Tracking Russian Submarines

We have been observing the media reports of Russia Naval activity off the coast of Norway, and the response by the Norwegian Air Force and Navy to the increased activity of the Russian Air Force, as well as naval surface and submarine activity. DefenseNews has a new report.

The second half of 2007 has seen an increase in submarine activity out of Russia’s Northern Fleet Base (NFB) in Murmansk, according to fresh “tracking” reports produced by the Norway Armed Forces’ Military Intelligence Unit (MIU) for the Ministry of Defense (MoD) The increase in submarine activity mirrors a rise in scheduled and unflagged exercises by Russian air Force in the North Atlantic and off Norway’s western coast, the report observes.

However, the report notes that Norway’s territorial waters and airspace have not been violated by the increase in Russia’s air and naval operations in the region. The report explained the increased activity as “Russia’s need to display its renewed military strength” to NATO.

What caught our eye earlier this week was the report that Ula class submarines were going to be deployed to monitor the naval activity of Russian submarines. Noteworthy in this latest report is that the Royal Norwegian Air Force has apparently already had success tracking movements of the Russian submarine operating in the area.

The report’s findings are based on intelligence gathered by Royal Norwegian Air Force (RNAF)-operated Orion surveillance aircraft, and aircraft “tracking” data collected by the RNAF’s Northern Air Force base in Bodo.

This blog often makes remarks critical of the capabilities of the US Navy ASW capability, but we want to note the fine print in previous remarks. We are not impressed by the US Navy Surface Fleets capabilities in ASW, and we have no reason to be excited about future systems like the LCS which is expected to increase the capabilities of the US Navy surface fleet in ASW. However, we acknowledge and often see evidence overseas in reporting that aircraft and submarines remain the two most valuable components of effective submarine tracking and ASW, with Norway being yet another example in these latest media reports.

The US has retired many of its own P-3C Orion aircraft, or converted them from maritime surveillance aircraft to the electronic surveillance version EP-3 variants. The Navy has also been deploying its maritime surveillance aircraft, effectively we have noted, as land based surveillance aircraft to augment the capabilities of the air force while UAV systems continue being developed and deployed.

The report that the Royal Norwegian Air Force (RNAF)-operated Orion surveillance aircraft have had success tracking Russian submarines reminds us that fixed wing, long range maritime surveillance aircraft are still critical to ASW tracking operations. This is where the early retirement of the S-3, and the early removal of its ASW systems have left the Navy without a suitable replacement, which leaves our carrier strike groups vulnerable due to the lack of endurance and range in the helicopter fleet being asked to pull extra duty in filling the ASW gap.

Norway also serves as a lesson for Canada, who themselves may very well face Russian submarines off their Northern Coast for an entirely different set of reasons. With a submarine force of questionable availability, the Aurora maritime patrol planes Canada is having a little political spout over represents an important national security interest for Canadians, and the capability for quickest response to activity on is northern sea territories.

Who Will Save the Fleet Before Its Too Late?

Since I am pretty much convinced the Bush administration is perhaps the greatest enemy of the US Navy since.. well, before the Great White Fleet, the gloves are coming off. Partisans on the right don't want to hear that, however the raw facts will leave them disappointed. I hear a lot of former sailors talk about how Clinton really screwed the fleet. Well, I agree, but looking at the data it is hard to argue that Bush hasn't made things twice as screwed. Without action starting this fiscal year, and by action I am talking new ideas and new plans, the Bush administration will leave the US Navy broken for decades to come. This matters to Americans whether they realize it or not, because in the coming decades this nation will need the Navy. People have asked me why I am harsh on both Republicans and Democrats? The answer is, because I have lost trust in the Democrat Party to build a strong military, and any Republican administration like the current one will cripple the US Navy, starting the long fall the British know too well today.

The US Navy is the reason the UK doesn't feel the fall of the Royal Navy, but when the US Navy falls, who will be there to shield us from the pain? Is it in China someone trusts...

From the CBO about CVN-79.

Section 122 of the FY2007 defense authorization act [H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364 of October 17, 2024]) established a procurement cost cap for CVN-78 of $10.5 billion, plus adjustments for inflation and other factors, and a procurement cost cap for subsequent ships in the class of $8.1 billion each, plus adjustments for inflation and other factors. The Navy interprets these caps as being expressed in “FY2006 then-year dollars,” meaning the cost of the ship in then-year dollars if the ship were procured in FY2006 rather than in FY2008 (for CVN-78) or in FY2012 (for CVN-79). The Navy states that the estimated then-year-dollar costs for CVN-78 and CVN-79 of about $10.5 billion and $9.2 billion, respectively, de-escalate into FY2006 then-year dollar figures of about $10.0 billion and $7.4 billion, respectively.

That is a lot of money for an aircraft carrier, but the aircraft carrier is the proven superior surface platform of the last 60+ years. The CBO testimony to the House Armed Services Committee back on July 24th lays out the costs of the 2nd next generation CVN. That is a complicated quote, but note that in fiscal year 2012, 4 years from now, CVN-79 is expected to be purchased for $9.2 billion dollars.

This is from the Bloomberg article I linked to yesterday.

England approved adding $693 million through 2013 for the new Zumwalt class DDG-1000 destroyer to be built by Northrop and General Dynamics, bringing funding for its development to about $9.29 billion, the Navy's highest projected cost.

That is the Navy's highest projected cost, lower than the CBO and virtually every NGO projected cost. That is $9.29 billion dollars for DDG-1000 and DDG-1001, and given the horrible track record on cost predictions for ships, we all know the costs will ultimately be much, much higher. At least the CVN is being built based on a proven design, the DDG-1000 is a brand new design for virtually every part of the platform, it's cost will go up, it always goes up.

CDR Salamander makes the argument that the new LCS cuts proposed for FY09 is going to reduce the numbers of the fleet. He has predicted the Navy will drop to 200 ships, I'm starting to think he was right. This blog, his blog, and other blogs have covered problems with the LCS, from crew problems to credibility problems to cost problems. Given the range of problems, I have a hard time not agreeing the LCS program needed a major slow down as a program. In my opinion, and I will debate anyone willing to offer a rebuttal, the LCS is not the platform to blame for the shrinking fleet, the blame needs to be properly directed at the DDG-1000 class.

The DDG-1000 is the primary cause for concern in the shipbuilding industry and the future of the Navy. For a construction run of only 7 ships, 6 of which will be going to a single shipbuilder to conserve costs, the Navy is spending $27.1 billion dollars for the DDG-1000 class. Even after spending $9.29 billion on DDG-1000 and DDG-1001, it should be pointed out the Navy could take the remainder of the DDG-1000 class budget and still buy 40+ Littoral Combat Ships at the way over budget price of $400 million per. This plan will result in the loss of thousands of highly skilled shipbuilders, who would have plenty of work with even 20 ships, but not even close with just 7.

The DDG-1000 is half the cost of an aircraft carrier but intended to have the characteristics of a submarine. The problem is the DDG-1000 is not a submarine, and with the exception of air defense, MSO, and NSFS the Navy already has 4 submarines able to conduct every other mission profile the 7 DDG-1000 will perform, and the SSGNs can perform those roles better. Is the DDG-1000 needed for air defense, MSO, or NSFS? The answer is absolutely not. For air defense, the Navy already has 84 AEGIS ships over 9,000 tons each either already in the fleet or soon to finish construction. These ships do not need to be replaced until 2022, but they will need to be replaced. The DDG-1000 is not intended to be a replacement for any of those 84 highly capable ships. For MSO the Navy has the previously mentioned 84 AEGIS ships, the existing twenty something FFG-7 frigates, and the planned 21 Littoral Combat Ships. For NSFS, the Navy has 106 5" gun systems on the previously mentioned 84 AEGIS ships, all of which could be upgraded in the upcoming modernization program, and the new gun system intended for the DDG-1000 is not platform specific, in fact it could be deployed to an alternative platform at a much reduced cost.

