Invincible For Sale

Anybody want to pool some change and put together a bid?

Invincible is being sold by the the Disposal Services Authority, which says it has secured receipts of more than £900m for the MoD in the past 16 years.

The Barrow-built light aircraft carrier, which has an estimated metal weight of 10,000 tonnes, will "almost certainly" be sold for scrap, said naval expert Jon Rosamond.

China Responds

I was on the same page with Drezner and Farley enjoying the humor in how various Wikileak cables are being treated as gospel instead of with a healthy dose of skepticism. The leak that specifically discusses Chinese views of Korean unification is interesting, but the reaction online has been a bit overblown considering there is not any evidence outside of Wikileaks this attitude actually exists... or so I thought.

I am always open to new information influencing my thinking.

China supports the "independent and peaceful reunification of the Korean peninsula" and cannot afford to give the North Korean regime the impression it has a blank cheque to act any way it wants, Chinese officials based in Europe said today.

The officials, who asked not to be identified, spoke after the Guardian revealed that senior figures in Beijing, exasperated with North Korea behaving like a "spoiled child", had told their South Korean counterparts that China was leaning towards acceptance of reunification under Seoul's control.

China's moves to distance itself from the North Korean regime were revealed in the latest tranche of leaked US embassy cables obtained by WikiLeaks and published yesterday by the Guardian and four international newspapers.

One Chinese official said today reunification was not going to happen overnight and China's first priority was to calm down the situation, restart a dialogue, and maintain stability in the region. But Beijing had always backed peaceful reunification as a longer term goal.

Today? Hmm. Read the article, it goes well with the Wikileak - which I would link but the Wikileaks site has *unfortunately* being driven offline by hackers.

US Deploys Carrier Strike Group, US Air Force to Western Pacific

It is either remarkable planning or interesting timing, perhaps both, that the US Navy deploys the Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group to the Western Pacific on Tuesday. I tend to believe the ship was planned to deploy after Thanksgiving, but when I look at the details of the deployment schedule I also tend to believe this looks like a surge deployment a few weeks early.

What I find interesting is how this, as reported by Navy Times, is very unusual:

The three surface ships will depart Naval Station San Diego on Tuesday and join Vinson for a Composite Training Unit Exercise, or COMPTUEX, off the Southern California coast before heading west, Hicks said.

To give you an example how unusual it is for an aircraft carrier to put to sea, conduct COMPTUEX, and deploy all in a single motion I cannot find an example of this actually happening since the Navy deployed carriers bound for the Iraq War in 2003. Wikipedia actually has a fairly decent description of COMPUTEX:

COMPTUEX, or Composite Training Unit Exercise, is a rehearsal each US Navy Carrier Battle Group performs before departing for deployment. COMPUTEX is normally conducted during a two-week to three-week period six to eight weeks before deployment. Successfully completion of COMTPUEX certifies the carrier and its air wing as qualified for open ocean operations. COMPTUEX consists of an 18 day schedule of even driven exercise which the follows with an 3 day Final Battle Problem. It's conducted and directed by the training carrier group commander and the focus is to bring together the carrier and it's air wing as a working team that can operate in a combat environment, as well as integrating with other assets of the battle group.

When you think about it, what is being implied, but not explicitly stated, is that the USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) and escorts will be conducting their rehearsals in transit in the general direction of North Korea.

Let me just say - if we are thinking strategically, I really like this plan. There is no guarantee we are thinking strategically.

The Chess Match

In case you have not seen it, the situation in South Korea took an interesting twist on Monday with a public address by South Korean President Lee Myung-bak. Two items stuck out in the speech worth considering. The first is a message to the international community regarding the current mood in the South Korean government regarding the last decade of 'all carrot, no stick' diplomacy.

"For the past two decades, we’ve made efforts to resolve the nuclear issue through dialogue and cooperation. But the reality is that North Korea doesn’t stop provocative acts and is still developing nuclear weapons."

Lee hinted at adopting a tougher stance on Pyongyang, saying he will work closely with the international community to seek punitive action against its behavior.

"It’s time to act, rather than speak," he said.

And then the President set expectations for China.

"Only a few meters away from where shells landed, there was a school where classes were going on. I am outraged by the ruthlessness of the North Korean regime, which is indifferent to the lives of little children."

The address came one day after China proposed urgent talks among nuclear envoys from the six nations engaged in the stalled denuclearization dialogue to discuss the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

Seoul made it clear that it was meaningless to resume the talks without addressing North Korea’s belligerent acts.

"The first thing to do is to hold North Korea responsible for its recent attacks and secure its commitment to maintaining peace," said senior presidential secretary for public relations Hong Sang-pyo.

The crazy dictator act by North Korea no longer appears tolerable, and likely for good reason. For at least the last decade efforts have repeatedly approached North Korea with an all carrot, no stick diplomatic effort, as that has been the standing US policy during military activities in Southeast Asia and the Middle East. What I see happening here is a bit of movement in the direction that says North Korea may need to relearn a few lessons regarding the ability of South Korea and the United States to damage North Korea. Is it a risky move? Absolutely, but no less risky than the moves the North Korean regime has been making in overt military actions against South Korea for domestic political purposes.

With the ball firmly placed in China's court, we see the next bounce.

Chairman of North Korea's Supreme People's Assembly Choe Thae Bok arrived from Pyongyang, breezing past reporters at Beijing's Capital Airport without comment.

Choe, who concurrently serves as a ruling Workers' Party secretary, was expected to meet top Chinese communist party officials and discuss last week's artillery barrage, the North's nuclear program and the U.S.-South Korean military drills, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported.

Choe leaves on Saturday, suggesting that if China doesn't come out in support of North Korea tomorrow, then China won't make a statement about the situation on the Korean Peninsula until Saturday. Ignoring the suggestions coming out as a result of Wikileaks, this is an enormously complicated problem for China and represents a turning point - one way or the other.

The rest of the news headlines today provides enough backdrop to understand how tensions are rising:

North Korea vows to step up uranium enrichment amid rising concerns
South Korean military to toughen rules of engagement with North Korea

Are We Thinking Strategically?

Whether by sheer luck or incredible planning, the deployment of the Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group comes at a remarkable time. The USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), which transited from the east coast to the west coast earlier this year, oh with an important stop in Haiti if you recall, is making her first major overseas deployment since her 3 year nuclear refueling and significant systems upgrade. As nuclear powered aircraft carriers go, she is one of the most modern and prepared in the US inventory. Escorting the USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) is the also recently upgraded and super modernized USS Bunker Hill (CG 52), which might be the most modernized and powerful surface combatant on the planet today, plus the USS Stockdale (DDG 106) and USS Gridley (DDG 101) who combined have only been commissioned for 5 years and 1 month.

If there was ever such a thing as a United States Carrier Strike Group with a new car smell, this is it! I suspect this force will be picking up a BMD capable ship as it passes Pearl Harbor (USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60) maybe?).

So if I am some North Korean intel analyst looking at this - what am I looking at?

I see this rather enormous George Washington (CVN 73) Carrier Strike Group escorted by a rather large and capable number of US and South Korean Navy warships exercising in my front lawn. I am also observing this ultra modern Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group deploying from the US west coast, heading my way under what looks to be a completely unique deployment schedule that just might be coming quickly specifically because of me.

Oh btw, more than half the Japanese fleet is either at sea or on high readiness, and the US Air Force is quietly positioning capabilities that will really hurt if the shooting happens. In the context of the South Korean Presidents speech, I might be a little concerned.

