the Marines have much to say about the contract award — and they should given their numbers in Afghanistan — I’m giving Oshkosh a leg up on this one. The Oshkosh vehicle is built on the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) chassis and uses the TAK-4 suspension, which more than 10,000 MTVRs use. And senior Marine leaders have been very publicly enthusiastic about the MTVR’s performance in Afghanistan. Let’s hope there are no protests.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/30/matv-decision-likely-tuesday/
Oshkosh Wins $1B MATV Deal
Oshkosh Wins $1B MATV Deal
By Colin Clark Tuesday, June 30th, 2009 5:10 pm
Posted in International, Land
UPDATED: DoD Announces Oshkosh M-ATV Winner.
Here’s the official contract announcement:
Oshkosh Corporation., Oshkosh, WI is being awarded a $1,055,910,053 Firm Fixed Priced Delivery Order Number 0002 under Contract W56HZV-09-D-0111 for the purchase of 2,244 MRAP All Terrain Vehicles (M-ATVs), Basic Issue Items, Field Service Representative Support, Equipment, Engineering, Authorized Stocking List Parts Packages and Prescribed Load List parts packages. The US Army Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Michigan, is the contracting activity.
The Defense Department announced Tuesday evening that Oshkosh has won a decision — the initial M-ATV contract — with the potential to reshape the Army and Marines for the next decade. Oshkosh won a deal worth $1 billion to build and support 2,244 M-ATVs, a little more than half of the recently pegged requirement.
The Joint Requirements Oversight Committee announced earlier this month that the requirements for M-ATVs is an impressive 5,200 vehicles, which may mean as much as $5 billion is at stake just for the M-ATV award. Given what Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said about MRAPs becoming the new vehicle for the FCS follow-on, the M-ATV award may become as important to the Army as the decision to cancel the Manned Ground Vehicle has become.
The players in this part of the drama are BAE Systems; Oshkosh Corp., Navistar International and Force Dynamics, a joint venture between Force Protection Inc. and General Dynamics. Each company was contracted to build at least several test vehicles.
If the Marines have much to say about the contract award — and they should given their numbers in Afghanistan — I’m giving Oshkosh a leg up on this one. The Oshkosh vehicle is built on the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement (MTVR) chassis and uses the TAK-4 suspension, which more than 10,000 MTVRs use. And senior Marine leaders have been very publicly enthusiastic about the MTVR’s performance in Afghanistan. Let’s hope there are no protests.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/30/matv-decision-likely-tuesday/
Strings Attached
June 30, 2009: Switzerland has been planning to buy 22 Eurofighter aircraft, a deal worth over $2 billion. But now, after a year of negotiations and flight tests, Swiss politicians have told Germany (the principal member of the consortium that produces the aircraft) that the deal won't go through unless there are some concessions on other matters (bank secrecy, taxation and air traffic). Linking defense sales to politics is nothing new, and shouldn’t surprise anyone.
A year ago, the Eurofighter came of age, and the Swiss got really interested. At that point there were 135 Eurofighter Typhoon fighters in service, and the aircraft had been in the air for a combined 35,000 hours (as of the end of 2007.) Half those hours were flown in 2007, as the Eurofighter entered regular service in several nations. About 20 percent of those flight hours were for flight testing, but the rest were for day-to-day operations. The future looked bright. But since then, competition from American and Russian fighters, for export sales, and a lack of European enthusiasm for more purchases, has dimmed sales prospects somewhat. The Eurofighter consortium really cannot afford to lose the Swiss sale.
Development of the Eurofighter began two decades ago, and the first flight took place in 1994. Each aircraft costs over $120 million, including development costs. Current estimates indicate that about 600 will eventually be built. The Typhoon is a somewhat stealthy multi-role fighter. It is fast, maneuverable, and carries a lot of weapons. It also can be used for attack missions. This 23 ton aircraft will be the principal fighter in the air forces of Britain, Spain, Germany, and Italy. The Typhoon is closer in capability to the F-15, than the F-22, and is competing with the F-35 for many export sales. The Typhoon was recently purchased by Saudi Arabia, mainly to provide protection from Iran.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20090630.aspx
The Nightmare Cure
June 30, 2009: The U.S. Department of Defense has modified one of the U.S. Army's training games (Full Spectrum Warrior, or FSW) to help therapists treat combat veterans suffering from combat fatigue (PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder). FSW is your basic first-person shooter video game, but much more realistic. To turn FSW into a PTSD treatment tool, a new set of scenarios were created, and smells were added. The "virtual therapy" enables troops with PTSD to confront their fears, and learn to cope with them. The modified FSW was called Virtual Iraq.
