It looks like the recent report that Varyag was going to start sea trial in July 1st did not turn out to be true. There was a report from Jamestown that the sea trial was pushed back to sometimes in August. I will just go with the approach of wait and see when it will first sail off. From the pictures I saw a couple of days ago, there is still a bunch of stuff lying on the deck.
While the entire attention was on Varyag, there has also been quite a bit of activity around different shipyards.
From the two photos below, we see the first submarine launched in the new JN shipyard. The old JN shipyard had been producing Song submarines during its production run. I had speculated that the production variants of Yuan submarines (aka Type 039B) are also getting produced in JN. Now, we have confirmation that is the case. We can also see that the 4th 052C is about to be launched.
At HD shipyard, we can see continued works on its 5th 054A and 2nd Type 071. I have previously posted the modules of the 3rd Type 071. I've recently read that the 4th Type 071 is also quickly taking shape in the shipyard. It shows that Type 071 is really becoming a big part of PLAN's future plans.
At the same time, China is about to send its 9th flotilla to Gulf of Aden. It will be sending 169 (052B), 569 (054A) and 885 (replenishment ship) from the south sea fleet.
Interestingly enough, 885 has been fitted with a new 30 mm naval gun in the front and the back of this ship (as you can see from the 1st and 3rd 885 photos).
Another development that has received a lot of my attention recently has been the refitting program on the Type 052 Luhu class destroyers. This was the first class of PLAN ships that attempted to incorporate Western design ideas and subsystems. In fact, 112 was the first ship that was fitted with gas turbine engines. It received two LM-2500 engines before the arms embargo came into place. As a result of this, 113 had to be fitted with GT-25000, which has since become the gas turbine of choice for the 052 series of destroyers. These two ships were last updated in 2003/4 when the original YJ-81 missiles were replaced by the YJ-83 missiles and PJ-33A was replaced by a design with reduced RCS features. These two ships entered into shipyards again more than a year ago to undergo further modernization.
By the summer of 2009, we saw 112 parked outside of HuDong shipyard (113 was undergoing a similar change in another shipyard). By the end of that year, we saw it completely ripped apart. In fact, several people even speculated that 112 was about to be scrapped. The rest of us wondered what kind of major changes they were planning for 112. Some work was done while parked outside, but majority of the refitting work were done after being moved into the dry dock in April of this year. The diagram below shows the modernized 052.
The pictures below shows 113 before the refitting
Afterward
The pictures below show which parts of 112 was changed.
Hard to see with it covered and the main gun taking up most of this picture, but the ASW rocket was changed from 12-tubed RBU-1200 to the 6-tubed Type 87 (commonly found on recent PLAN ships)
The Type 726 multi-purpose decoy launcher has been installed on the side of the bridge. The Type 76A guns and Type 347G targeting radar have been removed and replaced by a EO tracker.
SR-64 has been installed on the aftmast. The Type 518 long range surveillance radar has been replaced by the Type 517 radar.
Two Type 730 CIWS has replaced the two Type 76A guns and the Type 347G targeting radar. We also see what appears to be two new satcom bulb installations.
Another part that was changed was the variable depth sonar installed on this ship. We used to be able to see the towed variable depth sonar through openings at the back, but it has now been sealed up and replaced with a similar TAS to the one on 054A.
Through the two years that it has parked outside of HD shipyard. A number of us have wondered why such changes are needed when the more capable 054A were mass produced very cheaply. As we have seen this with all of their refitting works on Type 051 and Type 053 ships, PLAN does not like to just decommission outdated ships. Even as a generation of blue water ships come into service, the older ships are kept around to play smaller roles in coastal defense. With 052's modernization, it will probably be kept around for another 15 years. We can also see that HH-7 and PJ-33A will most likely be kept around for a while. China produced a lot of missiles and rounds for these systems and is in no rush to replace them on the older ships.
