Observing The Navy's Global Soft Power Deployments

Captain Bob has brought sexy back to Civil Service Mariners (as the photo highlights) and as the first comment highlights his wife would agree. The blog for the USNS Mercy (T-AH 19) is a really good daily read. Yesterday the Mercy spent her last day in Vietnam and is on its way to Singapore. As we have been observing the deployment of the USNS Mercy (T-AH 19), we have found a tremendous amount of media attention given to Operation Smile in Vietnam. It took us a little while to figure out why, but it turns out Cindy McCain, leveraging some of that celebrity status she has during the presidential campaign, helped promote it. In fact, the Miss Universe contestants also helped promote it. Whoever is responsible for the marketing for the deployment is doing an ace job! Meghan McCain has some very good pictures of the work Operation Smile did there, about half way down on that link. Meghan, next time take a few pictures of the ship!

The ship that will execute the second SOUTHCOM Global Fleet Mission deployment departed Norfolk on Friday. We have previously discussed the creativity taking place under Admiral Stavridis's command. First it was using HSV Swift as a Global Fleet Station platform, then it was using Stiletto for chasing down drug runners, then it was the use of airships for surveillance, and now it deploying a Rescue and Salvage Ship, specifically the USNS Grasp (T-ARS 51), for what is being called Navy Diver-Global Fleet Station 2008. The divers are from the Navy Expeditionary Combat Command's Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit Two and Explosive Ordnance Disposal Group Two. Good luck to Capt. Jose Delfaus, we look forward to news from the Caribbean during this deployment.

The USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) is helping out following the Tsunami destruction in the central Philippines. I've read in some places this is overkill for a Carrier Strike Group, but I think that is a bad read of the situation. Does it require an aircraft carrier? Nope. However, it sends exactly the right signal regionally, that the US Navy will be there when they are needed, in force if necessary and with help when possible. Given the conditions right now in the Pacific, with a massive naval force involved in RIMPAC and North Korea blowing up their nuclear coolers, one wonders where else the strike group should be instead?

Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (CARAT) is in Singapore in the middle of an 11-day exercise that will focus on anti-air, anti-surface, and anti-submarine warfare and security operations. While we aren't certain, we believe the exercise ends Thursday and these sailors will get the 4th of July off. The exercises includes 13 ships and 1 submarine. US forces for the exercise include the coast guard cutter Morgenthau (WHEC 722), USS Jarrett (FFG 33), USS Tortuga (LSD 46), USS Ford (FFG 54) and USS McCampbell (DDG 85). The USNS Safeguard (T-ARS 50), which had been expected to participate in the exercises, was sent to the Philippines to help with the ferry that overturned and killed several hundred. You can follow the news from CARAT on the Commander Task Force 73 news website, which is frequently updated with news believe it or not.

Finally, there are some discussions and observations that suggest elements of the USS Nassau Expeditionary Strike Group are on their way to the Gulf of Guinea, in fact already in the Atlantic Ocean. Due to press coverage in that region being limited at best, while we believe this is a planned aspect of the Nassau ESG deployment, given recent security concerns regionally one never knows if the mission profile has changed. The Coast Guard cutter Dallas (WHEC 716) is in the region as part of the ongoing U.S. Naval Forces Europe's Africa Partnership Station (APS) initiative. There has been no media coverage of the Dallas since it completed an exercise with the Cape Verde Coast Guard on June 17th. A lot of stuff happened in the region after June 17th.

LHA-6 Will be USS America

This crossed the DoD wires, but the link was taken down. We will update link when it is available again.

The Navy's newest class of large-deck amphibious assault ship, LHA 6, will bear the name USS America, Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter announced while speaking at the USS America Carrier Veterans Association reunion in Jacksonville, Fla.

This ship will inherit a proud tradition, explained Winter. From the American Revolution through the first Gulf War, three warships have sailed with the name America...

LHA 6 will be the fourth U.S. Navy ship to bear the name America. The first America, a 74-gun ship-of-the-line, was the first built for use by the Continental Navy. However, before having a chance to serve the fledgling U.S. Navy, the ship was presented as a gift to the king of France to show appreciation for his country's service to the new nation. The second USS America (ID-3006) was later the name given to a troop transport used during World War I. The third was a Kitty-Hawk class aircraft carrier (CV 66) in commission from 1965 to 1996. Among other notable accomplishments, the carrier America made three deployments to Vietnam and launched air strikes on Iraq during the opening days of Operation Desert Storm.

When it comes to names of Aircraft carriers, which is what the LHA-6 class essentially is, the Navy record since 1975 has been less than impressive. In this case, we like it.

If the US Navy was to maintain 12 aircraft carriers in the 21st century, we would prefer the following 12 names.

Enterprise
Hornet
Yorktown
Saratoga
Midway
Constellation
Ranger
Intrepid
Kitty Hawk
Essex
Wasp
Oriskany

Name frigates after Presidents, assuming we ever build any again.

Exploring the Israel-Iran Option

Seymour Hersh has a new article out in the New Yorker called "Preparing the Battlefield," and after going through all seven pages twice, we are still left wondering what all the hype is about. Essentially the article suggests that the US is operating in Iran to collect intelligence, and appears to attempt to shame Democrats for supporting the gathering of intelligence in Iran by funding intelligence gathering. The implication is that because Bush hasn't brought the intelligence gathered back to Congress there is a problem, but speaking from experience, if Bush never brings the intelligence back to Congress, that is probably a good thing for the country. The record there hasn't been pretty, and we prefer he keeps that stuff to himself where it is unlikely to be used to make the case for war.

The rest of the Hersh analysis is of the various politics of the issue, including some interesting stuff regarding Admiral Fallon, but nothing that left us feeling empowered with new information. Essentially, other than the politics, there was nothing new there.

What the Hersh article does do though is note that his sources are the same as ours, with one new one we had previously not observed. Hersh specifically highlights articles by Andrew Cockburn written back in May, that can be found here and here. Its basically more of the political dancing in Washington. The defense related information that Hersh cites is the news in Iran, which is what we watch, so as folks disinterested in the political shuffle in Washington, we didn't see anything worth exploring other than the confirmation of special forces to gather intelligence.

And on that note, we think about what they might be watching in Iran. One gets the feeling this is on the short list.

Iran has moved ballistic missiles into launch positions, with Israel’s Dimona nuclear plant among the possible targets, defence sources said last week.

The movement of Shahab-3B missiles, which have an estimated range of more than 1,250 miles, followed a large-scale exercise earlier this month in which the Israeli air force flew en masse over the Mediterranean in an apparent rehearsal for a threatened attack on Iran’s nuclear installations. Israel believes Iran’s nuclear programme is aimed at acquiring nuclear weapons.

The question to ask is, are they fueled? Unlikely, and if you know anything about ballistic missiles, you know why. Putting ballistic missiles with no fuel on launchers makes this a strange move for the Iranians, one of many strange moves we are observing in fact. But of all the crazy things associated with the Iran war theory discussion, this is by far our favorite topic.

"Naturally, any country coming under attack will use all its capacity and opportunities to confront the enemy. Given the main route for energy to exit the region, one of Iran's steps will definitely be to exercise control on the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz," Jafari told Jam-e-Jam newspaper, which is affiliated to Iran's state-run radio and television network.

"Should a confrontation erupt between us and the enemy, the scope will definitely reach the oil issue... Oil prices will dramatically increase.

"This is one of the factors deterring the enemy from taking military action against the Islamic Republic of Iran," he said.

We do not believe the United States will attack Iran during the remainder of the Bush administration. We believe if one was casting odds, the odds of Barak Obama or John McCain bombing Iraq in the first 100 days of their presidency is higher than Bush bombing in his remaining days. With that said, we believe Israel will likely bomb Iran during the Bush administration, and when it happens it will change the way the world looks at 21st century warfare. SUTER will be small stuff compared to what we expect to see.