It was over three years ago that U.S. Army medical researchers noted how soldiers that played violent video games, were better able to handle the stress of combat. More elaborate (virtual reality) combat simulations were developed to treat combat veterans who are suffering from severe stress reactions from combat. This work led to the development of Virtual Iraq, and over forty systems have been created and put to work so far.
The U.S. Army has been studying combat fatigue (or PTSD) a lot more these days. When the fighting in Iraq was at its peak, about 400 soldiers a year were sent home from Iraq because of severe PTSD. In addition, there were thousands of troops with less serious bouts of PTSD, which are treated in Iraq, with the soldier soon returning to duty.
What the army is up against is something they discovered during World War II. Back then, PTSD was called combat fatigue, and it was a serious problem. In the European Theater, 25 percent of all casualties were serious PTSD cases. In the Pacific Theater, the rate varied widely, depending on the campaign. In some of the most intense fighting, like Okinawa in 1945, it accounted for over a third of all wounded.
Israel has done a lot of work in finding new ways to diagnose PTSD, and has also noted the video game effect. Israeli researchers used highly realistic virtual reality type systems to enable patients to relive the combat situations that triggered the PTSD, and learn to cope with it.
This may all sound counterintuitive, and that's what outsiders (including some journalists) thought when they first came across combat troops playing violent video games to unwind after a day in combat. When asked, the troops generally shrugged and commented along the lines of, "it relaxes me." A military historian would point out that, in the past, troops often sought out violent, or stressful, entertainments when given some respite from combat. During the World Wars, troops on leave would, after getting cleaned up and sleeping for twelve hours, go gamble, or engage in team sports. They were looking for some excitement. Farther back in history, a little hunting, or looting (or worse) was always popular between battles.
It's another case of something, that's been around for a long time, getting noticed, and put to use more deliberately and aggressively.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20090630.aspx
Wheels vs. Tracks Redux
Wheels vs. Tracks Redux
By Greg Grant Monday, June 29th, 2009 1:46 pm
Posted in Land, Policy
In the Army’s quest to develop a new armored combat vehicle in the wake of the fiasco that was the FCS program, Army Chief Gen. George Casey has vowed to start with a “clean sheet of paper.” He even went so far as to say the Army was considering a wheeled vehicle, as the basis for a future armored fleet. I asked Casey whether the Army really wanted to revisit the wheeled versus tracks debate from the early days of FCS and he assured me it was a serious option.
It seems every time the Army discusses developing a new armored vehicle the same question arises: which is better, wheeled versus tracks? There are clear advantages and disadvantages with each.
An argument can be made that with the rapid urbanization of the planet’s surface, the much greater mobility of wheeled vehicles on paved roads, and the fact that they’re much kinder to those roads, means wheels makes tremendous sense. As troop carriers, wheels offer a far gentler ride than tracks. And as monster truck fans know, wheeled drive trains and axles allow the chassis to be raised far above the ground, important on current and future IED strewn battlefields.
The problem with wheeled vehicles is they fast reach an upper weight limit, around the 30 ton range, where performance goes completely out the window; wheels just offer far less footprint to spread the weight around than tracks. As designers start adding heavier armor packages and bigger guns, tracks become the only option. Some European companies build wheeled big howitzers, but their off-road performance is really poor (western European combat vehicle procurement over the past decade has shifted away from tracks to medium weight wheeled vehicles). With its various bolt-on armor and electronics packages, the Army’s Stryker has run into weight related performance problems, Army vice chief Gen. Peter Chiarelli said recently.
