HG S2 (Intel Bot)

http://www.navyhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/DSC_5315-300x200.jpgNHF Executive Director Captain Charles T. Creekman, USN (Ret), and Tonya Simpson from the Navy Department Library pose with one of the recently acquired Afghan war books The Naval Historical Foundation is pleased to announce the successful acquisition of three vintage 19th century books for the Navy Department Library. If you recall in November, NHF made an appeal, called “Bucks for Books,” to raise funds for the acquisition of these books for the Library. A number of generous donors stepped forward, and over $2200 was raised. Three books (one of which is a two-volume set) were acquired by NHF, and gifted to the library. The books were written in the late 19th century, and detail the experiences of the British military campaign in Afghanistan. As the U.S. presence in Afghanistan continues, there is value in studying and understanding the experiences of past campaigns in that rugged nation. The Library plans to digitize these books, and then post them on their website. They have previously posted similar items from their collection, such as “A Journal of the Disasters in Afghanistan, 1841-2” and “The Afghan Wars 1839-42 and 1878-80,” and the content of these books has been used in briefings to Navy leadership. Images of the books and their full titles are listed below. Once again, many thanks to those who stepped forward to make this possible! http://www.navyhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/DSC_5313-1024x817.jpg19th Century Afghan war books recently acquired by Navy Department Library Shadbolt, Sydney Henry, Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. The Afghan Campaigns of 1878-1880: Comprising Historical and Biographical Divisions, and Containing a Rapid Sketch of the War, Maps Illustrating the Operations and the Movements of the Forces, One Hundred and Forty Permanent Photographs of Officers Who Lost Their Lives in the Campaigns and of Recipients of the Victoria Cross, with Memoirs Prepared from Materials Furnished by Their Relations and Surviving Comrades, Summaries of the Movements in the Field of the Various Regiments Which Were Engaged, and Separate Records of the Services of Every British Officer Who Was Employed in the War. Dedicated to Lieutenant-General Sir Frederick Sleigh Roberts, Baronet, Commander-in-Chief, Madras Army. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington, 1882. (two volumes). Hutchinson, Colonel Henry Doveton, Director of Military Education in India. The Campaign in Tirah, 1897-1898. London: Macmillan and Company, 1898. Oliver, Edward Emmerson, M.Inst.C.E., M.R.A. Across the Border: Or, Pathân and Biloch. Illustrated by John Lockwood Kipling, Companion of the Order of the Indian Empire. London: Chapman and Hall, 1890. The post Blog first appeared on Naval Historical Foundation. View the full article

http://ws.assoc-amazon.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=1934980226&MarketPlace=US&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&tag=navalhistofou-20&ServiceVersion=20070822http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=navalhistofou-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1934980226 By Del Staecker, Cable Publishing, Brule, WI, (2009). Reviewed by Charles H. Bogart The author is the son of Irvin H. Staecker who served on board the Lady Gangster from 1941 to 1945. The Lady Gangster was the crew’s name for USS Fuller (APA 6). The ship’s nickname developed from the fact that many of the ship’s first crew were naval reservists from Chicago, Illinois. Fuller started life in 1919 as the passenger ship City of Newport News and was acquired by the Navy in 1941. Initially rated as a transport, (AP 14), Fuller was fitted out to carry assault landing craft. As a result, the Navy reclassified her in 1942 as an attack transport (APA 6). The book contains two stories in one. The first story is that of a son developing an understanding of his father as he learns about his wartime experiences. The second story covers Fuller’s service in World War II as told in his father’s words with supporting background information based upon excerpts from the ship’s World War II cruise book. The result of this moving back and forth between then and now within the book causes a certain dis-jointness in story flow, but it does add another dimension to who Irvin Staecker was. Staecker was a raw recruit without any formal Navy training when his unit was mobilized in 1940. The first Navy training Staecker received was when he was sent to San Diego, California, to attend Landing Craft School. Upon joining Fuller in Seattle during the ship’s initial fitting out, he was assigned to the deck force and became part of a landing craft crew. Staecker would end his enlistment as part of the ship’s Master at Arms detachment. Fuller saw service in both the Atlantic and Pacific Theaters of War. She carried Marines to Iceland in 1941 and troops to Scotland in early 1942. She then moved to the Pacific taking part in the amphibious assaults on Guadalcanal, Bougainville, Saipan, Peleliu, Philippines, and Okinawa. Staecker, as part of the landing force, saw the invasion beaches close up. On a number of occasions he shared the beachhead with the invading Marines. The tales of these assault landings are poignantly told and one learns of the fear Staecker felt while he continued to do his job. As with most combat veterans of the Pacific War, he finds no fault with President Truman’s decision to drop the Atomic Bomb. The book is an interesting and informative read of a subject not often written about, the landing of the Marines on an enemy beachhead as experienced by the Sailors putting them ashore. Those interested in the ship to shore movement of Marines to the beachhead will find much of interest in this book. The book is a good addition to any library on the U.S. Navy in World War II. Charles H. Bogart of Frankfort, Ky, served in the Navy from 1958-1961. He recently retired as a Planning Supervisor from the Kentucky Department of Military Affairs and is now employed as a Historian by Frankfort Parks and Historical Sites. http://www.navyhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/buy1._V192207739_1.gif The post Blog first appeared on Naval Historical Foundation. View the full article

