Oil Spill and Maritime Domain Awareness

Most folks think of tracking bad guys--terrorists, criminals, WMD, slavers--etc, as the ends of Maritime Domain Awareness, but that is an incomplete understanding. MDA is "...the effective understanding of anything associated with the global maritime domain that could impact the security, safety, economy or environment of the United States". This spill hits three of those conditions, and from the looks of this story, multiple agencies are working together to share and coordinate information in order to mitigate this looming threat. Maritime Domain Awareness is at the heart of that coordination and sharing.

Bryan McGrath

Gates And Boomers

In this story from yesterday's Politico, Pentagon Spokesman Geoff Morrell reveals some of Secretary Gates' thinking with respect to the Navy's OHIO class SSBN replacement plans. Apparently, SECDEF plans some tough love for the Navy, as he'll wade into the middle of the navalists gathered at the Navy League's Sea, Air, and Space Symposium and cast doubts on the direction the service appears headed. From the story: "Geoff Morrell says Gates will raise questions about changes in geopolitics, global naval resourcing, the global economy and how those changes may impact what programs the Navy builds in the future." This isn't likely to come as good news to the submarine cabal.

At $6-7B a pop, these boats will--as Secretary Gates told the HASC in March--"suck all the air out of the Navy's shipbuilding program" (steady state totals of $15.9B annually).

Mackenzie Eaglen of Heritage called this right--Gates is sending the Navy signals, very strong signals, that they are going to have to figure out a way to lower the cost of these behemoths, and his tipped hand suggests he will talk straight past the Nuclear Posture Review's endorsement of a sea-based deterrent. Because--while A sea-based deterrent was endorsed, it was not necessarily THE sea-based deterrent the Navy has in mind. Some hold out hope that much if not all of the cost of the OHIO replacement will be picked up outside the Navy budget, but Gates' language so far indicates he'll only consider such a plan after the Navy has skinnied down the requirement and done the heavy analysis to justify this type of platform. Gene Taylor (D-MS) and Ron O'Rourke (CRS) have both suggested a variant of the VIRGINIA Class submarine as the OHIO replacement, and I think the idea merits consideration.

Again though--this is a problem only in the Bizarro World of the Department of Defense, where the institutional interest in doling out the goodies equally trumps strategically critical capabilities. Shake up the "balanced force", resource our most strategically critical Service (the Navy) adequately, and $15.9B a year in shipbuilding would look more like $25B a year in shipbuilding. Problem (mostly) solved.

All this aside, it is amazing to watch Gates at work--he is a master bureaucrat. There is a strong argument to be made that he has been the most consequential SECDEF of the last forty years. He certainly holds the whip-hand.


Bryan McGrath

Seth Cropsey On "The Tipping Point"

Seth Cropsey has posted an insightful analysis/review of CNA's recent "Tipping Point" briefing on the Weekly Standard website. Mr. Cropsey served in senior defense positions in the Reagan, Bush and Bush administrations and is currently a Senior Fellow at The Hudson Institute.

A decline in our naval power and influence will indeed be a choice, and Cropsey's identification of the downside of our slavish adherence to formulaic approaches to resource allocation mirrors themes I discussed at Heritage and in an upcoming (May) Proceedings article entitled "The Unbearable Being of Jointness" (my arguments inspired greatly by Cropsey's previous writings on the subject).

This country needs a real strategic debate, one that questions assumptions that routinely go unquestioned. Just why is "re-setting" the Army so important? So that it can go fight more land wars in Asia? Is this in our strategic interests? What sort of Army are we going to try and "re-set"? What is is we wish it to do with it? To my satisfaction, we've already made the case for "unbalancing" the military in ways that better serve our national interests. Does divvying up the pie equally among the services in an era of declining budgets (which will come) result simply in "less of the same"? Without such a debate, our Navy's reach and influence will indeed eventually reach the "Tipping Point".

Bryan McGrath

Footage Of The MV Taipan Boarding

The Dutch MoD has released the following footage, made with a helmet camera during the boarding of the MV Taipan. (The Dutch comments are the team commander's.)

Krylov Institute

If you have an interest in the history of Russian shipbuilding, you'll find this page remarkably interesting.

Death of the Black Sea Fleet

Dmitry Gorenburg:

The Black Sea Fleet is essentially a dying enterprise. One recent Russian report argues that 80 percent of its ships will need to be written off in the near term. Its current order of battle consists of 37 ships. The missile cruiser Moscow (currently on an extended deployment) is the flagship. There is also one other cruiser, one destroyer, two frigates, 13 corvettes and missile boats, and 3 patrol craft. There are also 7 littoral warfare ships, 9 minesweepers, and 1 diesel sub. The average age of these ships is 28, which makes it the oldest fleet in the Russian Navy. The Alrosa submarine recently suffered an engine fire and almost sank. It is likely to be under repair for the foreseeable future. The Kerch cruiser was recently overhauled, but is old enough that it is likely to be retired in the near future anyway. All reports indicate that it cannot go out into the open sea. The other ships will last a bit longer, but by and large just about all the current combat ships of the Black Sea Fleet (with the exception of two relatively new minesweepers) will need to be retired within 10-15 years.

Along with the lease extension, several Russian officials and experts have stated that the Black Sea Fleet will now receive a number of new ships, including the first two Gorshkov-class frigates, currently under construction in St. Petersburg, two new corvettes (presumably Steregushchiy-class), and 2-3 diesel submarines. The likelihood of the fleet receiving all of these ships in the near term is close to zero. First of all, completion of the Admiral Gorshkov has been repeatedly postp0ned. A recent report indicates that it is still only 28% completed, despite having been under construction for four years already and having an expected commissioning date of 2011. The second ship’s keel was laid in 2009. Even if construction speeds up, it seems to me that the BSF will not get either ship before 2013 at the absolute earliest, with 2015 a more likely target.

Worth thinking about in context of the renewal of the lease of the Sevastopol naval base.

US: Cheonan Probably Sunk by Torpedo

Closer to an official statement on the sinking of Cheonan:

A North Korean torpedo attack was the most likely cause for the sinking of a South Korean warship last month, according to a U.S. military official.

The United States believes the ship was sunk by the blast of an underwater explosion, but that the explosive device itself did not come in contact with the hull of the South Korean ship, the official said. This is the same conclusion expressed by South Korean military officials.

The U.S. Navy has an investigative team assisting the South Koreans.

The U.S. official declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter and due to the fact neither South Korea or the United States has publicly discussed any potential response...

The Korea Times is reporting a Chinese developed Type EO-3G torpedo may have been the weapon used. It is said to have the homing capability to hit a ship after tracking the vessel's screws acoustically. U.S. Navy warships are equipped with sophisticated sensors and acoustic technology aimed at tracking such threats.

Query: My thinking on this has been proceeding on the assumption that the forensics of the attack probably haven't been that difficult to sort out. This is to say, determining the cause of the explosion was probably easier than the South Koreans have been letting on, and they've been soft-pedaling this for political reasons. Do you think this is a reasonable assumption, or are mine and torpedo damage in fact so similar that it would require extensive analysis to determine cause?