Once off-road and in soft ground or deep sand, wheeled vehicles get into real trouble; tracks provide much greater off-road mobility, whether in Bosnian mud and snow or the soft sands of Iraq’s western desert. Also, the mud brick wall crushing ability of tracks often comes in handy, as the Canadians discovered (as the Russians did before them) when fighting the Taliban in the “green belts” of southern Afghanistan where farm fields are divided by thick walls. The Canadians airlifted Leopard tanks to provide troops there armored, mobile direct fire support; the tank’s big guns proved very useful in blowing “mouse holes” in walls and buildings, allowing troops to move through rather than around structures. As the U.S. military learned in Baghdad, the 70 ton Abrams is a most effective mobile pillbox.
The first question the Army must answer is whether they want their future combat vehicle to be a replacement for the Abrams tank or a lighweight, rapidly deployable vehicle, because the requirements for the two are very different. That the service has convened a “Ground Combat Vehicle Blue Ribbon Panel,” inviting input from a range of experts to help them craft vehicle requirements, shows they haven’t yet made up their mind on what exactly they want in a new vehicle.
When former Army chief Gen. Eric Shinseki first pitched FCS back in 1999, he envisioned lightweight vehicles that would permit deployment of a full brigade anywhere within 96 hours; the Stryker brigades were also part of the Army’s new “expeditionary” theme (A former Shinseki aide, now a high ranking general, told me about the behind-the-scenes anti-Stryker campaign the Marines ran in Congress in an effort to prevent the Army from impinging on their expeditionary turf). Army planners said the new FCS vehicles would be much lighter than an M-1 Abrams, although just as lethal and survivable.
It’s that last bit that proved FCS’ undoing, said armored vehicle historian Steven Zaloga, when I spoke to him recently about the Army’s combat vehicle efforts. Active protection systems - adorning tanks with defensive radars and projectiles to shoot down incoming rounds - were not technologically advanced enough to supplant thick armor. Improved situational awareness is not an adequate substitute either. Iraq and Afghanistan showed the vulnerability of lightly armored vehicles to readily available anti-armor weapons in irregular wars. As Chiarelli told lawmakers, while transportability might be an important feature for planners, for troops in the field, survivability trumps all.
When the Army designed the Abrams, its most successful tank program ever, it knew exactly what it wanted: a heavily armored, large gunned, low slung, Soviet tank killer, Zaloga said. The vehicle portion of FCS never really got off the ground because the Army wasn’t sure what it wanted in a new vehicle. It also got too hung up on building common vehicles with shared parts to cut down on logistics. Combat vehicles should be based on the tactical requirements of combat, not trimming the logistics tail.
Historically, the Army has had trouble developing a forced entry vehicle because it always wants to give it a tank killing ability, Zaloga said, which means a big gun, which immediately creates problems with recoil and weight (see Stryker Mobile Gun System). Yet, as he points out, typical rapid entry scenarios don’t envision tank-versus-tank engagements. If it wants a rapid entry vehicle, the Army would be better off putting a short barreled howitzer or a rapid fire cannon on a lightweight vehicle and relying on anti-armor missiles to kill tanks.
In his excellent study of medium armored forces, In the Middle of the Fight, (a must read for all those blue ribbon panel members), RAND’s David Johnson writes that medium weight vehicles have proven particularly valuable in contingencies at the lower end of the conflict scale by providing protected mobility, mobile firepower and rapid reaction that light troops lack. The rescue of Army Rangers and Delta in Mogadishu in 1993 by an armored column is a good example.
As the Army designs its future combat vehicle(s) it must answer the question of whether it wants an expeditionary force vehicle or something that can slug it out with the Russian built T-series tanks sitting in most developing world depots. Since its rebuilding thousands of Abrams tanks, it appears those monsters will be around for a while, and they do fit on a C17. The proliferation of lethal anti-armor weapons on hybrid battlefields will put the stress on survivability, which means heavier armor, even if the Army wants a more deployable vehicle.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/29/wheels-vs-tracks-redux/
Girls With Guns Get It
June 29, 2009: In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. Army and Marines found it useful to send a female soldier along on raids, as it was less disruptive to have a woman search the female civilians. There was no shortage of volunteers for this duty. The marines, as is their custom, saw more opportunities in this. Thus the marines began sending a team of women on such missions.