As I look at this, I see an opportunity for the US and allies to increase the pressure and make moves that put a bit of fear back into the North Koreans for a change. I do not think it would be a bad thing for the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) to go dark and start heading towards the strait. I can think of some interesting places for that Carrier Strike Group to pop up all of a sudden to make a strategic announcement of presence. It seems to me that the more pressure the North Koreans feel right now, the more China is empowered in influencing North Korea. China has let editorials critical of North Korea run in the daily papers all week - something we never saw following the Cheonan incident.

There is an opportunity here - one that makes China a partner while also allowing us to stand strong with South Korea. How does it come together? I see many possibilities, and if I was writing the script I would start writing it with this deployment of the Carl Vinson CSG - with its unique ships and unique deployment pattern, and perhaps a bit of unique strategic communication to go a long with it aimed at the North Koreans.

Wikileaks Thoughts

This interesting write up is probably the most thought provoking essay's I have seen yet regarding the Wikileaks cable leak. I have no intention to debate the author or the topic, as that blog strikes me as a better place for such discussion, but I do think it adds perspective and understanding even if you find yourself in disagreement. Radicals throughout history have always been complex individuals. Given what I think Wikileaks will reveal in the future, I believe this episode of history will ultimately end tragically.

As I have been thinking about what Wikileaks will likely reveal - specifically the number of unicorns that are about to be shattered and how everyone in politics is going to find assumptions both confirmed or denied, I think in the end someone is going to end up killing Julian Assange for leaking the wrong cable. I'm thinking in particular how many cables involving the Russians are going to expose something they have cleverly kept out of public view until Wikileaks, and how someone like Putin might react to being exposed in an unflattering way publicly. They tend to come up with interesting ways to handle problems, and don't seem to mind making public examples of power.

As a side note, I want to lay out ahead of time what I am looking for in the Wikileaks cables as far as blog content I intend to discuss at some point in the future - something to think about over the next few months since the DoD is acting quite stupid towards this issue and sticking their head in the sand on the whole issue.

• The Ethiopia invasion of Somalia in 2006. I suspect we will learn a lot of things we did not know, like who was flying the Ethiopian air force MiGs that were able to make precision bomb drops on the fighters for the Islamic Courts. US pilots don't fly MiGs, and I have serious doubts they were Ethiopian pilots.
• The Song class submarine surfacing near Kitty Hawk in October 2006. It wasn't until almost a year later that Bill Gertz of the Washington Times revealed that incident even happened. We may learn a lot more details about the incident in the Wikileaks cables that suggests how that event actually happened.
• Diplomatic cables as a result of Global Fleet Station and Medical Diplomacy missions including the first African Partnership Station. This seems like as good a time as any to learn how to improve coordination between the Navy and the State Department for these soft power deployments by getting insight to the way the State Department viewed them, and how the host nations discussed these activities at the diplomatic level.
• The harassment of the USNS Impeccable (T-AGOS-23) and other ocean surveillance ships by China in 2009. I suspect there might be a few interesting conversations that took place behind the scenes.
• The ballistic missile launch by North Korea over Japan. I'm thinking this will be an insiders look at how the ballistic missile defense partnership between the US and Japan came to be, which is important as that model is now being used for BMD in Europe.
• There have been several quiet shooting incidents in the Gulf over the last few years between the US Navy and Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps that will likely come to light in the Wikileaks story.
• I am looking forward to perhaps learning more regarding the history of the Somalia piracy courts in Kenya. This will prove particularly important as we approach potential UN discussions about a world court for dealing with maritime piracy.
• We may learn of some interesting discussions regarding F-22 sales to Japan or other nations. FMS in various forms, including potential submarines for Taiwan, might pop up as interesting topics.
• The great tsunami in Southeast Asia in 2004 might pop up as an interesting topic with inside details not previously disclosed.

These are but a few topics, most of which won't interest the mainstream media, I think may provide relevant discussion from the Wikileaks cables. Say what you want, but in every challenge I have always believed an opportunity awaits, and I think it is appropriate the blog takes the same approach towards the Wikileaks cables rather than the dumbass DoD model of hiding from information everyone else can plainly read.

One Step From War

Right after South Korean President Lee Myung-bak took responsibility for failing to protect the country following the North Korean attack, he went on to answer the big question discussed in the comments on the blog over the last few days.

"In the past, North Korea has provoked us on many occasions, but this is the first time they have made a direct attack on South Korean soil," said Lee, making his first public remarks since the crisis began last week with the attack on civilian-inhabited Yeonpyeong island. "Launching a military attack on civilians is a crime against humanity, even during wartime."

Speaking at the Blue House, the presidential palace in Seoul, Lee outlined a series of past provocations from the North stretching back two decades, including the attempted assassination of the South Korean president in Rangoon in 1983, the bombing of a South Korean airliner in 1987, and the sinking of a South Korean warship, the Cheonan, in March.

"Despite all of these provocations," Lee said, "we tolerated them in the belief that one day North Korea will change, and because of our hope for peace on the Korean Peninsula." He said South Korea has continued to engage in talks with Pyongyang and has given humanitarian assistance to the economically troubled country, but North Korea continued its pursuit of nuclear weapons and continued its attacks.

Now, Lee said, "South Koreans realize that tolerance and generosity bring more provocation." He said that South Korea would strengthen its military capability and would "make North Korea pay the due price by all means for its provocation from now on."

Folks have been asking how long South Korea and the US will take hits from North Korea without a significant military response. If this message suggests anything, it suggests that the last straws have been broken. The US has always been on South Korean time, and it appears the clock is set only a minute until midnight. South Korea is making clear that they respond to any future attack by North Korea with a substantial military response - and I would expect that attack to be disproportionately aggressive.

Given how unpredictable North Korea can be, that should raise the North Korea issue to the top concern of US, China, Russia, and Japan. It is worth noting that North Korea has not responded to China's calls to renew the 6 party talks, and equally noteworthy - China's criticism of the USS George Washington (CVN 73) in the Yellow Sea has been relatively quiet and measured; or perhaps more accurately described as nuanced.

The amount of influence China has over North Korea does appear to be in question right now, not just from the US and our partners, but more noteworthy - in the editorial pages in China as well.

Wikileaks as a Foreign Terrorist Organization

I had written my original post on Wikileaks before I learned of this little detail being discussed in the news. Guess I was too busy actually reading Wikileaks to notice? From AFP:

US Republican congressman Peter King, the ranking member of the House of Representatives' Homeland Security Committee, urged the attorney general to prosecute WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for espionage.

The latest release "manifests Mr Assange's purposeful intent to damage not only our national interests in fighting the war on terror, but also undermines the very safety of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan."

He went on to urge the State Department to designate WikiLeaks a "Foreign Terrorist Organization," saying it "posed a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States," in a statement from his office.

Apparently Rep. Peter King has written a letter to the State Department on this specific issue (if you see a link to the letter, plz add to comments). As I pointed out in the earlier post, United States Code: Title 18,2331 has a very broad definition of "international terrorism" that claims activities that are "dangerous to human life" and "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion" fall under the definition of international terrorism. Wikileaks may qualify under that definition (although you can bet that will be challenged in court).

The law is the law. I personally believe the law is fairly broad, but was designed as such to give the US flexibility in dealing with non-state actors that were conducting activity intending to harm the government or people of the United States. For better or worse, the language is quite generic, and indeed this is a case where a non-state actor is conducting activity intending to harm the government or people of the United States. Maybe in that sense the law is written correctly? I'm not certain.

The criteria for being named a Foreign Terrorist Organization are bit more detailed, as defined on the Department of States website. In this situation I think there is a good case to make that what Wikileaks is doing falls under US code to be defined as international terrorism, but I am much less sure that Wikileaks itself falls into the more strict definition of a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), and I certainly have no idea if Assange qualifies as a Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs).

