British Colonel Latest Casualty in Afghanistan Offensive
by DAVID AXE
Thousands of U.S. Marines, pictured, are on the offensive in southern Afghanistan, around Kandahar. British forces launched supporting attacks, beginning last week. A British colonel — the commanding officer of his tank unit — was killed when his lightly armored Viking vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb. Rupert Thorneloe’s death highlights the ongoing shortage of adequately protected armored vehicles in British service. While the American buy thousands of so-called Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected trucks, the Brits keep experimenting with lesser designs, that get their people killed.
A huge air-assault began the offensive. The Marines relied on Army helicopters to support the assault, rather than their own V-22 Osprey tilt-rotors. Blogger Galrahn believes the problem is not that the V-22 is too fragile or lightly protected, as some critics claim, but that the Marines haven’t come up with a good, working doctrine for using the speedy aircraft, in a combat zone.
(Photo: DoD)
Related:
In Afghanistan, Germans Hamstrung by Strict Rules
U.S. Comes around to Dutch Way of Thinking, on Afghan Poppies
Obama Administration Mum on Civilian Dead in Drone Strikes
Afghanistan, by the Numbers
Afghan Reserve Police = Tribal Militia, Redux?
Afghan Super-Bases Undermine U.S. Strategy?
World Politics Review: In Afghanistan, U.S. Experiments Again with Tribal Militias
Kandahar = “Black” Plane Playground?
As with Iraq, Brits Losing Afghanistan?
World Politics Review: Pakistan Drone Campaign Might Expand, Despite Risks
How to Turn a Drone into a Dogfighter
by DAVID AXE
“There are those that see [F-35] JSF as the last manned fighter,” U.S. Navy Admiral Mike Mullen, the Joint Chiefs chair, said in May. “I’m one that’s inclined to believe that.”
U.S. Predators, Reapers and other drones have already proved highly capable as surveillance and attack aircraft. But can a drone take over a manned fighter’s air-to-air combat role?
Predators and Reapers can carry Stinger heat-seeking, air-to-air missiles. In 2002, A Predator fired a Stinger at an Iraqi MiG-25, seconds before the MiG-25 blew the Predator out of the air. The Stinger, which is autonomous after launch, missed. (See video.)
A true drone fighter will need a multi-mode radar and radar-guided missiles. That’s not so hard. The hard parts are:
* Boosting drone performance — speed and altitude — to “throw” an air-to-air missile with adequate energy to achieve lethal range and speed. The new Predator C and X-47 drones represent a big step towards this performance, but supersonic versions would be better.
* Situational awareness. Air-to-air combat is largely visual, and most drones still have poor visual situational awareness. They view the world through the narrow cone of an electro-optical or infrared sensor, that’s often too narrow for a wide stare — which is exactly what you need to spot an enemy fighter. Development of wide-stare sensors is prerequisite to turning drones into air-to-air fighters.
(Video: CBS News)
Related:
Surveillance Orbits for From-Scratch Air Forces
Murtha’s Air Force: More F-22s and Tankers, Delayed F-35
What’s Wrong with the F-22?
Raptor Gets Congressional Reprieve
Offiziere.ch: the Emerging U.S. Counter-Insurgency Air Force
Congressional Budget Office’s Plans to Save the Air Force
Air Force Turns a Corner
Gates Budgetpalooza: Air Force Loses Altitude
The Day U.S. Air Power Was Saved from Itself
F-22s versus Russia’s Rusting, Ramshackle Air Force
Surveillance Orbits for From-Scratch Air Forces
by DAVID AXE
The U.S. Air Force is in crisis. Rising costs have made it difficult for the air service to afford the new fighters, tankers and helicopters it wants. And some Air Force officers, along with their boosters in Congress, are fighting with the Pentagon over the service’s future direction. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wants fewer aircraft optimized for “big” wars, and more tailored for heavy insurgencies, a.k.a. “hybrid wars.” Congress wants more F-22s.
Would we approach this problem differently, if we didn’t already have a large and deeply entrenched air force? Two countries that are building new air forces from scratch, with U.S. assistance, offer illuminating case studies. Both Iraq and Lebanon are equipping new air fleets to counter the heavy, hybrid insurgent threats that Gates believes will be more common in the future.
Iraq and Lebanon are both buying armed, long-loiter. surveillance aircraft, aiming to generating lethal, surveillance orbits — as opposed to generating short, fast fighter and bomber sorties, the traditional air-power construct. Notably, Gates has pushed hard for more surveillance orbits, in the form of Predator and Reaper drones, and MC-12W Liberty manned planes.
