CV32

From On War #117 May 18, 2005 War with China? By William S. Lind [The views expressed in this article are those of Mr. Lind, writing in his personal capacity. They do not reflect the opinions or policy positions of the Free Congress Foundation, its officers, board or employees, or those of Kettle Creek Corporation.] I regard a war with China – hot or cold – as perhaps the greatest strategic blunder the United States could make, beyond those it has already made. The end result would be the same as that from the 20th century wars between Britain and Germany: it reduced both to second-rate powers. In the 21st century, the real victors would be the non-state forces of the Fourth Generation, who would fill the gap created by the reduction of both Chinese and American power. Given my foreboding – in George W. Bush’s Washington, it seems the rule is that any blunder we can make, we will make – I was struck by the title of Robert D. Kaplan’s article in the June Atlantic Monthly, “How We Would Fight China.” Kaplan has written some excellent material on the breakdown of the state and the rise of non-state elements. Here, however, I think he gets it wrong. Kaplan sees the 21st century being defined by a new Cold War between China and the United States, rather than the clash between states and non-state forces. I believe this phenomenon will be far more century-shaping than any conflict between states. While Kaplan writes about how the U.S. could use naval power – subtly – to contain a rising China, within the framework of a Bismarckian Realpolitik that accommodates everyone’s interests, he recognizes the danger to all of a Cold War turning hot. He writes, “Only a similarly pragmatic approach (similar to Bismarck’s) will allow us to accommodate China’s inevitable re-emergence as a great power. The alternative will be to turn the earth of the twenty-first century into a battleground.” Regrettably, there are influential voices in Washington that want a war with China, the sooner the better. The most likely cause is Taiwan. Few in Washington understand why China is so adamant about Taiwan remaining officially part of China. The reason is China’s history, throughout which her greatest threat has not been foreign invasion but internal division. China has often fractured, sometimes into many parts. Today, Beijing fears that if one province, Taiwan, achieves independence, others will follow. China will go to war, including with the United States, to prevent that from happening. Correctly, Kaplan observes that China is not able to successfully fight a sea and air war with America: China has committed itself to significant military spending, but its navy and air force will not be able to match ours for some decades. The Chinese are therefore not going to do us the favor of engaging in conventional air and naval battles, like those fought in the Pacific during World War II. So how would China fight us? If we send some carrier battle groups to intervene in a war between China and Taiwan, I think China will do something Kaplan does not mention. She will go nuclear at sea from the outset. When the Cold War ended, we found out that the Soviet Union planned to do exactly that (so much for Reagan Administration plans to send our carriers charging up to the Kola Peninsula). The Chinese might employ nuclear-armed anti-ship missiles and torpedoes, fired from submarines or surface ships, but I think her little surprise for us may be nastier. Kaplan briefly mentions that China “may eventually be able to lob missiles accurately at moving ships in the Pacific” from deep in Chinese territory. I think those missiles, ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, may be ready now – perhaps with a bit of clandestine targeting assistance from a Russia whose sphere of influence the United States is aggressively invading. The Chinese way of war is indirect. In most cases, that means China will engage us with “soft power,” as she is already doing on multiple fronts. But in the case of American intervention in a Taiwan crisis, what if a Chinese ballistic missile popped a nuke say, 100 miles from an advancing American carrier battle group? No one gets hurt, but the message would be loud and clear: keep coming and you’re toast. If we kept coming anyway and the Chinese did nuke a carrier, we would immediately face an asymmetrical situation. How would we respond? By nuking a Chinese carrier? China doesn’t have any. If we drop a nuke on Chinese territory, we have initiated a strategic nuclear exchange. Is Taiwan worth Seattle or L.A.? The right answer, as Kaplan recognizes, is don’t go to war with China. Perhaps if someone could talk to Karl Rove about the importance of the Chinese vote ... William S. Lind, expressing his own personal opinion, is Director for the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.

OK, it seems we have at least a one vs one match-up, with possibly more, but right now I am going to say our players are Peter Maidhof and Dewayne Harris. Bruce might play too if we get a fourth, but if not, he will be helping with the umpiring side of things. The scenario will examine "freedom of navigation in the Strait of Gibraltar", and in general terms, will see a US Navy group trying to break out of the Mediterranean while being opposed by an EU force. Pete and Dewayne, if you want to express a preference for one side or the other, please do. Otherwise, I guess we will toss a coin. As I hinted earlier, much will turn on what choices you make before the game begins, especially with regard to the Order of Battle (OOB). I have developed the OOB choices and will be ready to send them to you privately as soon as we know who is playing which side. Lets go to war. Brad

From DefenseNews Finland Accuses Russia of Numerous Airspace Violations By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, HELSINKI Russia has repeatedly violated neighboring Finland’s airspace despite official protests from Helsinki, the Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs said May 20. Russian military planes flying to or from Kaliningrad, situated on the Baltic Sea near the Polish border, have illegally entered Finnish airspace on numerous occasions over recent months, the ministry claimed. “Violations have continued despite the fact that Russian authorities have been approached and a cessation of violations has been demanded,” the ministry said in a statement. At least 10 violations have occurred, mainly over the Gulf of Finland, according to unconfirmed reports from private television station MTV3. “This will be further discussed at a political level,” ministry spokeswoman Tina Nikkinen told Agence France-Presse. “(Prime Minister Matti) Vanhanen will take up the issue when he goes to Russia.”