The Netherlands Trying New Tactic Against Pirates

After the succesful mission of HNLMS Tromp against Somali pirates, the Netherlands are using a new tactic against pirates. They are now patrolling much closer to shore with LPD HNLMS Johan de Witt and are using its LCVPs and LCU's to patrol close to known pirate harbours to stop Pirate Action Groups. In the 4 days since they started patrolling, they have catched (and per EU dictum - released) 2 of these PAG's.

By using their landing crafts to patrol the pirate infested waters, the Dutch are showing that quantity has quality of its own.
And I would think that it should be easier to catch the pirates closer to were they left, because the area to look for pirates is smaller (although still quite large) compared to trying to find them when they are 700NM away from the Somali coast.

To me it looks like the reason for this new tactic was a necessity: the lack of usable naval helicopters in the Dutch armed forces. Of the 14 Lynx helicopters the Dutch still have in operation -out of the original 20- only 2 are fit for onboard duties. One of those is always on duty in the Carribean and the other one was on HNLMS Tromp. This last one was in need of major maintenance and thus wasn't transferred to the Johan de Witt.
So the delivery of a naval NH90 helicopter on April 21 by AgustaWestland -the first naval NH-90 to be delivered to anyone- that arrived in the Netherlands today, is only the first (small) step in the right direction.

And in the meanwhile the Dutch have also decided to deploy ships to the Somali basin until at least April 2011. From July - April first HNLMS De Zeven Provinciën, then HNLMS De Ruyter and finally HNLMS Tromp will join NATO operation Ocean Shield. During this time the Dutch will take Command of the NATO fleet. And from September-November the AOR HNLMS Amsterdam will be deployed to Operation Atalanta.

New pictures of Varyag

Just saw some new photos of Varyag. Looks like they are close to finish painting the island. Not only that, I would saw that the structure of the island has now been modified to it's final form. I am just waiting for the sensors to be installed on the island. I have attached a photo of the mock up in Wuhan for comparison. I think that they should eventually look the same



Picture of the full scale mock up in Wuhan for reference:

Limited Diversionary War?

Grover floats an idea:

Now assuming that the incident was the product of centralized decision making rather than an unintended one ordered lower down the food chain (something I discussed earlier here), Kim Jong Il may simply be engaging in a tit-for-tat retaliatory strike for an earlier skirmish, something the Times itself suggests. And while such a diversionary war would likely distract at home and provide some temporary relief from any internal pressure, is the “Supreme Leader” really so risk acceptant as to start something that could spiral into a bigger war that could see his downfall?

My guess is that the incident was not intended to start a diversionary war but was either retaliation or another in a long history of provocative displays of force by the North Koreans. Then again, Kim Jong Il may be assuming – perhaps correctly given South Korea’s current lack of desire for a major war on the peninsula – that any South Korean response is likely to be quite limited and can provide some helpful distraction. Of course, this is all premised on the notion that we are talking about a substantively (or even procedurally) rational, unitary actor – something that might be a stretch in this case.

This is interesting, because South Korea really faces a quandary. War is simply not in South Korea’s interests. While it’s exceedingly unlikely that the US and South Korea could lose a war against the North, South Korea would nevertheless pay very high costs in both military and civilian terms. Moreover, in a general war South Korea loses even if it wins. Integrating a war/famine/communism plagued North Korea will be an enormously expensive and time consuming endeavor, one which Seoul does not particularly wish to contemplate. I suspect, then, that South Korea is willing to tolerate considerable North Korean aggression before resorting to general war.

The North seems to understand this, which is why a limited diversionary war seems plausible. Then again, it’s a very risky game for North Korea, and previous North Korean behavior has suggested considerable paranoia about US intentions. It’s unclear just how far Pyongyang would be willing to push Seoul and Washington in order to derive domestic benefit. I suspect that Grover’s second suggestion is correct; the North saw the destruction of Cheonan as an acceptable degree of escalation in the naval war off Korea’s west coast.

Cross-posted to LGM.

...see also Geoff Forden on the kind of damage caused by a modern torpedo, and how that relates to Cheonan.

This Blogging Thingy...

I do apologize that I have not been around much over the last many weeks. I also apologize ahead of time that I will not be around for several more weeks.

No worries though, because the Navy now has an official blog. For what purpose exactly? No idea, but it doesn't hurt when Ray Mabus writes the first entry.

Consider this an open post. I am particularly interested in what topics related to the topics discussed on this forum that ID readers are most interested in right now. Rank a top 5 maybe?

Reflection on watching numerous recent documentaries on China

Last week, I officially quit from my job. I am currently in the middle of an one-week hiatus before starting my new job. As such, I've had some time to watch Ted Koppel's piece on China (People's republic of capitalism) and part of Paul Merton's trip to China. I think Ted Koppel's 4 part mini-series on China was simply brilliant. For anyone who is trying to learn about future US-China relationship, that series would be a good place to start off. As I watch the series, I really begun to think about several major questions. How did China change so quickly? Were the policies of economic liberation really as great as people think they are? Why are Chinese businesses so competitive now and can they be this competitive in the future? Why is the politburo so paranoid about social stability and order? Can democracy and more importantly human rights be delivered in the country without stopping the economic progress? And most importantly, what would happen if the current economic growth in China stop? Ted Koppel brought up the point that it should not be too surprising if there will be another huge revolution/revolt that uproots the system when that happens. Considering the current rein on power that the communist party has on the China, that really seems to be a far-fetched idea. I watched some documentary from Mao's time (China - Mao Bloody Revolution Revealed) and also on Deng in the past 24 hours and have a slightly different prospective.

There have often been a lot of criticisms in the Western media regarding human rights in China. A lot of that is well deserved. As shown in Koppel's documentary (and also could be confirmed by anyone that lived in China for more than a month), the amount of corruption and the driven for greed is astounding; and has caused so much injustice in the country (many in the form of human right violations like forcible eviction). Koppel's interview with billionaire Vincent Lo really revealed some interesting points. Mr. Lo basically made several major points
- while he is not happy about China's human rights record, but they have to start somewhere.
- the autocratic gov't has gone from socialism to become the world's most business friendly government with a constitution of economic development.
- this current autocratic system has delivered 300 million people out of poverty in 30 years and democracy could not have done that
- assurance of stable gov't + policies allow investors like himself get involved in the Chinese economy and deliver more wealth to the country
So, does that mean we should accept or tolerate such human right abuses and lack of democracy in the country.

