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.

China Wants Okinawa

From the Washington Post:

BEIJING — For many observers, rising friction between China and Japan over a group of remote and uninhabited islands in the East China Sea is worrying enough.

But if some influential Chinese nationalist commentators have their way, the spat over the Japanese-controlled Senkaku islands — which Beijing calls the Diaoyu — could widen into a dispute over a much more important archipelago.

In a fiery editorial this month, the Global Times newspaper urged Beijing to consider challenging Japan’s control over its southern prefecture of Okinawa, an island chain with a population of 1.4 million people that bristles with U.S. military bases.

“China should not be afraid of engaging with Japan in a mutual undermining of territorial integrity,” the Communist Party-run paper declared.

Maj. Gen. Jin Yinan, head of the strategy research institute at China’s National Defense University, went even further. He told state-run radio that limiting discussion to the Diaoyu was “too narrow,” saying Beijing should question ownership of the whole Ryukyu archipelago, which by some definitions extends beyond Okinawa.

     Not. Gonna. Happen. The Japanese consider Okinawa as one of the Home Islands, which is one reason why they fought so viciously there in 1945. China has already ticked the Japanese off with their dispute over the Senkaku Islands, and this will just make things worse. However, China is unlikely to ever do anything about Okinawa militarily, as that would start a war with Japan, and eventually the U.S.. Right now this appears to be just a bit of political posturing for the people on the Chinese part. Not to mention that the movement to get U.S. soldiers off of Okinawa will probably fade because of this.

Photo Credit: Wikipedia

MV-22 Arrives In Japan

Photo Credit: The Aviationist

Marine Corps Establish Police Battalions

     From the Associated Press:

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (AP) -- The Marine Corps has created its first law enforcement battalions - a lean, specialized force of military police officers that it hopes can quickly deploy worldwide to help investigate crimes from terrorism to drug trafficking and train fledgling security forces in allied nations.

The Corps activated three such battalions last month. Each is made up of roughly 500 military police officers and dozens of dogs. The Marine Corps has had police battalions off and on since World War II but they were primarily focused on providing security, such as accompanying fuel convoys or guarding generals on visits to dangerous areas, said Maj. Jan Durham, commander of the 1st Law Enforcement Battalion at Camp Pendleton.

The idea behind the law enforcement battalions is to consolidate the military police and capitalize on their investigative skills and police training, he said. The new additions come as every branch in the military is trying to show its flexibility and resourcefulness amid defense cuts.

Read the rest here.

     This caught my attention because the Marine Corps is a military organization, and while they have MPs for base security, they don't have a role in law enforcement. Yet, here they are setting up whole battalions for busting drug runners and investigating terrorism. However, I would bet a months pay that these units are really meant to be used inside the United States to keep the peace when things hit the fan.

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

Stealth: Too Much Of A Good Thing?

     Stealth. Since the development of Northrop's Have Blue prototype in the 70s the Air Force has fallen in love with the concept, and has bought 4 types of stealth bomers and fighters since. But at what cost to capabilities? Stealth is an extremely valuable resource, but today and for the next 10 years we will be fighting an asymmetric war against third world terrorists, rather than large conventional wars on the plains of central Europe. The question I ask, has stealth destroyed the Air Force and naval aviation?

     Exhibit 1: The A-12. The A-12 Avenger II was supposed to be a stealth bomber successor to the tried and true A-6 Intruder. The A-12 was canceled in 1991 due to cost and weight overruns, and problems with the radar system. Because the A-12 was supposed to replace the A-6 , the Navy canceled the A-6F Intruder II which would have had new engines, electronics, and 2 extra hardpoints for carrying ordnance. However, since the A-12 was supposed to replace the A-6, the Navy turned Grumman's proposal down. Then when the A-12 was canceled in 1991 the Navy was left without a tanker aircraft and bomb truck.  And because the Navy placed all it's bets on the A-12, it was forced to use the F-14 as an attack aircraft, and purchase the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Super Hornet, while an excellent fighter, is acceptable in the attack role, but is not meant for it. Conclusion: Because the Navy relied too much on new technologies (read A-12) that had kinks to be worked out, lost their deep strike and tanker capability. 

