Quotulatiousness

October 9, 2009

Army beats Navy and Airforce

Filed under: Britain, Military — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:11

Following up on yesterday’s post about the British Ministry of Defence directive to find savings to support the ongoing (primarily army) efforts in Afghanistan, Strategy Page calls the winner:

British Army Sinks The Navy And Grounds The Air Force

After several months of debate, the British Royal Navy and Royal Air Force have been ordered to cut back on spending, so that money and resources may be used to support army operations in Afghanistan. Among other things, the army has been pointing out that only ten percent of spending on new equipment goes to the army (based on actual and planned spending between 2003-18). This, despite the fact that it’s the army that is doing most of the fighting during this period. Although the army recently pulled out of Iraq (where it had been since 2003), it is still in Afghanistan, and more troops are headed there. The Royal Navy and Royal Air Force have not been fully involved in a major operation since the Falklands in 1982, although they have been involved in several more limited efforts. The point is that they face nothing like what the army is dealing with in Afghanistan.

The British armed forces have 191,000 troops on active service. Of those, 38,000 are in the Royal Navy, 109,000 in the Army, 41,000 in the Royal Air Force, and the rest in joint staffs and operations. The annual defense budget is about $58 billion.

Those aircraft carriers are looking less and less likely to be ever in service . . .

October 8, 2009

British military establishment facing cuts under next government?

Filed under: Britain, Bureaucracy, Military — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 07:36

It would be too glib of me to suggest that the Ministry’s preferred way to respond to the Conservative opposition’s call “to cut MoD costs by 25%” would be to abandon the Royal Navy (or ground the Royal Air Force), but it’s hard to imagine them voluntarily cutting their own numbers:

Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox is expected to tell the party’s conference: “Some things will have to change and believe me, they will.”

The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg said Mr Fox had asked for savings in bureaucracy – the MoD has 85,000 civil servants.

The Tories have pledged to cut overall Whitehall budgets by a third.

In his speech to party members in Manchester, Dr Fox will accuse Labour of having creating “a black hole” in defence budgets, which are affecting the war in Afghanistan and threatening to create an “on-going defence crisis for years to come”.

Of course, there’s nothing new about the administrative “tail” of the armed forces growing . . . C. Northcote Parkinson documented the phenomenon (PDF) back in 1955:

The accompanying table is derived from Admiralty statistics for 1914 and 1928. The criticism voiced at the time centered on the comparison between the sharp fall in numbers of those available for fighting and the sharp rise in those available only for administration, the creation, it was said, of “a magnificent Navy on land.” But that
comparison is not to the present purpose. What we have to note is that the 2,000 Admiralty officials of 1914 had become the 3,569 of 1928; and that this growth was unrelated to any possible increase in their work. The Navy during that period had diminished, in point of fact, by a third in men and two-thirds in ships. Nor, from 1922 onwards, was its strength even expected to increase, for its total of ships (unlike its total of officials) was limited by the Washington Naval Agreement of that year. Yet in these circumstances we had a 78.45 percent increase in Admiralty officials over a period of fourteen years; an average increase of 5.6 percent a year on the earlier total. In fact, as we shall see, the rate of increase was not as regular as that. All we have to consider, at this stage, is the percentage rise over a given period.

Parkinson_Admiralty_Statistics

October 5, 2009

Tension in the Himalayas?

Filed under: China, India, Military — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 07:20

Strategy Page has a short primer on the potentially volatile issue of where the borders are in the Himalayas:

China is causing considerable consternation in India by reviving old claims to border areas. In northeast India, the state of Arunachal Pradesh has long been claimed as part of Tibet (although when Tibet was an independent nation a century ago, it agreed that Arunachal Pradesh was part of India.) Arunachal Pradesh has a population of about a million people, spread among 84,000 square kilometers of mountains and valleys. The Himalayan mountains, the tallest in the world, are the northern border of Arunachal Pradesh, and serve as the border, even if currently disputed, with China. This is a really remote part of the world, and neither China nor India want to go to war over the place. But the two countries did fight a short war, up in these mountains, in 1962. The Indians lost, and are determined not to lose if there is a rematch.