The conventional wisdom expresses concern regarding what will happen to Israel if they bombs Iran. In truth, the answer is the ballistic missiles of Iran is about the only "new" threat Israel faces, it is hard to imagine the Iranian Air Force could hit Israel, and Iran's Naval options are virtually nil. It is likely Hamas and Hezbollah go crazy on Israel in retaliation, but they did that in 2006, so that isn't really a new threat and one Israel will be in a better position to manage than they were in 2006. As we ponder the scenario's, as soon as the first bomb drops, the question isn't whether Israel will destroy itself, the question becomes will Iran destroy itself.

When one contemplates all of the reactions by Iran, one must consider the consequences. For example, if Iran attacks US forces directly, that would essentially be a declaration of war on the United States leading to the most lopsided battle the region has seen since 1991. For all of the focus on Thomas Barnett's Esquire article about "Fox" Fallon, it seems to us people seemed to miss several points Admiral Fallon made. One memorable comment for us was on page 1, in the first section, when discussing the possibility of war with Iran, Fallon said:

"These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them."

Regardless of all the scary scenario's that get tossed around by political pundits, there is one scary fact for Iran that stands out during the decision process: declaring war against the United States has historically been a really bad idea.

Another possible retaliation is the one discussed above, shutting down the straits. Who honestly believes Iran is going to unilaterally shut down the straits and crash the economy of the entire Pacific Ocean region? Does Iran think China will simply sit on its hands and watch their economy crash? I'm trying to figure out why crashing the energy economy of every major power in the world except Canada, Brazil, and Russia is a good idea for Iran. This isn't an option for Iran, because if they shut down the strait, they would lose the political high ground and prove Israel right: Iran is a suicide state.

The fact of the matter is, other than asymmetrical attacks in Iraq, which will only turn Iraqi's against Iran even more, or asymmetrical attacks against Israel after the limited number of ballistic missiles are fired, Iran really doesn't have much recourse without being completely destroyed in a total war scenario. If Hezbollah attacks a mall in Minnesota after Israel attacks Iran, does Iran honestly believe the entire country will not blame Iran? Even more important, do the Iranians really believe the Europeans will simply pull out of NATO to remove their obligations to support a NATO member that was attacked by Iran? The logic assumed by westerners to the suicidal nature of an Iranian regime built on survival simply doesn't make much sense to us.

In other words, Iran is incredibly threatening as long as everyone is talking, but the unfortunate reality for the Iranians is, once the talking stops Iran is left in a terrible strategic position with very few options that don't have massive potential blow back, both political and military. Unfortunately for Israel, if they attack Iran they are on their own. Unfortunately for Iran, they will be on their own too, and Iran doesn't have very many military options against a power as strong as Israel.

4th Fleet Focus: Medical Diplomacy Takes Another Step

We didn't discuss it much, and I don't have a good reason why. The USS Boxer (LHD 4) recently completed the first leg of the Continuing Promise 2008 mission. The invaluable DoDLive, specifically Lt Cragg, did a really nice job getting the information from Capt. Peter Dallman, Commander, Amphibious Squadron 5, regarding the USS Boxer (LHD 4) deployment. In reading through the transcript of the blogger roundtable (PDF) two specific things jumped out.

The first is interesting. The Navy recognizes the importance of the NGOs, but for some reason this strikes us as a token presence of the potential capacity of what the USS Boxer (LHD 4) should be able to bring forward on this kind of deployment.

So ours was somewhat -- relatively limited. And like I said, it's difficult to say with a straight face that a four-month planning timeline is a short timeline, but the effect of that is it was a little late notification for us to go to partner nations -- I'm sorry, to nongovernmental organizations and to have them pitch in a lot for this fight. But they're certainly looking forward to follow-on missions.

And I think that's going to -- ultimately, that's going to be a golden key to our success, to do these types of missions. Project Hope folks and the Public Health Service goes through this kind of thing, obviously, on an ongoing basis as opposed to an episodic basis as we are doing it here on Boxer. They have experience in this. They're trained in it. And I think, in my opinion, the Navy wants to continue to ask them to get involved in this kind of thing.

And I think it's going to be good for both Project Hope and Public Health and other NGOs to continue to push people into these missions and push them forward to do this kind of work because, you know, they're good at it and we certainly can learn from them. They added a lot of value to our processes and our overall effort.

One would think Representatives would be aware of NGOs in their district that might be interested in getting involved in these types of deployments, indeed one thing that comes to mind is this might be a good way to get college students involved to community service through University programs. For example, pair a pre-med student with a corpsman, or work with fraternities and sororities at the national level to help raise money to send students each year as part of a summer program to participate in these types of deployments. Universities often discuss the importance of getting young men and women involved in summer programs that expand their experiences in a rapidly changing and globalized world, it seems this type of deployment would be an excellent way for college students to get involved in volunteer work.

Earlier in the roundtable it was mentioned that materials come from title 10 work, well if that is the case, then all the Navy is really looking beyond the specialized help is volunteers for labor and outreach, and we think the Universities offer an excellent resource for this type of thing. In the grand picture of US diplomacy, there are several faces. Governmental, Non-governmental, and Business are only three such faces, but the average citizen volunteer, particularly youth of college age and education, is another way to export the American spirit in diplomacy. Seems like the House of Representatives would be the right place to build the bridge between the DoD and the Universities in promotion of such a program.

Despite having so few people outside the Navy, this is a very impressive statistical impact.

We had 127 total surgeries onboard Boxer, 14,000 total dental procedures, 66 repairs to biomedical equipment in the various clinics and hospitals that we worked at.

A lot of this is done by corpsmen that don't have any parts, no kit, no tool bag, no anything. So I was amazed that they could repair that many.

We saw just under 4,000 optometry patients. We distributed about 3,500 glasses to those patients. We dispensed nearly 40,000 medications. We had a veterinarian team, and they saw just under 2,900 animals total. A lot of that was vaccinations and de-worming. And primary care saw just over 14,000 patients.

So total patients for the 28 mission days was just over 24,000 patients seen. And that results -- if you add in the classes, 123 classes, and 18,000 total students for those classes, then that's a total of 65,000 encounters during the 28 mission days.

Medical diplomacy at work in its early stages. Very impressive.

Blogger roundtable participants included the always insightful John of Argghhh, Chris Albon from War and Health, and Chuck Simmons of the North Shore Journal. Well done all, we thought the roundtable was very interesting.

OPEC's Strategic End Run on Progressive Energy Policy

While on the road this week, we couldn't help but think about the energy situation that our nation finds itself in. In New York, a gallon of gasoline is running above the $4.15 a gallon mark, and yet everywhere we went, business was still good. Both companies and individuals are making choices to deal with the rise of energy prices, and while those changes aren't welcome, they can be done without significant impact to most people and businesses we interacted with.

We are not delusional, we recognize high energy prices likely impacting some people on fixed budgets very hard.

One of the most interesting bits of knowledge we picked up this week was a political discussion of Progressive Energy Policy, something we were not well familiar with. It is the first time in years I have spent so much time looking at the Dailykos, of which most of the information explained could be found in discussion. While not necessarily linked with Barak Obama, progressive politics in America has generated several policy papers on energy dated back mid 2006, leading into the election where Democrats took power. In review, given the circumstances of the time, we believe it was a pretty interesting policy position. Taking a look at the changed conditions, the progressive action plan associated with the progressive energy policy has become as useful as toilet paper... which is what we think makes it a great discussion.

The progressive policy position, as explained to us by a highly credible source, was built on the theory to capitalize on conditions prior to peak oil, which is expected sometime next decade, and transition the US towards an alternative energy solution. The idea is something we have previously seen discussed over at CDR Salamanders, tax gasoline to raise the price, tax the oil companies, and take the tax earned and create six initiatives towards alternative energy. Interestingly enough, all six are listed on Obama's official website under the "energy and environment" section, except the last seventh on Obama's website wasn't in the Progressive Plan we saw.

Invest $150 Billion over 10 Years in Clean Energy.
Double Energy Research and Development Funding.
Invest in a Skilled Clean Technologies Workforce.
Convert our Manufacturing Centers into Clean Technology Leaders.
Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund.
Require 25 Percent of Renewable Electricity by 2025.
Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.