From Navy Times Carrier America sunk By Matt Hilburn Times staff writer The carrier America now lies beneath the surface of the Atlantic, scuttled by the Navy. Pat Dolan, a spokeswoman for Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC, confirmed the “controlled” sinking took place at approximately 11:30 a.m. on May 14. The decommissioned ship, out of service since 1996, was the target of a series of tests designed to try out new defense and damage control systems for the CVN-21 carrier program. It was the largest ship deliberately sunk by the Navy. In fact, the America was the largest warship ever sunk by any means, in war or peace. Tom Tramantano, president of the USS America Carrier Veterans Association Inc., a group that had been trying to save the carrier and turn it into a museum, called it a “sad day.” “I feel I really haven’t had time to mourn,” said Tramantano, who served on the America as a lithographer third class during the ship’s 1968 Vietnam deployment. Tramantano said the group will now focus its efforts toward getting the next class of carriers named after the America. “There’s some anger in me that they would allow a ship with the country’s name to be sunk,” he said. “But I’m also proud that the testing may do some future good.”

From DefenseNews China Military Spending May Be Higher Than Acknowledged By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE China’s military spending is 40 to 70 percent higher than it officially acknowledges, and is likely to exceed that of any U.S. ally in two decades, according to a study released May 19 by the RAND Corporation. The study estimated China’s current annual defense spending at between 2.3 and 2.8 percent of its gross domestic product, or between $69 billion and $78 billion in 2001 dollars. That compares to U.S. defense spending of nearly $430 billion in 2004, which was 3.9 percent of GDP in 2004, it said. “China’s defense spending has more than doubled over the past six years, almost catching up with Great Britain and Japan,” said Keith Crane, the lead author of the study, “Modernizing Chinas Military: Opportunities and Constraints.” “Although the rate of increase has slowed, by 2025 China will be spending more on defense than any of our allies,” he said. The study said Chinese defense industries have grown more efficient; benefited from access to foreign military systems and technologies; and improved the quality and sophistication of domestically produced military goods in areas such as information technology, shipbuilding and defense electronics. RAND pointed out, however, that the study’s estimates of Chinese military spending, although 40 to 70 percent higher than the official figures, were still considerably lower than other outside estimates. The report said military spending likely to grow over the next decade because of the sheer heft of the Chinese economy, which is expected to triple in size over the next two decades even as growth rates subside. On the other hand, the government’s ability to continue increasing military spending will be constrained by rising demand for social services, combined with rising government debt, the report said. The study was conducted by RAND’s Project Air Force, a federally funded research center that does research on subjects of interest to leaders of the U.S. Air Force.

From DefenseNews EU Threatens Support for Sanctions Against Iran By BROOKS TIGNER, BRUSSELS Tense back-channel talks are under way between European Union countries and Iran to persuade the latter from re-starting its nuclear enrichment research — an activity Tehran promised in late 2005 to freeze in exchange for a new economic and political relationship with Europe. The EU lead nations of Germany, France and the United Kingdom — the so-called EU3 — are warning they will support United Nations sanctions, long desired by Washington, if Iran does not immediately reverse its position. European support for U.N. sanctions “would certainly see them come into effect quite fast,” a European diplomat told DefenseNews.com on May 16. The EU3 countries initially scored a major diplomatic achievement by persuading Iran during a meeting in Paris in November to cease its nuclear enrichment program, thus avoiding general sanctions. But Tehran has given less-than-clear signals since then about how permanent its decision would be. This ambivalence culminated in an announcement May 10 by Mohammed Saeedi, deputy chief of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, that his country soon would reopen a conversion plant in Isfahan in contravention of the Paris agreement. The European response was swift and unambiguous, with Germany, France and the United Kingdom sending a joint letter May 12 to Hassan Rouhani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, warning that his government would face sanctions if it unfreezes its uranium conversion program. “The situation is confusing,” the diplomat said, adding that “there seem to be conflicting policy camps within Iran.” But an EU official said May 18 that Rouhani “seems to be re-thinking Iran’s position” and has agreed to meet the EU3 and Javier Solana, the top EU official for security and defense policy, early the week of May 23 to discuss the matter. “There simply are no grounds to break the Paris agreement,” said the official. In their May 12 letter, a copy of which was given to DefenseNews.com, the EU3 state categorically that any change to Iran’s suspended enrichment activities “would bring the negotiating process [between Iran and the EU for new relations] to an end. The consequences beyond could only be negative for Iran.” Members of the European Parliament’s largest political group, the Socialists, also have condemned Iran’s policy reversal, saying they “deplore any resumption of nuclear activity by Iran.” The Socialist lawmakers warn Tehran that “international sanctions will be imposed” if it does not resume its dialogue with Europe.