The DDG-1000 does not fit the new Maritime Strategy. As we and others have discussed, the Maritime Strategy the Navy released last month expresses greater emphasis for a fleet that is expeditionary in nature with persistence on its operational area as a primary objective, and the strategy implies a Navy with credibility to prevent conflict. Presence is emphasized. The characteristics of Expeditionary platforms with the capability for sustained presence include metrics of sustainable logistics, deployable forces capability, endurance, and credible deterrent capability in the form of firepower designed to prevent conflict in troubled, loosely governed regions of high commercial traffic locations for economic security. The DDG-1000, and the Littoral Combat Ship, do not fit these metrics.

The Future begins now, because it takes years to build even a single warship. Shipbuilding takes time for design and deployment, and a fleet able to meet the requirements of the United States of America requires careful planning and strategic vision. The Navy appears determined to build a fleet that does not match the stated metrics of its own strategy, a fleet designed before the 9/11 world, a fleet based on the lessons of the cold war, and a fleet that further reduces the industrial capacity of the nations few remaining shipyards in the process. If action is not taken, the further eroding industrial capability supporting the US Navy will not be available in the future when required to do so.

Under the Bush administration, the Navy has built 50% FEWER ships than under the Clinton Administration at over 50% more dollars per long ton. The Bush administration has recorded some of the largest budgets in history, and yet the Navy has been downsizing its naval aviation budgets, AND its R&D budgets for new technologies, just to sustain the slowest annual shipbuilding rate for the Navy since WWII. The people appointed by the current president (specifically Rumsfeld and every SECNAV except Winter) have been absolute failures by ANY measurement. The health of the shipbuilding industry has been so bad that Congress has had to pay to maintain its second shipyard that builds nuclear submarines, one of only two shipyards in the nation able to build nuclear powered vessels.

The Bush administration has not been friends with the USMC at sea either. The USMC has already lost the capability to deploy a full brigade from sea, a critical requirement highlighted in the 1997 QDR with virtually the same language the Navy reused for the new Maritime Strategy which emphasizes Expeditionary capabilities. Current plans for future USMC sea based capability move Marines off the Marine L class ships, in favor of a new industry created plan intended to deploy Marines from unarmed commercial ship designs used by the Military Sealift Command, which btw is unable to deploy Marines against a hostile coast (nor should it considering its vulnerability), which is the primary capability of the USMC.

Under the Bush administration, the metrics for the future fleet have been to build a 'destroyer' class of 15,000 tons, at the cost of an aircraft carrier and characteristics of a submarine; surface combatants nearly three times larger than the largest, most capable 'destroyers' built by Europeans. Meanwhile the metrics of the Littoral Combat Ship, a barely armed naval truck, are high speed instead of endurance, less armor protection to save weight, with a modular payload system that can't be swapped at sea, instead forcing the little crappy ship to return to a port of not only a friendly nation who gives permission, but with a port that has the facilities necessary to exchange a mission module. The emphasis to save money with fewer sailors on ships has resulted in a LCS ship design that doesn't have enough sailors to manage the primary systems, nor enough capacity to hold enough crew for the proposed mission modules. This smaller crew size requirement is directly counter to traditional maritime theory that requires sailors in disaster management, meaning not only is the crew expendable on this barely armed or armored super ferry warship, but without enough sailors to manage fire or battle damage the ship itself is apparently expendable as well.

Finally, the Bush administration has retired more Navy warships than any other president in the last 4+ decades, but instead of saving the ships in reserve, has additionally sunk more tonnage in weapon testing than any administration since nuclear testing against warships early in the cold war. This leaves the nation with few recapitalization options in reserve, forcing the nation to build new ships in order to sustain a credible sized fleet.

The last three first in class Navy ships designed include the LPD-17, SSN-774, and LCS-1 which have experienced cost increases of 70%, 11%, and 80% respectfully. The submarine cost increases have been the lowest by percentage, but as a reward this administration has built fewer submarines resulting in the smallest submarine force in the US Navy since WWII, at a time when submarine exports across the world are at the highest level in history, with the future market prospects at an even higher level of expectation.

Where is Congress? Where are the talking heads in the media? Why did Congress ask for alternative fleets in 2004, then accept the unrealistic fleet produced by the Navy? Where is the Analysis of Alternative's for a shrinking fleet? Who is going to highlight the problems, articulate them, explain them, address them, and save the fleet while the nation still has one? Where is the leadership? Are there enough Americans out there left who care?

Yet Another Twist to the Kitty Hawk Incident

The Hong Kong based Ming Pao daily is now speculating along the same lines I did yesterday, specifically the snub to the Kitty Hawk had something to do with the Chinese Navy exercises. From the Taipei Times:

Another explanation was offered by the Hong Kong-based Ming Pao daily, which said the Chinese snub was connected to a large-scale military exercise recently conducted by the Chinese Navy's Eastern and Southern Fleet in an area of the Pacific Ocean east of Taiwan and north of the Philippines.

The exercise was a drill for blockading Taiwan, it said.

"Sources ... said that during the exercise some Chinese ships ran into the Kitty Hawk's battle group in international waters sailing toward Hong Kong," an online version of the Ming Pao article said.

By refusing to allow the Kitty Hawk into Hong Kong, China "wanted to hide the details of their naval exercises and combat capability" to blockade the Taiwan Strait as part of a military attack on Taiwan, the newspaper said.

Dear President Bush, the explanation that this was simply a "misunderstanding" isn't good enough, not for the Navy, and not for me. The White House needs to do better, leaving the issue at "misunderstanding" is a slap in the face to the Navy and this nation. This country has no use at all for a President who is unwilling to stand up for our nations armed services serving over seas. This administration acts tough towards Iran, then loses its voice when it comes to China.

Did you notice something new in the press report? I did, this is not a typical PLAN exercise, in fact this is one of the first I have heard about that includes two different fleets in China, in this case both Eastern and Southern Fleets. That is a big deal, at least to people who observe such things like me. The speculation that this exercise would be for "blockading Taiwan" appears absolutely correct, as in such a case both fleets would have to operate together while the Northern Fleet sortied to set up for potential US Navy response.

Feng noted it in his original post and I didn't note it, clearly the quality here is in decline.

However, in trying to recapture the quality expected from our readers, we worked double time today pulling better information of the event, reviewing such trivial details as weather patterns and the details as reported. Note a few things. The Kitty Hawk was 300 miles away from Hong Kong when China finally allowed the Strike Group to return. According to my maps, that put the Strike Group South Southwest of Taiwan, with a choice to make...

Sail directly into bad weather, or take the short route through the Strait of Taiwan. According to the weather data we pulled, the storm was pretty nasty, and the storm that hit the 2 minesweepers earlier in the week was no picnic. We are hearing the Kitty Hawk sailed north through the Strait of Taiwan.

Which no doubt has pissed off China even more, they still talk about the incident in 2000 as the biggest threat their nation has faced in the last decade. My opinion, too bad for them, thousands of commercial ships cross the Formosa Strait a year, and had one of the Kitty Hawk CSG escorts sailed into the storm after being denied access to Hong Kong and been damaged, this wouldn't be a few bloggers complaining about an administration failing to stick up for American sailors, rather this would be an international incident.

Bill Arkin has a great quote from Admiral Keating:

The minesweeper incident, "causes us a little more concern," Keating said. "[T]his is a kind of an unwritten law among seamen that if someone is in need, regardless of genus, phylum or species, you let them come in; you give them safe harbor. Jimmy Buffett has songs about it, for crying out loud."

Arkin assumes that because Keating hasn't spoken to the Chinese that the Navy sees this as a non-issue. I disagree. When an Admiral makes a Jimmy Buffet reference, I'd say he is trying to get the attention of a broader audience. In all of the media coverage I have read, Roughead is clearly pissed off, and he should be.

The TV media has been remarkably silent on this issue, and the Pentagon appears to be incredibly clueless as to what actually happened. I hope the media bloggers who have been telling the story don't let it pass by easily, because if China was following a blueprint to harm military relations between the US and China, this would be one possible scenario. As I noted a few weeks ago, that trip by Gates to China was a complete failure, he is doing a great job handling the irregular war stuff, but if it at the expense of the big stuff someone over in the Pentagon is missing the point.

Building Fuel Cells for Submairnes in Connecticut

United Technologies Corp. was awarded a contract today to build fuel cells for submarines, for Spanish submarines.

