Remember the Great Green Fleet?

There is a long and not so glorious tradition of the US Military being used - both their people and their money - by politicians to pursue non-military agenda items either due to ideology or in order to take advantage of one of the military's unusual characteristics: we follow orders.

Leverage that feature/bug with the deep well of institutional good will those in uniform have ... and you can see why all sorts of pet projects/agenda items/supporter payoffs are spot-welded on to DOD.

The neo-pagan religion of "climate change" (no different than moon worship as it is always there, always will be there, cannot be stopped or encouraged to any significant degree by mortals) is no different.

How is the Army doing?

...preparing installations to use less energy and stand up to extreme weather will cost the Army a total of $5.2 billion through fiscal year 2027. The strategy’s acquisition and logistics line of effort is estimated to cost $1.6 billion. Training comes to a budget-friendly $1 million.  

What the implementation plan lacks, however, is the technology to carry it out—because that technology does not exist. 

“Many of the objectives in the strategy reach out into the 2030s, 2040s, some even all the way up to 2050. Because the long-term goals we have to accomplish…we don’t know how we’re going to accomplish them yet. The technology is going to continue to evolve,” Farnan said at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event. 

The climate implementation plan includes some familiar ideas, like microgrids and electric vehicles. But exactly how the Army will electrify all its vehicles, especially the heavy-duty ones, is unknown. 

“The honest answer is: I don’t know,” Farnan said. “And that’s why the goal is up to 2050. Because we don’t know how we’re going to get there yet. The technology is not there to give us full electrification of tactical vehicles.” 

“I don’t know how we’re going to do battlefield charging yet. Nobody knows that,” Farnan said. 

Not to be outdone, how about the USAF?

The Air Force’s Climate Action Plan touts itself as “instilling a culture in which Airmen and Guardians understand the implications of climate change.” But reading the 20-page guide reveals a plan for the Air Force so much more ambitious than that.

The plan aims to spend $100 million of the Air Force’s annual budget by 2027 on “base resilience” to climate change.

Critics necessarily retort that this amounts to $100 million taken from the Air Force’s mission to make the world safe for all pronouns.

What that actually represents is $100 million for projects to protect from extreme weather - something our species has done since we built our first lean-to - but that isn't as sexy. 

Does any of this help us with China's rising challenge west of Wake?

No, of course it doesn't. 

Follow the money.

Diversity Thursday

Anyone who has studied the left's march through the institutions and the regular examples of the O'Sullivan's Law in action, knows the drill knows what happens to previously non-political or even conservative institutions.

The signs of their socio-political presence shouldn't be a shock to anyone. They are just less bloody versions of what Orwell, Huxley, Dith Pran, and others warned us about.

While you were paying attention to other things, their world view is already deep in our military institutions of higher learning, specifically today the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, PA.

What already is well past the nose in the tent involves in not just narrowing the Overton Window of acceptable speech, but in now compelling speech through membership filtering, fear, and humiliation.

It demands written and spoken self-criticisms - and later (see any of the required DEI training events) often confessions of crimes you did not commit. Like the religious original sin, it is something you simply have by being and must atone for and perhaps never wash the stain away.

Yes, it is socio-political, but mostly political. It is its religious aspects that folds in to the compelled speech - you have to say certain words in certain ways in order to be accepted. A leftist Shahada, in a fashion. 

As we have warned here for over a decade and a half, the vanities, trends, and sociopolitical fads of academia are seeping in to our military's higher education system. Each passing year our war colleges have been trying to be more like a college and less about war. Our service academies are well down that path as we will show again next week, but what about our war colleges? 

Today we'll take a gander at the gates of Carlisle.  

Let's say you were interested in applying for a job as a Professor of Military Studies at the U.S. Army War College Department of Military Strategy, Planning and Operations over in that beautiful part of America in Carlisle, PA.

Looks good. You have all the requirements, what documents do you have to provide with your application?

How about that last little bit again?

"A short narrative of one page or less that describes how you would contribute to an atmosphere of diversity at the U.S. Army War College through teaching, scholarship, and/or service."

If you aren't familiar with this Orwellian experience, well ... you showed up on The Front Porch on the right Thursday.

You can google "sample diversity statement" and get untold numbers of examples. This is such a rote exercise that some universities like UNC even give you examples about what they expect you to say. They don't care if you actually mean anything you say, they just require you to say it.

As will be outlined below, it is a useful gatekeeping function. 

- If you are gullible enough to think these ideologs are not serious, then you will not say the right things: you go in the "no" stack. You might be difficult to control.

- If you don't believe them but are easily intimidated by careerist or simply needing to feed your family, you will say what they want you to say: you go in the "yes" stack. You are easily controlled.

- If you don't believe that this has anything to do with the job and respond incorrectly: you go in the "no" stack. You are not of the same confession and won't be a good fit and will be difficult to control.

- If you are a true believer, you will say all the right things: you go in the "yes" stack. You will be an asset.

There is another category. Those who do not wish to be part of an organization that is so clearly worm-ridden with a hostile, rigid socio-political ideology completely unrelated to the subject you spent years of your life learning and desire to teach. You won't apply. They won't even know these people exist.

That is how, over time, you lose an institution. It starts with leadership that is either a true believer or is of the mindset that if they feed the lions today hoping they will eat them last. Then years of filtering will distill an institution's cadre whose center culture will not just be left, but hard-left - if not in absolute terms, then at least relative to the population they serve. This trend is so well known, there is no need to outline it here. In the unlikely event you are not up to speed, you can start your understanding here. 

So, back to the topic at hand. What is so bad about "diversity statements?"

These requirements are not unusual;

A recent American Association of University Professors survey found that DEI criteria are included in consideration for tenure at 21.5 percent of colleges and universities, and at 45.6 percent of large institutions of higher education.

"In many cases, these policies threaten to restrict employment or advancement opportunities for faculty who dissent from the prevailing consensus on DEI-related issues of public and academic interest," warns the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). "These policies may even negatively impact faculty who broadly agree with their institution's DEI values but disagree on some of the specifics, or who simply cherish the right to speak without compulsion."

FIRE acknowledges that private institutions have the right to adopt any ideological requirements they wish (public institutions are bound by the First Amendment). But it says DEI mandates threaten the commitments to free speech and academic freedom that most universities espouse.