I'll leave these details to the lawyers.

I am hearing from sources tonight that the letter by Rep Peter King is being taken quite seriously by the leadership in the State Department and the Justice Department, and this is an "all hands on deck" evolution at State to come up with options as of Monday morning. The dynamics and discussion of Wikileaks being characterized as a foreign terrorist organization may emerge as one of the early responses by the United States government to watch unfold over the next few days.

The impact to Wikileaks, anyone associated with Wikileaks, and Julian Assange himself should the State Department apply the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) or Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs) label would be crippling with second degree effects like making people who donate financially to Wikileaks liable for supporting terrorism financially, among many other negative impacts to Wikileaks.

I am not against what Rep Peter King is trying to do, even though I admit I am not a big fan of such a broad definition of international terrorism. At the minimum for me, Peter King is doing what a leader in government should be doing about Wikileaks - attempting to stand up for the United States government and the State Department specifically in what is clearly a difficult situation - and right now I expect at least that from my political leaders.

I believe this is an issue worthy of keeping an eye on.

Wikileaks

As you are no doubt aware, there will be a lot of press attention given to the diplomatic cables that will be released by the website Wikileaks over the next few hours/days/weeks. I do not know what the impact will be, and if I was to weigh it I would say the impact will be somewhere between a black eye for American diplomacy and World War III. My general feeling is that the release of classified information in the manner chosen by Wikileaks is an act of information anarchy in the information age, and I don't think that approach will end well in the long term even if there are no obvious impacts in the short term.

I also consider what Wikileaks is doing to be an act of international terrorism as defined by United States Code: Title 18,2331 - against both the government and people of the United States. If the folks who run Wikileaks were to expire by means of accident or otherwise, I would shed the same number of zero tears and fake the same amount of non-existent outrage that I do every time any other terrorist is killed.

If I am to be honest, the piety found on the Wikileaks website that attempts to explain the reasoning of those behind the release of the diplomatic cables does little to persuade me of some righteous cause, and quite frankly I find their feeble attempt to excuse themselves up front from the consequences of their actions irresponsible and disgusting. By action Wikileaks is treating sovereign disagreement of nations with indignation and the private discussions and disagreements of governments as a global game of checkers.

It is the choice of each author at Information Dissemination to discuss the contents being released at Wikileaks. For myself, I will be discussing items I find relevant to discussions. The internet is written in ink, and this information is public regardless of ones opinion about it. I do not endorse the actions of Wikileaks but I will not ignore it either. If the content is relevant for discussion on this forum - it will be discussed. I have discussed content released by AQAP and al Shabab, for example, and see the discussion of materials on Wikileaks as any other discussion of content produced by a terrorist organization.

If a reader wishes to express their opinion regarding the Wikileaks policy on ID - this is the post to do so. Keep it professional. I am not interested in a comment section with direct links to Wikileaks, and will delete comments that do that in this thread (future threads that link are fair, as long as they remain on topic).

Are there winners and losers? Yes. The loser is US diplomacy, and the winner is anyone who opposes US diplomacy. Other than that, winning and losing in the context of Wikileaks is probably too subjective to be accurate.

Latest Events - Korean Peninsula

Several noteworthy events took place surrounding Korean Peninsula tensions over the last 24 hours. Reuters discusses the first two issues in this report.

"We oppose any military act by any party conducted in China's exclusive economic zone without approval," China's Foreign Ministry said in an online response to a question regarding China's position on the George Washington participating in joint naval exercises.

This is the first reaction to the US moving the USS George Washington (CVN 73) into the Yellow Sea. As far as China is concerned, they believe no one should be allowed to operate a warship, much less an aircraft carrier, within their exclusive economic zone. There is no international law that China bases their political protest on, as maritime boundary definitions in the UNCLOS are defined as:

• Coastal waters—the zone extending 3 nm. from the baseline
• Territorial sea—the zone extending 12 nm. from the baseline
• Contiguous zone—the area extending 24 nm. from the baseline
• Exclusive Economic Zone—the area extending 200 nm. from the baseline except when the space between two countries is less than 400 nm

China's criticism was to be expected, and one reason why I believe the Obama administration has taken this course of action. Territorial sea only extends 12 nm, and only if US Navy forces move within the territorial waters of China would there be any violation of international law. The Reuters report also discusses the latest statement by North Korea:

"The situation on the Korean peninsula is inching closer to the brink of war due to the reckless plan of those trigger-happy elements to stage again war exercises targeted against the (North)," the North's official KCNA news agency said.

Shortly after the statement, the North Korean military held an exercise near Yeonpyeong island firing artillery at least twice over a period of two and half hours. This article in the New York Times has the details, and nice photo of how clearly one can see the smoke from the artillery from Yeonpyeong island.

The press has been given access to Yeonpyeong island to see the damage, and as one might imagine the pictures on TV and online just piles on the political pressure for the government to act. It is an unfortunate situation, because the new Defense Minister is in a difficult place regarding how to respond to any new attacks after having just seen the old Defense Minister resign for not retaliating forceful enough. What does that mean next time the North tries another limited skirmish on the border?

As the Wall Street Journal notes, Asian markets are nervous.

South Korea's Kospi dropped 1.3%, Japan's Nikkei Stock Average shed 0.4%, Hong Kong's Hang Seng Index fell 0.8% and China's Shanghai Composite declined 0.9%. Australia's S&P/ASX 200 edged up 0.1%. Dow Jones Industrial Average futures were down 75 points in screen trade.

If I am to be a selfish American, I would note that the Asian concerns of war combined with the European concerns of debt certainly gives investors in the global economy a lot to think about. The consequences of that concern has been a nice little bump for the dollar. It is remarkable how quickly signs of war between nations in either Asia or the Middle East usually bounces US currency positively, a reminder that the gold standard was replaced with the F-16 standard over 30 years ago. I say this as a key reminder. Should China decide to start selling off their holdings in Treasuries, it is important to remember that means someone else is buying. Worth thinking about.

The Navy exercise between the US and South Korea that begins Sunday is a short term action, but long term actions are necessary. What the Cheonan and now this latest incident has highlighted is a broad flaw in US policy, and while everyone would love to see a diplomatic solution to all of these problems, the patience of the region with the US governments ineffective diplomatic solutions for North Korea has all but expired. Both South Korea and North Korea have stopped working with the Red Cross, which was the last link the two countries had before this latest incident.

There is a realization in Washington, DC that future North Korean attacks will make a future US policy response that 'calls for restraint and emphasizes diplomacy' a failure of US obligations to partners like Japan and South Korea. This realization has become a serious political problem for the White House. It will be interesting to see how the President handles this very serious problem, particularly given how forceful South Korea is likely to be to the next North Korean attack, not to mention how skeptical Japan has become of us given our repeated inadequacies dealing with North Korea. It will also be interesting if and how the media reports on this very serious foreign policy problem facing the Obama administration - one he can't exactly kick down the road.

I suspect the administration is looking for a policy action akin to the "Stuxnet option" someone deployed against Iran. By that I mean the US would love to be able to deploy an untraceable damaging attack that disrupts North Korean capabilities in an indirect way, and after the fact everyone believes it was done by the US although no one has the proof necessary to prove it.

One final Navy note - don't be surprised if - just as the USS George Washington (CVN 73) begins exercising with the South Korean Navy in the Yellow Sea, a second US carrier battle group quietly enters the western Pacific.

Western European Navies (week 45 & 46)

I finally found some time to do an update.

Political News
Despite the recent signing of a Defence Agreement, the countries haven't discussed the possibility of sending an aircraft carrier to the Falklands.

Allain Jupé has become the new French Defence Minister.