September 25, 2009

You like paintball? You’ll love this . . .

Filed under: Britain, Military — Tags: — Nicholas @ 18:24

Armourgeddon:

Armourgeddon

Tank Battles
New Special Price: £80 per head, per package

The Commander’s Challenge (3 man crew): Take it in turns to negotiate the tricky tank course set in a World War II bombing range. Then engage in all-out armoured warfare with your 40mm paintball cannon against your opponent. Who will drive? Who will aim? Who will load the breach? YOU OF COURSE!

Yes, I know they’re not really tanks. But outside of former military types and anoraks like us, who does? Certainly not the media . . .

H/T to Jess Brisbane for the link.

Operation Nanook

Filed under: Cancon, Military — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 10:21

You wouldn’t say they go out of their way to glorify the military in this video . . .

Every army has their fair share of REMFs

Filed under: Britain, Media, Military — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 10:03

Over at Castle Argghhh!, Bill remembers the distasteful creatures known as REMFs:

In my war, we coined a term to describe the guy who lived in Saigon in an air-conditioned trailer with access to clean water that didn’t smell or taste like bleach, who worked in an area where the greatest danger was spilling a drink at Happy Hour, who took PX breaks four times a day to see if his new TEAC stereo system had arrived, who exchanged his boots for new ones whenever his spitshine was scuffed, who spent his days tweaking his Efficiency Reports to achieve maximum promotability, who had starch lines *sewn* into his jungle fatigues to nullify the effects of the humidity, who may have once heard a mortar explode a couple of miles away — and bitched about how tough it was being in Vietnam.

The term was REMF. Rear Echelon Mother-F*cker.

REMFs are present in all branches of all militaries — they aren’t common, but they make themselves obnoxious in ways that are impossible to ignore.

This kind of creature exist in every army, including (as Michael Yon can confirm) the British army.

September 23, 2009

Swedish military bust-out

Filed under: Europe, Military — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:19

Sweden is having some problems with essential parts of their military equipment, specifically the bras issued to female troops:

Flimsy military brassieres are unable to stand up to the strains imposed when female Swedish troops perform “rigorous exercises”, routinely bursting open or even catching fire — so forcing busty young conscripts to hurriedly strip off in the field.

The revelations come courtesy of the Gothenburg Post and English-language Swedish journal The Local. The Post reported yesterday on concerns raised by the Swedish Conscription Council, an organisation concerned with the rights of conscript troops in the Swedish forces.

September 22, 2009

More on the ABM decision

Filed under: Europe, Military, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 11:50

Following up from last week’s post on cancelling ABM systems for Poland and the Czech Republic, Jon sent the following comment:

I was wondering about this sort of thing when the announcements were first made, but thought that “No, Obama is indeed evil enough to do this just for kicks.” Is is possible, thought, that the Polish and Czech installations are being cancelled as they are being replaced with something else?

Have you read anything to that effect anywhere?

I assumed colossal ignorance and ineptitude, rather than deliberate provocation, but maybe I’m just too naive. I had read something about the SM-3 BMD at Taylor Empire Airways (yes, this time I’m sure it was Chris Taylor). He indicates that it does have a better track record than competing systems and it can be deployed much faster, but that there are also some caveats.

September 17, 2009

US to abandon plans for ABM system in Europe

Filed under: Europe, Military, USA — Tags: — Nicholas @ 08:04

From an article in the Wall Street Journal:

The White House will shelve Bush administration plans to build a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, a move likely to cheer Moscow and roil the security debate in Europe.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Thursday that the plan was changed to better protect U.S. forces and allies in Europe from Iranian missile attacks.

The U.S. based its decision on a determination that Iran’s long-range missile program hasn’t progressed as rapidly as previously estimated, reducing the threat to the continental U.S. and major European capitals, according to current and former U.S. officials.

