Clancy Indirectly Predicted Green-On-Blue Attacks

     About a 2 years ago I bought a copy of Tom Clancy's The Cardinal of the Kremlin, which revolves around the story of an American mole high up the Soviet chain of command (I won't spoil it for those who have not read it). But that is beside the point, a good chunk of the book was devoted to the Soviet war in Afghanistan. 

    In Chapter 17, the main Afghan character, The Archer (so named because of his use of Stinger SAMs) leads an attack on a Soviet battalion at it's base. At about the time the unit was eating lunch, the CO was the first to get killed. In Chapter 3 a Afghan sergeant attempeted to kill a Soviet captain and an Afghan LT loyal to the Soviets, just prior to an attack by the Muj.

     Clancy is generally a good read, and is generally solid on the technical end of things, but here he not only told what was happening to the Soviet in A-Stan, he also told us what would happen when if we ever went in to A-Stan. A warning we would have been wise to heed.

Pentagon Singling Out Queer Troops?

     From the Military Times. Read it and weep.

WASHINGTON — In the course of a year, Marine Capt. M. Matthew Phelps says he went from being a gay man “in the closet,” afraid of being discharged, to invitee at the White House gay pride reception, drinking champagne with his commander in chief.

Phelps told his story Tuesday at the Pentagon’s first-ever event to recognize the service of gay and lesbian troops. The historic event came nine months after repeal of the 18-year-old “don’t ask don’t tell” policy that had prohibited gay troops from serving openly and forced more than 13,500 service members out of the armed forces.

“Last June ... I was at a point in my career that if anyone had found out that I was gay ... I could have lost my job,” Phelps told some 400 uniformed and civilian Defense Department employees packed into a Pentagon auditorium.

“A year later ... I, Capt. Matthew Phelps, was invited to attend this pride reception at the White House,” Phelps said of the June 15 reception hosted by President Obama. “And I thought how amazing is it over the course of a year, I could go from being fired for being who I am, to having champagne with the commander in chief — on cocktail napkins with the presidential seal on it.”

Phelps appeared on a panel of current and former service members, some of whom told of their experiences before the repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell” and how life is different now. The audience filled the seats and dozens more stood along the walls, roughly 1 in 5 were in uniform and the rest civilians who had not been subject to the old policy.

“For those service members who are gay and lesbian, we lifted a real and personal burden from their shoulders,” top Pentagon lawyer Jeh Johnson said in a speech opening the event that lasted about an hour and a half. “They no longer have to live a lie in the military” or “teach a child to lie to protect her father’s career.

     Read the rest of the article here. 

     My question in all of this is why are we singling out queers? Queers only make up about 1-2% percent of America, and the 98% of us are straight. Don't get me wrong, I'm thankful for what these men and women have done for this country, but why should they get special treatment? As a soldier you have to operate as a team with your squad, and by singling out the minority because of their sexual orientation you create divisions in that team. Thereby degrading the effectiveness of that team in combat, putting lives on the line for the sake of political correctness. 

Photo Credit: MC1 Chad J. McNEELEY

Why The F-35 Can't Replace The A-10

     One of he aircraft the F-35A is slated to replace is the A-10 sometime in 2028. The main mission of the of the A-10 is close air support, which means going low and slow, making yourself a target for AA and AAA. The A-10 from the get-go was designed with the close air support mission in mind, which is why the A-10 has redundant flight control systems, a redundant primary structure, all bulletproof glass, and the titanium "bathtub" surrounding the cockpit. The F-35A is on the other hand an air superiority fighter, and has been designed as such.

     The picture above is of an A-10 that was shot up over Baghdad in 2003. You can see several dozen bullet holes, possibly from a 23mm cannon (ZSU-23-4 or ZU-23-2). Now imagine an F-35 with that kind of damage, it would be blown out of they sky. The sky over a battlefield is by it's very nature filled with ground fire. Most of it is wild, and simply shots that missed their targets. However, every so often you will come across some sort of air defense system, be it an armored vehicle like the ZSU-23, or any sort of gun-based air defense system. And the F-35, like most other 4th and 5th generation fighters cannot take a great deal of punishment and stay in the air. That is a trade-off that occurs the more advanced the fighter. 

     Aircraft have to be built specifically for the close air support mission to perform that mission consistently. The F-15 and F-16 are air-superiority fighters, but they often perform the CAS mission. However, if they were fighting against an enemy with an a real IADS they would have to "shoot and scoot" before they are targeted by local air defense systems. The A-10 on the other hand can loiter over the target longer simply because it can absorb a great deal of punishment (the A-10 can take a 23mm hit almost anywhere and stay in the air, someplaces it can absorb a 57mm hit and stay up.) and bring it's pilot home. 