From DefenseNews 33 Major Bases on the Block in Biggest BRAC Round Yet By GORDON TROWBRIDGE The Pentagon asked on Friday to shut down 180 installations across the country in the first round of base closings since 1995, and the fifth since 1988. This round is the biggest yet, with recommendations that fall heaviest on National Guard and Reserve facilities, commercial office space and a handful of large, politically sensitive bases. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said the moves, if approved, would unfold over six years starting next year and would save almost $50 billion over 20 years. “Our current arrangements, designed for the Cold War, must give way to the new demands of the war against extremism and other evolving 21st Century challenges,” Rumsfeld said. Even before the list was released publicly at a Pentagon news conference, lawmakers were reacting — often angrily — to a list that would close 33 major bases and dozens of smaller facilities. Another 29 large installations and hundreds of small bases would remain open but scaled down, with significant losses of military or civilian personnel. Collectively, Rumsfeld’s plan would result in a net loss of 29,005 military and civilian jobs at domestic installations. The plan would involve pulling 218,570 military and civilian positions out of some U.S. bases while adding 189,565 positions to others. Among the affected bases are reserve-component facilities in nearly every state. About 175 Army Reserve facilities, for example, will close, and consolidate into about 125 new joint reserve centers that the Pentagon plans to establish. Those closings are likely to spark worries of longer travel to drill weekends for reservists, but Lt. Gen. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau, said the moves are designed to meet changing demographics across the country. “We hope it will aid recruiting and retention,” Blum said. The Pentagon also will shift thousands of military and civilian workers out of leased office space across the country, in what Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has described as a security-driven effort to move more offices inside base gates. Rumsfeld said Thursday that the Pentagon expects the moves to save nearly $50 billion over the next 20 years by eliminating unneeded infrastructure. The list now goes to an independent Base Realignment and Closure Commission. In the past, such commissions typically have altered 10 percent to 15 percent of the Pentagon’s recommendations. Once the commission finishes work — by Sept. 8 — it will send its completed recommendations to President Bush, who must accept or reject the list in its entirety by Sept. 23. If he accepts it, the list then goes to Congress for another all-or-nothing vote, probably in October or November. A look at some of the specific Pentagon proposals for each service: Navy The proposal to close Submarine Base New London, Conn., and move its submarines to bases in Virginia and Georgia, would involve the largest job loss of any single closing — as many as 15,000, including ripple effects, according to documents accompanying the Defense Department recommendations. That makes this proposal as politically explosive as any on the list. On Friday, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., attacked the move as “an insult to our history.” Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, also said he opposed the plan. Army Two Georgia posts — Fort Gillem and Fort McPherson — would close under the plan. But overall, Army posts will grow, fed by the return of forces from bases in Germany and Korea and by the Army’s ongoing effort to reorganize itself into smaller, more deployable brigades. Among the bases gaining: Fort Bliss, Texas (more than 11,000 soldiers) and Fort Benning, Ga. (more than 9,000). Historic Fort Monroe, Va., is again recommended for shutdown, after surviving repeated attempts in previous rounds to close it. Air Force Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D., and Cannon Air Force Base, N.M., are among the largest Air Force bases scheduled for closing. Ellsworth’s B-1 Lancer bombers would move to Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, consolidating the service’s smaller B-1 fleet in one location. Cannon’s closing, like a number of moves involving reserve and Guard bases, is a symptom of the Air Force’s shrinking fleet of F-16 Falcon fighters. Marine Corps The Marine Corps’ comparatively small base structure sees few major changes, especially on active-duty bases. Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va., would gain about 4,200 personnel — nearly three-quarters of them civilians — in part to move a series of Defense Department intelligence and law-enforcement agencies to the base.

Thanks, Pete. I hope to start work on getting the background work done in the next two weeks, and hopefully launch the thing around the end of the month.