http://ws.assoc-amazon.com/widgets/q?_encoding=UTF8&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=1934980226&MarketPlace=US&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&tag=navalhistofou-20&ServiceVersion=20070822http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=navalhistofou-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1934980226 By Del Staecker, Cable Publishing, Brule, WI, (2009). Reviewed by Charles H. Bogart The author is the son of Irvin H. Staecker who served on board the Lady Gangster from 1941 to 1945. The Lady Gangster was the crew’s name for USS Fuller (APA 6). The ship’s nickname developed from the fact that many of the ship’s first crew were naval reservists from Chicago, Illinois. Fuller started life in 1919 as the passenger ship City of Newport News and was acquired by the Navy in 1941. Initially rated as a transport, (AP 14), Fuller was fitted out to carry assault landing craft. As a result, the Navy reclassified her in 1942 as an attack transport (APA 6). The book contains two stories in one. The first story is that of a son developing an understanding of his father as he learns about his wartime experiences. The second story covers Fuller’s service in World War II as told in his father’s words with supporting background information based upon excerpts from the ship’s World War II cruise book. The result of this moving back and forth between then and now within the book causes a certain dis-jointness in story flow, but it does add another dimension to who Irvin Staecker was. Staecker was a raw recruit without any formal Navy training when his unit was mobilized in 1940. The first Navy training Staecker received was when he was sent to San Diego, California, to attend Landing Craft School. Upon joining Fuller in Seattle during the ship’s initial fitting out, he was assigned to the deck force and became part of a landing craft crew. Staecker would end his enlistment as part of the ship’s Master at Arms detachment. Fuller saw service in both the Atlantic and Pacific Theaters of War. She carried Marines to Iceland in 1941 and troops to Scotland in early 1942. She then moved to the Pacific taking part in the amphibious assaults on Guadalcanal, Bougainville, Saipan, Peleliu, Philippines, and Okinawa. Staecker, as part of the landing force, saw the invasion beaches close up. On a number of occasions he shared the beachhead with the invading Marines. The tales of these assault landings are poignantly told and one learns of the fear Staecker felt while he continued to do his job. As with most combat veterans of the Pacific War, he finds no fault with President Truman’s decision to drop the Atomic Bomb. The book is an interesting and informative read of a subject not often written about, the landing of the Marines on an enemy beachhead as experienced by the Sailors putting them ashore. Those interested in the ship to shore movement of Marines to the beachhead will find much of interest in this book. The book is a good addition to any library on the U.S. Navy in World War II. Charles H. Bogart of Frankfort, Ky, served in the Navy from 1958-1961. He recently retired as a Planning Supervisor from the Kentucky Department of Military Affairs and is now employed as a Historian by Frankfort Parks and Historical Sites. http://www.navyhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/buy1._V192207739_1.gif The post Blog first appeared on Naval Historical Foundation. View the full article

Via The Economist; read all the way to the bottom. When you think about it - their population is 4x ours and their economy has been growing 2-3+ more than ours for over a decade; is was only a matter of time barring a bad black swan. Not all is smooth sailing for China; but 2025 is not that far down the road. Ponder. View the full article

An MH-60S Knight Hawk helicopter passes the USS Chafee while delivering supplies to the USS Carl Vinson during a vertical replenishment mission with the USNS Bridge in the Pacific Ocean, Jan. 2, 2012. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class James R. Evans View the full article

I can't help myself; it is time again to revisit the crew of The Swan of the East; the SMS EMDEN. Everyone should know the story of The Ayesha by Kapitänleutnant Hellmuth von Mücke; Taking no one with me, I got into the steam launch and went out to the schooner to learn whether she was at all seaworthy. The captain and a single sailor were aboard her. Of the former I inquired casually whether he had any ammunition aboard, for I did not wish him to suspect the real purpose of my coming. He said there was none, and a brief inspection of the ship led me to believe that she was still seaworthy. Consequently I sent my officers and men aboard the "Ayesha" to get her into trim for sailing. There was plenty to do on the little ship. All the sails and rigging had been taken down and stowed away, and had now to be put in place again. When the Englishmen on the island realized that it was my intention to sail off in the schooner, they warned me with great earnestness against trusting ourselves to her, saying that the "Ayesha" was old and rotten, and could not stand a sea voyage. Furthermore, they informed me that an English man-of-war, the "Minotaur," and a Japanese cruiser were in the vicinity of the island, and that we would surely fall a prey to one of them. As my predecessor in command of the "Ayesha" was leaving her, he wished us Godspeed, and concluded with the comforting remark, "But the ship's bottom is worn through." When, in spite of all these warnings, we remained firm in our purpose, and continued the work of getting the "Ayesha" ready for sea, the sporting side of the situation began to appeal to the Englishmen, and they almost ran their legs off in their eagerness to help us. Could it have been gratitude that impelled them to lend us their aid? It is a question I have never been able to answer to my satisfaction, although, to be sure, several of them did express a feeling of relief at the thought that now the fatiguing telegraph service with its many hours of overwork, and its lack of diversion, was a thing of the past. They showed us where the provisions and water were kept, and urgently advised us to take provisions from the one side, where they were new and fresh, rather than from the other, where they were stale. They fetched out cooking utensils, water, barrels of petroleum, old clothes, blankets, and the like, and themselves loaded them on trucks and brought them to us. From every side invitations to dinner poured down upon us; my men were supplied with pipes and tobacco; in short, the Englishmen did all they could to help us out. Read it all; for free online - or buy the book. View the full article

DID would like to wish all of our readers a Happy New Year! So, what milestones does India’s Ministry of Defence want to highlight from 2011? Dynamint Nobel is still working on its classic Panzerfaust, whose modern versions have proven quite popular. The lightweight versions are strong urban warfare weapons, and the next step is integrating them with remote weapons stations for roles like harbor defense. Switchblade UAVs to launch from subs? While the could retain their kamikaze capabilities, the reality is that sub-launched UAVs are going to be 1-shot items at first. Why not adapt an existing UAV designed for that? Aviation Week Intelligence Network really doubts that the US Navy will be able to keep its resolutions about fielding modernized DDG-51 Flight III destroyers. Worse, operations and maintenance costs are going to be a problem for the existing fleet. View the full article

[From 40 Commando in Afghanistan in 2008...] For those that have ever met and/or partied with these guys know that this is what what you can usually expect... Christmas for the Commandos in Afghanistan was always going to be different - but no one could have predicted just how different. One minute they were singing carols at dusk beneath a mellow sun in the baked bare wasteland of Helmand province while wearing festive Santa hats, the next they were firing mortars after their Christmas Day service came under attack from the Taliban. So rapid was the reaction of Royal Marines of 40 Commando that within less than a minute of the first "contact" from the Taliban's machine guns, they had sprinted the 200 metres to their mortar lines and had begun to return fire. And as these remarkable pictures show, such was the urgency there was no time to change their festive head gear into helmets and for 45 minutes they mortared Taliban positions with their ear defenders over their floppy bright red hats - and in one case a Christmas tree hat complete with coloured baubles. A helmet with reindeer antlers and bells was left on the ground in the rush. Once the skirmish was over - and with no British casualties - the men and women calmly resumed their carol service in virtual darkness around the simple war memorial at Forward Operating Base Inkerman in northern Helmand. God Bless her Majesty's Royal Marine Commandos and Merry Christmas from the (former) Colonies... View the full article

