HG S2 (Intel Bot)

Thinking of the American military's readiness for the next large war, there is rightfully a lot of concern that after a couple of decades of imperial policing wars in Central and Southwest Asia, that not only are we ill-equipped for a major peer conflict ashore, but that we've forgotten much of what is considered fundamental aspects of significant force-on-force combat. The Russo-Ukrainian War has offered some good reminders, from the utility of armor, artillery, and logistics that clever peace time theorists were wishing away, but on the land side of the equation, what are some other critical capabilities that we have had the luxury of generations to forget about? Over at the Modern War Institute, they have a reminder of something I think most of us have not given much thought to recently; the operational level fighting retreat. New from MWI comes a 450 page book in PDF on the very subject; Armies in Retreat: Chaos, Cohesion, and Consequences; Battlefields are dynamic. In large-scale combat operations, opposing forces seek to gain control of terrain, to outmaneuver one another, and to employ combined arms to gain positional advantage. The objective, much more often than not, is to advance. When one side is successful, that means retreat, withdrawal, or evacuation is likely for the other. Studying those armies who suffer the ignominy of retreat, then, is crucial to understanding war and command. The word retreat, however, is almost taboo in US Army literature. The new Field Manual (FM) 3-0, Operations only uses the word five times, four of which are describing the near-destruction of the North Korean People’s Army in September 1950. ... Instead of using the word retreat, FM 3-0 uses the term retrograde—and the manual only dedicates one paragraph to retrograde operations. For the Marine Corps, the apparent reversion to discussing retreat is similar. Marine Corps Doctrine Publication 1, Warfighting, the US Marine Corps’ capstone doctrinal document, uses neither retreat nor retrograde. Instead, it talks about “rapid, flexible, and opportunistic maneuver.” Maneuver warfare, the Marine Corps’ warfighting doctrine, focuses combat power against enemy cohesion, seeking to create “panic and paralysis, an enemy who has lost the will to resist.” But what happens when your force is the one close to losing the will to resist? How does a commander keep an army together? The United States military has a long history of retreating, from the early days of the American Revolution to the evacuation of Afghanistan in 2021. Some retreats bought time or space. Others allowed commanders to regroup or reposition for follow-on operations. Others reflected strategic defeat. Armies in Retreat: Chaos, Cohesion, and Consequences seeks to balance the historical and practical narrative, giving readers a better understanding of why, how, and when armies retreat. ... Ignoring the concept of retreat by omission or sophistry in doctrine won’t make it go away. Russian forces entering Ukraine a year ago likely did not think a retreat was in their future but a year of combat operations have revealed otherwise. The first Soviet forces into Afghanistan likely did not think they would watch a retreat across the Hairatan Bridge a decade later, nor did most of the many American forces who fought in Afghanistan over nearly two decades envision the exit from the country that took place in August 2021. So instead of ignoring the lessons of history, we should study them to be better equipped for the future. Armies in Retreat is our effort to facilitate that study. Think a bit about the maritime side of the house. What topic would you like to see get this treatment as we organizationally try to focus on the war to come? As for me, I'd like something on forward maintenance and arming centered on the Western Pacific Campaign of WWII. I also would like a similar focus in combat logistics of the same. Perhaps fighting in the face of significant unit loss like we had in the Guadalcanal Campaign. That's my Top-3. BZ to MWI. View the full article

Americas General Dynamics Mission Systems has been awarded a $5.5-million contract to sustain the US Army’s Prophet Enhanced sensor systems. The agreement, which could grow to $481.6 million, was awarded by the Army Contracting Command on behalf of the Integrated Logistics Support Center (ILSC). The company will provide spare parts and obsolescence risk management for […]View the full article

