PANAMAX 2011 Peru Navy F60

09/12/2011

09/12/2011: PANAMAX 2011 is an annual multinational training exercise sponsored by U.S. Southern Command focusing on the security of the Panama Canal. Involving 16 nations from the Western Hemisphere and more than 3,500 civil and military personnel, the 12-day exercise takes place off the coasts of Panama and the United States, including Fort Sam Houston, Texas, Miami, Naval Station Mayport, Fla., and Stennis, Miss., among others Aug 15-26.

[slidepress gallery=’panamax-2011-peru-navy-f60′]

Credit: US Navy Public Affairs Support Element West:08/19/2011

  • In the first photo, a Peruvian Navy Fokker F60 UTA-N prepares to take off from Tocumen airport to participate in naval maritime surveillance for PANAMAX 2011 sea phase.
  • In the second photo, a Peruvian Navy Fokker F60 UTA-N takes off from Tocumen airport to participate in naval maritime surveillance for PANAMAX 2011 sea phase.


A Missed Opportunity Recalled

09/10/2011
One of the younger participants at the LPD-24 christening does not know that her generation has the privilege of inheriting 70-year-old ships for the defense of her nation. She gets to pay for the national debt and have capital ships older than her parents and perhaps even her grandparents. Great deal for her. (Credit: SLD)

The LPD-24 Sails Into the Future

By Ed Timperlake and Robbin Laird

06/14/2011 – Recently, it was revealed that DOD plans to keep in operation ships for more than 70 years!  To put this in context, if the USS Maine had not been blown up in Havana it could have over a seventy year life cycle made an early deployment to the Coast of Vietnam during the war.

Even contemplating keeping capital ships in service over this length of time undercuts the significant sustainment capabilities, which new capital ships bring to the fight.  Sustainability is the missing factor in evaluating re-capitalization of the power projection forces.

Keeping old ships in operation for longer than their planned service life ensures that newer and more maintainable ships are not being deployed instead.  And keeping old ships in operation raises fundamental questions about the real commitment to the Green Navy.

One of the younger participants at the LPD-24 christening does not know that her generation has the privilege of inheriting 70-year-old ships for the defense of her nation. She gets to pay for the national debt and have capital ships older than her parents and perhaps even her grandparents.  Great deal for her. (Credit: SLD)
One of the younger participants at the LPD-24 christening does not know that her generation has the privilege of inheriting 70-year-old ships for the defense of her nation. She gets to pay for the national debt and have capital ships older than her parents and perhaps even her grandparents. Great deal for her. (Credit: SLD)

Already, the $2 billion a week Afghan war and $2 million dollar a day Libyan adventure have taken money from needed investment in power projection capabilities, but openly flaunting the goal of deploying the 70 year warship is a first.

 

Chris Cavas, the well-known naval analyst, in a recent piece in Defense News, revealed this shocking news. The current USN leadership is planning to keep ships in operation way beyond any reasonable concept of operational life.

The U.S. Navy’s two command ships, each about 40 years old, are busy vessels. The Japan-based Blue Ridge, flagship of the U.S. Seventh Fleet, recently completed a cruise around the Far East and supported relief operations in Japan. The Mount Whitney, flagship of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, served as a headquarters ship for the initial coalition strikes in March against Libya.

Cavas added that The ships are at a stage in their service lives where the Navy normally might be expected to plan for replacements. But in a recent update to the 30-year shipbuilding plans, the ships have been extended to serve another 28 years – until 2039.

Cavas cryptically added: Only the sail frigate Constitution, a museum ship in Boston that was launched in 1797, has been in service longer, and she was never expected to last this long.

How can this happen?  And where is the outrage that should accompany any such “ship decapitation” plan?

The answer in part is that the national media does not focus in any way on the core capabilities, which this country possesses to build the ships the nation needs.  Recently, we experienced such a process.  The Second Line of Defense team attended the christening of the LPD-24, which is the latest in the LPD-17 series.

The ship has made tremendous progress and the program manager discussed with us the fact that they have reduced by two and half million hours the touch labor necessary to build this ship in the course of the production process.  This ship is a crucial command ship allowing the Gator navy with the new aviation assets on board to become a different animal than we have seen before.

As we argued earlier:

Fast forward to the newly configured USMC Amphibious Ready Group (ARG).

The new ARG built around the LPD 17 has a larger deck to operate from, with modern C2 capabilities.

The F-35B can be launched as the picket fence operating on the border of Libya able to do electronic warfare, C4ISR and preparation for kinetic or non-kinetic strike.

The CH-53K can take off from the amphibious ships and carry three times the cargo of a CH-53E, to include 463L pallets (normally used in KC-130s).

The USMC Ospreys can support insertion operations with speed and range.

The force can of course secure an airfield for humanitarian airlift; the picket fence of the F-35s replace the AWACs and can guide coalition airpower into Libyan airspace to support agreed upon missions.  The USAF does not need to move a large air operation into place to send combat air; the USN does not need to move a large aircraft carrier battle group into place to prepare to strike Libya.

What the newly equipped ARG does is provide a significant shaping function for the President.  And this shaping function allows significant flexibility and, is in fact, a redefinition of the dichotomy between hard and soft power.

The USN-USMC amphibious team can provide for a wide-range of options for the President simply by being offshore, with 5th generation aircraft capability on board which provides 360 situational awareness, deep visibility over the air and ground space, and carrying significant capability on board to empower a full spectrum force as needed.

