As I've said before, military officers and NCOs in the US armed forces are required to attend and graduate various professional military education requirements throughout their careers. Over and over, officers and NCOs hear how battles were lost because the political leadership would not support going in with more troops. The incidents portrayed in "Blackhawk Down" were the result of the Clinton administration refusing to send in armor to support the ground forces. Vietnam holds multiple examples of civilian leaders in Washington D.C. selecting targets for the military in theater. The Bush Administration sent Marines into Iraq hundreds of kilometers beyond their doctrine and logistical lines could support (fortunately the Iraqi military did not present much resistance).
Now this report shows the British were sent in too light to handle Afghanistan. The results were high casualties.
Colin Powell believes you should only send in the military when all other options have been exhausted. Once you decide to send in the troops, you need to send them in so overwhelmingly that not only is victory assured but your enemy will regret ever resorting to war. Waging war on the cheap, or trying to minimize the presence of forces, only results in troops needless dying for no gain.
Yahoo! News
“If you would not be forgotten, as soon as you are dead and rotten, either write things worth reading, or do things worth the writing.”--Benjamin Franklin
Monday, July 18, 2011
Not Our Problem
Ever wonder how the Department of Defense ends up spending millions or even billions of dollars over the original plan? Read on;
Not Our Problem: Boeing's decision to aggressively price its KC-46A tanker proposal—to the extent that the company expects to lose money in developing the aircraft for the Air Force—is not disconcerting to the Defense Department, said Pentagon acquisition executive Ash Carter. "It's not our problem because it's a fixed-price contract and it was written with the protections for the taxpayer," stated Carter last week during a Brookings Institution-sponsored symposium on the defense budget in Washington, D.C. Boeing is under a $4.9 billion fixed-price incentive firm contract to develop the KC-46A tanker and deliver the first airplanes by 2017. The company is liable for all costs above the $4.9 billion ceiling. Carter said the fixed-price contract mechanism means that the Pentagon is not left "open-endedly liable" if the costs do exceed the ceiling. Thus, Boeing's strategy of losing money in development "in the hopes of making money in the production phase" is "not a problem from the department's point of view." Carter gave the keynote address during the July 15 event.
Does someone who holds degrees from Yale and Oxford, as Dr. Carter does, really believe the DoD isn't going to pay for this underbid later in systems upgrades and modifications?
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
TSA warns of surgically implanted bombs
TSA efforts seem to always focus on some type of explosive. First we had the shoe bomber and then the liquid explosives scare with Abdulmuttalab providing the exception that proves the rule.
I'm not certain how likely inserting explosives under the skin is in reality. It seems like a great way to kill a would be terrorist by messing up the procedure. Even if the procedure works, you still risk the human bomb prematurely detonating.
A far more likely scenario, and one TSA is not able to detect, would be a terrorist who has been intentionally infected with small pox. The individual could fly into say Chicago O'Hare and then proceed to touch as many passengers transiting through the terminals as possible. Passengers would not show signs until much later by which time numerous others would have been exposed. No risk of the bomb going off too soon. Zero chance of being detected by TSA.
UPI.com
I'm not certain how likely inserting explosives under the skin is in reality. It seems like a great way to kill a would be terrorist by messing up the procedure. Even if the procedure works, you still risk the human bomb prematurely detonating.
A far more likely scenario, and one TSA is not able to detect, would be a terrorist who has been intentionally infected with small pox. The individual could fly into say Chicago O'Hare and then proceed to touch as many passengers transiting through the terminals as possible. Passengers would not show signs until much later by which time numerous others would have been exposed. No risk of the bomb going off too soon. Zero chance of being detected by TSA.
UPI.com
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Global race on to match U.S. drone capabilities
A quick history lesson seems in order.
World War II was the inevitable result of the First World War. The result of WWII was the Cold War. The United States set itself up as one superpower when it ended the war with Japan by dropping two atomic bombs. The USSR was diametrically opposed and escalated its own nuclear weapons program. The two former Allies would now become opponents in a non-shooting war that would last over 4 decades.
The Cold War came very close to becoming hot in 1962 during the Cuban Missile crisis. Otherwise, nuclear weapons were built to intimidate the other side into not using theirs. The Cuban Missile crisis lead in part to President Kennedy's support and use of special forces. Special forces can be used quickly and inexpensively compared to conventional forces. Inserting a few teams runs a much lower risk of inciting a full blown war.
The Cold War can be called an arms race but it wasn't until President Reagan that this strategy could be masted. President Reagan struck on a bold strategy of breaking the Soviet economy by forcing them to spend more and more of their capital on weapons and personnel. His "Star Wars" strategy was more about getting the Soviets to believe then to field any weapons. The Soviets bought into "Star Wars" and spent money they really didn't have in trying to counter it. Eventually, the Soviet Union goes bust in 1991.
Nature abhors a vacuum so the Cold War gets replaced by the global war on terrorism. Unlike the Cold War, the Global War on Terrorism lacks two opposing superpowers. No superpowers, no arms race or at least so it first appeared.
The United States led the way technologically, much as it did in WWII, this time using drones. Drones take the same elements of special forces (quick, inexpensive, and low risk) and add the elements of airpower. Having an unmanned aircraft on high altitude orbit with precision guided munitions is a very intimidating platform. As no troops are involved, politicians and Constitutional scholars will be locked in arguments as to whether or not the President needs Congressional approval to launch a drone strike.
The US has been unwilling to sell armed drones or the technology to anyone other than their closest allies. Drones are affordable for most nations to develop. China, India, Russia, to name a few, see the market potential are beginning to fielding armed drones.
The Washington Post article points out a potential of this new arms race. Unmanned drones makes it much easier to start shooting at someone without committing troops. Without troops, is it really a war?
Drones can be launched without risking the loss of troops meaning public outrage will be low to non-existent. An unmanned drone, unless it gets shot down, will be hard to identify the country of origin. Even if found, did the Chinese really use it or simply another country that bought the technology?
Drones introduce another problem. Manned aircraft need to operate from airfields or carriers. This means radars and satellites have time to detect the flight path. Drones can be launched from almost anywhere and can fly under most radars near the ground clutter. Satellites can only see the drone if they are looking at that particular part of the earth and may not have enough time to pick it out amongst ground clutter. A series of small drones launched against a major city could be devastating.
Star Wars showed drones as clumsy walking robots that could not hit the broad side of a barn with automatic fire. Real drones are flying weapons platforms that can strike anywhere, anytime.
The Washington Post
World War II was the inevitable result of the First World War. The result of WWII was the Cold War. The United States set itself up as one superpower when it ended the war with Japan by dropping two atomic bombs. The USSR was diametrically opposed and escalated its own nuclear weapons program. The two former Allies would now become opponents in a non-shooting war that would last over 4 decades.
The Cold War came very close to becoming hot in 1962 during the Cuban Missile crisis. Otherwise, nuclear weapons were built to intimidate the other side into not using theirs. The Cuban Missile crisis lead in part to President Kennedy's support and use of special forces. Special forces can be used quickly and inexpensively compared to conventional forces. Inserting a few teams runs a much lower risk of inciting a full blown war.
The Cold War can be called an arms race but it wasn't until President Reagan that this strategy could be masted. President Reagan struck on a bold strategy of breaking the Soviet economy by forcing them to spend more and more of their capital on weapons and personnel. His "Star Wars" strategy was more about getting the Soviets to believe then to field any weapons. The Soviets bought into "Star Wars" and spent money they really didn't have in trying to counter it. Eventually, the Soviet Union goes bust in 1991.
Nature abhors a vacuum so the Cold War gets replaced by the global war on terrorism. Unlike the Cold War, the Global War on Terrorism lacks two opposing superpowers. No superpowers, no arms race or at least so it first appeared.
The United States led the way technologically, much as it did in WWII, this time using drones. Drones take the same elements of special forces (quick, inexpensive, and low risk) and add the elements of airpower. Having an unmanned aircraft on high altitude orbit with precision guided munitions is a very intimidating platform. As no troops are involved, politicians and Constitutional scholars will be locked in arguments as to whether or not the President needs Congressional approval to launch a drone strike.
The US has been unwilling to sell armed drones or the technology to anyone other than their closest allies. Drones are affordable for most nations to develop. China, India, Russia, to name a few, see the market potential are beginning to fielding armed drones.
The Washington Post article points out a potential of this new arms race. Unmanned drones makes it much easier to start shooting at someone without committing troops. Without troops, is it really a war?
Drones can be launched without risking the loss of troops meaning public outrage will be low to non-existent. An unmanned drone, unless it gets shot down, will be hard to identify the country of origin. Even if found, did the Chinese really use it or simply another country that bought the technology?
Drones introduce another problem. Manned aircraft need to operate from airfields or carriers. This means radars and satellites have time to detect the flight path. Drones can be launched from almost anywhere and can fly under most radars near the ground clutter. Satellites can only see the drone if they are looking at that particular part of the earth and may not have enough time to pick it out amongst ground clutter. A series of small drones launched against a major city could be devastating.
Star Wars showed drones as clumsy walking robots that could not hit the broad side of a barn with automatic fire. Real drones are flying weapons platforms that can strike anywhere, anytime.
The Washington Post
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Boarding Pass Arrest: Nigerian Who Slipped by Airport Security a 'Storyteller'
ABC reported this story on Thursday. TSA protocols are at best a one size fits all strategy to detecting potential threats. Since 9/11, the concern has been to prevent another hijacking involving the use of explosives. The emphasis allows other threats to slip by such as fake credentials. TSA screeners are more focused on what the passenger is carrying versus their intentions, demeanor or even apparently their credentials. The focus on content versus intent has lead to the embarrassing reports of children being patted down or elderly women being humiliated. The passengers were not cooperating in revealing their contents or submitting to a search. There appeared to be at no time realization by the screener or supervisor that there was no intent by these passengers.
Watch police officers who walk a beat. They are able to dismiss background noise from people on the street and focus in on those that are or have committed crimes. The TSA scanners need to learn this street cop approach. Gaddafi is threatening attacks in Europe but the United States could just as easily be attacked. In Butler county (just to the north of Cincinnati), there was an arrest of a teenager thought to be part of an international cyber terrorist network.
There are threats out there but I'm not certain if current TSA protocols are nimble enough to stop them.
ABC News
Watch police officers who walk a beat. They are able to dismiss background noise from people on the street and focus in on those that are or have committed crimes. The TSA scanners need to learn this street cop approach. Gaddafi is threatening attacks in Europe but the United States could just as easily be attacked. In Butler county (just to the north of Cincinnati), there was an arrest of a teenager thought to be part of an international cyber terrorist network.
There are threats out there but I'm not certain if current TSA protocols are nimble enough to stop them.
ABC News
Air Force and Navy flying thousands of missions over Libya as Obama says U.S. is only playing a limited role
First, a correction. I've been referring to the air operation over Libya as "Odyssey Dawn" but since NATO has taken over the correct title is "OPERATION Unified Protector". Odd how after weeks of reading about Libya this was the first article (at least that I've read) that made a point of using the correct name.
According to the Mail Online, 'Since 31 March, the U.S. has flown a total of 3,475 sorties...Of those, 801 were strike sorties, 132 of which actually dropped ordnance.'
The Obama administration will take great pains to point out how few were actually strike sorties. What will get overlooked is the cost associated with maintaining that kind of OPSTEMPO (while still maintaining air operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan plus all of the air refueling missions to support aircraft transiting between the states and the AOR). The numbers also show that with the United States, NATO has some serious gaps in their ability to perform air suppression and ISR missions. Air suppression requires specialized aircraft and munitions so these relatively low numbers may in fact be much more expensive. The ISR or intelligence-surveillance-reconaissance missions are primarily flow by drones but the US has only a limited number of these aircraft. Most are deployed in Afghanistan. Being unmanned does not mean these are inexpensive to operate. The sensors and downlinks are quite expensive to operate and maintain. Having a drone auger into the ground is a very costly risk, especially for a non-US operation.
The taxpayer may never know the true cost of "Unified Protector" but as the old saying goes, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Mail Online
According to the Mail Online, 'Since 31 March, the U.S. has flown a total of 3,475 sorties...Of those, 801 were strike sorties, 132 of which actually dropped ordnance.'
The Obama administration will take great pains to point out how few were actually strike sorties. What will get overlooked is the cost associated with maintaining that kind of OPSTEMPO (while still maintaining air operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan plus all of the air refueling missions to support aircraft transiting between the states and the AOR). The numbers also show that with the United States, NATO has some serious gaps in their ability to perform air suppression and ISR missions. Air suppression requires specialized aircraft and munitions so these relatively low numbers may in fact be much more expensive. The ISR or intelligence-surveillance-reconaissance missions are primarily flow by drones but the US has only a limited number of these aircraft. Most are deployed in Afghanistan. Being unmanned does not mean these are inexpensive to operate. The sensors and downlinks are quite expensive to operate and maintain. Having a drone auger into the ground is a very costly risk, especially for a non-US operation.
The taxpayer may never know the true cost of "Unified Protector" but as the old saying goes, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
Mail Online
Friday, July 1, 2011
Defiant Gaddafi threatens Europe
Gaddafi's manic behavior and various costumes make it easy to dismiss him as a nut. He has remained in power for over 40 years and as the Al Jazeera article points out, his troops have withstood 15 weeks of NATO airstrikes.
Well he must surely be full of himself if he thinks he can attack the European continent, right? During the early 1980s, Gaddafi was looking for anyone who can teach his operatives about radio controlled bombs and found the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA). In exchange for teaching Libyan terrorists about radio detonated bombs, the PIRA got access to Libyan training grounds. It is hard to imagine that over the years Gaddafi let his European contacts fall to neglect. His threats should be taken very seriously.
Al Jazeera English
Well he must surely be full of himself if he thinks he can attack the European continent, right? During the early 1980s, Gaddafi was looking for anyone who can teach his operatives about radio controlled bombs and found the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA). In exchange for teaching Libyan terrorists about radio detonated bombs, the PIRA got access to Libyan training grounds. It is hard to imagine that over the years Gaddafi let his European contacts fall to neglect. His threats should be taken very seriously.
Al Jazeera English
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)