Subtext to those plucky pro-US nations in eastern Europe: “So long, suckers.”

Update: The Guardian reports:

The US decision will cheer many in government in western Europe who believed the scheme was an unnecessary provocation to the Russians. But today the Czech Republic and Poland expressed disappointment at the White House’s decision to reverse track after six years of difficult negotiations. Senior sources in Warsaw and Prague said they would insist on the Americans honouring pledges they made to the Nato allies in return for agreeing last year to the plan for missile defence deployments.

Alexandr Vondra, a former Czech deputy prime minister and ambassador to Washington intimately involved in the negotiations with the Americans, said he was surprised. “This is a U-turn in US policy,” he said. “But first we expect the US to honour its commitments. If they don’t they may have problems generating support for Afghanistan and on other things.”

September 14, 2009

The RAF sets a record, but not a good one

Filed under: Britain, Military — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 07:54

The RAF‘s most expensive aircraft had just made its first flight:

The Nimrod MRA4 programme was initiated back in 1996 by TV presenter, one-time director of BAE Systems and former New Statesman theatre critic Michael Portillo, who was defence minister at the time. Under the original deal, BAE Systems would be paid a “fixed price” of £2.2bn to rebuild, rearm and upgrade the RAF’s fleet of 21 Nimrod MR2s, the last De Havilland Comet airframes left flying in the world, to the point where they would effectively be new aircraft. This would have meant a cost of just over £100m per plane. The project was then known as “Nimrod 2000”, rather optimistically as it turned out.

As time went by it became clear that the price was not fixed, and that “2000” wasn’t a good name for the project at all: it was re-dubbed Nimrod MRA4. BAE Systems has just announced that the first flight of a production-standard MRA4 took place last week, though the aircraft is not yet ready for handing over to the RAF — that will probably take place next year. Then there will be more delay before the type can be declared operationally capable.

Meanwhile the MoD now estimates the programme’s overall price tag as £3.6bn, an increase of more than two-thirds. In fact the situation is much worse than this, as the number of planes has had to be slashed to prevent even worse cost overruns. The RAF will now receive just 9 aircraft rather than 21.

As a result the cost per plane has actually quadrupled: each MRA4 will now have cost the taxpayers a cool £400m, better than $660m at current rates.

On a pure economic level, this is quite a price increase, but it’s typical of military equipment contracts: the very small number of items means that there are no economies of scale to be reaped, and all the design, test, and administration costs must be recouped over a much shorter production run. It still looks very bad . . . unless you happen to be in opposition right now, in which case it’s a great campaign talking point.

September 12, 2009

The untold story from the Plains of Abraham

Filed under: Cancon, History, Military — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 00:03

Desmond Morton points out that one of the most interesting parts of the battle — after both Wolfe and Montcalm had become casualties — is almost unknown today:

What happened next? Suddenly French soldiers knew: they would die. The chill of terror that dissolved British regulars in earlier battles now struck Montcalm’s men. A British cannon shell smashed their general’s side. As soldiers lugged Montcalm back to Quebec, they were jostled by terrified whitecoats fleeing for their lives.

Bayonets glinting, the British followed at their heels. On the left, Fraser’s Highlanders dropped their muskets, drew their heavy claymores, and raced forward with blood-curdling screams to cut off a French escape to Beauport.

This is as much of the battle as most historians report. What more do you need?

Montcalm died before dawn on the 14th. Hit again, probably by a Canadien militiaman, Wolfe died as the French ranks dissolved. Fighting on the Plains continued until dusk, sustained by Canadien militia and their native allies. When Quebec sovereignists killed plans to re-enact the battle they helped keep that heroic story secret. Perhaps they had no idea that it happened. When French regulars fled, the militia fought on.

Five times they stopped Fraser’s terrifying Highlanders from slaughtering the terrified regulars. Thanks to their despised militia and aboriginal allies, Montcalm’s French regulars could safely stop at Beauport, catch their breath, and begin a long, dreary march back to Montreal to prepare for another year of war. Did the separatists not want anyone to know?