British ex-admirals claim that the proposed budget cuts will leave the Falklands open to attack.

The Dutch MoD will be cutting 10,000 jobs.

The Portuguese plan to buy some new submarines has come under scrutiny.

It looks like Denmark is willing to enter into Missile Defence.

Germany has ended conscription.

Global Operations
For news on Operation Atalanta, see their website.

HDMS Esbern Snare has apprehended suspected pirates.

RFA Fort Victoria has disrupted pirates.

After 2 months in Operation Atalant, HNLMS Amsterdam has joined Operation Ocean Shield and disrupted a PAG.

Shipbuilding
Saying goodbye to Ark Royal.

The availability of French nuclear attack submarines is below the 'critical threshold'.

HMS Edinburgh's has returned to the fleet after a £17.5m upgrade.

The engines on one of the new Type 45 destroyers of the Royal Navy, HMS Daring, failed.
On a more positive note, the latest Type 45 destroyer, HMS Dauntless, has entered service with the Royal Navy.

The Brits will be using parts of a submarine being built to get the damaged HMS Astute back in the water.

French DCNS and Spanish Navantia will no longer be cooperating on the Scorpene submarine.

Spain's new S-80 submarines are expected to join the fleet between 2013 and 2016

The third Dutch OPV has been christened 'Zeeland'.

The last of Britain’s second generation hunter-killer submarines, HMS Sceptre, will retire on December 10.

The UK government is promoting the Lynx Wildcat to the export market.

Exercises
Exercise Emerald Move has started.

The French and Dutch have done their anual 'Deux Tricolores' exercise, on Aruba. They were joined by the USMC.

Other
Magazine 'Naval Operations' has a special about the Portuguese Navy.

Political Pressure to Act in South Korea Rises

The first to fall because South Korea's government response to North Korea has not been seen as tough enough by the people. Talk about a tough situation.

South Korea's defense minister resigned Thursday amid intense criticism two days after a North Korean artillery attack killed four people on a small island near the Koreas' disputed frontier.

The move came as President Lee Myung-bak vowed to send more troops to the front-line South Korean island and as residents tried to salvage belongings from the blackened wreckage of their homes. Pyongyang warned of additional attacks if provoked.

Hours before Defense Minister Kim Tae-young's resignation, lawmakers had lashed out at the government, claiming officials were unprepared for Tuesday's attack and that the military response to the North's barrage was too slow. Even those in Lee's ruling party demanded Kim's dismissal as well as those of military leaders and some presidential aides.

Lee accepted Kim's resignation and a new defense chief will be announced Friday, presidential chief of staff Yim Tae-hee said.

The number of killed and wounded in Seoul on the first day of a major war between the North and South Korea could easily reach a million people. I read these hawkish morons running around suggesting the many scores of thousands of North Korean artillery pieces will be destroyed in the first 5 minutes, and "it is time to attack!!!!!!!"

Clearly war is a video game to some folks.

Preventing war is a hard thing in politics, and even when someone prevents war there can be political fallout. For managing escalation of hostilities, and not broadening the conflict into a major war - South Korean Defense Minister Kim Tae was fired. Tough draw- that.

Talk about terrible timing though. It is legitimate to be concerned regarding the wisdom of firing a nations defense minister in the midst of military crisis and very high tensions.

President Reponds With Modern Gunboat Diplomacy

The President of the United States, no matter who it is, never gets to make easy choices in foreign policy. The recent clash between North and South Korea presents nothing but very tough choices. While the Army is fighting two wars on land, the Navy is being called to the northwest Pacific ocean to keep the peace. Naval power has been doing exactly this for nations going back thousands of years, but that doesn't make the task any easier this time.

First, let me state up front that I am concerned things are more serious than our nations political leaders want to admit. We may be on the brink of renewed hostilities on the Korean Peninsula, but neither the administration nor the media are projecting that level of concern. That is likely part of the political calculation that came with the decision for this specific action, but not warning the public of the gravity of the situation may not have been a good decision. Likely driven by a down economy and with the intent not to spook the market, it seems pretty clear to me the administration is attempting to portrait a mood of calm in this situation. That is probably wise, but if things do not go as planned over the next week or so the result will be a political catastrophe for the United States.

As the news outlets are starting to report, the United States is exercising a bit of gunboat diplomacy by sending a remarkably well armed naval task force into the Yellow Sea. The audience here is China, and this move will piss them off big time, thus must be intended to humiliate Chinese leadership. The most likely outcome here is 2 billion pissed off Chinese. That makes our policy an interesting approach, and potentially smarter than it sounds.

In part this is a game of chicken with the childish North Korean leadership that acts out in temper tantrums when they want something - and right now North Korea wants many things. In part though, this is also a game of chicken with daddy. China has repeatedly warned the US of consequences for moving an aircraft carrier into the Yellow sea, and many Generals have made threats including advocacy in editorials that China should strike with military power should the United States move a carrier into the Yellow Sea. It is one thing to play chicken with a spoiled brat, and quite another to play chicken with big daddy.

By making this move, we are changing the issue from one of a skirmish to one of an out of control belligerent state in need of a spanking, and we are focusing the worlds attention towards China demanding they wield the paddle. As a big picture move, which means a policy reaction to the skirmish that also includes the newly disclosed uranium nuclear facility as part of the problem, China is being accused and held accountable for all belligerence activities of North Korea. The President is decided upon a risky but otherwise bold response in the face of this belligerence. Is it smart or dumb? Depends on the results...

It is possible the reason the naval exercise were put off until Sunday is to give China time to condemn North Korean aggression, thus take the lead and reduce the need to move the GW into the Yellow Sea. Will China join the international community and condemn North Korea? Unlikely, however I wouldn't rule it out, and I would imagine there must be a block inside Chinese leadership that is advocating this. 2010 has been a brutal year for Chinese prestige and the recent skirmish between North and South Korea appears poised to further discredit China with their neighbors in the region. I tend to think the Obama administration hasn't miscalculated our understanding regarding the size of the Chinese egos involved in this situation, rather I just don't believe President Obama cares anymore if the PRC takes an ego bruise for their position. Said another way, President Obama is thinking China might act responsibly, allowing him to offload some of the worlds concern for responsibility on Chinese leadership. From what I have seen watching China's leadership, I don't see it happening.

Moving the George Washington Carrier Strike Group into the Yellow Sea is bold, and carries a great deal of risk. This move will piss of Chinese leadership, and that will insure plenty of propaganda that enrages China's population. I don't expect China to attack the US Navy, but I do expect China to respond in a serious and potentially harsh way. The US is making a safe bet that nothing will happen and no one will be foolish enough to attack the US and South Korean naval forces. It is a good bet, but it is still a bet - and anyone who bets knows the rule: you can lose any bet.

I also believe we are making a move not unlike March 1996 when then President Clinton ordered the Nimitz and Independence carrier battle groups to sail through the Taiwan Strait. The consequence of that move was a vow by China of "never again," a vow we are actually about to challenge in a different region off China's coast. The unintended consequence of Clinton's policy decision has been the most remarkable modernization in human history of the worlds largest Army, Navy, and Air Force. In less than 14 years, China's military has essentially jumped 2 generations of combat capability. That is a remarkable pace, and highlights how no one can predict what reaction will come from moving the GW into the Yellow Sea.

Do you know any US Korean War veterans? I do, and unfortunately they are now old men whose sage wisdom and advice is only heard by those willing to hear it. South Korea is generations removed from the Korean War, and there is a lot of political pressure for the government to take action. I think this means the US must make a bold statement like moving the US Navy in force into the Yellow Sea, because we need to redirect attention politically to assist President Lee Myung-Bak. If you don't believe that, then you need to go read what today's South Korean news and comment sites are saying. Again, as we have discussed on the blog for years - preventing war with an extended show of force is one way Naval power can be used in crisis, and naval power can do many things politically for any nation with a strong Navy.

