Articles

World War III Nears
The Navy Needs More Carrier Aircraft
A Pentagon Battle Over 'The Next War'
Tanker Contest Still Looms Over Show
Tanker Dominates Show For Boeing
Hot Pursuit Into Pakistan?
Wynne: Boeing Withheld Info During Tanker Competition


World War III Nears
by Lord Stirling from Op Ed News, July 22

Operation Brimstone - you know like "Fire & Brimstone", what God in the Old Testament said He would next use to punish the World [I am NOT making this up] - is a very powerful US/UK/French naval battle force (three carriers and lots of other warships) engaged in at-sea war games in the Atlantic Ocean at this moment. If by the end of this month (a few days) Iran does not capacitate to the demands by six neo-con 'world powers' demands (to end their maybe non-existent nuclear weapons program and legal uranium enrichment program) then a formal act-of-war under international law will be initiated. This shall take the form of a air/land/sea blockade of Iran for certain key economic necessities (such as refined energy products), necessary to ensure the continuation of their society.

…Watching this play itself out is like watching a slow motion train wreck from before the wreck through to the bitter end.

Op Ed News can be found at http://www.opednews.com.

Back To Top 

The Navy Needs More Carrier Aircraft
  by Galrahn from Information Dissemination, July 21

Megan Scully had an article in Congressional Daily about the Super Hornet shortage in the Navy, and it would appear all those forward deployments supporting the war has caught up with the Navy.

…What is interesting about this report from our point of view is that Megan is citing the Navy as a source, but over at Defense Tech, the Air Force is complaining that Boeing is spreading lies about the Joint Strike Fighter to sell more F-18s. Steve Trimble cites U.S. Air Force Lt Gen Charles Davis in accusing Boeing of "spreading lies and half-truths" about the F-35 to bolster its case for selling the F/A-18E/F. Steve is reporting from the Farnborough air show, so it could be that the General doesn't realize the issue is bigger than Boeing.

The Navy is making a conscious decision not to rush the production of the Joint Strike Fighter, which is the right decision in our opinion, because one thing that is absolutely true in defense procurement... you pay more for speed.

…While the Air Force can get upset at Boeing all day long, the problem remains, how does the Navy transition to the Joint Strike Fighter and maintain the aircraft necessary to field a full air wing? Congress is going to take up the issue of the "navy fighter gap" in FY2010, and we think the choice between a purchase of discounted Super Hornets to fill the gap, instead of a rushed procurement of the Joint Strike Fighter at a higher price, is perhaps the easiest decision for purchasing aircraft Congress has been able to make in a long time, and probably will be the easiest decision looking well into the future.

Information Dissemination: Obervations of An Armchair Admiral can be found at

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/

Back To Top

A Pentagon Battle Over 'The Next War'

Some resist Gates' focus on guerrilla, not large-scale, fighting.

(LOS ANGELES TIMES 21 JUL 08) ... Julian E. Barnes and Peter Spiegel

WASHINGTON -- Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles J. Dunlap Jr. is not a fighter pilot, wing commander or war planner. But he is waging what many officers consider a crucial battle: ensuring that the U.S. military is ready for a major war.

Dunlap, like many officers across the military, believes the armed forces must prepare for a large-scale war against technologically sophisticated, well-equipped adversaries, rather than long-term ground conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan.

First, however, they face an adversary much closer to home -- Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

For more than 30 years, the Pentagon establishment considered it an essential duty to prepare for a war of national survival. But under Gates, that focus has fallen from favor.

In public speeches and private meetings, Gates has chastised many commanders as ignoring wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while they plan for speculative future conflicts.

"We should not starve the forces at war today to prepare for a war that may never come," Gates said in a stinging address last month, one of a series he has delivered. Gates even has coined a term for what he sees as a military disorder: "next-war-itis."

Spurred by Gates and sobered by setbacks in the Middle East, many commanders have signed on to the Defense secretary's view.

But Dunlap and others are pushing back. They believe that the Iraq war is beginning to wind down and that the United States, chastened by its experience there, is unlikely to ever again become embroiled in a long-term ground conflict where adversaries rely on irregular, "asymmetric" fighting methods.

"We need the bulk of the Army prepared to go toe-to-toe with the heaviest combat formations our adversaries can field," Dunlap said. "For what it is worth, I predict the next big war will be conventional, or I should say symmetrical. In my judgment, we are not going to get into the business of occupying a hostile country of millions of people."

