Proactively “From the Sea”; an agent of change leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.
Sal and EagleOne are back after July 4th with a full plate of catching up to do on the waterfront from ghosting Afghanistan, Japan & Taiwan's awkward natsec flirting, the INDOPACCOM J2 isn't all that happy with what he's discovered west of Wake, and the ever popular question, how many years is a 30-yr CG good for.
Join us live if you canand roll in with your preferred topic in the chat room or call the switchboard number right here on the showpage.
As the D-Day invasion was ongoing, the German Navy sortied what they could to try to drive the allies back across the channel. The most feared were the French based U-boats.
Please read the whole thing, but here is a nice summary of one of the under-told stories of WWII, Coastal Command. On night. One crew. Two U-boats. Fullbore.
“G-George” droned on through the night. Men drank coffee from thermos flasks, kept the chatter to a minimum, scanned the endless sea and began to feel the numbing weariness set in that came with these long over-water patrols. But adrenalin shot through their bloodstreams like amphetamine just after 2 a.m. when Foster announced on the intercom that he had a solid return on his radar 12 miles dead ahead in the vicinity of Ushant Island (Ouessant). It was too early to tell whether it was a French fishing smack or the conning tower of a U-boat. Moore corrected his course slightly to port to put the target in the path of the moon reflecting on the water. Three miles out the conning tower of a submarine was made out in the moonlight.
Coastal Command anti-submarine crews were trained to attack the moment a U-boat was detected and without deliberation. An undamaged Type VIIC U-boat, with a well-trained crew could crash dive beneath the surface in 30 seconds. Time was of the essence, as was complete surprise.
Immediately, Moore instructed Foster to switch off the radar in case the submarine had detection equipment, and then began to drop lower and lower, adjusting his course to keep the enemy up-moon until he was at 50 feet above the calm surface. McDowall, the navigator, took his position at the bomb sight. Moore ordered the four big bomb doors opened and as they slid upwards and outboard on their rollers, he could hear the hydraulic pumps working and sense the difference in the airflow note down the sides of his warhorse. Approaching the U-boat, which they calculated was making 10–12 knots in a westerly direction, they selected 6 depth charges from their quiver, attacking due south and 90 degrees to the path of the U-boat on her starboard side. Moore chose to leave the powerful 22 million-candela Leigh Light off to further keep their whereabouts secret. As they screamed in for the attack, the spare navigator, Pilot Officer Alec Gibb, DFC sprayed the conning tower with heavy machine gun fire (some 150 rounds according to the after action report) from his position in the nose. Moore and Gibb later stated they could see as many as 8 submariners scrambling from the tower to get to the deck guns. There was some anti-aircraft return fire, but it was too little and too late. They had caught them completely by surprise.
As they roared over the submarine at 190 mph, six depth charges, set 55 feet apart, were falling from “G-George’s” bomb bay, having been released by McDowall whose accuracy this night would be perfect. Three fell on either side of the submarine in a textbook straddling attack just ahead of the conning tower. A flame-float, designed to ignite when it hit the water was also dropped to identify the position of the submarine at the moment of attack. The rear gunner Flight Sergeant I. Webb watched in fascination as the detonations exploded white in the moonlight and appeared to lift the 700-ton submarine out of the water.
By the time they had climbed, swung around and were homing on the beacon of the flame float at the position of the attack, there was nothing left of the U-boat save for some floating wreckage and the oily slick of diesel fuel. A Type VIIC U-boat had disappeared and ceased to exist in a matter of seconds, the depth charges having done their job breaching the pressure hull and sending one of Karl Dönitz’ hunters to the bottom with all hands. One can only imagine the last minutes of terror for the more than 50 men aboard.
Sadly, when this submarine sank, there was no one who could identify which U-boat it was. Postwar accounting pointed to U-629, commanded by Oberleutnant zur See Hans–Helmut Bugs on its 11th war patrol. She had just slipped out of her pen at Brest the day before. Still, other researchers disclaim the U-629 identification, pointing instead to U-441, commanded by Kapitänleutnant Klaus Hartmann on its ninth and final war patrol. It is not my goal to be definitive as to the identity of the fifty or so men killed that night, that best being left to experts in the field. Knowing would bring the story to a satisfying close, but it will not lessen the tragedy or the courage of the U-boat men who died that night.