Most US Presidents have at one point or another found the nation in a situation where the Navy is asked to move well forward, show the flag, and keep the peace. This is a function of naval power that US Navy officers and sailors are trained to do, and a function of military power the US military thinks about all the time, and practices for. Obama has called for a form of gunboat diplomacy to redirect the political focus and walk both sides of the Korean Peninsula back from the brink of war. Gunboat diplomacy takes its form and function unique to its political purpose for the situation. Gunboat diplomacy is always distinct to time and place, and even in the 21st century remains a policy of force intended to deter other nations from exercising the violent use of military power.

Will it work? President Obama is betting it will. The Obama administration policy is to follow South Korea's lead politically but position the US to lead militarily with a show of force. The political signal is to maintain the peace, but respond with strength. That means South Korea will update rules of engagement, reinforce military positions in vulnerable areas, and ask for the US for assistance in pressuring China into reigning in North Korean belligerence. I commend the President for being bold and essentially holding China accountable for their proxy state. This is a bold move. Time and events will decide whether fortune favors the bold, or if our risk calculations are flawed.

Nagorno-Karabakh Exercise

Last weekend the Patterson School, in conjunction with the Army War College, ran the latter's International Strategic Crisis Negotiation Exercise. The exercise is most often run with members of the AWC's International Fellows Program, but has also appeared at Princeton, Georgetown, and Texas A&M; in recent years. The simulation focuses on the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute, and includes teams representing Russia, the United States, Iran, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijian, and Nagorno-Karabakh. My latest WPR column details the purpose and course of the exercise:

The Caucasus exercise always takes place 10 years in the future. The scenario is meant to be plausible rather than predictive, and is built around the necessity of creating a compelling simulation. For the most part, the scenario involves extrapolation from current trends: Azerbaijan has enjoyed tremendous energy-driven economic growth, while Armenia has resolved some of its disputes with Turkey. Iran moderates its foreign policy, having reached an accord with the United States about its nuclear weapons program. The basics of the relationship between the United States and the Russian Federation haven't changed appreciably. With the growth of Azerbaijani economic prosperity, the status quo in and around Nagorno-Karabakh has become increasingly untenable, leading to multilateral efforts to defuse the impending crisis...

the students failed to arrive at a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. The Azerbaijanis were reluctant to accept a no-use-of-force pledge, while the Russians, Turks, and Americans could not agree on the constitution of a peacekeeping force. The Iranians maintained a relatively low profile, although they did react aggressively to perceived Azerbaijani brinksmanship. Efforts to create light and space between Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh delegation failed. Retired Ambassador Carey Cavanaugh, who has participated in actual negotiations over Nagorno-Karabakh as well as in this simulation several times, told the students, "If you find a solution, we're taking it back to Washington." Although the contours of each exercise develop along unique lines, Mr. Dion suggested that no simulation has ever culminated in a politically acceptable resolution of the problem. Indeed, the closest that the participants have ever come involved a near-abdication by Azerbaijan that would likely have resulted in significant problems for the Azerbaijani negotiating team upon its return to Baku.

The point of the exercise, however, is to highlight the importance of process. Principally, the problems result from asymmetries in interest, information, and commitment. Negotiators have a strong incentive to withhold information about the intensity and nature of their interests, in large part because others might take advantage of that information. The incentive to deceive animates all sides, narrowing the space in which agreement can be achieved. While outsiders can imagine a variety of potential settlements to the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute, the dynamics of negotiation make arriving at any of those outcomes difficult.

Yeonpyeong - Navy Notes 24 Hours Later

As of this post it has been 24 hours since the artillery shells were fired by North Korea onto the island of Yeonpyeong. Noteworthy developments:

The USS George Washington (CVN 73) and escorts have deployed from Japan. Interesting to note, there were some Japanese Navy vessels deployed over the last 24 hours as well. As you might imagine, the ports in South Korea are largely empty as a great deal of the South Korean Navy has put to sea.

There are no solid numbers, but some news organizations are reporting well over 50 major warships from the United States, Japan, and South Korea currently moving towards the maritime regions surrounding the Korean Peninsula. This would constitute the largest assembly of international naval firefare since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. I'm sure China is pleased to see this massive armada on their lawn.

Asahi Shimbun (Japanese media) is now reporting there were 5 North Korean Mig-23s seen on the North Korean side of the border just prior to artillery fire began, and South Korea was tracking them on the South Korean side with F-15s. Neither the Migs nor F-15s apparently crossed their respective border, nor were involved in the battle at Yeonpyeong island.

There appear to be a few security holes somewhere in the US National Security information loop, because very credible sources have reported the first US ISR on the scene over Yeonpyeong was UAVs launched from the USS Jimmy Carter (SSN 23). While I appreciate the idea that leaking submarine activity might be part of a well orchestrated information campaign against North Korea (North Korea couldn't detect the USS Jimmy Carter short of using a minefield, even if they used every sonar in their entire inventory), I don't think that is actually the reason for the leak.

Inside the loop, information has become nearly impossible as things have gone dark across the Pacific all the way to Diego Garcia, but from talking to civilians today there was a lot of praise for PACOM and specifically ADM Willard, who according to my sources was the first major player among all the players engaged in the events unfolding. There was also quite a bit of good things said all the way around about 7th Fleet today.

The background for the photo in this blog post can be found here.

I do not rule out the use of military power in response to this attack, but do not expect it. If so it will come from South Korea. I think the US will do exactly what they did following the Cheonan attack - shift the pressure China. I think it is pretty clear the inability of China to address North Korean following the Cheonan incident cost China considerable credibility in the region this year. In this case, things are less ambiguous in the public, so China will either step up or be discredited by virtually every nation in the region as irresponsible and unworthy of being a regional leader.

The problem with this approach is the US could turn this into a US-China political game, and South Korea may not see that approach as being in their best interest. I don't think that means they take military action, but there were South Korean homes burning on TV from a military attack from the North all day yesterday. Doing nothing in the eyes of the public is less risky a political response as doing something, although we won't know the cost of doing nothing until the markets close.

As always, the North might do something stupid. One would think not, but I wouldn't have believed they would shell a neighborhood either had you asked me yesterday. Apparently they really will do anything given the time and space - and that's the tough issue. For the record, the crop this year in North Korea was reported to be a disaster, so North Korea is in need of food aid this winter.

The Navy View: Korean Peninsula

For those watching events in on the Korean Peninsula, as of yesterday the USS George Washington (CVN 73) was in port, but that ship can get to sea very quickly and may already have sailed.

Also noteworthy, the forward deployed MEU, the Essex ARG, was around Okinawa yesterday. The Peleliu ARG is in the Philippines currently on their way home from deployment.

Should hostilities break out on a larger scale, the US Navy could surge both the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) and the USS Nimitz (68) very quickly. Both ships have conducted training off the west coast this month. At 25 knots it would take less than 10 days before the ships arrived ready for battle.

Already at sea is USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) and USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), where both carriers are currently supporting war operations in Afghanistan. These carriers are about 9 days away, or less, depending upon course and speed - starting when they are ordered to move.

While they do not surface often, when the Ohio SSGNs do surface, they tend to do so in the waters near South Korea.

The US Navy maintains a continuous presence in the region, and in different forms is already there.

Leadership and Accountability

Have you ever heard the song 'Tubthumping" by British anarcho-punk band Chumbawamba? This is my version, probably the longest post I've ever posted on a blog.