We believe that when the policy was written, this might have been a very workable plan. We are almost never impressed with government market manipulation, but we strongly believe one strategic failure of the Bush administration has been the absence of a strong energy policy that didn't result in paying OPEC for fuel while we send our troops to the Middle East to provide strategic protection of the global energy system. The Progressive Policy, the one we saw written just prior to the 2006 election, had a good chance to be very successful but also had some important strategic flaws, flaws we believe OPEC is exploiting to their advantage.

Enter several facts.

1. Exxon Mobile, the largest US oil company, is the 14th largest oil company in the world.
2. 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments.
3. Exxon Mobile buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines from the 13 larger companies.
4. The price of gasoline when the Democrats took control of Congress was around $2.25 per gallon.
5. 75% of all known oil reserves are completely controlled by national oil companies
6. The major driver of energy cost increase is the soaring cost of crude
7. The United States produces less than 10% of the total crude oil daily worldwide

Source: Energy Debate, Senate Judiciary Committee, Thursday 05/22/2008 - 11:00 AM

We don't know who does strategic forecasting for the Democratic Party, but we are not impressed. If we accept the facts, which we have to because as Congressional testimony there is liability for dishonesty, and we account for the rise of gasoline prices due to the devalue of US currency, accept that distribution costs have increased slightly, and accept that new production is expensive, we still can't find anyone who can account for the rising cost of crude through speculation. Democrats believe the rise in total crude is artificial, that costs to put fuel to market have not increased well over 150% in just 18 months. Given the facts, we tend to agree.

Because OPEC has the most influence over the supply of crude, the most accurate statistics regarding demand, and the most to gain from high crude costs, we believe they have found a way to leverage supply, demand, and speculation to recreate the conditions that faced Jimmy Carter, primarily exploiting the progressive political position. Understanding that the world economy can manage costs that increase fuel up to around $4.50 a gallon, a target discussed in the progressive energy policy paper we read, and exploiting the no drill policy of progressive politicians, OPEC has essentially cashed in on the money progressive politicians had expected to utilize to implement their progressive energy policy. Recall Obama's frustration that the price of energy has gone up to fast, not too high, citing the term "gradual adjustment" which would be the tax policy towards gasoline towards $4.50 a gallon. The reason for his frustration is because now instead of the US getting the money via the Progressive Energy Plan, progressives are watching that money go to OPEC instead. In reflection, they really should have seen this coming.

OPEC is capitalizing on the weaknesses of both parties in American politics, but give away their position by waiting until the moment Democrats took power to make their move. The Republicans held executive and congressional power for 6 straight years, and while they did an OK job managing the energy prices at that time, they did a poor job planning for the future. Why did OPEC wait until Democrats took power? Several reasons, including capitalizing on the split power struggles, but also because they can read the tea leaves of the American public. They needed to make their move before Democrats could, which means the time period between their Congressional power and when they would presumably take the presidency.

Republicans have a tendency to dismiss the possibility of market manipulation, particularly with energy, because despite being the worlds dictatorship club, OPEC is an important player in Republican foreign policy and economic policy. Democrats on the other hand traditionally lack the ability to see their policies exploited by forces outside the United States, they always focus against internal forces first. Their reaction to date is evidence, they blame "Big Oil", even though American oil companies are trivial players in the global oil market, and they blame speculators in America, which is just as ridiculous because energy speculators exist in every financial marketplace, and US speculators can't control the price from the US alone.

Where from here.

To understand the economic forces at play it is instructive to visualize the scale of OPEC's potential wealth in comparison to that of the consuming countries. At $140 a barrel, OPEC's oil assets stand at roughly $128.8 trillion, equivalent to well more than half of the world's total financial assets and nearly three times the market capitalization of all the companies traded in the world's 25 top stock markets.

According to the Energy Information Agency, America uses an estimated 20 million barrels a day, with gasoline consumption in 2007 about 142 billion gallons, an average of about 390 million gallons per day, and the equivalent of about 61% of all the energy used for transportation, 44% of all petroleum consumption, and 17% of total U.S. energy consumption. About 47 barrels of gasoline are produced in U.S. refineries from every 100 barrels of oil refined to make numerous petroleum products. With a two dollar per gallon federal tax under the Progressive Energy Policy, the United States would have been earning around $580,000,000 per day in potential tax revenue, some of which would have been shifted towards alternative energy. That amounts to more than $250 billion tax revenue in a year, making the tax on energy company profits look like an exercise in pettiness. Instead of raising enough tax revenue to pay for the total cost of war in 5 years, including rebuilding and retooling the military towards the GWOT in those same five years, the money is going to OPEC instead.

For the record, gas taxes today are roughly 14% of a gallon of gas, about $.56 a $4.00 a gallon of gas, meaning that the government already takes in $218,400,000 per day on gasoline taxes of $4.00 a gallon, which is below the current estimated national average. That means government is pulling in roughly $75 billion in tax revenue on gasoline per year today, and they are going after the profits of "Big Oil" which the facts clearly show aren't big players on the market. Our elected officials are going after the symptoms, and appear oblivious to the problems. This is not change I can believe in.

If the Progressives ever intend to implement their energy policy short of a Jimmy Carter style disaster, they must address the new strategic conditions that have essentially made their plan an action plan for economic disaster. The only solution we see is for the American government to go all in and adjust the laws to compete at every level of the energy sector, specifically against OPEC, and build up the capacity for crude output in the United States to its maximum potential. While doing so, as the prices fall, for the progressive energy plan to work the government should attempt to control the price of oil at the gas pump at around $4.00, take all tax revenue generated from the price up to $4.00 and continue to implement the investment plan for alternative energy. This strategic adaptation to conditions carries with it two primarily strategic objectives, and while it may have a marginal short term impact, it will produce the desired conditions to influence long term.

In the mid term, the United States will be able to effectively manage the conditions of global energy price, and bring the United States back into balance with the global wealth accumulated through energy export, essentially reducing the wealth of OPEC who is currently doing the same to us. By transitioning the domestic energy sector towards alternative energies, building conditions that make the US a strategic player in the export of crude oil will allow the United States to build a dissuasion strategy against China, who will not transition as quickly. This places the United States, and specifically the Progressive Energy Policy, which is tied to environmental concerns, exactly where they need to be long term to influence the environmental debate.

By building towards becoming a major player in the crude oil industry, the US government positions itself to be exactly what OPEC is today, a player in the price control through supply and demand. This allows the United States to price the crude market higher in an effort to promote the global export of alternative energy solutions developed in the United States, a critical aspect of leveraging change in emerging markets that will not consider environmental conditions in their energy policy if crude is more affordable than rebuilding clean energy infrastructure. We have seen the alternative energy options, and while ethanol gets a lot of attention, only 2% of all farmland in America can be used to completely replace all transportation fuels currently using crude in the US with bio-diesel, and the businesses that intend to do this are months, not years, away from hitting the commercial market. What really impresses about their business plans though, bio-diesel companies we have observed are all net exporters of carbon credits in addition to energy companies. That is not trivial as environmental policy continues to go global.

If Barak Obama ever intends to implement anything similar to the Progressive Energy Policy (because he is a major investor in ethanol companies we expect him to do exactly that), and if Progressives have any intention to ever have leverage short of military power in linking global energy policy and global environmental policy, the Democratic Party needs to adapt to the strategic conditions that are being put forward by OPEC that appear to be specific to destroying their plans. Essentially, they have to leverage the nations capacity and competitive spirit to compete these guys into submission, before they do the same to us. The consequences of not adapting to the strategic conditions, what amounts to an assault on the progressive political platform for energy in America, will almost certainly lead to Barak Obama being remembered as the President to repeat the mistakes of Jimmy Carter, and be the whipping boy for the Middle East national oil community. Does anyone think Barak Obama is really different as he claims? The ability to adapt to strategic conditions, a weakness of Bush II, would be one area he could set himself apart.

We don't have high expectations, and believe the next 4 years are going to be very painful without a major shift in US policy towards energy. However, in the global economy the rulesets are well established, you have to control the market if you want to control the market. It really is that simple. OPEC controls the energy market, the US doesn't have nearly enough influence to make a dent against them right now, and will get left behind trying to force change without the influence to be effective.