"Academics seeking employment or promotion will almost inescapably feel pressured to say things that accommodate the perceived ideological preferences of an institution demanding a diversity statement, notwithstanding the actual beliefs or commitments of those forced to speak," agrees the Academic Freedom Alliance in a statement released last month.

It is infecting not just universities, but surrounding institutions. At last, some are taking a stand;

Last week the New York University (NYU) psychology professor announced that he would resign at the end of the year from the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, his primary professional association, because of a newly adopted requirement that everybody presenting research at the group's conferences explain how their submission advances "equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals." It was the sort of litmus test against which he has warned, and which he sees as corroding institutions of higher learning.

"Telos means 'the end, goal, or purpose for which an act is done, or at which a profession or institution aims,'" he wrote in a Sept. 20 piece published on the website of Heterodox Academy, an organization he cofounded that promotes viewpoint diversity on college campuses, and republished by the Chronicle of Higher Education. "The telos of a knife is to cut, the telos of medicine is to heal, and the telos of a university is truth."

"The Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP)—recently asked me to violate my quasi-fiduciary duty to the truth," he added. "I was going to attend the annual conference in Atlanta next February to present some research with colleagues on a new and improved version of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. I was surprised to learn about a new rule: In order to present research at the conference, all social psychologists are now required to submit a statement explaining 'whether and how this submission advances the equity, inclusion, and anti-racism goals of SPSP.'"

Such diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) statements have proliferated at universities and in academic societies, he notes, even though "most academic work has nothing to do with diversity, so these mandatory statements force many academics to betray their quasi-fiduciary duty to the truth by spinning, twisting, or otherwise inventing some tenuous connection to diversity."

By design, this movement has gone beyond well intentioned feelgoodism;

Almost all of the publicly available rubrics used by recruitment search committees resemble the University of California, Berkeley’s “Rubric for Assessing Candidate Contributions to Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging,” which dictates that applicants should receive a low score if they “[discuss] diversity in vague terms, such as ‘diversity is important for science,’” or if they “state that it’s better not to have outreach or affinity groups aimed at particular individuals because it keeps them separate from everyone else, or will make them feel less valued.”

Most notably, the Berkeley rubric explicitly punishes any candidate who expresses a dislike for race-conscious policies, requiring a low score for anyone who “states the intention to ignore the varying backgrounds of their students and ‘treat everyone the same.’” Conversely, it rewards those most committed to the cause: Candidates receive a high score for “discuss[ing] diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging as core values that every faculty member should actively contribute to” and “convincingly express[ing] intent, with examples, to be a strong advocate for diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging within the department/school/college and also their field.”

The rubric published by the University of Colorado Denver mimics parts of Berkeley’s rubric verbatim, but also takes it a step further: In one category, candidates receive a middling score for espousing the “golden rule” (“I will treat others as I want to be treated”) but the highest score for espousing the “platinum rule” (“I will treat others as they want to be treated”). Meanwhile, some institutions employ even more overtly ideological language. At Western Oregon University, high-scoring statements provide “at least two or more strategies for contributing to advancing racial equity and eliminating systemic racism” and identify “at least three inequities and … how they would address those inequities if employed at WOU.”

The left isn't just creating a filtering mechanism for only their fellow travelers - they are effectively eliminating alternative points of view from even trying to have a career ... or like we have seen ... compel speech;

DEI criteria have become increasingly dominant not only in hiring practices, but in tenure decisions. In the American Association of University Professors’ recent survey of tenure practices, 21.5% of all surveyed institutions reported including DEI criteria in their tenure standards, and 38.9% reported that they were considering adopting such criteria. For large institutions, 45.6% had adopted the criteria, and another 35.5% were considering them. Only 18.8% of the large universities surveyed had not implemented DEI promotion and tenure criteria and were not considering doing so in the future. Presumably, some number of them will eventually flip.

That the policy is an open question at so many universities underscores an important point: DEI measures tend to inflate. Large fleets of university diversity officers need a raison d’être, which is why universities are adopting DEI strategic plans, and ennumerating dozens of new policies created by and for DEI officers, at accelerating rates. The universities that have not yet done so face mounting pressure. In April of this year, Ohio State University’s Task Force on Racism and Racial Inequities released a report with a laundry list of “Grand Challenges and Priority Action Steps,” recommending the creation of an institutionwide diversity action plan. If that plan looks like the College of Engineering’s Racial Equity and Inclusion Action Plan, it will include establishing language in its promotion and tenure manual “concerning the assessment of equity and inclusion in annual reviews.”

Given the public health disaster of the last two-and-a-half years, and the gravity of the discipline, it’s particularly jarring to see this development unfold in the medical field. The Oregon Health and Science University School of Medicine was recently reaccredited, but the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), which accredits medical schools, found it lacking in faculty diversity. In response, the medical school released its DEI strategic plan, which was created “in alignment with accreditation requirements,” and which promises not only “consequences” for faculty who don’t get on board but also to “develop and incorporate DEI, anti-racism and social justice core competencies in performance appraisals of faculty and staff.”

The UNC School of Medicine likewise created a Task Force for Integrating Social Justice Into the Curriculum, which recommended, among other measures, adding social justice criteria to the school’s promotion and tenure policy. As of May 2021, the school’s promotion and tenure guidelines require faculty to submit a diversity statement and list DEI contributions, examples of which include “Application of material learned in DEI trainings (e.g., Safe Zone, Unconscious Bias, Implicit Bias, etc.) to promote an environment of cultural awareness, knowledge, and sensitivity.”

All of this is well within the lifelines of the US military's institutions of higher learning. It has been a long, slow, march allowed under the noses of all political parties. 

There are a few cornerstones to our republic that have - in fits and starts - served it well.

First is no religions test, second is a military free of partisan politics.

At the core, the Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity agenda isn't just political - which it clearly is - it is a world view that people should first and primarily be judged by their race, creed, color, or national origin - and done so in a 19th and early-20th Century "one drop" world view that requires officially sanctioned sectarianism.

At no time in human history has a military or a nation prospered under such a structure. In the end it degrades good order and discipline, promotes conflict at the personal and institutional level, and never moves the ball towards equality. 

It never reaches that point because that isn't the goal. The goal is sectarian division because it is from that division that you can better control a people and promote your own desire for power.