For this, I watched a documentary on Mao by Phillip Short of BBC and reflected also on past documentaries I watched + what I know from growing up in China. There have been several documentaries made about Mao in the past 15 years as foreigners became allowed to interview people close to Mao at that time. None of which are flattering to Mao. Simply put, there have been 4 major man-caused disasters since the founding of CCP in the 1920s. The first two were the Japanese invasion in 1937-1945 and the civil war in 1946-1949. The next two were both caused by Mao himself in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. I knew that things were really bad during the years of great leap forward, but didn't really know how bad they were until seeing that 20+ million people died of starvation from 1958-1962. It was especially disconcerting to read that cannibalism was quite common during that period (mostly of dead people, but also of living in some cases). Even through all of this mass starvation, the gov't continued the insane policies of exporting grains to other countries to pay off Soviet debts and to look self sufficient in front of outside nations. I guess my family was not as affected by those years because we lived in the cities. However, the urban dwellers had their turn in front of the gun when Cultural Revolution came. All through China, urban youths were sent to the countryside to help the motherland. The intellectuals and the slightly wealthy urban dwellers and supporters of sacked leaders were all publicly humiliated and beaten. There were many stories of deans of universities and principals of schools getting beaten to death or committing suicide after being tortured. Worst of all, some of the most precious art, literature and historical places were destroyed by the brainwashed youth also known as the Red Guards. Personally speaking, my mother's parents were both severely persecuted because of their educational background. The Mao era had none of the war and foreign occupation that plagued the country for the 100 years before that. However, it was replaced by a psychotic leader that managed to brainwash much of the population and destroyed all possible political opponents through radical ideological movements (Cultural Revolution and other major purges). Other than Zhou Enlai and Zhu De, all of the other major revolutionaries like Peng Dehuai, Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping and many other generals were purged, humiliated and tortured. The administration was infected by leftist radicals like the Gang of Four, Mao himself and Lin Biao to a lesser degree. The succession of Deng Xiaoping over Hua GuoFeng in late 1970s was the first time in the recent Chinese history where a succession happened over a unified China without blood spilling or purges. And thankfully, they have finally put in a system that would allow for peaceful transition of power and that would prevent future emergence of charismatic leader (like Mao himself). If this series of events sound crazy, one has to realize that this was nothing new in the Chinese history. Unfortunately, Chinese history is marred by continuous cycles of internal war, mass starvation, political purges by emperors and village rebellions that led to new deification of rebellion leader as an emperor God.

In Koppel's documentary, he interviewed a bunch of villager who insisted that life is better now than it has ever been. Their explanation was that "the army no longer forces people to join. And we are no longer forced to move off our land." And the oldest women in the village said that right now is the best time to live because they have enough food to eat and enough clothes to wear. Some may think these are extraordinary statements or that the Chinese population has set their standards way too low. However, one only has to look at the past to see how much things have moved. When my parents were in their early 20s, they were working at textile factories and villages in the midst of the Cultural Revolution. All form of higher education were stopped (even most lower level of education were stopped), so their dreams of going to university were sitting in vain. When my grandparents were in their early 20s, China was involved in the two major wars of this century. A lot of their friends were killed by Japanese brutality and then by the civil war. When my great grandparents were in their early 20s, China had just became a republic and was in the midst of constant infighting between local warlords. It should not be hard to see why the Chinese gov't fears change and instability so much. Deng Xiaoping what happened to China in the 60s and 70s when the country went into policies without pragmatism and caution. His philosophy of control, pragmatism and caution has been passed onto all of the current leaders. Outside of the TianAnMen Square crackdown, one can hardly argue against this period of peace, political stability and economical growth in China. A lot of people on the top are fearful that if their current hold on power is taken away, the country will go back into chaos like prior to 1978.

It is very easy to credit Deng Xiaoping and recent administrations for China's success in the past 30 years, but are they really that responsible? Looking back at the period right after Mao's death, the Chinese population was ready to open itself up to the rest of the world and embrace capitalism. I think that opening up the country to Western investment and technology was the smartest thing that the gov't did once the relations were normalized with the Western countries. From his past experiences at the top, Deng Xiaoping saw the need for pragmatic engagement with the West over extreme ideological warfare. According to this well written article by Hoover Institution, the Chinese people were hungry by then for political reform. They were even acting out illegally in many cases to make money for their families. During the late 70s and early 80s, the younger generation were kids when the great leap forward happened and teenagers when the cultural revolution happened. I think they became disillusioned of class struggle and socialism after being starved and later sent to the farms. The older generation still had enough memory of the period of society prior to 1949. I think both generations had suffered enough by then and really wanted to work hard to make lives better for their kids. Even today, the older generation in China are the younger generation of the late 70s, so they still remembered the chaos, starvation, poverty and hard times. They don't really mind to work super hard to ensure better future for their kids. And I think Ted Koppel's documentary was a perfect illustration of what every poor Chinese family are willing to do for their kids. He made a perfect point later in an extra interview that "Chinese people probably deserve to go to the hall of fame for enduring hardship and suffering". When you look at Ted Koppel's interview with the owner of Lifan, you can see the prototypical hardened Chinese entrepreneur that is willing to do whatever it takes to make it in the capitalistic world. You also hear about this with many of the other successful business men in China. They have succeeded because of their hardened experience during the great leap forward and the cultural revolution. They know that the only way forward is to beat out your competition in any possible way. So, I think that China is thriving in the world economy now, because the people that are driving the economic growth are the same people who were hardened through the Mao-caused disasters. It is beating out competitions around the world like Japan did in the 50s/60s because it has a very driven group of people willing to endure hardship. I think that the recent regime's main role through all of this time is to continue a stable environment to allow Chinese people to better their own lives. Deng and the following leaders were smart enough to not stop a good thing when it has already started. The only thing that prevented this from happening for the 100 years prior to that were continued chaos, utter lunacy in power and the numerous wars. And maybe Deng's policy of maintaining stability and not stopping good things is the best anyone can ever hope a government to do. The question as we move forward is whether or not China can continue to strive in the world market when the future generation that came in after the start of the single child policy become the drivers of the economy. Can the Chinese population still work hard and endure suffering when most of the people grew up being spoiled and pampered by their parents.

So in the past 30 years, we have gone from a society of total chaos and starvation to a society of vibrant growth with large degree of personal freedom. It is hard to imagine that China will ever go back to the Mao days. In fact, I read a recent article where Chinese tourists started to complain about lack of freedom after a day of visit in North Korea. Today's North Korea is probably where China was at the time of Cultural Revolution. In fact, the evolution of North Korea from a state that was wealthier and more industrialized than South Korea in the 60s to the pariah state that it is today is a very good parallel to what happened to China in the 60s and 70s. Knowing all of this, the question is what holds in the future for China in terms of democracy and human rights. I think it was very interesting that Ted Koppel mentioned in several places that what he saw or many of the interviews that he was happening could not have happened 15 years ago or even 5 years ago. This shows a gradual change in the personal freedom that we are seeing in the ordinary citizens. For example, I don't think the administration would be able to survive the internal backlash from a crackdown like the one in TianAnMen Square. Actually ever since the death of Deng Xiaoping, no civilian leader will ever have the same power to control the military. That is a good thing, because the politburo members have to retire after 2 terms of power. And we are certainly seeing a lot of checks and balances within the PSC to prevent a God-like leader ever appearing again. As the power at the top have slowly faded from Mao to Deng to Jiang to Hu and to Xi Jinping in the future, the question is whether or not we can have a peaceful transition to some form of electoral based system. I think that a transition to elecoral based system will happen in the next 20 years, but I hope it does not come as a result of a violent national uprising by the disenfranchised over the wealth gap between the haves and the have-nots. Even though today's system is causing a lot of corruption, injustice and wealth gap, it has vastly improved the lives of most Chinese people. I think that a complete repudiation of this system would cause chaos and economic disaster in the short term.