    If you want an aircraft to perform the CAS mission and be able to loiter above the battlefield, it has to be built for the mission. It has to be armored like a tank, have backup mechanical flight controls, the cockpit has to have extra armor, the canopy has to be made of bulletproof glass, it has to be able to take scores of high-caliber hits and stay in the air. The F-35, while an excellent air superiority fighter, will make a poor CAS aircraft simply because it can't take the punishment that comes with the mission.

Happy Birthday US Army

     Happy 237th birthday.

A-Stan Headshot

Heads up, brains at 0:23. Not pretty.

Israeli "Jedi Rides" Monitoring Iran's Nuclear Program

     Business Insider has an interesting op-ed claiming that Israel is operating stealth Black Hawks  out of Kurdistan to monitor Iran's nuke program. The op-ed was written by Michael Maloof, a former analyst for the SecDef.
      Among the many claims, the statement that Israel has stealth Black Hawks (also known as "Jedi Rides") stands out. In 2010 when SEAL 6 killed Osama Bin Laden, they used modified Black Hawks for insertion and extraction. The modified Black Hawks, among other changes, had a fuselage modified for a lower radar signature. To date only the U.S. is known to have any sort of stealth chopper, and with the Israelis reported to have them, it would open up all sorts of targets that were previously too well defended.
       The one other claim that stood out, was the claim that the Israelis are deploying 12-man teams into Northern Iran to investigate Iran's nuclear program. It is a widely known fact that the Israelis are extremely interested in Iran's nuclear program, and have probably had a hand in the assassinations of several of Iran's top nuclear scientists. However, this is the first claim that the Israelis are actively deploying spec ops people in Iran. The article claims that they are gathering intel to take before the U.N. to convince them that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons. However, when you put boots on the ground in  hostile country, there are a number of other missions that could be undertaken, such as guiding a laser-guided bomb to it's target, assassinating high-level government officials, or even actively sabotaging military activities.
         As the summer rolls on, it will a good possibility that Israel will strike Iran, as they now a coalition government, which covers Netanyahu's political flank. If the Israelis do strike Iran, keep your powder dry because the crap will hit the fan.

Photo Credit: DefenseTech

A Strategy For The 21st Century, Part 6: North America

     Now, we come to home, in the years since the Cold War America has become more and more at risk for attacks on our shores by other countries and by terrorist organisations. Here is a good start for securing America.
     1. Secure the borders. In the last few years our borders have become increasingly porous with millions of illigal aliens pouring across the border. Recent estimates have put the number of illegals in the U.S. at arounf 11,000,000. There are several threat which arise from this. 1. Not every illegal alien wants to pick produce or wash dishes. Many work for drug cartels, are criminals, or could be even terrorists who want the southwest U.S. to be given back to Mexico. 2. It is extremely easy for muslims to cross the border and commit acts of terror in the U.S.. 3. It becomes easy for the drug cartels and human trafficker to ships people and/or drugs across the border. The solution to this is not to build a wall in a conventional sense but, rather to build a electronic wall using drones, and soldiers brought home from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Europe (see Part 1 and Part 3). There also needs to be tightening of the border with Canada, as the situation is many times worse with fewer border agents, and laziness based on the idea that all Canadians are our friends (most are, but not all).
     2. Establish a working land based missile defense shield covering all of the U.S.. The U.S. has been working on missile defense systems for the last 20 years, examples of this are Aegis, THAAD, and the Patriot PAC-3.  At the moment all three system have been deployed, however there is no missile shild covering the entire U.S..
     3. Stop closing bases. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union  many bases have been shut down, NS Ingleside here in Texas was just shut down a few months ago, and now there is talk of closing NS Mayport, among others. This must stop with fewer bases means fewer targets to hit and a larger amount of America's military is concentrated in a smaller number of locations.Now, it is understandable if some bases become redundant and are closed. However, this rash of bases closures since 1991 seriously undermines America's security.
     These among other things, must be down to secure America, from outside threats. Because like it or not we have been and will be attacked from abroad.

