Quotulatiousness

May 26, 2010

French and German troops play catch-up

Filed under: Europe, France, Germany, Military — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 07:47

Strategy Page looks at recent changes in the role of French and German troops in Afghanistan:

Since France and Germany loosened up their ROE (Rules of Engagement) in the last year, and allowed their troops to more readily engage Taliban gunmen, there has been a lot more combat for them. Before the ROE change, the Taliban generally ignored the German and French troops, knowing that these foreigners would not interfere with Taliban terrorism operations, and would not even fire unless the Taliban fired on the foreign troops first. But now that the French and Germans can go after any Taliban they spot (or suspect they’ve spotted), the Taliban have become much more aggressive against the French and Germans.

This led to the Germans and French discovering that they were not really equipped or trained to deal with the Taliban. The Americans, British, Canadians, Dutch and Australians made it all look so easy. But it isn’t, so now the French and Germans are hustling new equipment (especially armored vehicles, UAVs and sensors like night sights and thermals) to their troops in Afghanistan. But another shortcoming was training, and that was solved by borrowing training manuals (and some trainers) from their combat experienced allies, and starting to train troops back home, before sending them to Afghanistan. This meant having MRAPs back home, as well as realistic training exercises to get the troops ready.

May 21, 2010

“Courageous Channel” exercise cancelled in South Korea

Filed under: Asia, Military, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:07

Strategy Page reports that a regular exercise has been cancelled to avoid further raising tensions between North and South Korea:

In South Korea, the semi-annual American evacuation (for American civilians) exercise has been cancelled. This was because relations between North and South Korea are particularly tense. It was felt that this exercise, which involves setting up the 18 evacuation points and having 10,000 people actually go through some of the procedures involved during an evacuation, might make the unstable North Koreans do something rash. The tension is the result of North Korea torpedoing a South Korean warship two months ago, killing 46 sailors. The North Koreans officially denied they did it, although North Koreans have been congratulating each other about it, and the North Korean general in charge of such things was very publicly promoted for no particular reason. Recently, South Korea announced it was certain the ship was sunk by a North Korean torpedo. North Korea called that accusation an insult and threatened war.

Called Courageous Channel, the evacuation drill has been held twice every year (in the Spring and Fall) since 1996. That was when someone noticed that there a lot more U.S. citizens living in South Korea, particularly in and around the capital Seoul. This city contains a quarter of South Korea’s population, and is a primary target for any North Korean invasion. The city is within range over a thousand North Korean guns and rocket launchers. If there were an actual evacuation, some 140,000 American citizens (and some non-citizen dependents) would be moved south.

The report on the sinking of ROKS Cheonan was issued earlier this week.

May 20, 2010

Torpedo damage and the sinking of the Cheonan

Filed under: Asia, Military — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:18

Geoffrey Forden posted information on likely causes of the sinking of the South Korean frigate Cheonan before the formal report was released:

One of the “mysteries” surrounding the sinking of the ROK’s warship, Cheonan, is that the explosion split the ship in half, a result our popular culture has trained us to forget. After all, World War II movies always show a torpedo strike in the same way: one or two white streaks quickly approaching the ship followed by a localized jet of water where the torpedo struck the hull. Sailors stream out of their bunks to jump over the side as the ship keels over, taking in water. Below the water line, jagged holes, punched by the explosive force of the warhead, let in sea water. Compartments quickly (or if dramatic effect is needed, slowly) fill with water, drowning all the bit players, uh, sailors trapped below.

These movies have influenced our expectations for the damage caused by modern torpedoes even though there are much more efficient ways for a torpedo to destroy a surface ship. [. . .]

The second major effect damaging the hull, and probably the one that caused the vessel to break in half, was a jet of water blasting its way through the ship. This jet was formed as the gas bubble created by the initial explosion collapsed upon reaching the ship’s hull.

This is the way modern torpedoes sink ships. Everything about the Cheonan’s sinking is consistent with either a torpedo or submerged mine blowing up beneath the ship’s keel.

Fascinating though this is, the official report (as filtered through what was made available to international media) discounted this mechanism:

South Korean scientists at the Sound Engineering Research Lab of Soongsil University have performed an analysis of the acoustic signals (the media report mistakenly calls them seismic waves) associated with the sinking of the Cheonan. It would be very nice to see their actual analysis — and the data would be even cooler — but it appears on the face of it to be a very interesting result. Their main conclusion, again based solely on the media report of their findings, seems to be that the Cheonan was actually struck by a heavy torpedo. (The say the most likely candidate is the Chinese Yu-3 heavy torpedo with a 205 kg high explosive warhead.) According the article, the South Korean scientists believe the torpedo struck the hull of the Cheonan but since the explosive is significantly aft of the torpedo’s bow, the center of the explosion was a little over 2 meters away. They rule out the “kill mechanism” being a bubble jet.