Now, by law, women are not allowed to participate in combat. But it's also understood that this only serves to keep women out of the combat arms (infantry, armor, artillery), but not out of combat itself. This was particularly true in Iraq, where non-combat troops were constantly attacked as they drove trucks in supply convoys. These convoys quickly acquired more weapons and combat training, and the women remained. The MPs (Military Police) are not considered a combat arm, even though MPs are trained as light infantry, and expected to serve close to the fighting. MPs were in charge of convoy security, and often a female NCO or officer was in charge. Women had no problem with this, and some female MPs won awards for valor under fire.
The marines have a different attitude towards this. As they put it, "every marine a rifleman." In practice, this means that the majority of marines, who have combat support jobs, continue to get infantry training. So the marines in Iraq called these all-female teams (3-5 women) Lionesses. Again, no shortage of volunteers, as female marines, even more than their sisters in the army, were eager to get into the fight. But that's not what the lioness teams were created for. What the marines had also noticed was that the female marines tended to get useful information out of the women they searched. Iraqi women were surprised, and often awed, when they encountered these female soldiers and marines. The awe often turned into cooperation. Most Iraqi women are much less enthusiastic about fighting the Americans than their men folk (who die in large numbers when they do so.) Being a widow is much harder in the Arab world than it is in the West.
The marines also noticed that the female troops were better at picking up useful information in general. This is something Western police forces noted, in the last few decades, as women were allowed to work in all areas of police work, including detectives and crime scene investigators. Iraqi men were also intimidated by female soldiers and marines. In the macho Arab world, an assertive female with an assault rifle is sort of a man's worst nightmare. So many otherwise reticent Iraqi men, opened up to the female troops, and provided information. Women also had an easier time detecting a lie (something husbands often learn the hard way.)
The lioness teams proved capable in combat, as sometimes these peacekeeping missions ran into firefights or ambushes. But the main advantage of having a team of women along was the greater amount of intelligence collected. In addition, the female marines also made it easier to establish friendly relationships in neighborhoods and villages. This provided a more long term source of information.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20090629.aspx
Finland Rearms
June 29, 2009: The Finnish Government has voted to increase defense spending over 2 percent in order to keep up with inflation. Finnish lawmakers believe that the rising cost of war material and military equipment necessitates the additional funds. The measure to spend more money on the military was met with significant opposition from the usual left of centre political parties. The opposition used the argument common throughout Western Europe; that Finland has no major conventional threats at the moment and the additional money could be better spent on social programs.
Still, the opposition to the move was hardly overwhelming, with 116 legislators voting for additional money against 64 voting against. The Finns currently have no major threats, but they do have long memories. Finland is a small country with a small military. To make up for their lack of manpower, procuring sophisticated, high-tech equipment is top priority. Based on their 20th century experiences, the Finns tend to take defense a little more seriously than countries like Germany or Portugal.
The last time Finland had to fight a war was in during World War II, against Soviet Russia. The Finns ultimately lost but inflicted several severe defeats on the Soviet who outnumbered them many times over. This was largely thanks to the professionalism and skill of the Finnish soldier, whereas the Soviet soldiers were largely poorly trained, illiterate conscripts.
This is the same scenario that Finland is becoming nervous about again, knowing that all it takes is the wrong president (or dictator) in Russia to spark a major confrontation. With Russia now making everyone nervous with its increasingly aggressive stance in surrounding nations, the Finns think it's a good idea to bite the bullet and spend a little extra cash on their armed forces.
Currently, Finland's budget is around $4 billion, or 1.8 percent of their total government budget, but the new increases will make their military spending 2 percent of GDP. The added advantage to the increase, and a possible reason for it, is that NATO generally strongly recommends that all members countries and countries with NATO partnerships spend a minimum of 2% of their national budget on defense. By raising their spending, Finland pulls more of its weight in the alliance and thus is more likely to get a favorable response to any future requests for defense aid. Finland is a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace program, and, with their new emphasis on added security, are likely to grow a closer relationship in the future.