Even so, I do hope for some kind of repudiation in the future. I think that the mistakes that Mao made in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution will never be properly revealed to the Chinese public unless this system is shaken. Deng continued the legacy of Mao and the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party by maintaining that Mao's contribution to history was 70% good and 30% bad. I cannot see CCP go any further in repudiating Mao because 1) that would take away their legitimacy in power; 2) the population just doesn't care anymore. And I think my second point is probably the sadest of all. Even from my parent's generation, they have grown up with the view that Mao was this great leader that unified China but made some mistakes along the way. Leaders like Liu Shaoqi and Peng Dehuai have been rehabilitated, but they have never received the credit they deserved for bringing China out of the Great Leap Forward and trying to run the country. Most of the blames for the Cultural Revolution should rest upon Mao rather than the Gang of Four or Lin Biao. Even though he unified the country and kicked out the foreigners, he also set the nation back to stone ages with his insane economic policies and political movements. In the future, 95% of the new generation of Chinese would grow up never know about how bad things were between the early 1950s and 1978. And I think that is a mistake, because they need to learn about the past to not repeat it again in the future. So, I hope that as people demand for better rule of law and more freedom in the future, the government will incrementally become more open about its past. More transparency from the gov't on these matters is certainly better than having its own citizens watching documentaries of Mao on youtube (some of which are quite biased). There is a major bubble forming in the Chinese economy. Once that bubble bursts, the gov't needs to be prepared for millions of unemployed college students hanging around the country. It would need to also continuously change to prevent another million people from protesting in front of TianAnMen Square. Because the next time it happens, I doubt the army would be listening to the civilian commands.

In conclusion, I think that even though China is going through a really healthy period of peace and growth, there are some looming signs of danger up ahead. Having looked back through its recent history, I understand the politburo's obsession with stability and caution, but also think that they need to continue to change to maintain this stability. Nobody really knows what would happen if the Chinese economy bubble bursts. I hope that the country does not go back to chaos, because that would set the country back many years. I would recommend all of the links that I have mentioned in this blog entry. They are great places to start in understanding Modern China.

Trident and the Lib Dems

During last week's debate, Lib Dem frontman Nick Clegg repeatedly brought up the question of replacing Trident. Jeffrey Lewis interviewed Paul Ingram on the potential implications of Lib Dem strength for the Trident program:

Last Thursday Britain had its first ever election leader TV debate, and it confounded the pundits, not only for being more interesting than anyone expected, not only because it turned out to be a genuinely three-horse contest (why should that be surprising when you put three horses in the track?), but also because little-known Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg (Nick who?) raised the cost of Britain’s Trident replacement plans not once, nor twice, nor thrice, but four times, before the other two were forced to respond. Tory leader David Cameron reluctantly responded with the usual response about defending the UK but committing: “I say we should always have the ultimate protection of our independent nuclear deterrent”, followed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who after describing the need for a united front against potential proliferators, said, “I don’t favour Nick’s proposal which would unilaterally abandon our nuclear deterrent when we know Iran and North Korea and other countries are trying to get…” Since the debate the universal media and public opinion is that Clegg scored a hit on the night (not necessarily on this issue) and the Lib Dems are soaring in the polls. So, is there something exciting going on around Britain’s nuclear deterrent? Could we see some sort of momentum behind a policy shift? What?s the background?

The Lib Dems could end up holding the balance of power, so their opinion is important. But don’t expect an FDP moment — where after last October’s elections Germany’s new Foreign Minister is pushing hard within NATO for the withdrawal of US B-61s from Germany — there is strong cross-party and public support for such a move in Germany where it does not yet exist in the UK. Even in their own party the Lib Dems are badly divided on the issue of what to do, and national representatives have been on all the UK media since the debate clarifying that they are not in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament, simply looking for cheaper alternatives to buying UK nukes systems off the US shelf.

For my part, I'm glad that Trident replacement is being debated inter-party forums. I have long believed that the UK's nuclear deterrent is redundant, and that funds would be better spent on maintaining Royal Navy surface and expeditionary capability. The discussion probably won't get to the point of debating the merits of the Queen Elizabeth vs. a Trident replacement, but Clegg's presence at least pushes the strategic debate to the fore.

Gates Memo Sounds Alarm On Iran

Interesting story in the New York Times this morning on a "secret" memo they have obtained in which Defense Secretary Robert ("Bill") Gates (heh, heh) decries the lack of a coherent administration policy to deal with Iran's attempts to become a nuclear weapons state. The subtle sub-text of the memo is that there doesn't appear to be any real thinking within the administration about what happens if The One's vaunted oratory and "anti-Bush" policy of "engagement" don't actually work.

There are quite a few angles to this story, so let's take it up in some detail, shall we?

The first question is, who is the leaker--or more appropriately, where in government is the leak coming from? Who are the candidates? 1) The Office of the Secretary of Defense 2) the Joint Staff 3) The White House 4) The State Department. As to which it is, one has to move on to the next question--why would it be leaked. I give likelihoods that the organization cited is the source in percentages.

OSD (15%)would leak it under a few different circumstances--the most likely of which would be that Gates had grown frustrated with a lack of support within the administration for true strategic thinking. What could cause this frustration? The ascendancy of the "engagement"ists at State and on the National Security Council, political types who cannot fathom the possibility that the President's rhetoric on engagement will not produce results. What could this be a signal of? Fraying of relations among the big three--Gates, Hilary Clinton, and Jim Jones (NSC).

The Joint Staff (20%) would leak it under much of the same circumstances, including the possibility that OSD isn't pushing hard enough. The uniforms have plans on the shelf for military options--but what they fear is having to resort to such options with a thinly stretched force simply because there was insufficient care paid to creating a series of political approaches. I wouldn't put it past the Joint Staff to end-run OSD on this.

The White House (NSC) (5%) could have leaked this too. I have a tough time coming up with a good reason for them to do so except strategic communications--that is, talking to other regional governments, friends and allies through the media. The there is foment within the upper levels of the national security apparatus on this important question can be "amplified" in a way that convinces regional friends and allies that we are taking this threat seriously.

When it comes right down to it though, I think the State Department (60%) is our most likely culprit for the leak. Political types there--with personal stakes in the success of President Obama's policies--including engagement--want to see the Secretary of Defense embarrassed and isolated. Portray him and his ilk as a bunch of warmongers not given to letting the fine art of diplomacy run its course, while we Mandarins of foreign policy here at Foggy Bottom run the show and are TRULY loyal to the President.