    Exhibit 2: The F-22 Raptor. The F-22 Raptor has become darling of the Air Force, as it  can enter a dogfight with any type of aircraft and come out on top. However, in recent months the F-22 has had problems with it's oxygen system resulting in one pilot killed and a six month grounding for all F-22s. That does not include it extreme cost at 350 million dollars each, which has only been surpassed by that of the B-2 Spirit at 2.1 billion dollars. The damage to the Air Force done by the F-22 is not as obvious. And rather than manifest itself in loss of capability, it shows itself in quantity. With only 187 combat aircraft produced, the Air Force is forced to rely on a small number of extremely capable platforms. Not only that, but the Air force will be reluctant to risk a 350 million dollar piece of equipment in hostile airspace, simply because of it's cost and the technical secrets which the enemy would obtain. Conclusion: Because the Air Force was set on buying the newest, coolest airplane, they lost several good legacy fighters for each F-22, rather than buy better, new build fighter fighter like the F-16E of F-15SE.

     Exhibit 3: The F-35 Lightning II. The F-35 is the latest and greatest of Air Force programs, and is the planned replacement of the F-16, F/A-18, and A-10. The problem here is the number of F-35s to be purchased. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps are planning to to buy ~2400 F-35s of all types. I agree with many that the F-35 is a good fighter, but we simply cannot afford to buy enough to cover all the services. The Air Force has stated that they alone need 2200 fighters of all types, subtracting the 187 F-22s that leaves 2013 fighters that the Air Force needs. Subtracting the 680 F-35Bs and Cs the Marine Corps and Navy are buying, the Air Force is only buying 1233 F-35As, leaving a shortfall of 800 fighters. And the idea that the F-35 will replace the A-10 in the CAS role is a pipe dream (see example here, point made?), simply because the F-35 cannot absorb the punishment or carry the ordnance an A-10 can. Conclusion: The F-35 is a good bird, but at the moment it is not what we need, as it is too expensive, and it's mission can be performed by new legacy fighters. However, that does not mean it should be canceled, rather it should shelved for the moment until a need arises.

     The other issue that hasn't been mentioned, is that are we willing to deploy stealth fighters into hostile airspace? The F-22, and F-35 are cutting edge fighters with some of the newest technologies in the West on board, and if lost would hand a technical goldmine over to enemy forces. Back in 1999 an F-117 was shot down, and it is almost certain those stealth materials fell into enemy hands. While obsolete by our standards, the F-117 is cutting edge for the rest of the world. Frankly, the Air Force or Navy would probably not risk stealth aircraft in hostile airspace like Iran, simply because of the rick of valuable technical secrets being lost.

     Stealth is here to stay, that is a fact. However, in our current fiscal condition we cannot afford the number of stealth fighters or bombers we need to maintain our commitments worldwide. We also must be willing to risk our stealth aircraft in hostile airspace, even if that risks technical secrets falling into enemy hands. Even if we are willing to risk stealth aircraft in enemy airspace, we still don't have the money to afford enough stealth fighters. To answer the question posed at the beginning of this post, yes, stealth has destroyed the Air force and naval aviation.

     The solution? The F-16E/F and F-15SE. The F-16E/F is the latest version of the venerable F-16, and is already in production. The F-15SE is a stealthier version of the F-15E, with conformal weapons bays (CWBs) rather than the conformal fuel tanks (CFTs). Both types are cheaper than the F-35 at around 80 and 100 million each. They are not the most advanced fighters in the sky today, but have two advantages. 

We can afford them in the numbers we need, and they are proven in CAS and air-to-air combat. As to the Navy and Marines, the Marines would have to keep flying AV-8 Harriers off of helicopter carriers, and use F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for land-based aircraft. The Navy is another story, the A-6F needs to be resurrected, and a new cheap naval based fighter developed.