The lust for power, money, and sex; the primary drivers of corruption and conflict in our species - and they're all being spot welded on to a discipline whose performance is degraded by all three. 

Nice Ammo Dump You Have There, Shame if ...

Now that everyone has spent the last three weeks of the Russo-Ukrainian war watching what modern, precision guided, long-range fires can do to large, static supply bases - specifically "ammo dumps" - I'd like you to take a moment  and read this in a new light;

The Army in the Pacific had its first crack at testing out its APS-Afloat capability in March in the Philippines during exercises Salaknib 22 and Balikatan 22. part of Operation Pathways, a larger exercise in the theater. The 3rd Infantry Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division used it coming from ships designed to harbor complete equipment sets and spares the Army anticipates needing should a crisis unfold.

...

The APS-afloat is maintained by Army Field Support Battalion-Charleston and is the only floating stockpile in the theater. There are four other land-based APS locations in the Indo-Pacific area of operation.

...

Both land-based and afloat APS have their benefits, Bartholomees said., “but the key thing with Army prepositioned stocks is that the dispersion and the flexibility of them provide multiple options in the Indo-Pacom theater.”

The People's Liberation Army Rocket Forces are not just going to let American land-based supplies just sit there unmolested. Likewise, smart military planner does not place his supplies in quantity within range of an enemies artillery...but here we are.

In peace, afloat stockpiles are not as efficient - but they are movable and unpredictable to an enemy's targeteers.

Everyone likes to wargame things ... so wargame out what happens at D+1 that two of the four land based stockpiles are taken out. Then what?

Three of four? One?  

Time is short, but there is a solution. We need more afloat stockpiles we can move. Supplies either need to move onboard, move west, or get a signifiant plus-up of anti-ballistic missile defense - now.

Navy Missiles for all my Friends

There are some smart decisions being made by the Army when it comes to what the cool kids call “long range fires” (I don't care if they call in medium) … and the products are blue and gold.

Via Sydney Freedberg at BreakingDefense;

Instead of picking a single missile to be its thousand-mile Mid-Range Capability, the Army has chosen to mix two very different Navy weapons together in its prototype MRC unit: the new, supersonic, high-altitude SM-6 and the venerable, subsonic, low-flying Tomahawk.

...

Lockheed Martin won the OTA contract, worth up to $339.4 million with all options, to integrate the two missiles – both built by Raytheon – into the Army fire control systems, vehicles, and support equipment required for a fully functioning artillery battery. Lockheed builds the current wheeled HIMARS and tracked MLRS launchers, which can handle a wide variety of current and future Army weapons, but neither the service nor the company would say whether they could fire either SM-6 or Tomahawk, citing security concerns.

They are set to enter service in 2023.

The most important factor in the Pacific remains what it has always been, range.

The subsonic Tomahawk cruise missile is the long-serving mainstay of long-range strike. It was first fielded in the Reagan era and has been much upgraded since, with more than 2,000 fired in combat since 1991. There used to be a whole family of different versions, but nuclear-tipped, land-based, air-launched, and anti-ship variants were retired after the Cold War. That left the Navy’s conventional-warhead Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM), which can only be fired from ships and submarines, and only at stationary targets ashore.

...

The supersonic SM-6 is the latest and sexiest version of the Navy’s Standard Missile family, whose primary role is defensive, built to shoot incoming enemy aircraft and missiles out of the sky. But the new SM-6 is also capable of striking surface targets on land and sea.

Range, range, range. For reasons probably best discussed between them and their confessors, since the end of the Cold War our Navy has retreated from range. Our airwing forgot about it. Our surface force remembered it shortly, then forgot it again. I don’t think out submarine force ever did … but we don’t talk much about submarines because they seem to do a great job in most things (though that may change next week if I can get a post out of draft).

The SM-6 selection surprised me at first, because its reported ranges are well short of the 1,000 miles the Army wants for the Mid-Range Capability. While the real range is classified, estimates range up to 290 miles (250 nautical miles).

However, the Navy is now developing an extended-range model of the SM-6, the Block 1B. (It’ll use the rocket booster from another Standard Missile variant, the ICBM-killing SM-3, which is known to have a range greater than 1,000 miles). What’s more, while the current SM-6 maxes out at Mach 3.5, the SM-6 Block 1B will reportedly reach hypersonic speeds, i.e. above Mach 5. While the Navy plans for Block 1B to complete development only in 2024, it wouldn’t be a stretch to have a handful of missiles available early for the Army’s MRC roll-out in late 2023.

The maritime gods of the copybook headings are back, and they are pissed. All the non-transformational concepts such as range, affordability, production lines, and robustness are coming back to the front. Why? Simple.

We are running out of time to be unserious. From the Army's press release;

“The Army and joint service partners have conducted extensive mission thread analysis to solidify the kill chain and communications systems required to support MRC operations. Details are not publicly releasable due to OPSEC considerations,” Army officials wrote me in an email.

“The Tomahawk and SM-6 were chosen in order to accelerate a mature capability to address near-peer threats. They provide the required mix of capability to engage desired targets at mid-range distances. Working closely with the Navy, the Army will be able to integrate these missiles for the MRC prototype battery to meet the FY23 fielding date.

“The Army will not modify the Navy missiles. While working on materiel solutions, the Army is also consistently doing analysis to determine the best mix of weapons systems, how the enemy is going to fight against new capabilities, and how to address capability gaps.

“The MRC prototype battery is planned to include a mix of both SM-6 and Tomahawk missiles to provide the desired capability in FY23.”

The best way to keep the People’s Republic of China from being a danger to our interests is to keep her close to shore. To do that, you need to hit targets on the coast and inland. With her impressive S/M/IRBM forces, you need to do that at range at sea and ashore. 

The maladministration of our airwing over the three decades is almost criminal, but we have what we have. Working at the speed of smell, NAVAIR may have a F/A-XX (AKA NGAD or whatever we are calling it this week) shadow on the ramp before the crack of doom, and one hopes that one of the primary design priorities is … range … but for the near-term fight to come, we and our sister services will have to do with what we have to keep a proper distance from shore based weapons systems. We knew that in the Cold War, but then we got smart enough to be stupid. We will have to find range other ways – and in missiles, the Navy has a lot to be proud of.

This is where the Army’s decision to go Navy and buy the updated 1970s era TLAM (though that is just the shape and speed. The warhead and guidance is 21st Century smart) and the SM-6 is just smart as it can be. We have good (actually, very good) now as we wait for better later that may or may not come. We need to be ready to fight now, not a decade from now.

A final note to my fellow geeks and classics fans.

Do you know what "Typhon" is on slide above?

Based badassery and a superb name.

... the Giant-God whose power is to overturn oceans. ... the largest and most fearsome of all creatures, his prowess exceeded that of even the Titans and was enough to be regarded as the deadliest threat to Olympus, and was one of the few beings in existence whom Zeus openly feared. ... His true form is always accompanied by a massive and devastating storm, obscuring his body and making it difficult to see. However, it is said that his human upper half reached as high as the stars, and his hands reached east and west. Instead of a human head, a hundred dragon heads erupted from his neck and shoulders; some, however, depict him as having a human head, with the dragon heads replacing the fingers on his hands. His bottom half consisted of gigantic viper coils that could reach the top of his head when stretched out and constantly made a hissing noise. His whole body was covered in wings, and fire flashed from his eyes,

Army Fails Geography

This week, navalists everywhere are having fun with the comments by Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth at Center for Strategic and International Studies back on December 1st. 

First of all ... let's go to the map room.

What? Not clear enough? Let me help.

Over on twitter, I promised a thorough fisking of her comments ... so here we go.

"A more powerful Chinese military helps to underwrite Beijing's strategy to achieve the 'great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation' by 2049 — to include development of the PLA [People's Liberation Army] into a 'world class military' by midcentury," 

"China's focus on modernizing its military capabilities will strengthen its ability to coerce Taiwan and rival claimants in territorial disputes, project power globally, and counter interventions along the PRC's [People's Republic of China] periphery," she said.

First of all, besides those forces trained and equipped for amphibious operations, the People's Liberation Army is mostly a concern of the Indians and Russians ... with the Vietnamese a close third. We have no concerns with China on the Asian landmass as long as they keep their forces out of the Korean peninsular. 

Right now, the Chinese military is manned with about two million service members — 975,000 of them in army combat units. It also has the most ships of any navy in the world, Wormuth said. And within the Indo-Pacific region, the Chinese military also has the largest air force.

Huh. That sounds to me like we should allocate more funds to address <checks notes> naval forces to counter their expanded capabilities at sea.

China now has the ability to attack U.S. sensors and communication links in space and also has missiles that can sink U.S. ships and take down aircraft, Wormuth said.

"They have missiles that can reach U.S. bases in Japan and Guam, exposing our planes and runways to attack," she said. "Not only does China have advanced precision weapons, it has them in large and growing quantities. And just recently, China conducted a missile test that sent a missile around the world, dropping off a hypersonic vehicle that glided all the way back to China where it then struck a test target."

So, what you're saying is that static, land based assets are a bad idea due to their vulnerability? Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to perhaps allocate more funds for mobile, sea-based solutions? Yes? Solid thinking Madam Secretary.

Considering the advancements made by the Chinese military and the challenges it poses to the U.S., Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III has identified China as a "pacing challenge" for the Defense Department.

In the name of all that is holy, there is nothing "pacing" about the challenge from China. Anyone who uses this word calls their credibility in to question. If anything they are accelerating, passing, or lapping us.

"In my view, the Army will have at least five core tasks if a conflict breaks out, and these are tasks the Army can usefully perform without presuming substantial expansion of Army permanent presence in the region in the near term future," Wormuth said.

Five, as in the numbers of fingers on a hand? Nice. We can hold track on that.

First, she said, the Army will serve as the 'linchpin" service within the joint fight.

Oh no, not "linchpin." As in the thing that needs to be removed in order to make a grenade useful in combat? 

This isn't going to go well, is it?

"The Army will establish, build up, secure and protect staging areas and joint operating bases for air and naval forces in theater," Wormuth said. "We will be prepared to provide integrated air and missile defense, both for fixed sites and using mobile elements. We will provide area security and quick reaction forces where needed."

So, should we disregard previous comments about the vulnerability of static, shore based infrastructure, or no? Is this just a way to give PLA rocket forces more targets in the hope we'll confuse them?  Also ... about those bases, you may want to review 10 U.S. Code § 8063 - United States Marine Corps: composition; functions. It states;

The Marine Corps shall be organized, trained, and equipped to provide fleet marine forces of combined arms, together with supporting air components, for service with the fleet in the seizure or defense of advanced naval bases and for the conduct of such land operations as may be essential to the prosecution of a naval campaign. 

Not your job Army.

The Army will also use its vast logistics capacity to sustain joint force partners across the Indo-Pacific region, she said.

With what resources will you go from island to island, exactly? Remember, this is WESTPAC, not EUCOM. No choo-choos.

"The Army, for example, will provide much of the secure communication network background. We will generate intra-theater distribution networks to keep the joint force supplied from dispersed locations, and we will maintain munition stockpiles and forward arming and refueling points," she said.

How many times has the Army done this with multiple maritime formations at sea or for that matter integrated long distance air campaigns? With the Army having the lead in AFG and IRQ recently, do they instill confidence they are ready for this as the supported service? Really?

The Army can also provide command and control capability at multiple levels to ensure coordination and synchronization across the joint force.

"The Army, with its substantial planning and operations capacity at the division and corps level, is uniquely well placed to provide command and control for the joint force," Wormuth said.

As mentioned earlier ... this is a maritime and aerospace fight. The Army is not well placed at all.

Beyond just mission support, Wormuth also said the Army brings substantial combat capability to the joint force. For instance, she said the Army will provide ground-based, long-range fires to enhance the joint force’s strike capability.

They will? Please, bring me the map with your range rings.

"Using our long-range hypersonic weapons, mid-range capability and precision strike missiles — all of which we will begin fielding in fiscal year 2023 — we will be able to interdict fires across sea lines of communication, suppress enemy air defenses and provide counter fires against mobile targets."

IOC in 2023? Is that in combat effective numbers? By then end of FY25, how many warshots will be in theater? Those will serve how many targets? What is the monthly production capacity for replacement rounds?

Finally, she said, the Army can provide counter-attack capability using its maneuver forces. Infantry stryker elements or combat aviation brigades, for instance, can be used to restore territorial integrity of allies and partners.