Moore settled his crew down after the last pass over the wreckage, and ordered a course correction to take them back on their patrol. At 0231, just twenty minutes after the first radar contact was made, “G-George” sent a message to command that they had sunk a U-boat. The men were charged with electricity, but they had a job to do and hours before they could return home to St Eval.
Just a few minutes later at 0240 hrs, as they settled down at 700 feet ASL, Foster reported another radar contact 10 degrees off the starboard nose, this time just 6 miles ahead. Moore, with information from Foster, began to home in on the target, and at 2.5 miles range and 75 degrees to starboard, they sighted the conning tower of another U-boat on a northwesterly course running at an estimated eight knots on the surface. This time Moore needed to circle to port and come in on a course that would allow them to attack up the moon path.
Bringing the big Liberator down to 50 feet once again, Moore approached the U-boat at 110 degrees to its starboard side with plenty of time to set up another perfect attack at 190 mph. The remaining six Torpex depth charges were released at 55-foot intervals as well as a flame float. Again, Gibb, the spare navigator in the nose, was firing his machine gun at the conning tower, which answered this time with flak and tracer fire. As they roared overhead, the rear gunner Webb saw four depth charges strike the water to the starboard side of the U-boat and two on the her port side—another textbook straddling attack. Massive flumes of exploding water were seen rising on either side of the submarine, ten feet aft of the conning tower and totally obscuring the target.
Returning to the position of the flame float, Moore, Gibb and Ketcheson saw the U-boat in the bright moonlight, with a heavy list to starboard. As they approached, the bow rose steeply out of the water to an angle of about 80 degrees. The boat slid back into the sea “amid a large amount of confused water” according to the 224 Squadron ORB.
Moore circled in fascination and, coming around again, he turned on the powerful Leigh Light slung beneath his starboard wing outboard of engine No. 4. The blinding blue-white beam illuminated three yellow dinghies crowded with men floating on an oily surface strewn with bits of wreckage. One can imagine how exposed the survivors must have felt caught in the white light of the Leigh with a heavily armed Liberator thundering down its beam toward them. They passed overhead without further molesting the surviving crew, switched off the Leigh Light and left the German sailors floating in the moonlight.
The submarine was U-373, another Type VIIC boat commanded by Kapitänleutnant Detlef von Lehsten on its 11th war patrol. It had just slipped out of Brest after a six-month repair following a similar attack by a Coastal Command Wellington and Liberator in January. We know for certain that this was U-373 because all but four members of the crew survived to be picked up the next day by French fishing vessels and returned to Brest. Von Lehsten was one of the survivors.
Beginning last summer, Raytheon launched a critical race theory-inspired training program called Stronger Together, encouraging employees to “becom[e] an anti-racist today.” Raytheon CEO Greg Hayes supported the campaign by signing an Action for Diversity & Inclusion statement, promising to “promote diversity” and “cultivate meaningful change for our society,” then asking all Raytheon employees to sign the pledge and “check [their] own biases.”
...
Raytheon asks white employees to deconstruct their identities and “identify [their] privilege.” The company argues that white, straight, Christian, able-bodied, English-speaking men are at the top of the intersectional hierarchy—and must work on “recognizing [their] privilege” and “step aside” in favor of other identity groups. Whites, according to outside diversity consultant Michelle Saahene, “have the privilege of individuality,” while minorities “don’t have that privilege.”
This all comes from the train of thought the CNO loves so much. Remember that.
...and yes, this is racist, red in tooth and claw;
Employees should “identify everyone’s race” during conversations, “including those who are White.” According to the document, white employees must “listen to the experiences” of “marginalized identities,” and should “give them the floor in meetings or on calls, even if it means silencing yourself to do so.” This process of voluntary racial silence is a “win-win,” because “you learn more when you listen than when you speak.”
Next, in a chart titled “What Not to Say to Your Black Colleagues Right Now,” Raytheon instructs white employees to never say that they “pray things change soon” or hope that social tensions “calm down,” which “says [their] comfort is more important than the message of anti-racism.” Whites should acknowledge that their own discomfort is only “a fraction” of the emotional distress of black employees, who are “exhausted, mentally drained, frustrated, stressed, barely sleeping, scared and overwhelmed.”
In order to further operationalize intersectionality theory within the company, Raytheon executives have created race- and identity-segregated groups, called Employee Resource Groups (ERGs), for Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, LGBTQ, and other groups. Ostensibly, the goal is to “advance an inclusive culture,” but in practice, so-called “affinity groups” often serve to create division and suspicion in the workplace.