While it can be frustrating when "our friends" can be a tad difficult, but in adult friendships when people have independence you have to expect friends to have disagreements with you now and then, have other priorities, or are just one of those "challenging friends" that is a pain in the tail but when important things come up that count, they are there more often than not. Nations can be like people. While some nations are easy friends, there are nations who no one really likes. Sure, nations will do business with them and do their best to go along to get along. Even jerks have money and resources, so you do what you need to do, but as they seem more interested in taking your business than working with your business, you keep them at a respectful distance; keep one hand on your wallet while you shake hands with them using the other ... you know the type. They are a lot like the insecure middle school bully. They have some people who hang out with them, but they are usually equally odious individuals or are just hoping that if they help the bully, the bully will leave them alone. They aren't real friends. I've always looked at the People's Republic of China in that light, and I don't think they are mellowing with age. It isn't that they seem to be spoiling for a fight - perhaps they are - but this just seems like they don't know any other way to interact with nations that don't immediately align themselves with Beijing - or worse, are seen as a competitor. Yes, the USA and Canada had our Balloons of February, but in the last year or so, what has China been doing to seem like a pleasant alternative to the United States to the rest of the world? Her largest neighbor? They get sticks: The root cause is an ill-defined, 3,440km (2,100-mile)-long disputed border. Rivers, lakes and snowcaps along the frontier mean the line can shift, bringing soldiers face to face at many points, sparking a confrontation. The two nations are also competing to build infrastructure along the border, which is also known as the Line of Actual Control. India's construction of a new road to a high-altitude air base is seen as one of the main triggers for a deadly 2020 clash with Chinese troops. How bad is the situation? Despite military-level talks, tensions continue. In December 2022 troops clashed for the first time in more than a year. It happened near the Tawang sector of Arunachal Pradesh state, the eastern tip of India. Some soldiers suffered minor injuries. De-escalation work has taken place since a major clash in June 2020. The Galwan Valley battle - fought with sticks and clubs, not guns - was the first fatal confrontation between the two sides since 1975. At least 20 Indian and four Chinese soldiers died. Another face-off in January 2021 left troops on both sides injured. It took place near India's Sikkim state, between Bhutan and Nepal. The "I" and "C" in the B.R.I.C. are not going to be close friends, ever - one of the reasons I roll my eyes at those who propose the BRIC nations as some kind of power block - something only slightly sillier than the Cold War "Non Aligned Movement." With the "B" being the basket case Brazil (always the nation of the future, and always will be), and the "R" being Russia, I mean, child please. Another nation that if the PRC was just slightly more subtle and less arrogant they might have a chance to make things more difficult for the USA-Japan-Australia defense concerns is The Philippines. They had a window in the last couple of decades, but ... if they're doing this; The Philippine Coast Guard accused a Chinese Coast Guard vessel of flashing a military-grade laser at the BRP Malapascua last Feb 6, while it was out supporting a resupply mission to Ayungin Shoal in West PH sea. PCG shares photos as proof: @rapplerdotcom pic.twitter.com/BqQ3kkrf94 — Sofia Tomacruz (@sofiatomacruz) February 13, 2023 The PRC Wolf Warrior Lack of Charm Campaign perhaps may play well internally - and that may be all they care about - but there was a window not long ago that the PRC was playing smart on the world stage - making significant impact in Australia and having the USA happy to let them set up Confucius Institutes at our major universities, etc ... but the last decade or so they somehow decided to play a different game. Bad move for them from my point of view if they wanted to leverage soft power - but a good move from the point of view of those who desire to keep the PRC contained until they age-out in the next decade. So, PRC ... keep doing what you're doing. View the full article

Americas Hamilton Sundstrand won a $135 million deal for C-130 production. The total estimated value of all the options is $573,028,284. The maximum ceiling value of the contract is $708,031,469. This contract provides for manufacturing and engineering support of the NP2000 eight-blade propeller, electronic propeller control system and procurement of initial spares under C-130 for […]View the full article

War is funny sometimes ... many times (the present war does not count) - the person who you are trying to kill, or is trying to kill you can, in the blink of an eye - can become a good friend. You will put your life in his hands. Among civilized armed forces - that is the rule not the exception and has been for a long time. To prove that often forgotten fact - I give you Constantin Cantacuzino and James Gunn III. As reported by John L. Frisbee in Air Force Magazine; On Aug. 23, 1944, King Michael of Romania, whose country had joined Germany in 1940, surrendered to Soviet forces that had advanced into the country. In the next few days, one of the most unusual adventures of World War II took place. ... As news of the surrender spread, Romanian prison guards vanished, leaving the gates open. Gunn's first task was to keep the POWs from vanishing into the city and surrounding countryside until arrangements for their repatriation could be made. It was some time before he could find anyone with authority. The retreating Germans had begun reprisal bombing of Bucharest, which added to the general terror at the prospect of Soviet occupation. Colonel Gunn finally located several senior Romanian officials who agreed to move the POWs to a safer location and to fly him to Italy (there were no functioning radio or wire facilities in Romania) so he could contact Fifteenth Air Force about evacuating the POWs. In return, Gunn agreed to arrange for Fifteenth Air Force to attack the fields from which the Germans were bombing the city and to convey a request that Romania be occupied by either the British or the Americans. True to their word, the Romanians arranged a flight to Italy in an ancient twin-engine aircraft. Twenty minutes out, the Romanian pilot turned back, claiming engine trouble. On landing, Gunn was approached by Capt. Constantine Cantacuzino, who offered to fly him to Italy in the belly of a Bf-109. Captain Cantacuzino was commander of a Romanian fighter group that had been flying for the Luftwaffe. He also was Romania's leading ace and a member of the royal family. The risk of this venture was not slight. If they were downed by German or American fighters or by flak, or had engine failure, it would be curtains for Gunn, locked in the aft fuselage of the Bf-109. There were no maps of Italy available, so Gunn drew from memory a map of the southeast coast of the country and an approach chart for his home base at San Giovanni Airfield. He wanted Captain Cantacuzino to fly on the deck to avoid German radar, but the Romanian, who did not have complete confidence in his engine, held out for 19,000 feet, which would test Gunn's tolerance to cold and lack of oxygen. As an added precaution, they had a large American flag painted on both sides of the fuselage. While that was being done, Cantacuzino drew Gunn aside and told him their plan to take off early the next morning had become widely known and might be compromised. As soon as the painting was finished, Cantacuzino produced heavy flying gear for Gunn, stuffed him through an 18-inch-square access door into the fuselage (from which the radio had been removed), locked the door, and took off at 5:20 p.m. on Aug. 27. The two-hour flight was completed without incident, though the Bf-109's engine began to run rough over the Adriatic. The two men were immediately driven to Fifteenth Air Force headquarters at Bari. Planning began that night for strikes on the German airfield near Bucharest and for evacuation of the POWs in quickly modified B-17s. The plan was designated Operation Gunn. By Sept. 3, 1,161 Allied prisoners of war had been flown out of Romania. Colonel Gunn had gambled his life and won--as had the POWs. Sadly, Romania was to remain under brutal Soviet control for the next 45 years.Hat tip Front Porch. First posted May 2012View the full article