Wait ... bring those maps back. Where outside Korea on the Asian landmass are you planning to insert those mechanized forces? 

While Wormuth said the Army is currently capable of providing such capabilities to the joint force without changes in its existing permanent presence in Indo-Pacom, some changes would be useful. Right now, the U.S. military footprint in Asia is oriented towards the northeast, in places like Japan and Korea, for instance.

Like ... now? Really? "Currently" is doing a lot in this paragraph. Should we wargame JUN2022 or no?

"I think there is very much a desire to be able to expand our access and basing arrangements more into Southeast Asia; because, if we were able to do that, we would have ... a more dispersed posture that would give us much more flexibility," she said. "I think it is very much in our interest, and in the interest of our allies and partners, to explore how we can shift that posture over time."

What are we talking about here, Vietnam? Malaysia? Indonesia? Thailand? Who is willing to let the US Army put a flagpole down?

Nevertheless, considering where the U.S. operates now in Asia, she said it's important to maintain realistic assumptions about where the U.S. will be operating from, at least in the near future.

"Realistic." Indeed. May want to review previous comments.

"The Indo-Pacific ... is a region of great opportunity for the United States, but also real challenges," she said. "The Army is stepping up to that challenge, both in terms of how we contribute to the country’s ability to compete with China and our ability to deter coercion and aggression in the region."

Yes, the Army has a role, and important role, in any fight west of Wake, but not as the lead. They are no more the lead for the Pacific than the US Navy would be in Ukraine. They are the supporting, not the supported service.

Unless you are planning to restart a drive up the Korean peninsular or reinforce India on her border with China, the Army should not be even pondering the lead. 

Geography, history, national comparative advantage all tell us this is a maritime and aerospace battle. Any plan that includes engaging our Army in any significant force level on the Asian mainland is to invite national ruin.

What Can the Army do Best in the Indo-Pacific?

In an incredibly important ... and silly drama over the last couple of years, some otherwise smart people in objectively important positions invested significant amounts of personal and professional capital trying to make an argument that the US Army - our land component, is the primary service ... here.

No.

Unless you want to get in to another land war in Asia from the Pacific approaches ... no.

However, we have friends who share our concerns with the People's Republic of China who, in addition to having four times the USA's population, have significant land borders and territorial issues with the PRC.

In a larger war, they may find themselves allied with us, and there are things we could do to help them on their front. To do it best, we need to know each other better and the environment we might find ourselves fighting alongside them.

This is something the US Army needs to be thinking about and growing their expertise in ... not the Pacific approaches;

...U.S. Army Alaska’s bilateral exercise with the Indian Army, dubbed Yudh Abhyas, drew to a close Friday after two weeks of cold weather warfare training...Roughly 350 Indian soldiers from 7th Battalion, Madras Regiment, participated in the exercise alongside Alaska-based U.S. paratroopers. The Indian forces may mostly originate from southern India, but they work in the Himalayas, where Indian and Chinese forces have brawled over border disputes in recent months....“There are no higher, nor more remote, mountains than the Himalayas, and that kind of subject matter expertise is going to make our Paratroopers that much more capable in Arctic warfare,” U.S. Army Col. Jody Shouse said of the Indian soldiers and the skills they brought to the exercise.

Shouse commands 4th Infantry Brigade, 25th Infantry Division, which worked with the Indian forces this year. The Indian unit — nicknamed “Shandaar Saath,” which means “Magnificent Seven” — was led by Indian Army Brigadier Parag Nangare.

...

The field training also involved cold weather and high altitude skill development in mountaineering and snow survival, medical evacuations and small arms firing.

“There are certain peculiar conditions which are specific to high altitudes, especially those that affect men and materials,” Nangare said. “Guns and other equipment face a lot of maintenance issues. Range calibration is a challenge and vehicles also face problems both during operations and repair.”

Good. 

More of this. 

Army: Climate, Politics, and Pork

No, it is not.

Today, no nation can find lasting security without addressing the climate crisis. We face all kinds of threats in our line of work, but few of them truly deserve to be called existential. The climate crisis does…climate change is making the world more unsafe, and we need to act.

- Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, at the Leaders Summit on Climate, April 22, 2021

As a species, humans have thrived under drastically higher and lower sea levels; colder and warmer climates. The slow changes we are seeing now are not existential. Not even close. It is a challenge - maybe in some areas a mounting crisis, but not existential. It is something that, even if a mounting crisis, does not have a military solution.

From the top, all of this is simply because the military is following the orders of the CINC. That is how it works. As this is a fun topic this week; yes, this is political and the military is involved in it.

In line with the President and the Secretary of Defense’s direction, the Army is prioritizing climate change considerations in its threat picture, strategic plans, operations and installations. 

If your orders are legal, you carry them out. As such, 90% of this is about exactly what I would submit as a staff officer if so tasked by my boss. I don’t fault anyone involved with this per se … as there are a few subversive Easter Eggs here.

That won’t stop me … as … well … in the milbogg’n ecosystem, I have a job to do. Let’s get to it.

The whole issue around global cooling/warming/climate change and whatever new iteration will be used later when these become stale long ago left the realm of science for politics.

Long ago.

I’m just old enough to remember the 1970s global cooling scare. It made good copy to sell magazines and keep people panicked after “silent spring” petered out (after the Green Revolution took out the Malthusian panic). 

Everyone coasted along for about a decade when the usual suspects invested time in SANE/FREEZE or other large paper mâché doll consuming activities to buck up the tottering Soviet Union in its final days, but when the Cold War ended, it took awhile for them to find the latest hook. They knew they had the right topic when the patron saint Al Gore took up the global warming crisis and helped smooth a new path in a pursuit of power, government control, full-time paychecks, and most importantly for rent-seeking grifters – government contracts.

A crisis, real or created, is a great excuse to grab power by those who lust after it. If you can scare the masses and then tell them you are there to save them, the herd will give you that power. You can enjoy the power for power’s sake, and to gain allies to extend your high, use it to enable others that will back you to pursue other agendas you couldn’t pursue otherwise. To keep progress progressive, as it were, also reward your friends and punish your enemies.

“Climate” is the perfect kind of crisis. We have a lot of great scary movies about it, and is for many it is a secular religion. The zealots to use as enforces are legion.