Yes, "affinity groups." You know, the concept championed by the Navy since the start of this blog that I have been warning you about for a decade and a half. You can read it all at the previous link, or heck .. look at this post from 2007.
This is not a new thing ... at least not for regulars here - it is just finally breaking out from the background noise.
That is good and bad. Good in that now it is in the open and more people can see it. Bad in that it is more powerful. Even the bad is good in a way - now more people have seen the threat of this drive towards sectarianism and division. I'll take it.
Rufo has the full training document (hint hint) and I encourage you to read the whole thing.
Here are a couple of screen caps to motivate you to read deeper.
First, remember, when the CNO says "equity" he does not mean "equality." He does not mean equal opportunity.
Who does Raytheon not value?
Is this where you want to go? Will this work environment be where you'd want to stay?
Once again, we need legislation stating clearly that no DOD funds can go to any organization that treats American citizens - by either providing or not providing resources - differently based on race, creed, color, or national origin.
Also, the CEO of Raytheon needs to take his own advice and, "step aside."
Over the July 4th weekend, we slipped out of the American fortress in Bagram. The way we left tells you all you need to know about Afghanistan – the conflict we lost in December 2009 when the Taliban were given the last indication they needed that we were not going to press the issue on our time and change Afghanistan our way, but we would let them win on their time and return Afghanistan their way.
It is all as clear now as it was when I wrote about our culmination at Obama’s West Point speech linked above. Regulars here know the story; the rest can follow the link above.
Good ideas are timeless, so I want to return to a topic that predates CDRSalamander and this is a decision point where we can decide to return our nation to its natural state.
My view of our place in the world started to gel in the mid-90s and by the late 90s had solidified into what in the 2020s has cured into a firm mass of resolve; we will destroy our republic by playing empire.
Generations of civilian and military leaders – and generations of citizens – had their view of America’s place in the world warped by WWII and the Cold War. In both cases, the world was faced with expansionist totalitarian secular confessions that required America to be the world power that it was.
That world, thankfully, is gone. There are major threats in this world – Islamic fundamentalism is one, a renewed China is another – but neither of them have the combination of desire and ability that fascism and communism had. Neither are trying to expand their power by military means.
Islamism has a bleeding edge, but its center of gravity is religious, and it has natural boundaries (unless stupid migrant policies succeed in letting it expand).
China’s military growth is based on primarily ensuring access to resources to keep its population’s standard of living improving and as such, protect the domestic power of the Chinese Communist Party.
We do not have a land border with either.
How do we mitigate risk against these two primary and lesser constellations of threats? Generally speaking, it doesn’t take a large standing army … which in a time of limited resources, that is a good thing. Specifically:
- Islamic fundamentalism: simple; contain and modernize. Contain Islamic fundamentalism to where is it now, and on the bleeding edge of the territory where it has reached critical mass, support local forces and governments to modernize along moderate lines. We cannot want a modern existence more than the people of those nations. We cannot force it on them. In nations where there is not a critical mass, aggressively eliminate small cells as you find them. The Cold War campaigns against the Red Army Faction, Weather Underground etc are a good template here. A deadly nuisance, but in time will fade through impotence and attrition.
- China: not so simple. China is primarily an economic and diplomatic challenge. She wants to use her economic power to back her diplomatic efforts to ensure that nations do not get in the way of her economic growth and future prosperity. From those two items, she will take was she sees as her natural place for a nation of 1.3 billion souls: the global leader by mid-century.
China is not advancing primarily through military means. No, she is advancing by a clear national vision, economics, diplomacy, and an evolutionary, iterative advancement of her priorities for her people supporting her national greatness. Her military strength is to underline to others her larger national will; it is supporting, not supported.
While there are some nations such as India, Taiwan, Japan, and the nations around the South China Sea that have some territorial issues, unless you are a very paranoid Russian or Mongolian, China is not otherwise a military threat around her present borders. Where she is – specifically India – they have the land forces they need to counter China if so needed. Though accidents happen, China has no need for a land war on the Asian landmass. Her other conflicts are either at sea or are connected to her access and ability to secure her sea lines of communication to resources.
That is the key; we do not need a large standing army to mitigate the most likely Chinese threats to us or our friends. We can best address the Chinese challenge through our economic strength and smart diplomacy. We have the advantage there if we choose to use it. Militarily, we also have the comparative advantage at sea, in the air, and space … if we choose to accept that.