---

Note: Sources for much of research not cited specifically above is available at the following links:

Oil Drum
Investors Business Daily: Breaking the Back of High Oil
Energy Information Agency
The Committee on the Judiciary Antitrust Task Force and Competition Policy
Dailykos: Would take a long time to review all the sources examined for the Progressive Energy Policy discussion. Our hard copy was not found in full print online, but can be sourced to many discussions at this and other progressive political communities.

Shipbuilding Shakeup Down Under

In November of 2006, Thales completed its takeover of ADI, forming what is now known as Thales Australia. By purchasing ADI, Thales was prohibited from completing in the acquisition of other Australian defense contractors. That opened the door for BAE, who announced today that they will be buying the Australian shipbuilder Tenix.

BAE Systems today completed its acquisition of Tenix Defence after receiving all required approvals. The company announced it had entered into a definitive agreement to acquire Tenix Defence on 18 January 2024 for up to A$775 million in cash.

The acquisition of Tenix Defence is a significant step in the implementation of BAE Systems' strategy to develop as the premier global defence and aerospace company through a multi-home market business focus.

While Europe is making major headway into the Australian defense market, we want to highlight that two specific American defense corporations really had no chance in this bid. It was essentially guaranteed to BAE, specifically because of the following two terms found in the official Australian government announcement is the primary reason why.

To protect Defence interests, BAE have provided specific assurances through a Deed with Defence relating to the amphibious ships contract, agreed between the Commonwealth and Tenix in October 2007.

The Deed also prevents BAE Systems from buying ASC Pty Ltd (formerly the Australian Submarine Corporation) if it is sold by the Australian Government.

Yes we are aware the link is broken, use Google Cache.

The first condition is important to Australia, but the second point is relevant to US shipbuilding. There is a third defense company for sale in Australia, and BAE essentially had no shot (from the perspective of the Australians) to acquire it, specifically ASC Pty. Ltd, also formally known as Australian Submarine Corporation.

It is the worst kept secret in the Australian defense establishment that ASC Pt, Ltd is going to be purchased by one of two companies, General Dynamics or Northrop Grumman, because Australia wants a US firm to build the next generation Collins class replacement, which will be built leveraging US technology.

The announcement of BAE buying Tenix is good news for Australia, but it is also good news for the US. While not easily visible from this announcement, in context it confirms what many have been thinking and hoping for: A US shipbuilder will buy AC Pt. Ltd in the future. Why does that make us optimistic? Because it means a US company will soon be building conventional submarines, even if it is in Australia.

Roughead's Visit to Israel

Admiral Roughead made a visit to Israel this week. We let Navy NewsStand set the context.

Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Adm. Gary Roughead is visiting Israel from June 21-24 at the invitation of Israel Navy Commander, Vice Adm. Eli Marum, to strengthen and further develop global maritime partnerships and increase maritime security.

CNO toured Haifa and Ashdod Naval Bases where he got underway on INS Lahav, an Eilat-class corvette; a Shaldag-class fast patrol craft; went aboard the Israeli Dolphin-class submarine, INS Tukuma; and met with Israel Navy and Ministry of Defense officials. Roughead said closer ties and cooperation are mutually beneficial to both navies.

The conventional wisdom is the Admiral is in Israel to discuss Iran. Probably a little bit, but there are no plans being made at this level. We tend to think any discussion of Iran is at the strategic level, and just as much discussion would be given to Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Turkey, Jordon, and Saudi Arabia. Given the activity of the Isreali Navy, it would be difficult for Roughead to ignore those more relevant discussions rather than talk theory on Iran.

However one issue we are sure popped up in the meetings was the Lockheed Martin version of the Littoral Combat Ship, also knows as the LCS-I. Israel submitted an RFP in February, and given the Bush administration approach to come with money to the Middle East, Israel has the money to buy the LCS-I version of the vessel.

The Lockheed Martin LCS-I version of the Littoral Combat Ship is very important. While Lockheed Martin doesn't have a stellar reputation in shipbuilding, the LCS-I is getting interest abroad. India is looking at the LCS-I as well for its Project 17 stealth frigate. It is noteworthy India and Israel recently entered a cooperative development agreement for the Barak II, one might imagine the LCS-I will be capable of supporting both the Barak I and Barak II by design.

We haven't seen any indication when Israel might make a bid for the LCS-I, but one wonders how much the bad press the Littoral Combat Ship has had lately is part of the equation. We are hoping the Israeli's order the LCS-I soon, because we think if Israel orders it this year, by the time India is ready to select a ship for its Project 17 stealth frigate, if the LCS-I is already under construction it will have a better chance of being selected.

5th Fleet Focus: Order of Battle

Order of Battle in the 5th Fleet Area of Responsibility.


Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group

USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72)
USS Mobile Bay (CG 53)
USS Russell (DDG 59)
USS Shoup (DDG 86)
USS Momsen (DDG 92)
USS Curts (FFG 38)


Peleliu Expeditionary Strike Group

USS Peleliu (LHA 5)
USS Dubuque (LPD 8)
USS Pearl Harbor (LSD 52)
USS Cape St. George (CG 71)
USS Benfold (DDG 65)
USS Halsey (DDG 97)


In Theater

Ocean 6
FGS Emden (F 210)
HMCS Iroquois (DDH 280)
HMCS Calgary (FFH 335)
FS Enseigne de vaisseau Jacoubet (F794)
USS Oak Hill (LSD 51)
HMS Edinburgh (D97)
HMS Westminster (F237)
HMS Chatham (F87)
HMS Montrose (F236)
HMNZS Te Mana (F111)
USS Scout (MCM 8)
USS Gladiator (MCM 11)
USS Ardent (MCM 12)
USS Dexterous (MCM 13)
HMS Ramsay (M 110)
HMS Blyth (M 111)
HMS Atherstone (M38)
HMS Chiddingfold (M37)

Naval Open Source Intelligence - Chinese Edition

You never know what you might find on Chinese BBS these days.



Click for hi-res. Its from last year, but was found today here.

3rd Fleet Focus: RIMPAC 2008 Order of Battle

United States Navy

USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63)
USS Bonhomme Richard (LHD 6)
USS Comstock (LSD 45)
USS Port Royal (CG 73)
USS Lake Erie (CG 70)
USS Chung-Hoon (DDG 93)
USS Pinckney (DDG 91)
USS O'Kane (DDG 77)
USS Milius (DDG 69)
USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60)
USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG 60)
USS Reuben James (FFG 57)
USS Santa Fe (SSN 763)
USS Key West (SSN 722)
USS Los Angeles (SSN 688)
USNS Guadalupe (T-AO 200)
USNS Yukon (T-AO 202)
USNS Navajo (T-ATF 169)
USNS Sioux (T-ATF 171)
USNS Sumner (T-AGS 61)
USNS Salvor (T-ARS 52)
MV Cape Gibson (T-AK 5051)

United States Coast Guard

USCGC Kiska (WPB1336)
USCGC Rush (WHEC 723)

Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force

JDS Makinami (DD 112)
JDS Haruna (DDH 141)
JDS Setogiri (DD 156)
JDS Kirishima (DD 174)
JDS Narushio (SS 595)

Royal Australian Navy

HMAS Tobruk (LSH 50)
HMAS Anzac (FFH 150)
HMAS Success (AOR 304)
HMAS Waller (SSG 75)

Canada

HMCS Regina (FFH 334)
HMCS Ottawa (FFH 341)

Chile

CNS Almirante Riveros (FF 18)

Republic of Korea

ROKS Yang Manchun (DDH 973)
ROKS Moonmu Daewang (DDH 976)
ROKS Lee Sunsin (SS 068)

Singapore

RSS Steadfast (FF 70)

Also Check out SteelJaw Scribe's entries here and here for 2 other ships that will participate in RIMPAC 2008, as SINKEX targets during the exercise.