“Climate change” is always happening. Mammoth bones in the North Sea, archaeologists exploring underwater caves off Central America and the Gulf of Mexico for evidence of Ice Age human settlements, and beach sand a few hours inland prove that. No one can deny climate change as it has been going on for billions of years before our ancestors decided to leave the trees for the plains.

The great unknown is how much of today’s change is related to human activity. Is it low single digit %, or in the middle double digits? If we knew that, then based on reason we could discuss cost/benefit analysis of what if anything we could do to address it and how to mitigate its effects. We’d have a better understanding of timelines we are facing in geologic times. Sadly, the rub is that last bit. 

According to all the earlier warnings, we should all be dead right now, NYC would be flooded, and we would be a decade past the 10-yr-until-it-is-too-late point. I’m still here. Water levels are the same at my house and the Obama’s. 

A few decades after we all should have drowned or starved to death, we still suffer from powerful people ruled by emotion being pushed by people motivated by more base drivers; lust for power and greed.

That is how you should read the latest from the US Army.  Make no mistake, this is all politics and money driving well meaning people’s emotionally based fear.

Read it all, but here we go.

First, remember how we are all told by reliable sources that climate is not weather, and likewise?

Well, fail out of the gate (or Easter Egg?)

The Army has a lot to be proud of, yet there is a lot of work to continue to operate efficiently across extreme weather and climate conditions.

Next, tell me how any of this helps the Army win the upcoming fight west of Wake?

• Strategizing and planning to mitigate climate threats, with emphasis on Soldier resilience, energy reform, and capability enhancement and procurement.
• Advancing development and use of renewable energy, energy and water efficiency and consumption, and other environmental initiatives that steward the land, air and water to enable Army operations and maximize readiness.
• Poised to lead the way in technology development for tactical vehicles that balances increased capability with decreased climate impacts.

In the above, all the bolded items are simply taking the Army budget to Solyndraize a few companies. 

What would I 100% support the Army doing because it is a real, actionable series of activities that would address real issues, has reliable metrics to track progress and creates sustainable stewardship examples future generations can enjoy? I’ve underlined them.

Not all of this is bad … but the politics and grift is transparent.

This sad little document ends with one of the secular religion’s chant. It really should be in Latin, or perhaps Esperanto. 

Climate change leads to competition for scarce resources and can increase the spread of infectious diseases. To secure the American people and their interests in the homeland and abroad, the Army must continue to address the challenges a changing climate poses to the people, territories, capabilities, and other resources upon which U.S. security depends.

You know what right now and for the next 5, 10, and 15 years we know is and will be driving, 

“…humanitarian disasters, undermine weak governments and contribute to long-term social and economic disruptions.”?

Mass migration, high birth rates, environmental pollution. That's what.

We have real metrics that that are statistically sound and objectively observable. If we must expend Army funds in this area … then do it here. This will see results … but to be quite honest, they are more the responsibility of USAID and other governmental organizations. The Army can support them … but it really isn’t their job – and it shouldn’t be.

Feeding the Vaal that is the “climate emergency?” All that does is line pockets, fill campaign coffers, and tickle fetishes … which is mostly the point.

Know Capabilities, Not Names

Just as on the naval side of things, the Communist Chinese may call something a destroyer that is clearly a cruiser, the Europeans call something a frigate that is clearly a destroyer, and the Americans call a Littoral Combat Ship what is really a national disgrace, etc ... there are even more challenges figuring out capabilities on the land side.

A classic example, "How many divisions do they have?"

You might get a simple answer, but that may not be the answer you need in order to really understand what you are looking at.

Via IISS; 

When asked if, in 2025, a British war-fighting division will be capable of ‘overmatching the forces of a peer opponent such as Russia’, Minister for Defence Procurement Jeremy Quin replied ‘absolutely’. This assessment runs counter to the MoD’s own evidence. This is illustrated by the graphic below, which compares the anti-armour and artillery capabilities of the 3rd Division − as required by the 2015 SDSR − with an IISS assessment of the capabilities found in the Russian Army’s 4th tank division and the ‘reduced division’ that now represents the limited capability that the British Army could mobilise in 2025. It is highly likely that a Russian tank division would overmatch this much weaker British formation.

Details ... always ask for the details.

Crossposted to substack.

 

The Best Joint Programs are not Joint Programs

BZ to the Army for selecting some excellent weapons to tweak a bit to suit their specific requirements, and then add to their weaponeering tool kit.

As covered by Syndey Freedberg at the end of last week;

...the Army has chosen to mix two very different Navy weapons together in its prototype MRC (Mid-Range Capability) unit: the new, supersonic, high-altitude SM-6 and the venerable, subsonic, low-flying Tomahawk.

“Following a broad review of joint service technologies potentially applicable to MRC, the Army has selected variants of the Navy SM-6 and Tomahawk missiles to be part of the initial prototype,” says a Rapid Capabilities & Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO) statement released this afternoon. “The Army will leverage Navy contract vehicles for missile procurement in support of the Army integration OT [Other Transaction Authority] agreement.”

That is programspeak for, "We need to get this capability forward as soon as possible. No, we don't have two decades to make our own stuff. Navy has already done the hard part and has some nice kit. Let's slap a Army sticker on it and get this moving."

Though it was owned by the USAF at the time, at the end of the Cold War we deployed to Europe the nuclear BGM-109G Gryphon Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM). Leverage that experience and modernize it, as the modern Tomahawk is to the old TLAM - but this time in a conventional mode - and you have a nice capability.

The SM-6 is already wired with a secondary anti-surface mode at sea, so this too should be an easy path.

Some of the usual suspects will get grumpy because, damblit, the US military has a new capability, but they should pack sand.

If you desire peace, plan for war - and these missiles play to our comparative advantage.

BZ to everyone on a sound decision.

Fullbore Friday

I find it interesting what parts of our history people like to bring up ... and why. Often what is even more interesting is what they don't bring up ... and why.

One American hero you hadn't heard too much the last half year or so is Sergeant William Carney, United States Army.

In March 1863, Carney joined the Union Army and was attached to Company C, 54th Massachusetts Colored Infantry Regiment, the first official black unit recruited for the Union in the north. 