And if you add the LCS to the USN-USMC amphibious team you have even more capability and more options.  As a senior USMC MEU commander has put it:

You’re sitting off the coast, pick your country, doesn’t matter, you’re told okay, we’ve got to do some shaping operations, we want to take and put some assets into shore, their going to do some shaping work over here.  LCS comes in, very low profile platform.  Operating off the shore, inserts these guys in small boats that night.  They infill, they go in, their doing their mission.The LCS now sets up — it’s a gun platform.  It’s a resupply, refuel point for my Hueys and Cobras.
Now, these guys get in here, okay.  High value targets been picked out, there is an F-35 that’s doing some other operations.  These guys only came with him and said hey, we have got a high value target, but if we take him out, we will compromise our position. The F-35 goes roger, got it painted, got it seen.  This is what you’re seeing, this is what I’m seeing.  Okay.  Kill the target.  The guys on the ground never even know what hit them.

Simply by completing the procurement of what the USN and USMC are in the course of doing in a very short period, the nation gains significant flexibility to deal with ambiguous strategic situations. (https://www.sldinfo.com/?p=16486)

If the emphasis is on jobs, or on military capability, building more LPD-17s is part of the answer rather than touting the concept of operating 70 plus year old ships.

As the LPD-17 program manager underscored:

We seem to only have one more of these potentially in the queue, LPD-27. Unfortunately, we’re getting into that sweet spot now with these ships where we’ve ironed out a lot of the issues.  We’re on a good learning curve.  If we could keep going on these things, there’s no telling where we could take these ships relative to reductions in vessel labor, and overall improvements in operational excellence.

By the way, the LPD-24 was named for the USS Arlington and only Av Week and ourselves attended from out of area.  This is truly amazing as NO Washington Area paper deemed it worth its while to show up.  This kind of indifference to the ceremony, to the ship and to the USN and USMC team could not be a more compelling testimony of why the USN and USMC will be forced, if plans do not change, to ply the waters with 20th century USS Constitutions.

During the ceremony remembering the attack on the Pentagon, the World Trade Center and the fatal crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, officials gathered to christen the USS Arlington on March 26, 2011. The event included Arlington County officials, members of families who had lost kin in the Pentagon attack, and USN, USMC and shipyard officials and workers. The LPD-17 class will include ships named for the three sites where terrorists brought home to the United States the global conflagration, which has been called the war on terror.

The Second Line of Defense team had a chance to meet a man and his wife who symbolized the American experience. He was a Vietnam combat veteran, with eight close friends whose names are forever on The Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Tragically he and his wife were present to honor lost family members including two very young children when they were aboard the fatal American Airlines jet.

Seeing such a man brought home the loss, which Americans had that day. Indeed, this man symbolized for us the need and importance of American global engagement to reduce threats to the American homeland and to the continued American engagement to work with friends and allies to contain the terrorist challenge. (https://www.sldinfo.com/?p=17052)

The Washington Post, the hometown paper of Arlington Virginia chose not to send a reporter to cover the event.  We pursued the question with the Post and we were told it was a question of resources.  This was a mistake regardless of excuses about resources. More to the point it reflects the sense of priorities.

The United States Navy is the greatest Navy the world has ever seen and on that point there can be no doubt. No relative nuances or shades of gray can cloud that issue.

When a US Navy Battle fleet is task organized from a Carrier Battle Group, to a Navy/Marine Amphibious Ready Group, which the USS Arlington will be a key ship, to independent submarine missions on station for deterrence to independent patrols by fast attack subs the reach of the American Navy/Marine team is still truly global.  America will also never forget it was US Navy Seals that schwacked Osama Bin Laden.

Midshipman at the United States Naval Academy are taught that history shows the size of the Navy is fragile and dependent of the faith, confidence and tax money committed by the American people in support of the Navy’s mission. When a national paper of The Washington Post’s reputation could not be bothered and takes a wire feed to consider the story, it is no wonder the debate is skewered against support for building new ships, and hence, capabilities for the United States.

America can across the board lose our national security-slowly then quickly.

The founding of the Navy on October 13 1775 lead to a Navy that helped win the American Revolution. John Paul Jones, father of the American Navy said it best “I have not yet begun to fight.” But right after the revolution the US Navy completely went away and thus began the historical boom and bust cycle of America as a Naval Power.

Today the Navy is shrinking to pre-WWI levels and reports are surfacing that with current planning ships will be extended to more than 70 years in service.

Soon with Secretary Gates leaving his post as Secretary of Defense the Administration and Congress will begin to have robust debates about the future of our security. This is fair.

But what is not fair is continually “reporting” that the “acquisition system” is flawed and expensive. US Naval Officers and shipbuilders do not wake up every morning and think how can they deliver over-priced expensive and not combat capable ships to the fleet.

If the Administration and the Congress would commit to robust production, costs clearly would come down.  But this is not happening.

To quote the LPD Program Manager:

As the Navy has sized down to significantly fewer ships  from the 600-ship fleet pursued during the Reagan era, the industrial base has shrunk along with it. Also, a lot of our suppliers, like Caterpillar have gone overseas to find more business, Caterpillar particularly is doing a lot of business over in China. So now, where the American shipbuilder used to be one of the prime customers for some of these big manufacturers, now, with fewer orders, we have to get in the manufacturing line like everyone else, and wait our turn.

We’re seeing things now that we never saw before.  For instance, on the diesel engines, we have always had a pretty long lead-time on the diesel engines, but you could get a typical long lead contract and get your engines in ahead of construction of the ship. Now, we’ve had to restructure some of that a little bit, and the Navy’s had to become a little bit more flexible.  When we went to buy the engines on LPD-25, and again on 26, we had to have advanced long lead-time material to give our engine suppliers, because they had to buy their bearings and rods from suppliers that are also serving some markets overseas, which meant longer lead time for parts for our engine suppliers and consequently longer time for the engines. So, it stretched out the length of some of these big procurements a little bit longer.  And I perhaps that’s the way business is going to be, as long as the procurement volumes are significantly reduced.

The LPD-17 is the latest case of the nation getting to the point where it knows how to build something well and then ends building the platform.  It is sort of like Apple stopping with the first tranche of I Pads and saying that they are going out of the tablet PC business.

Again let us return to the LPD 17 program manager.