They Make Excellent PSYOP Tools

Submariners are the first to make it clear, we do not talk about submarines. Well, that may be policy, but someone forgot to tell the US Navy. We have been observing excellent PSYOPs being utilized through the media when it comes to the SSGN, and as we have suggested before, this probably has some folks in the Middle East sleeping uneasy.

The Blue Crew departed Kings Bay April 26 for the first portion of Florida's first SSGN mission. Now the Gold Crew will be flying out to Diego Garcia to meet the boat and turn over with Blue Crew. This type of crew exchange is new to many submariners and Florida has gone the extra mile to make sure their crew members are prepared.

An Atlantic based SSGN doing a crew change in Diego Garcia pretty much tells everyone which theater the USS Florida (SSGN 728) is operating in, and that is absolutely intentional.

The only accurate way to describe the Ohio class guided-missile submarine is as a first strike weapon. While it can do so much more, in the context of a Middle East deployment the submarine is wasted as a submarine patrolling the coast of Africa. With slightly more than 100 UGM-109Es, able to all be launched in less than 4 minutes, the SSGN is intended to rain at least 100,000 lbs of heavens fury down on its intended targets from point blank range.

As we observe the public attention the SSGNs get, we can't help but think the SSGNs have become a favorite tool of Pentagon PSYOPs. As one of the most deadly conventional weapon systems in the world, and considering the difficulty in finding the platform at sea (we believe even with active sonar on full blast it would be very difficult for even the most sophisticated systems in the noisy waters off Iran), the SSGN represents the battleship and the ghost. Nobody wants to chase a ghost, but nobody can ignore the battleship.

What a brilliant concept, the Navy should build a dozen more.

Observing the Offshore "Bonga" Attack

On June 19th, MEND released the following official statement.

"On Thursday, June 19, 2008, at 0045 Hrs, gallant fighters from the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) overran the supposedly fortified Bonga offshore oil fields operated by the Shell Petroleum Development Company.

"The main computerised control room responsible for coordinating the entire crude oil export operations from the fields was our main target. Our detonation engineers could not gain access to blow it up but decided against smoking out the occupants by burning down the facility to avoid loss of life.

"However, our next visit will be different as the facility will not be spared. We, therefore, ask all workers in the Bonga fields to evacuate for their safety as the military cannot protect them.

"In order that the Nigerian military does not pass off this humiliating breach as another 'accident', an American, Captain Jack Stone, from an oil services company, Tidex, has been captured.

"This man was supposed to only be released in exchange for all Niger Delta hostages being held in northern Nigeria by the Nigerian government. Because the criminals in the government and state security want to use this opportunity to make money from ransom, we have decided he will be released in the coming hours.

"The location for today's attack was deliberately chosen to remove any notion that off-shore oil exploration is far from our reach. The oil companies and their collaborators do not have any place to hide in conducting their nefarious activities."

We have been gathering details regarding the attack, and so far this is what we have been able to piece together from the events of June 19th. Most of it comes from a hearing in the Nigerian House of Representatives on June 23rd.

The Navy Patrol Boats stationed in the area had withdrawn from the area the day before to participate in Exercise Sentry, an exercise conducted by the Eastern Naval Command of the Nigerian Navy, The withdrawal of the Navy ships left Shell’s $3.6 billion “Bonga” Floating Production, Storage, and Offloading vessel (FPSO), stationed 120km from shore in 1000 meters of deep water, and responsible for 10% of Nigeria’s Crude Export without security protection. The facility does not have a radar, rather the facility is limited to a CCTV surveillance system.

Moving out after sundown on June 18th, MEND militants aboard three boats made the 120km trip out to Bongo and attacked just before 1:00am. Initially boarding one of the support vessels, the militants were prevented via lockdown procedures from gaining access to the Bonga facility. The attack lasted four hours, and while there was a lot of gunfire, Shell's official statement suggests only 3 workers were injured, suffered by being roughed up by the militants, No deaths or other injuries have been reported. After leaving the FPSO at 5:00am, the militants came across a ship chartered by Chevron on the return trip home, and kidnapped the vessels captain. Captain Jack Stone was released unharmed a few hours later.

MEND has become the focus of security and military efforts of Nigeria, and represents an enormous challenge not only to the Nigerian government, but indeed the impact is global. Due almost entirely to government attention and resources being focused on dealing with MEND, splinter groups are able to operate on the fringes and do their own damage, which can be highlighted by the destruction of the Chevron pipeline on June 20th by what is described as disgruntled youth. As UPI reports, those disgruntled youth just cost you money.

Though Chevron would not say just how much production was lost due to the attack, Nigerian energy officials estimated the losses at over 100,000 barrels per day, a blow that prompted the company to declare force majeure, relieving them of their contractual obligations until the assaulted pipeline can be repaired and secured.

It is no wonder that just a few days later, Saudi Arabia pledged to increase oil production by 200,000 bpd. While reported as a rushed reaction, the move is intended to make up for the loss of the attacks against the Bonga facility and the Nigerian pipeline. The Bonga facility was brought back up this week, but the downtime accounts for an estimated 1,500,000 barrels not drilled to market during the downtime, meaning the surge of oil from Saudi Arabia is really a wash for the first 15 days simply insuring OPEC production is sustained at current levels. In other words, net losses from last weeks incidents in Nigeria alone won't be made up for until at least 15 days after Saudi Arabia increases production. No wonder oil shot up to $140 per barrel today.

As we observe this incident, we can't help but think this is one of the most important military actions at sea since the USS Cole attack in Yemen. Ships are targets of opportunity for pirates and terrorists, but an offshore production facility is a fixed military target representing global political impact for terrorists. MEND is not a classic terrorism organization, rather represents an insurgency and different kind of maritime challenge. Based on eye witness accounts reported through the media, MEND apparently had the firepower necessary to destroy the facility, and yet decided not to in order to avoid the consequences of an international incident.

That last point is key. We are observing what appears to be an interesting 4GW Industry strategy engaged in Nigeria. MEND is executing a very sophisticated political strategy against the Nigerian government using the oil industry as leverage. MEND appears to see the industry as a neutral party, and the signs tend to indicate MEND would like the oil industry to maintain its neutral status. By demonstrating the ability to influence the offshore oil industry, MEND has achieved its political goals of demonstrating the capacity to disrupt oil supply, but has done this leveraging threat alone.

The oil industry strategy on the other hand appears to also desire its neutral status, and to insure both its value to the Nigerian government and maintain a neutral status with MEND, the oil industry is calling for greater community ownership of oil assets, which we read as an invested interest in the oil industry at the community level. In this way we observe the characteristics of a 4GW industry driven strategy in an insurgency environment, but we don't fully understand the distinct nature of this specific insurgency and the oil industry's strategy to fully analyze it. If anyone is aware of such analysis we are very interested.

While we do not see MEND as a problem requiring an international military solution, as we examine the situation from a strategic perspective we observe the Navy is not very well resourced to deal with MEND even if a military solution was called for. To put it into perspective, on Tuesday right before the current cease fire was put into effect, the Nigerian Navy massed 8 riverine boats near a MEND camp in what MEND claims was preparations for an assault. The MEND statement of the incident claimed 'Our fighters headed towards the army position and fired warning shots (for them) to leave or be confronted. As our fighters approached the enemy in over fifty war boats, the eight gun boats turned and fled from the area, thereby averting a clash and maintaining the on-going ceasefire.'' If the claim of over fifty boats is true, and there is no reason why it wouldn't be, for perspective consider if you combined all three US Navy Riverine squadrons that amounts to around 700 sailors and only 36 boats! For even greater perspective, several MEND attack boats have stabilized gun mounts, the US Navy boats do not.

This incident highlights the intelligence capabilities and tactical proficiency of MEND in the region, and the potential for widespread destruction both in the river delta and well offshore is clearly well within their capabilities. If we can observe the naval capabilities developed by MEND to influence and attack at sea, it is a good bet terror organizations are studying the same information and learning from it. While MEND may not have created an international incident due to their own political interests, that is a bad bet in the future, not only in this region but other maritime regions as well.