UTC Power, a United Technologies Corp. (NYSE:UTX) company, today announced it has signed a contract for the development phase of a program with Spanish shipbuilder Navantia, S.A., to supply a 300kW proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell power module for use in the Spanish Navy’s S-80 submarine.

Terms of the agreement with Navantia were not disclosed, but UTC Power said this contract is one of the largest single contracts it has ever received.

The companies announced in July of 2006 that UTC Power would design a fuel cell to operate on reformed ethanol and pure oxygen. The design phase has been successfully completed, and the program will now move on to actual hardware development, which also includes the first operational fuel cell. Following successful completion of the development phase, Navantia and the Spanish Navy are expected to determine whether additional units will be produced.

Note it is ethanol based. I have to admit, I'm a bit confused here. Although it is great UTC is able to produce fuel cells that use ethanol, I fail to see the advantage of ethanol over hydrogen.

Spain has a huge ethanol production capability, however that means very little for a submarine. The problem with ethanol is that the fuel isn't widely used at sea, so who is going to supply a forward deployed S-80 with ethanol? Greenpeace?

Apparently, the S-80 isn't going to be forward deployed very often, at least not without a tanker with an ethanol supply in the region. Am I missing something here? If so, edumacate me. I also do not see the export prospect for ethanol based fuel cells for submarines in the future.

I absolutely see the value though. It is noteworthy the sales potential of ethanol based fuel cells for commercial use is probably very high. It could be that UTC found a way for the Spanish military to pay for some the development costs of a technology that can be widely utilized commercially in the future.

The YouTube Debate

I'm sitting at my desk with the YouTube debate on in the background. I've seen two Democrat debates but this is the first time I have seen the Republican field. Like most Americans married with children, if I watch politics, it is an accident of my schedule.

First, let me say I'm a registered independent in NY and I haven't chosen a candidate. Other than Biden, and perhaps Obama (who needs a few years at the Army War College), the Dem field disappoints this election. I will never vote for Clinton or Edwards.

The Republican field however is very interesting. Tonight I really am impressed with Huckabee. I lived in Arkansas for 25 years, do not like Huckabee, my father who was involved in Arkansas politics for decades supported Mike Beebe this past election, marking the first Democrat in Arkansas he ever supported in my lifetime. I would almost certainly not vote for Huckabee against either Obama or Biden, but he is very impressive nonetheless.

He'd make a great VP.

Personally speaking, Romney reminds me of Bush, I feel like I have seen this act before. Thompson disappears on stage next to some of the others, no wonder he can't get any momentum in his campaign. Rudy Giuliani is still my favorite of that pack though, I worked with him on 9/11, I've seen the city before and after he was mayor, and watching people attacking his record is laughable, the results aren't statistical, they can be seen in person with a trip to the best large city in the world, New York City.

Updated: Issues not discussed included Iran, energy, environment, or health care. I'm against government run health care, so maybe no discussion is a good thing, but energy and environment would have been good discussions for Republicans to discuss, perhaps we would have seen more that makes them different.

Updated: Drudge hammers home the point. CNN = Clinton News Network. Mea Culpa.

Someone Tell Congress: Shrinking Rhymes with Sinking

Bloomberg is leaking details of the revised Navy shipbuilding plan starting in the FY09 Budget, which will be introduced by the President early next year with his annual budget. Speaking of "leaking" the new plan reduces the expected number of ships under the 313-ship plan by 11, all of which are Littoral Combat Ships, however there are increases as well. In other words, the 313-ship plan is dead.

The U.S. military plans to delay its purchase of 11 warships now under development by Lockheed Martin Corp. and General Dynamics Corp.

The Navy planned to buy 32 of the new Littoral Combat Ships over the next five years and now will buy only 21, according to an unpublished Nov. 19 directive from Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England that spells out changes in the Pentagon's fiscal 2009-2013 plan. The savings from buying the vessels after 2013 could be as much as $5 billion, an analyst said.

The delay is the latest indication of disarray in the Navy's plan to develop and field the new class of low-cost vessels designed to operate close to shore. The Navy already canceled two of four vessels on contract with Lockheed and General Dynamics.

General Dynamics, the Navy's second-largest shipbuilder, and Lockheed, the world's biggest defense company by sales, are building competing versions of the new ship. Costs for developing the vessel have increased as much as 70 percent, Navy officials have said.

``If the Navy doesn't keep this program on track, it will never get to its goal'' of building the U.S. fleet to 313 vessels from 280 today, said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Virginia.

I read Loren Thompson regularly, but he is an industry guy with an industry agenda. His priorities have not been in sync with the Navy in years, and align much better with the fat cats of the industry. SECNAV is doing the right thing, the program has been rushed, blundered, and the results have been expensive. The LCS program can be slowed down, or if SECNAV wants to be real smart, build the proposed twenty something through 2013 and then pick up a 20 something production run of FFG(X)s, I know of a few European designs that might work as starting points.

Noteworthy, the comment in the Bloomberg article about "savings from buying the vessels after 2013 could be as much as $5 billion" come from Ronald O'Rourke. He may be right, but if I am to believe what Murtha has said on shipbuilding, it is more likely that $5 billion just became a pot of gold for Congress to play with for shipbuilding.

The new plan will build 2 Littoral Combat Ships in 2009 instead of the 6 planned, then three in 2010 and 2011 instead of the 6 originally planned for each year, then build 4 instead of the 6 originally planned in 2012, and finally build 6 Littoral Combat Ships in 2013 instead of the 5 currently planned. That adds up to 18 between 2009-2013, but the Bloomberg article says 21 because it is counting LCS-1 and LCS-2, and the one funded in FY08 although I am skeptical of that one because I have heard Congress didn't provide enough money to actually build 1 LCS. Either way, that comes to 21 of the 32.

The article says the plan allows for $2 billion in fiscal years 2009 through 2011 to allow the purchase in 2011 of two Virginia class submarines. That tends to indicate the construction of 2 SSNs per year will begin in 2011.

And finally, the DDG-1000

England approved adding $693 million through 2013 for the new Zumwalt class DDG-1000 destroyer to be built by Northrop and General Dynamics, bringing funding for its development to about $9.29 billion, the Navy's highest projected cost.

9.29 billion for 2 DDG-1000s. I'm Calling BMFS (bull mother figure it out). Will the gentleman who believes two "destroyers" at a cost higher than the expected cost of CVN-79 is worth it please stand up and identify yourself. I've got about 1000 words of advice for the Navy on this project, but "stop after two for the sake of the fleet" is a quick 9.

Groundhog Day For Iranian Submarines

Iran continues to expand its mini submarine fleet. From the Middle East Online:

Iran's navy said on Wednesday it had launched a new home-produced submarine, the first in a class named "Ghadir", Tehran's latest claim of military progress at a time of mounting tensions with the West.

"This advanced submarine is equipped with the latest military and technological equipment," navy chief Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayari was quoted as saying by state media.

"It was built after 10 years of design work. Its capabilities are equal to those of foreign types." No further details were given.

State television pictures showed a submarine submerging and then resurfacing. It was not clear if the pictures were of "Ghadir", which is named after a Muslim holiday.

In March 2006, the navy deployed a submarine named Narhang (Whale) but the pictures broadcast by state media at the time showed it was a mini-sub.

The way Iran uses names for its submarines makes this confusing.

We believe we have excellent sources on Iranian equipment, although our naming and labeling of Iranian systems are different than those of organizations like Stratfor. No disrespect to Stratfor, but because we believe our sources are accurate, for a number of reasons, we will keep things named and in sync as per our sources.

To us, the "Yono" class submarine are the 4 mini-submarines previously acquired from North Korea, the Nahang (whale) class mini-submarines are the ones pictured in that Middle East Online article, while the Ghedir class is the Iranian version of the Italian designed MG110 class mini-submarines in use by Pakistan. Additional information on Iranian underwater capabilities here.

We are not certain why Sayari would claim this is a "first in class" submarine, although we are hearing that it is being translated incorrectly, and basically when discussing the "first in class" he is talking about the Ghadir class being the first class of indigenously produced submarines for Iran. It could be that the new "Ghadir" class submarine produced is a new variant of the original "Ghadir" class of which between 4-6 have been produced, but there is very little room for growth on a 150 ton mini-submarine.