From Jane's Intelligence Digest A partnership between Israel and NATO ? In a rapidly changing strategic environment, Israeli policy makers are recognising definite advantages, especially in security affairs, in developing closer ties with NATO. The present Israeli government's enthusiasm for this project can be seen in an ambitious set of proposals submitted to the Alliance. Highlighting the desirability of upgrading relations with NATO, the document proposes closer co-operation on counter-terrorism; combating the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; joint military training; in the field of logistics; and in the future joint development of weapons systems. The latest push by Israel to build strategic links comes at a very crucial time for NATO since the Middle East represents a major issue of concern for the trans-Atlantic military alliance. Concerned by the growing threats posed by terrorism and the continued proliferation of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons in the region, NATO appears to be adopting a new strategy: address the crisis before it reaches Europe. Widespread suspicion among Arab rulers over NATO's more active involvement means that Israel alone is being considered as a dependable regional ally for NATO. Joint military exercises have taken place in the past and there is a genuine desire on both sides for further agreements aimed at strengthening co-operation in the critical area of security. It cannot be ignored that two major objectives of NATO - combating international terrorism and blocking further proliferation of weapons of mass destruction - are also the two main strategic concerns shared by Israel. Whereas Israel's geopolitical location could offer an 'external base' for the defence of the West, NATO's military and economic status could provide added security and economic benefits for the host state. The issue of Israel's possible future membership of NATO is likely to prove less controversial than the prospect of the alliance becoming involved directly in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This issue has become more significant in recent months. Although both sides have ruled out any direct NATO role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, JID sources suggest that NATO leaders are assessing the possibility of a peacekeeping mission in the event that a peace deal is negotiated between the Israeli authorities and the new Palestinian leadership.

From DefenseNews MiG-29 Flights Suspended By LYUBOV PRONINA, MOSCOW Gen. Vladimir Mikhailov, commander of the Russian Air Force, on May 12 temporarily suspended flights by MiG-29 Fulcrums following a MiG-29 crash earlier in the day. The jet crashed at 11:51 a.m. Moscow time near the Andreapol airfield, 350 kilometers west of Tver, northwest of Moscow, killing the pilot, Interfax news agency quoted an Air Force spokesman as saying. The MiG-29 was descending from an altitude of 900 meters to 600 meters when it suddenly slammed into the ground and exploded, 800 meters from the runway. It was the first crash of a Russian Air Force aircraft this year. The plane was flying as part of a group of six from Kubinka air base outside Moscow to perform a simple maneuver in the clouds at midrange and high altitudes, according to Interfax, which quoted a source close to the commission investigating the crash. The source said that all six planes were used to provide security over Moscow on May 9 during the 60th anniversary celebrations of the Allied victory in World War II. Moscow hosted a group of world leaders, including U.S. President George W. Bush. Mikhailov announced that flights would remain suspended until the cause of the crash is identified.

From Defence Aerospace LPD 17 Successfully Completes Builder's Sea Trials (Source: US Naval Sea Systems Command; issued May 11, 2005) PASCAGOULA, Miss. --- San Antonio, first ship of the LPD 17 Class, returned to Northrop Grumman Ship Systems (NGSS) Pascagoula facility after successfully demonstrating performance during Builder's Sea Trials. Having accomplished significant pier-side systems testing and dock trials, this underway testing was a critical milestone on the path to ship delivery. NGSS conducted a complete range of tests including ship maneuvering and steering, propulsion and propulsion controls, mission systems, auxiliary systems, and combat systems. The Shipboard Wide Area Network and Engineering Control System, which comprise the cornerstone of this highly complex new amphibious ship, were also demonstrated. Close coordination between the Board of Inspection and Survey (INSURV), Naval Sea Systems Command, ship's force, NGSS shipbuilder and integrator, suppliers, and government program office (PMS 317) ensured success of the trial. The future USS San Antonio will be commissioned in Ingleside, TX, this fall. The next three ships of the class, New Orleans, Mesa Verde, and Green Bay are all scheduled to undergo Builder’s Trials in 2006. The future USS New York, the fifth ship of the class, continues construction at the NGSS facility in Avondale, LA.

A new version of the Harpoon Classic Gold Database (HCDB-050510) is available. Get it at HarpGamer via the DB Share button. New additions include: Lynx Mk 80 - Denmark Lynx SH-14D - Netherlands FF Descubierta (Morocco) - Morocco LCU Lt Malghagh (EDIC) - Morocco LSM Daoud Ben Aicha - Morocco LST S.M. Ben Abdallah - Morocco PG El Lahiq (Osprey 55) - Morocco PG El Yadekh (Kebir) I - Algeria PG El Yadekh (Kebir) II - Algeria PG Okba (PR-72) - Morocco SAM SL-AMRAAM Bty - INTL Enjoy.

From Defence Aerospace Navy's First Littoral Combat Ship Honors Freedom (Source: US Department of Defense; issued May 9, 2005) Secretary of the Navy Gordon England has selected the name Freedom for the Navy’s first new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The future USS Freedom acknowledges the enduring foundation of our nation and honors American communities from coast to coast which bear the name Freedom. States having towns named Freedom range from New York to California, and include Indiana, Maine, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Wyoming. “These new, fast and capable ships will increase the effectiveness of our naval forces and provide us with an ability to operate in the littoral areas of the world where the enemies of freedom seek to operate and hide” England said. “The USS Freedom and her crew will defend the noble cause for which they are named,” he added. LCS is an innovative combatant designed to counter challenging shallow-water threats in coastal regions, specifically mines, submarines and fast surface craft. LCS ships will be fast, agile, and networked surface combatants and will utilize focused-mission packages that deploy manned and unmanned vehicles to execute a variety of missions. In May 2004, the Department of Defense awarded both Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics - Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine, separate contract options for final system design with options for detail design and construction of up to two LCS ships. In December 2004, the Department of Navy awarded Lockheed Martin Corp., Maritime Systems & Sensors, Moorestown, N.J., a contract for detail design and construction of the first LCS. Lockheed Martin’s teammates include Gibbs & Cox, Arlington, Va.; Marinette Marine, Marinette, Wis.; and Bollinger Shipyards, Lockport, La. A keel laying ceremony is scheduled for June 2, 2005, at Marinette Marine, Marinette, Wis.