We already know Al Qaeda is building naval terror cells, you can bet they are looking at the Tamil Tigers and MEND as models to build on. There is absolutely no evidence at all the shipbuilding budget or greater resource budget is even mildly prepared to posture forces against this type of threat. That is a very bad sign, probably one aspect of the global energy calculations being considered by the energy speculators. This was both the wake up call and the learning experience for everyone, next time will not go as well.

Five Good Reads - War Edition

The Long War Journal is an outstanding site that cuts through the BS in war reporting we see from most of the establishment. This story caught our attention this morning, particularly in the wake of the recent following the Supreme Court's ruling June 12 that Guantanamo detainees have a right to access US courts. Congress doesn't get asked enough hard questions on this topic, because they really need to be working to develop the legal framework to help guide the courts, because the consequences of failing to manage those captured in a war where the enemy isn't held accountable for promoting tactics defined as war crimes leads to more war crimes.

Iran has found a new way to wage war against the Kurds, just in time for summer too. Instead of using bullets and bombs, Iran is cutting off their sources of water. There have been many intellectuals predicting the use of water as a weapon in the 21st century, looks like we are seeing the first case where it could happen, because the Kurds, who are very well armed, will not sit quiet and die. The Israeli's, who have been reported to work with the Kurds quietly for years in regards to military training, could factor in this...

Armchair Generalist is looking into the face of the Marines catch-22 in Afghanistan and isn't happy. We don't disagree with his position, but we don't disagree with the reasons the Marines don't follow his advice either. Long term solution combines security and an alternative crop the local population can utilize to grow the economy. We vote biodiesel via algae, but the technology is still a few years away, and the security is at least that long away until Europe steps up.

If you ask me which milblog is the best in terms of all factors one would consider for judgment, my vote goes to Kaboom. No style is as unique, few stories are more interesting, and there are very few first person blogs where you will learn more lessons relevant to the world we live in. As huge fans we want to wish him congratulations on one of his most difficult and rewarding endeavors yet.

Tony Blankley is right, the debate is worth having. It is easy to rush to answer yes or no, but would one have weighed costs and benefits before politics rushes the answer out of ones mouth? Unlikely. One problem with having the debate centric to Bush is that managing the costs and managing the benefits will be an important job for the next administration, and if we are being honest, we don't have much faith in either candidate to reduce the burden of the costs to the American citizen or military while capitalizing on the benefits of victory in the Iraq theater (should it happen) to forwards American interests.

* We have been on the road thus the reduced posting this week, but promise our readers their high expectations for quality content on the blog will be met as time allows.

The Navy's New Airship

Airship Management Service has a ~$1 million dollar contract to test an airship in the surveillance role for the Navy and Coast Guard off the Florida coast. From Reuters:

The Navy is leasing a Skyship 600, about the size of a Boeing 747, for the six-week test mission between Florida's southern coast and Cuba, Coast Guard Lt. Matthew Moorlag said on Tuesday.

The manned ship is held aloft by nonflammable helium and propelled by two Porsche 930 engines that consume 10 to 12 gallons of regular gasoline per hour.

While the airship is said to be able to operate for up to 52 hours without refueling, indications are it will run for periods no longer than 8 hours. The airship is said to be able to do up to 57 mph and will operate at an altitude of 1,500 to 3,000 feet.

Credit those SOUTHCOM folks... they continue to think out of the box. For the record, we think that thing needs a paint job.

Campbell, Zeppelin, call your office.

Update: Brickmuppet has more.

Lets Go For a Ride

And let FbL be our guide. That is a good read.

As we follow news reports regarding the damage to the USS George Washington (CVN 73), some of the news implies damage might be serious enough to keep GW in port after the August date previously disclosed. If the GW can't put to sea in August, this may lead to some shuffling of Carrier Strike Group deployments, meaning the next deployment of the USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) could be moved up to this fall instead of this winter.

Something to keep an eye on.

Wednesday Reading List

Today's blogger roundtable with U.S. Navy Rear Adm. Lawrence Rice, director of the Chief of Naval Operations Environmental Readiness Division, discussed the upcoming Supreme Court battle regarding sonar use off the coast of California. Eagle1, Blackfive, and DoDBuzz asked the questions, and we learned a lot from the discussion. This topic will come up in more depth in the future as we continue our research, but the transcript from the blogger roundtable (PDF) is a great backgrounder on the topic.

Eric is weighing in on the UCAS-N Naval aviation discussion. This is another topic we are researching before discussing. We tend to think CSBA did a good job with the timing of this discussion, the FY10 purchase of more Super Hornets as a replacement will likely be the last easy decision for Congress regarding naval aviation for awhile.

Speaking of the CSBA report on the UCAS-N (PDF), because it is long we assume that many have not read it in full yet. We did, and we highly recommend the section starting about page 161 regarding China. I get a feeling elements of this section will find its way into one of CDR Salamanders "Long War" analysis posts in the future. If you are an observer of the Chinese strategy and military power, that section is a must read.

Defense of the Realm goes all in with Part1 of Winning the War. We read it as an interesting analysis that lays context for development of British military strategy in The Long War.

Danger Room tips to this interesting research (PDF) that associates the levels of insurgent violence with the level of criticism for the Iraq war. With this kind of data, mutating it into statistics can allow one to reach almost any conclusion, but the conclusion we draw from the data is that a country united to fight a war is better off than a war that lacks unity in purpose. Hardly groundbreaking analysis, we know, but relevant nonetheless given the political climate in an election year, and something to keep in mind looking to the future... say as the administration ponders how to handle Iran.

Photo courtesy Chinese BBS. Click for better resolution.

The Long View Towards the North Pole

Not everyone looking at the energy situation in the world is sitting on their hands waiting for the world to change. The Northern hemisphere needs to sit up and pay attention, because things like this don't get as much analysis as they should in the dynamic political discussions that look to the future.

Russia must be ready to fight for its national interests in the Arctic region, home to vast untouched natural resources, a military official said Tuesday.

"After several countries contested Russia's rights for the resource-rich continental shelf in the Arctic, we have immediately started the revision of our combat training programs for military units that may be deployed in the Arctic in case of a potential conflict," Lt. Gen. Vladimir Shamanov, head the Defense Ministry's combat training board, told the Krasnaya Zvezda, or Red Star, newspaper.

The most common argument is also the most ridiculous one: that the legal frameworks in the UN will protect interests. The UN has dozens of legal frameworks set up to protect African's from warlords, and yet at the end of the day, the guy with the gun has the final say.

Who thinks Russia isn't taking the energy situation seriously? They are a net energy producer, and while they have serious infrastructure issues they also have enormous reserves, and are looking to choke out competitors. If you watch the energy business wires, Gazprom is essentially investing in partnership worldwide, which means Russia is expanding its stake in global energy reserves and production. This appears to be a strategy of global energy presence for Russia. No wonder they talk about a global Navy.

What really troubles us though about Russia's movements towards the Arctic region is that all of our allies with claims in the Arctic regions are downsizing their capabilities to influence that region, much less defend it if necessary. We have covered in detail the retreat from the oceans by the Royal Navy, but more troubling from our perspective is the seemingly uncaring view from Canadians.

Canada is surrounded by three oceans, and yet the lack of investment or even interest by the Liberal Party of Canada in naval power demonstrates a remarkable absence of strategic thinking. How does a political party worried about climate change and melting Arctic ice ignore the Navy and claim strategic vision? While modernization is nice, we keep wondering what the naval forces of Canada and Great Britain will look like in 20 years, and what the naval forces of Russia will look like in comparison. It is noteworthy Russia is investing 25% of its military budget to shipbuilding, while both Canada and Great Britain are having problems funding, much less talking about fielding a replacement fleet for aging warships.

For perspective, at one time it was considered 'rubbish' that the MoD would cut the number of Type 45s from 8 to 6, and look where we are. Makes one wonder what will happen with the Astute class in the future.

The Arctic region represents yet another theater in the 21st century unfolding for the shrinking US Navy to deal with, and it leaves us with two questions.

How effective is the Virginia class under the ice?

Is it time to think about putting Harpoon's on Coast Guard cutters that patrol the arctic region?