September 11, 2009

Visiting HMCS Toronto

Filed under: Cancon, Military — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:04

The Economist reports on a visit to HMCS Toronto during Operation Nanook:

Thursday

A BLAST of the bosun’s whistle at 7am starts the day on the HMCS Toronto. Footsteps echo through the metal hull as the day watch makes their way to breakfast. We journalists lag behind. It is not easy to climb out of the bunks (or racks, in navy slang) stacked three high in areas kept permanently dark because someone is always sleeping. It was even harder to get into our racks the night before, as there were no ladders and no obvious way to get up to the middle or top racks.

Yesterday we were warned that we might have to climb a rope ladder to board the frigate from the Zodiacs. This threat was withdrawn and a set of steep metal steps with handrails was provided. Perhaps they took pity on the sedentary hacks that normally spend their days staring at computer screens. More likely, it was because the Canadian prime minister, the defence minister, and the top military brass are joining us.

While having the leaders assembled in one place appears risky — one well-aimed torpedo from an enemy submarine could cripple the Canadian government and wipe out its military command — we are assured that there is no conventional military threat in the Canadian arctic.

A true cynic might say something like “it’s a good thing the Liberals don’t have any submarines . . .”

September 10, 2009

British army gets some new kit

Filed under: Britain, Military, Weapons — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:48

In what the British government is announcing as a boost for British industry, the PBI are getting some new equipment:

  • Thermal sights will be provided for rifles, marksman’s weapons and light machineguns. These can be used to detect hidden enemies and bombs while on patrol, and function even in total darkness – when the regular light-amplifying night vision gear now in use doesn’t work. This stuff is already in use by some units, and is considered good by our sources.
  • New Lightweight Day Sights will be provided, replacing the SUSAT* sights which came in when the SA80 weapons were introduced during the 1980s. SUSAT was very popular in its day (unlike the SA80s, which were only sorted out twenty years later in a German factory), but according to our sources the new sights are much better, offering improved field of view and a clearer picture. “A gleaming bit of kit,” we’re told.
  • The new thermal scopes, in a popular bit of good sense, have open Close Quarter Battle Sights mounted on top of them. This means that a soldier in a close-up gunfight doesn’t need to peer through a scope as he shoots, and lose track of what’s happening around him. This gets the thumbs up as well.

It’s typical in situations like this — regardless of the country involved — for the politicians to view any military spending as being primarily to serve political ends, rather than military ones. This often means choosing a less capable piece of equipment if it can be produced in a key state/province/constituency even if it costs more than a competing product. Unusually, this doesn’t appear to have been the case this time:

Overall, then, most of the gear is necessary and popular. Refreshingly, the MoD seems also to be breaking with tradition and simply purchasing stuff from the firms best able to supply it rather than trying to use the buy to subsidise UK industry. Despite minister Quentin Davies’ assertion at DSEi that the FIST cash will “support the British defence industrial base”, actually it seems that at least half the money will go to overseas firms.

The grenade fire-control gadgets and the commanders’ target-marking binos (two of the most expensive systems) are to come from Switzerland, for example. Swiss provider Vectronix say they’ll be making 92 million francs on the deal, about £53m — more than a third of the total spend, and that’s without allowing for prime contractor Thales’ cut off the top. The new day-sights, another pricy piece of kit, will come from Canada and the periscopes from Israel. The only substantial UK buy is the thermal sights, from Qioptiq.

September 9, 2009

Operation Nanook

Filed under: Cancon, Military — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 13:13

I was surprised that they chose this particular name for the exercise, as I’d have assumed it would provoke mild symptoms of offensensitivity. Apparently not:

Ostensibly, we’re here to witness Canada asserting its control of the Arctic, which is attracting increased military and commercial interest due to the melting polar ice cap. But a political motive lurks behind the PR: Stephen Harper, the Conservative prime minister of a minority government, may well be facing an election in the autumn. He has made the Arctic one of his signature issues, and will drop by for grips and grins.