This wins the prize for complete inability to admit the blisteringly freaking obvious point that al Qaeda is an Islamist terror group, they are at war with us and we are at war with them. This member of the Defense Department wastes bushels of oxygen evading the simple fact that our enemies are religious fanatics of an easily-identifiable flavor, identifiable because they shout their "god's" name as they hack the heads off living men and women. It is sad reminder that our "leaders" would rather bury their heads in sand, that our enemies tread wearing the iron sandals of violent Islamist extremist ideology, than be shunned by the "right"-thinking left as politically incorrect. This will make you want to beat your head against a wall. View the full article

DigitalGlobe Inc., a commercial satellite company, said Wednesday that it took a photograph of China’s first aircraft carrier during a sea trial in the Yellow Sea, off the Chinese coast. View the full article

Presented for comment. Confirmed by multiple sources, this is the very latest from OMB to the DoD regarding aircraft carriers and FY13: The navy has proposed an additional 2-year schedule slip to its newest carrier, CVN79, which would extend the funding profile from the original 8 yrs to 12 yrs. The Navy would initiate the 4-yr construction process in FY15 after 8 years of advance procurement activities. Given the challenges of implementing the BCA caps, OMB allows the additional 2 year slip to CVN-79. However, the Navy should request authorization to commence regular CVN-79 construction in FY13 and continuing through FY18. The CVN-79 funding profile does not change, and because construction belongs in FY-13, there is no need for additional advance construction. The navy should work with OMB to develop a legislative proposal to implement this guidance. For the subsequent carrier, CVN-80, the Navy should include no more than 8 years total funding. This is what Matt Mulherin, President of Newport News Shipbuilding, told a group of folks like me on the phone a few weeks ago: I think everybody gets it; that if we don’t build it on a five-year center proves to be the most efficient timeline, so as soon as you’re finished being a structural guy on Ford you walk over and be a structural guy on Kennedy. I think everybody gets that, so they understand that the cost is an adder. I think what we've got to think about – and that’s why we’re focused on – is, “How do we drive cost out?†because you don’t want to be the used-car salesman that says, “You've got to buy it today because tomorrow it’s going to be more expensive.†I think everybody gets that. I think the value proposition of this whole thing is, “Let’s work with the Navy and figure how we take cost out of it,†so they want to buy. Nope, I don't think everybody gets that it, or at least the accountants at OMB don't get it. This schedule change almost insures the cost of CVN-79 is going to be enormous due to loss of trade skill at the yard, which means CVN-80 is also going to be a whole lot more expensive. By 2020 aircraft carriers are going to have such an enormous cost that there is no way the nation will build CVNs after CVN-80. I see only two ways this doesn't happen. Either Obama loses in 2012 and the new President addresses this issue directly, immediately following election, or in some future 2016-2020 time frame the nation funds and builds 2 carriers of the Ford Class just like Reagan built 2 with the Nimitz class as a way of getting long term costs for the CVN as a strategic entity under control. Otherwise, there will be 3 Ford class carriers, and by around 2025 the nation will have decided that based on cost alone a new way to project airpower from the sea will be necessary in the future. If you don't believe this move will end the big deck aircraft carrier, then you are in denial how the industrial reality will be seen in a political context once the costs go up. For the record, opponents of big deck nuclear aircraft carriers will welcome this news, as they argue for purely military and strategic reasons that CVNs are too difficult to protect in future naval warfare to justify their price anyway. They are not fools. They know this kills construction of the big deck after 2025, hell everyone except those who talk out of their ass in politics knows this change will effectively end the age of big deck aircraft carriers as we know it today. What do I think? Honestly, my first thought was that this almost insures Virginia goes red in the 2012 election unless people who live in Virginia hate jobs for people in their state and actually want that large area around Norfolk to be a ghost town, so it's hard to see this as the end of the road - rather the beginning of something different altogether. But I also honestly believe the Aircraft Carrier Admiral of the US Navy today has a better than 50/50 shot of being the Battleship Admiral of 1941, and those Aircraft Carrier Admirals will be the very last people under any circumstances to admit that the age of the big deck nuclear powered aircraft carrier has been approaching dusk for some time now anyway. My argument is this: at $10 billion a pop, and now likely in the $15 billion average range for CVN-79 and CVN-80 under this new schedule that will almost certainly cost the US taxpayer way more money than it would ever save - can the Navy do more and better for the same money? ~$30 billion for 2 aircraft carriers that has no aircraft or escorts and drives requirements for both aircraft and escorts in the rest of the US Navy budget is an investment that goes well beyond ~$30 billion, and for just $30 billion I am pretty sure Newport News could build 8 SSGNs at $4 billion a piece average based on the SSBN(X) design because of cost savings that would come from increasing the quantity of submarines purchased during the 2020s decade. In my world of strategic and political theory, I'd take those SSGNs with that money anyway while admitting under many circumstances not named China that I'm probably getting the raw deal. This is a bigger deal than the politics and economics and budgets will ever reflect in conversation. What is the true value of 50 years of projecting airpower from sea? A big deck nuclear powered aircraft carrier today is a strategic investment that the US really can't afford get wrong. Making the wrong choice would be a strategic and political blunder of incalculable magnitude; one history would record as our nation casually tossing aside the aircraft carriers strategic advantages without a clear understanding of the consequences, but doing so knowing full well that once you lose the big deck production line - there is no going back. I'd be really curious to see how the CBO scores this, because I was told by very serious folks when this rumor started earlier this year that the nation would not save any money long term by doing this move, and wouldn't be saving more than $1-2 billion in a single fiscal year at a time the Obama budgets are in the trillions. If the CBO found that to be true, this would be incredibly EPIC fail by economic and political standards for the Obama administration. Very ironic this news is breaking on the day remembered for Pearl Harbor. Maybe that's karma trying to tell the Aircraft Carrier Admirals something they don't want to hear... View the full article

