Bubbl'n up from the Cheap Seats, on Midrats

Is there such a thing as Military Intellectual Entrepreneurialism?

Large, sated, and complacent organization do not have a good track record of survival. Organizations of any size that nurture the mentality of small, hungry, and driven by creative destruction and friction based on competing ideas - that is the path to success. Always has been, always will be.

How do we get that attitude to permeate the military? How do we harness the power of an entrepreneurial mindset to build a better national security and defense structure?

As we just start to enter another period of resource limitation in the face of an ever changing international security landscape - do we take advantage of the need for change, or do we buckle under our own moss-covered and hide-bound habits?

Join us today, Sunday 08 SEP from 5-6pm Eastern, to discuss this concept for the full hour, as well as the upcoming Defense Entrepreneurs Forum 12-14 OCT, with our panel:

- LT Ben Kohlmann, USN – Founder of Disruptive Thinkers, F/A-18 pilot and member of the CNO’s Rapid Innovation Cell, Co-Founder Defense Entrepreneurs Forum.

- Capt Anthony Hatala, USMC – AV-8B Harrier Pilot, C-130 Harvest HAWK Operator, Founder Military Traveler, Co-Founder Defense Entrepreneurs Forum.

- MAJ Nathan Finney, USA – Armor Officer, US Army Harvard Strategy Fellow, Co-Founder and Executive Director of the Foundation for Strategy Development

- Capt Jeff Gilmore, USAF – C-17 Pilot, AMC eFlight Bag Program, co-founder MilitaryLounge

Join us live if you can with the usual suspects in the chat room and offer up your questions for our guest, but if you miss the show you can always listen to the archive at blogtalkradio.

Listen to internet radio with Midrats on Blog Talk Radio

MG Scales: Unspoken Words, Resigned to Outrage

If you want to get a feeling why many serving and former active duty military are put off by the present call to arms in Syria, retired Major General Robert Scales, USA, gives an exceptionally good overview;

By no means do I profess to speak on behalf of all of our men and women in uniform. But I can justifiably share the sentiments of those inside the Pentagon and elsewhere who write the plans and develop strategies for fighting our wars. After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war.
...

They are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare. “Look,” one told me, “if you want to end this decisively, send in the troops and let them defeat the Syrian army. If the nation doesn’t think Syria is worth serious commitment, then leave them alone.”
They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.
...
Over the past few days, the opinions of officers confiding in me have changed to some degree. Resignation seems to be creeping into their sense of outrage. One officer told me: “To hell with them. If this guy wants this war, then let him have it. Looks like no one will get hurt anyway.”

Soon the military will salute respectfully and loose the hell of hundreds of cruise missiles in an effort that will, inevitably, kill a few of those we wish to protect. They will do it with all the professionalism and skill we expect from the world’s most proficient military. I wish Kerry would take a moment to look at the images from this week’s hearings before we go to war again.

In the above light, let's look again at the clip of CJCS from earlier this week.

Fullbore Friday

About a month ago, President Obama recognized a Marine Couple, Capt. Matthew Lampert, USMC and his wife, Capt. Camille Lampert, USMC. You can read the full story by Dan Lamothe here.

The real story though, speaks for itself;

... he and several of his Marines moved across a bridge in Afghanistan with a couple of Afghan commandos. They entered a compound they were examining through a courtyard wall.

“I got inside the courtyard and took about a half-step to my left,” Lampert said. “There was a loud, surprising explosion, a flash… my ears were ringing. I was up in the air for a little bit, and then thrown on the ground real hard. I was pretty surprised at that point.”

Lampert credits now-retired Maj. Gen. Paul Lefebvre, the commanding general of MARSOC at the time of his injuries, with asking him to become a company executive officer and return to Afghanistan.

“I told him yes,” Lampert said. “I desperately wanted to return to my guys.”

As described by the President,

“Recovery was slow: taking his first shaky steps on short prosthetics; then a new pair of knees; then full legs, taking him back to normal height. Stepping forward with two canes, then just one, then none. Learning to walk again. Learning to run — in his uniform, then his body armor. And then, just 18 months after he was injured and lost both legs, Matt — a double amputee — returned to his unit and redeployed to Afghanistan.”

In first person, spoken word;



Fullbore.

Hat tip MZ.

Bigger than the broadside of a barn ...

... but it looks like he missed, because the impact at the end is clearly fake - and if it was armed, I don't think he picked the right warhead.



Hmmm ... maybe more terrorist weaponeering PQS required?

Via gCaptain where there is more,

As Reuters reports, the video, which carries a logo featuring a black Islamist flag and the name of the “al-Firqan Brigade”, shows two men, dressed in civilian clothes, firing RPGs into the side of the ship, where they explode.

2 RPG's against the COSCO ASIA? Child please; she's a big mama jama;

Vessel's Details
Ship Type: Container ship
Year Built: 2007
Length x Breadth: 349 m X 46 m
Gross Tonnage: 114394, DeadWeight: 109968 t

Well ... anyone who has done a few Suez transits has thought of it.

On with the ALT-POM!

Well, this would shake things up a bit. Look what Hagel the Hatchet has put out there. Via Sam & Marcus at NavyTimes;

The Office of the Secretary of Defense reportedly supports the idea of limiting total purchases of littoral combat ships to only 24, far short of the Navy’s goal of 52 ships, sources say.

Stopping at 24 ships would end LCS procurement with the fiscal 2015 budget.

The Navy, according to what sources told Defense News, which is owned by Navy Times’ parent company, is countering with proposals for higher numbers, but strongly advocates going no lower than 32 ships — a number that would continue production another one or two years.
...
Pentagon budget officials have focused primarily on the ALT POM, and in late August began switching to the POM. The OSD proposal to limit LCS to 24 ships is understood to be part of the ALT POM discussions.