I just can't see how this memo signals a good thing for the Administration.

Bryan McGrath

Cross-posted at The Conservative Wahoo

Bad Baseball Analogy

Interesting theory, bad analogy:

For generations, avid baseball fans have been able to recite the batting and earned-run averages of their favorite players and have known instinctively that the higher the former and the lower the latter would pave the way to victories. These statistics, like gravity, ruled their lives-that is, until financial writer Michael Lewis and his 2003 bestseller, Moneyball, challenged conventional wisdom by revealing a cadre of Major League Baseball insurgents within the Oakland Athletics' front office.

Led by General Manager Billy Beane, they held such heretical thoughts as "on-base percentage is more important than either batting average or slugging percentage" and "pitchers can only be effectively measured independent of the defense around them." This out-of-the-box thinking allowed Beane's Oakland club to win more regular-season games than any team except the Atlanta Braves, despite having one of the lowest payrolls in the American League. Beane looked at things differently and learned to do more with less money. Moneyball unintentionally suggested a new way to look at another American institution-the U.S. Navy.

Our Navy, larger than the next 13 international navies combined, can be compared to the highest-paid team in baseball. With its Barry Bonds super carriers, Mark McGwire cruisers, and Sammy Sosa destroyers, today's Navy consists of all power hitters, with huge slugging percentages and salaries to match. But what if there were another way to build the team? Oakland's ten-time All-Star and two-time World Series champion Ricky Henderson epitomized the ability to get on and get home by setting a career record for runs scored (2,295)-despite a .279 lifetime batting average-because he also held the career records for walks and stolen bases as well as a lifetime on-base percentage of .401. What if presence, the naval version of the oft-neglected on-base percentage, was actually the most critical naval mission

Problems:

1. Rickey Henderson's several tenures with the As corresponded with Billy Beane's general managership for only 1 year, 1998. The As won 74 games that year.
2. Moneyball advocates highly value slugging percentage. They tend to view batting average and stolen bases with disdain.
   
3. Barry Bonds, not Henderson, is the classic Moneyball player. Bonds career OBP is 43 points higher than Henderson. Indeed, Barry Bonds was better at everything (including, arguably, defense) than Rickey Henderson, except for stealing bases, a skill not highly valued by Moneyball advocates. Also, Barry Bonds holds the career record for walks.
4. There's a big difference between the "Fords vs. Ferraris" analogy and the "Henderson vs. Bonds," and it goes like this: Foregoing Ferraris makes it possible to purchase more Fords; crew and building slip limits are important, but the most important limitation is generally thought to be overall funding. In baseball, "Fords" take up key roster space; a dozen Alex Gonzalezes may cost the same as one Derek Jeter, but Jeter takes up only one roster spot, which is why he's so much more valuable. This is not to say that roster construction should always favor one highly paid player and a bunch of scrubs, but it does mean that the baseball analogy doesn't hold as well as the car analogy.
5. A better choice of comparison than Bonds vs. Henderson would have been Ken Griffey Jr. vs. Craig Biggio. Bill James often made this comparison, arguing that the flashier and better known Griffey was inferior to Biggio in skills such as taking walks and getting hit by pitches. Biggio was genuinely more valuable than Griffey, even though he got payed less.

Nevertheless, the key point holds; baseball professionals fundamentally misvalued players for decades because they didn't understand the relationships between the key variables, and misidentified the most important metrics of player performance. This basic error of analysis, in a highly lucrative and extremely competitive environment, suggests that analysis in other fields may similarly be flawed, even when the stakes are very high. Thus, it's worth asking whether current naval analysis is using flawed metrics. That said, it's probably not accidental that the very best players and managers from the pre-Moneyball era operated with what appears to have been a tacit understanding of what made players valuable. Ted Williams, for example, is the ultimate Moneyball dream, with a .482 career OBP. Contemporaries may not have identified precisely why he was the greatest hitter of all time (the walks rather than the home runs), but they seem to have understood his value on a basic level. Similarly, it's perhaps not all that surprising that legendary manager John McGraw sported a .466 OBP as a player, a number which is particularly impressive given that walks weren't reported in most news accounts of the time. There are a few examples of players whose real value is only recognized in hindsight (say, Rusty Staub or Roy Thomas or Bobby Grich), and a few examples of players who were wildly overrated (George Sisler and, I daresay, Tony Gwynn) but mostly people seem to have gotten it right, if only intuitively. I don't know how that intuition would transfer to naval analysis, but it's probably worth investigating.

Navy To Name New Ship For........John Murtha?

The Navy announced yesterday that it will name a SAN ANTONINO Class LPD in honor of recently deceased Representative John Murtha (D-PA).

Putting aside for a moment the continuing farce that is the Navy ship-naming convention, affixing Mr. Murtha's name to a ship while real and continuing issues of ethics violations and abuse of power remain fresh in the collective memory--seems oddly premature.

Additionally, the irony of US Marines riding to battle in a ship named for a man who so recklessly pre-judged the guilt of Marines involved in the deaths of non-combatants in Haditha, is manifest.

This is a poor decision, and it should be reconsidered.

Cross-posted at The Conservative Wahoo.

Bryan McGrath

Is a Company Landing Team too small, or just right?

The Marine Corps is experimenting with a Company-sized Landing Team this summer. The COLT experiment will look into what a reinforced company can do. They will launch from ships far from shore (20 miles or more out) with minimal indirect fire support with them (60mm, 81mm, maybe two artillery pieces). The Navy likes being farther from shore, but the Marines are kind of on their own out there. Having only a company-sized force might leave you a little exposed for some missions.

This is a big deal for us because we normally think only of battalion-sized units as being able to operate independently. In addition, we'll be launching the CoLT from over the horizon (20+ miles out), that's the first time we're doing this over the horizon thing, although we first talked about it in 1997....what took us so long?

Joint UK-French SSBN Fleet?

This is an interesting notion that is unlikely to happen in anything but a very limited sense:

France has offered to create a joint UK-French nuclear deterrent by sharing submarine patrols, the Guardian has learned. Officials from both countries have discussed how a deterrence-sharing scheme might work but Britain has so far opposed the idea on the grounds that such pooling of sovereignty would be politically unacceptable.

In a speech this morning in London, Gordon Brown said he had agreed to further nuclear co-operation with France last week after talks with Nicolas Sarkozy. The prime minister did not comment explicitly about submarines, saying only that the UK and France would both retain "our independent nuclear deterrent".

"We have talked about the idea of sharing continuity at sea as part of a larger discussion about sharing defence burdens," a French official said.

A British official confirmed that the French government had raised the idea of shared "continuous at-sea deterrence", but added that any such scheme would cause "outrage" in the midst of an election campaign.

Today, Brown said of his talks with the French president: "We have agreed a degree of co-operation that is, I think, greater than we have had previously but we will retain, as will France, our independent nuclear deterrent....