We will soon find out who is accurate though, because we may soon get some photography of the new submarine to determine for sure. At the same announcement, Iran announced an upcoming naval exercise called "Etehad 86." These exercises typically get a lot of TV time in Iran, which means they will eventually end up on YouTube.

It is very difficult to get too excited about the Iranian submarine program. For perspective, keep in mind that during a military parade in Tehran this past April, Iran showed off its submarine capability by putting 2 guys dressed in diving outfits on top of a swimmer delivery vehicle standing at attention while being pulled down the parade route on a truck trailer. At night in the middle of the Persian Gulf, those guys are just as likely to be eaten by a shark than to threaten a double hulled supertanker.

As we noted earlier, the names of Iranian submarines are getting difficult to follow, so we offer this for those who discuss the topic. When you think of the green MG110 class mini-submarines that Iran produces, think of it as the "Ghadir" class, pronounced "GAY DAR" in tribute to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his absurdity of no homosexuals in Iran. We believe calling it the "Gay Dar" is an important reference, because it keeps us reminded of the fact that in Iran, homosexuality is a crime with only one punishment, execution. Feel free to add your "Gay Dar" joke in the comments.

The Global Warming Love Boat Hit an Iceberg

Environmental political science is now entrenched in the US media to the point that it has become blasphemy to question the credibility of Global Warming. Imagine a world where we must believe the end of the world is near because of our energy consumption and environmental practices of driving to work, and if you don't believe in the end of the world environmental disaster scenario then it is you who is the crazy fool.

Did you hear the tale of the cruise ship that went to Antarctica in search of global warming but instead hit an iceberg and sank? You probably did, you just didn't know you did. The New York Times covered the incident.

They were modern adventure travelers, following the doomed route of Sir Ernest Shackleton to the frozen ends of the earth. They paid $7,000 to $16,000 to cruise on a ship that had proudly plowed the Antarctic for 40 years.

But sometime early yesterday, the Explorer, fondly known in the maritime world as “the little red ship,” quietly struck ice.

There were the alarms, then the captain’s voice on the public address system calling the 100 passengers and the crew of about 50 to the lecture hall, according to passengers’ accounts on the radio and others relayed from rescuers and the tour operator.

In the lecture hall, they were told that water was creeping in through a fist-size hole punched into the ship’s starboard. As it flooded the grinding engine room, the power failed. The ship ceased responding.

How classic that those "modern adventure travelers" who "paid $7,000 to $16,000" are actually baby boomer's in search of global warming.

You’d never read this in the mainstream media: The owner of MS Explorer that sank, leaving a huge carbon footprint at the bottom of the Antarctic Ocean Friday is an acolyte of teensy-weensy carbon footprint crusader Al Gore.

G.A.P. Adventures CEO and Explorer owner, Bruce Poon Tip and Gore have similar ideals, “filling their schedules with speaking engagements on environmental change to educate global audiences.” And that’s straight off of www.gapadventures.com. In fact, as recently as last April, both Poon Tip and Gore gave presentations at the Green Living Show in Toronto.

Good thing Gore was otherwise occupied when 154 passengers and crew had to be rescued at sea when their eco-cruise ship struck ice in the Antarctic Ocean and started to sink early Friday morning.

Forgive me if I find that hilarious. These rich fools, who may or may not have realized that the ice shelf in Antarctica is actually increasing (not decreasing like the Arctic) paid thousands of dollars to be the next punchline of the latest media propaganda campaign. These myths are hard to shake though, as a kid growing up in the cold war I had to reeducate myself as an adult once I realized how brainwashed I had been.

In the cold war, everything nuclear was bad, whether it was nuclear power or nuclear bombs. OK, so I'm still not very fond of nuclear weapons, but I want more nuclear power. It amazes me the French power 88% of their nation with nuclear power, and we can't even build a new nuclear power plant today because of fear... of something.

What is it we are afraid of again? Oh that's right, nuclear radiation, because nuclear radiation killed hundreds of thousands of people right? Uhm, maybe not. For example, from Wikipedia on Chernobyl:

The Chernobyl disaster caused a few tens of immediate deaths due to radiation poisoning; thousands of related cancer cases are predicted over the coming decades. Since it is often not possible to prove the origin of the cancer which causes a person's death, it is difficult to estimate Chernobyl's long-term death toll.

That estimate was adjusted today. Why? Because science trumps political environmental science. Spiegel today tells us how many people actually died as a direct result of Chernobyl...

Officially 47 people -- members of the emergency rescue crews -- died in Chernobyl from exposure to lethal doses of radiation. This is serious enough. "But overall the amount of radiation that escaped was simply too low to claim large numbers of victims," explains Kellerer.

The iodine 131 that escaped from the reactor did end up causing severe health problems in Ukraine. It settled on meadows in the form of a fine dust, passing through the food chain, from grass to cows to milk, and eventually accumulating in the thyroid glands of children. About 4,000 children were afflicted with cancer. Less well-known, however, is the fact that only nine of those 4,000 died -- thyroid cancers are often easy to operate on.

That was over 20 years ago, in other words the hippy who wrote out the Wikipedia article is calling for "thousands of related cancer cases are predicted over the coming decades." Say what? So if they were 20 when Chernobyl melted down, they are 41 now, and now we are leaning in the coming decades thousands of the several hundred thousands in the region supposedly effected will develop cancer? Thank you Wikipedia, aka Captain F'in Obvious.

So Chernobyl is a bad example? OK, lets look closer at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. From Spiegel again.

The study included all residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who had survived the atomic explosion within a 10-kilometer (6.2-mile) radius. Investigators questioned the residents to obtain their precise locations when the bomb exploded, and used this information to calculate a personal radiation dose for each resident. Data was collected for 86,572 people.

Today, 60 years later, the study's results are clear. More than 700 people eventually died as a result of radiation received from the atomic attack:

• 87 died of leukemia;
• 440 died of tumors;
• 250 died of radiation-induced heart attacks.
• In addition, 30 fetuses developed mental disabilities after they were born.

That Speigel article is a great read btw. Check your child's history book, my 7th graders book says over 100,000 people died due to radiation, which is clearly another political science fact of life in education. I'm sure my schoolbook probably quoted some equally incorrect number when I was in school.

But in reality, fewer people died by radiation sickness in Chernobyl, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki than died on 9/11, but thanks to political scientific accepted myths the US can't build nuclear reactors today.

That's ok though, instead of fixing our energy supplies, we can complain about the environment, believe the sky is literally falling and the world is about to end, and while we are celebrating our faith in propaganda, we can all take a cruise to Antarctica in search of global warming, and even hit an iceberg.

What is the lesson here? Next time someone tells you about the dangers of nuclear energy, or how the world will end due to Global Warming, send them this picture of the ecohippy who had to have the Chilean Navy save her stupid baby boomer ass because her cruise ship in search of global warming hit an iceberg.

More pictures and coverage of the M/V EXPLORER sinking at Fred Fry's.

Gates at Kansas State

The next president, regardless of party, would be wise to keep SECDEF Gates. Sharp guy. His speech at Kansas State is on target and the right message.

Disagree? Read these for background and tell me what I'm missing.

Start with Austin Bay.

Follow that with Max Boot.

I hope the full transcript gets posted on DefenseLink, because it sounds like a speech needing more attention.

Israel Hid in Plain Sight Against Syria

If you didn't read the Aviation Week article, you should.

Israel’s capabilities are similar to the “Suter” network-invasion capability that was developed by the U.S. using the EC-130 Compass Call electronic attack aircraft to shoot data streams, laced with sophisticated algorithms, into enemy antennas. The passive, RC-135 Rivet Joint electronic surveillance aircraft then monitored enemy signals to ensure the data streams were having the intended effect on the target sensors. Israel duplicated the capability when it fielded its two new Gulfstream G550 special missions aircraft designs. Both were modified by Israel Aerospace Industries’ Elta Div. in time for the 2006 Lebanon war. The ground surveillance radar version can provide data streams from large active, electronically scanned array radars, while the intelligence version provided the signals surveillance and analyses.

Buchris contends that it’s not manpower and technology that limits development, but constructing systems (that can put invasive data streams into enemy networks and then monitor the results) and making them operational.