Because of the hurricanes, our workforce that remained with us was stressed and we also lost a lot of our workforce both here and at Avondale.  We ended up having to outsource units to subcontractors to do the steelwork on 22 and 23.  And that was not a very efficient way to do it, until we could build our workforce back up. We’re back up to speed now; our workforce has the experience with these ships now to really crank them out. If we could build more of these, there’s no telling where the price on this could go. We are now on a very good learning curve, which has allowed us to get the cost of these ships down.  Material costs are the material costs, the overhead costs, you can control somewhat, but vessel labor is where we can really make the biggest difference.

But this does not matter if one believes that 70 year operational ships is OK.  Such thinking leads quickly and inevitably to further erosion of our power projection capability The President and the Nation deserve better.

The Japanese Coast Guard: Japan’s “hidden navy?”

09/08/2011

Risk Intelligence

By Tetsuo Kotani, Special Research Fellow, the Okazaki Institute, Tokyo

Strategic Insights, No. 31, March 2011

09/08/2011 – Surrounded by the sea on all sides, Japan enjoys the benefits of the waters around it in the form of fishery and maritime trade with countries around the world. However, these waters are also troubled with various problems, including maritime accidents such as collisions and running aground of ships, illegal entry of foreigners on smuggling vessels, maritime crimes such as the smuggling of illegal drugs and other contraband, and international disputes over the sovereignty of territorial possessions and maritime resources.

Security and safety

Japanese exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is about 4,470,000 km2 (world’s 6th largest), while the territory is about 380,000 km2 (world’s 61st largest). Its coast­line is about 35,000 km (world’s 6th longest). Japan has 6,847 remote islands in addition to the five main islands (Honshu, Hokkaido, Kyushu, Shikoku, and Oki­nawa). If Wakkanai, the northernmost city in Hokkaido, were Copenhagen, Denmark, then the remotest islands of Ishigaki, Okinotori, and Minamitori would be Casablanca, Morocco, Tripoli, Libya, and Alexandria, Egypt, respectively.

In other words, Japanese waters stretch as far as NATO Europe plus the Mediterranean.

Since its establishment in May 1948, the Japan Coast Guard (JCG) has been charged with the duty of ensuring security and safety at sea. In order to ensure that the people of Japan can utilize and enjoy the various blessings of the sea some 12,500 Coast Guard officers around the country are engaged day and night in a variety of activities, including maritime safety operations, search and rescue operations, criminal investigations, marine environment preservation, disaster mitigation, and marine research, while at the same time they strengthen cooperation with other countries.

Securing sea borders

The distance between the baselines of Japan and its neighbors is less than 400 nautical miles, but the delimitation with its neighboring Russia, China, and South Korea has not been fixed. The Northern Territories and Takeshima Island are under effective control of Russia and South Korea, respectively, and China claims jurisdiction over the Senkaku Islands, which are under Japanese control. japan’s hidden navy Figure 1 Credit: Risk Intelligence

The Russian authority frequently captures Japanese fishing boats around the Northern Territories, and in 2006 a Japanese fisherman was killed for the first time since 1956.

South Korea stations security forces on Takeshima Island and has captured 326 Japanese fishing boats near the island. Chinese activists and fishing boats violate the territo­rial seas around the Senkaku Islands, and a Chinese trawler violating Japanese territorial waters rammed into a JCG cutter in September 2010.

Growing tension over maritime interests poses serious challenges to good order at sea. China actively conducts scientific surveys in Japanese EEZs. Such activities reached a peak in 1999, and 33 Chinese survey ships were detected. Japan and China reached an agreement on prior notification regarding scientific surveys in the East China Sea in 2001, but China still conducts unreported surveys without recognizing Japan’s EEZs in the East China Sea and the Philippine Sea. The JCG deploys patrol boats and aircraft to regulate scientific surveys by foreign ships in Japanese EEZs.

North Korean spy boat incidents first led to the reassessment of JCG’s role in securing sea borders. The JCG detected a North Korean spy boat in the Sea of Japan off Noto Peninsula in March 1999, but failed to arrest it. Based on the lessons from this incident, the JCG prepared a response manual and the JCG law was amended to allow the use of force for the purpose of stopping suspicious boats. In December 2001, the JCG detected another North Korean spy boat in the East China Sea off southwest Kyushu and exchanged shots. The spy boat detonated itself in the end, and Japan salvaged the boat and confirmed that it was a North Korean ship engaged in drug smuggling. The whole story was broadcasted on TV and Japanese tax­payers appreciated JCG’s role in securing sea borders. After this incident, the JCG introduced 12 high-speed, high-capability patrol boats, including three 2,000-ton helicopter patrol boats, to deal with spy boats.

The JCG combats illegal fishing by foreign ships in Japanese EEZs. Illegal fishing by South Koreans in Japanese EEZs is the most serious. Illegal foreign fishermen operate high-speed boats, GPS, and other sophisticated devises and they are becoming violent. Japan regulates those illegal fishing with patrol boats and aircraft in cooperation with the Fishery Agency, while introducing more sophisticated radar and other equipment. patrol vessel

Counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation are new additions to the JCG’s mission.

The JCG has intensified port state control according to the 2004 amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), The JCG is also strengthening security of important seaside facilities such as nuclear power plants, oil stockpile stations, ports, and U.S. bases. Counter-terrorism measures at port also have positive effects on smuggling detection. The JCG is Japan’s leading agency for the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) and North Korean ship inspection under the UN Security Council Resolution 1874.

In addition to its own efforts to secure sea borders, the JCG has been promoting bilateral and multilateral partnerships to maintain good order at sea. The JCG has bilateral agreements with its counterparts in South Korea, China, and Russia on coordinated enforcement of illegal fishing and smuggling, rescue, and regular or irregular mutual visits of ships and personnel.

The JCG also initiated a multilateral forum. In December 2000, the JCG took the lead in organizing a conference among the head of coasts guards and equivalent entities of Japan, Russia, the United States, and South Korea. China and Canada joined this group later, and it has become an annual North Pacific Coast Guard Forum (NPCGF), comprising of a commandant-level and working-level meetings.

The NDPGF has become a useful confidence-building mechanism, producing practical outcomes such as joint operational guidelines, combined training for counter-smuggling and fishery enforcement patrol. This forum, however, avoids dis­cussion on sensitive territorial issues.

Navigational safety and the environment

Securing navigational safety and marine environmen­tal protection are important missions for the JCG. There are about 2,600 maritime accidents annually in Japanese waters. Japan was the first country that in­troduced MARTIS (Marine Traffic Information Service) and recently introduced MICS (Maritime Information and Communication Service) so that those who enjoy marine leisure can get maritime safety information. In 2005, Japan formulated the New Traffic Vision, which called for the development of ENSS (Electronic Navigation Support System), an IT-based comprehensive navigational safety system based on AIS (Automatic Identification System).

The accidents of the Russian tanker, NAKHODKA, in the Sea of Japan in January 1997 spilled about 9,000 tons of heavy oil led to strengthening of Japan’s oil spill countermeasures. Those measures include enhanced interagency communication, revising prevention law and plans, introduction of new recovery and cleanup equipment.

More recently, according to the Protocol on Preparedness, Response and Co-opera­tion to Pollution Incidents by Hazardous and Noxious Substances, 2000 (OPRC-HNS), the JCG is introducing HNS prevention equipment and training response team.

Securing sea-lanes

Another turning point for the JCG was the ALONDORA RAINBOW incident of October 1999. Pirates in the Strait of Malacca hijacked the Japanese cargo ship, and the Indian Navy and Coast Guard found and rescued the ship.

After this incident, the JCG took the initiative to establish a multilateral framework to deal with piracy in the region. Japan hosted a series of international antipiracy efforts inviting regional law enforcement agencies, maritime policy agencies, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and ship owners.

A product of this multilateral approach was the ReCAAP (Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships), the first in­tergovernmental antipiracy agreement adopted by 16 regional countries, including Japan, the ROK, China, India, and ASEAN member countries.

ReCAAP went into force and an Information Sharing Centre was established in Singapore in 2006.

At the same time, the JCG contributed to capacity building of coastal states in Southeast Asia. The JCG, in cooperation with the Japan International Coopera­tion Agency (JICA), provided assistance for the establishment of regional law enforcement entities, such as the Malaysia Maritime Enforcement Agency (MMEA) and the Indonesian BAKORKAMLA, a law enforcement coordination body.

The JCG also initiated the annual Heads of Asian Coast Guard Agencies Meeting and took the lead in organizing the annual meeting in 2004, inviting 18 Asian countries, including ASEAN member countries to enhance response capabilities for antipiracy and counter-terrorism.

With regard to the piracy off Somalia, the Japanese government concluded that the situation was beyond JCG’s capacity and has dispatched Maritime Self-Defense Force destroyers and patrol aircraft to the Gulf of Aden since March 2009. The JCG cutters are too vulnerable to Somali pirates’ firearms and not designed for distant waters operations. Instead, JCG officers are aboard the destroyers for law enforcement.

A “hidden navy”?

Professor Richard Samuels at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology regards the JCG as Japan’s “new fighting power”. Although Japan has self-imposed constraints on security policy and spending, Japanese strategists have found the JCG is a useful tool to overcome those constraints, he argues.

They have used the JCG budget to surpass the self-imposed limit on defense spending — one percent of GDP – and changed the rules of naval engagement. JCG modernization and expansion not only enhances Japan’s power projection capabilities, but it also enhances its influence projection without inviting criticism from neighboring countries and domestic public. He concludes that while the JCG will not become a “second navy”, it is already de facto a fourth branch of the Japanese military.

However, this argument may be an overestimation of JCG’s current capabilities. The September 2010 collisions between a Chinese trawler and Japan Coast Guard patrol vessels in Japanese waters off the Sen­kaku Islands is a reminder of the importance of protecting this nation’s waters. Major Japanese political parties agree that the ability of the JCG to guard Japanese waters needs to be steadily reinforced, and the govern­ment has been updating JCG vessel and aircraft since 2006.

Vessels too old

Some of JCG patrol boats are showing their age and have reached the end of their useful life. Their hulls have corroded and they are too slow to perform their duties properly, among other shortcomings. The JCG’s activities will be seriously affected if the vessels remain in less-than-shipshape condition. The JCG plans to replace 10 large patrol vessels that are particularly time­worn among the 87 vessels that have reached the end of their useful life.

However, replacing these ships will take at least six years. The JCG has a plan to construct 22 new patrol boats, including a 6,500-tonne helicopter-vessel and 6 1,000-ton cutters.

There also are problems in the communications systems between ships, airplanes and helicopters. The JCG has not installed digital radio equipment that sends extremely secure transmission on all its vessels and aircraft. Some are still equipped only with analog radios, whose communications can reportedly be monitored by radios available on the market. As things stand, JCG vessels and aircraft cannot share any important information with vessels of the Maritime Self-Defense Force. The JCG has a 2 billion-yen upgrade plan for these communication systems.

Legal framework needed

However, shortcomings in domestic laws that surfaced following two incidents involving North Korean spy ships about a decade ago remain uncorrected. Japan had to deal with the spy ships by invoking the Fisheries Law and other laws, as there was no legislation designed specifically to deal with violations of territorial waters.

Although the Japanese government decided to allow the JCG to take more flexible response to viola­tions in January 2011, the Territorial Sea Law needs to be revised to make violating Japan’s territorial waters an offense.

Since the collisions off the Senkakus, Beijing has frequently sent fishery patrol vessels to waters near the islands, including helicopter-equipped, state-of-the-art fishery patrol boats armed with machine guns.

China is trying to boost its control over disputed waters in the South China Sea by dispatching armed fishery patrol boats under the pretext of protecting its fishing vessels. Beijing is possibly taking similar action in the East China Sea, too. The Japanese government is considering a legal framework that enables the JCG to inspect foreign vessels, but an advisory board on JCG concluded that inspection of foreign government ships is not realistic.

Conclusion

The JCG has the hard daily task of policing port approaches and harbors, as well as patrolling Japan’s contested territorial water and EEZ claims. It conducts confidence-building measures with counterparts in the neighboring countries, while contributing capacity building in Southeast Asia.

But it does not project power. The JCG is, as Article 25 of the JCG Act clearly states, not the military but police. JCG patrol boats operate independently, not under a fleet commander.

However, the collisions between the Chinese trawler and JCG cutters was a wakeup call for Japanese decision makers about the need to upgrade the JCG to secure Japanese maritime borders and interests in the coming years.

Japanese are now intolerant of Chinese arrogance, and the Japanese government will be forced to take a resolute attitude if a similar incident occurs. On the other hand, given the strict fiscal constraints, it is unlikely that the JCG will be upgraded sufficiently. In fact, the JCG budget increase is almost flat for Fiscal Year 2011. Therefore, the Japanese government will need to upgrade ‘software’ such as its legal framework, rather than hardware.

A Warthog Takes a Drink

09/08/2011: An A-10 Thunderbolt II is refueled over southern Afghanistan. The most prominent feature of the A-10 Thunderbolt II is the 30 mm GAU-8/A Avenger Gatling-gun cannon. This weapon is capable of firing 3,900 rounds a minute and can defeat an array of ground targets, including tanks. Both the A-10 and GAU-8 entered service in 1977, and the gun represents 16 percent of the aircraft’s weight.The second and third photos show an A-10 Thunderbolt II moving into position behind a KC-135 Stratotanker before refueling. The A-10, deployed to Afghanistan from Moody AFB, Ga., in on a mission providing close air support to coalition forces in Afghanistan.

[slidepress gallery=’a-warthog-takes-a-drink’]

Credit: U.S. Air Forces Central Public Affairs:08/18/2011

The Strategic Perspective from the 11th USCG District

09/08/2011 – The Second Line of Defense team visited the 11th USCG District in July 2011.  The team included retired Rear Admiral Ed Gilbert who among other things was a former 11th USCG District commander.  The current commander, Rear Admiral Joseph Castillo, provided a perspective of some of the key challenge posed by the size of the District as compared to his current capabilities.

The 11th USCG District is a very large area:

The Eleventh Coast Guard District encompasses the states of California, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah, the coastal and offshore waters out over more than a thousand miles from the California-Oregon border to the California-Mexico board, and the offshore waters of Mexico and Central America down to Ecuador.  Coast Guard operational units are located throughout the state of California, with the Eleventh District and Pacific Area headquarters located on Coast Guard Island in Alameda, California along the east side of San Francisco Bay. (http://www.uscg.mil/d11/)

Ports are the hub in a system of spokes reaching deep inland into the inland waterways and deep outward into the seas.  (Credit: Bigstock)
Ports are the hub in a system of spokes reaching deep inland into the inland waterways and deep outward into the seas. (Credit: Bigstock)

Rear Admiral Castillo highlighted a key reality for the USCG, which is oftentimes overlooked; the USCG has safety and security responsibilities for the inland waterways, a system which reaches significantly back from deepwater and port responsibilities, in addition to their more well known coastal and open ocean responsibilities.  Indeed, one can conceive of ports as the hub of a wheel in which the spokes reach out into the ocean and back deep into the interior in certain areas.

Rear Admiral Castillo emphasized that with the very large area of offshore operations, it is critical to have enough assets to be physically present in the various diverse sub-regions throughout the AOR.

Rear Admiral Castillo: You need to have enough assets so that you are actually near or physically present in an area of interest.  With the vast area to be covered, and the fact that ships move relatively slowly, a significant number of assets are needed to maintain this presence due to the simple reality of time-speed-distance..

And modern and capable ships, to me, are at the heart of persistent presence in terms of ability to execute the mission in the offshore area.  For example, if you are pursuing a go fast vessel, you can have an MPA (Maritime Patrol Aircraft) tracking them.  That is helpful, but I will need a ship partner with the MPA that is able to intercept, stop and board that ship to fully execute the law enforcement mission.

What I need is a persistent presence that can not only survey the area and identify the traffic in that area, but also be able to sort and target from among that traffic to identify those threats or challenges that are of interest to us.

Given the reality of the time/speed/distance problem, I’m just not convinced that you can achieve mission effectiveness without having a large number of assets, or a smaller number of more capable assets, that you can put against the threat or mission.  And until we figure out how it is that we can star trek transport things around, I’m still stuck with the physics of being able to get boots on target right now.

Will there be a way of delivering by aircraft, long distances at sea, to get somebody on the target of interest?  That may be where we can go in the future as opposed to only vessels.  Who knows?

What I know now is that I need to be able to operate in all weather conditions with significant sea states and for extended periods of time and over long distances, and be able to deliver helicopters and small boats to effect end game, be it in law enforcement, search and rescue, migrant interdiction or other missions.   I need to be able to sort, and figure out whom it is that I need to target, and be able to get somebody on that vessel that can take law enforcement interdiction action, and bring it to a successful conclusion.

When it comes to offshore search and rescue, when there’s no Coast Guard vessel anywhere nearby, AMVER has been very successful and saved a number of lives.  This is a voluntary merchant vessel tracking system operated by the Coast Guard where merchant ships share their transit plan and make themselves available to assist fellow mariners in distress in their vicinity. This partnership has been very helpful in identifying merchant vessels that can help out when we can’t get one of our own platforms there.

We’ve also developed many great partnerships with other countries in the search and rescue realm as well.  But we don’t have the same number of search and rescue cases well off our shores, and deep down in the Eastern Pacific than we do in the  counter drug arena.

In the Eleventh District, the counter drug mission is the primary driver of the need for more ships to be available to prosecute, to evaluate, and engage whatever targets of interest we find.

Another key challenge, which the Rear Admiral discussed, was managing the conveyer belt of goods coming into the United States.

"Almost half of all US containerized cargo comes through the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach." -Rear Admiral Costillo (Credit: Bigstock)“Almost half of all US containerized cargo comes through the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach.” -Rear Admiral Costillo (Credit: Bigstock)

Rear Admiral Castillo: Almost half of all US containerized cargo comes through the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach. And if something were to shut that port down, the remaining ports on the west coast would not be able to handle the volume that one port complex handles.  We work very closely with all of our partners in LA/LB, and in all our ports, to ensure the safety, security and efficiency of the port complex.

And the process currently in place throughout the country requiring an  Advance Notice of Arrival 96 hours prior to entering a U.S. port is critical to our efficient management of this “conveyer belt”.

You never know for certain what’s in a given container, and you’ve got to be able to reach back overseas, and make sure that they’ve got the security in place where that container’s first getting loaded on a vessel. To enhance the probability that a container will not be a Trojan Horse you need to work with foreign authorities to reduce the risk inherent in the conveyer belt of global trade.

With the establishment of international standards, being able to be confidently determine what’s getting loaded onto vessels in foreign ports, and securing the cargo that’s being brought into our port long before it gets here, that’s a big part of risk management and defense in depth.

(Our piece on budget gaps: https://www.sldinfo.com/looming-gaps-face-the-uscg-either-reduce-the-responsibilities-or-enhance-the-resources/; our piece on the economic impact of the USCG: https://www.sldinfo.com/the-economic-impact-of-the-uscg-an-interview-with-rear-admiral-lee/)

SLD: What is the impact of the shortfalls in numbers of platforms on your thinking about operations?

Rear Admiral Castillo: We can’t be everywhere for everybody all the time.  We have some very capable assets, and some very capable people.

For a short period, we can apply a good number of resources at a specific problem when it happens. But the consequence is that we are not able to apply the resources we would want against our other mission requirements. The vast majority of our assets are multi-mission, but you can’t necessarily use those multi-mission capabilities if you are overwhelmed by resource needs for a certain situation or location.

We’re always ready to tackle something.  We’re not always ready to do every single thing at the same time.

SLD: If USCG resources were cut an additional 30%, what would be the impact on operations?

Rear Admiral Castillo: I think that from a policy standpoint, we would become very “near border” centric. And because that would affect the capacity to handle, even for a short period of time, that significant event that happens close to home, you would not see a lot of Coast Guard units forward deployed, in my opinion.  If you’re talking about the type of resourcing that you just said, 30 percent cut, I think we would become more of a coastal guard.

SLD: Could we go back to the inland waterways challenges and discuss that a bit further?

Rear Admiral Castillo: We used to have a much more active presence inland with Boating Safety Teams. The decision was made some time ago to take that funding that supported that, give that to the states, so the states, as partners, couldmanage that, and the Coast Guard would focus more on the coast, still retaining some responsibilities and authorities, and primarily using the Coast Guard Auxiliary (an organization of volunteers) inland.

I’ve got a situation now where we’re working with Utah.  Utah’s giving us I think three Utah Department of Natural Resources boats for the Auxiliary to run because we’re running short on assets, and they are running short on people.  They’ve got these boats that are sitting there. It’s a partnership made in heaven that they’re willing to provide these boats and maintain them, so the Auxiliary can operate them. But that doesn’t happen everywhere.

And the number of boaters on the inland ways and rivers is just phenomenal.

Protecting and Monitoring the Inland Waterways is a Major Challenge (Credit: Bigstock)
Protecting and Monitoring the Inland Waterways is a Major Challenge (Credit: Bigstock)

SLD: The impact of national and state budgetary cuts can create a perfect storm where safety and security can be seriously compromised.  What are your thoughts on the challenge of managing with missing assets?

Rear Admiral Castillo: There was a case here in Alameda quite recently, and I think it made national news.  There was a gentleman who committed suicide by drowning in sight of the shore.  He stood for some period of time in chest deep water.

People on shore were watching this, and there were police and firefighters who came to the scene.  Because of the budget cuts to them locally, they had discontinued their water-rescue training two years prior, and nobody was trained.  And there was no equipment.

They didn’t have the requisite training, and the equipment to make their own people safe to go ahead and attempt a rescue under those circumstances.  The particular location that he was in, when our boat had arrived, it couldn’t get anywhere near him.  The water was too shallow.

A half-mile away was the closest that we could get.

And it really does help to point out that over time, many of the people that we work with have changes to their capabilities. And depending on what their particular budgetary situation is, they could reduce or drop the marine patrol; that’s often one of the first things that gets cut is the marine patrol when it comes to budget shortages.  We work hard at the Sector level to be aware of capability changes such as this one.

Cases that we would otherwise be looking for them to respond to as partners would then come to us.  And I believe it is the question of what other calls are coming at the same time, whether we can pick up that load because if you’ve got six calls at the same time, you can’t get to all of them because you only got two assets.

Something’s got to give.

SLD: Next to Search and Rescue, what do you consider to be the core USCG mission today?

Rear Admiral Castillo: My answer would be the Port Security challenge to manage and protect the Maritime Transportation System. It is the conveyor belt of the national and global economies, moving people, goods, and services around the globe, and is a core national security issue.  We cannot live as a country just within our waters.  There are tremendous national security implications to keeping the Maritime Transportation System running safely and efficiently.

