NATO's Quiet War Off Somalia

Last weekend I noted several strange and inconsistent reports of anti-piracy actions taking place off Somalia. There were numerous reports, some saying it was NATO while others claiming it was the EU, then we got word of others involving an Iranian vessel. This doesn't even count the recent USS Buckeley (DDG 84) helicopter incident where a handful of pirates learned about Davy Jones locker.

NATO put out a press release describing some of their activities last weekend (PDF).

NATO action frees hostages and defeats pirates

London: Recent disruptions of several Pirate Action Groups by NATO forces within the Somali Basin have freed a significant number hostages from captivity and denied the pirates their motherships.

By careful co-ordination of his available forces Commodore Michael Hijmans, NLD (N) NATO’s Commander of its Counter Piracy task force was able to seize the initiative and engage known pirate motherships. NATO was then able to disrupt them by either forcing their surrender or removing their capacity to attack merchant ships by the destruction of their attack skiffs.

In the most recent pirate disruption on 16th May the USS BAINBRIDGE was tasked to investigate a report of a pirate attack by the MSC Ayala. The Ayala was well prepared and had good self protection measures in place to deter the attack and the pirates broke off. The BAINBRIDGE however was by then in the area and quickly located the dhow which had launched the attack and observed ladders being thrown into the sea. The US ship questioned the crew over VHF radio and initially they tried to deceive them by denying that they were pirates but then changed their story and agreed to leave the ship in their attack skiff. Once clear of the dhow it was observed that the skiff was unseaworthy and the pirates were themselves then rescued by the BAINBRIDGE. The dhow, which had been hijacked four days previously, was cleared and then allowed to go about her lawful business on the high seas.
In two other separate incidents last week the American ship USS STEPHEN W GROVES and the Danish ship HDMS ESBERN SNARE and both encountered armed pirate gangs actively hunting for targets of opportunity.

During an engagement between the USS STEPHEN W GROVES and the Taiwanese fishing vessel Jih Chun Tsai 68, a known pirate mothership, shots were exchanged before the pirates surrendered. Subsequently a boarding team from the STEPHEN W GROVES was able to access the fishing vessel where they found 4 dead and 2 injured people. The dead were identified as the master/owner of the fishing vessel and 3 pirates and the injured were 2 of the pirates. The surviving pirates have been returned to Somalia. The event is under review to determine how the fatalities occurred and no additional information is available at this time..

When the HDMS ESBERN SNARE approached a suspicious dhow she was fired upon without warning and returned fire in self defence while manoeuvring to increase the distance between the ships for safety. After the pirates surrendered ESBERN SNARE sent her armed boarding team to the dhow to secure it and assess the situation. The boarding team discovered 4 dead pirates and 10 with injuries of varying degrees of seriousness as well as 14 uninjured pirates, none of the 16 Iranian hostages of the dhow’s crew was hurt. The injured pirates were transferred to the ESBERN SNARE for medical treatment along with the remaining pirates. The freed hostages have been repatriated to Iran.

Speaking today Rear Admiral Hank Ort NLD, Chief Of Staff at MC Northwood said of the task force’s successes “This has been a busy week but through these actions we have clearly demonstrated the resolve of NATO to press home the advantage we have of disciplined crews, excellent support from our maritime patrol aircraft and co-ordination with other international counter piracy forces to suppress piracy. We are sending the message that piracy is a criminal activity that the international community will not tolerate. Of course we are very concerned about the decision by pirates to open fire on our forces and the loss of life is very regrettable which is why we investigate the circumstances on every occasion.”

This doesn't really explain much of anything, and I believe transparency regarding anti-piracy operations continues to be a major problem the EU, NATO, and the US is ignoring. Lack of transparency gives more credibility to other versions of events.

With more engagements we are finding that a lot more people are getting killed, and not only pirates but civilian mariners are getting killed in the cross fire while the western anti-piracy naval forces aren't mentioning that these actions are even taking place at all until several days later.

There continues to be a lot of evidence that NATO is engaged in a lot fighting and killing at sea off Somalia nobody is really talking about. Does that bother me? You bet it does, because it means NATO is being used as a blanket to conceal US military operations in a quiet war off the East coast of Africa. I'll be honest, I really don't care if we kill pirates engaged in piracy, but we are doing something wrong and sending the wrong message if we have to hide that we are doing it.

Thud

This is the transcript of the President's speech yesterday about the Middle East and North Africa.

I thought the speech was too long and poorly crammed two different issues into one speech, and the speech never really found a way to link the different issues effectively.

The Arab Spring is a unique event, and the White House needs to be smarter and understand that it is a big enough event that it doesn't need to tie into Israel and Palestine. Had these two issues been treated separately, the President would have resonated with more people on each issue. Instead I believe the message intended got lost.

The President tried to spread it around too much, and my sense by the reactions I have read by those in the Middle East and North Africa, this speech hit with a resounding thud of 'ho-hum' to many target audiences while leaving the President exposed politically on Israel.

I find some of the Israel related political criticism by the Presidents political opponents very legitimate, and I believe that criticism could have been avoided. It is hard to be Presidential in credibility when the President issues hollow warnings of possible UN sanctions to government leaders in Yemen, Bahrain, and Syria regarding the killing and imprisonment of their own civilians when the only real substantial action advised to Middle Eastern nations by the President was his instruction to Israel to concede land for peace.