The new G550 radar and electronic surveillance aircraft, for example, are still “in the process of being integrated into the intelligence system,” the planning official agrees. “The name of the game is balance of systems, intelligence, training, communications and forces. It has to be conducted like an orchestra. If one instrument is out of tune, it doesn’t sound right.”

The special mission aircraft were used during the war with good results, but military officials expect better future exploitation as they are plugged into the Israel Defense Forces’ network. Another handicap in developing Israel’s network attack capabilities is that they haven’t directly enlisted the research potential of their universities as the Pentagon has done in the U.S.

“I know that in the U.S., universities are involved in these kinds of issues,” Buchris says. “But in Israel, we are not. It’s totally different. How the Israeli system works, you can’t share with anybody. I don’t want to go into the issues [of technology development, personnel training and who runs the organization]. It’s very interesting. It’s very sensitive. Any such capabilities are top secret.”

Read it all, very interesting. The art of the soft kill is a science beyond the technical capability of most belligerent little men, and one of the big reasons why Israel can hit a country like Iran and when it was over, Iran wouldn't know who actually did it until they learned about it on CNN.

7th Fleet Focus: A Twist to the Kitty Hawk Incident

Last night I speculated a bit about the reasons why China denied access to the Kitty Hawk Strike Group visitation to Hong Kong, but in catching up on the news of the week I think it should be noted there was another event taking place at the time. From what we have gathered from the news, back around November 19th the USS Patriot (MCM 7) and USS Guardian (MCM 5) were denied visitation to Hong Kong to refuel and take shelter from a storm. A few days later the Kitty Hawk Strike Group was also denied visitation.

Well, according to the Chinese Media, the PLAN was conducting a major exercise in the region that included nearly 20 ships and several dozen aircraft. As Feng has noted, most of the article itself is propaganda, nonetheless it raises the question whether the US Navy was perhaps observing a bit too close for China's tastes.

It is noteworthy there is no word at all regarding the exercise in the western press, including in all of the comments by Admiral Keating made regarding the incident. One would think he would be at least minimally aware that China was conducting a live fire exercise in the region.

I don't think this excuses China for its behavior, but it could potentially explain it. Irrational behavior is a potential side effect that could be expected by the PLAN if they felt the least bit intimidated by 4 acres of sovereign US territory sailing near their major PLAN exercise.

Given the location of the exercise based on Chinese media reporting, and the probable travel routes of both the minesweepers and eventually the CSG from the South China Sea, the US Navy would have been near the areas of the exercise around the time of the exercise.

Update: Never mind, the quality here may be in decline, because right under my nose Yankee Sailor links to a story that discusses the Chinese exercises. By the way, those pictures from the Chinese link are worth a peek.

6th Fleet Focus: Russian Submarines Training Off Norway

Yesterday we got word that Norway was deploying its Ula class submarines towards the Barents Sea to observe Russian Navy activity. Scanning the Russian papers the only Russian Navy activity discussed over the past few months in the Northern Fleet had been CV operations, which in itself is a rare thing. Today however, we get word of increased Russian submarine training for the Northern Fleet off the Norwegian coast.

Sources in the Norwegian Armed Forces confirm that Russian submarines have intensified training activities in areas outside the Norwegian coast. Orion aircrafts have dropped listening equipment to find the vessel.

According to Aftenposten, the Norwegian Armed Forces do not want to comment on the information. However, Deputy Defence Minister Espen Barth Eide confirms that Russia has stepped up military activities in the North both in the air and under water. He also confirms that the Russian subs have operated in “sensitive areas” along the coast. He does still not want to dramatize the situation. -They are not doing anything illegal. They want to signal that they are interested in important areas and that they have military capacities, he says.

The submarine activities come amid a surge in Russian military flying in the area. According to Aftenposten, the Norwegian Air Force has identified 74 Russian aircrafts the last half year.

Russia currently has about 20 submarines in operation in the Northern Fleet, based on several sites along the Kola Peninsula.

The Norwegian's have their hands full. Most of the modernizations of the Ula class have been central to operating in warmer climates and features to enhance the submarines performance during long patrols. The advantage of the Norwegians however is they are very well trained.

While conditions are much different than the cold war, it should be noted there are several territorial claims in the region not recognized by the other side. This can lead to tense moments, as it can be perceived that one side is in fact in violation of the others territory. So much for that "Law of the Sea" thing in dealing with territorial claims...

For the most part, the disputes since the end of the cold war have been limited to illegal fishing, but with increased military activity there are reasons to be concerned. Given the recent *cough* subpar *cough* record of Russian submarine safety, the potential for accidents is already high, a bit of cat and mouse off the Norwegian coast can be both a good and dangerous thing.

5th Fleet Focus: The Fog of Peace

Are you ready for $100 a barrel for oil? You should be, the rhetoric is about to hit all sides of the media like a storm, introducing the fog of war to the current peace, which usually plays out in economic speculation for higher prices of crude oil.

Lets start by pointing out that the Truman Carrier Strike Group will cross the Suez Canal this week and enter the 5th fleet Area of Operations. This will raise the typical rhetoric as the number of aircraft carriers rises to two for a few weeks. It is very likely the Navy will maintain both carriers in the region for at least a few weeks, as the Enterprise is busy maintaining a presence during the current Pakistan situation.

Adding to that, the AP has this story.

The head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization said Saturday that the country had produced its first nuclear fuel pellets for use in a heavy water reactor, which is still under construction.

The uranium oxide pellets are made using a process separate from the uranium enrichment at the heart of a standoff between Iran and the U.S., which accuses the clerical government of secretly pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

But the Arak reactor, which began construction in central Iran in 2004, is a concern to the West because the spent fuel from a heavy-water facility can be used to produce plutonium, which in turn can be used for a nuclear weapon. U.N. inspectors last visited the reactor in July, and Iran has said it hopes to have Arak up and running by 2009.

Then you have this tidbit from the Russian press.

The recent report by Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei is similar to the previous one but for a sensational detail.

It says that the IAEA is getting ready to verify and seal the nuclear fuel which will be supplied to the Bushehr nuclear power plant on November 26, 2007. This procedure will precede the delivery of fuel from Russia to Iran.

This suggests that the nuclear plant will be commissioned earlier than planned - at the end of next year. This is why the delivery of fuel is being rushed. Otherwise, why conduct the verification procedure and store sealed nuclear fuel? Its quality will deteriorate because of radioactivity. Moreover, the Tvel Corporation, a Russian manufacturer of fuel, is already sustaining losses because it had to suspend the first full load of fuel for the plant.

Just in case you were wondering if the US Navy is doing anything interesting behind the scenes, the British media is busy watching the logistics.

The U.S. military has stepped up chartering of tankers and requests for extra fuel in the U.S. Central Command area, which includes the Gulf, shipping and oil industry sources say.

A Gulf oil industry source said the charters suggested there would be high naval activity, possibly including a demonstration to Iran that the U.S. Navy will protect the Strait of Hormuz oil shipping route during tensions over Tehran's nuclear programme.

The U.S. Navy's Military Sealift Command (MSC) has tendered for four tankers in November to move at least one million barrels of jet and ship fuel between Gulf ports, from Asia to the Gulf and to the Diego Garcia base, tenders seen by Reuters show.

It usually tenders for one or two tankers a month to supply Gulf operations, which include missions in Iraq.

And not to be outdone, the Herald has a the scoop of "secret" work being done in Diego Garcia.

The US is secretly upgrading special stealth bomber hangars on the British island protectorate of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, according to military sources.

The improvement of the B1 Spirit jet infrastructure coincides with an "urgent operational need" request for £44m to fit racks to the long-range aircraft.

That would allow them to carry experimental 15-ton Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs designed to smash underground bunkers buried as much as 200ft beneath the surface through reinforced concrete.

If you are wondering what all of this means, it basically means higher energy prices this winter. Is the US about to strike Iran? I doubt it, the only people who want war is Iran and Saudi Arabia, in fact, I'm not even convinced the neocons wants war... yet. It looks to me like the Bush administration has given Sec of State Rice at least until March of 2008 to figure out a plan for Iran.