Those aren't rhetorical questions, because when it is said and done, the Virginia class and the Coast Guard are probably going to be left to deal that region, and both questions may decide the degree of naval capability the US can project to the Arctic in 20 years without significantly downsizing commitments to other regions.

Thinking Industrial Instead of Strategic

Inside the Navy has a report by Rebekah Gordon called Winter: Shipbuilding Must Balance Desire With Budget Constraints, where Navy Secretary Donald Winter is at the Naval War College quoted commenting on the state of shipbuilding and looking to the future. It starts out with some interesting comments:

Much of the solution also lies, he said, in a diverse fleet portfolio, and thoughtfully matching ship requirements and capabilities with the maritime security requirements of a region.

“We do not need high-end capability ships to counter piracy off the coast of Somalia or the Gulf of Guinea, and it is reasonable to accept some degree of risk in assigning lower-capability ships to many regions of the world,” Winter said.

“We do need warships to respond to crises and some threats, but we do not need a carrier strike group in all cases.

“While we talk about a global fleet and the need for a full spectrum of capabilities, we do not need the full spectrum of capabilities all over the world. In reality, we need to tailor capabilities to the region, potential missions and the security environment,” Winter added.

We believe this is in line with how Admiral Roughead discusses the future fleet. Roughead, who has yet to make any changes to the shipbuilding plan in his first year as CNO, can be found using the word "balance" in every single discussion on the topic. We think that is important, because there is no balance in today's Navy where every surface combatant in a battleship, with one exception.

We now have front and center the only saving grace of the little crappy ship. The Navy Secretary went from discussing strategic considerations regarding shipbuilding... to grabbing something because it is affordable.

“LCS, for example, even at current cost projections, is still significantly less expensive than any other ship we have and is an affordable response to our presence requirements,” Winter said. “At current cost levels, we can build several of these highly capable warships for the cost of a major combatant.”

OK, so the line "affordable response to our presence requirements" and LCS in the same sentence is a laugher, but even if we let that slide, observe that Winter isn't identifying the solution rather he is illustrating the problem. The LCS is the only ship the US Navy is even considering right now under 9000 tons, so its affordable, thus great! Intellectually compelling? We don't think so...

Remember when everyone was excited about the Littoral Combat Ship because of its unmanned platforms that were going to change the way the Navy fought during wartime? That time has come and gone. We need unmanned systems to fight war, because the scouting capabilities unmanned systems bring to the force insure information power over the enemy. Too bad we are putting that advantage on the least survivable ship in the strike group, but hey lets ignore the strategic discussion and stick to the industrial narrative!

We need small combatants to manage peace, in fact it is noteworthy that Winter is essentially suggesting this is a shortcoming of the US Navy. If there is such a thing, we tend to agree. Why then are we building small combatants and loading them up with the tools to fight war?

Motherships need to be large, they are for fighting war. The small combatant has an important role to play managing the peace. SC-21 had it right, the Navy needs a combatant and a mothership to manage the 21st century maritime domain. SC-21 got it backwards, we need large motherships (not the LCS) and small combatants (not the DDG-1000) to effectively execute the strategy, and the Navy is nuts if they think anyone is buying the theory you can shove your unmanned systems into a small combatant to consolidate, and call that a peacemaker.

When the Navy Secretary is touting the LCS as a great thing because of its cost, we have officially stopped thinking strategic in fleet development. At the Naval War College no less... embarrassing.

Five Good Reads

Support independent journalists? Admittedly, we did support Michael Yon but have never been to big on promoting the idea, but we are seriously giving consideration to supporting David Axe in his future adventures. If those future adventures are as interesting as his current one, in particular this tale, we think it is a good investment of time and money. Also see Anne's perspective here. Excellent reporting, but stay safe!

The Supreme Court will weigh in on the Navy sonar issue. Our position is we do not think some non elected committee or a court should decide how the Navy can train ASW. There is absolutely no political leadership on this issue worth supporting, further highlighting how the environmental lobby owns your politician. The good folks who run the blogger roundtable will have Adm. Lawrence Rice, Director, Chief of Naval Operations Environmental Readiness Division on blog talk radio at 1:00pm EST. I have meetings, but am looking forward to an interesting discussion.

DID weighs in with analysis of the Type 45 decision. Our only point on this is that we actually had people post comments on the blog who believed there would be 8 Type 45s. We can't even discuss the Royal Navy anymore without a tone of disgust for what has happened overriding the commentary.

This is the other part of the UCAS-N discussion to add to the CSBA report. Very interesting..., I'd like to hear what you aviation guys think of how these two events (on the same day no less) mesh.

One day, I'm going to go to one of these. I'm thinking if I ever get rich and famous, one day I'm going to host one of those!

7th Fleet Focus: Sailors Stranded in Hong Kong

Typhoon Fengshen, which recently did considerable damage to the Philippines resulting in a high loss of life from the ferry incident alone, much less other places, is moving through the Pacific heading towards China. This prompted the US Navy, specifically the Reagan Carrier Strike Group, to put to sea early resulting in some stranded sailors who didn't get the message.

More than 100 US sailors were marooned Tuesday in Hong Kong's famous "girlie" bars after their aircraft carrier hoisted anchor and left without them. The sailors were left behind when the USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier and its support ships, carrying a total of more than 5,000 sailors, decided to leave Sunday because of an approaching tropical storm.

While officers managed to contact most of the men who had been on shore leave in the former British colony since Thursday, more than 100 could not be reached and were left behind.

They now have to wait several days in Hong Kong before being flown to the aircraft carrier group's next port of call, which is kept secret for operational reasons.

While it wouldn't be very much fun to ride out a Typhoon in Hong Kong if it was a direct hit, I can't think of a better place to spend a few extra days on liberty. With the Navy picking up the hotel and food bill for the sailors who got left behind, we should all feel sorry for the terrible situation these sailors find themselves in.

Uhm... ok, maybe not. Remember boys, fly's spread disease, so keep yours closed.

Observing The Band Aid Boat

Maybe we can get some additional details from Captain Robert T. Wiley, because from our point of view the band aid boat would be a very interesting topic for discussion. As we understand it, these band aid boats represent a lesson learned regarding the hospital ship deployments.

We point this out why? Because as we have discussed, motherships supporting manned platforms are an important part of the strategic peacemaking function at sea, and the MSC is proving this in situations exactly like this today. We see manned deployable systems as an important metric that needs to be considered as the Navy looks to the future regarding how it will resource towards the soft power naval deployment.

NHA TRANG, Vietnam (June 20, 2024) A band aid boat from the Military Sealift Command hospital ship USNS Mercy (T-AH 19) transports a group of Vietnamese military distinguished visitors for a tour aboard the ship. The hospital ship is the first foreign military vessel to visit Nha Trang since 1975. The Pacific Partnership deployment to Vietnam continues to improve bilateral relations between the United States and Vietnam, demonstrating our continued commitment to work together to address mutual issues and concerns. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Mark Logico (Released)

Click image for hi-res.

It May Sound Like Comedy, But It Shows Good Judgment

Chris Cavas probably had some fun writing this article, because it is one of those things he knows readers just shake their head after reading. The bulk of the article is discussing the current conference named "The Road to CG(X)". The conference is described as:

This conference will address the requirements and challenges associated with designing and building the Navy’s next-generation, multi-mission surface combatant. The CG(X) will leverage technologies proven by engineering development models for DDG 1000, and CG(X) will add capabilities for sea-based ballistic missile defense systems and higher power advanced sensors. Due to the need to provide high levels of power for sensors and weapons and target delivery, the CG(X) will require very highly capable electric power system. The conference will explore the issues involved with integrating these multiple advanced capabilities into the design and construction of modern warships while accommodating affordability and acquisition process imperatives. The conference will consider technical risk, cost and schedule mitigation approaches to support the CG(X) acquisition plan in line with the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan.

Sounds awesome! We have high hopes for the CG(X), and can't wait to see what the Navy is thinking regarding the cruiser replacement program. However, as Chris Cavas is reporting, one topic off the agenda is... the CG(X).

Acknowledging that the Navy’s next-generation cruiser program is a “fairly controversial topic,” the service’s top shipbuilder warned attendees at an engineering conference not to expect too many details.