From Navy Times May 09, 2005 Official report: Leadership, navigation errors led to San Francisco accident By William H. McMichael Times Staff Writer Failures of command leadership and the sub’s navigation team were the sole cause of the attack submarine San Francisco’s Jan. 8 collision with an undersea mountain, the Navy has concluded in its official investigative report. The sub struck the sea mount while traveling full speed near the Pacific Ocean’s Caroline Islands at a depth of 525 feet, killing one sailor, injuring dozens of others and crushing the sub’s bow, causing more than $88 million in damage and leaving the 24-year-old sub’s future in doubt. Specifically, an investigating officer and three admirals who reviewed the report concluded that then-San Francisco commanding officer Cmdr. Kevin Mooney and his navigation team failed to develop and execute a safe voyage plan, then failed to exercise enough caution while transiting through a region dotted with steep undersea volcanoes. The Navy’s Pacific Fleet released the 124-page report at 6:30 p.m. EDT Saturday to organizations it said had requested a copy through the Freedom of Information Act. The initial report was completed Feb. 3 but release was delayed for official review and the deletion of material deemed sensitive. The report will be made available to the general public May 9. While the admirals were unanimous in blaming Mooney and his navigation team, they also equivocated slightly. In his endorsement of the report, Vice Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert, commander of 7th Fleet, noted that the sea mount struck by the sub was not on the primary chart being used at the time of the mishap and that “opportunities exist for systemic improvement in functional (formal and on-the-job training) and administrative (directives and inspections) areas.” But he also found that the sub had other charts onboard that did indicate a sea mount within 2.87 miles of the sub’s “intended track” but that the charts were not properly reviewed during the planning process. “I find it difficult to conclude absolutely that grounding could have been avoided,” Greenert wrote. “It is absolutely clear to me, however, that if command leadership and the navigation team followed basic specified procedures and exercised prudent navigation practices, they would have been aware of imminent navigation hazards and therefore [been] compelled to operate the ship more prudently. “At a minimum, the grounding would not have been as severe.” Mooney, Greenert said, failed to consider all available navigation information, which Greenert felt would have caused the sub commander to take a more conservative approach in a region “potentially hazardous to navigation.” Instead, he said that neither Mooney nor his navigation team “exercised due care,” and that Mooney decided instead to operate the sub at maximum speed without exercising enough caution on a voyage track that included “several islands, atolls and rapidly shoaling areas.” Those cautionary measures, Greenert said, could have included stationing additional navigation watchstanders, establishing limits on speed and depth and reducing the navigational sounding interval to more frequently check on variations in depth. Mooney declined to comment on the report, other than to provide a written statement to Navy Times that read: “I accept responsibility for the grounding as the ship’s CO.” Mooney was relieved of his command by Greenert Feb. 12 and is now assigned to an unspecified position in Washington state. Greenert also criticized the executive officer and navigation team, saying their “failure to adequately and critically review applicable publications and available charts led to submission of an ill-advised voyage plan and hindered the commanding officer’s ability to make fully informed safety-of-ship decisions.” The navigation team consisted of Mooney and several officers and enlisted sailors whose names were deleted from the report. They included the sub’s executive officer and navigator, and three enlisted electronics technicians: the assistant navigator, a senior chief petty officer; the navigation supervisor, a first class petty officer; and the quartermaster of the watch, a second class petty officer. The entire navigation team and one other enlisted sailor received nonjudicial punishment March 22, with punishments ranging from reductions in rate to punitive letters of reprimand. The crew’s voyage planning process began Jan. 4 when, according to the report, the 7th Fleet Submarine Operating Authority, or SubOpAuth, issued a basic track or “moving haven” for the sub to follow on a voyage from Guam to Brisbane, Australia. The track also includes a rough timeline the sub is expected to follow. The information, contained in what submariners call a “subnote,” allows the SubOpAuth to roughly track the submarine while underway and to ensure no other submarines are operating within its moving haven in order to reduce the risk of collision. The subnote did not make note of any navigation hazards along the route, the report said. But nearly all information regarding the preparation and approval of the subnote is blacked out in the media copy of the Navy’s report. Information deleted includes historical data on other subnotes issued in the preceding five years, presumably for that general route; details included in a larger scale map of the Caroline Islands; and quotes from interviewees regarding their understanding of the subnote’s preparation and planning. The San Francisco was due to deploy three days later, and Mooney and the sub’s navigation