Why March? Several reasons. First, in March Petraeus is due back in Congress to update the Iraq situation. Given the success we have seen in Iraq, I'm starting to think Petraeus is going to recommend a dramatic cut of military forces in Iraq in March. Second, there are some noteworthy deliveries of military equipment to Israel (including BMD) that will be mostly completed by March. Finally, there is no reason to hurry up and do anything until then, March 08 represents a month of peak performance capability for the US Navy, so why not wait?

BTW, for those who believe there will be a war with Iran before the Bush administration leaves office, we now believe if it happens, the war will be started by Israel in 2008, not by the US. There are a number of reasons for this, but mostly we believe it will happen that way to spare backlash from Iran against Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The US only gets involved if Iran attacks either Iraq or Saudi Arabia, neither of which is a winning play as a response of attack by Israel (Iran loses the propaganda high ground if they attack Arabs after being attacked by Jews).

The backlash would likely come from Hezbollah and Hamas, just as we saw in the summer of 2006. We also believe there is political motive for this development however, observers in the 2006 war would recall the incredible reactions of the far left against Israel, creating a rift between the American Jewish community and the Democratic Party. In other words, in the middle of a huge election year, we see it as very difficult for the left in the US to pile on Israel like they did in the summer of 2006, because it would be considered politically stupid to alienate one of the largest political donation blocks of the Democrat Party during a major US election season.

Israel taking unilateral action gives the US military and the Bush administration more flexibility in response, gives the regional actors cover, but also limits the military actions against Iran due to logistics reasons. If you are one of those who don't think it is possible, you need to do your homework, Israel has the capability to put about 50 sorties a day over Iran, and again do your research, because those 50 sorties would come from forces barely used in 2006 against Lebanon, because those air forces were held back in case of direct attack by Iran.

Big Fleets Start With a Healthy Industry

In January 2005, then Secretary of the Navy Gordon England said the following statement:

“[The decision to close a shipyard]...is up to industry. We don’t define the industrial base. It’s up to the market to arrive at these conclusions…it’s a commercial world, and they make commercial decisions.”

Gordon England demonstrated enormous ignorance by completely failing to recognize the importance in the relationship between the condition of the industry to the quality of the Navy it built. That quote sums up shipbuilding problems in the 21st century better than most you could find.

Compare that disconnected relationship mentality demonstrated by Gordon England to the focus of the Indian Navy.

Navy has suggested to the government that India acquire the knowhow to build super tankers and seek transfer of this technology to build the same tonnage warships on the pattern of US carriers.

"We have submitted a comprehensive Plan to the government seeking rapid expansion of shipbuilding capacity. We have to graduate to the level of building super tankers and transfer the same technology to warship building," Naval Chief Sureesh Mehta said on Sunday.

"Urgent steps need to be taken to drastically expand the capacity of existing shipyards and more shipyards need to come up," the Naval Chief Admiral said.

The existing shipyards are hardly able to manage an increasing demand of the Navy, and if steps were not taken, the expansion of the country's maritime force would be restricted in the near future, he said.

The focus isn't just to increase the capacity of existing shipyards, but build new ones, and build a bunch of ships that integrate the latest commercial technology with the hope this will translate to better capability in building warships.

India has an energy shipping plan known as Hydrocarbon Vision-2025, which basically says India will be importing around 82 million tons of natural gas by 2012, and 84 million tons by 2025. India already imports around 100 million metric tons (MMT) of crude oil, which is expected to increase to 348 million metric tons (MMT) of crude oil by 2025. To carry out that plan, India requires 25 super tankers by 2012, and 34 super tankers by 2025.

However, it isn't simply the need for super tankers, India is a growing economy with interests that extend to its capability to domestically produce a Navy. Considering the problems India is having with shipbuilding in Russia, clearly India is looking to get out of the dependency business at sea.

Mehta said the Indian navy will not only maintain the force level but increase the number, as well, in view of the “expanding maritime responsibilities and interests.”

The Indian navy fleet includes about140 vessels, including one aircraft carrier, 21 surface combatants, three fleet tankers, eight guided-missile corvettes, six offshore patrol vessels, eight amphibious ships, 16 submarines, 17 fast-attack craft and 57 other combatants.

A navy official said it will be difficult to maintain even the current force levels over the next 10 years as aging ships, mostly Russian, are being decommissioned at a faster pace than new warships are being inducted.

Besides, India’s long coastline means the navy needs to bolster its long-range surveillance capability to watch movements in the region between the Horn of Africa and Malacca Straits, and even in the South China Sea, the official said.

Looking to the future, Mehta said, “India’s rise as an economic power must necessarily coincide with her resurgence as a maritime power.”

India gets it on shipbuilding. Until SECNAV Winters, I'm not sure we did. There are a couple things here.

This is a clear signal that India has every intention of being a major maritime power in the 21st century. It is unclear what relationship India and the US will have in the future, currently it can be described as neither friend or foe, with mutual interests and mutual threats, and each is a threat to the interests of the other. It has been reported that at least 1, perhaps 2 SSNs will be leased to India from Russia. India is building a 45,000 ton aircraft carrier they required help from Italy to design and barely have a shipyard big enough to build. The carrier being built, or refurbished, in Russia is indefinitely delayed.

It is interesting to note that while India is looking to build shipyards, they don't seem to care if the shipbuilding companies are foreign owned. I could see US defense contractors attempt to make a move... However, this is also very smart. By bringing in foreign competition to jump start the Indian shipbuilding industry, India will ultimately be able to rapidly expand its shipbuilding industry. Noteworthy here is that this might also make a major contribution in assisting where India is weak, specifically in design, because it is possible India will be able to capitalize on existing designs.

It goes back to that argument, should the US Congress encourage companies like Navantia or Kockums set up a yard in the US? I'm not sure it would be financially worth it while the US domestic shipbuilding industry is slow, but like India we are very dependent upon maritime trade, and there is growing demand for commercial maritime ships. It would take some work to get the US competitive in that market again, but it has been said it can be done.

6th Fleet Focus: Sending the Subs to the Barents Sea

The Russian Navy is apparently very active in the Barents Sea, so much so that Norway has shifted its submarine operations north to monitor the situation.

Russian vessels have the last months on several occasions operated outside the Norwegian coast, and Norwegian authorities have now requested an explanation from Russia.

After a decade of low activities in the Barents Sea, the area is now again becoming the playground for navy interests. In a reportage from Norwegian broadcaster NRK today, Norwegian Navy officials confirm that Russian war ships the last months have stepped up activities along the Norwegian coast, and that sonar has been used against Norwegian submarines.

The Russian offensive now spurs increased Norwegian submarine activities in the region, NRK reports.

The irony of this report, it comes on the heels of Norway's Defense Review 07 report, which in part suggests canceling the Skjold-class because they are considered too expensive.

The backbone of Norway’s national defense is in danger of being decimated through budget cuts by fiscally frugal governments, warns Gen. Sverre Diesen, the chief of the country’s military.

His “alarm call” was issued in Oslo during the Nov. 6 presentation of the military’s long-anticipated Defense Study 07 to government officials, led by Defense Minister Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen. The study covers proposed reforms, reorganization and procurements planned for 2009-12.

“Unless the defense budget maintains pace with inflation, I fear that very little will be left of Norway’s national defense capability as we know it today,” Diesen said. “There is a political determination to gradually reduce national defense and defense spending.”

Reduced funding for Defense? Check. Increase in Russian military activity in your neighborhood? Check. Does anyone honestly believe these two things aren't in part related? I have a feeling if Norway had a stronger military, if they had submarines that weren't as old as most Russian submarines, or if Norway actually had a fleet of Skjold-class boats Russia would not be playing naval games so close to Norway.

The Russian papers have briefly covered some of the naval maneuvers in the North, specifically citing carrier aircraft training. Russia is finally able to afford actual carrier aircraft takeoffs and landings, and the Адмирал флота Советского Союза Кузнецов could be conducting flight deck operations.

This is good timing for the Russian Navy. For the most part, the US is focused on the Pacific and Indian Oceans, while NATO is focused on Africa. Both SNMG1 and SNMG2 have crossed the Suez canal over the last month, while the Dutch, Danes, and Germans are all preparing for forward operations east of the Suez in 2008.