A follow up to this.

Me

I love the US Naval Institute. I love it's mission, and I love writing there. It is why I posted this, which I encourage everyone to see.

Today is my birthday. I am 35. Later this week is my wedding anniversary. My wife and I will have been married for 16 years. Some have been tougher than others, but all have been great. She is so much better than me which makes me one of the lucky ones.

Thanksgiving is this week.

All this family stuff means I shall consume wine on many nights, and it is unclear if I will be writing much. I have left the blog on autopilot just in case, and promise insightful content this week that will hopefully generate some discussion.

Happy Holidays, and have a safe week.

Updates around Chinese shipyards

There has been a lot of news from the Zhuhai airshow regarding Chinese UAVs, anti-ship missiles and PGMs with regard to attacking US carrier group. I'm hoping to get to that once the show is over, but there has been a lot of movement from Chinese shipyard recently. I'm just going to give a short look at those movements.

First of all, the minehunter that was shown in a previous entry has now been launched from JiangNan shipyard.


Secondly, the second ship in the Type 071 class has also been launched in the past 2 days. I find the progress for this ship to be quite remarkable, because it was still in large blocks as recent as 3 months ago. Overall, the sensors and weapons fit do not appear to have changed, but there are a couple of minor changes to the hull (if you compare the bridge, you can see the difference). The question now is whether or not they are planning to launch more ships of this class. I would say that this class has started mass production, so we are likely to see more Type 071s come out in the next couple of years from HuDong shipyard.




And finally, we have some really nice updated photos out of Dalian shipyard. We see more work on the island and on the deck. I finally see smoke coming out. I don't know if that's exhaust from the stack or just some testing of auxiliary diesel generators. Either way, there are some serious work going on inside the island.




The other thing we can see is wide installations of Type 730 CIWS and HQ-10 (Chinese version of SeaRAM) on Varyag. They are installed in the 4 locations that Kashtan and AK-630 used to be installed on Admiral K class. In each of those locations, the 2 Kashtan + 1 AK-630 (maybe 2 AK-630 in a couple of spots) are now replaced by 1 Type 730, 1 HQ-10 and 1 mysterious installation (appears to be some kind multi-purpose rocket launcher for decoy purpose). I'm waiting to see if any VLS installations will appear in these locations, because Admiral K also had 6 VLS of SA-N-9 SAM beside each pair of Kashtan CIWS.



This is a shot of the Sea Eagle radar on top of Varyag. It seems to be a different variant compared to what we see on 054A.

It Was the Smartest Bomb Yet...

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs held a hearing Wednesday on securing critical infrastructure in the age of stuxnet. If you are one of those folks who has been working on national security and strategy issues for decades and hasn't spent a lot of time thinking about cybersecurity - you can no longer put off that obligation. Watch the webcast of the hearing - it's important.

Following the hearing, the Senate committee put out a statement.

At a hearing on the implications of the recently discovered malware known as Stuxnet, the Senators heard testimony describing the malware as potentially far more destructive than any previously known cyber threat. Senator Lieberman said that the discovery makes passage of cyber security legislation that he, Senator Collins, and Senator Tom Carper, D-Del., drafted and passed out of Committee all the more important. He promised it would be a top Committee priority in the 112th Congress since the White House and other key members of Congress did not engage sufficiently to pass the bill in the lame duck session.

“Stuxnet really takes the reality of the cyber threat to a new level and should awaken the skeptics,” Senator Lieberman said. “It is really chilling, in terms of its effect. I would compare it to a guided missile in conventional warfare… But the reality is that the current, porous state of our nation’s infrastructure means that it wouldn’t take malware as robust and sophisticated as Stuxnet to cripple many of our critical systems. We want to make sure we put proper security in place before a major attack.”

Senator Collins said: “Much attention has been paid to cyber crimes such as identity theft and to cyber attacks intended to steal proprietary information or government secrets. But lurking beyond those serious threats are potentially devastating attacks that could disrupt, damage, or even destroy some of our nation’s critical infrastructure, such as the electric power grid, oil and gas pipelines, dams, or communication networks. The newest weapon in the cyber toolkit was introduced to the world in June, when cybersecurity experts detected a cyber worm called Stuxnet.

“I believe that this problem is urgent,” Senator Collins continued. “We have introduced bipartisan, comprehensive legislation to deal with this threat. Unless this legislation becomes law, my fear is that we’ll wait until we have a successful ‘cyber 9/11’ before acting. So I’d like to see us be proactive on this issue and I believe our bill points the way.”

Stuxnet specifically targets computer systems that control electricity, water treatment, nuclear and chemical plants, pipelines, communications networks, transportation systems and other critical infrastructure, and it is unique in its complexity, flexibility, and resilience. Neither its creator nor its target is known.

Read the last sentence again and keep in mind - this nasty piece of code could have been written to disable an entire class of ships - and right now our adversaries are likely developing software based on lessons learned from this piece of code to do exactly that.

However, as far as that last sentence goes, I think it is pretty clear that Iran's nuclear program was the target, and the level of sophistication involved suggests that only a very small number of countries in the world could have developed this software - and one of those countries is the US.

Nicolas Falliere, Liam O Murchu, and Eric Chien of Symantec Security Response published new information in an updated paper last Friday that suggests the stuxnet virus was built for subtle nuclear sabotage.

According to Symantec, Stuxnet targets specific frequency-converter drives — power supplies used to control the speed of a device, such as a motor. The malware intercepts commands sent to the drives from the Siemens SCADA software, and replaces them with malicious commands to control the speed of a device, varying it wildly, but intermittently.

The malware, however, doesn’t sabotage just any frequency converter. It inventories a plant’s network and only springs to life if the plant has at least 33 frequency converter drives made by Fararo Paya in Teheran, Iran, or by the Finland-based Vacon.

Even more specifically, Stuxnet targets only frequency drives from these two companies that are running at high speeds — between 807 Hz and 1210 Hz. Such high speeds are used only for select applications. Symantec is careful not to say definitively that Stuxnet was targeting a nuclear facility, but notes that “frequency converter drives that output over 600 Hz are regulated for export in the United States by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as they can be used for uranium enrichment.”

“There’s only a limited number of circumstances where you would want something to spin that quickly -- such as in uranium enrichment,” said O Murchu. “I imagine there are not too many countries outside of Iran that are using an Iranian device. I can’t imagine any facility in the U.S. using an Iranian device,” he added.

You can download a copy of the Symantec report in PDF format from Wired here. The document is technical, but to folks who are able to understand the technical explanations the document also reads like a New York Times best seller. This is the summary:

Stuxnet represents the first of many milestones in malicious code history - it is the first to exploit four 0-day vulnerabilities, compromise two digital certificates, and inject code into industrial control systems and hide the code from the operator. Whether Stuxnet will usher in a new generation of malicious code attacks towards real-world infrastructure—overshadowing the vast majority of current attacks affecting more virtual or individual assets—or if it is a once- in-a-decade occurrence remains to be seen.

Stuxnet is of such great complexity—requiring significant resources to develop—that few attackers will be capable of producing a similar threat, to such an extent that we would not expect masses of threats of similar in sophistication to suddenly appear. However, Stuxnet has highlighted direct-attack attempts on critical infrastructure are possible and not just theory or movie plotlines.

The real-world implications of Stuxnet are beyond any threat we have seen in the past. Despite the exciting challenge in reverse engineering Stuxnet and understanding its purpose, Stuxnet is the type of threat we hope to never see again.