team wanted the subnote much sooner. The assistant navigator complained to the SubOpAuth that they needed to get subnotes out more quickly “because the review process will fall down because we don’t have enough time to get everything done. … ” Yet the assistant navigator felt confident about the basic track, saying an official contact at the SubOpAuth told him that “other submarines had used this track previously.” Mooney wasn’t as confident initially, saying of his initial review of the track, “I was concerned about the path. … I was familiar with the Caroline Islands as being a region that was going to be a concern to drive through.” But later, Mooney felt better about the route, considering that he’d be in the middle of a 40-mile-wide moving haven “that didn’t have any navigation hazards on it.” The navigation team was relying on a bottom contour chart labeled E2202 that includes historical sounding data for the region. To the team, the area where the sub ultimately grounded was a flat spot. The team, including Mooney, did not look at a 1989 chart, DMA 81023, that contains a dotted-line circle labeled “discolored water” that was on the sub’s track — and which actually is about three miles south of where the mishap occurred. The discolored water indicates a potential hazard. Mooney told the investigator that he expected his navigator to examine every available chart on a given route, and that he wasn’t shown DMA 81023 and didn’t ask if another chart for that area existed. According to the report, Mooney also said he considered charts containing sounding data to be significantly better. But he also said that, in retrospect, he thought his navigation team “should have laid our track down on the 81023 chart … they should have looked around for navigation hazards, and then transferred them over to the chart.” At one point during the planning process, the navigation supervisor pulled DMA 81023 out of a drawer on the sub, looked at it but decided its detail was inferior to E2202. He put it back. Later, the assistant navigator looked at E2202 for 15 minutes but apparently did not notice the area of discolored water — the result of an incorrectly charted 1963 sighting. The sea mount’s exact location was known, however, but not to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the government group that produces all U.S. military charts and maps. It was indicated on a 1999 Landsat 7 satellite image indicating a likely undersea mountain rising to within 100 feet of the surface, according to the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Center for Earth Resource Observation and Science. In addition, a shallow danger spot correlating to the incorrectly charted discolored water spot was loaded on a digital nautical chart loaded in the sub’s digital navigation system. According to the report, “no watchstander noticed it.” Once in the Carolines on the night of Jan. 7-8, Mooney’s night orders called for depth soundings and a positional fix to be taken every 15 minutes. Deviations between actual and charted soundings would be cause for alarm, officials say. On Jan. 8, the 0645 sounding showed a depth beneath the keel of 832 fathoms, or 4,992 feet. According to the chart, it should have read between 7,200-7,800 feet. The discrepancy was not noted. The last recorded sounding in the sub’s fathometer log, taken at 1130, was 6,192 feet beneath the keel. Soundings in the preceding hour had been “trending shallower” but were consistent with E2202. Details regarding indications of depth and speed at the time of the grounding — 1138 — are blacked out in the report. On Feb. 5, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency issued a Notice to Mariners to “add danger circle” at the longitude and latitude where the San Francisco struck the sea mount. That same month, Navy submarine commands began briefing all sub commanders on “the importance of following standard, proven procedures for voyage planning and safe navigation” and formed a team to comprehensively review all aspects of submarine navigation, said Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Davis of Pacific Fleet Submarine Force. The study included a “thorough review of navigation voyage planning procedures,” he said. The report holds NGA blameless, noting only that, in the future, all critical navigational hazards should be included on soundings charts such as E2202. The investigator’s opinions regarding the performance of the 7th Fleet SubOpAuth are largely blacked out of the report. Mooney and his navigation team were held wholly responsible for the mishap. “The investigation reveals a series of bad judgments, faulty assumptions, poor attention to detail, and complacency among the navigation department, watch standers, and command leadership,” wrote Adm. Walter Doran, Pacific Fleet commander, in his endorsement of the report. “But for outstanding damage control efforts and post-grounding leadership, this event could have had far more disastrous consequences.” Greenert agreed with the latter, offering praise not only for the crew’s successful efforts to save the sub and return safely to Guam, but also for Mooney’s prior record and performance. “Although the grounding incident compelled me to punish (Mooney) and remove him from command, in my opinion it does not negate 19 years of exemplary service,” the admiral wrote. “Prior to the grounding incident, USS San Francisco demonstrated a trend of continuing improvement and compiled an impressive record of achievement under (Mooney’s) leadership.” William H. McMichael is the Hampton Roads bureau chief for Navy Times.