Currently, the Finnish ground forces have about 61,000 active duty troops organized into Operational Units, but the total wartime strength of the army (in the event of invasion or national emergency) is 237,000, with the active duty troops being augmented by 176,000 men in Regional Units. Because of their small size, the active duty soldiers use the regiment, not the division or brigade, as their basic combat unit. Divisions and brigades are activated once wartime mobilization becomes necessary. These 237,000 troops, beefed up with the latest infantry weapons and heavy armor, is nothing to sneeze at, and certainly enough to give any attacker a bloody nose. The Finnish Army still uses a system of conscription but feels that its necessary in order to keep up a formidable level of manpower on the ground.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20090629.aspx
Lawmakers Fund Study Of Next Bomber
Jun 26, 2009
By John M. Doyle
The decision by U.S. House defense overseers to authorize continued funding for Next Generation Bomber studies has buoyed the hopes of Senate bomber advocates, even though Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants to wait before spending more.
“We’re going to do everything we can to keep that program alive and keep it going,” said Sen. John Thune (S.D.), senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services airland subcommittee. Thune, whose state was a likely candidate for a long-range strike bomber base, has been a vocal critic of Gates’ plan to delay further research on the bomber. Gates has told lawmakers he wants to suspend related funding until after the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and Nuclear Posture Review are completed (Aerospace DAILY, May 15).
Gates has said the Defense Department has acquired more experience with unmanned aerial vehicles since the last QDR. He also wants to see if nuclear arms reduction talks with the Russians have any effect on the traditional U.S. triad of nuclear weapons delivery systems: missiles, submarines and bombers. President Barack Obama is slated to travel to Moscow next month to talk with Russian leaders.
Nevertheless, Thune said the project is “an important priority” and Congress should keep funding it. “It would be a big mistake, [with] all the resources that have gone into that and all the progress that’s been made, if it were shut down overnight,” he told Aviation Week June 23. The Senate Armed Services Committee is marking up its version of the annual defense policy bill this week.
The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) included $215 million for additional, classified Air Force R&D in the fiscal 2010 defense authorization bill. That Air Force R&D is believed to contain the bomber project.
“The question in the House revolves more around the advanced technology associated with the bomber,” said Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), chair of the House airland subcommittee.
Because of the classified nature of the information, Abercrombie said he couldn’t go into detail, but he noted there is general agreement in the House — particularly the HASC — about pursuing R&D associated with the new bomber. He said there was interest in “increased stealth capabilities” but would go no further than that.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/NGB062609.xml&headline=Lawmakers%20Fund%20Study%20Of%20Next%20Bomber&channel=defense
Rest In Peace
people like him are what make this the greatest nation on earth
Tomb of Unknowns to be repaired, not replaced
By William H. McMichael - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Jun 27, 2009 8:21:23 EDT
The Army Corps of Engineers and Arlington National Cemetery have decided to repair the Tomb of the Unknowns rather than build a replacement, Sen. Jim Webb announced Friday.
Webb, D-Va., and Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, said they “applauded the decision” to repair visible cracks and other wear and tear on the white marble sarcophagus, according to a press release from Webb’s office. Unknown war dead from the nation’s 20th century wars are interred or honored in the Tomb, which also honors all U.S. troops who do not return from battle.
The cracks now measure nearly 48 feet in combined length, according to a September 2008 Army report spurred by a Webb-Akaka amendment to the fiscal 2008 defense spending bill. The report analyzed alternatives to address the cracking problem. The cracks are still repairable, the Army found, although it also considered replacement.
“I am pleased the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has decided to repair rather than replace the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery,” said Webb, a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War. “This decision ensures that the historical integrity of this unique memorial will be preserved for future generations of Americans who visit the tomb to honor our men and women in uniform who gave their lives for our nation.”
“The commitment to restoring the authentic monument is consistent with the best of American traditions: We do not discard our national treasures,” said Akaka, a World War II veteran. “I applaud the Army and the Arlington National Cemetery for making the right decision, and thank my friend Jim Webb for his work on this issue.”
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/06/military_tomb_unknown_repair_062609w/
Depiction vs. Reality: The Air Force Hardware of Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Feature
By Jeremy Hsu Posted 06.24.2009 at 4:06 pm 36 Comments
Starscream: My other self is an F-22
If you're seeing Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen tonight, prepare yourself for a parade of hardcore military hardware unlike any you've ever seen. As was the case with the first Transformers film, the U.S. Air Force Entertainment Liaison Office played a significant role in assisting with and supervising the placement of military gear.