A Strategy For The 21st Century Part 4: Africa

     Africa. In that last few months Africa has undergone series of radical events (not all good): Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, the overthrow of Hosni Mubarack in Egypt, the creation of South Sudan, a Kenyan military campaign against the Somalian pirates, and even deployment of 200 U.S. special forces troops to the Central African Republic. Overall the African continent has no major threats or concerns for the U.S.. However, there are a few things which are cause for minor concern, and which must be dealt with.
     1. Somalia's pirates and terrorists. In the last few years Somalia has spawned many small bands of pirates on the sea, and Al-Shabab on land. The pirates Somalia has produced have attacked thousands of ships in the Gulf of Aden and the Western Indian Ocean, not all successfully though. Some ships which were attacked and taken are the Maersk Alabama (cargo ship), MV Faina (carrying arms, including T-72 tanks), and numerous other cargo and fishing vessels. Along with Al-Shabab they pose a threat to American shipping, including oil tankers coming from the Persian Gulf. In this situation it would be best to carry out a series of cruise missile strikes on the bases, and also hit their "stock exchange" in Haradheere. But, overall the long term solution would be to have every U.S. flagged ship have a squad or two of private security agents (e.g. mercenaries) onboard while moving through the Gulf of Aden or the Western Indian Ocean.
     2. Egypt's new government. The new government in Egypt which is now controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, has control of one the most valuable assets in the world: the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal is a the link by which many U.S. warships get to the Indian Ocean, and 15,648 oil tankers, bulk carriers, LNG tankers, and many types passed through the Suez Canal in 2010. If the Suez Canal is shut down by Egypt's new muslim government, it would be enormous blow to the world economy, and to U.S. economic interests in the Indian Ocean region. This would also force U.S. warships to either double the Cape of Good Hope, or sail from the West Coast, both of which would vastly reduce time on station, and increase the time needed to get to the Indian Ocean if a crisis arose. In this instance there really is no military solution as the "Dear Leader" (Obama) has backed the new muslim government instead of our former ally Hosni Mubarack, who generally did things that were good for the U.S.. Since there is no real military solution, and negotiating with the Muslim Brotherhoo  would be like talking to brick wall, it would be best to: 1. Wean the U.S. off Arab oil, and drill in the U.S. 2. Do not attempt to reenter the Indian Ocean and the Middle East until we have realized the our enemy here is Islam.
     Overall, there is not much to say about Africa with the exception of keep out! Africa is at the moment a big pit filled with quicksand, if you step in it you are basically screwed. The best strategy would be to stay out of Africa (this includes pulling out all 200 U.S. soldiers from the C.A.R.), and only do anything if attacked. 



Photo Credit: Chris Lofting

A Strategy For The 21st Century Part 3: The Middle East

     The Middle East (the Middle East in this blog post is defined as Israel, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the U.A.E., Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan).
In the last few months the Middle East has begun to heat up with Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, Iran allegedly having an intact RQ-170 Sentinel, Israel getting hit with rockets more frequently, and President Bashar Assad massacring his own people in Syria. So, here is what is necessary for the U.S.' national security as it relates to the Middle East:
     1. Pull out of Afghanistan. We have been in Afghanistan since late 2001, and 10 years later we have allegedly killed Bin Laden, established a democracy, pushed Taliban back into the mountains, and have avenged the 2,600 Americans who died on 9/11. Now it is time to pull out. We have reached a stalemate where no side can truly win, the Taliban can't beat the U.S., and the U.S. can't beat the Taliban. This more or less is what happened to the Soviets during their war in Afghanistan in the 1980s. The Soviets got bogged down in a guerrilla war against the Taliban, after a few years the war got very unpopular back home. Thus, with folks back home becoming unhappy, and the collapse of the USSR beginning, the Soviets were forced to pull out of Afghanistan in 1989. This is exactly what is happening now 21 years later, Americans are beginning to wonder why we are still in Afghanistan, and we cannot afford to continue to fight this war with the debt at 14 trillion.
     2. Prepare for war with Iran. Since the mullahs took over Iran in 1979, they have been hell-bent on wiping the U.S. (known to them as the "Great Satan") off the map. In the last 10 years the mullahs have actually gotten serious, with their nuclear program kicking into high gear, attempted purchase of SA-10s, and the development of more advanced missiles (Shabab series).  On top of this, Iran claims they have an RQ-170 Sentinel in their possession, if true it probably means one of two things: 1) Iran has a better cyber-warfare capability than we give them credit for, 2) Iran has a better air defense capability than we give them credit for. We need to be ready to hit hard in a first strike. We cannot afford to let the Iranians get the first punch in if we go to war. We always have a carrier battle group (CVBG) in the Persian Gulf, and there is no place to run, especially if you are in shallow water. Honestly, it would be better to have an SSGN in the Persian Gulf as a deterrent rather than a CVBG, as an SSGN can hit hard and would be hard to find. Both of which are qualities needed when fighting in the Persian Gulf.
     3. Be ready to support Israel in the coming war. Back in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War, Israel came within 72 hours of running out of ammunition, and almost resorted to nuclear weapons. However, the U.S. began an airlift the likes of which had not been seen since the Berlin Airlift. This airlift was named Operation Nickel Grass, and airlifted everything from M60 Pattons to 155mm artillery rounds to Israel over the span of one month. We must be ready to this again, as Israel is our only true ally in the Middle East. Furthermore, war is coming to the Middle East, Bashar Assad continues to massacre his own people, and the U.N. will at some point step in with it's R2P (Responsibility 2 Protect) doctrine, and stop the Syrian military. When that happens all hell will break loose, as Assad has threatened to start an "earthquake", this translates to: bombard Israel with thousands of rockets ranging in size from large Estes rockets to 20 SS-26s. When this begins the U.S. will probably be Israel's only supporter in the world, and we must be prepared to help our one true ally with military supplies.
     4. Remove all bases from the Middle East. Since Operation Desert Storm in '91, the U.S. has had several hundred bases in the Middle East, ranging in size from FOBs to full fledged Air Force bases. Most of these have been closed, but many still remain in operation. These bases have served their purpose, and we have gone about as far will can ever go in defeating the Muslims (we could do more if we had decent ROEs, a decent president, and actually knew who our enemy is). And with the debt climbing ever higher it is time to pull out of the Middle East, as we have gone as far as we can, until we realize our enemy is not just Al Qaeda, but Islam itself.
     The points above are in my opinion the beginning to winning in the Middle East. However, the key to winning is to realize that the enemy here is not just Al Qaeda, the Taliban or the Muslim Brotherhood, but the true enemy is Islam and everything it stands for.