Dunlap, a military lawyer, has emerged as the most outspoken advocate for what many once considered the military's core mission: preparing to fight and defeat countries determined to destroy the U.S. or its interests.

He is not alone. In military journals, midlevel officers' conferences and gatherings around the Pentagon, a growing number have expressed concern that the Defense Department's planning and resources are being trained disproportionately on small guerrilla wars.

At the same time, they fear that important military skills -- storming beaches, fighting tank battles, using air and land power in unison to attack enemy lines -- are beginning to atrophy.

"The military is almost always accused of preparing to fight the last war," said former Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne. "The most interesting part of 'next-war-itis' is that we are being accused of trying to fight the next war."

The military, Wynne said, has the responsibility to prepare for wars against competing nations even as it fights what he calls the war of "choice" in Iraq. "We shouldn't have to pick between this war and the next war," he said. "That is a bad deal."

Wynne and the Air Force chief of staff, Gen. T. Michael "Buzz" Moseley, were fired by Gates last month after an investigation criticized Air Force oversight of the nation's nuclear arsenal. But Wynne believes his philosophical disagreement with Gates over future threats and the weapons needed to counter them played into his ouster.

Many veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan side squarely with Gates. They believe future conflicts will look like the current wars, and argue that the U.S. must not lose its newfound expertise in counterinsurgency warfare.

"I think that nation-state and conventional war is in a state of hibernation," said Marine Gen. James N. Mattis, who commanded U.S. forces in Fallouja in 2004. "I don't think it's gone away, but the most likely threats probably today are not going to be conventional or from another state."

Mattis argues that the current fight is not an interlude.

"I recognize some people want to say: 'Let's hold our breath. The irregular world will go away, then we can get back to good old soldiering again,' " he said. "Unfortunately, in war, the enemy gets a vote."

The debate has real-world implications. Air Force officials have been unable to buy more F-22 fighters, needed for future air power. Gates prefers to spend money on heavily armored ground vehicles to protect soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are many other ramifications. Marine Corps and Army training centers, for instance, now teach soldiers to fight among urban locals, track down insurgent cells and avoid roadside bombs.

Maxie L. McFarland, the deputy chief of staff for intelligence at the Army's Training and Doctrine Command, predicts the Army will be involved in regional conflicts -- over energy resources, extremist movements or environmental changes -- in places of growing strategic importance, such as Nigeria.

"The Army believes it has to prepare for warfare and conflict among local populations with unfamiliar cultures . . . in urban settings or harsh lawless areas," McFarland said. "We think this environment will require long-duration operations, at extended distances."

Army Lt. Gen. Carter F. Ham, who oversees operational planning for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he was not convinced of the value of counterinsurgency operations until he served in Iraq. Now, he believes the Army needs a generation of leaders versed in counterinsurgency.

"When I joined the Army, it was clear there were good guys and bad guys and . . . they wore different uniforms. That is not reality anymore," Ham said. "There are folks who want to do away with our way of life, but they are not states."

But in a series of articles for military journals, Army Lt. Col. Gian P. Gentile, a former commander in Iraq who now teaches at West Point, argued that an excessive focus on counterinsurgency may "cloud our ability to see things as they actually are."

Within the Air Force, many officers believe that the costs of the current wars will discourage similar conflicts in the future.

"If we do another Iraq," said a senior Air Force official, "I think we will get in, do a specific task, and get out of there. We aren't going to stay and bleed." The officer spoke on condition of anonymity when criticizing Pentagon leaders.

Dunlap argues that commanders should fight wars in ways that take advantage of the U.S. military's technological advantages. He pointed to the first phase of the Afghanistan war, which toppled the Taliban through the use of special operations forces and precision bombs.

"We ought to be offering decision makers something more than just deploying massive numbers of young Americans to places where the enemy has a thousand ways to kill them," he said.

A conflict against a technologically advanced power may be in the distant future. But Dunlap argues that cutbacks in high-tech conventional weapons systems might embolden other countries to challenge the United States.

"If you want to avoid war, prepare for war," Dunlap said.

In the middle of the debate is Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Mullen has asserted that the military must find a balance between conventional and irregular wars.

Although largely behind the scenes, the debate within the department has been unusually frank, according to senior Pentagon officials. Unlike his predecessor, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Gates is almost universally seen as willing to give all comers a fair shake in strategic discussions.