Threatening governments with possible UN sanctions that may not even be attainable politically is hardly the stuff of a bully pulpit by the President of the United States in the defense of people seeking freedom and liberty from tyrannical regimes, and yet that was the substance of the speech to the Middle Eastern government leaders dealing with the Arab Spring by killing or rounding up their own people. I was underwhelmed.

There were so many mixed messages in the President's speech that it is difficult to believe the message communicated was the same message delivered. What exactly is the message to the Middle East when on one hand the President asks Arabs to quit blaming Israel for their problems, and on the other hand the President tells Israel the path towards peace with a neighbor that rejects the existence of Israel as a starting point is land concessions of major population centers?

Everyone knows Israel must make concessions for peace, but if the policy of the United States in addressing the issue doesn't begin with the concession by Palestine for 2-state, peaceful mutual existence with Israel as a starting point - then any US policy related to Palestine and Israel is going nowhere.

While I think the part of the speech that focused on Egypt and Tunisia was very well done, I'm not sure the rest of the speech did much to forward American foreign policy objectives in the Middle East or North Africa, nor did much to build American credibility with the various folks engaged in the Arab Spring movements throughout the Middle East. I wouldn't call the speech a strike out, but with that speech the President never made it to first base.

Lockheed Martin Takes a Broadside in the Senate

When Dr. Ashton Carter testifies in front of the Senate that your program is unaffordable in this fiscal climate, the only hope left is to find enough politicians that will sell out. Something drastically changes, or the Joint Strike Fighter is done.

"Over the lifetime of this program, the decade or so, the per-aircraft cost of the 2,443 aircraft we want has doubled in real terms," said Ashton Carter, the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.

"That's our forecast for how much the aircraft's going to cost.

"Said differently, that's what it's going to cost if we keep doing what we're doing. And that's unacceptable. It's unaffordable at that rate."

The cost of the plane has jumped to $385 billion, about $103 million per plane in constant dollars or $113 million in fiscal year 2011 dollars, said Christine Fox, the Defense Department's director of cost assessment and program evaluation.

Republican Senator John McCain called the figure "truly troubling," considering the original price was $69 million per airplane.

"The facts regarding this program are truly troubling," said McCain. "No program should expect to be continued with that kind of track record, especially in our current fiscal climate," said McCain.

"It seems to me we have to start at least considering alternatives"

CNA almost had it right. The tipping point wasn't the point at which the Navy fleet was unaffordable, it was the point where naval aviation became unaffordable. Most folks don't realize that the Navy consistently spends more budget money on aviation than the Air Force does, but they in fact have for many, many years.

Here is the biggest problem facing the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps not to mention all the other nations invested in the Joint Strike Fighter program. The cost per aircraft is now so high that it doesn't justify the expenditure, meaning the combat capability of the less capable F-15, F-16, and F-18 alternatives exceeds the combat capability investment one gets with plowing ahead with the Joint Strike Fighter. Quite frankly, there simply isn't enough difference in the payload, range, speed, electronics, or stealth that separates the 5th generation JSF from it's 4th generation alternatives to move ahead.

The UCAS, on the other hand, has game changing range and endurance, not to mention lower manpower costs so even if it runs at a higher cost that estimated per platform, the capability opportunity in the investment is so much more than lesser alternatives that the cost justification is there.

The only thing left is for reality to set in among elected officials, not to mention entrenched interests in defense. The Joint Strike Fighter is the modern A-12, and only the F-35B VSTOL version (which is also the most expensive variant) is the capability that is unique and lacks a legitimate replacement. It is also the most likely version of the JSF to find international interest in continuing the program at very high cost even if the F-35A and F-35C is canceled.

Perhaps there is another way ahead, but right about now the Air Force would be wise to propose a F-22 high and F-15/F-16 low mix of fighters just to streamline maintenance to three specific platforms.

Pentagon Leadership Shuffle

There is a lot of truth in this RUMINT.

This was the final list that was sent to the White House.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff = General Dempsey
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff = General Schwartz
Chief of Naval Operations = Admiral Greenert
Army Chief of Staff = General Odierno

Something important has happened. A few of the reporters already know about it, all of it, and it is about to get really interesting, and ugly.

Folks are pissed.

I am too.

I'll wait for the reporters to catch up.

A PLAN Sea Control Ship?

David Axe has an interesting article over at the Diplomat on the possibility that China is developing a VSTOL jet. My first inclination is to agree with David that the evidence of such a development is sketchy, and that it's probably some other kind of project. However...

• The interest in VSTOL aviation isn't only in the United States, and isn't simply a question of finding aircraft that can fly off big amphibs. Smaller navies have a) operated strike and air superiority Harriers from CVLs, and b) expressed an interest in the capabilities of the F-35B.
• Why wouldn't China be interested in developing an analogue to the Sea Control Ship? If China's chief maritime interests in the future will be the protection of supply lines from the Middle East, as well as projection of power and maintenance of maritime order in the Pacific island chains, wouldn't a Sea Control Ship fit the bill? Less expensive than a big CV, capable of being in more places, and more expendable in a conflict. As we know well, there are plenty of Americans arguing that we should focus on smaller, less risky carriers; why would it be a surprise to see the PLAN moving in this direction?
• While there's little indication thus far that the PLAN is building Sea Control Ships, is it necessarily true that we'd see evidence of carrier construction prior to the mastery of VSTOL technology? If the ships are dependent for effectiveness on a plausible VSTOL fighter/attack aircraft, then it might make sense to delay construction until development of the aircraft had sufficiently progressed.

More Feng's area of expertise than mine, really. We should be prepared, though, for the possibility that China's blue water navy won't be structured very much like our own blue water navy.