But what happens when the F-22 Raptor--a weapons system in jeopardy of being canceled entirely--plays a central role in the film, while unmanned drones are flying nearly constant missions over Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan? We talked to the USAF Entertainment Liaison Office to find out.
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen's list of featured Air Force hardware includes the F-16 fighter jet, E-3 AWACS command and control aircraft, the A-10 tank-killer, B-1 bombers, and the T-38 supersonic jet trainer. And of course there's the $200 million-dollar F-22 Raptor, an air superiority fighter with stealth capability.
"It's the first feature opportunity for showing an F-22 dropping a JDAM [guided bomb]," said Bryon McGarry, a USAF Captain who serves as deputy director for the Air Force Entertainment Liaison Office in Los Angeles.
The franchise is also, undoubtedly, the first time a modern military aircraft has played a featured speaking role. An F-22, filmed flying over Transformers sets at Holloman Air Force Base and the Army's White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, plays the alternate form of Starscream, a Decepticon Transformer and one of the movie's robot baddies. The irony of which is almost too perfect to believe--the Obama administration has expressed strong interest in sharply downsizing or canceling the F-22 program altogether, although the House Armed Services committee just last week approved (by a 31 to 30 vote) plans to build 12 more F-22s--eight more than recommended by Defense Secretary Robert Gates in his 2010 budget. Opponents of the expensive F-22 program feel the money would be better served fulfilling the increased demand, for more Predators, Reapers and other aerial drones.
F-22 Raptor: USAF
Drones did, in fact, have their first big screen debut in the 2008 movie Eagle Eye which stars Transformers lead Shia LeBeouf as yet another geek fighting a dangerous artificial intelligence construct run amok. MQ-9 Reapers from Creech Air Force Base in Nevada were on hand for that movie, McGarry noted.
The Reapers acted as the long arm of the renegade AI chasing down LeBeouf's character. Yet the Air Force approved this depiction of its unmanned aerial system (UAS)--because besides, Eagle Eye also included Rosario Dawson playing an Air Force agent from the Office of Special Investigations.
"Since the renegade AI’s ability to commandeer varied technology was integral to the story, it was deemed an acceptable portrayal of the UAS in that specific story line," McGarry explained.
This does not mean that moviegoers will necessarily see many drones in near-future films. Filmmakers still crave access to the pilots and planes which have given the Air Force its gallant image, whether it's flying against Transformers or killer robots in another recent summer movie, Terminator: Salvation.
And in the end, it simply comes down to age-old Hollywood aesthetics.
"When you see a wide-angle shot of F-22s or hear the real sound of them flying by or rolling in on a target, there's no substitute," McGarry said. He helped coordinate Air Force resources with the wish lists of Transformers filmmakers, such as timing F-16 training flights with the movie's shooting schedule. For arrangements outside the usual military training, filmmakers paid the hourly operating cost of the Air Force equipment.
Beyond the hardware, filmmakers also value the face-time with real Air Force pilots and personnel in order to get the human stories and interactions right. McGarry had been on the set of an earlier movie for three days when director Michael Bay turned to him and asked what an Air Force character representing top brass might say in a certain scene. Capturing the realism of a UAV remote-piloting facility in the middle of the U.S. desert is, not surprisingly, lower on most summer blockbuster directors' wishlists.
Essentially, if directors want to use the Air Force's toys for a movie, they have to play by the Entertainment Liaison Office's rules. And since the Michael Bays of the world clearly favor the more traditional, personal Air Force in their films, this has been a win-win situation both for the directors and an Air Force interested in maintaining some aspects of this perception. Even as F-16 Fighting Falcons flash across the screen in Transformers, back in the real world, squadrons of Air Force National Guard F-16 pilots are being actively retrained to fly Reaper drones instead.
Echoes of this transition from manned to unmanned are also found in the 2008 movie Iron Man where the fictional Colonel James "Rhodey" Rhodes opines on the future of air combat by suggesting that "no unmanned aerial vehicle will ever trump a pilot's instinct." That movie features F-22 Raptors (again!) dueling with the flight-capable Iron Man.
McGarry, however, is in fact quite open to cooperating with a film prominently featuring UAVs (see: Eagle Eye)--he just hasn't seen many scripts asking for it. He said that he has not seen any similar "Rhodey"-like sentiments in his script read-through of the upcoming Iron Man sequel. He recently helped coordinate Iron Man 2 scenes shot at Edwards Air Force Base in California, described as a "veritable grocery store" of the latest Air Force hardware undergoing final testing before deployment.