VAQ-129 aboard Reagan over the Veteran's Day weekend. Hat tip DW. View the full article

Ungh. He strikes; again. "What our task force is here to do is really to understand what the impacts of climate change, especially in the arctic, will have on Navy's operations, said Rear Adm. David Titley, Navy oceanographer and director of task force climate change. "We look at climate change simply as changing geography, and we work on, above and under the water and the ocean every day, so we need to understand as that environment is changing, how that will impact our naval operations. So, really it's all about readiness for us." Where exactly have poorly researched, fraud infused, socio-religious, neo-paganism made its way in to the readiness matrix again? The pathetic thing is - the climate has always been changing. Was, is, and will. What is different now? Simple; politics. What a self-licking ice cream cone. I guess when you are an O-8 doing an 0-6's job, you have to stir up something. View the full article

It never fails that in or around Veteran’s Day, someone decides to show the world what a total jackass they are. And this year doesn’t disappoint. Meet Sufolk University law professor Michael Avery. Professor Avery is a member of the law school staff. He’s a Harvard grad who also studied at Moscow University from ‘68 to ‘69 (and that tells you volumes). He once gave a talk in Cuba (with Fidel Castro in attendance) entitled "The Hypocrisy of US Policy Towards Terrorism." Another member of the law school staff sent an email around asking for support for deployed troops (including a law student from the school who is deployed) to include pretty basic stuff like “beef jerky, instant coffee, trail mix, etc†Now if you don’t want to participate in something like that for whatever reason, what do you normally do? That’s right, you simply ignore the email. It’s a free country. Leave others to do their thing while you do yours. Instead, our jackwagon decides he has to say something about the effort. “I think it is shameful that it is perceived as legitimate to solicit in an academic institution for support for men and women who have gone overseas to kill other human beings. I understand that there is a residual sympathy for service members, perhaps engendered by support for troops in World War II, or perhaps from when there was a draft and people with few resources to resist were involuntarily sent to battle. That sympathy is not particularly rational in today’s world, however. The United States may well be the most war prone country in the history of civilization. We have been at war two years out of three since the Cold War ended. We have 700 overseas military bases. What other country has any? In the last ten years we have squandered hundreds of billions of dollars in unnecessary foreign invasions. Those are dollars that could have been used for people who are losing their homes due to the economic collapse, for education, to repair our infrastructure, or for any of a thousand better purposes than making war. And of course those hundreds of billions of dollars have gone for death and destruction. Perhaps some of my colleagues will consider this to be an inappropriate political statement. But of course the solicitation email was a political statement, although cast as support for student activities. The politics of that solicitation are that war is legitimate, perhaps inevitable, and that patriotic Americans should get behind our troops. We need to be more mindful of what message we are sending as a school. Since Sept. 11 we have had perhaps the largest flag in New England hanging in our atrium. This is not a politically neutral act. Excessive patriotic zeal is a hallmark of national security states. It permits, indeed encourages, excesses in the name of national security, as we saw during the Bush administration, and which continue during the Obama administration. Why do we continue to have this oversized flag in our lobby? Why are we sending support to the military instead of Americans who are losing their homes, malnourished, unable to get necessary medical care, and suffering from other consequences of poverty? As a university community, we should debate these questions, not remain on automatic pilot in support of the war agenda. [all emphasis added]“ Shameful? It is shameful to support troops who’ve responded to an attack on our country and have given their lives to ensure those who planned the attack, executed it and then were given safe harbor by others were destroyed? One of the things the Ivory Tower allows, mostly because of rough men who stand guard in the night, is clowns like this can live in an alternate reality. And that alternate reality spawns stupidity that voices itself in email’s like Avery’s. He’s one of those who would be sure to be a first in the crowd to yell “war is not the answer†without realizing or really caring that war has indeed been the answer that has safeguarded our freedom and liberty and freed millions from tyranny and oppression. And the flag? God forbid we show the flag or voice any patriotism or support for those who protect us. No, that’s shameful too. How dare an American school display an American flag and show pride in being … American. Why that’s “excessive political zealâ€. It doesn’t denote pride. It doesn’t denote support. It doesn’t denote identification with certain ideals that make us specifically American. No it is a “political statement†because, well, its just so large. It takes a pretty isolated and insulated existence to make statements like Avery’s. The irony is that such cluelessness is actually founded in freedom in liberty. It is because of those rough men on the wall that Avery has probably never worried a day in his life about the existential threats those men guard against and, yes, kill, to afford him the opportunity to bloviate at will. And his defense, of course, would probably be he’s just exercising his free speech. Again, ironically, those that protect him without his thanks or the good grace to acknowledge what they do for him daily, will nod their head and tell him to have at it. Because they protect even the clueless and ungrateful. They understand that the freedom of speech they guarantee with their lives means even the most misinformed and obviously cosseted members among us have a right to spew their nonsense. And Avery has exercised that right. He now gets the other side of that right – others exercising their right to free speech and telling him what a ungrateful jackass he is. So, please, join me in exercising your right to free speech and remind the good professor how rights are guaranteed and how they work. View the full article