Monday, July 4, 2024
Sunday, July 3, 2024
Sham Marriages, DADT, and BAH
Here's an interesting little story from yesterday's WaPost website. It seems a lesbian Marine in Southern California and her civilian partner both fraudulently married male Marines, starting the gravy train rolling for the higher level of compensation paid to service members "with dependents". This emolument--known as "Basic Allowance for Housing"--is just part of the convoluted and much in need of reform world of personnel costs to the US military. BAH is a figure paid (un-taxable and on top of "base pay", which presumably is what a service member is paid for his or her labor) to service members in order to defray costs such as mortgages, rent and utilities. The kicker is that the rate of this benefit is tied to rank, presumably under the assumption that one's "needs" increase as one moves up the socio-economic scale. Additionally, the rate paid dramatically increases when one marries or reproduces. Anyone who has spent any amount of time in or around the military knows that this fact alone plays a significant role in the decision for many couples to marry.
Several interesting questions are worth podering.
1. With the repeal of DADT and the as yet still not widespread legal acceptance of gay marriage cause pressure on the military to extend "married" BAH to monogamous gay couples? If so, would it then have to extend the same courtesy to straight couples living monogamously? Or same gender roommates co-habitating in strictly non-sexual ways?
2. Does the payment of "married" BAH contribute to military divorce? Are military members likely to marry earlier than their civilian counterparts, in part because their employer compensates them for doing so? Does the military incentivize marriage among those unsuited for the rigors of the institution (marriage, that is)?
3. Is the notion of "married" BAH outmoded and sexist in a day of dual earner families? Put another way, when I married as a young man, my economic status dramatically increased with the salary my wife brought to the table; why should I have been compensated more for doing so?
4. Why compensate married people--or those who have reproduced--more than those who are unmarried and childless? Is there not an elemental fairness issue here? Some will say that a "housing allowance" is not "compensation"--but I say, "bunk". It all rolls up into what is available to buy the things one needs to live--and so I ask again--is there not a fairness issue?
I remember being in command and studying this issue very, very closely. I don't remember what the reports are called, but I regularly was called upon to review records from my Disbursing Officer--the person charged (along with the Admin Officer) that dealt with the routine and mundane world of how much leave did people have on the books (interesting one for CO's to look at--some of your folks need some time off!), who is participating in the military's 401-K like vehicle, etc. One of the reports available is a listing of who on your ship is receiving BAH and what the zip code associated with that person's "residence" is. Take a look at this sometime, Skippers. It will amaze you how many of your Sailors are maintaining residences in some of the highest rent districts in the country. And it will amaze you to find that some of the seemingly most "successful bachelor" Sailors under your command happen to be "married" in the first place.
The plain truth is that the system is riven with abuse, and it is so pervasive that stories like the one above make the news not because they are newsworthy, but because they are even investigated at all. I had an NCIS officer come down to my ship and talk to me about this issue, but he told me that I needed hard proof to start an investigation--not just anecdotes and suspicions. If the Sailor had a lease and a marriage license, well then, that's all they need.
Any reform of the military compensation system (go for it, Leon) should include the elimination of any difference in "allowances" paid due to the marital or parental status of those serving.
Oh, and reduce "fogey" raises (raises paid every two years within the same pay-grade) big time, while applying the balance to dramatic "promotion" raises.
Bryan McGrath
Several interesting questions are worth podering.
1. With the repeal of DADT and the as yet still not widespread legal acceptance of gay marriage cause pressure on the military to extend "married" BAH to monogamous gay couples? If so, would it then have to extend the same courtesy to straight couples living monogamously? Or same gender roommates co-habitating in strictly non-sexual ways?
2. Does the payment of "married" BAH contribute to military divorce? Are military members likely to marry earlier than their civilian counterparts, in part because their employer compensates them for doing so? Does the military incentivize marriage among those unsuited for the rigors of the institution (marriage, that is)?
3. Is the notion of "married" BAH outmoded and sexist in a day of dual earner families? Put another way, when I married as a young man, my economic status dramatically increased with the salary my wife brought to the table; why should I have been compensated more for doing so?
4. Why compensate married people--or those who have reproduced--more than those who are unmarried and childless? Is there not an elemental fairness issue here? Some will say that a "housing allowance" is not "compensation"--but I say, "bunk". It all rolls up into what is available to buy the things one needs to live--and so I ask again--is there not a fairness issue?
I remember being in command and studying this issue very, very closely. I don't remember what the reports are called, but I regularly was called upon to review records from my Disbursing Officer--the person charged (along with the Admin Officer) that dealt with the routine and mundane world of how much leave did people have on the books (interesting one for CO's to look at--some of your folks need some time off!), who is participating in the military's 401-K like vehicle, etc. One of the reports available is a listing of who on your ship is receiving BAH and what the zip code associated with that person's "residence" is. Take a look at this sometime, Skippers. It will amaze you how many of your Sailors are maintaining residences in some of the highest rent districts in the country. And it will amaze you to find that some of the seemingly most "successful bachelor" Sailors under your command happen to be "married" in the first place.
The plain truth is that the system is riven with abuse, and it is so pervasive that stories like the one above make the news not because they are newsworthy, but because they are even investigated at all. I had an NCIS officer come down to my ship and talk to me about this issue, but he told me that I needed hard proof to start an investigation--not just anecdotes and suspicions. If the Sailor had a lease and a marriage license, well then, that's all they need.
Any reform of the military compensation system (go for it, Leon) should include the elimination of any difference in "allowances" paid due to the marital or parental status of those serving.
Oh, and reduce "fogey" raises (raises paid every two years within the same pay-grade) big time, while applying the balance to dramatic "promotion" raises.
Bryan McGrath
Friday, July 1, 2024
Pakistani Deterrent
I don't completely hold to the notion that more nuclear weapons produce a more peaceful world. Nuclear countries tend not to fight, but expanding the number of nuclear powers increases the chance of accidents, misunderstandings, and general unpleasantness. The stability-instability paradox also needs to be taken seriously; nuclear power can undertake brinksmanship if they don't believe that general war is possible. Finally, while I think that the established nuclear powers have some responsibility for (not to mention interest in) helping emerging nuclear powers deploy their weapons in the safest possible manner, I don't think that this extends to shipping a "triad in a box" to whomever manages to detonate a nuke. All that said, I'm not sure that I hold to the gist of Galrahn's argument regarding Pakistani submarine acquisitions:
Okay... but let's be clear about just what is troubling. Pakistan may, with Chinese assistance, be building a submarine based nuclear deterrent. India is doing the same thing, only with Russian assistance. Whereas India's program is similar in nature to the submarine based nuclear deterrents of Russia, China, the US, France, and the UK, Pakistan seems to be opting for a path similar to that of Israel. The submarine leg of the nuclear triad, as we know, is the most survivable, although cruise missile equipped subs are more vulnerable and less useful due to the fact that they must close with their targets before launching.
And so, what's the problem? While Pakistani second strike capability isn't great if your goal is to nuke Pakistan, on balance I think reducing Islamabad's paranoia is a good thing. If the concern is Pakistan's tight relationship with China, I think that ship has already sailed; China and Pakistan have compelling reasons for the close strategic relationship they've maintained for the past fifty years. If the concern is the political unreliability of the Pakistani Navy, then this is something we obviously need to take seriously and deal with productively. The idea of a Pakistani submarine equipped with nuclear armed cruise missiles and operated by a rogue crew is genuinely alarming. The best way of dealing with this might be to expose the Pakistani Navy to the best practices of established nuclear powers for maintaining control of their submarine based nuclear deterrents (which would presumably go somewhat beyond repeated viewings of Crimson Tide and Hunt for Red October). Reminding the Chinese of the potential negative effects of a nuclear armed sub controlled by Islamists might also be called for.
But in any case, as with most threats we should be as specific as possible regarding which value is actually threatened, and how that threat is manifested. This is important in terms of the ongoing discussion about the merits of a cooperative vs. competitive/hegemonic maritime strategy; is the problem posed by nuclear-equipped Pakistani submarines fundamentally of a competitive monitor/hunt/kill nature, or is it a cooperative training/socialization nature? This matters quite a bit, and not just for Pakistan. I think, for example, that in light of nuclear deterrence theory, focusing US capabilities around hunting and killing Soviet boomers in the Arctic probably wasn't either the best use of resources or particularly wise on its own merits. This is to say that even in the context of strategic relationship that are broadly hostile/competitive, there are almost always substantial gains to be realized through a cooperative focus.