“We’re still in the early stages of development,” Vice Adm. Paul Sullivan, head of Naval Sea Systems Command, told a Crystal City, Va., audience Monday. “We’re not ready yet,” he said, “to discuss details” of the new cruiser, known as CG(X).

Sullivan provided the keynote address at the opening of a two-day conference sponsored by the American Society of Naval Engineers. The topic of the conference: “The Road to CG(X).”

Although the cruiser program “represents the very heart of the future surface Navy,” Sullivan repeatedly mentioned items that would not be discussed at the conference, including details of the super-secret Analysis of Alternatives for the ship, or discussions of the cruiser’s hull form, radar or missiles.

What!?! These guys should be pissed! The article goes on to highlight some comments by Ronald O'Rourke who weighs in a bit with his personal (not as a CRS employee, rather as a professional researcher and among our favorites) opinions regarding what this means. Essentially, Ron believes this is a sign the Navy has decided to wait for the next administration, and won't comment on new programs until then. While it is certainly comedy to hold a conference on the CG(X) and not discuss the CG(X), if we are thinking critically about this, we think waiting for the next administration before discussing details of the CG(X) is the right thing for the Navy to do.

There are a couple of different ways to clear the white board on shipbuilding, a process the Navy needs to do to build its credibility, and unless you want to go down the same route as the Air Force, and send some folks packing, the best way is to simply do nothing and wait for the next administration. With the CG(X) program specifically, this is a wise move. For best results, the DDG-1000 would get canned this fiscal year as well, allowing the Navy a much whiter board to work with for shipbuilding. That may or may not happen, but as long as we are thinking critically, we think it would help more than it would hurt.

There are two points here. First, the DDG-1000 and LCS represents the current direction of the Navy, and about the only aspect of the current shipbuilding budget that can be seriously adjusted to meet the requirements of the new maritime strategy. Fact of the matter is, if the House wins the current debate, and we hope they do, the Navy will be in position to buy a big mothership and small surface combatant to execute the maritime strategy over the next 3 decades. We have advocated this position from a strategic view of maritime strategy on the blog many times. Probably won't happen, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't.

For the CG(X) though, this program will happen no matter what else happens in shipbuilding, and no matter who is elected president. All that is yet to be decided are the details, several of which can swing in a number of directions depending upon who is elected the next president. Neither candidate has been asked, nor has weighed in (nor is likely to) regarding the fleet strategy for the future, so by saying nothing the Navy can claim under the next administration that they were part of the process for establishing the systems requirements... after all, with issues like ballistic missile defense focus, nuclear power, and hull form part of that discussion the next administration will probably have a say on the subject. The CG(X) represents a critical replacement program for current cruisers, and is about the only aspect of the shipbuilding budget over the next two decades that will not be cut.

While it is probably unpopular for the Navy to play the stall card regarding the CG(X) program, we think it makes a lot of sense. Introducing the program in the last few months of a lame duck presidency could potentially damage the long term viability of any decisions made regarding the CG(X) program. From our point of view, it is much smarter to wait and let the new administration weigh in to insure the CG(X) gets the political support it needs regarding the specific metrics that will define the platform.

Shoot! Ready. Aim.

We have been observing some conversations over at Springboards place. Essentially, Springboard has been observing the blog, and our discussion of Adm. James Stavridis comments regarding writing and blogs got him worked up. Our further discussion of Proceedings sent him into a tailspin, but he has done a good job learning the truth for himself.

These topics are notable but are not what caught our interest, we knew all along we were being accurate. Despite Springboard's early attempts to discredit our accuracy, in the end he proved us accurate and the only person learning something new about Proceedings is Springboard.

What caught our attention in these discussions though was how Springboard decided to go after one of our commenter's, CDR Michal Junge, not because of what he said or something he did, but rather because Springboard manufactured a set of facts based on news reporting without any proof whatsoever to support all Springboard's accusations. Compounding his bad judgment on the issue, Springboard then searches out articles by CDR Junge in an attempt to belittle those articles. Essentially, once Springboard realized he was losing his argument via his message, he turned to the time tried tactic of attacking the messenger in an attempt to reinforce his point.

We weren't impressed.

Springboard's style carries with it an edge, and that edgy style carries with it a critical tone that is the way in which he provokes a response. We would not be surprised to learn that Springboard has got several hits on his blog over this incident, because at the end of the day, this edge is intended to attract attention to his blog. We are admittedly being guilty of promoting this stupidity by linking to it, something we will do only this once in an attempt to make our own point.

Accepting that style is intended to market, where Springboard grabs our attention isn't in the purpose of his discussions, a purpose which we will allow readers to decide for themselves regarding the content quality, rather what we observe is the ridiculous premise by which he is basing his conclusions. To highlight our point, we quote Springboard:

I find it somewhat disturbing that a commander of a naval vessel would be linking to his ship's webpage, revealing both his status and rank to "settle scores" in the blogosphere. Assuming the poster is who he said he is, I don't think he's quite following Navy rules on official communications... Just another reason to take a critical look at this CDR...

For better or worse, Junge (or any blogging officer) represents the U.S Navy. Junge's written before, in Proceedings, about the importance of higher officers setting an example for others to follow. I simply followed his example, and I don't think he likes it much.

As a young CO, Junge needs to think long and hard about before he plays in the blogosphere. Do Junge's on-line activities reflect well on the Navy?

We think Sringboard is being more than a little dishonest to call someone defending himself as an attempt to "settle scores" when in fact Springboard is doing exactly that based on a comment left on our blog..., but we will let readers decide. Unlike Springboard, we think it is outstanding that a naval officer would link his ships website, use his real name and rank, leave an email address, confirm his/her identity, take some pride in ones self, our great Navy, and do so on this blog leaving thoughtful commentary to the discussions. We are particularly proud that CDR Junge is a regular reader, and hope we have other COs, XO, and in particular younger officers reading regularly. Our target audience is NOT the leadership in the Navy, our target audience are the current o3-o6, who we strive to think out of the box about the Navy, naval strategy, and events in context.

We will not stand idle while a blogger demonstrating consistent poor judgment criticizes our commenter's (particularly one in our target audience) for... commenting on our blog! We don't know why Springboard sees a problem with sailors engaging the discussion on a blog specific to naval discussions, but to criticize such a thing as bad, right after Admiral Stavridis gave a speech encouraging exactly that... strikes us as ridiculous.

We also outright reject the entire premise of what Springboard is suggesting. His comments, and this one left on his blog, are examples of exactly what we find ridiculous.

A CO who plays in the blogosphere is a CO who runs the risk of making himself, his command and his shipmates look foolish.

This is the dumbest thing I have read in awhile, essentially the same position Springboard has represented for himself on his blog. Let me get this straight, we send our ships to foreign countries to represent our nation, and the CO in such cases represent us in the capacity of ambassador for our nation, but we wouldn't want those same naval officers to engage the blogosphere because they risk looking foolish... to a blogger? Geez, talk about getting it backwards, I'm hoping bloggers (particularly naval bloggers) don't represent our brand badly.

I'll let people make up their own mind, but in my opinion, Springboard is compounding poor judgment and needs to man up an apology. His position simply can't be explained away as anything other than a mistake and poor judgment. There is edge and there is cliff in blogging, we think Springboard stepped on the gas when he should have stepped on the breaks.

We also want to make everyone aware of our posting policy. We encourage naval officers or those in the industry to comment on topics, and if you claim to be part of an organization, prove it by leaving an email address and/or website by which we can confirm identity. The email address will not be distributed, it is simply a way for us to insure officers and industry officials are not misrepresented in comments by a pretender.

Blogging is still a new medium for discussion, and for serious defense discussions blogging has not evolved as much as it has as a medium for political and entertainment discussions. Blogging on naval centric discussions and remaining relevant to the discussion is essentially a learning curve for everyone. While we are still new to blogging, from our point of view we see no problem at all when others are critical of us, but this will probably be the last time we play nice when another blogger trashes one of our commenter's because they were contributing to our blog.