An interesting discussion going on at AskReddit about the comparisons.... Let's say we go back in time with a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), since the numbers of members and equipment is listed for our convenience in this Wikipedia article , could we destroy all 30 of Augustus' legions? We'd be up against nearly 330,000 men since each legion was comprised of 11,000 men. These men are typically equipped with limb and torso armor made of metal, and for weaponry they carry swords, spears, bows and other stabbing implements. We'd also encounter siege weapons like catapults and crude incendiary weapons. We'd be made up of about 2000 members, of which about half would be participating in ground attack operations. We can use our four Abrams M1A1 tanks, our artillery and mechanized vehicles (60 Humvees, 16 armored vehicles, etc), but we cannot use our attack air support, only our transport aircraft. We also have medics with us, modern medical equipment and drugs, and engineers, but we no longer have a magical time-traveling supply line (we did have but the timelords frowned upon it, sadly!) that provides us with all the ammunition, equipment and sustenance we need to survive. We'll have to succeed with the stuff we brought with us. So, will we be victorious? I really hope so because I really dislike Octavian and his horrible family. Getting Atia will be a bonus. I think running out of ammo would be the most significant problem. How would the MEU fight a Legion on it's own terms? What about diseases from that era and diseases we bring forward? Food? We'd have to take on the Legion's own methodology of growing and raising our own food supply. I think militarilary it's a huge win for the MEU in the initial fight, but logistically, they'd be in for a helluva time once the ammo is gone. Actually, now that I think about it, I'd be more worried about the MEU once the coffee runs out... View the full article

CBC News is reporting that the Harper Government is at least pondering the idea of cutting their losses with the Victoria class submarines and replacing them with nuclear submarines. The Victoria class submarines have been plagued with problems since being acquired from the UK, and despite being described as the "military bargain of the century" when purchased for $750 million in 1998, they have become anything but. The submarines are currently all out of service, with HMCS Victoria the soonest to potentially return to service by late next year. The article describes the issues. One of the subs, HMCS Chicoutimi, has been in active service of the Royal Canadian Navy exactly two days in the 13 years since it was purchased from the Brits. The Chicoutimi caught fire on its maiden voyage from the U.K. to Canada, killing one sailor and injuring a number of others. It has been in the repair shop ever since, and isn’t expected back in service for at least another two years and $400 million more in repairs and retrofits. The article goes on: The other three would remain out of service until at least 2013. One may not be out of the repair shop until 2016. By that time, the submarines will have cost taxpayers an estimated $3 billion, almost enough to have bought all new subs in the first place. But the real problem is that by the time the whole fleet is in active service for the first time in 2016, the submarines will already be almost 30 years old with only perhaps 10 years of life left in them. High-ranking sources tell CBC News the government is actively considering cutting its losses on the dud subs, and mothballing some if not all of them. Defence Minister Peter MacKay is hinting they might be replaced with nuclear submarines that could patrol under the Arctic ice, something the existing diesel-electric subs cannot do. I'm not sure how the costs break out over a single budget year, but based on the article it sounds like Canada has already spent $1 billion and will spend $2 billion more by 2016, which suggests costs that average around $500 million over the next 4 years. That's a lot of money just to get 10 years out of four SSKs. If we do the math, basically the Harper government is faced with the very real problem. The repair costs will earn Canada 4 Victoria class SSKs that are already old for an investment cost of at least $75 million annually per submarine, and at the same time India is leasing the significantly more capable and new Russian SSN K-152 Nurpa for $900 million over 10 years - $90 million annually. Something tells me Rep. Joe Courtney (Conn) could come up with a few ideas here - just saying. What would it cost to refuel and refit a Los Angeles class submarine for a second time to add 15 or so more years to the submarine? In 2005 the cost was slightly over $200 million, so even if we estimate the total refit per submarine to be around $350 million (serious modernization), Canada would only be spending $1.4 billion for four SSNs with a service life of 15 years vs $2 billion for four SSKs with a service life of 10 years. Another big advantage for Canada would be they could use the rest of the money to put their sailors through existing US Navy submarine training schools and use existing US contractor services for upkeep, both of which would allow Canada to save a bunch of money. The cost difference for the hardware would be $25 million per sub per year for SSNs vs $75 million per sub per year for SSKs. While it is true the operational, maintenance, and personnel costs will be higher for SSNs than it would be for SSKs, there are likely enough cost savings to be gained through existing US infrastructure that it's hard to believe the SSNs would be so much more expensive as to make it a bad deal. I'm just floating this idea, but really trying to highlight that leasing Los Angeles class SSNs would likely be cost neutral (or perhaps even cost saving) for the Harper government given the big problems Canada is facing with the Victoria class. I don't know if the US Navy even has four 688s that they would be willing to sell to Canada (although in a time of short term budget cuts impacting the Navy, now is the time to talk about this type of thing). I also don't know if the US and Canada can work out a realistic agreement that would give Canada the ability to utilize US Navy infrastructure for training and other services related to 688s. I do know that going down the road of supporting foreign SSNs would be good for either/both Electric Boat and Newport News, because when one looks at the trends they are having in Australia with their submarine industry - a deal with SSNs with Canada now would go a long way towards getting process and framework for this type of high end military deals in place so when our next very close ally comes along - we have a system and experience in place to support such agreements. View the full article

I'm just gonna come out and say that this argument hasn't aged well: Employing a squadron of stealth fifth-generation F-22s along with other select capabilities would help reduce the need to expend significantly more resources while reducing operational risk. Coercive diplomacy backed by naval presence, decisive air power, and accurate weapons in the region would allow the U.S. and others to negate Libyan air defenses and air forces. The world-class capability inherent in the F-22 also bears a psychological-intimidation factor that sends a clear message that no Libyan aircraft will fly without consequences. Simply talking about a no-fly zone should highlight the urgent need to recapitalize the U.S. Air Force with modern aircraft (in addition to upgrades of the legacy fleets). Using fifth-generation F-22 aircraft for a no-fly zone mission would allow the Air Force to operate above the Libyan skies with impunity. An F-22 Raptor does not need to destroy enemy air defenses first, because it is not vulnerable to this threat, unlike some fourth-generation aircraft. I suspect that the four month grounding of the F-22 in the midst of the campaign might have made things... awkward. I wouldn't bother with this (obviously, replacement aircraft could have been found) were it not for the fact that the op-ed was such a bald effort to shill for the institutional interest of the USAF. View the full article