Interestingly, a summary in New Scientist (which is where I found the link above), seems to have been written before the updated information was added to the original post, as it attributes the sinking to the “deadly bubble jet”.

May 19, 2010

Military bureausclerosis, explained

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Military, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:08

Like many bureaucracies, the US Army has a plethora of generals running an organization that is far from its maximum historical size. Those generals all need staff, the staff need working space, transportation, support staff of their own, etc. Multiply that a few times and you get stories like this:

Gates rattled off examples of costly bureaucracy inside the military, as well. A simple request for a dog-handling team in Afghanistan must be reviewed and assessed at multiple high-level headquarters before it can be deployed to the war zone. “Can you believe it takes five four-star headquarters to get a decision on a guy and a dog up to me?” Gates said to reporters Friday.

The Armorer gets to the real point of the story, rather than the one Gates thinks he’s making:

I’ll just take this statement: “Can you believe it takes five four-star headquarters to get a decision on a guy and a dog up to me?”

And say — “Gee, Mr. Secretary, I can’t believe that a decision on a guy and a dog has to get to you.”

If you’re making those kinds of decisions, that’s just another reason the Services have put that many Generals in the loop.

This is what, in the private sector, is called micromanagement and it’s generally thought to be a bad thing, and a sign of incompetent leadership. What’s it called in the US Army?

Remembering Dunkirk, 70 years on

Filed under: Britain, France, Germany, History, Military, WW2 — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 08:53

This is the 70th anniversary of the Dunkirk evacuation, where 338,000 British and French troops were carried out of the German encirclement by just about everything that could float.

“Without Dunkirk, Britain wouldn’t have had an Army and it’s extremely questionable whether Britain could have fought the war,” he explains.

Mr Hewitt gives the credit to the Royal Navy and Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsay, who led the operation, but also to all the civilians who helped.

“They thought they would bring back 30-40,000. In the end they rescued 338,000 British and French troops. It’s an extraordinary achievement.”

And this pulling together of civilians and the military meant an event that could have been seen as a failure became, in fact, a key turning point in World War II.

“Dunkirk was a military defeat, but it was a symbolic victory,” he adds.

May 17, 2010

“Of course . . . we care about winning the hearts and minds of people in Afghanistan . . .”

Filed under: Middle East, Military, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 18:00

Radley Balko contrasts the ease with which Police SWAT teams can operate compared to the rather more restrictive terms under which army units in Afghanistan have to operate:

A reader who asks his name not be used writes about the drug raid video from Columbia, Missouri:

I am a US Army officer, currently serving in Afghanistan. My first thought on reading this story is this: Most American police SWAT teams probably have fewer restrictions on conducting forced entry raids than do US forces in Afghanistan.

For our troops over here to conduct any kind of forced entry, day or night, they have to meet one of two conditions: have a bad guy (or guys) inside actively shooting at them; or obtain permission from a 2-star general, who must be convinced by available intelligence (evidence) that the person or persons they’re after is present at the location, and that it’s too dangerous to try less coercive methods. The general can be pretty tough to convince, too. (I’m a staff liason, and one of my jobs is to present these briefings to obtain the required permission.)

[. . .]

I’ve heard similar accounts from other members of the military. A couple of years ago after I’d given a speech on this issue, a retired military officer and former instructor at West Point specifically asked me to stop using the term “militarization,” because he thought comparing SWAT teams to the military reflected poorly on the military.

H/T to Tom Kelly, who sent the Instapundit link from which I got the title for this post.

Bureaucracy, Crimean War style

Filed under: Britain, Bureaucracy, History, Military, Russia — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 08:39

A. A. Nofi reminds us that no matter what the technology of the day, the bureaucracy is eternal:

One night a particularly exposed British redoubt suddenly found itself the object of a strong Russian attack. Although the British managed to hold the Russians, they were consuming ammunition at a prodigious rate.

Fearing that his position would soon be overrun, the officer commanding the post tore a leaf from a pocket note book. On it he scrawled “In great danger. Enemy pressing hotly. For Heaven’s sake send us some ammunition,” the officer signed his name, handed it to an orderly and sent the man to the rear.