"Previous folks were confident they had the answer," said Ham. "And my sense is senior leadership, uniformed and civilian, is saying: 'I am not sure I have the answer, so let's have the discussion.' "

Back To Top

Tanker Contest Still Looms Over Show

Northrop/EADS and Boeing still seek contract By gayle s. putrich
Published: 13 Jul 12:04 EDT (16:04 GMT)

Though the storied U.S. fifth-generation F-22 Raptor will make its much-anticipated international debut the week of July 14, the fighter's appearance - and anything else that happens at the Farnborough Air Show - is likely to be overshadowed by the continuation of the bloody battle over who will build the next U.S. tanker.

With the U.S. Air Force's $35 billion, 179-plane aerial refueling contract frozen by protests, yet another air show will be consumed by one-upmanship between the Boeing and Northrop Grumman/EADS teams, even though neither plane will be on hand in Farnborough.

Northrop Grumman sources said the Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) decision to uphold a Boeing protest came too late for the company to pack off one of its developmental tankers to the show.

The Feb. 29 Air Force decision to go with the Northrop/EADS offering of a modified A330 drew fire from lawmakers, especially those from Boeing strongholds in Washington state and Kansas, who cite concerns about exporting U.S. jobs and the winner's low price being due to unfair European government subsidies. A rare protest from Boeing was upheld by a June 18 GAO decision; the Air Force gets two months to decide its next move.

Meanwhile, the second would-be tanker rolled off the French line and completed flight checks May 15, joining the aircraft designated SDD-1, which first flew in September 2007, to receive in-flight refueling gear. Sending one of those aircraft to Farnborough would be somewhat senseless, said one industry source, since they do not yet have booms, wing refueling pods and other tanker-specific modifications.

At last year's Paris Air Show, reporters ping-ponged back and forth between the Boeing and Northrop chalets, propelled by dueling press releases and charts. Northrop scored some prime real estate for its main chalet - the coveted "end spot" - probably helped out by the fact that the show was on the home turf of Airbus, whose parent company is EADS, Northrop's tanker partner.

Long History

Even with the U.S. contract in limbo, both teams are known quantities in the international tanker market. Boeing drew first blood several years ago when the Italians and the Japanese signed on for four planes each. Since then, however, those contracts have had serious delays - more than two years for the Italians.

More recent tanker awards have gone to Airbus, with Australia, Britain, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates selecting the A330 variant.

The fact that this summer's air show will be held on the neutral ground of the United Kingdom may soften the contentiousness. Plus, executives around the industry say they have plenty to talk about at the show besides the tanker.

Non-Tanker Stories

While there will be press briefings on the aircraft's operations in Iraq, don't expect a visit from the fixed-wing/helo hybrid V-22 Osprey from Bell Boeing.

"The Marines are pretty busy," one industry source said. Ten Marine Corps-operated MV-22s deployed to western Iraq's Al Asad Air Base last October.

There are "boundless opportunities" for traditional rotorcraft around the world, said Mark Kronenberg, Boeing IDS vice president of international business development, particularly for CH-47 Chinooks and AH-64 Apaches.

With its stellar track record in humanitarian aid and disaster relief, "the Chinook almost sells itself," Kronenberg said. Overall, Boeing's international market share has increased from 7 percent to 12 percent of its total business, he said. And Boeing is still working hard in the international fighter market.

International orders have been keeping the F-15 line humming since 1992, Kronenberg said. South Korea has signed on to buy 60 of the fighters and Kronenberg said he sees opportunities for the aircraft elsewhere in Asia and in the Middle East.

The F-18 Super Hornet is also in the mix and will fly at Farnborough. Kronenberg is hoping that other nations will follow the lead of Australia, which, in spite of being a partner on the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, decided to buy 24 F-18s to bridge the gap between the retiring F-111s and the coming of the JSF. Those planes will be delivered and ready to fly down under by 2010 - a full five years before JSF deliveries are expected to begin there.

Kronenberg and Boeing are hoping non-JSF signatories, and even those partnering on the fifth-generation Lockheed fighter, will consider the F-18 while they wait.

"Cost is going to be a factor on JSF, cost and schedule," Kronenberg said. "F-18 has a lot of JSF in it, but at $50 million per plane. And you get the capability now. I think there's abundant opportunities around the world for F-18s."

Lockheed and the Air Force will still be in the spotlight at the show, with JSF's older brother, the F-22 expected to be the belle of the ball at Farnborough, if only for a day.