"It's a new Air Force," McGarry acknowledged. "We're always looking at the forefront of technological applications."
As for how Iron Man 2 will choose to depict that new Air Force, "you'll have to wait and see," McGarry said.
http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-amp-space/article/2009-06/depiction-vs-reality-air-force-hardware-transformers-revenge-fallen
Navy Laser Success Key In UAV Research And Development
Two additional UAVs were engaged and destroyed in flight June 9, with two more UAVs shot down June 11.
by Staff Writers
China Lake CA (SPX) Jun 26, 2009
Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), with support from Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Dahlgren, for the first time successfully tracked, engaged and destroyed a threat representative unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) while in flight at Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake, Calif.
A total of five targets were engaged and destroyed during the testing, also a first for the U.S. Navy. Members of NAVSEA's Directed Energy and Electric Weapon Systems (DE and EWS) Program Office and NSWC Dahlgren fired a laser through a beam director on a KINETO tracking mount.
Two additional UAVs were engaged and destroyed in flight June 9, with two more UAVs shot down June 11. These recent evolutions continued a series of progressively challenging tests using the prototype version of the Surface Navy Laser Weapon System (LaWS).
"The success of this effort validates the military utility of DE and EWS," said Program Manager Capt. David Kiel.
"Further development and integration of increasingly more powerful lasers into Surface Navy LaWS will increase both the engagement range and target sets that can be successfully engaged and destroyed."
NAVSEA's DE and EWS Program Office is responsible for the research, development, integration and acquisition initiation of DE and EWS for the Navy's surface forces.
NSWC Dahlgren focuses on research, development, test and evaluation in the fields of military safety testing, integrated warfare systems, weapons and ammunition, sensors and directed energy and homeland and force (military personnel and equipment) protection.
Recent advances in commercial high energy fiber welding laser development for commercial welding use have made the deployment of a weapons grade laser based defense system on board naval vessels a realistic possibility.
DE and EWS is transitioning technology from the laboratory to prototype system development/test for operational development and use. One of the multiple 'game changing' technologies that is under development includes laser weapons that provide for speed-of-light engagements at tactically significant ranges with cost savings realized by minimizing the use of defensive missiles and projectiles.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Navy_Laser_Success_Key_In_UAV_Research_And_Development_999.html
US, Israel, Russia absent at Berlin cluster bomb talks
Cluster bombs were first employed by the German Luftwaffe on the English town of Grimsby in 1943 and by the Red Army the same year. Their use really took off in the US bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos in the 1960s and 1970s.
by Staff Writers
Berlin (AFP) June 25, 2009
Delegates from over 80 countries pledging to destroy their cluster bombs started a two-day conference in Berlin on Thursday to assess progress since a 2008 agreement banning the weapons.
Absent however were United States, Israel, Russia and Georgia -- countries which have used cluster bombs in recent years and which refuse to sign up the agreement. China, India and Pakistan also stayed away.
A cluster bomb is a weapon fired by artillery or dropped by aircraft that splits open and scatters multiple -- often hundreds -- of smaller submunitions, or bomblets, over a large area.
Often many of these bomblets fail to explode immediately and can lie dormant for many years, killing and maiming civilians -- many of them children -- long after the original conflict is over.
First employed by the German Luftwaffe on the English town of Grimsby in 1943 and by the Red Army the same year, their use really took off in the US bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos in the 1960s and 1970s.
Most recently they were deployed by both sides in Georgia's war with Russia in 2008, and in Israel's bombardment of southern Lebanon in 2006, rights groups say, and by the United States and allies in Iraq in 2003 and in Afghanistan in 2001-02.
They were also put to deadly effect by NATO in Serbia in 1999, by the British in the Falkland Islands in 1982, during the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s, by Ethiopia and Eritrea, by Morocco and by Sudan, these groups say.
According to a 2006 report by Handicap International, there have been at least 11,000 recorded and confirmed post-conflict casualties and that the actual number -- levels of reporting being low -- may be as high as 100,000.