I think it is a safe bet that we will see something like stuxnet again. I recently attended a small conference that discussed in great detail stuxnet, and the question the conference was specifically asking was in regard to the future impact stuxnet would have on the always evolving malware writing community. Several of the answers were compelling, if not only as a thought exercise:

• Stuxnet has raised the bar for the perception of hacking excellence by raising the bar for what is recognized as professional hacking.
• The multidimensional complexity and attention to detail within malware code could become a new norm
• The perception of value in collaborative efforts within a generation where social connectivity is the new norm may lead to more organized groups of malware developers in the future

My own take is this: data changes (sabotage) rather than data theft (espionage) represents an escalation of activity between competing organizations (including governments), and someone opened up this Pandora's Box at the state level and hit Iran's nuclear program with it. If the United States ever gets hit with something like stuxnet, the lessons to date only tells us two things. First, when these type of professional attacks hit, they hit hard. Second, we may not know who hit us hard.

Is the US resilient enough to take a mass casualty attack by an unknown enemy? I think that is the cyber question for every nation, and it comes with very few good political answers.

SAN ANTONIO JAGMAN

In December of 2009, Adm. John Harvey, commander of Fleet Forces Command, ordered Rear Adm. Michelle Howard, commander of Expeditionary Strike Group Two, to begin a Manual of the Judge Advocate General investigation, or JAGMAN, of the problems related to the Main Propulsion Diesel Engines of the USS San Antonio. The effort was led by NAVSEA's Rear Adm. Tom Eccles, the Navy's chief engineer. The investigation focused primarily on the SAN ANTONIO and not other ships of the class that were experiencing similar problems. Attached is a copy of the JAGMAN findings.
San Antonio JAGMAN

Want to see what 'Epic Fail' looks like? Read the whole thing. #265 is one of the saddest records of Command I have ever seen. Check out #268 and ask yourself how that happens following that event.

I've heard from GREEN BAY and NEW YORK - and both are saying things have turned around in a big way for those ships, but it has been a rough ride to this point. Why? According to those who know, the change over the last year has happened because someone has taken responsibility, and all the data collected through investigations suggests no one took responsibility before that time. SAN ANTONIO was a steaming pile of shit, and apparently no one wanted to touch it - and that apparently includes everyone who was responsible at the time.

I find that interesting, because the only person talking to the media at the time was Allison Stiller. All the Flags were reading the same memo - blame the shipbuilder. In hindsight that tactic appears to have been effective if not also appropriate, because the shipbuilder is up for sale today.

What ever happened to those Navy leaders who should have taken responsibility at the time? Well, many of them retired while some got promoted - and I note 3 of that bunch is in line to potentially become the CNO next year. One. Two. Three.

Leadership and Accountability is a tricky thing.

Noteworthy that two of those three are directly responsible for turning this program around.

Also noteworthy, the other guy was in a perfect position between September 2007 to July 2009 to address the issues revealed in this and other reports that took place on his watch. Must of been rainbows and roses where he sat though, because the ship was sent by him on deployment - and we know how that ended.

The Balisle Report

Balisle Report on FRP of Surface Force Readiness

And because some are curious, the bodies are buried in the appendices, which are not included here.

Coach Says 'Go For Two!'

When Redskins coach Mike Shanahan decided to pull six-time Pro Bowl quarterback Donovan McNabb for backup Rex Grossman during the Lions game because coach Shanahan was supposedly concerned about his star quarterback's ability to run the two minute offense - I wonder if Coach Shanahan would have had more success had he put Admiral Roughead in the game instead of Rex Grossman.

Maybe he should have, because it looks like Admiral Roughead is quite comfortable running his version of the two-minute offense in Washington, DC.

The clock is ticking on the Navy’s request to Congress to change the rules so the service can buy both Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) designs. Contract offers from competitors Lockheed Martin and Austal USA expire on Dec. 14, and if lawmakers don’t agree to the change by then, the Navy — eager to award construction contracts and get the program into high gear — could miss an opportunity to move ahead with both LCS types.

“We’re going to have to act,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead told reporters Tuesday in Washington.

Asked what would happen if Congress does not act by the deadline, Roughead repeated his first answer.

“We’re going to have to act,” he said again. “We’ll carry through on the strategy and the authorization that we have.”

"What the hell is going on out there?" - Vince Lombardi

The post election LCS announcement has not gone as well as hoped by the Navy. It is unclear what expectations were, but the Navy has pitched this new twist to their LCS acquisition strategy to a lame duck Congress following a landslide election for the party out of power. This is the same lame duck Congress that somehow failed to pass a single one of the thirteen spending bills required to keep the government running. The reaction by those on Capital Hill to the Navy was basically, take a number, and the Navy drew #765.

This story by The Hill does a good job highlighting how Congress is busy serving #45.

“It is in a very short period of time,” said Rep. Todd Akin (Mo.), the leading Republican on the House Armed Services panel with jurisdiction over Navy acquisition and policies. Akin is expected to take the reins of that panel in January.

“It is a very turbulent airspace in the next few weeks, because everything is changing and turning over at the end of the year,” Akin said in an interview. “It is asking a lot politically to move something that is a fairly weighty decision in a fairly short period of time.”

These guys in the House are clever though. I really liked Gene Taylor, and I think I'm going to really like Todd Akin.

"Show Me the Money!" - Jerry Maguire

“I am asking for the hard numbers. … Show me the numbers,” Akin said.

“My job is to take a look at what is right for the Navy and the taxpayer.”

Akin is scheduled to meet with Stackley on Thursday to question the details of the new plan.

Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.), who leads the Armed Services Seapower and Expeditionary Forces panel, already met with Navy officials this week, but indicated he wanted more detail on the price.

“I want to see the price. If the price is right, then they made the right decision,” Taylor told The Hill. He said that he only received a range of numbers.

“Given the history of that program, whoever is in charge has to ensure the price is the delivered price,” said Taylor.

Now why would Congress want to see the hard numbers? Because like John Madden once said, if you say you have two quarterbacks, what you are really saying is that you don't have any. The House might be guessing that neither of the two contractor bids puts the per ship cost of the Littoral Combat Ship under the Procurement Cost Cap, and in that way the Navy can take the "buy both" route with plenty of political cover for Secretary Mabus to waive the cost cap if Congress tells the Navy to "Go For Two!"

According to Ronald O' Rourke (PDF), the FY2010 defense authorization act (H.R. 2647/P.L. 111-84 of October 28, 2024) adjusted the cost cap to $480 million per ship, excluded certain costs from being counted against the $480 million cap, included provisions for adjusting that figure over time to take inflation and other events into account, and permitted the Secretary of the Navy to waive the cost cap under certain conditions. Those conditions for the SECNAV are laid out in Section 121(d) as:

Section 121(d)(1) states that the Secretary of the Navy may waive the cost cap if:

(A) the Secretary provides supporting data and certifies in writing to the congressional defense committees that—

(i) the total amount obligated or expended for procurement of the vessel-

(I) is in the best interest of the United States; and
(II) is affordable, within the context of the annual naval vessel construction plan required by section 231 of title 10, United States Code; and

(ii) the total amount obligated or expended for procurement of at least one other vessel authorized by subsection (a) has been or is expected to be less than $480,000,000; and

(B) a period of not less than 30 days has expired following the date on which such certification and data are submitted to the congressional defense committees.

I do not have any idea what the numbers from each contractors bid will show, but I suspect that even when the Navy buys 10 - the final number is not below the cost cap. Since the contracts have already been submitted, I don't see the harm of exposing the numbers for all to see. In fact, showing the numbers of both contracts might be exactly what the Navy needs to do to win support for their plan to buy both. The public still has no idea how much LCS-3 and LCS-4 actually cost, and to be honest the real money issue here isn't the up front cost of purchasing Littoral Combat Ships; the real cost comes in the TOC for two entirely distinct classes.