Ummmm, yep. Rex just about nails it. In the main, the establishment American media abandoned its critical faculties during the Obama campaign — and it hasn’t reclaimed them since. Much of the Obama coverage was orchestrated sycophancy. They glided past his pretensions — when did a presidential candidate before “address the world†from the Brandenberg Gate in Berlin? They ignored his arrogance — “You’re likable enough, Hillary.†And they averted their eyes from his every gaffe — such as the admission that he didn’t speak “Austrian.†The media walked right past the decades-long association of Obama with the weird and racist pastor Jeremiah Wright. In the midst of the brief stormlet over the issue, one CNN host — inexplicably — decided that CNN was going to be a “Wright-free zone.†He could have hung out a sign: “No bad news about Obama here.†The media trashed Hillary. They burned Republicans. They ransacked Sarah Palin and her family. But Obama, the cool, the detached, the oracular Obama — he strolled to the presidency. Palin, in particular, stands out as Obama’s opposite in the media’s eyes. As much as they genuflected to the one, they felt the need to turn rottweiler toward the other. If Obama was sacred , classy, intellectual and cosmopolitan, why then Palin must be malevolent, trashy, dumb and pure backwoods-ignorant. Every doubt they hid from themselves about Obama, every potential embarrassment they tucked under the blanket of their superior sensibilities, they furiously over-compensated for by their remorseless hounding of Palin — from utterly trivial e-mails, to blogger Andrew Sullivan’s weird speculations about Palin’s womb, musings that put the Obama “Birther†fantasies into a realm near sanity. (We are now seeing an echo of that — with a new book promoting all sorts of unconfirmed gossip about Palin, including her alleged sexual dalliance with a basketball star.) As a result, the press gave the great American republic an untried, unknown and, it is becoming more and more frighteningly clear, incompetent figure as President. Under Obama, America’s foreign policies are a mixture of confusion and costly impotence. It is increasingly bypassed or derided; the great approach to the Muslim world, symbolized by the Cairo speech, is in tatters. Its debt and deficits are a weight on the entire global economy. And the office of presidency is less and less a symbol of strength. To the degree the press neglected its function as watchdog and turned cupbearer to a Styrofoam demigod, it is a partner in the flaws and failures of what is turning out to be one of the most miserable performances in the modern history of the American presidency. View the full article

Learn and adapt ... learn and adapt. Using attack helicopters from the sea appears to be in vogue, again. The concept appeared dormant, but gained new attention in Europe when the French and U.K. moved to deploy on ships the Tiger and Apache helicopters in support of military operations in Libya. Australia also has plans to deploy its Tiger ARHs from ships. Now Russia is joining the mix. The country's military is conducting trials to clear the Ka-52 for ship-borne operations, with the Northern Fleet using the Vice Adm. Kulakov for at-sea trials. When I saw that pick, my puzzl'r started tingl'n and I said, "Ah, ha! I've seen that concept before!" Indeed I had ... but we took a pass on it. Meet the Sea Apache. I bet the Riverine guys - not to mention the SEALs - would have loved to have such a capability with a NAVY stamp on it over the last decade. I know the "career path management issues" that are so important on active duty would make it problematic - because as we know that is the most important thing - but imagine two-to-four squadrons of these aircraft in a det-rotation cycle at home in the Reserves. You would be beating pilots away with bullwhips to get a billet there. The original proposal still had the 30mm gun, but even with that deleted - not too shabby. Weapons planned for use with the Sea Apache include Harpoon, Stinger, Sidewinder, Sidearm, AMRAAM, Penguin, and Hellfire missiles, as well as 127mm Zuni and 70mm FFAR rockets. The Harpoon, Penguin and He!Ifire missiles wouId be used against large naval targets, the Sidewinder and Stinger in the air-to-air mode, and the 127mm Zuni and 70mm FFAR rockets against smaller water borne targets and ground targets. A variety of missiles/rockets could be carried at the same time giving the Sea Apache the capability of engaging different types of targets on the same mission, making it a very versatile and useful naval aircraft. Performance goals specified for the Sea Apache by the Navy include a 370km mission radius, and a four hour endurance on station. Check out what LMT can do with the 'ole 70mm rocket now days. You want precision strike with minimal collateral damage? Here you go! Oh well - different world with different leaders with different vision. Hat tip Lee. View the full article

Paul made this observation in an email; If this is for real, it makes the Tomcat look petite He's got a good point. Look at the size of the people relative to the aircraft. More importantly; check out that weapons bay. Unlike other internal weapons bays for internal air-to-air missiles - the J-20s is massive. Give it a look. Looks deep. That almost seems less a weapons bay than an old school bomb bay with plenty of room for all sorts of toys. How far back does it go behind that huge access door that is down? Perhaps, because it is a single, vice a folding door like the F-22, it just seems big. But ... the J-20 is a big bird. Are we really looking at what people think we're looking at? Here is the Chinese J-20, Russian Sukhoi T-50, and the USA F-22. The F-22, no small bird, looks nimble by comparison. I don't know about you - but the J-20 looks less like a fighter and more like a penetrating attack aircraft; almost an update of the F-111 concept. Even with allowances for Chinese technology not being as compact as Western technology (which I think is slightly a bogus argument in 2011) - that bird is big for a reason. I don't think air superiority is it. View the full article