    The problem for so many years has been that aviators across the board (with the possible exception of the Marine Corps) have become fixated on buying new aircraft. The "if its new, if its high-tech, we need it" mantra has killed the Air Force and Navy at a time when tried and true beats new and unproven. That is what has gotten us into this mess.

    

     

Photo Credit: U.S. Navy and USAF

Afghan cop: Marine killings were ‘God’s will’

     From the Marine Corps Times:

An Afghan police officer accused of killing two Marines and wounding four others during an attack last year in Helmand province told investigators he was motivated by “God’s will,” according to a report outlining the incident.

Second Lt. Mohammad Daoud was a member of the Afghan National Civil Order Police when he opened fire May 12, 2011, on Marines assigned to an ANCOP training team, the report says. Lt. Col. Benjamin Palmer, 43, died after being shot in the chest from about 8 feet away as he ate dinner. Sgt. Kevin Balduf, 27, was killed moments later.

Daoud survived the firefight and was taken into custody shortly after the shooting.

The report, dated June 1, 2011, was obtained by Marine Corps Times through the Freedom of Information Act. The report highlights an ongoing threat in which Afghan troops or those wearing Afghan military uniforms turn their weapons on the coalition troops tasked with training them.

The case remains under investigation, according to a June 4 letter accompanying the report, compiled by Marine Corps Forces Central Command.

The incident occurred at a police training compound in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand province. The shooter fired on Marines with an AK-47 assault rifle while they were eating dinner, Marine officials determined.

“Completely surprised by the vicious attack, the Marines began returning fire with their M9 service pistols,” the report said. “The enemy shooter immediately withdrew while continuing to engage the Marines, wounding yet another Marine.

“The Marines fired and maneuvered on the enemy shooter, who had moved to a covered position. Eventually, the Marines wounded him enough that he collapsed and stopped returning fire.”

Daoud, the alleged shooter, later told investigators with the Naval Criminal Investigation Service that he is not connected to Al Qaida or the Taliban, and shot the Marines as part of his own personal “Jihad,” or holy war.

“He stated it was ‘God’s will’ to kill the Marines because they kill women and children,” the report said. “Further, he stated that those who sent the ‘Colonel that died by my hand’ are responsible. Additionally, Lieutenant Daoud stated it was just ‘luck’ which Marines he shot and that he felt lucky that he killed and wounded so many.”

    Cut off his nuts and put a 9mm slug in the back of his head.  This SOB killed 2 Marines, and wounded 4 more, and there is no mention of punishment in the article. WTH? How much more before before we realize we need to get out?

Giving Back Diego Garcia: Are You Out Of Your Bloody Mind?

     Aol Defense reports that the U.S. is in negoitations with the U.K. and Mauritius concerning returning Diego Garcia to the natives. Diego Garcia is home to a naval support facility, which includes 9 pre-positioned supply ships, along with numerous satellite monitoring and communication facilities. Read the article here:

During an era when the Pentagon has declared a pivot from Europe and the Atlantic to Asia and the Pacific, the prospect of handing over so many installations located in such a strategic spot -- or having them more accessible to a foreign government such as Mauritius -- must worry Pentagon officials.


So we asked a senior Pentagon official. Here's what he said: "Without commenting on discussions between other countries, the US military is the most flexible and agile in the world. We're nimble enough to deal with any scenario, especially as we move toward a rotational posture in much of the Asia-Pacific region. Of course, it's always preferable to have more options than fewer."

So one gets the impression the risk isn't considered very great, at least not yet.

But a change in status must have some implications, especially for operational security.

Under its current status as a British possession ceded to the United States, operational security is excellent for the simple reason that almost no one lives on the island unless they work for the U.S., Britain or an allied government. And the island is distant from almost anywhere else. Mauritius, at least publicly, says it wants the people who lived on the island to be able to return, something the British government has argued would not be feasible for security reasons, and because there really isn't much of an economy. A coconut plantation that was the island's mainstay has fallen largely to ruin.