Turkey’s Syria Problem

09/07/2011

By Dr. Richard Weitz

(Credit: Bigstock)(Credit: Bigstock)

09/05/2011 – Turkish President Abdullah Gu, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu have recently warned that they might side with the Syrian protesters if the Syrian government did not order the security forces to end their massive violence against the peaceful demonstrators. But Turkish leaders still oppose imposing economic sanctions on Syria, have not recalled their ambassador from Damascus, and have not followed Western governments in demanding that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad leave office.

Even so, the Turkish government’s hardening line toward Syria provides an opportunity to strengthen Turkish-U.S. ties.

Turkey’s hedging policy reflects an effort to balance competing domestic and foreign policy interests. On the one hand, Turkey has important economic and security interests at stake in Syria, including a desire to sustain border security and cooperation against Kurdish terrorists. In addition, Turkey does not want to jeopardize its improved relations with Iran, which strongly backs the current Syrian government.

On the other hand, several factors are driving Ankara to adopt a harder line toward Syria. First, Turkish public opinion and civil society are increasingly demanding action. Second, many other foreign countries have lost patience with the Assad regime. Third, the Turkish government also sharpened its line regarding Libya, another case where the regime has resorted to violence to remain in power. Fourth, simple emotion has contributed to the sharpening of the regime’s rhetoric, with Turkish leaders outraged by the massacres and by the Syrian regime’s ignoring their advice.

Relations between Turks and Syrians have historically been troubled. For centuries Syrians were subject to Ottoman rule. Although the Ottoman Empire ended after the First World War, hostility persisted after Turkey annexed the Syrian Hatay district that was located along Turkey’s Southern edge. They disputed Turkey’s water usage and management of rivers on which Syrians rely. In 1998, Turkey threatened to invade Syria to end that government’s support for Kurdish terrorists who, as the Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan (PKK, Kurdistan Workers Party), had established a safe haven there.

The seven years of rapprochement under the AKP have brought about a significant strengthening of Syrian-Turkish ties.

  • In 2004, Turkey and Syria signed a strategic partnership treaty and a free trade agreement, which has made Turkey Syria’s largest trading partner.
  • Turkey and Syria established a visa-free travel regime in 2009.
  • They also began convening joint cabinet-level meetings under the auspices of their new High Level Strategic Cooperation Council.
  • At the second ministerial meeting in early October 2010, the dozen ministers from both countries discussed ambition plans for cooperation in agriculture, energy, environment, health and other fields as well as initiatives to promote economic integration in the Middle East.
  • Turkish officials have, at various times, proposed consideration of a free trade agreement, a customs union, and a visa-free regime.
  • There regional cooperation has also extended to Turkey’s to mediate peace talks between Syria and Israel in 2008.
  • Finally, they have begun to cooperate in the defense sector. Turkey and Syria held an unprecedented three-day military exercise in April 2009.

The Syrian government also had strong incentives to seek a rapprochement. Damascus was isolated during the George W. Bush administration, which considered Syria a core member of its “axis of evil.” Ties with Turkey also yielded Syria important economic benefits at a time when Western governments were imposing more trade, banking, and investment sanctions on Damascus. Turkey helped Syria keep open lines of communication with Israel. Finally, despite Syria’s good relations with Iran, Damascus wanted alternative to provide some leverage in its relations with Iran.

Concerns about Kurdish nationalism have been a major driver of this reconciliation. Syrians have joined with Turks in expressing alarm about the advent of a Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq could affect their own Kurds. Kurdish unrest in Syria’s northeastern city of al-Qamishli in 2004 convinced Damascus to adopt harsher measures against Kurdish nationalists, who had been aroused by the creation of the Kurdistan Regional Government the previous year.

(Credit: Bigstock)(Credit: Bigstock)

Kurds are the largest ethnic minority in Syria, with their community of three million constituting 16% of the population. For the past decade, the Syrian government has offered strong support for Turkish officials to cut off foreign support for the PKK. Last year, Turkey and Syria signed a counterterrorism agreement and a counterinsurgency pact.

Turkish authorities have made considerable if incomplete progress in recent years in transforming the Kurdish question in Turkey from primarily a military-security issue centered on opposition to the PKK to a social-political question that can be addressed by non-violent means. The point that makes Syria case more complicated than other Arab uprisings (or Arab spring for some), is the very existence of an ethnic tension which is capable to affect the region. This factor that can ignite a regional fire is the Kurdish dimension of the problem.

Now the chaos in Syria has weakened this cross-border cooperation. According to the Turkish media, a report of the National Intelligence Organization warns that the Syrian authorities may be decreasing their cooperation on the PKK issues in retaliation for Turkish criticism of Assad’s crackdown. Many PKK operatives are born or based in Syria. And Iranian-Turkish anti-terrorist collaboration may be weakened by their rift over Syria.

Even if the Syrian authorities do not adopt a deliberate policy of aiding the PKK, Turkish officials worry that extremists will exploit the flows of refugees fleeing Syrian impression to infiltrate terrorists into Turkey. Already more than 10,000 Syrian refugees have entered Turkey, and Turkish authorities fear that the Syrian crackdown will lead to mass refugees on the scale of those that followed the 1988 Enfal operation in Iraq.

Turkish strategists still remember what happened after the first Gulf War, when the power vacuum allowed PKK to establish a terrorist structure in northern Iraq and uncontrollable refugee movements provided a “human cover” for these terrorists to infiltrate Turkey. As both countries share an open 850-km border, the flow of Syrian refugees into Turkey will continue commensurate with the scale of the violence in northern Syria, which explains Erdogan’s comment that “Syria is Turkey’s internal affair.”

Given these competing interests, the Turkish government naturally tried at first to straddle the issue. When the Arab Spring unrest spread to Syria in March, Turkey first sought to induce the Assad regime to introduce the reforms demanded by the moderate protesters. Then a June Syrian crackdown in the north led more than 12,000 refugees to flee to Turkey.

The Turkish rhetoric against the violence accordingly escalated. Last month, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu again went to Damascus to demand “concrete steps” to end the violence. But the Syrians have again ignored this latest Turkish initiative, as they did earlier warnings.

Turkey’s relations with the Syrian government have naturally suffered from Ankara’s harder line. Many pro-regime Syrians attack Turkey’s intervention in their internal affairs as an example of “neo-Ottomanism.”  Meanwhile, Turkey’s policies toward Syria are also threatening another AKP achievement: Turkey’s improved relations with Iran.

The preservation of a friendly regime in Damascus is a vital national interest for Iran. The Syrian government represents one of Iran’s few genuine allies, having resisted strong U.S. efforts to wean it away from Tehran.

In addition, Iran’s ability to “unleash” Hamas and Hezbolllah is seen in Tehran as an important means of deterring, through threats of retaliation, Israeli or U.S. military action against Iran.

And Syria provides the territory, intelligence, and other essential enablers that Iranians need to keep these two proxies militarily powerful.

Both Iranian and Turkish leaders want stability in Syria, but they disagree how best to achieve it. Turkish leaders, seeing the disorders as resulting from mass discontent with Syrian government policies, believe that the Assad regime could stabilize the situation through reforms.

Iranian leaders, by contrast, attribute the protests to foreign instigation, specifically a U.S.-European-Saudi-Israeli attempt to overthrow the Assad regime. Since these foreign plotters want to replace rather than reform the regime, they believe that the Syrian government must forcefully suppress the popular protests, as the Iranian government has done with what Iranian leaders perceive as foreign-backed efforts to depose it.

Thus far, Syrian leaders have followed the Iranian path, believing they would be swept pit of office, as with the communist regimes of Easter Europe, if they started yielding on core issues as opposed to fig-leaf reforms designed to divide the opposition and perhaps win some foreign support.

Turkish leaders insist that, even today, if the Syrian government chooses the reform path, it would find Turkey an eager partner willing to help Syria follow Turkey’s route towards Islamist democracy and a more independent foreign policy.

But since Syrian leaders have continued to follow the path of violence and repression, they have found Iran a more suitable source of assistance and advice, leaving Ankara with the unwelcome prospect of having to turn to Tehran to influence developments in Damascus.

All this threatens to dissipate all the good will in Tehran that the AKP government has earned in Iran in recent years by defending Iran’s controversial nuclear program, breaking with Israel, opposing the imposition of economic sanctions on Iran. The two countries have also seen a surge in bilateral commerce, thanks in part to Iran’s subsidizing oil sales to Turkey.

The Turkish government has responded to these dilemmas by hedging. They have kept lines of communication open with Assad, never calling for his overthrow, but also developing ties with opposition groups. Predicting the winner in Syria’s civil war is so difficult because of some unique factors at play in this case. The person of Bashar Al Assad is not the center of gravity, in Clausewitzian terms, as Qaddafi is in Libya. Bashar was not expected to be the president, and the regime’s power resides with the military and other security forces and certain business and political elites.

This system of collective rule, which has a sectarian orientation due to the large numbers of minority Alawites among the elite, makes Assad wary of making excessive reforms that could lead the regime’s collective power holders to displace him for threatening their rule. The regime also has an incentive to polarize the situation through repression since outsiders are then confronted with a choice between a continuation of the current regime and a radicalized and violent opposition.

At the international level, the regime looks to be immune from foreign military intervention. The United States and its NATO allies are overtaxed elsewhere. Israeli military intervention might be the one act that rallies dissatisfied Syrians behind the regime. The protesters have not established a safe haven from which they could organize an armed force that could receive foreign support. Whatever objections the Turkish government has toward Assad’s policies, Turkey would hardly allow such activity on its territory given its objections to PKK activity in foreign countries.

Turks fear how international sanctions on Syria could force them to reduce their economic activity with Syria. The United States and the EU have imposed diverse sanctions on Syria, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is now calling on other countries to join them.

Turkish leaders do not want to jeopardize their newly acquired commercial interests in Syria. Furthermore, they doubt that economic sanctions would be effective and have any major impact on Syrian policies.

Thus far, Turkey has been shielded by Chinese and Russian opposition in the Security Council, but that could end, leaving Ankara as exposed as it has been when it tried to mediate a resolution of the Iranian nuclear crisis. Turkey might lobby for narrowly targeted sanctions against the Syrian leaders most closely linked to the violence to minimize the damage to Turkey’s economic interests or Syria’s general population, which is victimized already by the violence.

There is always the possibility of an actual military confrontation. Middle Eastern media sources have been flaming tensions by reporting mutual threats, with Turkish officials purportedly telling Western governments were preparing to intervene to use force to overthrow the Assad regime and Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei supposedly warning that Iran would bomb NATO and US bases in Turkey if Turkey supported any Western military action against Syria. Both governments have officially denied such reports. Turkish officials recognize that, since the Assad regime sees itself as fighting for its survival, it would fight viciously against any foreign military intervention.

In any case, Turkey’s break with Syria could bolster Ankara’s claims that its NATO and EU partners actually benefit more from Ankara’s newly independent foreign policy because it enhances Turkey’s influence to support Western-supported initiatives in the Middle East and Eurasia.

U.S and Turkish officials have been in constant contact during the last few months regarding Syria, presumably hoping to avoid the miscommunications responsible for last year’s snafu over Ankara’s efforts to broker an Iranian nuclear settlement, when the Turks erroneously had Washington’s backing for their proposed fuel swap.

For earlier discussions on Syria and the Arab Spring see:

https://www.sldinfo.com/facing-the-challenges-of-the-future-in-the-middle-east/

https://www.sldinfo.com/the-dynamics-of-change-in-the-middle-east/

USS Makin Island AV-8B Harrier Ops

09/06/2011

09/06/2011: An AV-8B Harrier with the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit’s aviation combat element, lands on and takes off from the USS Makin Island. The 11th MEU is conducting its first at sea exercise since becoming a complete Marine air-ground task force in May.

Credit: 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit: 08/16/2011