Forty other black men served with him, including two of famed abolitionist Frederick Douglass' sons. Within a few months, Carney's training would be put to the ultimate test during the unit's first major combat mission in Charleston, South Carolina. 

On July 18, 1863, the soldiers of Carney's regiment led the charge on Fort Wagner. During the battle, the unit's color guard was shot. Carney, who was just a few feet away, saw the dying man stumble, and he scrambled to catch the falling flag. 

Despite suffering several serious gunshot wounds himself, Carney kept the symbol of the Union held high as he crawled up the hill to the walls of Fort Wagner, urging his fellow troops to follow him. He planted the flag in the sand at the base of the fort and held it upright until his near-lifeless body was rescued. Even then, though, he didn't give it up. 

Many witnesses said Carney refused to give the flag to his rescuers, holding onto it tighter until, with assistance, he made it to the Union's temporary barracks. Carney lost a lot of blood and nearly lost his life, but not once did he allow the flag to touch the ground. 

His heroics inspired other soldiers that day and were crucial to the North securing victory at Fort Wagner. Carney was promoted to the rank of sergeant for his actions. For his bravery, Carney was awarded the Medal of Honor on May 23, 1900.

He was 23. 

What was his reference point?

Carney was born into slavery in Norfolk, Virginia, in 1840. His family was eventually granted freedom and moved to Massachusetts

Carney died at the Boston City Hospital on December 9, 1908, of complications from an elevator accident at the Massachusetts State House, where he worked for the Department of State. His body lay in repose for one day at the undertaking rooms of Walden Banks, 142 Lenox Street, at the wish of his wife and daughter. He was buried in the family plot at Oak Grove Cemetery in New Bedford, Massachusetts. Engraved on his tombstone is an image of the Medal of Honor.

I wonder what Sgt. Carney would think of 2020 America and how some treat our flag today - and why.

The Market Will Tell You What You're Short of

For navalists, the very short answer to the question of, "How many carriers do we really need?" is "More." 

Why is that the answer? Simple ... look at the length of deployments and the foolish "double pumping" of the CVN we have.

"High demand - low density" is just a PPT way of saying we didn't buy enough of what we actually need.

Let's take that simple economics concept over to the Army.

What are they short of? Remember when we were naked to attack from the Iranians? We don't want to have that happen again.

The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense and Patriot missile batteries remain among the most frequently deployed units in the service, Army senior leaders have said previously. They’ve also acknowledged a need to ease the burden on soldiers manning those systems.

...

“Every Patriot unit assigned to the 32nd AAMDC was forward deployed during this period of time," Stewart said Wednesday at the conference. "More importantly, every weapon system in our arsenal, to include C-RAM, Stinger, Avenger, Sentinel Radar, Patriot, THAAD, all those were deployed forward during this time.”

Here is a question; our allies have a lot of air defense forces. How many of them have deployed to help us during this surge? 

In NATO alone, the Germans, Dutch, Spanish and Greeks have Patriot. The Romanians just got their last month, so we'll give them a pass.

The Army has been funding something ... but too much of that and not enough of this.

Imagine the requirements we would face in a war with even a half-peer.

Checking Your Supply Chain Over a Decade Late

 

This is an article everyone should take time to read.  Beyond the entire, "Two decades in to land wars in Asia and we're only now doing this?" are two other critical vulnerabilities that are long overdue for correction and exist only to the everlasting shame of every Executive Branch civilian appointee and Congressional defense player this century.

Via DefenseNews' Joe Gould;

(Army officials admit) ...they rely on 55 foreign suppliers for certain equipment and materials ― like a TNT-replacement 2,4-Dinitroanisole, which comes from India ― because costs, environmental regulations and legal liabilities make many of them harder to develop in the U.S. The Army even relies on a small volume of detonators and pyrotechnics from China, Jette said.

Are we prepared for a high intensity conflict of any extent?

The Fight for Baghdad

BZ to the Army University Press for putting this our earlier this month. Simply superb.

Yes, this has a lot of references to official doctrine (which isn't bad) and is not Hollywood production value heavy (which is good), but this is how we create an environment where people can learn from the past to prepare for the future.

It you want to understand better the ground battle for Baghdad in 2003, independent of the POLMIL or bothering about if it were a good idea in the first place, take the 50-min to watch this.

Even you navalists out there ... you can get some ideas and concepts to use ... but even then, it is worth it to better understand the ground side of the war.

There are a lot of lessons from this invasion at the Tactical and Operational Level that we will need to keep in our collective mind, as we will need to understand them for the next war - a war that is coming - and we shouldn't need to relearn what we intentionally forgot.

Hat tip John Spencer.

Fullbore Friday

The last few months of a brutal war in the Pacific, one that showed little mercy for military or civilians.

Another detail of this war in both the Pacific and European theaters, camps.

The camps.

...and the story of the raid on the Los Baños internment camp;

...2,146 civilian internees — most of them American men, women and children — held captive since the Japanese invaded the Philippines more that three years earlier.

In 1944, with the war going badly for the Japanese, the guards at Los Baños had turned more brutal; prisoners were being starved on orders of the vicious, Western-hating camp commander who had promised the prisoners: “Before I’m done, you’ll be eating dirt.” Those caught escaping — even those returning with food for the starving — were shot. With medical supplies scarce, prisoners were dying of diseases like malaria, dysentery and tuberculosis. Then, in February 1945, the Japanese began digging deep trenches near the prisoners’ barracks. Many in camp feared preparations were being made for mass executions and burials.

Then there was an idea;

H-hour was also changed from 8 a.m. to 7 a.m. once the escapees reported that every morning at 6:45 a.m., the enemy garrison of some 200 soldiers assembled in a large field unarmed and wearing only loincloths for 30 minutes of ritualistic calisthenics. Only a handful of guards were on duty during the morning exercises.

The coordinated strike on the camp by 170 U.S. paratroopers and 75 Filipino guerrillas would use the element of surprise to overwhelm the few guards that remained at their posts. The challenge for the liberators was not only to keep the civilians safe during the assault but also to move them quickly — many were too weak to walk any distance — before a 10,000-man Japanese infantry division lurking nearby could arrive with reinforcements. Planners believed the enemy army could reach the prison camp in as little as three hours. Casualties in the raid were anticipated to be as high as 30 per cent.