A Strategy For The 21st Century Part 1: Europe

     Europe. Since 1991 and the "Peace Dividend" almost every country in NATO has been drastically cutting back on it's military. Examples are the U.K., Germany, Denmark, Belgium, France, Italy, and the list goes on. The more NATO members slash their military, the more the burden falls to the U.S. defend NATO. Thus, it is in our interests, and NATO's for the U.S. to pull out of NATO and Europe. And here's why:
     1. We are for all intents and purposes defending NATO instead of NATO members defending themselves. As of 2011 there are roughly 54,000 U.S. soldiers in Germany, 9,000 in the U.K., and a further 9,000 in Italy. In last year's SDSR the U.K. canceled the Nimrod MRA4,  personnel numbers in the Air Force, Navy and Army were reduced by a combined total of 17,000 troops. The number of Challenger 2 tanks was cut by 40%, the number of AS-90 self-propelled artillery was cut by 35%, and list goes on. The same thing that is taking place in Britain is also taking place in Germany, with the Germans cutting their military drastically from it's Cold War strength of 360,000 to just 76,000 men. Why? Because the U.S. has become the sugar-daddy in terms of defense for NATO members, and this is putting strain on the U.S. military and the defense budget as the troops and equipment based in Europe are needed elsewhere, and we cannot afford to defend Europe any longer.
     2. The USSR is gone, and the Russian Federation is not much of a conventional threat. Since the collapse of the USSR, the Russian military has been in decline, and has lost most of conventional military power. For example, the Russian Navy has 61 submarines of all types (cruise missile, ballistic missile, attack, diesel-electric, and rescue) as of 2011, down from a high of 373 submarines of all types in 1985. The Russian Army has a strength of 321,000 men, this is down from a strength of 1,995,000 men in 1985. The Russian Air Force is down to 769 fighters from 1620 fighters in 1985.  However, Russia is still a nuclear threat, as Russia's nuclear forces are for the most part still intact, with at least one new missile in development, and the fact that with the decline of Russia's conventional forces they forced to rely heavily on their nuclear deterrent.
     However, there are some bases in Europe that are actually needed for our (the U.S.'s) national security. Namely, RAF Lakenheath, RAF Fylingdales, Naval Station Rota, and Lajes Field. RAF Fylingdales because it is the base of one of two early warning radars meant to detect Russian or Chinese ballistic missiles launches. RAF Lakenheath because it is the base of the 48th Fighter Wing, and it would be good to maintain a small force in Europe for any unforeseen events. Naval Station Rota because it is located strategically at the mouth of the Mediterranean, and also will provide a base for operating against the Russians who have become more active in the Med'. Lajes Field because it provides a landing strip for transports heading east, and would provide a rest stop for transports in the event of another Operation Nickel Grass.  Also, as Air Force units based in Germany and throughout Europe are being withdrawn, the 100th Air Refueling Wing from RAF Mildenhall, and the 52nd Fighter Wing from Spangdahlem Air Base, would be moved to RAF Lakenheath.
     If the the U.S. can get itself out of Europe there would no savings for a few years as the bases are shut down and the troops brought home, but over the long term you are looking at savings in the billions of dollars a year. These saving could be used in other areas of Defense or in paying off the debt, and pulling out of Europe will force NATO members to actually defend themselves.
   