Sarkozy hinted at the potential for shared deterrence in a speech at Cherbourg. "Together with the United Kingdom, we have taken a major decision: it is our assessment that there can be no situation in which the vital interests of either of our two nations could be threatened without the vital interests of the other also being threatened," he said.

Britain and France could synchronise nuclear deterrent patrols and co-operate in the deployment of surface fleet task forces, sources say. However, British officials played down the possibility of formal agreements on the nuclear deterrent – or on sharing each other's aircraft carriers.

The idea of a shared deterrent is certainly interesting; during the Cold War, the NATO alliance essentially "shared" the nuclear umbrellas provided by the US, the UK, and France. Italy and West Germany did not need to invest in their own nuclear weapon programs because it was impossible to imagine an attack that would not also involve one of the three nuclear states. The current situation for France and the United Kingdom is very similar. While it's obviously possible to imagine France or the UK going to war independent of one another, it's difficult to envision scenarios where the nuclear deterrent of either country would become militarily relevant in an independent conflict. If anyone flings a nuke at either London or Paris, the expectation would be that the other would become involved (not to mention the United States). Thus, the idea of a shared deterrent has some appeal, especially given the high cost that both countries face in replacing their SSBN fleets.

That said, nuclear weapons play other roles besides deterrence. Nukes remain a prestige weapon, and in some sense guarantee a seat at the big power table. Without nukes, it would be much harder to distinguish France or the UK from the bevy of second tier powers (Germany, Italy, Japan, Poland, Spain, Canada) that lack nuclear weapons but have otherwise similar defense profiles. Indeed, it becomes very hard to justify the two security council seats for France and the UK if they're sharing one of the key elements of their national power. Again, the idea of folding the two European permanent seats together (and replacing with, say, India or Japan or Brazil) makes some intuitive sense, but would be procedurally very difficult.

The command and control details of a shared deterrent would also be difficult to work out. There are a variety of different schemes, running from a CoG to CoG link (Brown calls Sarkozy from the ruins of London and asks him to shoot back at aggressor country X) to high level military contacts to the direct presence of French and British naval officers on each others submarines. Working out firing bureaucracy would be extremely complex, especially given that both countries seem to have somewhat idiosyncratic nuclear command procedures. Future procurement would also be a bit twitchy, as the RN SSBNs are scheduled for replacement prior to the French. However, the procurement issue might also be the firmest ground for collaboration; 4-5 boats to one design makes much more financial sense than 6-8 boats of two designs.

Cross-posted at LGM.

Reason Magazine On The Nuclear Posture Review

I generally agree with the "much ado about nothing" tone of this piece by Reason's Steve Chapman on the just completed Obama Administration Nuclear Posture Review. We covered the NPR on the radio show Wednesday night, but here is a review of my position:

What's To Like:
**It reduces warheads, but not by much
**It leaves our missile defense program untouched
**It is a place to "cooperate" with Russia on something constructive

What's To Dislike:
**Walking away from research and testing is a bigger deal than Chapman supposes; what incentive is there for top physicists to enter this research field anymore? So as the stockpile degrades and obsolesces, so will the brainpower.
**Reduction in warheads and the general administration view of a "nuclear free world" could send a message of weakness to nations who look to us for their nuclear umbrella (Japan, South Korea) that we're not such a reliable partner anymore. This could cause perverse incentives to build their own weapons.

What's Not To Get Too Excited About:
**Obama's repudiation of nucs against a non-nuclear nation, even if they use chem bio on us. First of all, this is like all political promises, breakable, and it would be if necessary. Secondly, more experienced wargamers can take me to task on this--but my sense in the wargaming I've done and read about is that it takes a BUTT TON of doing to get Americans to use Nucs in anything but retaliation for nuclear attacks on our soil. Obama basically has given away a use case we were highly unlikely ever to exercise--and he reaps from it (albeit from his already adoring international fan-base) the concomitant political praise of someone who has greatly compromised on something important.

Crossposted at The Conservative Wahoo

Bryan McGrath

Recent article about Anti-ship Missile joining PLAN

Recently, an article came out that talked about a YJ series missile that appeared in the 60th anniversary parade last October. From the text, it appears to be talking about the latest version of YJ-83. It is kind of interesting to read what they think about anti-ship missile design in general. Here is the article in Chinese:

2009年10月1日，国庆60周年阅兵式上，我国新型“鹰击”系列反舰导弹顺利经过天安门广场，光荣地接受了祖国和人民的检阅。

“此型导弹是我军第一型大射程、命中精度高、抗干扰能力强、全数字化导弹……”解说员清晰的声音随电波传遍世界各地。这一刻，无数中华儿女的心在沸腾。

作为我军现役的新型主力反舰导弹，它们具有什么性能？研制背后发生了哪些故事？记者专门采访了国庆60周年受阅新装备监造者、海军驻某导弹总装工厂军事代表室总代表李耀国大校。

零故障参加国庆首都阅兵

记者：作为国庆装备的直接监造者，你们军代表的内心肯定充满了无比的自豪和荣耀，能不能谈谈当时的情况？

李耀国：这是一项光荣的任务啊！2009年6月，当上级机关把作为阅兵装备的新型反舰导弹监造任务下达给我们军代表室时，我们全室同志无比兴奋。但是，交付周期比正常的生产周期大大缩短，困难可想而知。

在装备生产过程中，军代表室指派专业组长周传忠、业务骨干李锋两名同志倒班工作，吃住在工厂，确保阅兵装备得到全过程质量监督。有一天，大家晚上加班到9点多，在弹翼接头材料分析时，突然发现：有几件产品强度性能指标虽然在合格范围内，但已经接近下限。

厂家的现场指挥人员准备安排第二天上班再排故，周传忠急忙劝阻，建议把设计人员接到现场排故。在等待的过程中，他耐心地对现场工人说：“今晚故障不排除，整个进度就会受到影响，交装的时间就可能延误，部队训练的时间就会相应减少，部队完成阅兵任务的压力就会加大。今晚不管干到几点，故障不清除决不能休息。”

随即，他又找来相关生产记录和资料认真研究，直到凌晨3点多故障才顺利排除。

记者：都说细节决定成败。在航空航天高科技领域，是不是尤为明显？

李耀国：是的。干航天，就要有这样过细的作风。记得该型导弹首次助推弹试验那天，随着一声令下，导弹呼啸着冲了出去，现场的人群欢呼起来。这是此型导弹首次试验，发射出去即意味着成功。

回到住处，现场的人员都互相祝贺，还燃放起了鞭炮。我们军代表却没有被表面的成功迷惑，而是像往常一样，回到房间后打开了现场录取的数据，认真地分析起来。通过对导弹推力数据和弹道数据进行研究分析，与发射的现场录像进行比对，我们发现导弹的初始弹道数据有些下降，数值不大，单从发射场面上是根本看不出来的。