Americas General Atomics won a $34.4 million deal, which procures eight mobile ground control stations and six ground data terminals in support of successful operational capability of the Marine Air Ground Task Force Unmanned Aircraft System Expeditionary Medium Altitude Long Endurance MQ-9A Block 5 Reaper air vehicles and ground control stations for the Navy. Work […]View the full article

Americas The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has sought proposals for a counter-anti-access(A2)/area denial (AD) drone swarm command and control (C2) system. The Pentagon agency wants the Autonomous Multi-domain Adaptive Swarms-of-Swarms (AMASS) to steer thousands of disparate drones, enabling US and coalition forces to penetrate adversaries’ theater-level A2/AD bubble. The system is intended to […]View the full article

In the middle of Walter Russell Mead's article over at WJS, "The World Rejects the Wilsonian Order" there was an interesting insight for what the Russo-Ukrainian War revealed about the internal natsec divisions within the Democrat Party. While one could quibble around the edges, this seems sound; Within the Biden administration, the struggle is among three groups: liberal internationalists, who want America and the West to do what it takes to ensure that Russia loses the war; pragmatists who want to check Russia but fear Russian escalation and believe that the war will inevitably end in a compromise peace that falls short of Wilsonian hopes; and Asia-firsters who worry that U.S. support for Ukraine reduces America’s ability to face the more consequential and long-term threat from China. President Biden has tried to stay in the middle, giving Ukraine more support than the pragmatists and Asia hands prefer, but dribbling it out more slowly than the Wilsonians would like.Liberal internationalists, pragmatists, and Asia-firsters. That seems roughly correct, but for those who have a memory more than a few years old, there is one glaring omission; the anti-war left. Of course, that part of the democrat coalition usually fades in to shadow whenever the party is in power. I've come to think a portion of them experienced a rather strange morphology during the now discredited Russia-Trump collusion hoax that had them all of a sudden become Russia hawks. They had yet to regress to the mean when the Russo-Ukrainian War started and it kind of stuck. Sure, there are still some musty left-over leftists who still apologize for Russia like they used to apologize for the Soviet Union - but most have turned in to something else - perhaps just shifting down the bench to the "liberal internationalists" side. Of course, the (R) have their own tribes as well, but WRM does not cover them here. Funny thing about that, the teams are roughly the same, except some former Russia/Soviet hawks on the right now almost seem like their Cold War mirror images when it comes to giving the Russians way too many benefits of the doubt. So, a new "bi-partisan national consensus" in the making? No, don't think so. Just bi-partisan national chaos as the Russo-Ukrainian War moves in to its second year - and like we did on Sunday - the rest of us try to find ways to describe what we see. View the full article

Americas Argentina has officially declared its aim to buy 156 Guarani armored vehicles produced in Brazil, having signed a letter of intent on Dec. 23, according to an Argentine government release dated January 23. The agreement, made in Buenos Aires between Argentine Defense Minister Jorge Taiana and Brazilian Brazil’s Foreign Affairs Minister Mauro Vieira, took place […]View the full article