A new version of the Harpoon Classic Gold Database (HCDB-050507) is available. Get it at HarpGamer via the DB Share button. New additions include: MCM Sandown - UK SSBN Borey (Project 955) - Russia SSN Type 093 - PRC Arrow II ATBM Battery - Israel Shahab-3 Site – Iran Enjoy.

Great AAR, Herman. Anyone who wants to know how to write an AAR for Harpoon - regardless of version - should take a look at this one.

From Defence Aerospace Agreement With US to Rescue Submarines In Distress (Source: Indian Ministry of Defence; issued May 4, 2005) NEW DELHI --- India and US have agreed to reach an agreement for American assistance for Indian Naval Submarines which are in distress to facilitate rescue of crew members from a disabled submarine. There are no plans to procure submarine rescue vehicles from US. The agreement is only restricted to utilizing the US Navy’s Global Submarines Rescue Flyway Kit to facilitate rescue of personnel from disabled submarines and not for augmenting the capability of the existing submarines in the Indian Navy No such situation has arisen, where the need existed to actually utilize the US Navy’s Global Flyway Rescue Kit for submarine rescue operation. This information was given by the Defence Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee in a written reply to Shri Moolchand Meena and others in Rajya Sabha today.

From DefenseNews Turkey Causing Security Problems: Greek Minister By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, ATHENS Greece’s defense minister on May 6 accused Turkey of “systematically” violating international law and causing “grave problems to regional stability and security” two days after a spate of alleged airspace infringements by Turkish warplanes which Athens deemed “particularly provocative.” “Turkey’s provocative behavior systematically violates international law, causes great problems to regional stability and security, dynamites attempts to improve Greek-Turkish relations and undermines [Turkey’s] European prospects,” Spilios Spiliotopoulos said, according to a defense ministry press release. Sixty Turkish military aircraft entered the Greek Flight Information Region (FIR) on May 4 without submitting flight plans, the highest activity of the sort noted in 18 months, a Greek army general staff source told Agence France-Presse. Sixteen Turkish aircraft violated Greek airspace, and intercepting Greek planes engaged in mock dogfights on three occasions, the source said. On May 5, the Greek army general staff reported a further 13 infringements and eight violations of Greek airspace by Turkish planes. Greek and Turkish officials were scheduled to begin in Athens on May 6 a 30th round of the closed-door talks the two NATO allies launched in 2002 to resolve their disputes. Turkish Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Tuygan is already in Athens for the talks, which have so far failed to yield tangible results. [When are these two going to get their act together ? ]

From DefenseNews China Seen Deploying New Missiles in 10 Years By REUTERS China is expected to deploy three new strategic missiles over the next decade as part of an aggressive military build-up seen threatening U.S. forces in the region, a U.S. intelligence official said May 3. David Gordon, chairman of the National Intelligence Council, told a commission charged with overseeing the consolidation of U.S. military bases that the arrival of new, more capable missiles coincided with China’s growing influence on the balance of power in the Taiwan Straits. “Strategic force modernization is a continuing priority, and China will likely field three new strategic missiles — more mobile, survivable and capable — within a decade,” Gordon said at a hearing of the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission. He added, “Beijing has undertaken an impressive program of military modernization that is tilting the balance of power in the Taiwan Straits and improving China’s capabilities to threaten U.S. forces in the region.” The National Intelligence Council, which reports to the new U.S. intelligence czar, John Negroponte, focuses on long-term strategic concerns of the U.S. intelligence community. It also produces periodic comprehensive reports known as national intelligence estimates. Gordon’s comments on Chinese missile development appeared to establish a time frame for a central feature of Beijing’s overall arms buildup, which he said was funded by an estimated $60 billion annual defense budget in 2004. In March, the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency said China was continuing to develop three solid-propellant strategic missile systems — the DF-31 and DF-31A road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles and the JL-2 submarine-launched ballistic missile. By 2015, the DIA estimated, the number of Chinese warheads capable of targeting the continental United States would increase “several fold.” Gordon told commission members the People’s Liberation Army continued to acquire a range of modern conventional weapons, particularly air, air defense, anti-submarine, anti-surface ship reconnaissance, missile and battle management capabilities and to emphasize the professionalization of its officer corps.

From DefenseNews UAE Takes Delivery of First F-16s from United States By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, ABU DHABI The United Arab Emirates (UAE) on May 3 took delivery of the first batch of an order for 80 F-16 fighters from the United States, estimated to cost $6.4 billion, the official WAM news agency reported. It did not specify the number of warplanes received at an official ceremony attended by Abu Dhabi’s crown prince, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan. The UAE signed a contract for the sophisticated F-16 Falcon fighters built by Lockheed Martin Corp in March 2000 for delivery that was due to have started at the end of 2004 and continued through 2007. In March 2003, the Gulf state launched work to upgrade two air force bases to cope with the deliveries of the multi-role “Block 60” fighters. Oil-rich Abu Dhabi has had logistical agreements with the United States since the 1991 Gulf War, which saw U.S. aerial refueling tankers and C-130 transporters use UAE facilities. The Desert Falcon will have special fuel tanks for extended range, new cockpit displays, a new mission computer and other advanced features, including Northrop Grumman radar, for improved tracking of multiple targets. It was the first such sale outside NATO countries and followed the UAE’s purchase of 30 French Mirage 2000-9 combat planes in November 1998 as part of a self-reliance policy. General Electric (GE) won a contract worth more than 400 million dollars to supply the engines for the fighters. In the wake of the 1991 Gulf War to drive Iraq from Kuwait, the UAE launched an ambitious defense program which included the purchase in 1994 of more than 400 Leclerc tanks from the French firm GIAT.