Here's what the British Guardian newspaper, which has covered Diego Garcia much more closely and critically than most publications, said today about the talks:

"After meeting David Cameron in Downing Street, the Mauritian prime minister, Navinchandra Ramgoolam, told the Guardian that the aim of talks with the UK and US was to reassert Mauritian sovereignty over the islands."

"If Mauritius achieves its longstanding aim – supported, it says, in international law – it will mean the end of the British Indian Ocean territory. The territory was established in 1965 when Britain expelled the islanders and allowed the US to set up a large base in a deal that included cutting the cost of Polaris missiles for the UK's nuclear submarines."

It is not clear that the bases would have to be ceded to Mauritius or be closed. In fact, the Guardian said that Ramgoolam is coming here soon and is "likely to reassure the US that its base would remain on the island under Mauritian sovereignty." Whether the U.S. and its allies would have the same unfettered access and, perhaps most important, control of the island remains unanswered.

     The problem with giving Diego Garcia back to the natives is th fact that there are no real natives, or rather "islanders". The only islanders to inhabit Diego Garcia outside of stranded mariners, were marooned lepers, and the slaves (and their descendants) of a coconut plantation formerly located on the island. From 1968 to 1973 the "natives", were relocated to Mauritius, the Seychelles so as to make way for the U.S. Navy. Another problem is the fact that the U.K. purchased Diego Garcia and the rest of the Chagos archipelago for 3 million pounds from Mauritius.

     That only covers the political/social issues with giving back Diego Garcia. If the U.S. were to give up it's military facilities on Diego Garcia, we would lose an invaluable base with access to the Indian Ocean, and the Arabian Gulf, through which 17% of the U.S.'s, and most Asia's oil flows. Currently, the Navy has 9 pre-positioned ships in the anchorage at Diego Garcia, with enough supplies to supply a marine air-ground task force for 30 days, and also a base from which all types of U.S. fighters and bombers can operate from. In fact aircraft operating from Diego Garcia have provided air support for Operations Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, and Enduring Freedom.    

     To give up Diego Garcia because of a bunch of political rhetoric, would be a military disaster as we would lose the ability to deploy aircraft from the island, and an anchorage capable of handling anything in the U.S. Navy. Unfortunately, with the current president, it just might happen. God help us if it does.

Photo Credit: USAF

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 2: Asia

     Asia. Since the Communist Chinese took over China in 1949 there has been a secret war waged along the west side of the Pacific Rim. After that was the Soviet naval buildup under Admiral Gorshkov, that turned the Soviet Navy into a true blue-water navy. However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union (and it's navy) there is only one real Communist nation that poses a threat in the Pacific, the People's Republic of China. Just in the last few weeks China's president Hu Jintao urged the PLAN to prepare for combat. This comes as tensions continue to rise over the Spratley Islands in the South China Sea, and the PLAN stopped an Indian Navy ship just outside Vietnamese territorial waters. As China continues to buildup their military, the United States must respond. Here is what I believe the U.S. must do to stop China.
     1. Build new bases, and reopen old ones. Since the U.S. took over the Philippines from Spain in 1896, we operated Naval Base Subic Bay, and Clark Air Base a few miles away. However, after the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, Clark AB was covered in ash. The year after in 1992 the treaty leasing NB Subic Bay expired. Thus, the U.S. lost 2 very valuable bases located only 1100km from China. With the U.S. backing the Philippines in the Spratly Islands dispute, it would be in the Pilippines' and the U.S.'s best interests to reopen NB Subic Bay, and if possible Clark Air Base, as the former Clark Air Base is now Diosdada Macapagal International Airport. Also, the Marine Corps is in the process of stationing 2500 Marines near Darwin, this should be augmented with a full-fledged Air Force base and Naval Station in Australia, if the Australians are willing. Bases should also be established in Taiwan, and Singapore, existing bases on Guam, Hawaii, and Okinawa should be expanded.
     2. Cease the construction of "Supercarriers", and design and build a new class of aircraft carriers about the size of the USS Midway-class. In that last few years the Chinese have begun developing the DF-21D, as a means of denying most of the Western Pacific to U.S. aircraft carriers. This coupled with the proliferation of supersonic cruise missiles, and Kilo-class submarines poses a grave threat to U.S. naval air power throughout the Pacific. Furthermore, in this case quantity is better than quality, because at the moment if one carrier is lost there is a gaping hole the Navy's capabilities until the next carrier is completed. Thus, it is necessary that the Navy instead of building very few "Supercarriers", build a smaller class of carriers with a displacement not to exceed 65,000 tons, a max speed of 40 knots, and a complement of  50 aircraft. This is feasible as the USS Midway had a displacement of 62,000 and could carry 65 aircraft as of it's decommissioning in 1992. 
     3. Resurrect the Navy's ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) capability. During the Cold War the U.S. Navy was the best in the world at ASW. However, since the USSR collapsed in 1991 the Navy's ASW capability has gone down hill. This can be rectified by, 1. Extending the life of Perry-class frigates 2. Investing in more SOSUS systems and towed array sonars. 3. Developing a new class of frigates specifically for the ASW role.
     There is more that I will lay out in future posts, but the ideas I have laid out in this post, I believe are a good start to beating China and maintaining the U.S.'s national security.





Photo Credit: U.S. Navy

F-35B Lands On The USS Wasp

Ares posted this video showing a F-35B making the first landing by an F-35B on a helicopter carrier. This a big milestone for the F-35B, as for the most part it will operate off of helicopter carriers.

Video Credit: U.S. Navy

Are The F-35C And F-35B Going To Be Canceled?

     Aviation Week reports that U.S. Navy undersecretary Robert Work has ordered the Marine Corps and the Navy to  look for less costly alternatives to the Navy's current tactical aviation plan, and reexamine the consequences of canceling either the F-35C or the F-35B. Work also directed the Navy and Marines to find out if they could operate fewer than the planned 40 squadrons of F-35Bs and Cs. The order came in a June 7 memo that also ordered that "The key performance differences between the Block II F/A-18E/F Super Hornet with all planned upgrades, F-35B and F-35C." 

     This is a major event in the F-35 Lightning II program, as there has always been solidarity in the high levels of all three participating services, in that they all supported the F-35 program and fiercely defended their service's variant. 

Thus, with this report it shows that the Navy at least is having some doubts about the F-35 program. This report could be based on fears that the F-35B's exhaust could be hot enough to melt the deck of the ships it lands on, and the fear that the F-35 could be canceled in future budget cuts.

      This is simply the beginning of a whole new F-111 fiasco, when the Navy left the F-111 program. During the 1960s then Defense Secretary Robert McNamara merged the Air Force's requirement for a high speed low altitude nuclear bomber, and the Navy's requirement for an aircraft capable of shooting down Soviet anti-ship missiles at long range. This snafu of a program became known as the F-111 Aardvark (hint: not a bird). The Navy eventually left the F-111 program because the aircraft was extremely expensive, overweight, under powered, just to name a few reasons.  The Navy then replaced the F-111 with the F-14 Tomcat, which today could be the F/A-18E/F, F/A-XX, or even the X-47B. The Air Force eventually bought the F-111 using it as a long range precision bomber and as an ECM aircraft (Electronic CounterMeasures) formerly known as the EF-111A Raven. 

     While the F-35 was originally a good idea, attempting to squeeze three different aircraft into one common airframe is a recipe for disaster, which we will see in the next couple of years. The Navy will probably pull out of the F-35 program, the F-35B will probably be canceled, but the Air Force will probably stick with the F-35 and rode out the storm.  

       

Photo Credit: U.S. Navy