It's The Weekend! 9/3/11

Video Credit: Discovery Channel

It's The Weekend! 8/20/11

Video Credit: YouTube

Last Week's Helicopter Crash Wasn't Caused By An RPG

     Last week a CH-47 Chinook carrying 22 SEALs, 3 Air Force Air Controllers, and 7 Afghan Army troops was shot down by the Taliban over Afghanistan. Defense News reports that the Taliban shot down the helicopter with an RPG that struck the helicopter.

     The report also says that the attack took place late August 5th, at night in other words. However, you have a better chance of finding Flight 19 with a fishing net than hitting a moving helicopter with an RPG, and there it is more likely that the Taliban used a MANPADS ( MAN Portable Air Defense System).

     A MANPADS is a a small rocket similar to an RPG, but with an infrared guidance system that locks on to the exhaust from an aircraft engine. A MANPADS that most people might have heard of is the FIM-92 Stinger. The Stinger is the standard issue MANPADS of the U.S. military and several other countries.

     The Mujaheddin (now known as the Taliban) who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan during the 1980s, received among other things Stinger MANPADS to shoot down Soviet helicopters with.  By now the batteries in those missiles are long dead, and the equipment needed for their upkeep is impossible for the Taliban to get their hands on. Thus, this would point toward a new outside source for these weapons.

     The first suspect to come to mind would be Iran, Iran has been caught before giving the Taliban weapons in the form of 122mm rockets that have a range of 13 miles. On top of this Iran is known to produce a MANPADS under the designations Misagh-1 & 2. Another possible source for MANPADS would be China, they are known to produce several types of MANPADS, and also shares a border with Afghanistan. Russia is also another possible supplier of MANPADS, but has no motive for this. Libya might also be the source for these missiles due to the fact that MANPADS have been stolen from Gaddafi armories several times, and no one knows where they are. Other more unlikely sources could be Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, or even India, but these countries with the exception of Pakistan, have no reason to provoke the U.S. like this.  

     Until the military comes clean and admits that the Taliban is using MANPADS this is all pure speculation, but if true this poses an enormous risk to civilian and military air travel all over the world.

     

Photo Credit: U.S. Air Force

It's The Weekend! 8/6/11

     

     I don't agree with the video's title, but either way that was an epic fail.

MRAPs For China?

     Recently there have been reports that China is going to be purchasing MRAPs (Mine Resistant Armor Protected), from a South African company named Mobile land Systems.

     Ever since the U.S.-led coalition went into Iraq in 2003, coalition forces encountered many roadside bombs, and the bombs were causing heavy casualties. Thus, there arose a need for a vehicles that could withstand roadside bomb blasts, which led to the development of the MRAP family of vehicles.

     What is strange about China purchasing MRAP type vehicles is that there is no major fighting anywhere in the country. However, China might be purchasing these vehicles because of the fact that the population in western China which is mostly muslim, and might catch the "Arab Spring fever", and revolt. On top of this, Tibet is not exactly happy about the Chinese occupation, and who knows what Tibet might do. 

     As this story progresses it will be interesting to see how many MRAPs China purchases, and what China does with them.

     

      

     

     

Photo Credit: U.S. Navy, Defense Tech

The Dutch Attack Fort Hood

     Sometime between July 9th and 10th a Dutch AH-64 conducting training at Fort Hood, accidentally fired two rounds of live 30mm ammunition, as Ares reports.

     Apparently, the Dutch have been using Fort Hood (which is between Austin and Waco in Texas) as a training ground for their Apache pilots. However, what is really concerning is that someone on the ground crew messed up so badly that they accidentally put live ammo in the gun. To really understand how big a 30mm round is, take a look at those rounds below.

     Personally, I'm just glad no one was hurt.

Photo Credit: U.S. Navy, U.S. Army

Helmet Camera Records American Soldiers Being Ambushed In Afghanistan

     Thanks to Kit Up! for spotting this video.

67 Years Since D-Day

Today is June 6, 2011, it has been 67 years since the US Army in conjunction with the British and Canadians stormed Normandy and began the long trek to Berlin. To all the men and women who served in the U.S. armed forces in WWII, thanks.

Photo Credit: U.S. Coast Guard