Over at DVIDS, a nice series of pictures that represents one part of our Navy that doesn't get to see the light of day often enough. Those who have served know it, probably been part of it, and nothing is more memorable that being right in the crunch of it all. When you are well trained and well led with the right climate - things, in this case it really did, can come out of the blue that you haven't EXACTLY trained for, but ... you've done some things kind of like it. You look at your Sailors, and you say, "Yes sir, we can do that." One of the best communities for such responses are the Navy's EOD pros. Nice to see a little love heading their way, as much of what they do never breaks out in the open ... which is a good thing. Check out the pics and track the story where you find it. BZ. Sailors assigned to Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group 2 recover a high-altitude surveillance balloon off the coast of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Feb. 5, 2023. EODGRU 2 is a critical part of the Navy Expeditionary Combat Force that clears explosive hazards to provide access to denied areas; secures the undersea domain for freedom of movement; builds and fosters relationships with trusted partners, and protects the homeland. At the direction of the President of the United States and with the full support of the Government of Canada, U.S. fighter aircraft under U.S. Northern Command authority engaged and brought down a high altitude surveillance balloon within sovereign U.S. airspace and over U.S. territorial waters Feb. 4, 2023. Active duty, Reserve, National Guard, and civilian personnel planned and executed the operation, and partners from the U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Aviation Administration, and Federal Bureau of Investigation ensured public safety throughout the operation and recovery efforts. (U.S. Navy Photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Tyler Thompson) View the full article

Americas Lockheed Martin has announced the successful firing of its Spike NLOS (Non Line-of-Sight) missile from the Apache Echo Model V6 helicopter. The demonstration was performed by the company’s Precision Strike team at the Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona. During the trial, the chopper launched two Spike missiles towards a stationary target in two different […]View the full article

I find it fun, and helpful, to read refreshed think pieces on carrier vulnerability like our friend and always pleasant read Robert Farley put out last week at 19fortyfive, The U.S. Navy’s Nightmare: 5 Ways To Kill An Aircraft Carrier. From their very birth, carriers have been vulnerable. They are delicate but deadly creatures. Expensive to own and operate, but valuable beyond measure at war. Recall that one of the reason the Guadalcanal Campaign had so many surface actions was because there were just not that many carriers available to sustain casualties because ... well, they're vulnerable. Everyone wants to kill them not just because they are so vulnerable, but because they are so useful. As Farley puts at the end of his article,Aircraft carriers are instruments of geopolitical influence. As long as they serve usefully in that role, nations will seek means to neutralize them. The aircraft-carrier form has proven remarkably flexibly, serving in one way or another for nearly a hundred years. From the USS Forrestal on, the U.S. Navy supercarrier has existed in basically the same form since the 1950s, and is expected to continue operating into the latter half of the twenty-first century. At some point, the game will be up; carriers will no longer pack the offensive punch necessary to justify their vulnerability. It’s not obvious when that day will come, however; we may only find out after the destruction of one of the Navy’s prize possessions.As almost all threats to carriers are evolutionary in nature - and I tend to be a bit immune to transformationalist hype - I see many of the "new" threats a few excitable people talk about accompanied with the requisite heavy breathing, as simply advances on known threats that will require an appropriate response in defense. No crisis, really ... however, there is one exception. Farley is sound in this regard, and I encourage you to read it all, but here are 4 of the 5 ways to kill a carrier, and what I consider their evolutionally development from. 1. Undersea Unmanned Vehicles : SSK and sea mines. 2. Cyberattacks : Electronic Warfare and sabotage 3. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles : Old school Kamikaze mass attacks as in the Battle of Leyte Gulf 4. Hypersonic Weapons : Late Cold War ASCM delivered by SSGN & heavy bombers For every threat - serious as they are - there is a countermeasure. I do wish more people will join the discussion that we need to plan to take losses and continue the fight - which is why we need more than 11 CVN, but one bit of the apple at a time, I guess. That is 1-4, #5 is something, in a fashion, quite different.5. Orbital bombardment systems (nicknamed “Rods from God”) can solve that problem. Satellites equipped with tungsten rods, or really any other kind of kinetic weapon, can simultaneously identify aircraft carriers and attack them, without messy problems associated with networked communications. The Rods from God, using kinetic energy alone, could deliver a tremendous blow to a surface target, either sinking a carrier or rendering it useless.Many moons ago I has a 100# head type explain the math to me, and as Farley outlines, there are not many countermeasures one can have to this once someone launches those puppies downrange. They do have one vulnerability - they are in space and as such fragile (weight is a tax to get in orbit), and should be considered a first strike weapon. You have to get them before they go. Unlike big-ass-balloons launched from Central China - you can't hide the rockets that will be needed to launch such weapons in to orbit and I have better than average confidence that Space Force will keep a close eye on those should they ever appear. That weaponization of space would be a significant escalation globally. If done, that could be countered by "simple" anti-satellite weapons ... again, an escalation - but often you don't seek escalation; escalation seeks you. Should #5 take place, the steps it would take to get us there informs me that we would have a lot more than just carrier security we would need to be focused on in the global security scene. No one is playing games when you weaponize near-Earth orbit. The future would be interesting. NB: I know many here save yourself the nightmare of twitter, so I just wanted to give everyone a heads up that there is a reason my posting here has been a bit light the last week - and perhaps a bit scattered - I am working my way through COVID. The worse it behind me, but I dodged it for three years, and it finally got me. I managed to recover well at home with minimum side effects besides a lack of appetite and an almost irresistible fatigue and desire to sleep. I will say this about COVID, except for the bone pain, it is worse than my previous worse malady, Dengue Fever. So, enough attention seeking for me. I do appreciate your patience as I attempt to get back up on step.View the full article