We are told to be at Apex Beach, a five-minute drive from central Iqaluit, at 5:30am to witness the first part of the exercise. Around 140 soldiers and their guides, known as Canadian Rangers, will land from the frigate HMCS Toronto and icebreaker CCGS Pierre Radisson. Midway through the two-month arctic summer, the waters of Frobisher Bay are glass-smooth and ice-free.

Although the sun has already been up for an hour, the weather is cool, more like a crisp autumn day than a midsummer morning. The military has thoughtfully provided a tent stocked with coffee and muffins for the journalists. Those who forgot their hats and gloves shelter there as the first of the Zodiac boats zip across the calm waters to the beach. Aside from the Sea King helicopter circling overhead, there is little drama in the landing. The soldiers, clad in green camouflage, calmly disembark and march off in groups of four to assemble at the top of a rocky hill.

The Canadian Rangers may be the least well-known of Canada’s military:

Rangers reflect the communities they are drawn from, says Mr Buzzell. In the western Arctic, where he is from, they are a mix of white, Indian, Métis and Inuit. In Nunavut, where Inuit make up 85% of the territory’s population, they are mainly Inuit. In any exercise on land, the regular forces would be lost without the Rangers’ survival skills, as would the numerous expeditions from all over the world that set out each year for the North Pole.

The Inuit are usually too polite to make a point of this. But a video I picked up in Iqaluit called “Quallunat: Why white people are funny” provides a rare glimpse of how Inuit view hapless southerners. The scene in which an Inuit on a snowmobile rescues two so-called explorers, equipped with the latest gear but little sense, makes for funny, if uncomfortable viewing.

September 4, 2009

Survey of military use of UAV assets

Filed under: Military, Technology — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 08:17

There’s a useful overview of how Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) are changing the tactical situation for troops on the ground in this week’s Economist Technology Quarterly section:

Drones are much less expensive to operate than manned warplanes. The cost per flight-hour of Israel’s drone fleet, for example, is less than 5% the cost of its fighter jets, says Antan Israeli, the commander of an Israeli drone squadron. In the past two years the Israeli Defence Forces’ fleet of UAVs has tripled in size. Mr Israeli says that “almost all” IDF ground operations now have drone support.

Of course, small and comparatively slow UAVs are no match for fighter jets when it comes to inspiring awe with roaring flyovers — or shooting down enemy warplanes. Some drones, such as America’s Predator and Reaper, carry missiles or bombs, though most do not. (Countries with “hunter-killer” drones include America, Britain and Israel.) But drones have other strengths that can be just as valuable. In particular, they are unparalleled spies. Operating discreetly, they can intercept radio and mobile-phone communications, and gather intelligence using video, radar, thermal-imaging and other sensors. The data they gather can then be sent instantly via wireless and satellite links to an operations room halfway around the world — or to the hand-held devices of soldiers below. In military jargon, troops without UAV support are “disadvantaged”.

Of course, it wouldn’t be a current-day Economist article without at least one gloomy caveat:

There is a troubling side to all this. Operators can now safely manipulate battlefield weapons from control rooms half a world away, as if they are playing a video game. Drones also enable a government to avoid the political risk of putting combat boots on foreign soil. This makes it easier to start a war, says P.W. Singer, the American author of “Wired for War”, a recent bestseller about robotic warfare. But like them or not, drones are here to stay. Armed forces that master them are not just securing their hold on air superiority — they are also dramatically increasing its value.

I don’t particularly credit this risk . . . as Chris Taylor pointed out in a comment on a recent post, “degrading the comm links is the easiest way to render UCAVs largely toothless. In their current incarnation they are only good for permissive environments where the other guy can’t really harm your aircraft or comms. When they get autonomous then they’ll be more practical for warfighting against advanced foes.”

Actually, go read the comment thread on that post. Between Chris and “cirby”, I think they cover the technical side very well indeed.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress