Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 16, 2017, 10:43:32 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
106226 Posts in 2398 Topics by 1094 Members
Latest Member: Ice Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Military Science, Military Issues, and the Nature of War
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] Print
Author Topic: Military Science, Military Issues, and the Nature of War  (Read 220058 times)
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9278


« Reply #650 on: June 21, 2017, 09:27:45 AM »

http://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/06/20/five_signs_the_f-35_fighter_is_a_smashing_success_111621.html

F-35 has emerged as the global gold standard of next-gen air power

Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7692


« Reply #651 on: June 21, 2017, 09:56:07 AM »

Not so fast:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2011/06/03/spacex-loren-thompsons-deceit/#44064927740a

Maybe it IS worth the astronomical price tag, or  maybe it isn't.  I don't know who to believe or trust.

To know if  this guy is part of the "military industrial complex" Eisenhower warned us of , vs a true independent objective observer analyst is impossible to know.  But when a ton of money is involved all bets are off. in mho.

Would a team of pilots who are not connected to special interests be the best judge?  I don't know.

« Last Edit: June 21, 2017, 10:03:04 AM by ccp » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #652 on: June 21, 2017, 10:46:07 AM »

OTOH I'm a fan of the Warthog  grin

https://www.facebook.com/MilitaryInsider/videos/1100653713368960/?hc_ref=NEWSFEED
« Last Edit: June 21, 2017, 01:27:32 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7692


« Reply #653 on: June 21, 2017, 04:26:33 PM »

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1670801-how-different-is-it-to-fly-the-stealth-f-35
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #654 on: June 24, 2017, 12:41:10 AM »

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/23/world/asia/destroyer-fitzgerald-collision.html?emc=edit_ta_20170623&nl=top-stories&nlid=49641193&ref=cta
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #655 on: June 24, 2017, 01:03:52 AM »

    Articles

    Regions & Countries

    Themes

Forecast Highlights

    A limited defense budget will force the Kremlin to make difficult decisions to prioritize its most critical defense needs.
    The Russian military will temper its maritime ambitions as it reinforces its continental capabilities.
    Russia will not entirely abandon the seas, however, as its greatest security concern will remain its nuclear deterrent, comprising land, air and maritime components.

Russia's military modernization efforts are entering a critical stage. The state armaments program (GPV), covering 2018-2025, is due to be finalized in September. The plan will determine not only the country's weaponry capabilities well into the 2030s, but also the strategic direction of the Russian military at large. Early indications point toward a significant downgrade in Russia's maritime ambitions as Moscow amps up its focus on continental power.

As Russia evaluates where its military will be heading over the next several years, the Kremlin's primary constraint will be financial. After almost two decades of explosive growth, Russia's defense budget has started to face considerable headwinds in recent years, since a sharp decline in oil prices in 2014 curtailed the country's financial freedom. Its fiscal challenges culminated this year, when the Kremlin cut the defense budget by 5 percent. The reduction, the first since the 1990s, means Russia won't be able to achieve its official goal of modernizing 70 percent of its forces by 2020. The total funds in the 2018-2025 GPV are expected to be just half of what the Defense Ministry was hoping for. Consequently, the Kremlin will have to make tough decisions about how the Russian military prioritizes its investments. Economic turbulence and industrial issues have already delayed finalizing the GPV by two years, and Russia can no longer afford to postpone decisions on matters of its military future.
A Sinking Ship

Key parts of the Russian navy, meanwhile, are in desperate need of funding. Though the navy has undergone some notable modernization programs over the last decade, for the most part it still relies on small or aging warships. The Russians have not built a new type of surface warship larger than a frigate since the end of the Cold War, and the country's sole aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, was first launched in 1985. If Moscow wants a powerful oceangoing navy with large surface warships and carrier aviation, it has no choice but to allocate substantial funds to its navy as part of the 2018-2025 GPV.

But it's already becoming clear that the necessary funding won't materialize. The Russian Ministry of Defense appears to be prioritizing established — and less risky — weapons programs over new ones. That puts Russia's navy at a disadvantage because the force has not undertaken a large surface combatant program since the Soviet Union collapsed. Furthermore, the limited defense budget will focus on cost-effective weapons systems rather than on pricey flagship programs, leaving no room for the enormous expense of building large warships. Dimming Moscow's maritime prospects all the more, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, a key figure overseeing the defense industry, said in May that unlike the United States, Russia is not a maritime power. Instead, he emphasized, it is a continental power. (In the same vein, Rogozin questioned the need for Russia to field an aircraft carrier.) A meeting in mid-May between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Kremlin military leaders confirmed these statements, and Russian media later announced that the development of destroyer warships and a new aircraft carrier would be indefinitely postponed.
Putting the Money Where It Matters

Still, at least one part of Russia's naval dreams will avoid the chopping block: nuclear submarines. The country's top defense consideration has long been its nuclear deterrent, which involves a troika of land-based missiles, nuclear-capable bombers and nuclear ballistic missile submarines. During the Cold War, nuclear submarines were so prized that the Soviet surface navy became more or less an auxiliary arm of its submarine force tasked with protecting the underwater craft using a bastion strategy. Russia's military will continue to value its nuclear deterrent above much else in the years ahead.

Aside from ample funding for nuclear submarines in the upcoming GPV, early signs suggest Russia is further strengthening its air force. The Kremlin will put money into more strategic transport aircraft and advanced combat jets, with a focus on upgrading fourth-generation jets as opposed to pursuing newer, more cutting-edge models such as the T-50 stealth fighter. Russia will also home in on investments to make its air and ground forces more nimble, flexible and lethal, including precision-guided munitions; enhanced electronic warfare capabilities; upgraded command and control equipment; space assets; and improved intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance gear, namely drones.

As for the regions that are set to benefit most from the 2018-2025 GPV, the expectation is that Russia will keep focusing on its Southern and Western military districts. The zones are responsible for important operational areas including the Baltics, Ukraine and the Caucasus. The Kremlin will also prioritize the Arctic Joint Strategic Command — which will receive military district status by 2020 — because it involves a key portion of Russia's nuclear forces and aligns with the military's strategic focus.

Russia's defense priorities reflect what the government perceives as its greatest security threats. From Moscow's perspective, the No. 1 risk remains the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's encroachment on its western flank, which calls for a powerful nuclear deterrent reinforced by dependable and lethal ground and air forces. Russia is increasingly embracing missions that involve projecting power into distant regions — from the Arctic to Syria — as well, so long as the areas have a friendly ground base from which to operate. With these considerations in mind, the Kremlin will place high value on building up a light and flexible ground force with an enhanced strategic air transport fleet. Moscow recognizes, after all, that it cannot be a great maritime power and a great continental power at once.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #656 on: June 27, 2017, 01:38:43 AM »

http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/this-is-what-happens-when-the-army-puts-a-laser-on-an-apache-attack-helicopter
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #657 on: July 08, 2017, 12:38:00 PM »

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/07/07/transgender-men-womens-showers-must-get-dignity-respect-u-s-army/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #658 on: July 08, 2017, 01:09:36 PM »


Everyone involved in this garbage needs to be removed from the military ASAP!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #659 on: July 09, 2017, 08:51:05 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwIU3YkrLM4&feature=youtu.be&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily-brief-WLXHKAPFXH37&utm_content=daily-brief-WLXHKAPFXH37&utm_source=daily-brief&utm_term=Tucker+Carlson+suggests+James+Mattis+should+resign
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #660 on: July 13, 2017, 02:00:13 PM »

WSJ
By The Editorial Board
July 12, 2017 7:14 p.m. ET
80 COMMENTS

On Monday 15 Marines and one Navy sailor died when a Marine KC-130 crashed, with debris covering a field in Mississippi. It’s too early to draw conclusions about what caused the transport plane to suffer a catastrophic failure on its flight from North Carolina to California, reportedly at cruising altitude. But such tragedies are becoming more routine and deserve some attention.

It is unknown what led to the crash, and it could be anything from equipment malfunction to human error. The plane appears to have been loaded with munitions that might have caused or contributed to the crash. The names of the service members on board still weren’t public by our deadline.

One reality is that Marine aviation has recently experienced a rise in “Class A Mishaps,” which are incidents that carry a body count or result in more than $2 million in aircraft damage. House Armed Services Chairman Mac Thornberry pointed out at a hearing last year that the rate for the Marine aviation community has “been increasing significantly.”

Over the past decade the rate has hovered around 2.15 events for every 100,000 hours flown, Mr. Thornberry noted. But in 2015 the figure increased to 3.29 and 3.39 in 2016; that year 12 Marines died when two helicopters crashed into each other off the coast of Hawaii. The rate so far for 2017 is 4.47, including Monday’s crash.

One hypothesis that deserves to be examined is a combination of old equipment and the fact that pilot hours have been reduced in recent years because of funding cuts. Planes like the F/A-18 are stretching past their lifetimes. Earlier this year Navy officials testified to Congress about a number of pilot “physiological episodes”—e.g. oxygen deprivation—that compound the risk of human error.

None of this will come as news to Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who has made addressing readiness problems a central part of his agenda. But Marines and other service members sign up for duty knowing the risks of combat, and they shouldn’t have to endure an increasing threat to their safety from routine training or transport.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #661 on: July 14, 2017, 05:04:41 PM »

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/new-book-zero-footprint-reveals-ex-soldiers-hired-kill-article-1.2491345

Hired to kill: New book ‘Zero Footprint’ tells of ex-soldiers paid top dollar for jobs too dirty and dangerous for U.S. military


This book actually ties lots of things together, especially Benghazi. There is a line in the book about the author's work in Syria that still haunts me.


"Just when I thought we'd seen the worst image of devastation, another greeted us from around the corner. This time it was the sad eyes of a girl of four or five standing by the road and clutching a battered teddy bear with one arm. The other ended at the wrist, a bloody stump covered with dirty bandages. I felt something clutch in my chest as her mother ran out of a nearby shack to pull her away."
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #662 on: July 27, 2017, 09:04:03 AM »

http://dailysignal.com/2017/07/26/5-good-reasons-transgender-accommodations-arent-compatible-military-realities/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWlRJNVpEWmhZakE1WlRKaCIsInQiOiJRc0ZwOXkrWE1wbFVYVlJDekpIeWpGSVdZb2ptVXhpRFQ0NW4wNUxlQVpRdU5randCMVV5MDIyR1NWcGt6R0tGNVd3K2J3eXZxeXc4TVwvVjJNamUrcW8rSm9GOXpWejBpYWo4ZzlZa1ZYY2VXTFp0Zk5mRDMrRHNiTStOXC95K3ZCIn0%3D


http://www.dailywire.com/news/19054/combat-vet-gives-powerful-testimony-against-trans-amanda-prestigiacomo

« Last Edit: July 27, 2017, 01:21:04 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #663 on: July 27, 2017, 11:46:17 PM »

https://patriotpost.us/posts/50404
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #664 on: August 01, 2017, 12:31:59 AM »

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a27511/russia-drone-thermite-grenade-ukraine-ammo/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #665 on: August 01, 2017, 12:24:24 PM »

second post

OAN reported last night that this technology is good to go-- what I got out of the piece was that this is basically a missile delivered EMP sans nuclear blast.

http://defense-update.com/20150516_champ.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #666 on: August 04, 2017, 01:33:27 PM »

http://nypost.com/2017/08/02/special-forces-test-out-boba-fett-combat-helmet/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #667 on: August 05, 2017, 08:48:48 PM »

https://qz.com/499618/the-us-marines-tested-all-male-squads-against-mixed-gender-ones-and-the-men-came-out-ahead/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #668 on: August 05, 2017, 09:40:29 PM »


I thought that trannies were the key to military dominance.

Pretty sure that was the meme that was being pushed last week.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9278


« Reply #669 on: August 06, 2017, 10:18:18 AM »

I thought that trannies were the key to military dominance.

Is winning wars still the objective of the US military?  Or is it a social spending program with an emphasis on social and cultural transformation? 

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #670 on: August 06, 2017, 10:19:49 AM »

I thought that trannies were the key to military dominance.

Is winning wars still the objective of the US military?  Or is it a social spending program with an emphasis on social and cultural transformation? 



Anyone remember the last war we won?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 9278


« Reply #671 on: August 07, 2017, 06:31:17 AM »

Let's see, not Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.  Outside of ccp and Reagan winning in Grenada, Japan 72 years ago was our last victory?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #672 on: August 07, 2017, 07:12:19 AM »

Let's see, not Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.  Outside of ccp and Reagan winning in Grenada, Japan 72 years ago was our last victory?

We must have had a bunch of LGTBQPWTF troops back then. It is the key to effective warfighting!
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7692


« Reply #673 on: August 07, 2017, 07:34:10 AM »

It was great to see the US military get the credit they deserved from Grenada and the Lebenon bombing.

After the LEFTish news media tried to maul the reputation of our men who were is the miltary during and after Vietnam  the majority of people gave the media a big "shove it" when they tried to pull the same crap with Reagan at Grenada

The LEftist pricks in the media are still doing the same to 'America' but pretend they are for the military now. 
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7692


« Reply #674 on: August 12, 2017, 11:04:13 PM »

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/u-s-guam-shielded-north-korean-missiles-high-tech-defenses/
« Last Edit: August 26, 2017, 07:12:11 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #675 on: August 26, 2017, 08:37:41 AM »

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/average-transgender-soldier-unable-deploy-238-days/

Average Transgender Soldier Unable to Deploy for 238 Days
White House military ban to be based on deployability
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7692


« Reply #676 on: September 06, 2017, 07:50:46 AM »

http://www.atimes.com/ship-collisions-raise-specter-chinese-electronic-warfare/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #677 on: September 06, 2017, 09:53:41 AM »

This is an exceedingly important issue.  Apparent force advantages can prove to be illusory.  Bush 43 was not great but Obama sat back while the Chinese stole us blind.

IMHO we are vulnerable to blitzkrieg defeat due to these factors.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7692


« Reply #678 on: September 06, 2017, 12:32:39 PM »

I've read China has a long range low to the ground missile that can take out the ships and aircraft carriers.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anderscorr/2017/07/01/chinas-new-destroyer-the-u-s-navys-anti-ship-missile-failure-and-preemption/#609d8210638f

Of course The Leftist Business Insider which has been out to get Trump mentions Trump's name here without mention of Brock:

http://www.businessinsider.com/china-long-range-missile-muscle-us-out-south-china-sea-2017-1

Or their new MIRVs that can be fitted with conventional or nuclear warheads:

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/china-tests-long-range-missile-with-10-warheads-amid-te-1791843658

China is clearly at war with us.  One could say they are clearly preparing for war with us but what is the difference?
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7692


« Reply #679 on: September 18, 2017, 08:00:05 AM »

Too bad we don't have the capability to position  assault satellites into position over NK that could use a laser in the high altitude low cloud atmosphere that could  lock onto a missile :

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2017/09/no-we-cannot-shoot-down-north-koreas-missiles/141070/
« Last Edit: September 18, 2017, 09:04:04 AM by ccp » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #680 on: September 18, 2017, 08:21:00 AM »

Good article!

BUT

"There is no need to rely on the word of missile defense boosters, or, for that matter, trust the analysis of jaded missile defense critics. We could stop testing for success and begin testing for actual performance, with “red team – blue team” tests, for example, to simulate a determined foe"

I get the point of course, but it misses another point-- our need to put uncertainty in the adversary's mind.  If we do "red team blue team" tests, our capabilities become known.  If things are as bad as this writer says, then the adversary will become emboldened.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7692


« Reply #681 on: September 18, 2017, 11:09:45 AM »

I like *my* idea of a satellite defense system
 better but this is high altitude "lite"

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451420/north-korea-missile-thr4eat-answers-exist

Do we really want to take war to outer space?  Short answer => if not us then someone else will. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #682 on: September 23, 2017, 11:25:19 AM »

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451619/end-defense-budget-sequester-rebuild-american-military?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NR%20Daily%20Monday%20through%20Friday%202017-09-22&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7692


« Reply #683 on: September 27, 2017, 06:53:18 PM »

What should the military do with someone like this?  He is a traitor even before he finishes military school

And of course CommunistNews week thinks this is hysterical to see "conservatives " outraged.


https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/09/27/newsweek-writer-conservatives-mad-hell-commie-cadet/

Dishonorable DC?
and force him to pay for education?

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #684 on: September 27, 2017, 08:59:20 PM »

What should the military do with someone like this?  He is a traitor even before he finishes military school

And of course CommunistNews week thinks this is hysterical to see "conservatives " outraged.


https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/09/27/newsweek-writer-conservatives-mad-hell-commie-cadet/

Dishonorable DC?
and force him to pay for education?



If his is not charged under the UCMJ and dishonorably discharged from the military, this country really is done.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #685 on: September 28, 2017, 06:11:43 AM »

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2113113/china-powers-new-radar-tech-unmask-stealth-fighters
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #686 on: September 29, 2017, 05:24:32 PM »

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/371787.php

Uh-Oh: "Communism Will Win" West Point Grad "Inspired by" Bradley Manning, Mentored by Muslim Studies Guy
This is painting a picture of what Obama did to our military and intelligence services.

Once you have enough security risks in an organization -- communists, Islamists, traitors-in-waiting -- they will begin actively recruiting other security risks, because that's their tribe.

Those are the people They trust -- the very people America cannot trust.

Speaking of, Reality Winner, given a security clearance by Obama's secret police, says that "America is the worst thing to ever happen to the world."

The woman suspected of leaking U.S. secrets to a news organization claimed she stuffed a classified report into her pantyhose and walked out of a National Security Agency office in Georgia, mainly because she hates America "like three times a day."
...

In their latest filing Wednesday, prosecutors also included a partial transcript of a Facebook chat between Winner and her sister in February.

"Look, I only say I hate America like 3 times a day," Winner wrote. “I'm no radical. It's mostly just about Americans obsession with air conditioning.”

Her sister asked: "But you don’t actually hate America, right?"

Winner replied: "I mean yeah I do it’s literally the worst thing to happen on the planet. We invented capitalism the downfall of the environment."

She had other good reasons to hate America: Like that the NSA played Fox News on some of their TVs. Guess which "news" channel she would have preferred?

Reality Winner, the former National Security Agency contractor accused of leaking a classified report, apparently complained to her bosses that Fox News was playing in her office – suggesting Al Jazeera would have been a more appropriate choice.
...

The transcripts offer additional insight into both her political leanings and media preferences.


"I've filed formal complaints about them having Fox News on,” she told FBI agents. “… Uh, at least, for God's sake put Al Jazeera on, or a slideshow with people's pets. I've tried everything to get that changed."

It's not an accident Obama granted people like her access to top secret information -- it's deliberate.

And meanwhile, McMasters fires people loyal to Trump and retains Obama loyalists.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #687 on: October 09, 2017, 03:49:13 PM »

https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2017/10/08/xbox-360-controllers-save-u-s-navy-boatloads-cash/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #688 on: October 12, 2017, 12:13:40 PM »

https://patriotpost.us/articles/51824
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7692


« Reply #689 on: October 18, 2017, 07:55:57 AM »

(but they are politically correct so what is the big deal compared to that ?   angry  - thanks Brock)

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452768/us-navy-355-ships-needed
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #690 on: November 07, 2017, 02:02:03 PM »

Beyond a love of the waves, surprisingly little unites the surfers of the world. Last year, when the International Olympic Committee unanimously approved surfing as a sport in the 2020 Tokyo Games, much of the debate that followed was predictable: Was surfing finally receiving the legitimacy it deserved, or was this yet another regrettable push toward the mainstreaming and watering down of a proud subculture? Variants of this argument have played out among surfers for over 100 years, having become something of a tedious cliche in the extreme sports era of the 21st century.