In this age of austerity I am an unrepentant and unapologetic supporter of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Let's get a few things straight about what that means. It means I think this jet and the program are absolutely critical to our national defense and our continued air dominance. It means we made a very bad mistake cancelling the F-22 program after 182 aircraft (to replace 700-800 aging air superiority fighters) and the JSF is the last and greatest hope for bridging that self-inflicted 5th generation fighter gap and retaining our technological and tactical air edge. Perhaps what it doesn’t mean is important as well. My support requires a well thought out and managed project that maximizes the taxpayers dollars by minimizing waste. But I also understand what “developmental aircraft†means, and thus, as critics zero in on every little hiccup and glitch, I’d point out that’s the purpose of testing the aircraft as it goes from concept to reality. They test to ferret those problems out and fix them before they go into full production. At this time the testing on the JSF is going very well. That said, it was with great pleasure I accepted an invitation from Lockheed Martin to see the JSF’s cockpit demonstrator at its sprawling Marietta complex. It is at that facility that houses the soon to be shut down assembly line for the F-22. But it is also where the center wing fuselage of the F-35 is being built and the place with a state-of-the-art stealth coating facility for the fighter is located. That brings up another critical reason for fully funding and building the F-35. Jobs. These aircraft will provide good paying jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans in an area that is critical to our national security. We’re not talking about make work projects at tax payer expense, but a true contribution to our national defense. In Marietta alone, the Lockheed Martin plant employs 8,200 Georgians. The JSF employs 1,000 of them and has created 500 additional contractor jobs as well. And that’s one state. Aerospace business is one of our major industrial success stories in an otherwise dismal sector. We rank at the top in the aerospace business in the world, and the JSF will help keep us there. The cockpit demonstration was interesting for a variety of reasons. I won’t go into the details of that because Wendy Stewart did a fabulous job of that in her post here a couple of weeks ago. But, suffice it to say, I got to see all the whiz-bang cool stuff up close and personal. For instance a mockup of the pilot’s helmet. It has the Heads Up Display (HUD) in the visor of the helmet. That means regardless of where the pilot looks, all that critical information is still available to him. More impressive though was the sensor array that gives the pilot 360 degree vision outside the aircraft. He can literally look down at the floor of the aircraft and the infrared sensors located outside the aircraft will create a view of what is below the aircraft. As one of the engineers said, it’s like Wonder Woman’s invisible airplane. The cockpit itself is an amazing array of digital information on a touch screen. I could spend paragraphs trying to describe everything, but as my wife, who accompanied me and is a pilot herself said, it was amazingly uncluttered. Instead of a vast array of gauges, switches, buttons and dials, the pilot configures his touch screen display as he wants it and then calls up any other information he needs when he needs it. Of course we had a couple of politicians on hand as well. Senator Saxby Chambliss of GA and Rep. Phil Gingrey in whose district the Lockheed Martin plant is located. Both are firm supporters of the JSF, as might be expected, but Chambliss also serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee. When questioned by the media about the possibility of cuts to the program he was adamant that this is one program that must be fully funded. And he made a good point. He said we have a pretty woeful record of deciding who our next potential enemy is going to be. So it behooves us to prepare for the worst case scenario. And he’s right. It also maintains our technological edge which has served us so well in the past 60 years as we’ve easily gained and maintained air dominance in every type of fight in which we’ve engaged during that time. That has given us a record that is one I’d like to see continued unbroken. We’ve not lost a soldier or Marine engaged in ground combat to enemy close air support. Why? The bad guys have just never been able to muster the ability, regardless of the intensity of the conflict, because we’ve been able to overwhelm and destroy them before they could ever pose a threat to our ground troops. That is a capability we must continue. We owe those we’re going to put in harm’s way the very best in technology, capability and firepower. The F-35 provides that and more. It is an aircraft critical to our future national security and it is just as critical we ensure that it doesn’t go the way of the F-22. UPDATE: Gen. Petraeus had much the same message for Congress as that of Sen. Chambliss as he spoke at his retirement ceremony: We have relearned since 9/11 the timeless lesson that we don't always get to fight the wars for which we're most prepared or most inclined. Given that reality, we will need to maintain the full-spectrum capability that we have developed over this last decade of conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere." View the full article

Maybe it's Baghdad Bob. Sump'n. Here is a problem; a free press relies on honest information from government sources and industry in order to produce stories. The press also should make sure and have the right reporters focus on the right areas. When you have government sources living in PPTland, industry in full Bu11sh1t Bingo mode, and the press is full of restaurant and theater critics - I guess you git howlers like this from The Australian. They carry three helicopters and special forces units with armoured vehicles that can roll off a ramp into action, while fast gunboats can be launched from the stern. All at once? On bank holidays too? Does it as well? Good googly moogly. Where does one start? Three - counting Fire Scout - really? How much of a surprise for special ops forces using that ramp again? Define "gunboat." Wait, it gets better. ... it is protected by Mk 110 57mm guns made by BAE Systems, plus missiles for air, land and underwater targets. The warships' sleek silhouettes reflect their stealth technology, while the stable trimaran design suits the South China Sea, which is swept by typhoons every summer. Fella, switch to decaf. It has yet to find a missile that can do anything ashore - nothing works yet. It has minimal AAW self-defense and even then only at short range, and no one has ASW missiles any more (ahhh, ASROC nukes; let me tell you a story ..... ). Even if they did - they can't do all three at once. Ahem, back to now. The LCS going to the South China Sea is LCS-1, monohull. Don't you people Down Under have google? The one you are thinking about is the one on the upper-right of this post. Experts say the ships are superior to any known Chinese vessel in their ability to combine anti-submarine, minesweeping, surveillance, reconnaissance and troop deployment missions. On PPT, maybe. OK. Next week let's put LCS-1 as now equipped on one side of Wake Island, and any of the 83 or so Chinese Houbei Class as now equipped on the other. We'll even play make-believe and give it, ahem, three Fire Scouts. Place your bets. If the LCS, as now equipped, can get pass the 8 C-802, I think the 57mm will best the 30mm ... so at least we have the PLAN in a gun fight ... I think. I guess we have to repeat. LCS does not have an ability to conduct ASW. All that is in development and PPT-land - same with MIW. It can do recon, and put troops ashore in a permissive environment; so it has that for now. Check back in a year or two, we might have a partially mission capable mission module that is operational in some way. ... they are seen as a potent symbol of US might. If symbols are overpriced, undermanned, underarmed, short ranged, and incapable of effectively changing its mission once it gets one with the equipment to do it - then sure, that last statement might be more accurate than the author thinks. Military journalism fail. I don't know who the reporter, Michael Sheridan, uses as his "experts," but dude - seriously - pop me an email next time. (NB: Before the "butbutbut" brigade starts in comments. Pic above is from NewWars in 2010. When you take the cost of the LCS baseline model, add in 2-3 mission modules, logistical and infrastructure to support such above a "normal" multi-mission ship's deployment requirement along with the shorter ship life of LCS ... and you get .....) Hat tip QMC. View the full article