For those who got lost in the trade speak, basically China is exporting submarines specifically designed to deliver nuclear weapons. The submarines will be armed with cruise missiles designed, built, and delivered by China to Pakistan intended to launch Pakistan nuclear warheads.
The most troubling part of this article is that it is very probably accurate. The article is worth reading in full, as it also claims China is giving the Pakistan Navy two Jiangkai I-class Type 054 frigates.
Okay... but let's be clear about just what is troubling. Pakistan may, with Chinese assistance, be building a submarine based nuclear deterrent. India is doing the same thing, only with Russian assistance. Whereas India's program is similar in nature to the submarine based nuclear deterrents of Russia, China, the US, France, and the UK, Pakistan seems to be opting for a path similar to that of Israel. The submarine leg of the nuclear triad, as we know, is the most survivable, although cruise missile equipped subs are more vulnerable and less useful due to the fact that they must close with their targets before launching.
And so, what's the problem? While Pakistani second strike capability isn't great if your goal is to nuke Pakistan, on balance I think reducing Islamabad's paranoia is a good thing. If the concern is Pakistan's tight relationship with China, I think that ship has already sailed; China and Pakistan have compelling reasons for the close strategic relationship they've maintained for the past fifty years. If the concern is the political unreliability of the Pakistani Navy, then this is something we obviously need to take seriously and deal with productively. The idea of a Pakistani submarine equipped with nuclear armed cruise missiles and operated by a rogue crew is genuinely alarming. The best way of dealing with this might be to expose the Pakistani Navy to the best practices of established nuclear powers for maintaining control of their submarine based nuclear deterrents (which would presumably go somewhat beyond repeated viewings of Crimson Tide and Hunt for Red October). Reminding the Chinese of the potential negative effects of a nuclear armed sub controlled by Islamists might also be called for.
But in any case, as with most threats we should be as specific as possible regarding which value is actually threatened, and how that threat is manifested. This is important in terms of the ongoing discussion about the merits of a cooperative vs. competitive/hegemonic maritime strategy; is the problem posed by nuclear-equipped Pakistani submarines fundamentally of a competitive monitor/hunt/kill nature, or is it a cooperative training/socialization nature? This matters quite a bit, and not just for Pakistan. I think, for example, that in light of nuclear deterrence theory, focusing US capabilities around hunting and killing Soviet boomers in the Arctic probably wasn't either the best use of resources or particularly wise on its own merits. This is to say that even in the context of strategic relationship that are broadly hostile/competitive, there are almost always substantial gains to be realized through a cooperative focus.
I'm an assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce, University of Kentucky.
Special Forces Retrieve "Dead and Wounded" in Somalia
I've discussed this issue twice, here and here, and now more details are being released which suggests I may have been pretty close both times.U.S. military forces landed in Somalia to retrieve the bodies of dead or wounded militants after a U.S. drone strike targeted a group of insurgents, Somalia's defense minister told The Associated Press on Friday.It's not over according to reports on the ground.
The operation is at least the second time U.S. troops have landed in Somalia after a targeted strike, though no forces have been stationed there since shortly after the "Black Hawk Down" battle that left 18 Americans dead.
Defense Minister Abdulhakim Mohamoud Haji Faqi called on the U.S. to carry out more airstrikes against the al-Qaida-linked militants.
Somali officials apparently were not informed about the June 23 operation near the southern coastal town of Kismayo beforehand.
Low flying jets were seen over the insurgent strongholds of Merka in Lower Juba and Kismayo in Lower Shabelle during the last 24 hours sparking fears in residents that new airstrikes are imminent.That report is from today, a few hours ago. Somalia has quickly become a hot zone for US military activity, and it has nothing to do with pirates.
The airplanes started flying over Merka on Thursday evening after Makrib Salat (evening prayers), and the insurgents ordered residents to remain in their houses, according to locals who spoke to Somalia Report.
About 7:00 pm, we saw airplanes flying over the town. They did not fire but the residents are feeling terror because they afraid they will be victims if the planes strike al-Shabaab targets, said Ahmadey Maow, a resident in Merka.
One of the al-Shabaab militia in Merka, who spoke to Somalia Report on the condition of anonymity, said that all al-Shabaab officers in Merka fled from the town last night to Shalanbood and Buulo-mareer.
I wonder what we are doing with the "wounded" once they are captured?
US "Humanitarian Operations" in Libya Are Lethal
From the White House Report to Congress on Libya (PDF) dated June 15, 2011.Where We Are NowFrom Air Force Times dated June 30, 2011.
An international coalition of NATO and Arab allies continues to pursue the limited military mission to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 and protect the Libyan people. At the onset of military operations, the United States leveraged its unique military capabilities to halt the regime’s offensive actions and degrade its air defense systems before turning over full command and control responsibility to a NATO-led coalition on March 31. Since that time:
- Three-quarters of the over 10,000 sorties flown in Libya have now been by non-U.S. coalition partners, a share that has increased over time.
- All 20 ships enforcing the arms embargo are European or Canadian.
- The overwhelming majority of strike sorties are now being flown by our European allies while American strikes are limited to the suppression of enemy air defense and occasional strikes by unmanned Predator UAVs against a specific set of targets, all within the UN authorization, in order to minimize collateral damage in urban areas.
- The United States provides nearly 70 percent of the coalition’s intelligence capabilities and a majority of its refueling assets, enabling coalition aircraft to stay in the air longer and undertake more strikes.
An Africa Command (AFRICOM) spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday that since NATO’s Operation Unified Protector (OUP) took over from the American-led Operation Odyssey Dawn on March 31, the U.S. military has flown hundreds of strike sorties. Previously, Washington had claimed that it was mostly providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and tanker support to NATO forces operating over Libya.From NATO HQ Operational Media Update June 29, 2011.
“U.S. aircraft continue to fly support [ISR and refueling] missions, as well as strike sorties under NATO tasking,” AFRICOM spokeswoman Nicole Dalrymple said in an emailed statement. “As of today, and since 31 March, the U.S. has flown a total of 3,475 sorties in support of OUP. Of those, 801 were strike sorties, 132 of which actually dropped ordnance.”
Air OperationsBasically we know that:
Since the beginning of the NATO operation (31 March 2011, 08.00GMT) a total of 13,184 sorties, including 4,963 strike sorties*, have been conducted.
Sorties conducted 29 JUNE: 149
Strike sorties conducted 29 JUNE: 55
*Strike sorties are intended to identify and engage appropriate targets, but do not necessarily deploy munitions each time.
- The US has flown over 16% of all strike sorties since March 31, 2011.
- The US has flown over 26% of all total sorties since March 31, 2011.
- The share of sorties conducted by the United States has apparently increased since June 15, 2024 if the White House Report to Congress was accurate when it said "Three-quarters of the over 10,000 sorties flown in Libya have now been by non-U.S. coalition partners, a share that has increased over time."
The revelation that the US has conducted 801 strike sorties since March 31, 2024 as part of what has been stressed - a limited role - raises doubts on the Presidents credibility. The President could legitimately be accused of fighting transparency of his Libyan policy with more vigor than he is fighting Gaddafi. It also raises a very serious question regarding what else is he hiding about US involvement in Libya? No troops? So the whole military doctrine regarding air traffic controllers and spotters for cruise missiles in a war zone was thrown out for the Libyan campaign? Sure it was.
What is particularly frustrating is that the President almost certainly could win the support of Congress for his Libyan campaign if he was trying. I am not sure what is gained from concealing important details like 800+ US strike sorties as part of our NATO operation contribution. All this talk of limited role towards supporting NATO allies sounds like bullshit when that actually means 132 air strikes with bombs delivered.
President Obama is currently fighting wars in Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia primarily with airpower, and yet not a single credible American strategist would ever claim any of these wars can be won with airpower. Which of these air campaigns is the President being honest with the American people about? How do any of these air campaigns end well?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)