I may be dumb, but I'm not stupid. - Terry Bradshaw

Does the Navy want both ships? If so, why do they say they will settle on one ship design? Is the decision to buy both ships solely based on the competitive contract bids? What happened to the emphasis on TOC for Navy ships? The Navy has changed the acquisition strategy 3 times in 15 months, and is asking Congress for a Hail Mary in the last two minutes with one of the most troubled shipbuilding programs of the decade.

There are good reasons to build both, particularly with an ugly GAO protest looming should the Navy pick only one ship. What makes no sense to me is why the Navy couldn't get an additional 30-60 days on the bids from both industry partners with the stated intent of making the option for buying both realistically happen? December 14th isn't any more of a hard deadline than every other supposed deadline that the Navy punted with LCS over the last 15 months. Does anyone actually believe industry is going to reject the idea of giving the Navy a little more time to potentially guarantee a contract? Seriously doubt it.

I don't know what the right thing to do here is. Part of me says building both is a good thing, because in my mind the Littoral Combat Ship program is such a mess that it is smarter to build a dozen of both - or none of both - than it is to just build some of one. Given that everyone under the sun knows the Lockheed Martin version of the LCS will win the competition - and an almost equal certainty that Austal will successfully protest that decision - the other part of me thinks that choosing to build one LCS version is probably the same thing as building none in the context of a looming protest, at least for the rest of the current CNOs term.

The bottom line here is that the Navy is in a really bad place on LCS and is hoping Congress bails them out. I ultimately believe Congress will not bail them out before December 14th, and the Navy will ultimately not make a selection by December 14th either. If I was betting, I would bet that yet another twist is coming because the current situation makes no sense for all parties. The only good news here is that someone in the press will likely uncover what the price per LCS for each version is per the submitted bids.

If the LCS contract bid numbers are indeed over the cost cap as many suspect, it will only be the first in a series of bad shipbuilding budget news announcements by the Navy over the next few months. Folks, you would not believe the rumors going around regarding how much it is costing the Navy to restart DDG-51 - indeed I don't even believe most of the figures I have heard. It is noteworthy however that there is still no contract for the first DDG-51 restart, and in the context of the percentage of real cost growth - the DDG-1000 is the high profile shipbuilding program on schedule and budget in the US Navy right now.

That bad news of potentially serious shipbuilding cost increases with the DDG-51 restart that all signs suggest is looming over the FY2012 budget horizon matters quite a bit, because it has the potential to boomerang politically in the direction of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus. Nothing like a high profile, big time Navy shipbuilding budget screw up to sink any prospect of Ray Mabus being the next Secretary of Defense as speculated by some news sources.

To salvage the situation (ie, reputation), Ray Mabus may be asked to take decisive action. If LCS contracts aren't under the Procurement Cost Cap and DDG-51 really is going to cost more to restart than just building out the 7 DDG-1000s would have cost (oh yes, that is a legit rumor being told by legit folks - although I remain skeptical), then will Ray Mabus pull a Shanahan and replace his starting quarterback (Roughead) with a backup from the bench?

Given that Coach Shanahan really did replace Donavan McNabb with Rex Grossman with less than 2 minutes on the clock down by only 6; at minimum I think we can all agree that in Washington, DC - anything is possible.

Saying Goodbye to Ark Royal

Ark Royal moves on:

The aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal has sailed into Scotland for the last time, as part of a farewell tour. The fleet flagship of the Royal Navy, which is being decommissioned after 25 years service, sailed down the Firth of Clyde.

It is due to dock at Glen Mallan Jetty on Loch Long to unload its ammunition. The ship will stay in Loch Long for five days before sailing around the north of Scotland and on to Newcastle, close to where she was built.

The Ark Royal left its Portsmouth base for a farewell tour of the UK on Tuesday. The aircraft carrier is being retired three years early as part of cost-cutting measures announced by the UK government.

Some of my academic work has to do with the politics of military equipment and national prestige. There's a tendency to have clinical, or potentially even cynical, view towards the emotional attachments that develop between people and the material instruments of foreign policy. The sorrow that accompanies the retirement of a warship like Ark Royal, not to mention the enduring popularity of national naval memorials in the United States and elsewhere, serves to temper this tendency. It's genuinely sad to see a great warship retire before her time. The Queen's inspection makes it particularly poignant; one of her earliest major foreign tours was aboard HMS Vanguard in 1947, and her reign has witnessed the profound decay of the Royal Navy as a global force.

Fractured China

My Over the Horizon column this week concerns theoretical and empirical issues regarding China's fractured foreign policy:

What does China want? Unfortunately, this is a terrible way to approach the problem.

China is full of many people who want many different things. Like the U.S. national security apparatus, the Chinese government harbors a plethora of different foreign-policy perspectives, some focused on trade, others on power, and still others guided by domestic political concerns. Moreover, the Chinese government is no longer the only actor of consequence in China. Chinese public opinion increasingly constrains policymakers, and can even force them into action they don't want to take. Like all states, China is fractured. Recognizing its fractured nature is the key to developing an effective U.S. policy toward China's rise.

In the column I mention this SIPRI report on the emerging structure of PRC foreign policy decision-making, but it's worth an extra recommendation. Read the whole thing.

Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta

Tuesday is an important day.

At one o'clock today in the East Room of the White House, an Iowa-born soldier will receive the nation's highest decoration for valor in combat. In our nine-year war in Afghanistan and Iraq, this is only the eighth Medal of Honor. Even more rare, the man who has earned it is the first from this war to live to see the president place it around his neck.

The soldier is Army Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta. On Oct. 25, 2007, then-Specialist Giunta and his team were on a mountain ridge in Afghanistan's violent Korengal Valley when they were ambushed by the Taliban. He took a bullet stopped by a protective vest as he helped pull one soldier to safety.

Then he went forward to help the sergeant, Joshua Brennan, who had been walking point. Two Taliban were carrying Sgt. Brennan away. Spec. Giunta shot the Taliban and brought Sgt. Brennan back.

Here we are reminded that in war there are few storybook endings: Sgt. Brennan would soon die of his wounds.

One of many accounts of his story. Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta has told the press many times that he is not unique - a humble side of his personality no doubt - but the Medal of Honor is unique and being a living medal of honor recipient makes him unique.

As far as I am concerned his story cannot get enough attention.

Chinese Vessel Hijacked by Pirates Off Somalia

A few days ago a warning went out regarding good weather over the next few days. Good weather in the region means piracy usually surges, and it is clear piracy has surged. This morning, another ship was hijacked - this time a Chinese vessel.

Pirates hijacked a cargo ship with 29 Chinese sailors aboard in the Arabian Sea and told the shipping company they were taking it toward Somalia, Chinese officials and state media said Saturday.

The attack came just two days after another 17 Chinese sailors returned home after being held by Somali pirates for four months. It also highlights the spread of piracy to areas outside the Gulf of Aden, a hijacking hot spot now patrolled by international forces.

An official with the China Marine Rescue Center, surnamed Yang, said the Panama-flagged ship Yuan Xiang was attacked Friday night. The Ningbo Hongyuan Ship Management Company reported the pirate attack to the rescue center just before midnight and said the pirates were taking the ship toward Somalia, the state-run Xinhua News Agency reported.

A man answering the phone Saturday at the company said they were still trying to contact the ship.

Xinhua said the attack occurred in an area outside the region where China's navy is part of a multination force working together to patrol the Gulf of Aden — one of the world's busiest shipping lanes — and other waters off Somalia where pirates operate.

Somali pirates currently hold more than 30 vessels and around 550 hostages.