Iraq will be capable of supporting both armed and unarmed surveillance orbits. The unarmed orbits are composed of 10 unarmed King Air manned planes, fitted with the same sensors as a Predator drone, plus data-links. For armed orbits, Iraq is buying at least five Caravan planes, pictured, fitted with Hellfire missiles. Both aircraft types are sourced from the U.S., and the USAF provides training.
Lebanon has also bought at least one armed Caravan. For unarmed surveillance, Beirut has picked the small Raven drone. The Lebanese air force will get at least 12 Ravens. They will be capable of sharing data with the Caravans, according to Air Forces Monthly.
As fighters fade, armed surveillance orbits take their place. These orbits can be scaled, according to the threat. The U.S. orbits are bigger, more numerous, less manned and more heavily armed than Iraq’s and Lebanon’s, but the principle is the same. You want airborne sensors, capable of loitering for hours, and in many cases able to attack, on short notice.
Expect future orbits to get even heavier, at least in the U.S. The Navy’s X-47 drone prototype, and General Atomics’ Predator C, for the Air Force (eventually), both have nearly the same performance as a manned fighter, but will usually be employed in orbits.
(Photo: Ares blog)
Related:
Murtha’s Air Force: More F-22s and Tankers, Delayed F-35
What’s Wrong with the F-22?
Raptor Gets Congressional Reprieve
Offiziere.ch: the Emerging U.S. Counter-Insurgency Air Force
Congressional Budget Office’s Plans to Save the Air Force
Air Force Turns a Corner
Gates Budgetpalooza: Air Force Loses Altitude
The Day U.S. Air Power Was Saved from Itself
F-22s versus Russia’s Rusting, Ramshackle Air Force
Analysts: Buy Fighters, or Die
Death-Threat E-mail from a Somali Extremist
by DAVID AXE
Ever wondered what an Islamic extremist’s death threat to an “infidel” might look like? Now you can know.
Two weeks ago, Somali journalist Ahmed Omar Hashi, aka Ahmed “Tajir,” pictured, survived an assassination attempt, by extremists, that killed his colleague Moqtar Hirabe. War Is Boring readers donated funds to help Hashi escape to another country. But his assailants figured out where he was, and sent him this email, translated from Somali:
The opponents of the truth don’t succeed, and wherever they go, we will vanquish them.
You, Tajir, the Satan, we know you are in [country redacted — ed.] [and that you were] taken there by the infidels, with whom you were in mutual compassion.
Since you managed to dodge our bullets, we will, Allah willing, decapitate you, and soon you will end up in our hand.
We are fully aware of the propaganda you are spreading and we know who is cooperating with you. You have to know that neither Christians nor Muslims will be able to save you.
We’re still accepting donations on Hashi’s behalf, via the Paypal button at left.
(Photo: Ahmed Omar Hashi)
Related:
Somali Journo, Assassination Survivor, Flees Country
World Politics Review: Attacks on Somali Media Underscore Lawlessness
Somali Gov’t to Neighbors: Invade Us, Please
Help Rescue a Somali Reporter, Targeted for Assassination
Offiziere.ch: Mogadishu Battle Draws in Foreign Powers
Ethiopians Re-Invade Somalia?
Ethiopian Prez: Somali Insurgents “Desperate”
Alleged American Jihadist in Somalia = CIA Drone?
Offiziere.ch: Fresh Fighting Deepens Somali Islamist Schism
Fighting Resumes in Mogadishu
World Politics Review: Sri Lanka a Preview of “Hybrid War”
by DAVID AXE
In 2006, when Dutch forces occupied Uruzgan province in southern Afghanistan, they expected to wage a traditional counterinsurgency campaign focused on winning the support of the local population. “We’re not here to fight the Taliban. We’re here to make the Taliban irrelevant,” said Dutch commander Hans van Griensven. An Australian reconstruction team subsequently joined the Dutch battlegroup, to help rebuild schools and roads, and to provide vocational training to local workers.
Dutch and Australian troops were working at a pair of schools in July 2007 when the Taliban attacked. A suicide bomber blew himself up outside one school in the provincial capital of Tarin Kowt, killing a Dutch soldier and as many as 10 Afghan children. Meanwhile, a Taliban infantry team assaulted Afghan tribal police garrisoned in nearby Chora. The resulting battle — pitting Dutch helicopters, artillery and fighter jets versus hundreds of Taliban fighters — represented exactly the kind of heavy combat that van Griensven had tried to avoid.