Though it will fly in the July 14 program, the F-22 will not be on hand in Farnborough, instead basing out of RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire - home of the July 12-13 Royal International Air Tattoo - for its international debut.

A U.S. Air Combat Command spokesperson said there would be representatives from the F-22 team on the ground at Farnborough to field Raptor questions from the Air Force booth and the Defense Department corral.

Back To Top

Tanker Dominates Show For Boeing

Press conference will discuss renewed tanker bid By gayle s. putrich
Published: 14 Jul 13:17 EDT (17:17 GMT)

FARNBOROUGH, Britain - Though there were no pre-show plans to do so, Boeing is expected to host a press conference July 16 at the 60th Farnborough International Air Show to discuss its next move in the contentious U.S. Air Force next-generation tanker decision.

announcement came at the close of what was supposed to be a general briefing on Boeing programs and market position. After Boeing IDS president and CEO Jim Albaugh gave his initial presentation July 14, the briefing turned into a tanker Q-and-A session.

Boeing's offering of a modified 767 lost to a militarized A330 pitched by Northrop Grumman and European partner EADS for the 179-plane, $35 billion contract in February. But after a U.S. government watchdog agency opted last month to uphold a rare protest by Boeing, the bidding will be reopened. The Pentagon, which has pulled tanker acquisition authority from the embattled Air Force and handed it to John Young, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, hopes to award a new contract by the end of the calendar year, though some are skeptical it can be pulled off so quickly.

In spite of the feeding frenzy at the Boeing event on the first day of the weeklong air show outside London, Boeing execs are largely mum on what their next move will be. With bidding reopened, it would seem the aerospace giant could opt to offer a version of the much larger 777 to compete with the A330, which some say is too big to be considered a medium-sized tanker. The 777 was eliminated as outsized early in the process, after the Air Force said it wanted a medium-sized tanker to replace its Eisenhower-era KC-135.

"We don't see a need for a bigger aircraft," Albaugh said. "We've seen nothing to change our minds there."

Boeing would also be "challenged on time" in coming up with a tanker version of the 777, he said.

Young's office intends to release a new request for proposals (RfP) by the end of July or possibly the beginning of August. Even with a possible presser at Farnborough, there might not be much more news out of Boeing until then.

"I don't want to speculate until we've seen the RfP," Albaugh said July 14. "Let us see the RfP."

The CEO of the world's largest aerospace company admitted he had not foreseen a loss, protest or recompetition in tanker's future.

"We never thought that we would lose the program," Albaugh said. "Quite frankly, I was surprised."

Back To Top

Hot Pursuit Into Pakistan?

(INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY 11 JUL 08)

War On Terror: As Washington moves an aircraft carrier off Pakistan's coast, U.S. commandos are reportedly poised to launch raids against terror targets inside Pakistan. It's about time.

It appears hawks within the Pentagon and CIA have won a long-running policy battle with risk-averse officials in the administration and diplomats at the State Department. The result is a more aggressive, go-it-alone policy in response to Pakistan's failure to disrupt terrorist training camps and cross-border attacks against our troops and the Afghan government.

Politics and diplomacy had not produced the desired results, and they've had ample opportunity to work. For nearly seven years now — as we've coaxed, cajoled and even bribed our "ally" with billions in aid — Osama bin Laden and his henchmen have remained hidden inside Pakistan's tribal areas. Patience with Islamabad has run out. It's time for unilateral military action.

The U.S. military confirms it is sending extra air power to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border by moving the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman. The battle group ostensibly will provide air support for special forces who reportedly have been given the green light — after tumultuous debate within the White House — to conduct raids deep inside Pakistan's tribal belt to eradicate al-Qaida and Taliban bases.

According to a Houston Chronicle report, quoting both Democrat and Republican lawmakers who recently received a briefing from U.S. commanders in the region, the White House has authorized a secret plan to deploy commandos into Pakistan's tribal areas.

Islamabad's ineffective campaign makes it "imperative that U.S. forces be allowed to pursue the Taliban and al-Qaida in tribal areas inside Pakistan," said Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas. "If we don't do something now, they're going to strike us again (in the U.S.), and it is going to be out of this area."

His concern echoes that of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who recently returned from Islamabad warning that the next al-Qaida attack on America will originate from inside Pakistan if we can't convince our ally to stop cutting peace deals with our enemy and deny it safe haven.