The fighting grew more intense, and as ammunition began running low the officer awaited the return of his messenger. Time passed, as the situation seemed to grow ever more desperate. Then, almost as suddenly as it began, the Russian assault ebbed, even as the British troops were virtually down to their last rounds.

Just about then the orderly returned, bearing a message from the Ordnance officer. One wonders what went through the officer’s mind when he read, “All communications to this Department must be written on foolscap paper with a two-inch margin.”

May 14, 2010

Defence minister denies that the Navy to be cut by half

Filed under: Cancon, Government, Military — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:57

Canada’s Minister of National Defence Peter MacKay claims that the following operational changes to Canada’s naval forces do not constitute a serious cut:

The directive was sent to maritime forces on the west and east coasts, as well as to senior officers in charge of naval reservists.

The letter says:

– The fleet of Kingston-class maritime coastal defence vessels will be reduced to six ships from 12.

– Three frigates, HMCS Montreal, St John’s and Vancouver, will now be conducting domestic and continental missions to a “limited degree.”

– Combat systems on HMCS Toronto and HMCS Ottawa, as well as on HMCS Athabaskan, will be “minimally supported to enable safe to navigate sensors and communications only.”

– A key weapon system on board the Protecteur-class supply ships designed to destroy incoming missiles “will not be supported.”

Jedi Master MacKay is attempting a mind trick: “these are not the defence cuts you’re looking for”.

May 13, 2010

A “secret weapon” from WW2 updated for the 21st century

Filed under: History, Military, WW2 — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 07:54

Strategy Page looks at Operations Research in its modern guise:

It all began back in the 1970s, when some CIA analysts discovered a new way to analyze the mountains of information they were receiving. The new tool was predictive analysis. What does this do for intelligence analysts? Predictive analysis was the result of a fortuitous combination of OR (Operations Research), large amounts of data and more powerful computers. OR is one the major (and generally unheralded) scientific developments of the early 20th century. OR is basically applying mathematical analysis to problems. OR turned out to be a major “weapon” for the Allies during World War II. OR, like radar, was developed in the 1930s, just in time for a major war, when whatever was available was put to work to win the conflict. OR is also, half jokingly, called a merger of math and common sense. It is widely used today in science, industry and, especially, in business (it’s the primary tool of MBAs, where it’s called “management science”.) With predictive analysis, the most important OR tool was the ability to “backtest” (see if the simulation of a situation could accurately predict the outcome of something that had already happened, if the same historical decisions are made). For predictive analysis of contemporary situations, the backtest is, instead, a predictive tool that reveals likely outcomes.

Predictive analysis, like OR in general, creates a framework that points you towards the right questions, and often provides the best answers as well. Like many OR problems, especially in the business world, the simulation framework is often quite rough. But in war, as in commerce, anything that will give you an edge can lead to success over your opponents. A predictive analysis is similar to what engineers call “a 60 percent solution” that can be calculated on the back of an envelope.

The one form of predictive analysis that the general public is aware of is wargames, and these have been increasingly useful in predicting the outbreak, and outcomes, of wars. There have even been commercial manual (like chess) wargames that have successfully applied predictive analysis. The commercial manual wargames produced some impressive results when it came to actual wars.

In late 1972 a game (“Year of the Rat”) was published covering the recent (earlier in the year) North Vietnamese invasion of South Vietnam. This game didn’t predict the outcome of the war, but it got the attention of people in the intelligence community, especially those who knew something about wargames, for it was a convincing demonstration of what a manual wargame, using unclassified data, could do in representing a very recently fought campaign. There was even talk that these games could actually predict the outcome, and details, of a future war. The next year, wargames did just that, accurately portraying the outcome of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. The game (“Sinai”) was about to be published when the war broke out, but some people in the intelligence community knew about it. A member of the Israeli UN delegation had watched the game in development (he was a wargamer), and was assigned to camp out at the publishers offices, while the war raged, and report what the game was predicting.

May 12, 2010

Technical snag delays further testing for EMALS

Filed under: Britain, Military, Technology, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:32

A minor directional error has caused a several month slip in the testing for a new aircraft carrier catapult design:

The so-called Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, or EMALS, is now under development in a shore-based test facility at Lakehurst naval air station in New Jersey. However, according to reports, the test mass-driver installation suffered serious damage earlier this year in a mishap blamed on a “software malfunction”. Apparently the “shuttle” — which moves along the catapult track to accelerate a plane to flying speed — went the wrong way in a test shot and smashed into important equipment.