How does this tie into what I started the post with? Easy.
We were enabled to think we could change Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc etc because we thought we could do it on the cheap. Sure, a few National Guard forces would have to be activated, but mostly we had a large standing army to pull the effort from. Like former SECSTATE Albright said, “what is the use of a large army if you aren’t going to use it.”
That was the theory. In practice, especially in 2005-7, it turned out different especially in the reliance on National Guard forces, but we just managed to get through it only because we were one standard deviation away in 2003 from General Shinseki’s center point.
No big national discussion was needed. No large sacrifice. No great national mobilization. We went in half-ass, and our results were half-ass. In Iraq, it was a near run thing it was not a worse disaster than it turned out.
Wars of choice need to demand an understanding that wars are a dark room. You don’t know what is in it when you step in, but you will have to deal with it.
If wars are hard to get in to, you do not fall easily in to tar pits of whimsy.
Take that temptation away. Make it hard. Make it a national effort.
We are a large nation with large responsibilities, but we are also a republic, not an empire.
Give our friends more warning than we did the Afghans last weekend but let them know we have a new strategy. They need to up their land game. We will be there to help, especially in the air and from the sea, but we will not do their work for them.
We plan to move 2/3 of our active ground forces to our National Guard. Except for a few combined logistics, maintenance, and training facilities, all our forward deployed land forces, and most of our air and sea forward deployed forces, need to come home.
WWII and the Cold War are over. Again, we are a republic, not an empire.
We will mitigate risk by ensuring that while we reset our ground forces, we maintain and improve our posture as the world’s premier maritime and aerospace power – including space.
We will maintain a large and robust ground combat capability, but any large conflict will require mobilization of our National Guard and reserve forces. We will have a standing army, but our friends will need to plan to defend their territory with their ground forces primarily – at least at the start.
That is external … but the real benefit here is internal. Remember, the military did not get us in these long running small land wars in Asia this century nor initiate them.
Politicians and the civilians they appointed did. They provided the Direction and Guidance that drove Initial Planning Guidance. They pointed the military in a certain direction.
A large standing army makes things too easy for people who have a short-term focus, especially politicians. Wars should never be easy for those who don’t have to fight them.
Politicians do understand hard work as well as risk/reward. When silky smooth, feel good ideas ooze out of think tanks and faculty lounges into politician’s ears, when those politicians bring those ideas to their military staff, there needs to be a higher bar for yes-men … and more opportunities to deliver the hard truth that the politicians will need to ask more from the American people. No so much money, but the blood of their constituents living in their towns, working in their businesses, friends with their patrons and supporters.
The American people have a good, if imperfect, track record of supporting the expenditure of significant amounts of blood and treasure when needed. American politicians have a rather imperfect, rarely good, track record of convincing themselves they can fight wars of choice on the cheap.
The greatest threat to our nation’s future security and place in the world is not an unrestrained China, it is a US political elite’s inclination to empire.
This scenario isn't IAW the CONOPS. She doesn't care. This ship will never be part of a major feet engagement on the high seas. She doesn't care. This ship is designed for a single mission. She doesn't care. War never cares. War called on the crew of the sloop of war HMAS YARRA (U77) in March of 1942, and the YARRA and her crew did what needed to be done.
On 27 February orders were given to clear all remaining British auxiliary craft from Batavia (now Jakarta). About midnight Yarra and the Indian sloop HMIS Jumna sailed escorting a convoy to Tjilatjap. Arriving off Tjilatjap at 11 am on 2 March, the ships were warned not to enter harbour. The Yarra was ordered to take the convoy, which consisted of the depot ship Anking, the tanker Francol and the motor minesweeper MMS 51, to Fremantle while the Jumna sailed for Colombo. No time was to be lost, as powerful Japanese forces were known to be operating in the waters south of Java.
Steaming steadily south east at an average speed of 8.5 knots, the Yarra and her convoy made steady progress during the night of 2-3 March. Except for a faintly discerned shadowing aircraft sighted in the evening, there was no sign of the enemy. On the morning of the third two lifeboats were sighted. From these, Yarra picked up a number of exhausted survivors of the Dutch merchant ship Parigi, sunk by the Japanese two days earlier.