The so-called Battle of Chora was a preview of a new kind of “hybrid” warfare that is driving major changes in the military planning of the U.S. and its allies. (See Thomas P.M. Barnett’s WPR column.) Another example, often overlooked, is Sri Lanka’s bloody, 26-year insurgency, which ended in May when a major government offensive destroyed the Tamil Tigers rebel group, pictured. (See Brian Calvert’s WPR feature article.) After significant military setbacks in earlier phases of the conflict, this spring the Sri Lankan military finally perfected a combination of tactics and organizational structures capable of defeating a heavily armed insurgent enemy, whose own forces at times resembled those of a well-established state.
Read the rest at World Politics Review.
(Photo: The Telegraph)
Oshkosh Wins Billion-Dollar, “Baby MRAP” Deal
by DAVID AXE
Two years ago, Wisconsin truck-maker Oshkosh washed out of the multi-billion-dollar program to build blast-resistant trucks (aka, Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected, or “MRAP” vehicles) for U.S. forces in Iraq. Oshkosh had teamed with Euro firm Thales, to propose the Bushmaster truck, which is used by the Dutch and Aussies, in Afghanistan.
Turns out Oshkosh’s efforts were not wasted. Today the company snagged a billion-dollar, 2,000-vehicle deal to build smaller, lighter, “baby” MRAPs, specifically for Afghanistan. But they won’t be Bushmaster variants. Rather, Oshkosh is adding a new hull to their veteran cargo-truck chassis.
In 2007, industry officials told me that wheeled, armored, counter-insurgency trucks would increasingly form the core of Western armies’ vehicle fleets. With the cancellation of the U.S. Army’s Future Combat Systems tracked vehicles, and the steady proliferation of Strykers and MRAPs, that’s exactly what’s happening. Where before, tracked vehicles were the main equipment and wheeled vehicles played a peripheral combat role, today that’s reversed.
(Video: Oshkosh)
In Afghanistan, Germans Hamstrung by Strict Rules
by DAVID AXE
Last week, Time asked if German troops were too soft to play a meaningful part in Afghanistan. More to the point: German rules of engagement, reflecting deep domestic opposition to a war role, are absurdly strict, and bode poorly for a bigger German contribution to the fighting. Milblog Bill and Bob’s Excellent Afghan Adventure recounts this anecdote:
In January of 2008, at the German FOB in Konduz, SFC O was in the German TOC while they watched a group of insurgents set up rockets to fire at the FOB. The Germans could see them clearly on their sensors. The Germans possessed 120mm mortars which they could have easily used to put a stop to the insurgent’s activities. Instead, the Germans were calling in to their higher headquarters for permission to place magazines in their small arms. Not to load the weapons … merely to place magazines in them.
O nearly went ballistic. He asked them why they didn’t just mortar the rocketeers and get it over with. The Germans demurred. They were not permitted by their national caveats to engage, even when they saw the threat clearly and they were about to get rocketed. The Germans endured a brief rocketing (which never seem very brief when you are on the receiving end.)
The Germans have since changed some of their caveats to permit some more active roles. They are not, however, as able to take action as Americans, Brits, Canadians or Dutch troops.
Journo P.J. Tobia says that rather than fighting a losing battle with the public over ROE, Berlin should take on a bigger role in training and reconstruction in Afghanistan.
(Photo: Creative Commons)
Related:
U.S. Comes around to Dutch Way of Thinking, on Afghan Poppies
Obama Administration Mum on Civilian Dead in Drone Strikes
Afghanistan, by the Numbers
Afghan Reserve Police = Tribal Militia, Redux?
Afghan Super-Bases Undermine U.S. Strategy?
World Politics Review: In Afghanistan, U.S. Experiments Again with Tribal Militias
Kandahar = “Black” Plane Playground?
As with Iraq, Brits Losing Afghanistan?
World Politics Review: Pakistan Drone Campaign Might Expand, Despite Risks
CNN Wants Only Blood and Guts in Afghanistan
How to Spin a Spending Increase, as a Cut
by DAVID AXE
The Pentagon’s 2010 budget, as penned by the Obama Administration, includes $534 billion in “base” spending, plus a war supplemental of $130 billion. The base budget represents a 4-percent increase over 2009, and the overall budget represents a roughly .5-percent rise. But to Obama’s political foes, this — plus future spending boosts to match inflation — is a “cut.” “Obama plan cuts defense spending to pre-9/11 levels,” the conservative Heritage Foundation warns.
There’s just one way to spin a military-spending increase as a decrease. That’s to convert the budget into a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. By that measure, U.S. military investment will decline from 5 percent of GDP, today, back down to 2001’s 3 percent, by 2019, according to Administration estimates. But that is not a spending cut. The military will still get more money, year after year, in its base budget.