The Newport News Daily Press, reporting on an interview with EMALS programme chief Captain Randy Mahr, says that the accident has delayed the shore-based testing by several months. It had been planned to commence launching aircraft — as opposed to test loads — this summer, but that will not now happen until autumn.

The next US supercarrier, CVN 78, aka USS Gerald R Ford, is now under construction and intended to join the fleet in 2015. Navy officials confirmed last year that it is now too late to amend the ship’s design and revert to steam catapults: EMALS must be made to work or the US Navy will receive the largest and most expensive helicopter carrier ever.

The EMALS development is of great interest to the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm, as the two new carriers under construction (pending the new British government’s defence review) will not be equipped with catapults. Conventional catapults are steam operated, and the British carriers will have gas-turbine propulsion (unlike US and French carriers which use nuclear power plants, providing plenty of steam on demand). If EMALS works as designed, it could be fitted to the new carriers, allowing the Royal Navy to pass on the (ultra-expensive) new F-35B in favour of conventional carrier aircraft.

May 4, 2010

Let’s return to the proper name: the Royal Canadian Navy

Filed under: Cancon, Government, Military — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 12:05

I can’t help but endorse this Globe & Mail editorial calling for the government to give the Navy back its proper name:

Today marks the 100th anniversary of Canada’s navy, which fought with distinction in two World Wars and the Korean War, and is now, alas, known as the Canadian Forces Maritime Command, a bulky and obscure label that communicates little of what it is and what it has done.

What better way to mark the centennial than to restore its rightful name, the Royal Canadian Navy, which it carried from 1911 to 1968, when defence minister Paul Hellyer unified the navy, army and air force under one command. (At one time, each service reported to its own cabinet minister.) The unification does not need to be undone. The navy does not need to go back to having its own command structure. Just the name will do.

[. . .]

Defence Minister Peter MacKay has honoured the service and sacrifice of the navy by announcing on the weekend that the executive curl, a distinctive loop on the upper stripe of naval officers’ uniforms that disappeared after unification, will make a comeback. He should take the next step and bring the name back.

And while we’re at it, I’m sure the Royal Canadian Air Force would like to go back to its correct name, too.

Spear phishing (test) attack on US Air Force

Filed under: Military, Technology — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 07:43

I’d heard the term “phishing” before, and I’ve reported at least a dozen various attempts to the appropriate parties (companies and organizations who are used in phishing attempts often have a reporting address set up so you can just forward the message to them). “Spear phishing” was new to me, and apparently it was also new to a large number of US Air Force personnel:

Offers to hire American airmen, stationed at an airbase on the Central Pacific island of Guam, as extras in the Transformers 3 movie, turned out to be an unexpectedly scary training exercise. First, keep in mind that there is no Transformers 3 filming scheduled for Guam. The email was a fake, used to test how well airmen could detect a hacker attempts to deceive military Internet users to give up valuable information.

The Transformers 3 email was a test to see how many airmen would fall for a “spear phishing” offensive. “Phishing” (pronounced “fishing”) is when a hacker sends out thousands, or millions, of emails that look like warnings from banks, eBay or PayPal, asking for you to log in (thus revealing your password to the hackers, who have set up a false website for this purpose) to take care of some administrative matter. The hacker then uses your password to loot your account. “Spear phishing” is when the emails are prepared with specific individuals in mind. The purpose here is to get specific information from, say, a bank manager, or someone known to be working on a secret project. In the Guam case, the targets of the spear phishing test were asked to go to a web site and fill out an application form to be eligible to be an extra. That form asked for information that would have enabled hostile hackers to gain more access to air force networks. A lot of the airmen who received the Transformers 3 email, responded. The air force won’t say how many, but it was more than expected. A lot more.

I doubt that many readers need to be told this, but no legitimate bank or financial institution should ever be sending you an email requesting you to follow an embedded link and log in to your account. If you get such an email, forward it to the bank’s security folks. If it’s legitimate, they can confirm it for you, but in 2010, no sensible bank should be communicating with you in this way.