But there was also a second, more interesting conversation to emerge from the creation of Olympic surfing that concerned the venue for the sport. Some observers wondered if its Olympic debut would take place in a cutting-edge wave pool, taking advantage of recent technological advances that have rapidly legitimized artificial waves in a sport decidedly obsessed with nature. Organizers eventually decided that the 2020 competition would be more traditional, taking place at Shidashita beach in Japan's Chiba prefecture. If surfing is to stay afloat across diverse Olympic locales, though, the acceptance of fake waves is inevitable.

Last month, in fact, the World Surfing League held a somewhat clandestine event at legendary surfer Kelly Slater's artificial Surf Ranch in Lemoore, California, testing the waters for high-level surf contests without a sea gull in sight. With the excitement surrounding the event and anticipation building for Olympic surfing, it seems like a good moment to depart from some of our traditional topics and reflect on the history of a sport that is surprisingly geopolitical and linked, perhaps unexpectedly, to war.
Tourism and Tension Turn the Tides

While new to the Olympic program, surfing is predated in human history only by the most ancient of competitions, such as wrestling and track and field. Even the sport's modern history stretches back over a thousand years in the Hawaiian Islands, still very much the spiritual home of surfing. The now-global sport was nearly eradicated in the early 19th century when Calvinist missionaries arrived en masse and promptly banned surfing as an affront to God's laws. Though Hawaiians never completely abandoned the waves, the sport experienced a steep decline throughout the 1800s, and it was all but dead by the time the 20th century approached.

Somewhat ironically, another generation of Westerners helped to revive the sport in the 1890s. American entrepreneurs embraced the novel activity as a form of beachside entertainment for tourists at nascent resorts in Waikiki and beyond. In short order, surfing's newfound popularity propelled it across the Pacific, first to California and then around the world. In 1907, Alexander Hume Ford, a South Carolina plantation heir and the head of a private interest called the Hawaiian Promotion Committee, sponsored Waikiki surfer George Freeth's travel to Los Angeles to drum up interest in the island lifestyle. Though Freeth's direct impact on Hawaiian tourism is tough to gauge, his presence inspired enough locals to take up the sport that California is known as the birthplace of surfing today.

By the second half of the 20th century, as incomes became disposable and air travel shrank the globe, Western surfers began conquering waves around the world. Because some of the best waves were located in politically unstable places, the international surfer's path to the beach wasn't always easy. Athletes often had to navigate tense geopolitical environments on the ground, such as apartheid in South Africa or civil war in Central America. Nor was surfing immune to the effects of the Cold War, as Scott Laderman argues in his excellent political history of surfing, Empire in Waves. Laderman's chronicle of Indonesia offers a compelling cast study: Australian and American surfers discovered the archipelago's phenomenal waves in the years before and after the nation's transition from a policy of non-alignment to an alliance with the United States under President Suharto. In no time, the Indonesian government was sponsoring surf contests and junkets to promote tourism abroad while brutally repressing broad swaths of its population at home.
War on the Waves

"I've admired your nose-riding for years! I like your cutback, too." So says Robert Duvall's Lt. Col. William Kilgore to surfing serviceman Lance Johnson in Francis Ford Coppola's Vietnam War epic, "Apocalypse Now." It's a famously shocking scene: A village is summarily destroyed so that Kilgore can score a few excellent waves. Part of the shock is surely due to surfing's stereotypical ethos of peaceful communion with nature, which seems at odds with war. But if war was ever good for anything, it was surfing.

In The World in the Curl, Peter Westwick and Peter Neushul write,

    "Surfing, that escapist pleasure, would seem to have little to do with warfare. But from surf forecasting to surfboard production to wetsuits, almost every surfer who paddles out today is using military technology."

World War II and its immediate aftermath were particularly fruitful for surfers the world over. Military-industrial complex advances in materials technology proved especially important for postwar surfboard makers who turned fiberglass, polyester resins and various foams into boards that were better and more accessible to consumers than ever before. These materials allowed for the creation of boards that were lighter than the heavy, wooden variants popular before the war, enabling women and children to ride the waves with ease. The gears of war also provided training and inspiration to intrepid surfboard designers, including the now-legendary Bob Simmons, an Army machinist during the conflict and a mathematician for Douglas Aircraft Co. after it. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, Simmons combined a deep understanding of materials science and hydrodynamics to produce revolutionary board designs that are still championed for their speed and performance.

The technological relationship between the military and surfing has also worked in the other direction. Such was the case of the motorized "warboard," a military design that never made it into action. Westwick and Neushul write that the U.S. Navy had developed prototypes of the board in anticipation of a potential coastal assault on Japan. A less fanciful innovation came in the form of the wetsuit. Pioneered by University of California, Berkeley physicist Hugh Bradner in the early 1950s, the earliest wetsuits were envisioned for military applications; Bradner offered his own design to the U.S. Navy. At the time the Navy passed on Bradner's innovation, for fear that the gasses trapped in the suit's neoprene material would make divers and swimmers easily detectable by sonar. Unconcerned about sonar, surfers quickly embraced wetsuits as a solution to a cruel reality of the sport: The best waves often emerge in the dead of winter. Surfers Jack O'Neill (of the eponymous O'Neill brand) and the Meistrell brothers (of the renowned Body Glove brand) refined Bradner's design throughout the 1950s. Today, boardriders and frogmen alike wear their legacy in the water.

Given the innovative power of the world's militaries, the symbiotic technological relationship between war and surfing shouldn't be too jarring. Despite the sport's traditional emphasis on good vibes and hippie values, it has always been about pushing the limits of what's possible in the water. While the time for exploring motorized warboards is probably over, it seems likely that surfers and soldiers will continue to benefit from each other's cutting-edge designs and novel solutions. Somewhere at this very moment, there is a surfer lamenting the rise of artificial waves. But I imagine he has a counterpart in uniform, thinking that the same waves are the perfect laboratory for the next phase of naval innovation.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 15391


« Reply #691 on: November 16, 2017, 11:22:20 AM »

https://www.airforce.com/mission/vision

INTEGRITY FIRST
An Airman is a person of integrity, courage and conviction. They must be willing to control their impulses and exercise courage, honesty and accountability in order to do what is right even when no one is looking.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/15/air-force-accepts-adl-award-for-combating-racism-at-academy-buries-fact-that-racism-was-a-total-hoax/?utm_source=site-share


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #692 on: December 08, 2017, 06:52:19 AM »

Evaluating the State of the US Navy
Dec 7, 2017

 
Summary

On the morning of Dec. 7, 1941, a Japanese naval fleet consisting of six aircraft carriers, two battleships, a dozen other wartime vessels and 360 planes launched a barrage of bombs and torpedoes at the U.S. naval base in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The base was caught completely off guard, as sailors and soldiers scrambled to their battle stations to defend against the attack. In a speech in Washington the next day, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said Dec. 7 was “a date which will live in infamy.”

The objective of Japan’s surprise attack was to destroy the U.S. Pacific Fleet, and in a matter of two hours, it nearly did just that. None of the eight U.S. battleships stationed at the harbor that day survived unscathed. One was destroyed, one capsized, three sank in shallow waters and three more suffered severe damage. In addition, three of eight cruisers were damaged, as were three of 30 destroyers. Over 180 aircraft were destroyed and roughly 150 sustained damage. (Three aircraft carriers stationed at the base were out on missions and therefore saved from the attack.) Over 2,300 U.S. military members were killed and 1,000 were wounded.

The attack severely crippled the U.S. Pacific Fleet and put in question the Navy’s combat capabilities. Japan controlled Pacific waters for three months after the attack. But Pearl Harbor was ultimately only a temporary setback. Strong U.S. rebuilding efforts revived the Pacific Fleet, and in less than six months, it won a decisive victory against the Japanese at the Battle of Midway. Since then, the U.S. Navy has dominated the world’s oceans, largely uncontested.

But 76 years after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Navy is once again under scrutiny, this time because of a series of collisions involving Navy warships, all part of the Pacific Fleet.
In May, the USS Lake Champlain guided-missile cruiser collided with a fishing boat in the Sea of Japan. A month later, the USS Fitzgerald destroyer collided with a cargo ship off the coast of Japan. Then in August, another destroyer, the USS John S. McCain, was hit by an oil tanker east of the Strait of Malacca. The latter two collisions resulted in the deaths of 17 American sailors. The Navy concluded that human error was the cause of both of those collisions.

These incidents sparked a massive internal investigation, not to mention a media frenzy. Some have interpreted the collisions as a sign that the Navy is headed toward disrepair and is unable to fulfill its growing global responsibilities. Much of the focus has centered on whether too much is being asked of the fleet. But these conclusions are an oversimplification. In this report, we evaluate the state of the U.S. Navy and consider whether the recent incidents merit this level of concern.

Comparing Past and Present Performance

U.S. dominance of the world’s oceans is a critical component of the country’s position as a global superpower. It is also a key element of the United States’ power projection capability. If U.S. naval power were to decline, it could threaten the United States’ position in the world and change the balance of power in the oceans. To evaluate whether the recent incidents indicate a decline in naval capabilities, we need to begin with a simple question: How does the number of collisions involving U.S. ships this year compare to previous years?
 
(click to enlarge)

First, we should define what we mean by a collision. Naval accidents can involve a number of circumstances, not all of which are classified as collisions. A 1998 report by the Institute for Policy Studies identified 12 types of accidents related to naval vessels that range from fires to weather-related incidents to collisions. The nature and severity of these accidents vary greatly. This report will focus on incidents where one U.S. naval ship comes in contact with another ship or a permanently fixed object.

In the past 20 years, ships from the U.S. Navy have been involved in at least 24 collisions, according to open-source information, putting the average at just over one collision per year. Though the number of incidents in 2017 exceeds the annual average, having multiple collisions in a year is not unprecedented. There were three collisions in 2002 and 2005, and two in 2009.
 
(click to enlarge)

From this comparison, we can draw several conclusions. First, the number of collisions this year is not significantly higher than in previous years over the past two decades. Second, the collisions themselves are not an indicator of diminished U.S. naval capabilities, which are defined as the ability to wage war and carry out missions. Both the McCain and the Fitzgerald have been removed from service for repairs, but the U.S. has a total of 62 destroyers. Though there are two fewer in theater, many more are available if needed.

It’s also worth noting that collisions have not stopped the Navy from engaging in operations, which have in fact increased over the past 20 years. From 2001 to 2014, the U.S. Navy was engaged in Operation Enduring Freedom as well as three Combined Maritime Forces operations: Combined Task Force 150 (to promote maritime security and counterterrorism), CTF 151 (to counter piracy) and CTF 152 (to support Arabian Gulf security and cooperation). Since 2014, the CTF operations have continued, and Operation Enduring Freedom was replaced by Operation Inherent Resolve. From 2002 to 2017, the U.S. Navy also engaged in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Unified Response and Operation New Dawn.

There is thus no evidence that the U.S. Navy’s capabilities are shrinking. In fact, the accidents occurred in areas that are popular trade routes, not in the open seas. The sheer number of vessels operating in these areas increases the chances of an accident occurring.

Why, then, have these incidents received so much attention? This can be explained a couple of different ways. The Navy, like all institutions and agencies dependent on federal funds, wants more funding. It can use these collisions to make a compelling case that the government should allocate more resources to it. But more important is that American sailors were killed in these incidents. The 2002 and 2005 collisions did not result in any fatalities.

The loss of life is tragic and warrants media coverage, but we should not draw sweeping conclusions about the state of the Navy based on this one factor. It may explain the media, government and military response to this year’s collisions, but it does not make these events geopolitically relevant. If there were a major increase in accidents that forced the Navy to concentrate on critical theaters and thus reduce its global operations, then they would be geopolitically relevant. The comprehensive review of naval readiness triggered by the recent collisions indicates there are some concerns, but they do not rise to a crisis level.

The Navy’s Challenges

Though its ability to conduct war and security operations is still strong, the Navy is not without its challenges. The 2010 Balisle Report, an internal review of the Navy’s surface force from 1999 to 2009, concluded that readiness levels had declined because of a series of systemic changes and problems. A framework introduced in 2001 to manage shipboard personnel resulted in a reduction in personnel requirements. It was called the optimum manning initiative, but it failed to take into consideration the personnel required for maintenance and the loss of personnel due to illness, legal obligations, pregnancy, etc. There were blurred lines of responsibility for material readiness, and the number of related inspections and reviews were cut roughly in half. The time allotted for a ship to go through maintenance was reduced from 15 weeks to nine weeks, and the length of time between board extension visits, which are part of the inspection process, was expanded from 44 months to 60 months.

The review following the recent collisions also indicated some shortcomings in terms of the operational readiness of the entire Navy. The report focused primarily on training and concluded that surface warfare officers, quartermasters and operational specialists do not receive enough training. They are overly dependent on on-the-job training, which is not uniform across the Navy. There is a deficiency in navigation skills due to poor training and a lack of consistency in equipment on each ship. A decrease in classroom education has also caused a general decline in the knowledge base of the surface force, particularly when it comes to understanding and applying international rules on navigation. These findings have raised concerns over readiness levels and the long-term consequences of these issues should they persist.

The Navy’s main strategic challenges relate to two issues: the number of international commitments and the stationing of forces in overseas homeports. From 1998 to 2015, the number of vessels in the U.S. Navy declined by 20 percent, from 333 ships to 271. Fewer ships does not necessarily mean a decline in capabilities. Not all ships are equal; an aircraft carrier provides capabilities a frigate never could. But over this period, the number of ships deployed overseas has remained the same at about 100, and yet, U.S. military commitments have increased. The 5th Fleet is heavily engaged in the Middle East, and the 6th Fleet and the 7th Fleet are permanently based in Europe and in the Western Pacific, respectively.

Deployment times – the number of days a ship spends away from port – have also increased. In 1998, only 4 percent of deployments lasted more than six months, but in 2015, all deployments lasted more than six months. Navy officials today advocate deployment times of six to seven months. This could lead to overextension, which is a problem not only for the Navy but for the U.S. military as a whole.

Current U.S. maritime strategy relies heavily on forward naval presence: the ability to station ships and sailors overseas and maintain naval bases in locations like Guam, Japan, Spain and Bahrain. The Navy measures a ship’s ability to provide forward presence based on the amount of time the ship spends in an area of operation, the amount of time it is available for tasking, and the amount of time it is actually underway (i.e., not in its homeport). Navy officials look at all three criteria together and note that there are intangible benefits to having a ship in an overseas port even if it is not operationally available. The purpose of forward deployment is to have ships available in every corner of the planet at any given time, maximizing the Navy’s ability to project power. It can respond to threats quicker by cutting down transit time to hot zones. This also helps protect shipping lanes, deter conflicts, build regional partnerships and prevent enemies from gaining an upper hand in maritime disputes or sea routes.

There are two commonly cited criticisms of forward deployment: Underway times are too long, and maintenance times are too short. Over the past two decades, the percentage of ships underway has fluctuated. From 1998 to 2009, it increased from 62 percent of the total fleet to 86 percent. But by 2015, it decreased to 75 percent. From 2003 to 2012, forward deployed ships spent on average 42 more days underway than ships that had a homeport in the United States. The 7th Fleet’s cruisers and destroyers spent an average of 116 days underway in 2015 and 162 days in 2016. But underway times don’t provide the full picture; you also need to look at the types of missions a fleet is involved in to determine whether it is in danger of exhaustion. A month of friendly port calls is different from a month of joint exercises, and both are different from a month of actual combat. A more nuanced view of how this time is spent is necessary.

By design, forward deployed ships, particularly cruisers and destroyers, have significantly reduced maintenance and training times compared to ships with homeports in the United States. Of the forward deployed naval forces, the Pacific Command’s 7th Fleet faces the most wear and tear. Forward deployed ships leave their ports more frequently and for shorter deployments. As a result, dedicated training and certification time is often postponed or skipped to deal with more immediate operational concerns. The number of days underway compounds this problem. A surface ship must be certified in 22 different areas: 10 warfare mission areas, like anti-submarine warfare and ballistic missile defense, and 12 basic function areas, like communications and, importantly, mobility and seamanship. The latest Government Accountability Office report on the matter noted that expired training certifications for the Navy’s 11 cruisers and destroyers based in Japan increased from 7 percent in January 2015 to 37 percent in June 2017. Two-thirds of the certifications had been expired for at least five months. None of these ships have all their necessary certifications.
 
(click to enlarge)

Reduced maintenance times do not necessarily reduce the Navy’s ability to effectively wage war, but they do raise concerns over how long these ships can operate before needing to be replaced. The average age of the cruisers based in Japan is 28 years, and the average age of the destroyers is 21 years. The expected lifespan of these ships is 25-30 years, though this can be increased to up to 40 years with modernization and maintenance. But the amount of time needed to modernize and maintain these ships has also increased – just as the time allotted for maintenance has decreased – which affects their overall operational availability.

The U.S. Navy has four options to help mitigate these challenges while maintaining its current level of overseas presence. The first option is to simply increase the number of ships it has. The Navy’s 2016 Force Structure Assessment called for a total fleet of 355 ships; the same assessment in 2015 called for 308. (The Navy currently has 271.) Another option is to allot more funding for maintenance and personnel to compensate for an increase in underway times. The third option is to increase the number of forward deployed ships to reduce transit times to critical regions. And finally, the Navy could restructure the fleet to make it more efficient. Right now, the first two options are the most frequently pursued, but they will also incur higher costs over an extended period.
 
(click to enlarge)

Putting the Debate in Context

A core obstacle in assessing readiness and determining the extent of the readiness challenges facing the military is the lack of a universally accepted definition of “readiness.” The Department of Defense defines it as “the ability of military forces to fight and meet the demands of assigned missions.” But this definition is fairly broad. An evaluation of readiness can focus on near-term or long-term objectives, or measurements at the strategic level down or the operational level. The lack of a consistent definition allows both sides in the debate to cherry pick relevant data to demonstrate the need for either higher or lower levels of funding. This runs the risk of politicizing the debate over readiness, which, at its core, is about assessing U.S. forces’ ability to carry out missions.

The debate over the state of the Navy should also be put into context. Despite the shortcomings mentioned in this report, the U.S. Navy has no challenger that comes close to its capabilities. The United States’ main naval rival today is China. The U.S. spent just over $600 billion on defense this year, while China spent a quarter of that amount. The U.S. has a robust fleet that includes 10 aircraft carriers, 68 submarines, 23 cruisers, 62 destroyers and 31 principal amphibious vessels stationed across the world. China’s navy consists of only one aircraft carrier, 57 submarines, 21 destroyers and four principal amphibious vessels.

(MARC:  But Chinese focus is South China Sea i.e. really close to home, ours is world wide.)

China has naval ports outside of the country, but these facilities provide primarily logistical support; they do not function as forward deployment facilities. In addition, U.S. sailors not only outnumber Chinese sailors (the U.S. has 327,750 and China has 235,000) but they also – despite the criticism over the past year – have much more combat and operational experience due to the U.S. Navy’s global reach. China has very limited experience in sailing a carrier battle group, and its pilots might be trained but they lack experience. China has plans to build more ships, but this takes time. The power of the U.S. Navy, therefore, still outstrips that of the Chinese navy.

After the attack at Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Pacific Fleet was badly damaged and unable to wage war. Today’s Pacific Fleet has its challenges, but it can still wage war if called upon, and its capabilities far exceed those of any other navy. U.S. naval power is not in decline.

The post Evaluating the State of the US Navy appeared first on Geopolitical Futures.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 41781


« Reply #693 on: December 11, 2017, 03:20:55 AM »

https://www.cnet.com/pictures/russias-deadliest-new-war-machines/12/
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!