Around 98 percent of these are civilians, Handicap International says. A quarter of these are children, who often tragically mistake the bomblets for a toy.
Last year around 100 countries, including Britain, France, Germany, Australia and Japan, agreed to ban their use, development, production, transfer and stockpiling, creating the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM).
Ten countries have since ratified the CCM. Once 30 have done so -- as campaigners hope they will by the end of 2009 -- the treaty comes into force, giving the 98 signatories eight years to destroy their stockpiles.
It also requires clearing areas of unexploded submunitions within 10 years, and establishes a framework for assistance to victims.
But the United States, which has as many as one billion cluster munition bomblets, rights groups say, has not signed up. And nor have China and Russia, both of which are thought to have around the same amount.
The US has argued that destroying its stockpiles would put the lives of its soldiers and those of its coalition partners at risk, and that cluster bombs often result in less collateral damage than bigger bombs or larger artillery.
Other notable non-signatories include Israel, India, Pakistan, South Korea and North Korea, as well as Turkey, Georgia, Iran, Libya, Syria, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Nigeria, Sudan and Sri Lanka.
Thomas Nash from the Cluster Munition Coalition, a coalition of non-governmental organisations, said he hoped the Berlin conference would encourage some to drop their opposition.
"Our main focus is to get as many countries to ratify as soon as possible, get more countries to sign on so that we remove the stigma from the treaty," Nash told AFP.
"And that means telling the US, telling other allies that haven't signed the treaty, that they need to get rid of it, that this weapon is a thing of the past. It is no longer a legitimate or morally appropriate weapon to have in your arsenal."
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_Israel_Russia_absent_at_Berlin_cluster_bomb_talks_999.html
Germans discover war in Afghanistan
Germany has nearly 4,000 troops serving with the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. The death toll of German soldiers in Afghanistan stands at 35. Photo courtesy AFP.
by Staff Writers
Berlin (UPI) Jun 25, 2009
German politicians are slowly waking up to the bloody reality of the war in Afghanistan.
Following the killing of three Bundeswehr troops by the Taliban near Kunduz earlier this week, politicians in Germany have begun to admit that the West is involved in a war in Afghanistan. For years, officials have refused to say that Germany's military contribution was a war-like mission.
"The Taliban are waging a war against the Afghan people and are forcing this war upon us," Peter Struck, a former German defense minister, told the Rheinische Post newspaper.
In a TV interview, Defense Minister Franz-Josef Jung vowed that insurgents attacking German troops would be relentlessly battled. His troops are prepared to do that, he added. Jung has not yet used the word "war" in his statements, arguing that the mission is focused on reconstruction.
That may have been the case when the Germans entered the country in 2002. Over the past few years, however, security in the northern provinces, where the Bundeswehr leads reconstruction efforts, has deteriorated rapidly.
The number of clashes with insurgents has increased. The Taliban has for long fired rockets into the German camps, but they are now increasingly bold, attacking German soldiers on patrols. This has prompted several opposition politicians to question the West's strategy in Afghanistan and demand an exit strategy from Berlin.
Earlier this week the Taliban fired at three troops driving an armored car for a patrol mission about 4 miles southwest of Kunduz. The soldiers returned fire but lost control over the car, which fell into a water-filled ditch, trapping them inside. Two men died on the spot, the third soldier later that day, the Defense Ministry said.
Previously peaceful northern Afghanistan is becoming increasingly dangerous.
"The Taliban have rearmed massively," Reinhold Robbe, the country's military ombudsman, told German daily Bild. Robbe said Berlin should deploy small tanks to Afghanistan so troops can take on the Taliban from a greater distance. German troops were attacked 34 times since the start of the year, according to the Defense Ministry.
Even local officials are calling for more police to deal with the insurgents.
"We have asked the government for more forces because we underestimated the problem in Kunduz," the area's governor, Enginner Omaar, told the BBC. Observers say the increase in Taliban attacks is aimed at destabilizing the country ahead of its August 20 presidential election. The northern part of the country has seen an influx of Taliban fleeing from NATO's offensive in the southern and eastern provinces.
Germany has nearly 4,000 troops serving with the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. The death toll of German soldiers in Afghanistan stands at 35.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Germans_discover_war_in_Afghanistan_999.html