于是，我们立刻找来总师和相关技术员，提出了自己的看法。这个问题在现试验阶段看起来可能不是问题，但是若带入到下一个试验阶段，可能是一个致命的问题。因为弹道下沉，说明推力不足，导致速度不足，从而直接影响后续的舵面控制，后果将是灾难性的。

听完这一席话，刚才还兴高采烈的同志们马上就变得鸦雀无声。于是，大家连夜召开了分析会，对助推器进行改进，增大初始燃烧面积。通过后续试验验证，问题得到圆满解决。

记者：类似这样的情况肯定有很多，能不能谈谈在研制这型导弹的过程中发生的难忘故事？

李耀国：的确是这样，每一型武器研制的背后，都充满了艰辛，也留下了许多难忘的记忆。

记得导弹对海攻击试验时正值冬季，室外的气温是零下20多摄氏度。研制人员和军代表们每天都在寒风凛冽的机场露天办公。当时导弹在挂上战机出发后，突然出现高度测量误差。这对于掠海攻击的导弹来说，是非常致命的。大家分析半天，一直没有找到原因。后来，在检测导弹时，无意中发现高度表内有一小滴冷凝水！原来高度表在生产过程中密封性不强，混入了水蒸气。经过高空环境后结成冰霜，下来后终于现了原形。故障很快被排除
性能六大方面新突破

记者：作为国庆60周年首都阅兵，我国最先进反舰导弹，新型“鹰击”系列导弹都有哪些突破？与国外先进导弹相比有哪些优势？

李耀国：国产新型反舰导弹在前一型导弹的基础上作了重大改进，主要有六大方面突破：

一是由模拟体制改成了数字体制，由中控计算机实施整体控制，缩小了体积，操控性、稳定性更好；二是射程大大增加，是原型弹的一倍，并具有了航路规划能力；三是弹头性能提升，捕捉目标的能力提高，抗干扰能力大增；四是使用性能大大改善，导弹的准备时间压缩，操作程序简化；五是具有广泛适装性，能在多型飞机、多型舰艇上使用；六是使用寿命提高，又大大方便了部队官兵使用。

至于说与国外的先进导弹相比，因为没有直接的比试，不能轻易下结论。但我可以说，和国外的先进导弹相比，它应该处于国际先进水平，有些方面甚至是领先的。

比如，我们这型导弹高可靠性，无论是试验阶段还是部队实际使用，几乎没有失败过。再比如，可维护性、保存性、操作性等方面，我们也有优势。当然还有一点，我们造价也肯定比国外便宜，这是毋庸置疑的。

记者：很多军事爱好者都注意到，现役很多反舰导弹都有掠海飞行能力，那么导弹飞行高度是不是越低越好呢？导弹末端机动能力是不是一个方向？

李耀国：掠海飞行是反舰导弹的一大特点。主要是因为舰艇预警雷达受地球曲率的影响有盲区，掠海飞行可以躲过雷达的探测，达到突然袭击的效果。现在反舰导弹的平飞高度一般在20米左右，到末端后能达到5－7米，这对于躲避雷达来讲，已经足够了。如果高度再下降，很容易就被卷进大海里，国外在试验时就曾发生过类似的悲剧。

末端的机动能力,是导弹增强突防能力一个重要手段，也是一个发展方向。

具备高亚音速飞行能力

记者：大家知道，俄罗斯“现代”级导弹驱逐舰上的“马斯基特”反舰导弹具有超音速飞行的能力，而欧美的一些知名导弹却都采用了高亚音速。这是为什么呢？

李耀国：超音速和亚音速是两个并行的方向，谈不上哪个一定好。虽然超音速导弹速度快，但在技术上存在着一些根本性问题。

首先是射程不足。为了“跑得快”，燃料消耗大，射程就受到影响。导弹要多装燃料，弹头就要减轻，杀伤力也会受到影响。

其次是容易暴露。为保证足够射程，超音速反舰导弹通常要进行中高空飞行，这就把自己置于敌防御雷达的水平视线以上，在理论上给了对方更多预警时间。而且，在飞行过程中，超音速导弹正面的红外特征要比亚音速导弹高20～50倍，装备了新型红外信号转换系统的军舰很容易发现。

再次是应变能力不强。超音速反舰导弹同样依靠雷达搜索追踪目标。处理同样的目标数据，超音速导弹比亚音速导弹的时间少60％。一旦遇到干扰，导弹很可能还没来得及分辨清楚，就一下子飞过去了。而且因为速度太快，超音速导弹如果在第一回合里错过目标，就没有第二次机会了。

最后是费用昂贵。因为超音速反舰导弹对导弹的机动性要求极高，需要用一些特殊材料。计算结果表明，超音速反舰导弹的耗费要比亚音速反舰导弹高1．5倍。

我国下一代反舰导弹，会朝着更高的目标迈进。我相信，经过我国科技人员的努力，中国“鹰击”系列反舰导弹一定能保持自己的优势，在激烈的国际竞争中力求保持先进水平。（记者　钱晓虎　特约记者　姜毅 照片由记者 张雷提供）

The relevant parts translate to something like this:
In the 60th anniversary national parade, China's new YJ series AShM shined. It was announced as China's first long range, high accuracy, fully digital missile with high resistance to ECM.

An interview with admiral Li from a naval missile assembly factory.
Started off by mentioning some of the things that happened as they were producing/preparing the missiles for the parade. The typical propoganda in these kind of articles that try to drum up the situation.
Talks about the importance of making sure every little details are right in aerospace industry. When this missile did its first flight testing, everything looked good from the ground. But when they went back and looked at the missile thrust figures and missile trajectory figures, they found that some of the testing figures were less than expected. These are the things you can find by first look. It then talked about another case where the missile misjudged the height in an extremely cold testing environment when it was launched off aircraft. It took a long time before they found out it was due to bad production quality which threw off the instrument measuring the height.

The next part talks about the 6 areas that this missile improved on previous designs:

1. Going from Analog to fully digital with a central computer providing overall control.
   
2. The range increased 100% and also has ability to plan the flight path.
   
3. Seeker technology has increased, can find target better and improved anti-jamming capability.
   
4. Has improved usability, preparation time decreased and procedure is simplified
   
5. Can be used on many platforms (multiple types of aircraft and ships.
   
6. Has longer service life.
   

Admiral says that he believes YJ missile is comparable to the most advanced missiles in the world and even exceed them in certain areas. It is very reliable and has rarely failed in tests and live firing.

He says that most missiles fly at 20 m height toward the target and then dips to 5 to 7 m in the terminal phase. There is really no need to fly any lower, which could cause it to be swallowed by water. Improving terminal maneuvering is an important part of missile development.