Which raises the questions, who is guarding the back door? Looking around NATO, you find the Germans focused on the Baltic Sea, The British are engaged in 2 wars and already stretched thin, the French are focused on the Med, the Dutch are basically the reserve force, and the Danes are looking to be expeditionary. That basically leaves the Atlantic Fleet, which is already operating all over the South Atlantic, the Med, and forward deployed to the Middle East.

It raises a few points. It sure would be nice if Canada had an operating submarine force, and with the shift of forces to the Pacific, the US Navy Atlantic fleet has yet another, at least traditional, role to play in its theater. When you think about it though, it will not be easy for the US Navy to maintain a presence in the North Atlantic with a submarine if the numbers reduce too much though. Demand for US submarines is up, not only for Strike Group escort, but also for operations off Africa and the Middle East, and soon to be in the Caribbean sea when Venezuela starts operating new submarines from Russia.

The Russian budget does not appear to provide funding for major overseas deployments, so expect a lot more Russian Naval activity off Norway as this represents the most likely area of operation for the Russian fleet when training the Northern Fleet.

History Repeats Itself: Communists Still Can't Cope With Economic Problems

Of all the stories over the past 4 days, the one that has me the most interested is what we have seen coming from China. In case you missed the event while celebrating Thanksgiving, this story starts in the South China Sea.

Last Monday two U.S. minesweepers, USS Patriot (MCM 7) and USS Guardian (MCM 5), returning from exercises in Vietnam were seeking to refuel and get shelter from bad weather in the South China Sea. They asked for permission to enter Hong Kong... China said no. Then...

Thousands of sailors aboard the USS Kitty Hawk and its carrier battle group had to mark the Thanksgiving holiday at sea after they were denied entry to Hong Kong for a port call that had been planned months in advance, U.S. Navy officials said Friday.

Hundreds of sailors' families had flown to the city to spend the holiday with their loved ones, while dozens of Americans living in Hong Kong had prepared turkey dinners for those without visiting relatives.

In an unusual last-minute decision, China turned the ships away as they neared the port. It later reversed its decision, but by that time the aircraft carrier, along with four warships and a nuclear submarine, were already leaving the area for their home ports in Japan.

This was to be the last port of call for the USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63) before she is replaced by the USS George Washington (CVN 73) next year. Considering the size of the Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group, we are talking somewhere around 8,000 US sailors. I did a bit of research, and in 2005 it is suggested the economic impact of Hong Kong from a similar port of call is around $32,000,000. Over 35 US Navy vessels have pulled into Hong Kong so far this year without problems.

There is speculation as to reason. The media is guessing when they say this is over the Dalai Lama or perhaps the Iranian nuclear issue, the fact is China hasn't said anything and we don't know. It is also probable that when US military commanders go to China in January they are unlikely to get a good reason, meaning we will probably never know.

I have a theory though, one not being discussed. Have you noticed the price of oil? Have you noticed the drop of value in the dollar? You do realize they are related right? The US is currently intentionally devaluing the dollar, and will do so further in the near future if the Fed decides to reduce yet another percentage point of the interest rate. What is noteworthy is the US economy, while slowing down in some sectors, is not showing any signs of panic, nor is there any signs of inflation.

China's currency is pegged to the dollar, and the US is forcing reform whether China wants it or not. In case you are wondering, nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, thinks the EU could do anything to pressure China without the US helping, and there is speculation that this issue is likely a big part of the give and take happening with EU and US on the Iran issue.

China is progressing with foreign- exchange reform and the mechanism plays an important role in ``adjusting'' the nation's trade balance, central bank Deputy Governor Su Ning said.

The rate of the yuan also plays an important role in sustaining the nation's economic growth, Su said today at a financial conference in Beijing.

...

The yuan's appreciation ``should accelerate,'' European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet, who arrives in Beijing on Nov. 27 for two days of talks, said Nov. 22. He will be accompanied by Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker and European Union Commissioner Joaquin Almunia and will meet central bank officials.

While the yuan has risen about 5 percent against the dollar his year, it has weakened by almost 7 percent versus the euro, increasing the cost of European goods.

One of the side effects of the devalued dollar is US exports are at an all time high. The price of Chinese exports are on the rise, and China has raised their interest rate 5 times this year in an attempt to curb inflation, but because of the currency issues the interest rate hikes may not be enough to ultimately prevent inflation.

Reduced returns on the greenback would drive some of the international capital into China to seek better returns; and the increased liquidity would put more pressure on inflation, he said.

Also, as the dollar depreciates against currencies of economies producing resources such as oil, grain and raw materials, it will mark up the nominal prices of commodities.

In turn, the prices China pays for those commodities would rise, thus stoking so-called "imported inflation", said Guo.

"Interest rate hikes would not do much to ease this, because they cannot offset the effect of international factors," he said.

China has raised the interest rate five times this year.

"It will make China's exports more expensive and imports cheaper, thus narrowing the gap between exports and imports," said Shi.

China registered a trade surplus of $212.4 billion in the first 10 months, up 59 percent year on year. But growth in October dropped 0.5 percentage points from a month earlier, while import growth increased by 9.4 percentage points.

Look. China has an economic bubble because it has been playing dirty with its fixed currency. The Bush administration in fact has been playing this bubble to the advantage of the US economy, not a bad move when you consider the incredible increases of federal revenues despite tax cuts, in many ways the bubble has been exploited to pay for much of the 9/11 recovery efforts (although it is a fair argument to say those gains have been blown by economic costs of war).

With the US now putting extraordinary strain on the yuan due to dollar drop, increasing the costs of commodities worldwide in the process, and somehow *cough* avoiding inflation in the US, China is not only seeing increased competition worldwide from other emerging markets, but is seeing widespread demand for appreciation in their own currency from both inside and outside China, and is also facing inflation from all angles despite massive interest rate hikes.

In response, China is doing what it can to demonstrate their displeasure, and by that they have few options, so they take it out on the US Navy. In the end, all it does it piss in the economics of Hong Kong, which I think highlights the nature of Chinese leadership and their absence in understanding how to deal effectively with external economic pressure.

In the past I have given a lot of credit to China. Until I see otherwise, I'm not going to make that mistake anymore. Chinese communist leaders appear absolutely lost on how to handle diplomatic problems on economic issues, all they have are communist rule solutions for capitalist type problems, and they give all the indications of foolishness in trying to use those types of solutions. For example, how did they handle the Dalai Lama? They violated World Trade Organization agreements and blocked US search engines. It is a completely fair statement to say that almost all Democrat (exception Clinton) and almost all Republican (exception Romney) presidential candidates would have taken action against China. Bush let off China easy.

So how does China respond to the economic pressures of the US? They deny access to Hong Kong. Fine, the US Navy can take shore leave elsewhere, Singapore and Thailand would LOVE to have the US come into port. Do they think this punishes us? All it does is piss us off. Morale in the 7th Fleet took a hit, but I'm pretty sure the Admirals can get the sailors focused again. which in turn will not be to China's advantage.

Finally, how did China respond to the lead paint toy problem? They executed a bunch of Chinese dudes then bragged about it to the US media. Only the cowardice of the US cable media prevented that from becoming a public relations disaster for the Chinese, but it hasn't stopped human rights groups who have been trying to tell anyone who will listen, and plan to remind everyone come time for the Olympics. I wonder how long before China threatens NBC over Olympic commercials, between the Unions and PACs in the middle of a huge election year, China is set to get smeared on TV like butter on toast.

The Chinese are acting like rookies. They have no idea how to handle economic pressure except with their usual communist behaviors, which ironically usually works exactly counter to the economic driven reforms they are trying to promote. If the US had a clue we would crush them for their communist stupidity, but alas, the Bush administration is just like the Clinton administration, and operates under the theory that China can do no wrong.

Returning to Action Soon

Thanksgiving Weekend for some is a busy holiday, at my house this weekend has been my birthday, my anniversary (13th), plus the Turkey and stuffing. We replayed the latest scenario on Friday to work out some 'issues,' will get to that when time permits.

There is a ton of naval news worth talking about as soon as I catch up, until then, check out Boston Maggie's full spectrum coverage of the Kitty Hawk event, probably the most important of the weekend. I see several patterns here. I'll have more later.

5th Fleet Focus: Order of Battle

Order of Battle in the 5th Fleet Area of Responsibility.

The Enterprise Carrier Strike Group

USS Enterprise (CVN 65)
USS Gettysburg (CG 64)
USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51)
USS Stout (DDG 55)
USS Forrest Sherman (DDG 98)
USS James E. Williams (DDG 95)
USS Philadelphia (SSN 690)


Kearsarge Expeditionary Strike Group

USS Kearsarge (LHD 3)
USS Ponce (LPD 15)
USS Gunston Hall (LSD 44)
USS Vicksburg (CG 69)
USS Porter (DDG 78)
USS Carr (FFG 52)
USS Miami (SSN 755)


Task Force 150

FGS Augsburg (F 213)
FS Guepratte (F714)
FS Commandant Ducuing (F795)
FS La Motte Picquet (D645)
PNS Tariq (D 181)
USS Whidbey Island (LSD 41)


In Theater

Ocean 6
USS Wasp (LHD 1)
RSS Persistence (L 209)
HMS Richmond (F 239)
HMS Campbeltown (F 86)
HMAS Anzac (F 150)
USS Scout (MCM 8)
USS Gladiator (MCM 11)
USS Ardent (MCM 12)
USS Dexterous (MCM 13)
HMS Ramsay (M 110)
HMS Blyth (M 111)

Happy Thanksgiving Humor

This isn't an attempt to out do Lex, but if we are talking about items from the Wall Street Journal giving thanks on Thanksgiving, I believe credit is due to James Taranto for providing us an excellent reason to be thankful.

From Best of the Web:

Finally, we are thankful for Australia, one of America's most reliable allies. News.com.au, soon to be a sister to this Web site, reports on some good news Down Under:

The nation's breasts have had a growth spurt.

Australian women, who fitted a petite 12B a decade ago, are a shapely 14C.

Julie Malandin, general manager of bra maker Berlei, which conducted a study, said women were "bigger."

According to BreastNotes.com though, the average American woman is a 36C, so the Aussies have a long way to go.

Happy Thanksgiving!

US and Russia Ballistic Nuclear Submarine Budgets

I was going through the FY 2008 Department of Defense Budget and found a few things that I find noteworthy. For example, did you realize that Congress is only spending $15 million on new projects US Ballistic Missile Submarines, but in fact is probably (rather very likely) spending more than that on Russian Ballistic Missile Submarines? No that wasn't a joke, in fact it is signed into law.

In digging into every corner of the Dept. of Defense Budget of FY 2008, all I can find being spent on US Navy SSBNs is $15 million Navy dollars for the Trident II Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). There is also a section in the Defense Budget called the "Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Account" that allocates a ton of money for Russian Ballistic Missile Submarines.

For assistance to the republics of the former Soviet Union, including assistance provided by contract or by grants, for facilitating the elimination and the safe and secure transportation and storage of nuclear, chemical and other weapons; for establishing programs to prevent the proliferation of weapons, weapons components, and weapon-related technology and expertise; for programs relating to the training and support of defense and military personnel for demilitarization and protection of weapons, weapons components and weapons technology and expertise, and for defense and military contacts, $448,048,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010: Provided, That of the amounts provided under this heading, $12,000,000 shall be available only to support the dismantling and disposal of nuclear submarines, submarine reactor components, and security enhancements for transport and storage of nuclear warheads in the Russian Far East.

Which breaks down like this:

(1) For strategic offensive arms elimination in Russia, $102,885,000.
(2) For nuclear weapons storage security in Russia, $22,988,000.
(3) For nuclear weapons transportation security in Russia, $37,700,000.
(4) For weapons of mass destruction proliferation prevention in the states of the former Soviet Union, $51,986,000.
(5) For biological weapons proliferation prevention in the former Soviet Union, $194,489,000.
(6) For chemical weapons destruction in Russia, $1,000,000.
(7) For threat reduction outside the former Soviet Union, $10,000,000.
(8) For defense and military contacts, $8,000,000.
(9) For activities designated as Other Assessments/Administrative Support, $19,000,000.

A little on the "Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Account" which is also called the "Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program," it should be pointed out this program has been largely successful in reducing nuclear weapons worldwide.

The Nunn-Lugar scorecard now totals 7,191 strategic nuclear warheads deactivated, 662 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) destroyed, 485 ICBM silos eliminated, 110 ICBM mobile launchers destroyed, 615 submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) eliminated, 456 SLBM launchers eliminated, 30 nuclear submarines capable of launching ballistic missiles destroyed, 155 bomber eliminated, 906 nuclear air-to-surface missiles (ASMs) destroyed, 194 nuclear test tunnels eliminated, 363 nuclear weapons transport train shipments secured, 12 nuclear weapons storage site security upgrades, and 9 biological monitoring stations built and equipped. Perhaps most importantly, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan are nuclear weapons free as a result of cooperative efforts under the Nunn-Lugar program. Those countries were the third, fourth and eighth largest nuclear weapons powers in the world.

That is very good news, and remarkable results if you think about it, but I'm thinking it might be time to take a serious look at cutting the program, or at least adding conditions.

$12 million of the $448 million total Congress is spending on Russia is dedicated to the removal of nuclear submarine reactors, while nearly $103 million is allocated to the elimination of nuclear warheads in Russia. I'm very curious how much of that nearly $103 million is spent on warheads of old ballistic missile submarines, because if only 15% of that money is spent in the elimination of Russian submarine launched ballistic missile warheads, then Congress would actually be spending more money on warheads for Russian SSBNs than on US SSBNs.

It actually gets stranger though. Congress is spending $448 million dollars on reducing Russian nuclear weapon systems. Perhaps they are not aware, but this fiscal year Russia is spending 10 billion Rubbles, or roughly $411 million dollars on new Borei Class ballistic missile nuclear submarines.

In other words, by paying the cost of decommissioning nuclear weapons for Russia, Congress is giving Russia a free pass on the responsibilities of life cycle costs of being a nuclear power, and thus enabling Russia to build more nuclear weapons and more nuclear weapon delivery systems like SSBNs.

So what are the facts.

• The Russian Navy is spending twenty seven times more money than the US Navy in the development of new nuclear ballistic missile submarine technologies.
• Congress is very likely spending more money on submarine launched ballistic missiles in the FY 2008 Defense Budget for Russia than they are in the same budget for submarine launched ballistic missiles for the US Navy.
• Congress is spending around the same amount of money decommissioning Russian nuclear missiles as Russia is spending building new ballistic missile submarines.

Those aren't debatable facts, they are 100% accurate and sources are linked to look it up. I don't really know what to say, because while I think the "Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program" appears to be historically successful, maybe it is time to take a hard look at this program going forward.

Russia has become the most vocal critic of Ballistic Missile Defense, which we probably wouldn't need in the specific places in Europe currently proposed if Russia wasn't spending huge sums of money upgrading their nuclear weapons arsenal and supporting the nuclear programs of countries like Iran. Americans are looking at the huge sums being spent in defense, well take a look America, we have an example here where nearly half a billion dollars is being spent to insure Russia gets to build more nuclear weapon systems.

Keep the facts in mind next time you read some dumbass rant about nuclear weapons, because you can be assured said dumbass is oblivious to the facts as presented, and will resort to blaming Bush or some other empty political rhetoric rather than dealing with serious issues that our own Congress should be taking account of. Congress screwed up, they need to better evaluate the factors that are contributing to future nuclear weapons expenditures, both in the US and outside the US, if they are serious about reducing the nuclear threat. No matter how you look at it, with Russia spending almost 75% of its entire Navy shipbuilding budget on SSBNs this year, successful programs like the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program may now be contributing more to the nuclear problem than to the nuclear solution.

One final thought... I'm American, so naturally when it comes to sea based systems like SSBNs I think everything is about us, mostly because the media of the whole world typically claims all bad things are caused by the US. I have been wondering lately though, is it possible that Russia isn't building new SSBNs to counter the US? Is it possible Russia is building SSBNs because of increasing nuclear capabilities of another nation, one that is historically a rival to Russia? Just saying... it would actually make more sense if true, unless one actually thinks the US is looking to use nuclear weapons on another country...