We Have Moved!

Please visit our new site at:

http://newwars.wordpress.com/

Thanks again for your ongoing support and God Bless the Troops!

Thoughts on Warfare

The type of arms (tanks, stealth fighters, aircraft carriers) the US military possesses are too costly for the Third World conflicts we consistently find ourselves fighting, and too vulnerable to modern precision weapons for the type of Great Power battles we prepare for.

Replacing the tanks, jet fighters, and gun-armed warships of the last century are new robot weapons including precision guided bombs, unmanned aerial vehicles, and cruise missiles.

Expensive platforms like the Abrams Main Battle Tank, F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, and Nimitz class supercarriers are not required to carry the new robot weapons.

The new capital ship at sea is the attack submarine. Of all the legacy warships developed around the turn of the 20th century: aircraft carriers, cruisers, and destroyers, only the new U-boats possess the inherent stealthiness to survive in the cruise missiles age.

With the "one shot, one kill" accuracy of modern missile weapons, has the gun itself become obsolete? Its very purpose was centered on the need to bracket a target with multiple shells to ensure a hit. The microchip has made the need for such wasteful expenditure of ammo unnecessary.

Robot weapons have returned the initiative on land to the foot soldier, taken from him early in the 20th century by mass firepower and the tank. We saw this dawn in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, then vanish deceptively during the 1991 Gulf War, only to reemerge dramatically in the insurgent conflicts at the opening of the 21st Century.

Man portable surface to air missiles (SAMs), and antitank guided missile (ATGM) have leveled the field between industrial age planes and tanks and the infantryman.

The submarine is the only evolutionary warship, currently duplicating the missions of all major surface warships. It's cruise missiles make it an aircraft carrier, its torpedoes a destroyer, while stealthy eavesdropping abilities mimics the traditional role of cruisers from early last century.

Standing by the Troops

Here's a special message from Gold Star Mom Debbie Lee:

Move America Forward, the nation's largest pro-troop organization, has put together an effort to send the largest number of care packages to U.S. troops in history. Between now and the 4th of July we are asking Americans to sponsor care packages that we will send to our heroic military men and women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need you to join us by sponsoring care packages and helping us reach this historic goal.

** SPONSOR A CARE PACKAGE - CLICK HERE **

My son gave up his life for this country because he knew that the series of attacks against Americans by Islamic jihadists/terrorists had to be stopped. Our country could no longer look the other way and pretend that there wasn't an enemy that was determined to destroy our nation. So Marc volunteered to serve his nation, as an elite Navy Seal, and he and so many others joined our military knowing that they might have to sacrifice their own lives for the freedoms of our nation, for you, for me.

The United States of America is a great nation thanks in large part to all those in uniform who have shed blood and given their lives to ensure that this remains the shining city on a hill that President Ronald Reagan once spoke of -- a land of freedom, of liberty, of decency, of opportunity.
Let's use this day to show our military men and women currently serving overseas how much we appreciate them. Please, join me in this wonderful effort to send the largest shipment of care packages in history to our troops.

** SPONSOR A CARE PACKAGE - CLICK HERE **

For They Who Sacrifice

On this Memorial Day, here's to all those who stand guard through terrible ordeals far from home, just so we can sleep safely in our beds. From an article I wrote a while back title Perseverance in War:

By perseverance, the tiny Greek cities withstood the continents spanning Persian Empire, to lay the foundations of Western Civilization. Even after Athens itself was occupied and torched the Greeks stood firm, managing to defeat the Persian fleet at Salamis, cutting off the invader’s overwhelming army from naval support.

Later the Romans persevered against Carthage’s greatest general, Hannibal, even after losing 50,000 legionnaires at Cannae. Earlier, an even greater force of 80,000 Roman sailors was lost at sea in a storm. The city stood firm against her enemies despite the numerous disasters she faced, saving Greco-Judean culture from Asian mysticism.

After the Fall of Rome in 410 AD, the torch passed to Byzantium as Defenders of the West. For a thousand years the City on the Golden Horn withstood waves of barbarians including Huns, Muslims, and Vikings, that overwhelmed the rest of the world, thus buying time for the youthful German kingdoms in Europe to create the Modern World.

By perseverance, the least of the new kingdoms, England, outfought more powerful land powers, including Spain, the Dutch, and France, to become Mistress of the Seas. Rather than a European dictatorship controlling the world’s sea-lanes, a benevolent democracy spread its culture of free trade and human rights around the world.

George Washington, leading the newborn American colonies, had the audacity to defy this great superpower when they no longer were treated as Englishmen. Without a navy and only a rag-tag militia for an army, Washington kept his forces in being for 13 years, until the British wearied of the conflict and granted her colonies freedom.

In 1863, Ulysses S. Grant suffered derision from his fellow generals, the press, and from Washington, not to mention the Confederate enemy besieged at Vicksburg. After enduring months of defeat and criticism, he persevered to conquer the city, thus splitting the Confederacy in two and assuring Union victory in the Civil War.

Winston Churchill and his beleaguered nation persevered alone after the Fall of France in 1940, before the onslaught of the German Luftwaffe. Though the world gave the tiny island little hope to survive, England persevered to stand beside Russia and America in the final defeat of the Axis powers, thus saving democracy from a new barbarism.

Ronald Reagan ignored those of his fellow countrymen who resigned to live with communism, and declared its demise in his lifetime. Reagan was right, and the critics were wrong. Thus was democracy given a new chance that it almost lost in the aftermath of World War 2.

On and on the story goes, how men and women defied the odds and stood up to bullies and critics to save nations and transform societies. They endured pain and hunger in the field with their troops, suffered ostracizing from their peers and abandoned by friends, made laughing stocks in the media, and endured the threats of enemies. They persevered through all this to give us all a better world.

Dems admit lying to win the election

This is Democrat Rep. Paul Kanjorski who said:

I'll tell you my impression. We really in this last election, when
I say we . . . the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of
the fleet, didn't say it, but we implied it. That if we won the Congressional
elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government
would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back
the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts . . . and people ate it up.

And if you don't believe me, here's the video:

More Calls for a Million Man Army

Or million person army. Whatever, lets get it done. Here's Thomas Donnelly and Fred Kagan in the Wall Street Journal:

Unfortunately, the Bush administration's program – to grow the
active Army and Marine Corps from the current 700,000 to about 750,000 in the
next five years – is a Rumsfeld legacy and entirely inadequate. Regardless of
the number of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will need a total active land
force of something like one million soldiers and Marines.
The active duty
portion of the U.S. Army needs to grow to about 800,000 soldiers. That's the
size maintained during the 1980s and into the early 1990s, and it is a bare
minimum for success in the many and varied missions that will be required in the
future – missions that have ranged from "building partnership capacity" in West
Africa to tracking down terrorists in Southeast Asia, as well as large-scale
invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan...

Repairing and reshaping the active Army is also key to
restoring the Marine Corps to its traditional and still essential role as a
sea-based contingency force. And it is critical in order to return the Army
National Guard to a proper place as a national strategic reserve, and an
operational force with state responsibilities. The Army is the keystone in the
arch of America's land-force structure.

And how would America pay for this essential new role for her land forces? A simple change in budget applications with a 50%-25%-25% split in the Amy's favor. The Navy could go to an all submarine/gunboat force while the USAF would concentrate on essentials such as close air support, perhaps like the Israeli Air Force, building an all-fighter fleet.

Sea Links

The guided-missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55) steams up the Hudson River during the parade of ships for the 21st Fleet Week New York 2008. US Navy Photo

Is China Building Aircraft Carriers?

Russian Navy to return Kirov CGN to Service.

Riverine Squadron 2 Returns Home.

Navy destroyer caught in funding battle.

Unmanned ASW Vehicle for Littoral Ships.

Britain gives go-ahead for new aircraft carriers.

Canada's Joint Support Ship in Trouble.

Fish Hawk Advanced ASW Weapon Tested.

More on Fish Hawk Glide Torpedo.

Skjold-class Littoral Combat Craft are now "Corvettes".

House considers putting carriers Kennedy, Kitty Hawk back into service.

Congress Funds a Bigger Fleet.

In the News...

Applying the Media's defense of Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright to justify President Bush's speech to the Israeli Knesset: The MSM used a single sound-bite (specifically the word "Appeasement"), took it out of context without reading the entire speech and launched their partisan attack on the President. Also, Bush has made hundreds of speeches without ever mentioning "appeasement", so he couldn't have been talking about Obama. See, it works both ways!

After watching so many Republicans join Democrats in overriding the President's veto of the swollen Farm Bill, John McCain is making a lot of sense these days. With liberals and conservatives hell-bent on bankrupting the country with earmarks and bailouts, the time is ripe for a fiscally responsible candidate like the "Maverick".

Despite calls from the Right for John McCain to accept a younger, more conservative Vice President to appeal to his base, it appears his running mate for the 2008 nomination might be Senator Joe Lieberman, or at lease should be. Both have become mavericks within their own parties, and concerning the fight against Radical Islam, share a like and clear vision.

John Kerry in 2004, and Hillary Clinton today are living proof on how not to run a campaign for President. Each started off with a moderate view on the war, then quickly flip-flopped when faced with criticism by a more liberal antiwar candidate (Howard Dean vs. Kerry, Obama vs. Hillary). Then too little too late they were forced back to the center when reality set in, that they must also appeal to moderates and independents to win the election, especially in this Age of Terrorism. By then the damage has been done. John McCain is sitting pretty.

Petraeus: Troops in Iraq Counters Iran Influence

I have contended for some time (see here and here) that the worse thing we can do to Iran is to create a free and democratic Iraq. Here's soon to be head of CentCom General David Petraeus on the same subject:

Army Gen. David Petraeus, who is to assume control of U.S. forces
in the Middle East, says that a continued U.S. presence in Iraq is more likely
to blunt, rather than inflame, Iran's growing influence in the region.
In a
46-page question-and-answer document submitted in advance of his confirmation
hearing on Thursday, Petraeus says the U.S. must work on developing more
leverage — primarily diplomatic or economic — to pressure Tehran to abandon its
nuclear program. But, he notes, the U.S. must retain military strike options as
a "last resort."

And:

When asked by the Senate panel whether a lengthy deployment in Iraq
only strengthens Iran's influence in the region, Petraeus responded that the
opposite was true. It "has the potential to counter malign Iranian influence
against the government of Iraq, build common cause in the region and expose the
extent of malign Iranian activities to the world," he wrote.

I fear that many of the American Left actually want us to attack Iran. How can this be from a so-called Peace movement, you ask? We need only look to the Vietnam War, and President Nixon's invasion of Cambodia for the answer. While this attempt to sever North Vietnamese supply lines entering into the South gave the US Troops a short term tactical advantage, it so embolden the cause of the Anti-War Movement in the US that we were were soon forced completely out of the war by a weary and indignant public.

There is a rule in warfare of the dangers of over-extending a victorious army, examples being Hitler invading Russia in 1941, the Japanese attack on Midway in 1942, and MacArthur marching too close to the Chinese border after the victorious Inchon landing in 1950. Thankfully, President Bush understands the lessons of history, and what some may criticize as his stubbornness in many cases, at least on this issue he is exactly right to hold back.

Headlines You Might Have Missed

The MSM have gone strangely quiet on the Iraq War news of late. Could it be because of this:

Commander: Al Qaeda in Iraq Is at Its Weakest-FoxNews

The End of an Act Approaches in Iraq -Information Dissemination

The Jihadists Admit Defeat in Iraq -Talisman Gate

B.C. researchers find decline in global terrorism, question previous data-Canadian Press

Petraeus: Troops in Iraq help blunt Iran threat-Associated Press

Sadr City calm after Iraqi troop move-Washington Post

What's behind High Gas Prices?

Here's a response by John Hofmeister, CEO of Shell Oil to Congress yesterday:

"In the United States, access to our own oil and gas resources has
been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from
exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people. It is
not a free market. According to the Department of the Interior, 62% of all
on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with
restrictions applying to 92% of all federal lands. The Argonne National
Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identified 40 specific federal policy areas
that halt, limit, delay, or restrict natural gas projects. The problem of access
can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it.
Congress could have chose to lift some or all of the current restrictions on
exploration and production of oil and gas. Congress could provide national
policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource
development."

But Washington would tell us its our "obsession" with oil. And because Congress refuses to allow opening up new oil fields, we are forced to defend the terrorist breeding grounds of the Middle East from radicals who wish to stop the flow. In other words, no dependence on foreign oil, no reason for us to fight in the Middle East!

H/T to Blogs for Victory

The Tank Meets the Mule-Updated

Updated and Bumped. See below.

I don't buy into the notion that because the Canadians have decided to purchase 100 used Leopard 2 tanks from Holland, rather than update their armored forces with new-build Strykers, that the Main Battle Tank (MBT) still is King of the Battlefield. Certain types of track vehicles might always be required for specialized operations in difficult terrain, but with no one in the West currently building new MBTs, save for updating older models, how long will even these tired warriors be in frontline service?

The fact is the enemies of the MBT has made the giant behemoth so costly to defend that it has outlived its usefulness in this age of precision guided weapons. As we have discovered in recent years, fast and easy to produce armored cars like the Stryker and even new MRAP vehicles can perform many of the missions once thought the domain of the tank at far less the expense.

During World War 2, after Britain and America had completely mechanized their armies, it was soon discovered that over tough, mountainous terrain, the recently disposed of cavalry might still be useful. Especially during the Italian Campaign, army mules were considered vital to load ammo and essential supplies before the Allies could seize more favorable ground for the armored divisions. This strategy brought its own set of difficulties as "each division needed 300-500 mules, also, the food, shoes, nails, packs, etc, for them. This in turn led to frantic searches for veterinarians, harness makers, blacksmiths and mule skinners to manage the beasts!"


In certain limited conditions then, the tank still is essential, especially against any Third World adversary,as we have seen since 1991. On roadless landscape, as we may find in Afghanistan where the Taliban reside, or in undeveloped nations as in Africa, the archaic giants are still intimidating and effective. Yet, against such poorly armed foes do we still need to sink our national treasure into developing $150 billion Future Combat Systems, or will older models as the Canadians are using be good enough?


Against any future peer antagonist, in which precision weapons are involved, today's most powerful land ships are no more useful than the Japanese battleships at the Battle of Midway. Such weapons have returned the initiative in land war to the "poor bloody infantry". As for armored vehicles, all that is required of them today is as "battle taxis", providing the foot soldier with a ride where his new arsenal of portable anti-tank missiles plus his ability to reign down fire from above by calling on precision air or guided artillery support has effectively doomed the Main Battle Tank.

Update-Just came across this editorial in the Toronto Sun by Peter Worthington, concerning the new Canadian Leopards which adds validity to my thoughts above:

My problem is that having been to Afghanistan and seen some of
the ravages of war, what stands out in memory is the countryside littered with
burned and destroyed Soviet tanks. My question: If Russian armour was vulnerable
and destroyable in Afghanistan, why is Canadian armour considered invulnerable
and effective? Or is it?
I know the Americans' mighty 70-ton Abrams tanks
and Bradley fighting vehicles have proved somewhat of a mixed blessing in the
mountains. The big guns in the tanks have limited elevation and in mountains
cannot shoot at high ridges where the enemy lurks. Nor is the Abrams
satisfactory in urban guerrilla warfare in Iraq, where it is vulnerable to
ambush -- especially with anti-tank weaponry coming from Iran.

The same applies to 60-ton Canadian Leopards in
Afghanistan, where roadside explosives devices are lethal. In flat country,
these tanks with the 122-mm and 120-mm guns can be devastating at routing the
enemy.
Wheeled armoured vehicles are vulnerable to powerful roadside
explosive devices; 25-mm guns are not as lethal as tank guns. Increasingly
mine-resistance ambush- protected vehicles (MRAPs) are necessary, with special
armour and V-shaped hulls to deflect explosions.

I remember being in Eritrea in 1988 when fighters of the
Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF) ambushed an Ethiopian armoured brigade
on a mountain road. The Eritreans knocked out the lead tank and the last tank,
thus trapping the whole brigade, and then picked off those in the middle at
leisure. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.
So helpless were the
Ethiopians that their own air force bombed the trapped brigade to destroy their
own equipment and ensure the Eritreans couldn't use it.

Without incurring one casualty, the EPLF annihilated the
brigade, and then went on to destroy a division, subsequently winning the war
and their own independence. (At the time I took photos of Canadian wheat flour
intended for refugees, being used in army kitchens -- which CIDA ignored or
denied when this eyewitness account was published).
Eritrea was a country of
three million that, with little outside military aid, defeated a country of 44
million that (excluding South Africa) boasted the most modern army in Africa,
supplied by the U.S. and then the Soviets.

So perhaps it's understandable why I and others are uneasy
about the use of tanks in a mountainous country like Afghanistan, where a
resourceful "enemy" is nervy and adept at innovation.
There's no reason to
suppose they can't, or won't, do to our precious tanks what they did to Soviet
tanks.

Thought this very interesting and relevent, especially coming from someone who's actually been to the warzone, observing the environment there first hand.

Democrats at the Crossroads

Senator Joe Lieberman pleads with his fellow Democrats to awake from their fallen state:

The attack on America by Islamist terrorists shook President
Bush from the foreign policy course he was on. He saw September 11 for what it
was: a direct ideological and military attack on us and our way of life. If the
Democratic Party had stayed where it was in 2000, America could have confronted
the terrorists with unity and strength in the years after 9/11.

Instead a debate soon began within the Democratic Party
about how to respond to Mr. Bush. I felt strongly that Democrats should embrace
the basic framework the president had advanced for the war on terror as our own,
because it was our own. But that was not the choice most Democratic leaders
made. When total victory did not come quickly in Iraq, the old voices of
partisanship and peace at any price saw an opportunity to reassert themselves.
By considering centrism to be collaboration with the enemy – not bin Laden, but
Mr. Bush – activists have successfully pulled the Democratic Party further to
the left than it has been at any point in the last 20 years.

And with a warning to Barack Obama:

Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the
footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never
met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting
down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.

I think the Dems must wake up or fade into irrelevance. If the latter happens, here's hoping they don't take the country down with them. But I just can't figure why my fellow countrymen fight so hard those who fight against the terrorists.

UN Inhumanity

Ugh. Via Blogs For Victory:

The United Nations will send nearly a quarter of a million condoms
into cyclone-hit Myanmar to help needy survivors with no access to
contraceptives, a UN official says.
So far, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA)
said it had sent 72 800 condoms to survivors struggling to maintain their family
planning after the storm hit in early May.

I agree with Mark here-"Close it down. Implode it. Sow the ground with salt"!

The Stagnation of Warfare Pt. 3

Hate to say I told you so but...from Strategypage:

The U.S. Secretary of Defense has ordered the service chiefs and
their subordinates to cut back on developing weapons and tactics for the next
war (wherever and whatever it might be), and concentrate on the current ones.
This directive is based on the assumption that the U.S. military can already
defeat any potential foe, and the near future appears to include more irregular
fighters and terrorists, than masses of tanks, modern aircraft and high tech
warships...

The Department of Defense wants the troops to become more
effective at dealing with irregulars and terrorists. The current war is giving
the ground troops invaluable combat experience, making American ground forces
the most capable on the planet. The idea is to capitalize on that, not new,
untried and very expensive technology.

I am convinced that it is not so much our high tech wonder weapons that has given the US its wave of victories in the post-Cold War era, but how it schools its troops in warfare (train as you would fight). Only this can explain our ability to fight 2 simultaneous conflicts since 2001, while keeping watch on China, North Korea, and Iran, despite suffering in the Clinton Era the largest defense cuts since after World War 2.

Therefore, I believe the US can safely endure a "weapons holiday" with a freeze on building Big Ships, while bolstering our littoral fleet to fight pirate insurgents. We could also hold off plans for reequipping the USAF with hi-tech fighters and concentrate on close air support planes, plus late model fighters like the F-16 or Super Hornet to keep numbers up. The Army already seems to be doing everything right. As mentioned in the article they are backing off some on the Future Combat System while beefing up its forces with off-the-shelf equipment like Strykers and armored cars, armor for the troops, and new build helicopters.

Reforming the Industrial Age Navy

Your enthusiastic response, both pro and con, for our recent posting titled "Questioning the Need for a Gator Navy" inspired us to publish parts as an editorial. This article ended up in the Navy News Clips emailed by the Office of Information. We appreciate our readers and the US Navy for its open mindedness in publishing this little piece of constructive criticism.

Our main purpose in writing such articles is in hopes of salvaging the supremacy of the US Fleet, which is down to 279 ships in commission and no end of this decline in sight. None of the potential presidential contenders, whether Republican or Democrat offers any hope of a major expansion in shipbuilding funds for the near future, an obvious requirement of the stated goal of a 313 ship navy.

Yet, the USN insists on constructing a traditional industrial age force structure consisting of aircraft carriers, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, nuclear submarines, and amphibious assault ships. Continuing down this course in the age of digital weapons is not only folly in our view, but very unnecessary.

Concerning the amphibious ships, we part company from Galrahn who offers a good argument on what the Gator Navy should be doing, and therein lies the problem. They do seem to be everywhere, showing the flag, threatening Iran, providing disaster relief; all very well, except these very complicated and highly expensive warships were designed for a Inchon/Falklands style forcible entry onto a hostile shore.

Instead we use them in the role of gunboats, which Galrahn concedes is the right role for such massive ships(?) in the Post Cold War:

If we consider a moment that the challenge regions emerging in
the expeditionary era are what Thomas Barnett calls the Non-Integrated Gaps, the regions from South
America to Africa to Southeast Asia, and we believe it is likely this is where
extremism is likely to breed and disruption to the global system is most likely
to occur, we first observe there is a serious lack of military basing in those
regions. This means the US military is going to require a force shaped for
gaining access and sustaining operations to remote regions far away from
sustained ground support presence.

Yet again we must point to the threat of cruise missiles, inexpensive naval mines, speed boats loaded with dynamite in the hands of radicals prepared to blow a hole in our obsession with the Big Ship Navy.

What is a post Industrial Age Amphib fleet? Of far greater importance than the stagnate Marine Force off the Iraq Coast during Desert Storm One, was prepositioned vessels. All these warships forward deployed in nearby Diego Garcia contained all the Marine Divisions taking part in the Liberation of Kuwait needed. Looking again to the Falklands, we are reminded of the Queen Elizabeth 2 ferrying some 3000 British Troops to the Falklands in 1982, in an example of fast sealift, or about half of the entire Fleet Marine Force. If the Marines continue to be a land adjunct to the Army, this is the type of ship it needs. Even Galrahn concedes this, stating:

When the 24th MEU deployed to Afghanistan, they
took a FSS not amphibious ships, the reason being
the FSS could actually take all the MEU equipment while the amphibious ships
could not.

If the Marines would return to their roots as a light intervention force, then place them back on the warships, especially these fast ferries with their spacious cargo hulls. Also place them onboard our invisible submarine fleet in homage to Carlson's Raiders, or on the new littoral ships if they ever make it into service.

Yet, he bemoans the dearth of amphibious shipping, and we sympathize with him. The fact is, as long as the Navy continues to build battleforce ships that often duplicate each others missions (i.e., 2 types of carriers, 3 types of surface warships, 3 classes of submarines) we will have to be content with an ever decreasing fleet that can do a little of every type of mission, and much of nothing.

Obama Says Would Meet With Iran President

The You Tube evidence.

White House Holds NBC to the Fire for Bias Views

NBC News, also known as the Obama Election Headquarters, is being called to task after a recent edited and disparaging interview with President Bush by the network. First this from Fox News:

The network rattled the White House in November 2006 when it called
the conflict in Iraq a “civil war.” On Monday, White House Counselor Ed
Gillespie wrote a letter to NBC News President Steve Capus, looking in part for
an explanation of how NBC News now views the war.
White House press secretary
Dana Perino said Tuesday the administration is “fed up” with the way NBC News is
treating the Iraq war.
"I remember very distinctly, how there was a quite the
pomp and circumstance when NBC, on The Today Show, decided to declare that they
were declaring Iraq was a civil war. But since then, after the surge and things
certainly have improved in Iraq, NBC has never had a corresponding ceremony to
say that Iraq is not in a civil war. We're just curious to find out what they
believe," she said.

And concerning the recent interview:

As it appeared on “Nightly News” Sunday and "Today" Monday, Bush’s
response was: “You know, my policies haven’t changed, but evidently the
political calendar has … And when, you know, a leader of Iran says that they
want to destroy Israel, you’ve got to take those words seriously.”
The White
House said NBC edited out the following words that Bush said between those two
sentences:
“People need to read the speech. You didn’t get it exactly right,
either. What I said was that we need to take the words of people
seriously.”

This all started with Bush's speech before the Israeli Knesset warning the Free World of the danger of appeasement, much as other politicians in the past when the West had become complacent, including Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Ronald Reagan. Sadly, most of these great men received their share of scorn from the elite establishment, only to be justified later on.

Jimmy Carter's Second Term

Democrats claim that a John McCain presidency will be like George Bush's third term. Mark Noonan contends Barack Obama will fulfill Jimmy Carter's second:

While Jimmy Carter was wringing his hands and lecturing the
American people about taking the bus and obeying the speed limit, Ronald Reagan
was plotting a reborn American economy which would have the freedom from
government regulation and taxation required to adjust to the new energy
realities…and as we still live in the economic house Reagan built, even the
monstrous increases in oil prices - prices which killed the US economy under
Carter - have failed to push us over into a Carteresque “stagflation”
recession…Obama proposes more handwringing; and John McCain? He proposes
actually doing something about it…increasing our energy supplies, including the
construction of 20 nuclear power plants. McCain = Do Things. Obama = Worry About Things.

Actually a third Bush term might not be too bad. Winning the War on Terror, a pretty good economy considering we have been a war for 7 years, plus continually frustrating the Mainstream Media on why they can't influence national policy, as they will definitely do if their chosen candidate Obama is elected.

(Not interested in) Fixing the Military

This New York Times editorial with the above title minus that in parenthesis, falls flat on offering any solutions of what our post-Iraq military should look like. It mainly repeats extreme liberal talking points that suggest there is little hope of ever fixing the myriad challenges our great armed forces face.

For instance, there is the usual complaint about the Iraq War from the Left:

"the war of necessity in Afghanistan and President Bush’s
disastrous war of choice in Iraq "

As well as the repetative comment that the military is too worn out from the war to fight:

"So alarming is the deterioration that many military commanders say
the country is unable to sustain the current operation in Iraq let alone face
down future threats. "

Though most experts concede the military is strained, no one, including our Defense Secretary has any doubts we couldn't protect ourselves if need be, since the bulk of the Air Force and Navy isn't engaged in the Middle East fight.

There is the tired lament that the Wars since 9/11 "have made the world more dangerous", which has little basis in fact unless the Times can point to a specific incident outside the Middle east on the scale of the 2001 attacks on US soil. They never can, since facts are out of place in their criticism of our commander in chief.

The Grey Lady does concede, as this blog often argues, what "the country does not need is a military ready to refight the cold war", but doesn't offer any basics. When it says the country should cancel "expensive programs that do not meet today’s threats or tomorrow’s", which pet project does it suggest we cut out of which liberal or conservative politician's district?

The paper then goes into an extended list of the military's woes, without conceding the recent good news of progress on the ground, as Democrat and Republicans have all noticed, including most recently House Speaker Nancy Pelosi having seenthe change for herself.

As a helpful discussion on the Future Force, this article is not. As a partisan attack showing the liberal media's continued bias against our military and President Bush, with no interest in seeing Democracy in the Middle East or preventing a second terrorist attack on the nation, this fits in perfectly.

John McCain on SNL

Pelosi Sees Success in Surge

The Democrat Speaker of the House in last weeks visit to Iraq can't doubt the evidence of her eyes. Here's Paul at Powerline:

According to AP, the Speaker, who made a surprise visit to
Iraq, "expressed confidence that expected provincial elections will promote
national reconciliation." She also "welcomed Iraq's progress in passing a budget
as well as oil legislation, and a bill paving the way for the provincial
elections in the fall that are expected to more equitably redistribute power
among local officials."

As Abe Greenwald points out, in February Pelosi said
that “the purpose of the surge was to create a secure time for the government of
Iraq to make the political change to bring reconciliation to Iraq; they have not
done that." Since she now finds the government is making the changes that will
promote reconciliation,

it should follow that, in her estimation, the surge is well on its way to accomplishing its purpose.

This is good news, though I have to think that even though America is safer since President Bush decided to take the war to the Islamists rather than waiting for another attack, the Left will still continue to call this an "unnecessary war", even as they shelter under our new-found security. Of course they haven't apologized to Reagan yet.

Back to the 1976 Election

It now appears inevitable that Democrats will nominate Senator Barack Obama as their candidate for the White House, instead of the early favorite and once-thought inevitable Senator Hillary Clinton. Too bad they have chosen an anti-war appeaser as their nominee in this Age of Terror, though this is good for conservatives.

During the 1976 Elections, liberals voted in an eerily similar candidate, Jimmy Carter, a so-called man of peace at a time of Détente with the communist Soviet Union. Carter's peace plan actually caused more wars than it stopped, with the rise of Islamic radicalism in Iran, Marxist wars of revolution spreading unchecked, plus the surprising (to our Democrat President) Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Also, while the US was disarming, the communists were rapidly exploiting our naiveté to create the largest military forces in all history, surpassing the US in most weapons systems.

Obama as Carter, and the ongoing threats facing our nation isn't the only comparison we can garner from this Era. In the Republican battles for the White House, between incumbent President Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan we can view a glimmer of the Obama/Hillary contest. That year, the hard-line Cold Warrior Reagan gave the more moderate Ford a tough struggle, though the latter won his Party's nomination, it was such a close race that eventually the he lost the Election in November to Carter. Reagan, with his realist vision of the Cold War, turned so many conservatives and independents against the naive advocates of Détente, he paved the way for his own victory in 1980, while hurting our chances in 1976.

Clinton appears as the insurgent candidate this year, playing the role of Reagan 32 years later, though hardly with the Great Communicator's worldview. Though she may be on the losing side this election cycle, her impressive run and stubborn refusal to quit has impressed even her many critics on the Right. Meanwhile, her more moderate views (compared to Barack Obama's) are more acceptable to the majority of Americans still wary of the terrorist threat we have faced since 9/11.

Fortunately, in the "Carter role", prepared to take advantage of the chaos in the other Party is Republican Senator John McCain. Only in this can he be compared to the disastrous Carter, who proved woefully incapable of contending with the rise of Radical Islam in Iran, or the resurgent Soviets. In contrast, the Maverick is for smaller government, fiscal responsibility, pro-life, and most importantly, prepared to take the fight to our nation's enemies for as long as it takes.

More on Branchville Tornado Recovery

Eddy Hightower has some excellent new photos of ongoing recovery efforts in Branchville, slightly over 2 months after the SC town was struck by an EF-3 tornado. Check them out! Also, the Orangeburg Times and Democrat had an interesting interview with Branchville's mayor on the same subject.

Sea Links

The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Hopper (DDG 70) passes the Battleship Missouri Memorial as she makes her way pier side at Naval Station Pearl Harbor after a six-month deployment. US Navy Photo

House considers putting Kennedy, Kitty Hawk back into service in five years.

Fish Hawk Advanced ASW Weapon Demonstrating Capability with Successful Flight Test.

Congress Funds a Bigger Fleet.

Super Hornets for Indian Carrier.

Britain To Proceed With Carrier Program.

US Navy moves ships toward Myanmar, offers aid.

Maine shipyard christens destroyer named for Vietnam POW.

India Plans 6 New Submarines.

Obama's Elusive Patriotism

Barack Obama once again finds himself having to defend his patriotism to the country. How did we ever get to this point in America? Obama is continually forced to reassure the electorate, because of statements by his pastor, his wife, his own plans to talk to terrorist supporting states, that he will not sell this nation's security up the river if he becomes its commander in chief. His latest knee-jerk overreaction to comments President Bush made before the Israeli Knesset must only compound the continued doubts that the Democrat Senator has the stuff to defend America against her many foes. Listen to this latest criticism from Obama of President Bush:

(Bush and John McCain) need to answer for the fact that Al Qaida's
leadership is stronger than ever because we took our eye off the ball in
Afghanistan.
They've got to answer for the fact that Iran is the greatest
strategic beneficiary of our invasion in Iraq. It made Iran stronger, George
Bush's policies.
They're going to have to explain why Hamas now controls
Gaza, Hamas that was strengthened because the United States insisted that we
should have democratic elections in the Palestinian Authority.

This is the kind of blame America first that raises questions of Obama's judgement. Instead of blaming the terrorists, the radicals who blow up innocent civilians including women and children without compunction, the democrat frontrunner blames America's leaders and her policies. We have to wonder if a future President Obama is faced with another terrorist attack on a US city on the scale of 9/11, 2001, where over 3000 innocents died in the Twin Towers and Pentagon, would he respond with military force or with regrets and apologies for "George Bush's policies"?

More-His own Party is helping much either:"House Democrats Reject Troop Funding" and "Joint Chiefs Chair Admiral Mullen says the funding must be provided within days, or the Pentagon will be forced to begin sending layoff notices."

The Royal Navy: Yesterday & Today

The Association of British Ex Service Personnel has published these figures on 50 years of Royal Navy Decline:

Class of ship 1958 /2008

Battleship 1 /0
Aircraft carriers 10/ 3
Amphibious assault ships 0 /3
Cruisers 16/ 0
Destroyers 55/ 8
Frigates 127 /17
Minelayers 16/ 0
Minesweepers 243/ 16
Patrol boats 17/ 18
Survey ships 10 /5
Support ships 89/ 16
Royal Yacht 1 /0
Submarines 60/ 13

_______________________
Total 645 /99

Interesting that the RN of 1958 is over twice the size of the USN of 2008.

Bush Warns Against Appeasing Terrorists

How soon they forget.

President Bush in Israel today invoking history that some have forgotten:

...that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the
"elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death
to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the
killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the
President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and
calls for Israel to be wiped off the map....

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the
terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they
have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi
tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I
could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an
obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which
has been repeatedly discredited by history.

The Democratic response was:

Waaaaaaaaa!!!!!!

Sounds like the President hit a sore spot, one in which hopefully John McCain will remind the Left this fall.

More-John McCain gets the message.

It Takes a War

We applaud the US Army, the sacrifices and tough choices the leadership has made to transform the forces in Iraq into battle winning anti-insurgents. Earlier, under the guidance of then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld the decision was made to cancel the Comanche stealth helicopter and the massive Crusader artillery system, which saved billions that could be funneled into essential utility choppers and wheeled vehicles urgently needed in the warzone. We've little doubt, though, had there not have been an Iraq Insurgency the Army would still be planning to fight the next Desert Storm.

The Navy and Air Force hasn't been so fortunate, if that is the right phrase, to be tested in the same manner. Only such extreme measures as trial-by-combat is valid proof whether our pet theories and chosen weaponry are up to the tasks mapped out in wargames. The lack of a peer enemy in the air or at sea has offered these services little incentive for variation in their equipment purchases or their plans for future warfare. With only previous conflicts as a reference, World War 2 for the Navy and Vietnam for the USAF, their only recourse has been to refight the same battles over and over.

The opening of the War on Terror did offer a golden opportunity for a freeze on Big Ship construction, for the Navy to move aggressively to control the littorals, interdicting the passage of terrorist pirates and illegal weapons in the shallow seas. Instead, 7 years since 9/11 the purchasing of Cold War era ships and planes continues unabated as does the cost of such last century armaments. The service belatedly deployed the first of 3 Riverine Squadrons to the Middle East in 2006, some 3 years into the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A new littoral combat ship, a concept riddled with numerous faults and excessive cost overruns won't enter full service until almost a decade after the design was finalized, if then.

With the $300 million F-22 Raptor unlikely to be ordered in large numbers, the USAF would have been better served to order new late model F-15s, F-16s, or even brand new F/A-18 Super Hornets to replace thousands of warplanes already aged from 2 decades of service before 2001. Instead, the old warhorses continue to serve in the frontlines to this day. With the further unlikelihood that the Raptor will be used in close air support missions for the land battle in Iraq and Afghanistan, there seems no replacement in sight for the near term for our antiquated airpower.

Regrettably but inevitably it takes a war to shake the hidebound mindset of the admirals and generals. radical thinkers, too often out of favor in peacetime by the military elite, must be welcomed back with open arms if we hope to overcome the desperation tactics of our enemy, the kind we are seeing in Radical Islam. Though we dread the Pearl Harbors at sea or the Blitzkrieg on land, they are too often necessary to awake us from our self-imposed lethargy.

Branchville Rises from the Ruins

It's been 2 months to the day an EF-3 tornado struck this tiny South Carolina Railroad Community. Things have been tough, but as these photos reveal the Orangeburg County village is on the mend.

The street scape project couldn't have come at a worse time, but as seen here, progress is being made.

New prefab buildings have been bought to repair Branch Junction, the center of the annual Raylrode Daze Festival.

The broken shell of Neal Ott's Grocery, but the sign signifies hope.

As this sign promises, the popular Churn food stand will be back!

Hillary and the Conservatives

Sen. Hillary Clinton's ongoing guerrilla war on titular Democrat nominee for the oval office, Sen. Barack Obama, is becoming a conundrum for many on the Right. Something which Conservatives take particular delight in is her "sticking it" to the Mainstream Media, who are constantly exasperated for her defiance of their chosen candidate Obama, a rookie politician at best who they have an odd affiliation for.

Hillary's continued defiance of those in the Democrat Party, who wish to have the nomination process over and done with so that they can get on with the business of attacking Republicans, is also of immense satisfaction to the latter. With the Left undergoing their own civil war, the GOP's nominee Sen. John McCain is looking more Presidential everyday to many in the country who are tired of the constant partisan nickering.

Then there is the support Clinton is garnering from the "vast right wing conspiracy" itself, talk show host Rush Limbaugh and his legion of radio listeners. Limbaugh has mobilized his forces under "Operation Chaos" to keep the often teetering Clinton campaign ongoing, apparently to continue the uncertainly within the Democratic Party up until the last possible moment.

Limbaugh's motives are suspect, however. He contends he is doing this for the good of the Republican Party, which is likely true. One has to wonder if his definition "of good for the Party" means a Hillary Clinton Presidency. Rush has made his views well known, especially earlier this year, that only a major Republican loss would get the Right back to the principles of Ronald Reagan. My own take on the Liberals winning both the White House and Congress is similar to Jerry Pournelle's:

The argument is to give the Democrats their head, and pick up
the pieces after the inevitable crash. I think that overlooks the resilience of
tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect regimes. We haven't seen much in
the way of reforms in Europe. The Democrats will create new bureaucracies that
can never be dismantled...
As to the war: if we give the Democrats full control of the
government, we won't get a sensible foreign policy: see Kosovo if you doubt
that. We may get a disengagement from Iraq: the price will be high, in blood of
those in Iraq who trusted us, and in honor. We may not. Disengaging from Iraq
will not be a simple matter. A gradual withdrawal won't work well: as we pull
out, the insurgents will be heartened. The result won't be pretty...I conclude
that McCain as president is a far lesser evil than Obama would be.

Then, there is John McCain himself, who insists on alienating the Right by his close ties with the MSM, refusal to attack Barack Obama on issues of substance, and repeating liberal talking points. Yesterday the "maverick" gave a major speech on Global Warming and all I could do is ask "why, with all the problems in the world from energy to war, must we get berated by one of our own with this new religion of the social elites?"

Still, in this year of resurgent Democrats, he may be our only alternative. Anything the far right has to offer seems such a long shot as giving us Ralph Nader for Al Gore in 2000, or Ross Perot for Bush #1 in 1994. The best choice is we have no other choice.

Military Suffers From 'Next-war-itis'

This from Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who I think is determined to get lynched! Except he's right, from Military.com:

"I have noticed too much of a tendency towards what might be called
Next-War-itis - the propensity of much of the defense establishment to be in
favor of what might be needed in a future conflict," Gates said.
But in a
world of limited resources, he said, the Pentagon must concentrate on building a
military that can defeat the current enemies: smaller, terrorist groups and
militias waging irregular warfare.
If it means putting off more expensive
weapons for the future or adding to the stress on the Army - that is a risk
worth taking, he said.

And Gates points to specific high tech weaponry:

He also issued a warning to the military services, which have long
set their sights on pricey, sophisticated weapons systems that take decades to
develop and get onto the battlefield.
The Army has its $200 billion Future
Combat System, the Air Force has its F-22 jet fighter. Both programs have been
plagued by delays and escalating costs, as well as criticism from Congress.
Going forward, such weapons programs will have show they can be useful now
against terror groups and insurgents, he said.

Thanks Mr. Secretary, for echoing what we have been railing against on this blog. After each war in our history, including the Civil War, the World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam, the arms produced during these conflicts were often the backbone of our fighting forces. Most of the WW 2 warships didn't leave frontline service in the USN until the 1970's, and the Iowa class battleships famously soldiered on into the 1990s. As Gates contends:

“Overall, the kinds of capabilities we will most likely need in the
years ahead will often resemble the kinds of capabilities we need
today.”

Yet, some of our military leaders want to discard still useful weaponry long before they have outlived their usefulness, like the A-10 attack plane and naval frigates. They whine about our military being "stretched thin" from fighting in the Middle East, as if they are allowed to choose the wars we fight, rather than making the best of a bad situation; in this case the sudden terror attacks on our homeland in 2001. Even of we hadn't invaded Iraq in 2003, we surely would have been at war somewhere at some point in time.

The generals and admirals always seem to want the weapons they don't need, and need the weapons they don't want. But its not really up to them to decide, is it?

The original speech is here.

Cutting Defense to Save It Part 2

We're still observing these articles by military writer and reformer William Lind. Today he focuses on weapons and strategy. Here are the weapons proposals:

In the U.S. Navy, keep the submarines. Submarines are today's
and tomorrow's capital ships, and geography dictates the United States must
remain a maritime power. Keep the big aircraft carriers, too, though there is
little need to build more of them. Carriers are big, empty boxes that can carry
many things besides aircraft. Mothball most of the cruisers and
destroyers.

Build lots of small, cheap ships useful for controlling
coastal and inland waters, and create strategically mobile and sustainable
"packages" of such ships. Being able to control waters around and within
stateless regions can be important in Fourth Generation war.

Fighter-bombers are largely useless in 4GW, where their main
role is to create collateral damage that benefits our enemies. Keep the air
transport squadrons and the A-10 Warthog close ground support aircraft, and move
them all to the Air National Guard, which flies and maintains aircraft as well
as or better than the regular U.S. Air Force at a fraction of the cost.Reduce
the regular U.S. Air Force to strategic nuclear forces and a training
base.

Pretty much in agreement with all of the above, especially expanding the submarine fleet. Give almost any third rate country a decent sub and suddenly it becomes a world power. It is also the perfect stealth warship, unlike this. I also support a freeze on carrier production until we rebuild fleet numbers because no one else has so many or can do the things ours can do. Not even close.

We have to get serious about littoral warfare and new battleships aren't the answer. We need ships, as I often contend, that can chase pirates into their shallow water haunts. Galrahn has changed my mind on the littoral combat ship, though even it is better than using cruisers and destroyers for this role. Gunboats are the answer today for the unchallenged supremacy of the US Navy, just as they were during the Victorian Era when the British Royal Navy was all powerful.

Certainly we need cheap but good aircraft which can perform close air support, not just suddenly realize the importance of the A-10 with each new war, as if it was some novel thing. I wouldn't as yet discount the importance of the air superiority role, despite the fact that the West has been mostly unchallenged in the air since the Second World War. I do think that the new crop of super fighters, like Raptor, JSF, and Typhoon are over-hyped in their capabilities.

The real revolution is not stealth or supercruise, but the constant advancement of micro-electronics which can be fitted into guided missiles, making them astonishingly accurate. A late model F-16, F-15, F/A- 18 Super Hornet, or Swedish Gripens (plus unmanned aerial vehicles as they improve in capabilities) with their low cost and proven performance could likely hold their own against the new fighters when armed with such weaponry.

A Real Gunboat

Austal photo

USN take note: This is not an aircraft carrier, missile cruiser, 14,000 ton Zumwalt destroyer, or amphibious carrier, but a real shallow water warship. The Armidale is built by Austal who gave us those excellent high-speed ferries. Specs are:

• Length-56.8 meters
• Weight-270 tons
• Armament-1x25 mm cannon and 2x12.7 mm machine guns
• Speed is a pirate busting 25 knots!
  

Galrahn adds:

We are starting to wonder if the US Navy should think about buying
30 of them in one big buy, and here is why: They only cost $14 million US, they appear well designed for
sustained maritime security operations in low threat environments, and this is
one way to counter low cost high threat environments with a low cost. highly
capable system.

These would also be an excellent replacement for the 13 overworked and under-appreciated Cyclone class patrol boats built for the USN in the 1990s.

Cutting Defense to Save It

This is an idea that isn't very popular these days, even with liberals, and which I've mentioned before. Here's William Lind's proposal:

A tanking economy and world credit markets tighter than
Scrooge's fist will require large cuts in federal spending. That will include
the U.S. Department of Defense. If a new administration were to turn to the
military reformers and ask us how to cut defense spending while still securing
the country, what would we advise?Here is what I would propose:

First, adopt a defensive rather than an offensive grand
strategy. The United States followed a defensive grand strategy through most of
her history. We only went to war if someone attacked us. That defensive grand
strategy kept defense costs down and allowed our economy to prosper. We do not
have to be party to every quarrel in the world.Second, scrap virtually all the
big-ticket weapons programs such as new fighter-bombers, more high-tech
Aegis-class ships for the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Army's enormously expensive
Rube Goldbergian Future Combat System. They are irrelevant to where war is
going.

Shocking to think of cutting our defenses during wartime, right? It can and should be done however. I believe the high tech military is hurting rather than helping us. So enamored are we by some future exchange with wonder weapons against an undisclosed peer enemy, we can't see the wars which we need to fight today. President Bush has rightly dragged the West kicking and screaming into the Middle East cauldron, though this is a wound that's been festering for decades.

We should also get over the need for a "Triad" for each service which is incredibly expensive to maintain, with weapon systems that often duplicate each other's missions. Fighter bombers for the Air Force, submarines for the Navy, helicopters for the army, what more is needed?

Here is my favorite quote from the article: ""So long as the money flow continues, nothing will change."

Questioning the need for a "Gator Navy" Updated

Thanks so much for all the feedback I got on whether the US still needs a highly expensive and (in my view) an underutilized amphibious fleet. Mind you, I'm not suggesting an end to the US Marines Corps, just that we need to reevaluate what role the historic service must play in our country's national security. Currently, the 189,000 strong force isn't quite a land army, and far from naval infantry. I personally feel the nation would be better served with the Corps returning to its roots, that of a light infantry maritime intervention force.

An article I came across titled Future Corps discusses new Marine weaponry now entering service or undergoing evaluation. Here are a few snippets I thought interesting:

Developing technologies to execute the Marine Corps's new tactics
has been a 25-year-long ordeal. The V-22 Osprey program began in 1982 and first
deployed to Iraq last fall. The Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, still at least
seven years from fielding, officially began in 1995 but is the successor of two
amphibious armored vehicle projects that were abandoned. "This is the solution
they came up with 20-plus years ago and have been trying to field ever since,"
said T.X. Hammes, a retired Marine colonel who wrote an iconoclastic book, The
Sling and the Stone, on how low-tech foes can defeat expensive American
hardware.

The "Over the Horizon Program" 25 years in the making and we're not there yet. Amazing! This is where I differ with our military leadership in that we should build for the wars we are fighting, instead of some future war with an undisclosed foe. Here's more on the Corps' brand new amphibious vehicle:

...the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle's mechanically complex
transformation allows it to skim the waves instead of wallow through them,
making it easily three times as fast as its predecessors. So rather than come
within sight of shore to launch the current amphibious armor--thus exposing
itself to attack--the fleet could deploy EFVs from over the horizon, 25 or 30
miles away.But is that enough? "Twenty years ago"--when the Corps's new tactics
were conceived--"we were talking about 25 miles," said one analyst who works for
the Marine Corps. "The EFV is based on the idea that the enemy can't reach out
25 miles. Now they can." The C-802 cruise missile used in Hezbollah's successful
strike against the Israeli corvette in 2006, for example, has a maximum range of
about 75 miles.

Finally, there is this shocking statement concerning the amount of troops able to be ferried by our fleet of assault ships (helicopter carriers) and landing ships (LPDs, LSDs):

The Navy, meanwhile, has gone from having enough amphibious assault
ships to deploy three Marine brigades simultaneously--a fraction of the force at
Inchon or Iwo Jima--to not quite enough to carry two. Two brigades happened to
be the size of the Marine feint during the Gulf War."You could not stage an
amphibious invasion of Iran. You couldn't stage an amphibious invasion of North
Korea," said Baker, the former naval intelligence analyst. "God knows, you can't
invade China."

Only 2 brigades, or about 5000 troops out of almost 200,000! I knew this all along but it is just now sinking in, that in no way could we stage a major amphibious assault on the scale of World War, which is what this magnificent fleet of warships was designed to perform. This current number is far smaller than the British landing forces (11,000) that retook the tiny Falkland Islands which we mentioned in the previous posting.

"I am Iron Man!"

Two signs of a good movie:

1. Seems like it ends too soon even though the film is 2 1/2 hours long.
2. The constantly whining/crying child in the row behind you hardly bothers you at all.

Finally had a chance to see the Iron Man movie and it lived up to all the hype I heard declaring it a major hit. Marvel seems to have the correct formula by sticking mostly to the original Silver Age origins of their comic characters. Notice when they stray from the script we get debacles like The Hulk. Undoubtedly this is their best film since Spiderman 2, with plenty of action, top-notch special effects, the right casting, plus enough humor that doesn't stray into camp.

Marvel is still struggling with their villains, however, with a bizarre Freudian bias against Dads! In Spiderman, we had his best friend's dad as the Web Crawler's antagonist. Hulk's Bruce Banner also battled his evil father, plus a giant poodle. In Iron Man, our hero faces off against his Dad's best friend. When will we ever get to see an evil mom go at it with Wolverine or Doctor Strange?

Hollywood will likely see major box office returns this summer, with probable top scorers such as the new Indiana Jones, Batman:The Dark Knight, Prince Caspian, and another Hulk flick. With such bounty headed to Tinsel Town's coffers, this might explain how they can still pump out anti-war films which tank big time at the box office.

New Labels

Some may have noticed the subject labels after each posting and we are currently updating them for relevance, simplification, and subjects we post on frequently. Look for updated terms including airpower, seapower, landpower, and Defense Budget. We've relabelled some of the archives at least into last year, and will try to finish the entire blog time permitting.

Sea Links

The aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73) sails in the Pacific as the sun breaks over the horizon. US Navy Photo

UK Plans Future Surface Combatant.

Congress reconsiders development of new destroyer.

LCS Rewrites The Rules of Surface Warfare.

Turkey Wants to Buy Korea’s Landing Ships.

Turkey Goes Shopping For the Big Ship.

Scrapped vessels haunt Coast Guard.

USS North Carolina officially joins fleet.

Royal Navy's £800m to rule the waves.

China has secret base for subs, say analysts.

No new ships in Senate committee's defense bill.

FLATTOP FOLLIES.

Carrier doing a frigate's job Down South

David Axe discusses the aircraft carrier USS George Washington's tour of South America:

...is a lumbering, $15-billion aircraft carrier group, with
more combined destructive power than most of the world’s militaries, the right
choice for exercising alongside the tiny coastal navies of South America? That’s
a mission that might best be performed by smaller, cheaper warships,
right?

The admiral in charge of the group, Phillip Cullom, says
no. “An aircraft carrier is the perfect platform to bring down here because it
can cover the entire spectrum of activities … [with] the ability do both the
high-end and the low-end spectrum of training. Plus they don’t see carriers here
very often.”
Sure, it’s a treat for the Argentines to see the world’s most
powerful class of warship up close, and it’s fun to pretend there’s a
Soviet-grade naval threat down south, but are those compelling reasons to send a
carrier to do a frigate’s job?

If we really want allies, and to be apart of a team, (the so-called 1000 ship Navy the brass is proposing) perhaps we should cast off these high-tech halos, come down to earth, and actually work with our allies as equals. Continuing to build a luxury fleet of supercarriers isn't real war fighting.

Obama's 57 States

I kid you not.

State Dept. China Appeasers

More evidence of the liberal dominance in the US State Department, as they seek to appease our enemies and hurt our allies. Details from Bill Gertz at the Washington Times:

Taiwan's air force currently flies about 150 F-16A/B model jet
fighters that were purchased in 1992. Taiwan in May 2006 told the U.S.
government that it wants to buy 66 F-16C/D models to counter a growing Chinese
missile and aircraft threat across the Taiwan Strait. China has some 1,000
missiles within range of Taiwan and also has Russian-made Su-27 jets armed with
advanced missiles in the area.
But State Department officials want the sale
postponed in order to avoid upsetting China prior to the Olympic Games, saying
that Beijing already is angry at the protests that have dogged the worldwide
Olympic torch relay over its military crackdown on Tibet. These officials want
to delay the F-16 sales until after the games or later. China considers Taiwan a
renegade province and calls U.S. arms sales an interference in its internal
affairs.

The more help we give to our allies, the less work our own battle-worn forces have to do. Seems to me a self-sufficient Taiwan would be less provocative than a US battlegroup parked practically in China's backyard in nearby Guam.

Sanity Returning to Shipbuilding?

I'm starting to think myself a Liberal, at least in terms of Navy Procurement. From the Navy Times:

Rep. Gene Taylor, a Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the
House Armed Services Committee’s seapower subcommittee, passed up to the full
committee a bill that would delete a third DDG 1000-class destroyer, for the
time being, to pay for another San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock and
two T-AKE-class cargo ships...

In one of his harshest indictments yet, Taylor blasted the
DDG-1000 as incompletely designed, too expensive and unnecessary, given the
success of the Navy’s long-running Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The
unfinished design and unproven systems on the ships would lead to inevitable
cost overruns, he said, which would “cripple the Navy’s shipbuilding account and
drastically impact fleet size and capability.”

“The solution offered every year is that the solution will be
delayed to future years,” Taylor said. “I do not believe the plan to achieve a
313-ship fleet is achievable in its current form. I am convinced that the only
path to a 313-ship fleet is to build ships of a proven design and build them in
sufficient numbers to realize shipyard efficiency.”

Excuse me while I fan myself. Hard to believe such common sense is emanating from Congress, and we sincerely wish some would infect the Pentagon.

The article goes on to discuss the need for new nuclear powered cruisers, specifically because of the current high cost of fuel. Need I point out we already possess such vessels in the form of nuclear attack submarines? If the fleet goes underseas, why would we need expensive surface cruisers which may take decades to finally enter service, and will be vulnerable to precision cruise missiles, all for the cause of sticking it to OPEC?

Much more at Information Dissemination.

Jackie Fisher's Dream Boat

This article of mine which appeared in the summer 2006 edition of the Navy Review Newsletter contends that the aircraft carrier was born out of British First Sea Lord Sir John "Jackie" Fisher's attempt to shape the battlecruiser into the new capital ship for the 20th Century.



Ironically, the man who instigated the building of the most powerful and
revolutionary warship of her day, HMS DREADNOUGHT, was convinced the day of the battleship was near an end. Tragically, for his country, Admiral
John “Jackie” Fisher of the British Royal Navy was also convinced the
fast but thin-skinned battlecruiser would displace the DREADNOUGHT as
capital ship at sea.

When Sir Jackie came to head the Admiralty as First Sea Lord in October
1904, he was already convinced of the Navy’s obsolescence. To him, most
of the fleet which guarded Pax Britannica was “too weak to fight and too
slow to run away”. With the coming of modern technology at sea;
including naval mines, torpedoes, and the submarine, he felt only speed
could save his beloved battle fleet from impending doom.

Though the DREADNOUGHT, which was bigger, faster, and more heavily armed than its contemporaries, would be Fisher’s legacy, it was on the
battlecruiser that the maverick admiral pinned his hopes. The first
three were named INVINCIBLE, INDOMITABLE, and INFLEXIBLE and began
appearing 2 years after DREADNOUGHT in 1908. Each was 17,000 tons, could
make 28 knots, and was armed with 8x12 inch guns. With a slightly
smaller armament and greatly reduced armor, the battlecruisers were also
cheaper to buy than battleships. Soon other nations were building the
speedy Titans as well as new dreadnoughts. Germany built the VON DER
TONN, a slower but better protected version of INVINCIBLE, and Japan
ordered KONGO from English shipyards, as well as constructing her own.
America belatedly joined the race by ordering 6x 35,000 ton LEXINGTONs
in 1916, but by then modern warfare had greatly altered the
battlecruiser’s fate.

HMS Hood

In the summer of that year, Fisher’s new capital ships, under the
command of Admiral David Beatty, were not considered as such by the
navy, but adjuncts to the battlefleet under Admiral John Jellicoe. It
was as scouts the battlecruisers were seeking their counterparts of the
German High Seas Fleet off Jutland. By chance and dumb luck, Beatty
blundered into the entire German High Seas Fleet with 16 dreadnoughts.
In quick succession two battlecuisers were lost, including INDEFATIGABLE
and QUEEN MARY, with a third, INVINCIBLE, following the others to the
deep later that day. Beatty was heard to remark, “there’s something
wrong with our bloody ships today”.

There was something wrong with Fisher’s ships, both in the design and
concept. The First Sea Lord had it right on the need for increased
speed, but more important was the need to increase their killing range.
Gunnery, which could reach out to 9000 yards was hardly better than in
Nelson’s day a century earlier. Obviously, something better was needed
to counter new weapons at sea.

Already, Fisher’s new capital ship was taking shape, though he had
little inkling of its nature. The first successful heavier-than-air
craft was flown in America in 1905, the same year Fisher entered the
Admiralty. Before World War 1, the Royal Naval Air Service was formed
and experimented with air-launched torpedoes. In 1915, the first
successful carrier raid was conducted by the British, sinking three
Turkish steamers in Istanbul Harbor.

The worlds first aircraft carrier, formerly the battle cruiser HMS Furious.

Though the first seaplane carrier HMS HERMES was ready in 1913, the
world’s first fix-wing carrier was a converted battlecruiser, HMS
FURIOUS, conversion completed in 1918. Though she entered service too
late to see significant action, her speed of 30-32 knots and the
capability of her aircraft inspired the imaginations of future
strategists.

After the Washington Naval Conference, Britain, Japan, and America
possessed a surplus of battlecruisers, whose role of scouting for the
fleet was in doubt after Jutland. The US converted the giant and
unfinished LEXINGTON and SARATOGA into carriers capable of loading up to
120 planes. Both entered service in 1927-28. Japan converted two of her
own battlecruisers, starting with AKAGI and AMAGI. When an earthquake
damaged the latter in 1923, she was replaced by KAGA of 28 knots. These
speedy and powerful ships could carry over 60 aircraft, entering service
in 1927 and 1928 respectively.

America's first battlecruisers were to have been 6 Lexington class vessels.

USS Lexington in her new guise.

Great Britain followed FURIOUS with COURAGEOUS and GLORIOUS, the last,
which joined the fleet in 1930. Both were fast at 31 knots, but
originally created as “light battlecruisers”, were smaller than the
Japanese and American conversions. Only 30 aircraft were typically
loaded.

It was these conversions, which gave interwar Admirals their first
glimpse of future carrier task forces. The new ships, with their
long-ranging aircraft quickly overtook the cruiser’s role as scouts for
the fleet. Meanwhile far seeing naval strategists also planned aerial
attacks with bombs and torpedoes against surface ships. During the years
before the next world war, numerous exercises were conducted by the
major navies, which would extend war at sea from the gun range to the
extended spans of airpower.

Britain quickly fell behind in the race, with her inadequate ships and a
Naval Air Service under the control of the newly formed RAF. It was left
to the rising powers of America and Japan to fully develop the new
capital ship into war winners. The converted vessels were the backbone
of the three navies well into World War 2 and the mold was set from
Fisher’s bold, but ultimately flawed design. With new weaponry and at
ranges the First Sea Lord never imagined, the battlecruiser finally came
of age.