The GDP trick is “a standard rhetorical device for defense hawks,” Ben Friedman at Cato notes.
By saying that defense spending needs to grow with GDP to be “level,” you are arguing for an annual increase in defense spending without saying so directly. That’s the point, of course. … Arguing that wealth creation should drive defense spending is to attempt to divorce the military from its strategic rationale. That’s an implicit acknowledgment that defense spending is not for safety. High military spending in this worldview is either an end in itself or a partisan or cultural tool.
(Art: Heritage)
Kyle’s Far East Roundup, 6/29/09
by KYLE MIZOKAMI
Noteworthy reading on events in Asia and the Pacific.
CHINA
“Planeman” at Militaryphotos.net has an excellent open-source overview of China’s air defense systems and their deployment at Beijing, Shanghai, the Taiwan Straits, and Hong Kong. Particularly interesting is the evolution of Bejing’s air defense grid as new systems come on-line. Planeman also briefly discusses China’s anti-satellite weapons, anti-stealth countermeasures, and anti-precision guided munition systems.
Some of the locally-made missiles look rather like Western and Russian systems, which should surprise nobody.
JAPAN
The blog What Japan Thinks had an interesting series of posts on Japanese attitudes towards their Self-Defense Forces. (Available here, here, and here.) Blogger Tobias Harris at Observing Japan has some analysis of the figures. Harris notes that support for the U.S. - Japan alliance is still strong, but public opinion of the purpose of the Self-Defense Forces is starting to shift from that of defending Japan to participating in peacekeeping operations. This likely reflects recent high profile peacekeeping missions the SDF has joined.
The statistics are also interesting for another reason. In the 1980s, polls revealed Japanese support for the defense of their country was decidedly lukewarm, with a sizable percentage of respondents stating they would not resist an invasion by the Soviet Union. While this latest poll indicates only 6.2% of respondents would sign up with the SDF if Japan were attacked, the number that would offer no resistance is down to 8.1%.
KOREA
G.I. Korea at ROK Drop quotes an article on U.S. warnings to South Korea. General Walter Sharp, commander of U.S. forces in Korea, believes that South Korea should be prepared for guerilla warfare if a ground war broke out on the peninsula. G.I. Korea believes that a ground war is unnecessary and that short of all-out war, North Korea could stage guerrilla raids and ambushes south of the border. This would resemble the so-called “DMZ War” of the late 1960s. G.I. Korea links to two ROK Drop posts on this undeclared war, which resulted in hundreds of South Koreans and Americans killed and wounded.
VIETNAM
Militaryphotos.net poster Planeman has also authored a guide to Vietnam’s air defense system. Vietnam’s air defenses are largely outdated, still relying in part on SA-2 Guideline missiles, the kind which were used against American aircraft during the Vietnam War. Planeman also covers S-300 missiles recently purchased from Russia. Much attention is given to Vietnam’s gun-based air defenses, with diagrams and graphics that illustrate a variety of anti-aircraft guns and firing positions. Planeman also covers mobile air defenses and the recent acquisition of Su-27 fighters.
(Photo: Brian William Jones)
Did Israel Plan to Wipe Out the Iranian Air Force?
by DAVID AXE
For Army Day on April 18, the Iranian air force planned a massive, ceremonial fly-over, involving 140 aircraft: fighters, bombers, transports and helicopters. All the planes were in place when, at the last minute, the event was canceled and the planes sent home. The official excuse was poor weather, but reports say the skies were clear and the sun was shining.
So why did Tehran cancel the fly-over? According to Air Forces Monthly, the Iranian government perhaps believed that Israel was planning on bombing the assembled aircraft, on the day of the event — effectively destroying Iran’s entire, beleaguered air arm. AFM bases their assessment, in the June issue, on local Iranian news reports that in turn referred to Russian intelligence sources.
In fact, it’s unlikely Israel would launch such an attack, unprovoked. While Israel has the capability to bomb Iran, using long-range F-15 fighters, the country lacks a compelling reason to do so. It’s one thing to bomb isolated arms convoys in the Sudanese desert or suspected Syrian nuke facilities. It’s quite another to wipe out another nation’s air force, in one swoop. Such a raid would have killed hundreds and amounted to a declaration of full-scale war.
But that doesn’t mean Tehran didn’t believe a raid was possible. If true, it says more about Tehran’s paranoia, than any alleged Israeli plot.
(Photo: Creative Commons)
Related:
Mid-East Arms Market Bucks Recession: Tensions over Iran Propel Regional Arms Sales