What path best enhances American security and prosperity, along with her allies, when it comes to the Russo-Ukrainian War? Are American's interests best promoted by more support of Ukraine's ongoing fight for her independence, or by backing away to let things take their natural course? Isolationists, realists, and idealists are all trying to make their case as to where to go next as the war moves in to its second year. What are their arguments, and for those who say they promote a "Realist" policy - how do they define Realism? Out guest for the full hour this Sunday from 5 to 6pm Eastern to discuss this and related issues she raised in her latest article in National Review, "Who are the Real 'Realists' on Ukraine?" will be Rebeccah Heinrichs, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. Join us live if you can, but it not, you can get the show later by subscribing to the podcast. If you use iTunes, you can add Midrats to your podcast list simply by clicking the iTunes button at the main showpage - or you can just click here. You can find us on almost all your most popular podcast aggregators as well. View the full article

Americas The US Air Force (USAF) has chosen Electra Aero for a Strategic Funding Increase (STRATFI) award, securing up to $85 million in investment funding. This award will go towards the rapid development of a full-scale pre-production prototype of Electra’s electric short takeoff and landing (eSTOL) aircraft. The eSTOL aircraft represents a new class of […]View the full article

We should savor the victories when they come our way. Elections matter, and the average American does not want to have sectarianism, division, and hate injected in to their children using their money. As we've said here for 18-years, those promoting division based on race, creed, color, and other immutable characteristics have no place in a diverse 21st Century Republic. Elections mean things because for some reason, it can be hard to find leaders with the moral courage to do the right thing. Governor DeSantis on Tuesday announced a legislative proposal to eliminate programs, courses, and bureaucracies dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and critical race theory (CRT) at public Florida universities on the grounds that taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to subsidize harmful, divisive ideologies. “We are going to eliminate all DEI and CRT bureaucracies in the state of Florida. No funding, and that will wither on the vine,” he said at a press conference. The removal of such departments, he suggested, will serve as an “ideological filter” and “political filter” for the schools. The proposed legislation would prohibit DEI spending in state university budgets, which would effectively starve DEI departments of resources, giving them no choice but to discontinue classes and fire administrators. If you are a regular here, you know we've documented the bloat, growth, and expansion of the Navy's branch of the diversity industry - especially at our educational institutions in detail. One day, hopefully soon, someone like Governor DeSantis - perhaps DeSantis - will be elected as President and will do at the federal level what we are not doing in Florida. The amount of wasted time, wasted resources, and empty hours listening to tenured radicals tell service members - most born in the 21st Century, that they should first and foremost see each other by the most artificial characteristics and then use that difference to position for advantage, conflict, and disorder firmly stuck in aspic from the perspective of the early 1970s.. Take a moment to listen. Good stuff. Take the "W." #BREAKING: Gov. Ron DeSantis announces proposal to eliminate all funding for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, and Critical Race Theory at public universities "All DEI and CRT bureaucracies in the state of Florida - no funding, and that will wither on the vine." pic.twitter.com/8B0yQbZYsC — Florida’s Voice (@FLVoiceNews) January 31, 2023 Remember, there is nothing stopping every (R) governor from doing this in their state but moral courage. There is also nothing from stopping a (R) President - the Commander in Chief - from ordering his military to do the same, as it should. View the full article

Americas Bae Systems won a $651.6 million contract for sustaining engineering services. This contract provides for services support for both the Minuteman III and Sentinel Systems Directorates to ensure the integration of current and future hardware, software, testing, and modifications with the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Weapon Systems. Work will be performed at Hill Air Force Base, […]View the full article