A plan to load the prisoners into trucks and move them by armed convoy to U.S. lines was shelved when a reconnaissance flight found that the enemy had blown up bridges along the route to slow the U.S. advance into southern Luzon. There was only one way out: across the largest lake in the Philippines — 25-mile long Laguna de Bay — via amphibious tractors known as amtracs.

The 11th Airborne in a little known raid from a little known unit.

They whole story is almost too extreme to be true, but it is.

Read it all.

To the 11th Airborne and our Philippine allies; fullbore.

If you want more on the story, there's even a book on it, Bruce Henderson's, Rescue at Los Banos: The Most Daring Prison Camp Raid of World War II.

REFORGER is Back; New Name - Same Awesomeness

It's been a quarter century ... but we're getting back in the game in support of our natural state; a maritime and aerospace power positioned to have global reach.

We can say it ... but to do it we have to practice it.

More over at USNIBlog.

Head on over and gloat with me.

Fullbore Friday

You hear, "Improvise, adapt, overcome" on a regular basis ... but what does that exactly mean?

Sgt. 1st Class Richard J. Olson Jr., USA - over to you;

On Aug. 10, Olson and his Soldiers received a report that the Pul-E-Alam governor's compound was under attack by insurgents attempting to assassinate the governor of Logar Province. The team immediately went to assist the governor and other U.S. Soldiers already at the compound.

Upon arriving at the governor's compound, they found Soldiers from the Police Mentorship Team had already secured the area and ensured the safety of the governor, but they were still taking fire. Olson immediately identified the direction of the enemy fire and told his Soldiers to return fire.

After a vehicle-borne IED detonated directly outside the compound, Olson requested permission to assault the area. He moved with his Soldiers to assault the building from which they originally received fire as well as the location of the VBIED.

Olson led a group of U.S. Soldiers, as well as French and Afghan National Army soldiers to clear the first and second floors of the building. Olson then moved forward by himself and threw a grenade up to the third and fourth floors to clear the areas.

As they moved to the fifth floor, they encountered enemy insurgents and received fire. Coalition Soldiers and ANA troops worked together to fight the insurgents.

The group then left the building to allow the Apache helicopters that had been providing close-air support to fire upon the building. While the Apaches fired on the building, Olson duct taped two Claymore mines to two 15-foot poles.

After the Apaches stopped firing, Olson directed all of the Soldiers to move back into the building and continue to clear the area of insurgents.

"He (was) very cool, calm and collected," said Sgt. Christine Hein, a human resources noncommissioned officer with Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3rd BCT, of Olson's leadership during the firefight. "Never once (did) I doubt his leadership abilities."

With the insurgents still on the fifth floor, Olson put his Claymore-poles to good use. With the help of an airman, he located one of the insurgents and detonated the Claymore next to him.

Olson then led an assault on the fifth floor and cleared the rest of the building, including the roof.

Grab a pole, a claymore and probably a bit of mil-spec duct tape ... and there you go.

Best. Stick. Puppet. Ever.

BZ Olsen. BZ.

Fullbore Friday

We don't do enough of our most recent conflicts on FbF ... so today a story from last decade of a Little Bird bringing giants with big medicine.

Hearing Cianfrini’s warning, Chief Warrant Officer 2 Mark Burrows, 35, banked right to evade bullets from a heavy machine gun that had opened up across a field. Then, a second machine gun began firing at them. Burrows turned again, only to face a heavier barrage.

“The whole world just opened up on us, it seemed like,” Cianfrini said in a telephone interview from Iraq on Tuesday. “We zigzagged; we did whatever we could do to get out of the guns’ target line. Then, we started taking fire from behind. That is what took the aircraft down.

The Kiowa started to shake violently, its main rotor damaged.

Burrows said he decided to head into the field, but the aircraft began to spin uncontrollably, and at about 20 feet above the ground he had to shut down its power. The helicopter hit the ground tail first, bounced over a canal, crashed nose down and slid into a ditch beside an adjacent dirt road.

Cianfrini climbed out one door, and Burrows got out the other. They met at the nose and discovered that, miraculously, they had suffered only scratches, they said. The Kiowa by then was on fire, its engine blowing up inside. Insurgents were shooting at them from across the field, and the pilots could hear the rounds hitting the burning helicopter.

“Where’s your weapon?” Burrows yelled to Cianfrini.

“I have no idea,” came the reply.

Head on over to the DenverPost for the rest of the story.

H/t JD.

6.8mm on the Way: Eventually, Everyone Goes Salamander

Let's see, back in January 2006 I wrote;

Ground combat is not my specialty, my professional toolbox has big things that make big fireballs going out and going in, look cool on video, and require AC power - but please. There are more bad theories there than you can shake a stick at. I thought we stressed Aimed Fire? Spray and pray is what poorly trained targets do. Say what you want about the Soldier or Marine of 2006, but "..poorly trained and clueless 18 yr old" isn't very accurate. There was a move post OEF/OIF experience to go to a 6.5/6.8mm, but the bean counters, again, are trying to kill it. This sounds familiar.

I've been writing on and off the topic ever since.

I accepted defeat too early ... it appears that there were unknown Salamander types inside the Army lifelines working hard to make it happen ... and I smile with great satisfaction watching this progress.

The U.S. Army has selected three firms to advance to the next phase of testing to select the service's Next Generation Squad Weapon.

The Army chose General Dynamics-OTS Inc., AAI Corporation Textron Systems and Sig Sauer Inc. -- which makes the service's new Modular Handgun System -- to deliver prototypes of both the automatic rifle and rifle versions of the NGSW, as well as hundreds of thousands of rounds of special 6.8mm ammunition common to both weapons, according to an announcement posted Thursday night.
...
The Army's goal is to select a final design for both weapons from a single company in the first quarter of 2022 and begin replacing both M4s and M249s in an infantry brigade combat team in the first quarter of 2023, Brig. Gen. David Hodne, director of the Army's Soldier Lethality Cross Functional Team, told Military.com in July.

Why is this ultimately so important?

At the end of the day, everything a military has must support one thing; the infantryman. From time immortal, you do not achieve victory in war until you have someone in your uniform standing with their weapon - club, ax, sword, or gun - on any damn street corner they want to in a land that was until recently someone else's.

Infantry isn't sexy, but it is the One Thing.

They need the best. They deserve the best.

Green eye-shade types be damned.