At the same time, President Bush confirmed rumors he's authorized a troop escalation in the region in 2009. He didn't offer details, but Pentagon officials expect about 6,000 in reinforcements, raising U.S. troop presence in Afghanistan to about 40,000.

A military buildup along the border is critical to supporting special forces operations inside Pakistan, which would represent a major departure from previous policy respecting Islamabad's ban on such operations.

Of course, in concert with launching any covert raids into Pakistani territory, Washington will also have to ready a black ops team to help secure Islamabad's nuclear warheads so they don't fall into the wrong hands in the event of a political uprising.

What broke the long-standing bias within the administration against unilateral action? Several troubling developments, including:

• A 2006 peace deal brokered by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf that has led to a 40% increase in the number of cross-border attacks from Pakistan's tribal belt, where insurgents now operate with impunity.

• U.S. intelligence reports showing al-Qaida's leadership has carved out a secure base inside the tribal area, along with a band of camps for training a new cadre of Western-looking terrorists to attack the U.S.

• Reports that the flow of foreign fighters and funding into the Pakistani border region from the Middle East has soared as jihadists relocate from Iraq.

• U.S. and Afghan intelligence showing evidence the Pakistani military is arming, training and sharing logistical data with Taliban insurgents to help them target U.S. and Afghan troops.

• A border incident last month in which Pakistani soldiers fired on U.S. forces.

• Evidence the Pakistani government may be behind a campaign to destabilize the U.S.-backed Afghan government, including assassination attempts on Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

• The bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul, which killed 41 including Indian officials. Karzai has blamed Pakistan's military intelligence agency.

Pakistan's border area is a powder keg, and it seems that rather than trying to stabilize things, the Pakistani government is trying to light the fuse. U.S. military intervention is the only option left to control the region and put our enemy out of business.

Back To Top

Wynne: Boeing Withheld Info During Tanker Competition
By JOHN T. BENNETT
Published: 10 Jul 14:48 EDT (18:48 GMT)

Boeing officials seemed to sense defeat early in the Air Force's KC-X aerial tanker competition and began building a "Pearl Harbor file" they could later use to force the Pentagon to reopen the bidding, says Michael W. Wynne, former Air Force secretary.

The Boeing KC-767, top, and the Northrop Grumman KC-45 will be contenders to be the next U.S. Air Force tanker. (Boeing and Northrop Grumman photos) "Here's one of those cases where Boeing had probably assessed their prospects were dimming. I would say that they systematically began to build a case, and I'm not sure they shared everything they could have shared with the Air Force along the way," said Wynne, fired last month by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Boeing officials "were essentially building a 'Pearl Harbor file' that they could use later. That's probably part of this."

Related TopicsAmericas
Air Warfare
He sat down for an extended interview with Defense News editors and reporters on July 9, just after Gates announced the Office of the Secretary of Defense - not the Air Force - would manage a new competition to replace the service's aging KC-135 tanker fleet.

As then-secretary, Wynne played a major role in the late February decision to select the A330, offered by Northrop Grumman and EADS, over the modified Boeing-made KC-767. That decision would have handed the trans-Atlantic team a 179-plane, $35 billion contract - until the Government Accountability Office upheld a Boeing protest in June.

To Wynne, it seemed Boeing was preparing a Plan B in case it lost the contract, in part by withholding information on some costs that caused the Air Force to make its own estimates.

"There's a feeling in the Air Force that maybe we were as transparent as we could be, and maybe Boeing wasn't as transparent as it could be," Wynne said. "We do not feel they were as transparent as they could have been."

At the time of this posting, a Boeing spokesman had not yet provided an official response to those charges.

Asked for a specific example, Wynne pointed to Boeing's unwillingness to submit "commercial rates on their support organizations."

"In those areas where we weren't going to contract with the two companies, Boeing was less willing to give their information and effectively thought that they could probably more optimistically price in an area where they weren't getting contracts," Wynne said.

The former air service leader said he was surprised the auditors sided with Boeing on that point.

"I was surprised the GAO did not see that for what it was," he said, "which is: bid high for the stuff that you're going to contract for and bid low on the stuff that you're not going to contract for.

Pressed to say whether Boeing's alleged move was dishonest, Wynne said, "Anything that is used to acquire, that is legitimate in the eyes of the customer or the evaluator is legitimate. … I would say that it depends on how you characterize it. It was a good business idea that seems to have sustained the protest. No different that calling a steal in baseball when the pitcher doesn't realize it."

Back To Top