Geography doesn't change. To a slightly lesser extent, neither do historic patterns. Even if Ukraine wins the Russo-Ukrainian War, Russia will still be to the east from Central Europe. She will be back in one form or another. After the fall of the Soviet Union, liberation, and joining NATO - helped with a lot of ahistorical thinking on both sides of the Atlantic - there was a bit of hedging that there was time to rebuild Central European economies and civil society before a threat from the east came back. For almost three decades the former Warsaw Pact members of NATO let their military capabilities and investments fall closer to 1% of GDP as opposed to the 2% minimum. The events of the last decade have sobered up everyone from Estonia to Bulgaria, but for most of those nations, by free-riding on their richer nations to the left for national defense, they lost or allowed to almost die what domestic arms manufacturing they had remaining from communism. Everyone - well those who are paying attention - now realize the existential requirement to have at least the most basic domestic production capabilities to defend yourself, regardless what accountants may say. The last year is seeing once strong medium powers in Central Europe bring capacity back online. Good for them, good for all alliance members; Still wary of Russia, their Soviet-era master, some former Warsaw Pact countries see helping Ukraine as a matter of regional security. ... “Taking into account the realities of the ongoing war in Ukraine and the visible attitude of many countries aimed at increased spending in the field of defence budgets, there is a real chance to enter new markets and increase export revenues in the coming years,” said Sebastian Chwalek, CEO of Poland’s PGZ. State-owned PGZ controls more than 50 companies making weapons and ammunition – from armoured transporters to unmanned air systems – and holds stakes in dozens more. It now plans to invest up to 8 billion zlotys ($1.8 billion) over the next decade, more than double its pre-war target, Chwalek told Reuters. That includes new facilities located further from the border with Russia’s ally Belarus for security reasons, he said. Other manufacturers too are increasing production capacity and racing to hire workers, companies and government officials from Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic said. ... Chwalek said PGZ would now produce 1,000 portable Piorun manpad air-defence systems in 2023 – not all for Ukraine -compared to 600 in 2022 and 300 to 350 in previous years. The company, which he said has also delivered artillery and mortar systems, howitzers, bulletproof vests, small arms and ammunition to Ukraine, is likely to surpass a pre-war 2022 revenue target of 6.74 billion zlotys. ... Czech arms exports this year will be the highest since 1989, he said, with many companies in the sector adding jobs and capacity. “For the Czech defence industry, the conflict in Ukraine, and the assistance it provides is clearly a boost that we have not seen in the last 30 years,” Kopecny said. David Hac, chief executive of Czech STV Group, outlined to Reuters plans to add new production lines for small-calibre ammunition and said it is considering expanding its large-calibre capability. In a tight labour market, the company is trying to poach workers from a slowing car industry, he said. Defence sales helped the Czechoslovak Group, which owns companies including Excalibur Army, Tatra Trucks and Tatra Defence, nearly double its first-half revenues from a year earlier, to 13.8 billion crowns. The company is increasing production of both 155mm NATO and 152mm Eastern calibre rounds and refurbishing infantry fighting vehicles and Soviet-era T-72 tanks, spokesman Andrej Cirtek told Reuters. He said supplying Ukraine was more than just good business. “After the Russian aggression started, our deliveries for Ukrainian army multiplied,” Cirtek said. “The majority of the Czech population still remember times of a Russian occupation of our country before 1990 and we don´t want to have Russian troops closer to our borders.” The Poles and the Czechs, in addition to having the industry, have a martial tradition going back over 1,000 years. There is no downside to having them strong. They'll bring their neighbors along with them. View the full article

Americas Sikorsky won a $34 million modification, which exercises an option to provide validation and test tooling in support of achieving a production quantity at full rate of up to 24 CH-53K aircraft per year. Work will be performed in Salt Lake City, Utah (86%); and Stratford, Connecticut (14%), and is expected to be completed […]View the full article

Since August of last year, this picture keeps cropping up, and for good reason. Images posted on the Chinese social media platform Weibo show five hulls of the Luyang III-class Type 052 destroyer under construction at the state-owned Dalian Shipyard in Liaoning province, northeast China China is building at a wartime pace - more than just these five - for a reason. They have plans ... or at least want to be ready to execute a plan ... one long in the making. While we're at it, let's bring up a picture of the People's Liberation Army Navy's first aircraft carrier Liaoning - without which they would be at least one if not two decades behind in building their carrier fleet. While it is encouraging that in the last few years "official Washington" has reached the pivot point in seeing the PRC's plans - it is almost criminal the lack imagination and vision on our part seeing it, especially in the 1990s when was the point everyone should have seen the game was afoot. Just two datapoints, both related to these two pics. "The Long Game" was an old story by the time we started it in 2004. It has its roots a lot further back. I think the first tickle of the idea came to Ensign Salamander back in 1990 when he caught a bit of info in the local paper about something that dominated the skyline for anyone coming in or out of Mayport. Go to the pic at the top and look at those cranes and then return here. Know what the pic below is? That's right - it was the original plan for "Goat Island" in the St. Johns River in northeast Florida. Today is is known as Blount Island. There were big plans there in the 1960s and 70s; ...Offshore Power Systems (OPS) was formed on July 6, 1972 as a 50/50 joint venture between Tenneco Power Systems (who owned the Newport News shipyard) and Westinghouse Electric Corporation. It proposed to design, manufacture, and market complete nuclear power plants of a standardized design and integrated with specially designed floating platforms 5. Each floating nuclear power station (FNPS) would contain two or more FNPPs within a protective breakwater. The individual plants were to be 1150 MWe Westinghouse four-loop PWRs with ice-condenser containments. They had once-through steam condenser cooling with no cooling towers. Electricity was to be transmitted at high-voltage (345 kV) through submerged cables beneath the sea bottom. A shore support facility would provide a staging area, a docking facility, office buildings, and parking. At the time, the largest crane of its type in the world, just one, was at Blount Island - but the anti-nuclear movement in the 1970s killed OPS before any construction could be started. That crane though...what was to be done with that? In 1990, in the heart of the Bush41 Presidency; A REMNANT of a futuristic project that would have supplied cities with electricity from floating nuclear power plants is about to leave Florida. The world's largest crane, designed to build the nuclear systems, is being dismantled along the St. Johns River for shipment to China. The crane is being taken down by workers from the China State Shipbuilding Corp. at Blount Island. The Chinese reportedly paid $3 million for the 38-story crane, which cost $15 million when built for Offshore Power Systems. Ensign Salamander - always suspecting the worse of all communist nations and enraged that we would do any business with them, was unpleased, but had a lot of PQS to do and was keeping a weather eye to that Iraq thing and hoped his betters knew what they were doing. So began a bi-partisan decade of stupid acts. Quick, go up to look at the PLAN carrier pic above again then come back. Where did that start? It was a mission like no other. In the aftermath of the Soviet Union's collapse, one businessman armed with cash and a casino cover story scooped the world to buy the unfinished hulk of a Ukrainian aircraft carrier that would become the centrepiece of the PLA Navy. Speaking to the media for the first time, the Hong Kong-based businessman at the heart of the undertaking reveals in a two-part series the details of the little-known, behind-the-scenes odyssey to realise China's long-held dream of owning such a warship. Xu Zengping disclosed that the militarily sensitive original engines of the carrier were intact when Ukraine sold the vessel in 1998. This is contrary to what Beijing told the world at the time. Soon to be LCDR Salamander didn't like this either, but he was focused on that guy in Iraq who needed a good spanking for trying to kill Bush41, so he hoped his betters knew what they were doing. He had his suspicions because we were also selling MIRV technology to the PRC, but what did I know? His betters didn't.Karginov told the media: “The unfinished aircraft carrier Varyag was handed over to Ukraine and then sold to China to convert it into a casino. After China received the ship, it completed its construction and renamed it the Liaoning ship. The ship was originally supposed to become one of the main ships of the USSR.”I'm not really mad at the PRC. I'm actually quite impressed with their leadership's long term vision, drive, and follow through. Are we thinking as long-term? Is our defense nomenklatura focused on the Long Game ... or any game at all outside the Beltway? Have we learned? View the full article

Americas Raytheon won a $72.8 million order, which provides non-recurring engineering in support of early identification, development, and qualification of corrections to potential and actual F135 propulsion system operational issues, to include safety and reliability/maintainability problems identified through fleet usage. Additionally, this order provides for continued engine maturation, evaluates component life limits based on operational […]View the full article