He then talks about the cons of supersonic missiles. btw, nothing he mentioned is new if you have ever followed one of those supersonic vs subsonic discussion threads. He says that the missile would have to either sacrifice range or warhead size due to the higher speed of supersonic missiles. He says that they have to fly higher which causes them to be picked earlier by ship radars. They also have 20 to 50 times larger infrared signature, which would allow latest IRST to pick them up easily. The also have much less time to search for target due to the faster speed. They probably have 60% less time to process information. When facing ECM, they might not have a second chance to find the target if something goes wrong the first time it's trying to target. Supersonic missiles also cost more to use than subsonic missiles (1.5 times as much). I'm a little confused here because I think the supersonic missiles cost more than that much more. So, he might have just been talking about maintenance and usage cost.

The Mistral Sale

I have a short article about the France-Russia Mistral sale up at World Politics Review.

France's decision to negotiate the sale of four Mistral-class Amphibious Transport Docks to Russia has been met with harsh criticism in the United States and among some NATO allies. Georgian Foreign Minister Eka Tkeshelashvili was particularly brutal, declaring of the sale, "It's not even appeasement of Russia. It's a reward for Russia."

There is no question that the acquisition of the four amphibious warships will substantially enhance Russia's power-projection capabilities. However, Russia is not the only state to have committed to the construction of large-deck amphibious warships. In fact, Moscow's purchase of the Mistrals comes in the context of a global "amphib" splurge. Big "amphibs" are trendy, and the Russians have simply decided to join the club.

Off The Coast Of Somalia: The Flying Dutchmen

Yesterday at around 13.30 CET the Dutch frigate HNLMS Tromp has rescued the crew of a German freighter from a pirate attack. At 9.45 CET the Tromp received a distress call from MV Taipan. The onboard Lynx was sent to asses the situation and saw the freighter dragging along two of the pirates skiffs. Meanwhile the crew of the frighter had retreated into a safe room on the ship, after disabling the propulsion of the ship -in line with the MSCHOA 'best practises'.

After consultation with the Dutch authorities in the Hague -effectively bypassing EU command- it was decided to free the freighter. While approaching, the frigate's crew detected a mothership on its way to the MV Taipan. When communication with this ship led to no result, the Tromp fired warning shots with its 127mm canon, sending the mothership running.

After the Tromp failed to establish communication with the pirates onboard the MV Taipan the CO of the Tromp, Captain Lodder, gave the order to retake the ship.
At first the pirates fired on the approaching Lynx, but that fire stopped when both the Lynx and the Tromp started firing into the bridge of the Taipan -no equipment has been damaged, so the Taipan can still sail on its own. During this suppression fire, which was aimed at the windows to stop the pirates from seeing what went on, a team of the Unit Interventie Mariniers (Dutch Maritime Special Operations Forces) fast roped onto the ship.
Once onboard they took the pirates without any resistance and all 15 crew members from the Taipan were found unharmed and have given their statements.

During the operation 1 Dutch marine sustained a minor injury, that was unrelated to the firefight.

German foreign minister Guido Westerwelle has thanked his Dutch counterpart Maxime Verhagen for the Dutch action. Meanwhile the German and Dutch Prosecutors Office are discussing how to move forwards from this point. It's obvious to me that it's up to the Germans whether to prosecute. If the Germans don't want to take the pirates to court, the Netherlands will not do so for them.

And a trial in the region is unlikely with Kenya starting to cancel its agreements to prosecute pirates. And I don't think the Seychelles will see any reason to prosecute these pirates if the Germans won't.

Heritage Foundation Seapower Panel Reminder

A reminder to those in the DC Metro region who might want to come out to The Heritage Foundation for today's panel "Seapower in the 21st Century". Ron O'Rourke of CRS, Peter Swartz of CNA, and I will be on the panel, and I'll be taking a few ideas that I'm working on elsewhere out for a little rhetorical spin.

Sign up to either attend in person OR listen online here.

UPDATE: Video of the event can be found here.

Chinese Coal Carrier on Great Barrier Reef

Maritime emergency in Australia; a Chinese coal freighter illegally sailed through a restricted zone near the Great Barrier Reef and ran aground:

Australian authorities are battling to stabilise a stranded Chinese coal carrier which is threatening to break up on the Great Barrier Reef and spill more oil into the pristine waters of the World Heritage site. The Shen Neng 1 ran aground on Saturday when it hit a shoal off the eastern state of Queensland at full speed, rupturing a fuel tank and causing a 3km-long slick.

"One of the most worrying aspects is that the ship is still moving on the reef to the action of the seas, which is doing further damage," Patrick Quirk, the general manager of Marine Safety Queensland, said. Quirk said the initial report was that the ship's main engine room had been breached, the major engine damaged and the rudder seriously impacted...

Anna Bligh, the premier of Queensland state, said salvage crews were assessing how they might refloat the carrier stranded some 70km east of the Great Keppel resort island, but warned that the operation could take weeks. "This is going to be a very specialist and delicate operation," she told Australia's Nine news network. Bligh had earlier said there was "a very real risk that the vessel may break apart" and the authorities fear an oil spill will damage the world's largest coral reef.

Tidbit: Anna Bligh is the great-great-great-great-granddaughter of William Bligh, captain of the Bounty.

EU Training Mission Somalia

On the 31st of March the Council of the European Union has decided to start a European Union military mission, to train Somali defence forces from the Transitional Federal Government. This EUTM will be launched on 7 April and will last a year, during which there will be 2 training periods of 6 months.

The training will be done mainly in Uganda, where a new group of 2000 Somali recruits is scheduled to start their training on the 1st of May. The EUTM should consist of about 100 trainers, supplied by Spain (which has operational command), Germany and France.

Interesting news about China/Israel/Iran

So, according to this article on times online, the Israelis actually made the unprecedented move to come to China to try to persuade Chinese support for sanctions. That in itself is nothing new, but the Israelis are basically saying that they will attack Iran's nuclear facilities and that all hell with break loose if they do. According to the article, they have even let a Chinese general to inspect their strike force to show that they are capable of accomplishing this mission. Basically if you've followed the commentaries of Robert Baer, the Israelis will move to take out the nuclear facilities if UN doesn't deliver on further sanction. Clearly, Israel regards this as existential threat (this entry is not to agree or disagree that point). Even so, it is still a curious strategy to straight out tell China that "you better help us, because we are so desperate that we will do something so dramatic that you will get hurt in the process and we don't care what anyone else thinks about it". It amounts to basically blackmailing the world's leading creditor.

I'm curious to see how China will react to this. I personally think they should support further sanctions in the hope of stopping this from escalating further into a wide conflict that would basically take a large part of Middle East oil out of commission. The world's economy is just recovering and can't handle a dramatic energy crisis like this. However, would supporting a harsher sanction right now stop the Iranians and appease the Israelis? What if the Israelis come back to ask for more sanctions if this round does not solve anything? These are all things that China needs to think about.

Really? An OHP?

According to CNN, a pirate skiff opened fire on USS Nicholas (FFG-47) just after midnight last night. Nicholas returned fire, sinking the skiff, then captured the pirate mothership.

I appreciate that it was dark, but I really, really think that the pirates ought to consider investing in some USN identification flashcards.