At 6.30 am on 4 March, as the sun rose the lookout in Yarra sighted the unmistakable topmasts of a Japanese heavy cruiser squadron to the north-east. The squadron consisted of Atago, Takao and Maya, each armed with ten 8-inch guns, and two destroyers. Immediately Lieutenant Commander Rankin made a sighting report, ordered the ships of convoy to scatter and, placing his ship between them and the enemy, laid smoke and prepared to engage. Yarra was outgunned and out-ranged, and the enemy ships were faster. Against such odds her task was hopeless, yet she kept fighting even as her convoy was overwhelmed and sunk, ship by ship.
Anking, which was carrying many RAN personnel was sunk first. Overwhelmed by many hits she was despatched in ten minutes. By then Yarra was on fire and listing heavily to port but still shooting. MMS 51 was on fire and was put down shortly after by a hail of close range automatic gunfire from one of the cruisers. The Francol took more punishment and still remained afloat, finally succumbing at about 7.30. Yarra, shattered by numerous hits, was the last to go. Soon after 8.00 am, Rankin ordered that the ship be abandoned. Minutes later he was killed when an 8-inch salvo hit the bridge. Leading Seaman R. Taylor, manning the last remaining gun, kept on firing until he too was killed, and the Yarra's guns fell silent. Her end, which came after close-range shelling by the two Japanese destroyers, was witnessed by 34 survivors on two rafts. All, except the Dutch captain of Parigi, were naval ratings.
When Yarra sank, the Japanese made off to the north-east after picking up one boatload of survivors from Francol. A collection of boats, rafts and floats was left scattered over a wide area of sea. Towards evening, a passing Dutch vessel, Tawali, rescued 57 officers and men from Anking. However, in spite of frantic signals, she failed to sight two Carley floats, which held 14 men from MMS 51. For the next two and a half days they drifted about until picked up by the Dutch steamer Tjimanjoek on 7 March. Meanwhile Yarra's men, their numbers sadly reduced by wounds, exposure, and thirst, continued to drift helplessly. On 9 March 13 of the sloop's ratings were picked up by the Dutch submarine KlL. Of the complement of 151, 138 (including the captain and all officers) were killed in the action or died subsequently on the raft.
In the end, his defense of his choice and the excuses he gave - and those of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, USA - have been hollow mostly because their is nothing on the list that promotes the "critical thinking" they say they want, or attempts to get a full view of the challenge. Instead, there is just one partisan and sectarian side of the argument provided and defended. That is the essence of advocacy, not inquiry.
That is not shocking when one considers the diversity industries taxpayer funded permanent nomenklatura they injected in to staff and advisory positions. Senior leaders foolishly take their advice, mostly out of fear.
The USN and US military senior leadership has, rightfully, been seen as taking sides - and in so doing, taking a side that assumes the worst of them, their service, and the nation we all serve.
If they were really interested in an objective discussion - and an argument could be made this is highly counter productive exercise regardless of how they do it reading list wise - then their would need to be balance.
What could have been done to provide at least an attempt of neutrality? Another world view.
Better yet - and Kendi is mostly emotion driven - a view based on fact and scholarship.
The charges of white privilege and systemic racism that are tearing the country apart float free of reality. Two known facts, long since documented beyond reasonable doubt, need to be brought into the open and incorporated into the way we think about public policy: American whites, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians have different violent crime rates and different means and distributions of cognitive ability. The allegations of racism in policing, college admissions, segregation in housing, and hiring and promotions in the workplace ignore the ways in which the problems that prompt the allegations of systemic racism are driven by these two realities.
What good can come of bringing them into the open? America’s most precious ideal is what used to be known as the American Creed: People are not to be judged by where they came from, what social class they come from, or by race, color, or creed. They must be judged as individuals. The prevailing Progressive ideology repudiates that ideal, demanding instead that the state should judge people by their race, social origins, religion, sex, and sexual orientation.
We on the center left and center right who are the American Creed’s natural defenders have painted ourselves into a corner. We have been unwilling to say openly that different groups have significant group differences. Since we have not been willing to say that, we have been left defenseless against the claims that racism is to blame. What else could it be? We have been afraid to answer. We must. Facing Reality is a step in that direction.
If you are not familiar with Charles Murray, he holds the F. A. Hayek Emeritus Chair in Cultural Studies at the American Enterprise Institute and is an author of multiple books.
As you ponder another book, while you are driving to work and back today, I would offer to you a recent podcast by Matt K. Lewis where he interviews Charles Murray for a little over 45-minutes. They get to the book a little more than halfway through the show, but I encourage you to listen to the whole thing.
You can listen to it at this link, or use the embedded show below.