Does your opponent respond the same - or to the same degree - to identical incentives and disincentives than you do? Are you mirroring? Do you want your opponent to think a certain way because it is convenient to you and your priors? Are you doing your best to structure your actions such that they are conveniently aligned with your peacetime path of least resistance, or are they mindfully structured with your opponent's view of warfighting? That kept coming to mind yesterday during our conversation with our guest Toshi Yoshihara on Midrats discussing his new book Mao's Army Goes to Sea: The Island Campaigns and the Founding of China's Navy, and for the second half of the hour while we discussed related topics from his CSBA study, Chinese Lessons From the Pacific War: Implications for PLA Warfighting. Two of the take aways from our discussion were the People's Republic of China's (PRC) institutional habits at war shaped by two predilections; (1) A quick sneak attack to negate an opponent's military strength. (2) Incremental attacks against a stronger opponent's isolated outposts where local superiority can be obtained at the moment of contact. When they see these two opportunities, they are more predisposed to offensive action. If we want to deter the PRC from starting a new war in the Western Pacific, then we should not provide them tempting targets that feed their two preferred options. While we may think many forward deployed bases - which this decade are now well inside the PRC's rocket artillery as in the above graphic - will deter the PRC from action against Taiwan, we may actually create conditions to encourage PRC aggression. It would seem to me if we want to take the PRC's mindset and preferences in to account, a much greater way to deter them would be in two ways: First, Taiwan and Japan cannot move, so they must be as strong as possible - long quilled porcupines - who are clearly positioned to thwart and survive any offensive action by the PRC in line with (1) and (2) above. Second, the USA must maintain a strong, long ranged, and safely based offensive force well outside the range of a PRC quick strike - homeported/based at diverse locations - and supported by logistics capabilities in depth to reach and sustain at range combat operations. Both must be structured assuming not insignificant combat loss rates. We cannot be 2-ships away from being operationally defunct. As part of my morning read, this article from Emma Helfrich came across as ... well ... worrisome; The U.S. Marine Corps has activated a new base camp on the strategic island of Guam in the Pacific, and, at least according to the Marines, it will serve as the first newly constructed base for the service in 70 years. Named Camp Blaz, the installation’s location is not only steeped in Marine Corps history dating back decades, but the activation also reflects the U.S. military's evolving posture in the increasingly tense region over which China looms.How many more assets can we really put on Guam that just encourages PRC targeting with existing conventional precision strike missiles? The island doesn't need to tip over for those densely packed capabilities to be taken off the board at D+1. I keep coming back to our requirement to refocus on USA based, long ranged, robust logistically supported forces that demonstrate on a regular basis at peace substantial global reach in support of front-line allied nations. Smarter move if we assume war is coming - and if robust enough, might prevent that war from coming at all. View the full article

Americas Blue Force Technologies (BFT) and the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) have successfully completed a ground test for a novel carbon fiber composite propulsion flow path system for BFT’s Fury uncrewed fighter under the AFRL Bandit program. “On an uncrewed fighter like Fury, proper integration of the propulsion flow path is the most […]View the full article

From a navy of peasants to professionals on par with any Western navy; from coastal patrol to global reach, the slow and steady growth of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) crept up on some policy makers in the last decade, but as the PLAN eclipses the United States Navy in numbers and is accelerating their industrial capacity and capabilities, the decades of the American uncontested dominance at sea is no longer granted. Returning to Midrats to discuss this and the larger trends he raises in his new book, Mao's Army Goes to Sea: The Island Campaigns and the Founding of China's Navy, will be Dr. Toshi Yoshihara. Toshi Yoshihara is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA). He was previously the inaugural John A. van Beuren Chair of Asia-Pacific Studies and a Professor of Strategy at the U.S. Naval War College. In addition to his latest book is Mao’s Army Goes to Sea: The Island Campaigns and the Founding of China’s Navy, he co-authored, with James R. Holmes, the second edition of Red Star over the Pacific: China's Rise and the Challenge to U.S. Maritime Strategy. T He currently teaches a graduate course on seapower in the Indo-Pacific at the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University. Join us live if you can, but it not, you can get the show later by subscribing to the podcast. If you use iTunes, you can add Midrats to your podcast list simply by clicking the iTunes button at the main showpage - or you can just click here. You can find us on almost all your most popular podcast aggregators as well.View the full article

Americas According to news reports in Israel, the United States had approached Israel to release its stockpile of MIM-23 HAWK air defense missiles and transfer them to Ukraine. But the head of the Israeli Defense Ministry’s political-Military Bureau, Dror Shalom, reportedly told the Pentagon that Israel has not changed its policy of not sending weapons […]View the full article

In the first year of this blog ~18-yrs ago, we blowtorched the Navy for throwing away our riverine capability forcing the Army in Iraq to "reacquisition" fishing boats, and generally surrendering a primary logistics path - rivers - to the enemy. We covered the rise and rebuilding of riverine in our Navy, and if you followed the tag, the ahistorical stupidity of our Navy at once again throwing it away due to having the attentions span of a squirrel. Wherever there is war with any significant river systems, having a mature, well equipped riverine force is essential to controlling that logistics corridor and having the ability to defend from and project force quickly using the water. This is military 101, but again, we have a problem with institutional maturity to support the "unsexy but important." At least we are giving the Ukrainians what we are foolishly throwing away. Over at Naval News they have the full report. For the record, the United States’ State Department approved a possible Foreign Military Sale (FMS) to the Government of Ukraine of up to 16 Mark VI Patrol Boats and related equipment for an estimated cost of $600 million back in June 2020. The U.S. Department of Defense on 5 January 2021 awarded SAFE Boats International a US$ 19 million order to start production of Ukraine’s first two Mk VI Patrol Boats. Eight months later NAVSEA awarded SAFE Boats International a US$ 84 million contract modification for the delivery of six more Mk VI patrol boats, with an option for an additional two boats.Mark my words; we will - again - regret with blood and treasure giving up this capability. View the full article