From DefenseNews China Says Open To Missile Discussions with Taiwan By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, BEIJING China on May 3 said it is willing to discuss its missile deployment with Taiwan if the island acknowledges it is part of China and abandons its pro-independence stance. Vice minister of the Taiwan Work Office of the Communist Party Central Committee Wang Zaixi told reporters that as long as Taiwan agrees with the “One China” policy, Beijing will be happy to negotiate missile issues. “I think so long both sides sit down and talk on the basis of ‘One China’, any topic can be put on the table, including the missile issue,” Wang said. “On the basis of the ‘One China’ policy, the two sides can have priority talks on ways to put a formal end to the state of hostility across the straits.” He was referring to a five-point consensus reached between Chinese President Hu Jintao and Lien Chan, chairman of Taiwan’s main opposition Kuomintang (KMT, or Nationalist party) during an eight-day visit that ended May 3. China sees Taiwan as part of its territory awaiting reunification, by force if necessary, and has warned it would invade if the island moved towards formal independence. Beijing reiterated it was prepared to use force to bring the island to heel but only after all other avenues are exhausted. According to Taiwan, China’s People’s Liberation Army has 700 ballistic missiles deployed opposite the island, and the number is expected to reach at least 800 next year. Unconfirmed Taiwan media reports also said Taiwan planned to mass produce supersonic anti-ship missiles to beef up the island’s defense capabilities against China.

From Defence Aerospace US: North Korea Apparently Fires Missile into Sea of Japan (Source : Voice of America news ; issued April 30, 2005) WASHINGTON --- A top U.S. official says it appears North Korea has launched a short-range missile into the Sea of Japan. A few hours after the first reports surfaced of a possible North Korean missile test, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card was interviewed on American television. He told CNN's Late Edition there is reason to believe the initial Japanese reports are true. "It appears that there was a test of a short-range missile by the North Koreans, and it landed in the Sea of Japan," he said. Mr. Card made clear the Bush administration is monitoring the situation closely, and said North Korea has taken similar action in the past. "We are not surprised by this," he said. "The North Koreans have tested their missiles before." Earlier, on the Fox New Sunday television program, the White House chief of staff said Washington is aware of North Korea's intentions. "Well, I think, they are looking to kind of be bullies in the world," said Mr. Card. "And they are causing others to stand up and take notice." Mr. Card stressed that the United States remains committed to multi-national diplomacy to deal with Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions. Echoing comments made by President Bush at a news conference Thursday, he said North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has not kept his word, and the United States has no confidence that he ever will. "We have the Russians and the Chinese and the South Koreans and the Japanese working very closely with us to try to have them [North Koreans] recognize that, first of all, they [North Koreans] have to keep their word," he added. "Second of all, they must not have any program that could lead to nuclear weapons." Appearing on CNN, Senator Carl Levin, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said multi-party negotiations are important. But he stressed, they are not enough. "We also ought to do what our ally, the South Koreans, want us to do, which is also, in addition to the multi-lateral talks, talk directly to the North Koreans," he said. "That is what has been missing." North Korea walked away from the six-nation negotiations in February.

From DefenseNews Italy Finds Fremm Funds By TOM KINGTON, ROME Italy’s Cabinet agreed April 29 to allocate long-awaited funds to launch construction of 10 multimission frigates for the Italian Navy. The Ministry of Industry will provide around 400 million euros ($515.9 million) to kick-start the program with France, which is building 17 of the so-called Fremm frigates. Rome’s Ministry of Defense will then continue paying for the Italian frigates, which will cost around 350 million euros each. Sen. Giovanni Lorenzo Forcieri said the decision confirmed funding for the first tranche of six Italian frigates. The cabinet decision followed pressure from politicians such as Forcieri and unionists, who feared that if no money was found, agreements to sign final joint contracts with France this year would be breached. France has already budgeted its costs on the program, while no funds were inserted in Italy’s 2005 defense budget.

HarpGamer encourages its members to share relevant news items and articles that they have found elsewhere on the Internet, particularly if they provide useful fodder for scenario and/or database building. When posting content, be sure to include the source of the material and provide the link. Often, following the link will provide not only further information on the specific topic, but also a wealth of other useful and interesting material. In all cases, be sure you are compliant with the applicable intellectual property and copyright laws. Thanks for sharing.

If the F/A-22 was ever used in the close air support role, it would certainly appear to be out of its element, and would probably stick to the medium to high altitudes, dropping GBU-38 JDAM or GBU-39 SDB. Airburst fuzed Mk 82's were reported to have worked very well in Afghanistan.