Loaded to the K-MAX (click to view full) With its 5,145 lb empty weight (2.3 metric tons), the K-MAX UAS cannot quite convey the same sense of graceful lightness as its Hummingbird Boeing competitor, coming at slightly less than half the weight. Belonging to a different weight class shifts the Lockheed Martin/Kaman helo to a different mission focus, with a clear emphasis on battlefield cargo resupply. K-MAX has a useful load of 6,855 lb (3.1 tons) vs. 2,500 pounds for the Hummingbird. Up to 6,000 lb (at sea level) can be attached to the cargo hook which is attached to a curved trolley system. Payload at 10,000 ft is still rated above 5,000 lb. (more…) View the full article

Just lovely. Our "friends' the Pakistanis, the best allies money can rent, have apparently continued hedging their bets as far as who will be their sugar daddy. With the planeloads of loot we have been supplying them, which they tranship almost immediately to Dubai, in jeopardy they have continued to play footsie with the Chinese. "The US now has information that Pakistan, particularly the ISI, gave access to the Chinese military to the downed helicopter in Abbottabad," said one person in intelligence circles, referring to the Pakistani spy agency. The Chinese engineers were allowed to survey the wreckage and take photographs of it, as well as take samples of the special "stealth" skin that allowed the American team to enter Pakistan undetected by radar, he said. If you thought the people taking the most advantage of the bin Laden raid to advance themselves all worked at the White House, think again. Amidst the faux outrage that we violated the physical sovereignty of a nation that hosts more jihadists than anywhere on Earth, is a calculated bit of extortion writ large. The Pakistanis have been shaking us down for years, but since the gravy train from DC is likely to be shut down in favor of high speed rail to nowhere, they are holding a bidding war for BFFs.The Chinese have been playing expansionist politics all over their hemisphere and Pakistan is a great place to tweak our noses. We have spent untold billions to gain Pakistani support for the efforts to shut down safe havens on their border w/ Afghanistan.The problem all along has been they are the founding funders of and continued supporters of the same groups we pay them to "fight". Now of course they have some interest in keeping the jihadi elements marginalized, but most of their "help" involves telling us where to find the ones who are out of favor with them. Then we send those guys some Hellfire and everyone pats each other on the back. Granted this involves the deaths of some evil bastards, but in the long war it is sound and fury signifying nothing. We never set out with a strategy to change the dynamic in the region. Consequently we have played whack-a-weasel and deployed combat forces to fight a one year war ten times, rather than acknowledge that it was a struggle of a decade (at the minimum). Now our efforts, and yes successes, over the past year and a half are set to be undone by the exigent priority of our Commander Campaigner in Chief's, himself. Our allies are giving our enemies/bankers a battlefield tour of the pieces of our military technology they have not yet been able to steal. The Biden Magic Ninja plan has shown it's horrifically fatal flaw and the nation can't even barely remember we have men and women fighting and dying every day. The sad thing is that people I trust have told me we have made tremendous progress against the Taliban on the ground, but that is not where this war will be won or lost. The solons of Washington are now busy protecting their slots at the government trough and the only question seems to be whose pet projects get the primest cuts when the Pentagon cash cow goes to the slaughter. If I sound bitter and disgusted, you have a keen perception. It is sickening to watch clowns with a strategic vision as long as the next 24 hour news cycle use our use our military for political gain and destroy our national security out of short-sighted inability to control their own power-hungry gluttony. So poxes on all of their houses. I trust none of them to make choices for the public good. Their greater society is burning and they argue over tips for the fiddler. I wish we had the will or wisdom to try and win in the Hindu Kush, but I fear we don't. Secretary of Defense Panetta made a speech using the word victory while he was at SOCOM last week. Maybe he can explain to his boss how that works. Absent that, we can only hope that the American people realize that change is what we need next Fall. View the full article

The following press release was put out by Juliet Marine Systems, Inc. Keep in mind this is a press statement... Juliet Marine Systems, Inc. (JMS) announced Aug. 10 that the US Navy/USPTO have removed Secrecy Orders previously applied to GHOST. For the first time, Juliet Marine is able to release photographs of GHOST, the first super-cavitating craft, to the public. GHOST was designed and built by US Citizens for the US Navy at no cost to the government to protect US sailors, servicemen and servicewomen. Development of the first ever super-cavitating craft, in many ways, is as difficult as breaking the sound barrier. GHOST is a combination aircraft/boat that has been designed to fly through an artificial underwater gaseous environment that creates 900 times less hull friction than water. GHOST technology adapts to manned or unmanned, surface or submerged applications. Any Navy possessing GHOST technology could operate in international waters undetected and would have an overwhelming advantage against conventional ships. GHOST is specifically designed for Fleet Force Protection at its present size. GHOST technology is scalable and JMS is currently discussing a plan to build a larger Corvette-sized vessel (150 feet) by partnering with a large international defense company. The US Navy could reduce its Naval footprint and financial exposure by deploying a squadron of GHOSTs from Bahrain, which would free up larger assets, such as destroyers and cruisers, saving costs in manpower and maintenance. GHOST is ideal for piracy patrols and could be sea-based to provide protection from pirate attacks that cost our government an estimated $1.5 billion each year. The world-wide shipping industry could be provided with substantial fuel savings using JMS hull friction reduction super-cavitation. A squadron of GHOSTs would not be detectable to seeking enemy ship radar and sensors. GHOST can carry thousands of pounds of weapons, including Mark 48 torpedoes, and would be virtually unstoppable. The GHOST platform and technology could reduce the need for LCS completely with the capability to travel long distances and conduct the same missions. GHOST could make LCS a defensible platform for combat - LCS is not currently rated for combat. Today, Iran has the capabilities to stop the US Navy from operating in the Straits of Hormuz, a critical passage for most of the oil our country uses. The Navy compares GHOST to an attack helicopter with regard to its capabilities for force protection. GHOST can deliver forces to any beach location quickly and quietly with enough weapons to conduct a hot extraction. GHOST is designed to provide military game changing advantages for the USA. I've read this around 8 times today, and I still laugh out loud every time. The technology sounds interesting, but the press statement sounds like a TV infomercial. And it will shine the Admirals shoes and trim the CMCs hair and..!!! What? Is this legitimate? I am so confused. View the full article