Asked for comment, both OSD and Navy officials emphasized that no final decisions have been made.

Looking to load-monitor the challenge, this is smart.

In addition to supporting a reduction to 24 ships, OSD also reportedly is insisting the Navy place a top priority on fielding the mine countermeasures module, one of three major mission packages under development for the LCS.

24 to 36, eh? Hmmmm, it seems I have heard that before ....

About those drones

I love me some drones, but I am not a fan of the missionary zeal some of the strongest advocates have for them. They are not the full future of naval aviation any more than nuclear weapons sixty years ago were the full future of ordnance. Heck, they are not even really that new - they are just getting incrementally better as technology and engineering allow.

What drones/UAV/S or whatever we are calling them next week are going to be is simple; a new tool. We will have to play with them some, operation with them some, make a few mistakes, stumble in to a few eureka moments, and generally find their best fit. We just need to be patient, clear headed, and open minded.

We need to be open minded about what they may bring to the table; recallable usable TLAMesque capabilities, no-POW reconnaissance, long dwell surveillance, and perhaps a few other goodies. We need to be equally open minded about the very real limitation they have, especially in contested airspace. Audrey Kurth Cronin over at Foreign Policy does a nice job outlining some of those limitations and how they are manifesting themselves over Syria.

Broadly speaking, the United States has used armed drone strikes overseas in two ways: during war and to prevent war. Battlefield use of weaponized drones is not new (it dates back to World War I), and is fairly ubiquitous. A spring 2013 report by the U.S. Air Force estimated that unmanned aircraft fired about a quarter of all missiles used in coalition air strikes in Afghanistan in the early part of this year. Drones have proved remarkably effective at providing reconnaissance to U.S. troops on the ground, protecting them from enemy attacks, and reducing civilian casualties. When used within a war, in other words, drones are a great way to give U.S. soldiers an edge.
...
Could the United States have deployed its drone fleet to destroy Syrian arsenals or to kill those planning to make use of them before this happened?

The answer is no. Armed drones have serious limitations, and the situation in Syria lays them bare. They are only useful where the United States has unfettered access to airspace, a well-defined target, and a clear objective. In Syria, the United States lacks all three.
...
When the foe can actually defend itself, the use of armed drones is extraordinarily difficult and could constitute an act of war -- one that could easily draw the United States into the heart of a conflict.

Drones are slow and noisy; they fly at a low altitude; and they require time to hover over a potential target before being used. They are basically sitting ducks. Syria has an air force and air defenses that could easily pick American drones out of the sky.
...
Second, the target. Using armed drones against the Syrian government’s enormous chemical weapons stockpiles would have risked causing the very release of deadly agents that the United States was trying to avoid. Drones are precise but not perfect. Like cruise missiles, their effectiveness mainly depends upon the quality of their targeting information. Worse, an imperfect attack could inadvertently give the Assad government political cover to use the weapons with impunity. Assad could blame the release of chemical weapons on a misfired U.S. drone strike. Since U.S. drones are deeply despised in the Middle East, that argument could enjoy wide hearing.
...
Third, the objective. The United States wants to punish the Assad regime for using chemical weapons against the Syrian people and to prevent them from being used again. Drone attacks are ill suited for this purpose. They are unlikely either to inflict sufficient pain or to deter other tyrants from following Assad’s lead.

Drones are a tool. As any handyman will tell you, new tools are great - but you throw away your other tools at your own peril.

LCS, Transparency and the Shift

For those of us in the LCS-harpie brigade, this bit last Friday by Mike Fabey at Aviation Week deserves two reads.

He interviews CHINFO, and our friend Rear Admiral Kirby made a few points that not only are exceptionally candid about the past messaging concerning LCS - but also gives hope that going forward we can have the creative friction we need to make the best of what we are going to have - like it or not - in the Fleet.

Look, every program has its bumps. Every program struggles to some degree. But it’s not just widgets and pipes and wires we’re talking about. It’s real money, taxpayer money. And it’s real capability we are trying to develop. We have an obligation to clarify all that.

This may come across as overly dramatic, but these ships don’t belong to us. They belong to the American people. And the American people have a right to know what we are doing with their investments.

The way I figured it was, if we want to be able to talk credibly about the things we were doing right on LCS, we needed to likewise be credible about the things we weren’t doing so well. People are never going to believe only half the story. I call it aggressive transparency, and that’s what I wanted for LCS.

Once we turned the action officers loose, they took off and built the relationships with reporters that were so lacking. Our fleet commanders, program managers and other leaders also stepped up. As a result of those relationships and the mutual access they afforded, the narrative started to change.

We still have work to do, even inside the Navy. But I think we’re getting there, and I think the press coverage -- already quite vibrant -- has improved. And I don’t mean that from a “positive” or “negative” perspective. I don’t like it when people refer to news coverage that way. What I mean is that the coverage today is simply more fulsome and contextual now that we are being more open about everything.

The Littoral Combat Ship will be a big part of the future fleet. It’s more than “just a ship.” We have to do more than just answer questions about it. We need to have meaningful conversations. We need to be accessible.

I’m OK if people question the program, but I don’t want them to ever question our transparency. Thanks to the great support we are getting from the fleet, that’s not a problem anymore.

Good. Good, and better. Yea ... and to be petty, I do feel a bit vindicated.

This is the direction the military of a representative republic should communicate to the taxpayer and media. Nice, and a refreshing new direction - but just be careful to take a pass on the bug juice, insist on the bottled water.