April 30, 2010

Training to fight lower-tech aircraft in the air

Filed under: Military, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 09:41

Strategy Page rounds up information on US Navy efforts to keep their air-to-air combat skills fresh:

The U.S. Navy has refurbished a surplus U.S. Air Force National Guard F-16 flight simulator to help keep its F-16 pilots in shape for using F-16s to train navy pilots (in F-18s) how to best deal with Chinese, and other potential enemy, pilots. The navy uses F-16s because these aircraft are best able to replicate the performance of likely high end enemy fighters. That’s because Russia and China have used the F-16 as the model for most of their latest fighters (the Russian MiG-29 and Chinese J-10). The navy bought 26 of a special model (F-16N) of the aircraft in the late 1980s. But in the 1990s, the navy retired its F-16Ns, because of metal fatigue, and had to wait nearly a decade before it got sixteen more. The refurbished simulator had its cockpit modified to reflect the one the navy F-16s use.

The navy also uses F-5s to simulate lower performance enemy fighters. Two years ago, the navy completed a six year effort to buy and modify 44 F-5E fighters from Switzerland. The U.S. uses F-5s, a 12 ton fighter roughly similar to the MiG-21. The F-5 is normally armed with two 20mm cannon, and three tons of missiles and bombs. The U.S. Navy modified and refurbished the Swiss F-5s so their performance better matched that of Russian or Chinese aircraft.

It may sound odd to have older equipment still in service, but they are very useful for training purposes. Both the air force and the army will perform better if they’ve trained against the kind of equipment and tactics used by likely opponents, and it’s unlikely that you can arrange a “friendly” wargame exercise against a force you may be fighting for real in the near future.

The other thing is that the troops playing the “other side” in wargame exercises tend to have a lot more fun doing so . . .

April 19, 2010

Sometimes simple ideas are best

Filed under: Middle East, Military, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:02

A case where super-sizing is a good thing:

The product was inspired by a marine who, while serving in Somalia in 1993, thought it an obvious thing to have large size wipes. But there was no such product on the market. So the ex-marine took the idea to a friend who ran a gym, who then developed the product and found someone to manufacture it. All that took fifteen years, from the time the sweaty marine in Somalia got the idea.

Klenz Showers is a towel sized (2×4 feet/61x122cm) baby wipe. It was designed so that the package containing it fit into the pockets of field uniforms. The Klenz Showers wipe was large enough to clean yourself up, and feel refreshed. There was no scent, but there was aloe, so that the wipe helped heal the usual scrapes troops accumulated out in the bush. To keep the Klenz Showers light, you have to add four ounces (120ml) of water before using.

In the last two years, the Klenz Showers have become a major boost to morale, and cleanliness, for troops in Afghanistan, where many of them are out in the hills for weeks at a time. After ammo, water, batteries and food, the troops want their Klenz Showers packets.

Once you get past the initial “Dude, it’s a baby wipe” reaction, this is actually a really good idea.

April 15, 2010

Uninhabited islands could be flashpoint in Sino-Japanese conflict

Filed under: China, Japan, Military — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 07:35

A group of uninhabited islands south of Okinawa have the potential to increase tensions between China and Japan. The Senkaku island group is subject to overlapping claims from China, Taiwan, and Japan:

Japan reports that, for the third time in the past 18 months, Chinese warships have been spotted south of the Japanese Island of Okinawa. This time, it was two Chinese submarines, running on the surface. That had never been seen before, in the area near the Senkaku islands (which are claimed by China, Taiwan and Japan). The Senkakus are eight uninhabited islands, which in the past were only used occasionally by fishermen. The Senkakus are 220 kilometers from Taiwan, 360 kilometers from China and 360 kilometers from Okinawa (which is part of Japan).

[. . .]

Five years ago, a Chinese oil drilling platform, in disputed waters halfway between China and the Japanese island of Okinawa, began producing natural gas, despite ongoing negotiations over who owns what in that patch of ocean. The Chinese spent two years building that platform, in waters claimed by Japan. A second platform was later built, as well as an underwater oil pipeline for both platforms. China regularly sends groups of warships to patrol the area, to underline their belief that this bit of water is under Chinese control. Japan would probably win any naval war with China, but since China has nuclear weapons, and Japan does not (at least not right now), such a war could go seriously against Japan. This has been brought up in Japan before, and it is feared that the issue may lead to Japan secretly, or openly, building nuclear weapons (which it could certainly do, and quite quickly.)

I’m certainly hoping that this is just speculation on the part of Strategy Page (the bit about nuclear weapons), as territorial disputes over islands do have a way of getting out of hand (see Falkland Islands, for example).

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress