Canadian Military WHATegy?

Paul Wells has a bit of fun at the Conservative government's expense:

We tease Le Devoir because we love it. You had to read that paper's Alec Castonguay this morning to begin to understand the true extent of the Harper government's clapped-together, carefully-obscured, clumsily-exercised plan to rebuild the Roman legions on Canadian soil. I refer, of course, to the 20-year, $30-billion defence plan, which the Globe is calling a $50-billion defence plan and which Le Devoir explains — I believe credibly — is actually a $96-billion defence plan.

"The 'Canada First' strategy of the Department of National Defence calls for new spending of $96 billion over 20 years, which is three times what Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced on Monday in Halifax. The five largest military procurement projects alone will incur costs reaching $45 to $50 billion," Alec writes.

Note the Globe's peculiar choice this morning to total only capital costs in their accounting of a plan that will also include increases to operating budgets. It's like reporting that your housing costs for the next 20 years will include kitchen renovations but not mortgage payments or rent. But then, I wasn't at the briefing yesterday and I'm willing to believe it was simply incomprehensible. Because as far as anyone can tell, that's the Harper government's strategy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the nice folks in Toryland all keen to address the many failings of previous Liberal governments, especially the multi-decade neglect to which the Canadian Forces had been subjected? Why, then, after two years in office, has the current Conservative government not come up with something a bit more finished than a verbal outline of a spending plan?

Is it me? Am I expecting too much, too soon?

QotD: Invading Burma?

Now in all probability if the "good old U.S. military" actually does invade Burma it will incinerate every vestige of armed opposition in its path. Burmese Army units will stand about as much chance as ants before a kid's homemade flamethrower. And then all of a sudden the assumptions will collapse in reverse order. People are going to say, 'we didn't realize invasions meant killing people'; 'we didn't realize we wouldn't have allies'; and finally 'we did not think it would be so expensive'. And then we will hear that classic line: "I was for it before I was against it."

"Wretchard", " Invasion Burma", The Belmont Club, 2008-05-10

Honouring the fallen

For most Canadians, most of the time, the kind of in-your-face, flag-waving displays of patriotism common to American patriotic events are seen as being rather uncouth. That is why these patriotic displays are so much more meaningful.

From the air base in Trenton, Ontario, the funeral cortege passes along motorways lined with scores of people holding Canadian flags, some with a hand on their heart, carrying banners emblazoned with the words "we support our troops."

All 50 of the motorway bridges on the journey into Toronto were said to have been packed with the general public.

As the cortege passes fire engines and police cars, officers and emergency workers solemnly salute as children wave flags.

But the solemn gesture is a far cry from Britain, where Our Boys are turned away from public places and told not to wear their uniforms following sickening insults.

The saddest drive, and the witnesses

There is a post at The Torch you really should read.

QotD: The Afghan mission

[. . .] We recognize the conflict in Afghanistan as a liberation struggle, waged by the Afghan people and their allies, against oppression, against obscurantism, illiteracy, and the most brutal forms of misogyny. It is a fight for democracy, and for peace, order, and good government. It is also a struggle waged by the sovereign Government of Afghanistan, a member state of the United Nations, against illegal armed groups that seek to overturn the democratic will of the Afghan people.

In Afghanistan, the great global struggle for the recognition and protection of basic human rights — universal rights — is being waged with a particular and necessary ferocity. We cannot and must not retreat from that struggle.

The objective of extending and securing the sovereignty of the Government of Afghanistan to all corners of that great country cannot be achieved without a robust international military presence. Canada is one the richest countries on earth, and as such we have absolutely no excuse to shirk from our duty to make a proper and effective contribution to that military engagement.

Canada-Afghanistan Solidarity Committee, "Submission to the Independent Panel on Canada's Future Role in Afghanistan", 2007-11-28

You want to invade where? Are you mad?

Unlike a lot of bloggers, I don't spend too much time taking potshots at the current leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition . . . but this just cries out for comment. Stephane Dion has been pushing for a definite end to Canada's commitment to the mission in Afghanistan, but now is talking about somehow invading a nuclear-armed nation to make that mission more likely to succeed:

Any attempt to counter terrorists war-torn Afghanistan will not succeed without an intervention in neighbouring Pakistan, Liberal Leader Stephane Dion said Wednesday.

Mr. Dion hinted NATO could take action in Pakistan, which has a porous border with Afghanistan, if the Pakistani government doesn't move to track terrorists.

"We are going to have to discuss that very actively if they (the Pakistanis) are not able to deal with it on their own. We could consider that option with the NATO forces in order to help Pakistan help us pacify Afghanistan," said Mr. Dion in Quebec City, commenting after his two-day trip to Afghanistan last weekend. "As long as we don't solve the problem in Pakistan, I don't see how we can solve it in Afghanistan."

That's not just ill-advised . . . that's absolutely batshit-crazy.

Sea Kings: "You can only stretch that rubber band so far"

To no great surprise, given the sordid history of the entire saga of the Sea King replacement helicopters, there's another hitch in delivery:

The delivery of new military helicopters to replace Canada's aging fleet of Sea Kings will likely be delayed by 30 months and Ottawa is threatening to deeply penalize the U.S. contractor "thousands of dollars" for each day the choppers are late, The Canadian Press has learned.

A senior government source, speaking on background, said late Wednesday that department officials told Public Works Minister Michael Fortier on Monday that Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. would be late with the long-awaited delivery of new CH-148 Cyclones.

The Cyclones were scheduled for delivery later this year, and the delay means the breakdown-prone Sea King fleet will have to be maintained until the new helicopters arrive.

For Canadian air crew, it's not at all surprising to find that the senior member of the crew is younger than the airframe of the chopper they're flying, but at this rate, it'll become common for the airframe to be older than the crew's parents, too.

For all the great technology that went into the helicopters (and they were top-of-the-line birds when we first go them), there is a definite limit to how long they can be safely kept operational. Most other nations flying Sea Kings decided that they'd passed that point about a decade ago. Our military flight crews deserve far better than that from Canada.

QotD: Final wishes

I do ask (not that I'm in a position to enforce this) that no one try to use my death to further their political purposes. I went to Iraq and did what I did for my reasons, not yours. My life isn't a chit to be used to bludgeon people to silence on either side. If you think the U.S. should stay in Iraq, don't drag me into it by claiming that somehow my death demands us staying in Iraq. If you think the U.S. ought to get out tomorrow, don't cite my name as an example of someone's life who was wasted by our mission in Iraq. I have my own opinions about what we should do about Iraq, but since I'm not around to expound on them I'd prefer others not try and use me as some kind of moral capital to support a position I probably didn't support. Further, this is tough enough on my family without their having to see my picture being used in some rally or my name being cited for some political purpose. You can fight political battles without hurting my family, and I'd prefer that you did so.

On a similar note, while you're free to think whatever you like about my life and death, if you think I wasted my life, I'll tell you you're wrong. We're all going to die of something. I died doing a job I loved. When your time comes, I hope you are as fortunate as I was.

Andrew Olmstead, posted on his blog by "hilzoy" after his death, "Final Post", Andrew Olmstead, 2008-01-04

QotD: The shame of the British army

Having belatedly agreed to pay Gurkhas the same pension benefits as any other men taking the Queen's shilling, the Ministry of Defence has decided to start firing Gurkhas three years short of earning their pension entitlements. I have often been asked why I left England to return to Canada and there are several answers (all true) I usually give. But the real reason was exposure to exactly this sort of short con as government. Everyone responsible for this shitty little trick at the Ministry of Defence should be subject to criminal charges for fraud, the Minister should be tarred and feathered and every free Englishman should hang his head in shame.

This is an England not worth fighting for. The Gurkhas deserve better; we do not deserve them.

Nick Packwood, "For Shame", Ghost of a Flea, 2007-12-18

QotD: Military Kangaroo Justice

No American would accept the proposition that one of our citizens, having been cleared of wrongdoing by American courts, could be abducted by a foreign power and imprisoned for years, only to have his fate determined by a kangaroo court that flouted the most elementary procedural rights. The Supreme Court should not accept it from our government either. If a legitimate hearing finds that Boumediene and his fellow detainees are guilty of aiding America's enemies, so be it. But we should not be satisfied to leave them to languish until the military decides whether the witches will float.

Julian Sanchez, "Restoring Habeas: Why old 'enemy combatmant' rules can't apply to a global battlefield.", Reason Online, 2007-12-12

Paging Keith Laumer

According to this report, we are getting close to the science fiction world of Keith Laumer (who wrote the Bolo series of books):

A certain amount of the award will go toward significantly improving the Crusher, a 6.5-ton unmanned support vehicle Carnegie engineers developed in 2006 in conjunction with DARPA. Since its introduction, the Crusher has demonstrated unparalleled toughness and mobility during extensive field trials in extremely rugged terrain, according to Carnegie Mellon.

The next generation Autonomous Platform Demonstrator (APD) ill make use of the latest suspension, vehicle frame, and hybrid-electric drive technologies to improve upon its predecessor's performance. Enhanced mobility capabilities will push the envelope for autonomous and semi-autonomous operation, the engineers said. The engineers will develop a comprehensive control architecture that makes use of hardware and software components as well.

Ultimately unmanned ground vehicles would be outfitted with anti-tank or anti-aircraft missiles and anti-personnel weapons to make them lethal. Part of the new award budget is also slated to help the university prove that autonomous ground vehicles are feasible in future combat situations.

Of course, there are always concerns about putting the decision-making power into the "hands" of self-directed machines. The worry is well founded: just think about how you have to struggle with Microsoft Word sometimes . . .

On the other hand, if they develop a model armed with Tasers, the RCMP may need to start worrying about their long-term future.

RN to re-learn skills they pioneered

By way of a post at Ghost of a Flea, some interesting information on the Royal Navy's need to learn how to operate aircraft carriers again:

Because the ship no longer operates with a dedicated air wing — Britain’s joint Royal-Navy-Royal Air Force Harrier force has shrunk, and four squadrons are fully committed to operations in Afghanistan — the head of the Royal Navy asked the commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps for help.

After months of elaborate planning and a few days of high-tempo carrier-qualification ops, 16 U.S. Marine AV-8B Harriers and 200 support Marines settled aboard Illustrious, the largest Marine-aviation detachment ever to fly from a foreign warship.

The Harriers joined two Navy search-and-rescue and two airborne surveillance and control Sea King helicopters, and together the two-nation air wing set off on high-tempo air operations to test men and procedures at a record-setting pace.

Illustrious also became the first foreign warship to welcome aboard the Marines' newest aircraft, the V-22 Osprey. The landings demonstrated the feasibility of operating the 23-ton tiltrotor, but also pointed up the difficulty of flying an aircraft with an 84-foot rotorspan from a small deck. That shouldn't be a problem on the new carriers, whose 4-acre flight decks are more than twice the size of Illustrious' and only half an acre smaller than those on America's Nimitz-class supercarriers.

The sad note in the article is the information that the RN no longer has enough Harriers of its own to fully arm the two remaining carriers in the fleet (although at least in part because of operational demands), but the inter-operability aspects are quite interesting.

Update: Links are working now. Thanks to Jon for pointing out that I'd been an idiot and neglected to insert them properly the first time around.

Captain Blackadder's real-life inspiration?

An article at The Register talks about the recently published wartime memoirs of Captain Alexander Stewart, of the Cameronians:

"I am very much annoyed by memos sent round from Headquarters that come in at all hours of the day and night; they stop me getting a full night's rest and some of them are very silly and quite unnecessary.

"When I am very tired and just getting off to sleep with cold feet, in comes an orderly with a chit asking how many pairs of socks my company had a week ago; I reply 141 and a half. I then go to sleep; back comes a memo: 'please explain at once how you come to be deficient of one sock'. I reply 'man lost his leg'. That's how we make the Huns sit up."

Stewart's grimly black humour amid the carnage of WWI forms the highlight of his newly-published diary which lay forgotten until his grandson Jaime Cameron Stewart decided to make the book available online. He writes: "Ninety years ago my grandfather wrote a very personal and graphic account of his time on the Somme in the Great War. He typed three copies and called it The Experiences of a Very Unimportant Officer in France and Flanders during 1916 - 1917.

"Until now it has only been read by one or two members of my family and close friends. But now, as his grandson, I would like to share this amazing piece of personal history of his time in the trenches as an officer serving with the Scottish regiment The Cameronians. This account brings to life the reality and horror of what happened to him in those war-torn fields and the loss of life at Mametz Wood.

I hope you will find it equally fascinating."

I rather hope the book is eventually published in hardcopy, but it's currently available for download for £9.95. Five percent of the purchase price goes to the Royal British Legion's Poppy Appeal.

Remembrance Day

National Steel Car has a very well-done, very respectful, and very appropriate Remembrance Day clip. (Enter the main site, then click the "In Memoriam" link and the Remembrance Day, 2007 links.

Well done, NSC!

Update: John Donovan posts his recognition of Canada's military heritage.

In memoriam

A simple recognition of some of our family members who served in the First and Second World Wars:

The Great War

• Private William Penman, Scots Guards, died 1915 at Le Touret, age 25
  (Elizabeth's great uncle)
• Private David Buller, Highland Light Infantry, died 1915 at Loos, age 35
  (Elizabeth's great grandfather)
• Private Walter Porteous, Northumberland Fusiliers, died 1917 at Passchendaele, age 18
  (my great uncle)
• Corporal John Mulholland, Royal Tank Corps, died 1918 at Harbonnieres, age 24
  (Elizabeth's great uncle)

The Second World War

• Flying Officer Richard Porteous, RAF, survived the defeat in Malaya and lived through the war
  (my uncle)
• Able Seaman John Penman, RN, served in the "Destroyer Equipped Merchant" fleet on the Murmansk Run (and other convoy routes), lived through the war
  (Elizabeth's father)
• Private Archie Black (commissioned after the war and retired as a Major), Gordon Highlanders, captured at Singapore (aged 15) and survived a Japanese POW camp
  (Elizabeth's uncle)

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918)

15 Days

I'm not yet finished reading Christie Blatchford's latest book, but on the whole, I agree with Lewis MacKenzie's review:

Blatchford has the rare ability to make her descriptions of combat, particularly those involving loss of life or serious injury, almost embarrassing to the reader. You feel that you are eavesdropping on very private matters. Her extensive research and her own recollections as she was caught up in the thick of some of the heaviest fighting are compelling, gut-wrenching and, unfortunately, real. Her admission that on one occasion during a firefight her bowels turned to water and got the best of her is ample proof that that she walked the walk. Her description, witnessed up close and under fire, of the evacuation of fatally wounded Corporal Anthony Joseph Boneca, shot in the throat and bleeding on the dirt under her feet, exposes the reader to the gut-wrenching reality of close combat.

During three extensive stays with the Canadians in Afghanistan, Blatchford was able to penetrate the macho façade presented by soldiers in combat, and to see the cohesion and affection born of an obligation to those vets who have gone before them, and of an intense dedication to their fellow soldiers. Contrary to popular myth, soldiers don't risk their lives — and in some cases die — for God, Queen, country or even the regiment. They do so for their fellow soldiers, their buddies, frequently only a few meters away due to the tunnel vision generated by the rush of adrenalin when someone is trying to kill you.

So far, my only complaint is that she takes some discredited research about combat as a proven issue: US Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall's Men Under Fire, with its contention that only a tiny minority of soldiers ever fire their weapons in combat situations. She doesn't reference Marshall by name, but talks about this factoid in one of the early chapters.

Russian boomer, up close

By way of Ghost of a Flea, a look at a Typhoon-class ballistic missile submarine:

This'll turn out well, I'm sure

New technology always seems to have impact outside the area its' inventors or popularizers envisage. This one, for example, is being introduced as a tool for quickly and remotely telling "whether someone is dead or alive on the battlefield." It also has other potentialities:

Figuring out whether detected heart rates give a reasonable cop excuse for coming in shooting is one of those legal and strategic conundrums we'll be sweating over in the magically transparent world of tomorrow.

Oh yeah, this is gonna go just great . . .

An excellent question

Perry de Havilland boils down the big question about Iraq (and Afghanistan):

In both the USA and UK, much of the debate about how to react to the military situation in Iraq really strikes me as really odd. If a person thinks the available facts indicate we are not doing well against the insurgents, surely the choices should be either:

1. Conclude the enemy will inevitably win and no military and political victory is feasible, therefore accept being defeated and get out completely as soon as possible
2. Conclude the enemy can be beaten, but not at an acceptable cost, so accept being defeated and get out completely as soon as possible
3. Conclude the enemy can be beaten and therefore reinforce to improve the military force levels (i.e. the 'Surge') in order to actually win

What does not make any sense to me is any talk of reducing force levels by a person who does not think we have either already won or already been irretrievably defeated . . . and the stated position of most politicos on both sides of the Atlantic is neither of those things.

It's only a quagmire if you choose to make it one. Sending enough forces to do the job (however you define "the job") is the only sensible way to operate. Sending insufficient forces just means that success must be defined down to fit what is possible with the forces you sent. Demanding that they accomplish more than is possible is just plain delusional.

Arctic Patrol Vessels: now with less sonar

The not-yet-fully designed Arctic patrol vessels may have a lot of capabilities, but sonar isn't going to be one of them:

Canada's new Arctic patrol ships will likely lack sonar capability, forcing them to use other methods to detect submarine threats in northern waters, a project official said yesterday.

"They will not have the ability to detect submarines," Captain Ron Lloyd, a senior navy planner, said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

Both the operation and even the installation of sonar equipment on the new warships may prove to be impractical, he said.

"You're talking about a ship that's going to run up onto ice and all of the noise that ice makes and still be able to detect submarines," said Capt. Lloyd, who is the former commander of the frigate HMCS Charlottetown.

"From our perspective we have not examined that as a potential [capability] for this platform."

"What?" I pretend to hear you ask. "How are our not-yet-built Arctic superships supposed to deter eeeeevil Yankee and Ruskie nuclear subs if they can't even detect 'em?" A good question. Professor Dan Middlemiss is quoted in the article and he says that helicopters can be used (when the weather allows), and that would give some anti-submarine capability. Moreover, actually hunting submarines is primarily a job for other submarines in the modern era.

Still, you can't help but feel that the new boats won't have quite the same effect without the ability to "ping" the heck out of intruding subs.

Cool camouflage, WWII style

A post at Ghost of a Flea linked to this very cool pictorial of how the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers hid this aircraft factory:

Cool new airlift capability in use

Chris Taylor discusses why the newest military transport aircraft in the Canadian Forces is a good thing to have:

Each Herc carries a crew of five — 2 pilots, 1 navigator, 1 flight engineer, and 1 loadmaster. That's fifteen people to move these pallets, or a week of duty days for a single aircrew. The Herc would make each 1,568nm trip in 6 hours — that's 12 hours including the return trip. So for a single CC-130H aircraft to move these 13 pallets, it would require three 12-hour trips, or three aircraft making a single 12-hour return flight. Not including ground handling, offload and refueling times.

In contrast, a single CC-177 can fly all 13 pallets to Jamaica in 3 hours, 49 minutes, using a single aircrew of three (2 pilots, 1 loadmaster). And it can carry sufficient fuel for the entire journey. Tack on the return trip and you have the entire mission completed in just under 8 hours, not including ground handling and offload times.

Remind me why the CC-177 isn't the best choice in this scenario?

I do find the formal military designation to be a bit odd: CC-177, rather than the American designation C-17. Even the defence minister calls it a C-17 in public. It looks like somebody stuttered while typing up the original name.

And what else would you expect them to do?

This was the headline on the Rogers news portal a couple of minutes ago:

And media types wonder why they don't get treated with seriousness . . . how unserious do you have to be to write that headline?

Of course the Van Doos will carry on: they're soldiers. That's what soldiers do. The loss of comrades will sadden them, but they'll continue to do the job . . . because that is what soldiers DO.

Frickin' idiot media. The article is here if you want to read it.

LOLsoldiers

Jon sent a link to the Military Motivators site, which is worth a quick look. He especially liked this one.

Tories invade the Arctic

At least partially fulfilling an election promise, Stephen Harper has announced a new military training base and a deep-water port in Nanisivik and Resolute Bay:

Canada will build two new military facilities within contested Arctic waters to bolster its sovereign claim over the fabled Northwest Passage, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Friday.

He said the Canadian Forces will install a new army training centre and a deepwater port at distant points of the Arctic archipelago that has been coveted for centuries as a possible trade route to Asia.

"Protecting national sovereignty, the integrity of our borders, is the first and foremost responsibility of a national government, a responsibility which has too often been neglected," Harper said, citing what he called the "first principle of Arctic sovereignty: use it or lose it."

For those of you who've never heard of Nanisivik (which would include me), it's roughly here:

Not the most convincing anti-Taliban vehicle

The British Army is introducing a new vehicle for travelling through Helmand province in Afghanistan (notable for a lack of paved roads): the Mad Maxmobile:

Photo from the Daily Mail article

Some rather good lines from the Fark.com thread:

Isotope ok, so I see I'm not the only one concerned that the vehicle will survive better than the crew...

Prank Call of Cthulhu The vehicle is missing something....hmmmm...what could it be? Oh, I know. It needs the Lord Humungous (The Warrior of the Wasteland! The Ayatollah of Rock and Rolla!) driving it. That'd be sweet!

Cormee I'd like to see the design brief.
'Design a vehicle - suitable for hunting Basset Hounds.'

A Shambling Mound Armored?
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

reverend_alex Wow, you can almost feel the fevered patriotic drool dripping from the author's lips as he pops a Daily Mail boner over a new *BRITISH MADE* vehicle for exterminating those filthy towelheads. Anyone else notice the barely-restrained glee with which this guy spells out exactly how awesome and powerful the almighty British Army is? Maybe because they're usually sent out into the desert with just some sunscreen and a cap gun. Not that that thing looks any more likely to protect them than Piz Buin factor 15.

Good luck to our boys and all, but the Americans called us 'The Borrowers' during Gulf War I for a reason.

Arnollia invaded by Royal Marines

Breaking news of a seaborne invasion by Royal Marines:

All next week a worldwide virtual war is being fought. Soldiers, warships, jets, and unmanned drones from the US, UK, Australia, Canada and New Zealand are combining in cyberspace to form "Task Force BISON," which will join NATO's "Task Force ATLANTICA" to mount massive amphibious landings in a conflict-stricken West African warzone.

In the simulated world, however, the western USA takes the place of Africa. California becomes the fictional country "Arnollia," bounded to the north by the "Wassegon Republic" and to the east by the expanionist, aggressive nation of "Nevatan".

In the wargame, evil Nevatan plans to destabilise neighbouring governments and seize control of "Terrizona" are thwarted in all-out war by the hard-charging Task Force BISON. British marines storm the beachhead at San Diego, capturing the vital harbour so heavy armoured units can move ashore.

Sounds like fun: in my day we only ever got to wargame against the "Fantasian People's Republic", usually against a random-numbered "Motorized Rifle Division". Of course, back then, our theoretical battalion barely mustered enough troops and equipment to make a light infantry company (on a very good day), so active defence was pretty much all we could realistically practice.

RETRACTION: It wasn't the French Navy . . .

Yesterday, I linked to a story which claimed that a French naval vessel had allowed a Danish merchant ship to be taken by pirates. The ship was indeed taken by pirates, but the French navy had nothing to do with the situation:

Hold the presses and belay my last! Don't blame France (sorry buds), but this is a all USA show. Despite the multiple source reporting earlier - word now is that it was a US warship, USS Carter Hall (LSD-50) [Wikipedia entry here . . .]

We are enabling pirates. The nation that fought the Barbary Wars has a 10 SEP 01 attitude towards pirates. Because the do not "regularly kill" their hostages (often you will hear "do not kill" — which is true of Western Hostages) we will allow them to have a fair run at any ship they can reach? What? Is that really it? Is that were the US Navy and the International Community stands? The Somalia gov'munt cannot police their waters — I will say that again — cannot. We will not. Therefore you have de-facto pirate territory that they are using as a safe base to hold hostages for ransom. What happens when you do that? ECON101 tells you the value of all ships to pirates is greater — and the risk premium is minimal.

We are appeasing the pirates. Yes, I know the "we can do non-compliant boardings — someone might be killed" argument. OK then, never deploy a SWAT team against kidnappers until they kill someone. Next time someone takes a hostage, give them a helicopter and let them escape to Mexico. Just make sure they get their money as well.

My apologies for the slur on the honour of the French Navy.

When bureaucrats put to sea

CDR Salamander has a distressing report from Somalia:

The Danish merchant "DANICA WHITE" was seized by pirates off of Somalia.

A small Danish-owned and, we understand, Danish-crewed general cargo vessel, has been captured by pirates in the latest series of ships and fishing vessels being boarded and taken over, with their crews held to ransom, off the Somalia coast.

What's worse . . . the piracy took place almost under the nose of a French warship:

A French warship reportedly looked on as the event unfolded, and refused to enter Somali waters as the mv DANICA WHITE was taken into the region.

Piracy is bad enough, but piracy enabled by illogical and inhumane standing orders? The French navy is looking particularly bad in this episode, but it's the crew of the Danica White who'll suffer the most.

H/T to The Armorer for the link.

Update, 8 June: See the following post for a clarification and a retraction . . . it wasn't a French ship which allowed the pirates to escape into Somalian waters.

New-ish tanks now double original cost estimates

Unusually, the government did not merge the capital costs and the support costs of the 100 Dutch Leopard 2 tanks when the original announcement was made. Now the total package is estimated to cost C$1.3 billion, not C$650 million. It's not clear from the article why this acquisition was handled differently than other recent military purchases.

Canada's purchase and long-term support of 100 slightly used Leopard 2A6 battle tanks will be $1.3 billion — roughly double the Conservative government's initial public estimate last month.

As he detailed a laundry list of military hardware the Conservative government plans to buy over the next few years, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor surprised the Commons by announcing there will be a 20-year, $650-million service contract attached to the tank deal.

"The capital acquistion is $650 million and the support for 20 years is about $650 million; about the same range," he said in reply to an opposition question during debate over Defence Department estimates.

Of course, even at the higher price, it's still a bargain for top-drawer military hardware.

US troops may have been exposed to nerve gas

A scary report in The Register about some 100,000 American troops who may have been exposed to low levels of Sarin nerve gas after the 1991 Gulf War:

It is believed that US soldiers occupying an Iraqi munitions depot at Khamisiyah mistakenly blew up a stockpile of gas rockets in March 1991, believing them to be ordinary explosive munitions. Nobody noticed any ill effects at the time.

It was only two months later, when Iraqi chemical weapons facilities were inspected by the UN as part of the ceasefire agreement, that the US began to realise that nerve gases might have been released into the atmosphere. [. . .]

It's perhaps also worth noting that declassified CIA reports suggest that some or all the sarin rounds blown up at Khamisiyah were of binary construction, meaning that they contained not sarin but two precursor chemicals which would be mixed to form sarin when the weapons were fired. Blowing up kit like this wouldn't release large amounts of nerve agent into the atmosphere; just precursors.

If the rockets weren't binaries, there would be an excellent chance of their sarin payload having decomposed to uselessness. This was a major problem for the pre-1991 Iraqi chemical weapons industry.

Why have an army at all?

Joe Jacobs, in a letter to the Toronto Star asks the question,

Realistically, why do we need a military at all? It's not like we need to be able to protect ourselves from the Americans. If President George W. Bush wanted to invade Canada and take all of our water and other resources, he could do it tomorrow. How would we possibly stop him? And if any other country invaded or attacked Canada, the United States would respond because we are in its "sphere of influence."

Given this, it is absurd that we should spend some $15 billion annually simply to be an adjunct to the U.S. military. Just imagine what we could do with that money if it was invested in education, the environment, taking care of seniors or building a national child-care system.

If we didn't have an army, what would prevent the Americans, the Russians, or even the Danes from taking over part or all of the country? Well, not much, clearly: the primary purpose of any military is to defend the homeland. Without an army (even as small a one as Canada's), why would anyone even pretend to pay attention to what Canadians claim to be their territory?

Mr. Jacobs is correct that President Bush could order troops into Canada tomorrow, and there would be little or nothing we could do to stop him. Why not? What benefit is it to his government to leave a loose cannon (no, not a cannon; perhaps a loose bong?) like a totally defenceless Canada on the northern border.

Does Mr. Jacobs actually think that we can live as literal freeloaders on the American military (as several Republican politicians have already accused us of, over the last 20 years or so)? What price does he think we would pay in exchange for giving up one of the primary determinants of nationhood? Would our largest trading partner just let us carry on as if nothing had changed?

I strongly doubt it. Canada is constrained by the need to maintain our peaceful trading relationship with the huge US market we serve. A month-long interdiction of the US-Canadian border would shatter our economy, throwing hundreds of thousands of workers on to the streets. It probably wouldn't even take a month for the economic pain to strike very deeply: we are disproportionally dependent on selling our raw materials to US customers . . . and if they stopped buying from us, we'd have damned few options open in the short term. Even dumping everything on the open market would require transportation that we're not set up to organize overnight.

Mr. Jacobs may be sanguine at the notion of Canada becoming a literal "frozen banana" republic, but it's not a future most of us would be happy with. At least, I hope that most Canadians feel somewhat the same way. Recent polls do not leave me too hopeful, in the long run.

German tanks, Dutch tanks, Canadian tanks

To my surprise, this news just got reported over at The Torch:

Here's what I've heard from sources within the defence community, what I was waiting for the official announcement to confirm:

• The 20 Leopard 2A6M's we'll be acquiring from the Germans aren't a lease, they're a loan. That is to say, while we're going to have to give them back in the condition we got them, and while there may be some incremental costs to their transport, operation, et cetera, we're not paying the Germans for the use of their tanks. A big, hearty thank-you needs to go out to Germany for this gesture of friendship and allied solidarity. We're going to try to get them into theatre this summer, for the worst of the heat, but meeting those timings will be tight.
• We're going to be buying a total of 100 used Leos from the Netherlands, for delivery sometime this fall. These tanks have apparently been properly stored and maintained to keep them in top shape. Of those 100 tanks, 40 will be 2A4's for two training squadrons in Canada (one in Gagetown, one in Wainwright), 40 will be two squadrons of 2A6's that after some Canadianization and upgrades (especially to the armour) will be deployable anywhere we need them, and 20 will be specialist tanks (bridge-layers, ARV's, dozers, etc).

For the troops in Afghanistan (and potential future deployments), this is excellent news.

Belated thanks, Helmut

By way of a post at The Torch, I found out something of which I had previously been unaware: that Canada nearly gave up its armoured warfare capability in 1976. Of all people, it was German chancellor Helmut Schmidt who saved the day:

After the Second World War, the need for armour on the future battlefield was self-evident to all who had served in the army. As a result, Canada's army was equipped with the then latest Centurion tanks. In the late '60s and early '70s, the Centurions became obsolete and the Canadian government announced it would end its tank capability by 1976.

However, talks between Germany's Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and then prime minister Pierre Trudeau resulted in Canada acquiring German-built Leopard tanks to resolve the imbalance of trade between the two countries. Resolving the imbalance in trade, not the government's need to maintain an armoured fighting capability, resulted in this necessary capability being reinvigorated.

Thanks, Helmut.

QotD: The purpose of the military

The Army is complete and utter totalitarianism. When you enter, you're stripped of all individuality, then built back up into a proper, orders-taking, unquestioning drone. Dissent is punished. At the onset of your career, all facets of your life are dictated to you. Whatever the state orders of you — even if it orders you to your death — you're trained to comply willingly and with vigor, and to never question the validity or morality of the order. [. . .]

I'm not an anti-military libertarian. I think it's necessary, and I think there are times when it's necessary that we use it. When used properly — to kill people and destroy infrastructure — it's marvelously good at what it does (it's not so good at building liberal societies from sand, rubble, and ethnic strife, but that's another discussion). But that is what the military is for. It's for destroying things, including large quantities of life. The values Wright so admires — and the procedures the military uses to instill those values — are emphasized because time and experience has shown that those are the values most conducive to the military's mission. Which — at risk of repeating myself — is killing people and destroying their countries.

Radley Balko, "We're All in the Army Now", Hit and Run, 2007-04-05

Pessimistic report on Britain's military

Nick Packwood rounds up all the depressing news from Britain, confirming that things are getting worse on several fronts:

I can only hope the anemic reaction of the British public to the last five years is because the British public does not understand the scope of the problem.* This LA Times (?) opinion piece explained the problem to the American public over a month ago. It has been born out by events.

The linked LA Times editorial has nice things to say about both British and Canadian military personnel, but correctly points out that both governments have been trying to do too much with too little:

Royal Navy, which is at its smallest size since the 1500s. Now, British newspapers report, of the remaining 44 warships, at least 13 and possibly as many as 19 will be mothballed. If these cuts go through, Britain's fleet will be about the same size as those of Indonesia and Turkey and smaller than that of its age-old rival, France.

Britain is hardly alone in its unilateral disarmament. A similar trend can be discerned among virtually all of the major U.S. allies, aside from Japan. Canada is a particularly poignant case in point. At the end of World War II, Canada had more than a million men under arms and operated the world's third-biggest navy (behind the U.S. and Britain), with more than 400 ships. Today, it has all of 62,000 personnel on active duty, and its navy has just 19 warships and 23 support vessels, making it one-fourth the size of the U.S. Coast Guard.

Of course, numbers aren't the entire story. Both Britain and Canada have top-notch soldiers, allowing them to punch above their weight class in military affairs. But there is only so much that a handful of super-soldiers can accomplish if their numbers are grossly inadequate. Quality can't entirely make up for lack of quantity.

In Canada's case, decades of neglect cannot be made up quickly: equipment takes time to order, build, and deploy, but it takes even longer to rebuild the units themselves. Soldiers do not wander in off civvie street today and become militarily effective tomorrow; it takes years to re-create effective battalions. Canada's military may not have years . . . the current minority government has no guarantee that it will see out the next session of parliament, never mind win a majority in a subsequent election (and it will take years of uninterrupted efforts to get the Canadian Forces back into shape).

QotD: Afghanistan

Afghanistan, for example, is officially a NATO mission to which most NATO members are contributing. But they're not contributing troops, not if by troops you mean fellows with guns who are prepared to fire them at the other side. The Continentals mostly have very circumscribed rules of engagement, which prevent them from participating in combat operations, or going out in the snow, or even after dark. So they're confined to "securing" a handful of selected sites — i.e., they're glorified night watchmen in fancier livery. When it comes to hunting down and killing the enemy, it's pretty much down to the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia (which isn't even in NATO). So much for multiculturalism. That quartet's about as unicultural as you can get, not to say, given that three of them share the same head of state, uniregal.

Mark Steyn, "Harmed Forces: In the homefront battle between militant pacifists in the East and passive militants in the West, Canada is the big loser", Western Standard, 2007-03-26

Imperial War Museum's Camouflage exhibit

From a story in The Register, the Imperial War Museum is opening a new exhibition on the story of military camouflage:

The expo website is full of references to the Cubist artists behind the French camouflage efforts of World War One, Vorticist dazzle-camo used by the Royal Navy to confuse Boche U-boat skippers, and so on. What with all the poetry that was also going on at the time, apparently World War One was quite culturally uplifting. Assuming you managed to avoid getting killed, crippled, or sent insane (and then possibly accused of cowardice and shot).

World War Two, in addition to being an even bigger global slaughterhouse, was another big opportunity for arty types. More craftily, psychological colour schemes were developed by "a large community of creative people including the architect Hugh Casson, advertising designer Ashley Havinden and Surrealist painter Roland Penrose".

Very disturbing development

Wired News has a report on a very troubling case:

As they carried out the killing of an Iraqi civilian, seven Marines and a Navy medic used their understanding of the military's airborne surveillance technology to spoof their own systems, military hearing testimony charges.

"These are people who every day deal with such things and understand how the images are gathered, as much as understand other tactical and weapons issues," says defense attorney David Brahms, who represents a Marine who's pleaded guilty to conspiracy and kidnapping in the case. "They are warriors and this is what warriors do."

Ahem. ". . . this is what warriors do". Well, no. This is what many anti-military types believe warriors do. These guys are not exemplars of "warriors". They're parties to conspiracy and murder. That is not what soldiers do. The distinction may be a bit subtle for those raised on anti-war protests and anti-military propaganda, however.

The case is remarkable for the fact that the killers nearly got away with their alleged crime right under the eye of the military's sophisticated surveillance systems. According to testimony, at least three times the warriors took deliberate, and apparently effective, measures to trick the unmanned aerial vehicles — UAVs in military parlance — that watch the ground with heat-sensitive imaging by night, and high-resolution video by day.

Technology can — and will — be abused for illegal purposes. The technology itself merely does the job . . . the morality of the action is determined by the human operators. Even the highest of high-tech devices is still subject to deliberate attempts to counteract or twist the evidence the tools can provide. This is merely the first time this has come to public attention . . . it's almost certainly not the first time it has happened.

A Red Ensign call to battle!

This is a cause I fully support:

It's the flag the Canadians carried into battle when they captured Vimy Ridge in 1917. And it's the flag that should be flying when thousands assemble at the Canadian National Vimy Memorial next month for the unveiling of the restored monument to mark the 90th anniversary of the battle, say members of a campaign to get the Red Ensign to Vimy Ridge for the ceremony.

The Red Ensign was there in 1936 when the monument was unveiled for the first time.

Ottawa resident John Heyes, a retired public servant, has been lobbying to have a version of the historic flag taken to France for the April 9 ceremony.

Mr. Heyes and Bill Bishop, a maintenance worker in Maple Ridge, B.C., who has written hundreds of letters advocating a stronger presence for the old flag, don't expect the Maple Leaf, which Canada adopted as its flag 42 years ago, to take a back seat to the Red Ensign — they think both should be flown.

Call me naive, but I'd always assumed that the Red Ensign would be flown at the ceremony . . . but respect for history has never been a strong point for Canadian governments before.

H/T to Damian for bringing it to my attention.

Update 22 March: Thank you, Stephen Harper.

Truly offensive weapons

The Register reports on the U.S. Navy's vomit ray project:

The new technology has been given an acronym, EPIC, for Electromagnetic Personnel Interdiction Control. The idea is that intense radio-frequency emissions — capable of passing through walls — would be used to temporarily disrupt the balance and coordination functions of targets' inner ears, knocking them down relatively harmlessly.

The Navy notes that "second order effects would be extreme motion sickness," suggesting that in fact the order given by future Captain Kirks may be "set phasers on 'puke'".

Oh, barf!

Accounting and the military

Jack Granatstein reveals some of the real data behind the mind-bogglingly big numbers of military contracts:

The first is something called the accrual system of accounting. In the past, Canadian governments bought a truck for $25,000 and charged that sum to a department's budget. The costs of gas, oil, and maintenance five, 10, and 20 years down the road were charged to future budgets. In accrual accounting, perhaps more reasonably, the costs of operating the truck 20 years into the future are charged to today's budget. That $25,000 truck now becomes a $125,000 charge on this year's budget funding.

This matters. Consider the four C-17s the Harper government has agreed to buy. Each of the huge transports costs about $250-million. The accrual cost, again in round numbers, is $4-billion. Many Canadians remain unaware of the change in accounting methodology, and government rules (or practice) do not appear to permit explanation. So a $1-billion purchase of necessary equipment appears to many as a $4-billion boondoggle. It's not, but it's a hard sell for all of us whose eyes glaze over at the mention of accountants' rules. The answer, of course, is to explain defence purchases (and purchases in every other government department, as well) by making it clear that the total lifetime package is included in the announced sum.

Part of the difficulty in grasping this is that most of us, in our private lives, do not do anything of the sort in our own household budgets . . . we think of the sticker price of your car as "the cost", ignoring the finance costs of a car loan, the regular maintenance, the insurance, the license stickers, and all the other sundry other costs of car ownership. If we did think in this way, we'd all be much more careful in how we spent our money!

The other part of the problem is that the information is presented in the media as if a line of Brinks trucks were taking money from all the "good" areas the government also funds and physically moving all those loonies in through the gates of CFB Boondoggle and handing them over to General Simon Legree.

Royal Navy still plumping for Windows

As reported here back in 2004, the Royal Navy's next generation of destroyers, the Type 45 class, will run a customized version of Microsoft Windows, dubbed Windows for Warships:

Those acquainted with the more foam-lipped Linux fanciers will also be familiar with the position that Windows use is morally corrupt, indicative of sexual perversion, and causes cancer.

A lot of customers keep buying from Microsoft, however. One may want to deploy a particular kind of hardware, perhaps used only by a few organisations. It may well be that you can only get the associated software from the hardware maker, and the vendor in question doesn't provide anything other than Windows-based machines.

One type of hardware where this is happening more and more is warships.

I still think Jon's comment from 2004 is appropriate: "It kind of makes sense, you know. Some wanker at the ministry fired up a Windows box, found the Minesweeper game and realized they could get rid of all those pesky real ships."

Canadians in Afghanistan, via The Economist

A positive — one might even say warm-fuzzy — post on the Canadian contribution to the fight against the Taliban, from The Economist:

The deployment in Afghanistan is a much bigger deal for Canada than it is for the Americans or the Brits. The Canadians stormed the beaches of Normandy on D-Day, but for most of the past 50 years they turned themselves into the ultimate "soft" power, deploying their soldiers mainly for peacekeeping.

In Kandahar they have gone back to being a fighting force, and have lost more than 40 lives in the process.

If the Brits have been having a hard time in Helmand, it is the Canadians in Kandahar province who fought the decisive battle of Nato's war so far, leading a brigade-sized assault on Taliban positions in the Panjwayi valley last autumn.

The Canadians are the first contingent to bring main battle tanks to Afghanistan. The French-speaking men of the Vandoos regiment in Panjwayi look even bigger and meaner than the Royal Marines in Kajaki.

The operation is hugely controversial at home. A Canadian Senate report this month said: "Anyone expecting to see the emergence in Afghanistan within the next several decades of a recognisable modern democracy capable of delivering justice and amenities to its people is dreaming in Technicolor."

Yet among the soldiers there is a sense of relief at getting rid of the blue helmets and white paint from their armoured vehicles. There is even some macho mocking of the Dutch in the neighbouring province of Uruzgan: "Wooden shoes, wouldn't shoot," they quip.

HMS Intrepid to be scrapped (again)

The assault ship HMS Intrepid, one of the Royal Navy veterans of the Falklands war is being consigned to the scrapyard for the second time:

One of the Falklands war's doughtiest fighters, HMS Intrepid, is to be dismantled, 25 years after she was first saved from the scrapheap and four months from the 25th anniversary of the islands' liberation.

HMS Intrepid, which was launched in 1964, should have been taken out of service in 1982, but was reprieved in the nick of time to join the Royal Navy Task Force ordered to liberate the islands from Argentine invaders. The assault ship played a significant role in the conflict and served another 17 years in Her Majesty's Fleet before being decommissioned in 1999.

The Ministry of Defence announced yesterday that HMS Intrepid would be "recycled", the modern, environmentally friendly term for scrapping a ship. Leavesley International, a British company, has been chosen to cut up the ship, and those components that can be recycled, such as the anchor chain and the steel hull, will be reused. Some items will be sold as souvenirs.

To be honest, I'm astonished that the ship stayed in service as long as she did: I'd rather assumed that she'd been scrapped years ago. More information at the MOD website.

Terminator in the air

This link was posted at Samizdata: a Sukhoi SU-37 Terminator in flight. Very impressive indeed.

QotD: The next Foreign Legion?

The prestige of soldiering in the United States is being annihilated by American virtues: high social mobility, low unemployment and infinite possibilities for the young. Because of the same virtues, hundreds risk their lives every day just to physically enter the bounds of the U.S. If they were asked to face similar hazards on behalf of the American cause, in exchange for English-language instruction and access to genuine American citizenship, the queue would girdle the globe.

Some find the idea of recruiting "American" soldiers in Mexico or India distasteful. The concept has already inspired talk of "blood money" and "coercion" of the world's poor. And foreign military recruitment is dangerous to national security in the long run, as the Romans (and the French) discovered. But for the U.S., there is no other way out of the immediate dilemma. Sooner or later, under one name or another, there will be an American Foreign Legion.

Colby Cosh, "Does America need a Foreign Legion?", National Post, 2006-12-29

How not to land your expensive plane

Some interesting photos from the recovery efforts after a wheels-up landing of a B-1B "Lancer" from the highly idiosyncratic website of the Provisional Peoples' Democratic Republic of Diego Garcia:

H/T to "John the Mc".

A French "crotch rocket"

Craig Zeni sent along a URL which might interest the Armorer or others with odd tastes in things military: a post-WW2 French military vehicle.

Praise for Canadian military equipment

While it's rare for Canadian troops abroad to attract much in the way of media attention — even from Canadian media outlets — here is an article discussing how well the Canadian troops are doing, equipment-wise, compared to British troops:

On the other hand, yesterday, we read reports of yet another Royal Marine being killed (the 42nd British servicemen to die in Afghanistan) and one injured, but this time in what amounts to a conventional attack. The casualties arose when UK troops mounted an offensive on a Taliban-held valley, attacking the village of Garmser. Despite being elite troops, however, backed by airstrikes and artillery fire during the 10-hour battle, they were forced to withdraw after the Taliban launched a ferocious counter-attack with heavy weapons and tried to outflank the British troops.

Here, though, the Canadians — who have scored so well by using RG-31 blast protected vehicles for their patrols — are again ahead of the game. Having been fully committed to offensive operations throughout the summer, they have learnt from their experiences and introduced Leopard tanks into the equation. On the other hand, the British — with theoretically a more experienced, elite cadre of troops — are committing what is in fact light infantry to a conventional attack, without armoured support. They are perhaps forgetting that the tank, in its original inception, was an infantry support weapon.

What emerges from this is that, effectively, we need two armies — one capable of fighting an entirely conventional war and the other specifically equipped to fight insurgents in a mainly urban environment.

H/T to Johnathan Pearce at Samizdata.

Non-trivial, indeed

Damian "Babbling" Brooks asked me to call attention to this post at The Torch:

Why don't ordinary Canadians know much about this intensely valuable and important work? Well, partly because the government has done a lacklustre job telling the public about it, as the MND recently admitted. Luckily, they're now working to correct that course of action.

But you can't put it all on the government, either. Here's a stat that might surprise you as well: since January 16th of this year, 175 journalists from 37 different media outlets have embedded with the CF in Afghanistan. How many stories have you seen about the KPRT — other than from the BBC? Now, how many ramp ceremonies have you seen?

Mourning the deaths of our soldiers is important, let there be no doubt. But even a couple of folks within the media think that the balance of coverage has swung too far in that particular direction.

Please do read the whole post.

Casualty rates

Jon sent me a link to this article at TCS Daily, discussing the long term casuaty rates the American military has sustained in various conflicts:

In the full sweep of U.S history, from the commencement of the Revolution on Lexington Green in April 1775, until the sunny morning of September 11, 2001, our average daily sacrifice [during major wars] has been between 14 and 15 military fatalities (1,217,000 fatalities/83,461 days = 14.6/day). Since 9/11, the average daily sacrifice has been 1.7 per day (3200/1900=1.68).

From the Revolutionary War until the American entry into World War I, the average daily rate was about 11 per day (578,000/52,231=11.07). From World War I through the break up of the Soviet Union, the rate was over 16 per day (636,000/38,811=16.39). Or in our long running confrontation with Soviet communism following World War II until the collapse of the Soviet empire, the rate was over between 6 and 7 per day (112,400/16,892=6.65).

As things stand, the conflict with Islamic radicalism involves the lowest average daily military fatality rate of any long run national security era. It may worsen, it may improve. If Congress had been asked on September 12, 2001, to endorse a national defense posture against Islamic radicalism that traded up to 2 military fatalities per day over the subsequent five years in return for no additional homeland attacks, the deposing of terror friendly regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, the ending of Libya's nuclear program, what would they have done? Would Congress accept that bargain today?

It's particularly gruesome to discuss any such thing as an "acceptable" casualty rate, but that is, as Philip O'Connor's article titles it, "The Human Calculus of National Security". Even in peacetime, there are military casualties, although they rarely are considered "newsworthy". Serving in the armed forces — of any nation — increases your chance of injury or death, whether in peacetime or wartime. Pretending that this isn't so does not make it true.

SF Mil-Tech now

Committees of Correspondence has a linkulacious post up about chameleonic camouflage technology (or, for the more SF-oriented, a personal cloaking device). If something like that works, it'll be a huge advance for the PBI. But some things that work brilliantly in the lab or on the testing range never pan out on the field of battle.

In memorium

A simple recognition of some of our family members who served in the First and Second World Wars:

The Great War

• Private William Penman, Scots Guards, died 1915 at Le Touret, age 25
  (Elizabeth's great uncle)
• Private David Buller, Highland Light Infantry, died 1915 at Loos, age 35
  (Elizabeth's great grandfather)
• Private Walter Porteous, Northumberland Fusiliers, died 1917 at Passchendaele, age 18
  (my great uncle)
• Corporal John Mulholland, Royal Tank Corps, died 1918 at Harbonnieres, age 24
  (Elizabeth's great uncle)

The Second World War

• Flying Officer Richard Porteous, RAF, survived the defeat in Malaya and lived through the war
  (my uncle)
• Able Seaman John Penman, RN, served in the "Destroyer Equipped Merchant" fleet on the Murmansk Run (and other convoy routes), lived through the war
  (Elizabeth's father)
• Private Archie Black (commissioned after the war and retired as a Major), Gordon Highlanders, captured at Singapore (aged 15) and survived a Japanese POW camp
  (Elizabeth's uncle)

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918)

Castle Argghhh remembers the Charge of the Light Brigade

The Armorer has a good post up about the Charge of the Light Brigade, which took place on this date in 1854. For a more irreverant view of the battle, you can't beat George Macdonald Fraser's Flashman at the Charge, which does a great job of illustrating just how amateurish and incompetent the British leadership was . . . and how even with all of that, it still took a great deal of inter-personal blundering to make the Charge happen.

Update: Good God! There's even a Wikipedia entry for Flashman at the Charge!

Army overstretch

As is already fairly well known, the army is having trouble handling all the work the government has handed it. The Afghanistan commitment, in particular, could use more troops . . . but there aren't enough to send more. Casualties are mounting (always a shock to people outside the military), and the Taliban refuse to roll over and blow away.

Sound familiar? It should, as Canada's much-shrunken armed forces try to shoulder a vastly increased overseas workload. Except this is about the British army (subscriber-only link, I'm afraid):

Over the past seven years, the government has given the armed forces less while asking them to do more. After a decade of stinging cuts, defence spending has stayed fairly steady since 2004 at around £32 billion ($60 billion), or 2.5% of GDP. Given the heavy burden of operations, and the fact that the Treasury never quite reimburses the armed services for the men and machinery they wear out, this amounts to dwindling resources.

According to the latest deep strategic think, which was carried out in 2003, British forces should be able to conduct two medium (or brigade-sized) operations, only one of which involves significant combat, as well as one smaller operation. Instead they are fighting wars in Afghanistan and in Iraq, where Britain has over 7,000 troops, including a divisional headquarters. They are also keeping peace in Kosovo, with 900 soldiers, and in Northern Ireland. And when short-term needs arise, such as the evacuation of British citizens from Lebanon last month, the armed services have to meet them. "Can we cope?" asked the new army chief, General Sir Richard Dannatt, in an interview with the Guardian newspaper this month. "I pause. I say 'just'."

Without emergency measures — which might include cancelling training, leave and retirements — the armed forces, and especially the army, could make no telling contribution to another mission — for the United Nations in Lebanon, for example, or in Darfur. Indeed, the army would struggle to fill the breach during a hearty firemen's strike. As for the badly-needed reserve for Afghanistan, even if sufficient British infantrymen could be found (maybe from Northern Ireland), helicopters, intelligence experts, engineers and logisticians would still be lacking.

QotD: Celtic Military History

Speaking as a Celt, the dominating theme in Celtic military tradition is that on our own we lose, unless the other side are also Celts or from some group kept isolated from the main stream of human civilization for thousands of years (It's not so much the tech gap as the lack of immunity). This goes back to the Pre-Christian era, when an ambitious Celtic war leader could successfully get more of his own side killed in one battle than died in Hiroshima. The reasons why we lose are twofold: as a group, we totally suck at organised warfare and as a group, we sure don't like to learn from experience. The glorification of losers in Celtic folklore doesn't work to our advantage and neither does our delusion that we have any kind of military genius*, despite two thousand years of evidence pointing the other way. In my opinion, Celts should stick to engineering and economics (Or singing and dancing if they are no good at math).

* MacArthur is a good example: even with ample warning, he got surprised by the Japanese in the Philippines. Later in Korea, he managed to get China to intervene. He is considered a great Celtic officer mainly because his head never ended up on the end of a stick and I'm sure Truman considered it.

James Nicoll, posting to the Lois McMaster Bujold mailing list, 2006-09-06

How not to treat your new $135m airplane

A software glitch is reported to be the cause of this expensive little time waster:

Trapped F-22 Pilot Cut Free

Raptor canopy stuck in down and locked position sawn open by fire crew after 5h.

A fire crew had to cut open the canopy of a US Air Force Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor fighter with chainsaws on 10 April to free the pilot, who had been trapped inside for 5h.

Final flight of the US Navy's F-14 Tomcat

A narrated slideshow on the last flight of the iconic US Navy fighter.

Real nape-of-the-earth flying

A very interesting video clip of South African Mirage fighters flying low to the ground, at OPFOR.

Graf Zeppelin wreck located

The Polish navy believes they have located the wreck of the World War II German aircraft carrier Graf Zeppelin:

"We are 99 percent sure — even 99.9 percent — that these details point unambiguously to the Graf Zeppelin," said Dariusz Beczek, the Navy commander of the vessel, the ORP Arctowski, said soon after returning to port Thursday morning after the two-day expedition.

During their time at sea, naval experts used a remote-controlled underwater robot and sonar photographic and video equipment to gather digital images of the 850-foot-long ship, Zajda said.

"The analyses of the sonar pictures and the comparison to historical documents show that it is the Graf Zeppelin," Zajda told The Associated Press. [. . .]

The Graf Zeppelin was Germany's only aircraft carrier during World War II. It was launched on Dec. 8, 1938, but never saw action. After Germany's defeat in 1945, the Soviet Union took control of the ship, but it was last seen in 1947 and since then the ship's fate has been shrouded in mystery.

So who is being gamed here?

The Register has some interesting Google Earth images to share:

Chinese black helicopters circle Google Earth
Those among you who like your skies darkened by black helicopters are invited to mosey on down to the remote Chinese village of Huangyangtan which hosts what must be the strangest military installation ever spotted by the Google Earth Community . . .

QotD: Limits to military power

Suffice it to say that I think [the Green Lantern's power ring] makes an okay premise for a comic book. But a lot of people seem to think that American military might is like one of these power rings. They seem to think that, roughly speaking, we can accomplish absolutely anything in the world through the application of sufficient military force. The only thing limiting us is a lack of willpower.

What's more, this theory can't be empirically demonstrated to be wrong. Things that you or I might take as demonstrating the limited utility of military power to accomplish certain kinds of things are, instead, taken as evidence of lack of will. Thus we see that problems in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't reasons to avoid new military ventures, but reasons why we must embark upon them: "Add a failure in Iran to a failure in Iraq to a failure in Afghanistan, and we could supercharge Islamic radicalism in a way never before seen. The widespread and lethal impression of American weakness under the Clinton administration, which did so much to energize bin Ladenism in the 1990s, could look like the glory years of American power compared to what the Bush administration may leave in its wake."

Matthew Yglesias, "The Green Lantern Theory of Geopolitics", TPMCafe, 2006-07-10

Religious discrimination or bureaucracy as usual

Jon sent a couple of links on this story: a US soldier was killed on active service, but the Veteran's Administration refuses to allow his grave marker to carry his religious affiliation. The Washington Post sums it up here:

At the Veterans Memorial Cemetery in the small town of Fernley, Nev., there is a wall of brass plaques for local heroes. But one space is blank. There is no memorial for Sgt. Patrick D. Stewart.

That's because Stewart was a Wiccan, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has refused to allow a symbol of the Wicca religion — a five-pointed star within a circle, called a pentacle — to be inscribed on U.S. military memorials or grave markers.

The department has approved the symbols of 38 other faiths; about half of are versions of the Christian cross. It also allows the Jewish Star of David, the Muslim crescent, the Buddhist wheel, the Mormon angel, the nine-pointed star of Bahai and something that looks like an atomic symbol for atheists.

While it's quite likely that there would be some resistance to putting a Wiccan symbol on a grave marker or official memorial, I think the real reason for this is sheer bureaucratic inertia and/or incompetence. If the US Army can list the name of the faith on the soldier's dogtags, they can accept the use of the religious symbol on the grave or monument. I think the VA is just doing what massive bureaucracies do all the time . . . delaying making a decision until there is no risk of them being blamed.

QotD: First Day of the Somme

The casualties sustained on the opening day of the Battle of the Somme totalled 57,470, of which 19,240 were fatal. The Newfoundland Regiment Battalion ration strength on June 30, 1916, was 1044 all ranks, including administrative staff and attached personnel. Actual fighting strength was about 929 all ranks, of whom twenty six officers and 772 other ranks deployed into the trenches. A further officer and 33 other ranks were attached to the Brigade Mortar and Machine Gun Companies while 14 officers and 83 other ranks were held back as reserve and for special duties.

So far as can be ascertained, 22 officers and 758 other ranks were directly involved in the advance. Of these, all the officers and slightly under 658 other ranks became casualties, but exact figures are not available as casualties were reported for the day as a whole. Of the 780 men who went forward only about 110 survived unscathed, of whom only sixty eight were available for roll call the following day. The Battalion's War Diary on July 7 states that on July 1 the overall casualties for the Battalion were 14 officers and 296 other ranks killed, died of wounds or missing believed killed, and that 12 officers and 362 other ranks were wounded, a total of 684 all ranks out of a fighting strength of about 929. About 14 of the wounded subsequently died from their wounds. Afterward, the Divisional Commander was to write of the Newfoundlanders effort: "It was a magnificent display of trained and disciplined valour, and its assault failed of success because dead men can advance no further."

"Beaumont-Hamel Newfoundland Memorial", Veteran's Affairs Canada

Canadian navy to get supply ships

The Canadian government is going to go ahead with the purchase of three new support ships to replace HMCS Protecteur and HMCS Preserver, the 1960's era steamships:

The federal government will proceed with a $2.1-billion plan to acquire three naval supply ships, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor announced Monday.

He made the announcement on the hangar deck of one of the navy's frigates — HMCS St. John's.

Four consortiums are bidding on the program, which was started under the previous Liberal government.

Irving Shipbuilding, ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AG, BAE Systems Ltd. and SNC Lavalin ProFac Inc. all expressed interest in building the 28,000-tonne vessels, which are meant to replace the navy's 1960s vintage support ships.

The winning bidder will also receive an $800-million contract to provide support and maintenance throughout the life of the ships.

This will be very welcome news to the navy: the glamour vessels may be the ones that fire the armament, but the real workhorses of the navy are the ones that replenish, refuel, and rearm the fighting ships. If you can't do that, your navy is less than half as effective as it could be.

JTF 2 awarded Presidential Citation

A link from Castle Argghhh! alerted me to the news that the JTF 2, Canada's special forces/counter-terrorism unit, has been awarded a Presidential Citation for work in Afghanistan:

The Canadian Forces unit (CF) Joint Task Force Two (JTF 2) was presented with the United States Presidential Unit Citation from the United States Ambassador to Canada in a ceremony today. JTF 2 received the citation for its outstanding contribution to the multi-national Special Operations Forces task force in Afghanistan in 2002.

"This presentation of the United States Presidential Unit Citation serves to recognize the outstanding work and contribution of all members of JTF 2," said Minister of National Defence, Gordon O'Connor. "This unit continues to play a pivotal role in the safety and security of Canadians at home and abroad through its efforts in the campaign against terrorism."

"JTF 2 has proven to be a significant enhancement to our combat forces in the campaign against terrorism," said Chief of the Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier. "This recognition, one of few publicly recognized events we've had due to the unit's counter-terrorism role, serves to highlight the significant impact that JTF 2 continues to have on behalf of all Canadians and our allies."

More on the Haditha massacre

Jon sent along a link to this Hot Air round-up of information on the investigation into the murders in Haditha:

The Times says three or four Marines are suspected of carrying out the killings with several more facing charges of having covered it up or done nothing while the shooting was going on.

The rest of today's coverage follows two tracks. One is devoted to showing how tough the Marines have had it in Haditha. This AP story paints it as the equal of any snakepit in Iraq; Zarqawi is rumored to have lived there, and voter turnout for last year's constitutional referendum was estimated at 150 out of a city of 90,000. So hard is it, in fact, that Knight-Ridder's Iraq correspondent reported last August — three months before the alleged massacre — that some of the Marine officers stationed there worried that their men might crack. Editor & Publisher reprinted the article today.

Canadian military hardware wish-list

There's a good round-up of the Canadian Forces' hardware wish list posted at Daimnation. It includes a link to this Chris Wattie article:

Defence sources say Gordon O'Connor, the Defence Minister, will make a pitch to a Cabinet committee tomorrow for six major projects worth more than $8-billion.

[. . .] At the top of Mr. O'Connor's list will be four new C-17 Globemaster cargo jets, which the sources said would be bought directly from the U.S. manufacturer, Boeing, in a "sole source" acquisition.

Long overdue. Not necessarily these particular planes, but creating a long-range, heavy-lift "organic" component. This sort of thing can be supplemented by rentals of foreign aircraft as needed, but for the kind of missions Canada has taken on over the last few years, it's incredible that it's taken this long just to get to the formal proposal stage.

The government will also be asked to approve the purchase of 17 tactical transports — smaller, propeller-driven aircraft that can land troops or cargo in remote, rough airstrips. The likely winner of that contract will be the C-130J, the latest model of the venerable Hercules now in service with the Canadian air force.

These will probably be coming on line just as the oldest of the current Herc fleet are ready to be retired. If the tender goes to the current most likely winner, the air force will be happy. However, the competing manufacturer's agents are very busy trying to sell their alternative solution by dangling a fair bit of domestic off-sets (especially in Quebec). Let's all just hope that (if the politically expedient option is chosen instead) the Airbus A400M will be a capable aircraft. When it gets airborne.

Mr. O'Connor is also proposing to buy as many as 20 new heavy-lift helicopters for the army and a total of 18 new search-and-rescue planes.

It must be galling for the current Canadian deployment to Afghanistan . . . they're depending on the Dutch for use of Chinook heavy-lift helicopter support. Chinooks which used to belong to the Canadian Forces.

The army is to get a replacement for its 24-year-old logistics trucks, while the navy will get approval for its three new joint-support ships, a combination troopship and resupply vessel due to be built over the next five years, the sources said.

The new ships for the navy will be an interesting development. As Mark C. points out in his post at Daimnation:

I smell a fix here. In return for the JSS (at least most of them) being built in Canada (hang the added expense and delays, politics is politics), when the government gets around to the amphibious assault ship it may consider an off-shore purchase. The Dutch have a nifty example but there are several other possible sources (France, UK, US, Italy — the last is the un-Canadian "hybrid" aircraft carrier that the Liberals so misleadingly and viciously attacked in the 2004 election).

It will be fascinating to see whether the Defence Minister can get cabinet to go ahead with this plan.

Captain Goddard to be buried at the National Memorial Cemetary

Captain Nichola Goddard, who died in action in Afghanistan last week, is to be buried in Ottawa's National Memorial Cemetary, according to this report in the Globe and Mail:

The cemetery, within sight of the Parliament buildings, was established in 2001 at the urging of Gen. Romeo Dallaire, now a senator, who believed that Canada needed something equivalent to the American military burial grounds at Arlington, Va.

To date few soldiers killed in combat have been buried there, military historian Jack Granatstein said Tuesday.

"I think this is where people who are killed in action, killed overseas, should be buried," said Mr. Granatstein, former director of the Canadian War Museum.

Capt. Goddard, 26, died May 17 near Kandahar in a Taliban ambush. She was the 16th Canadian soldier to be killed in Afghanistan. All the others have been buried in their hometowns.

Her funeral will be held Friday at St. Barnabas Anglican Church in Calgary, where she married Jason Beam in 2002.

Hat tip to NealeNews.

Uniform humour

Damian "Babbling" Brooks has some good-natured fun with the US Air Force's proposed new uniform:

I'm not sure the USAF wants its full-dress uniform to be a carbon-copy of a First-Year Canadian Officer Cadet's semi-dress uniform. But hey, if they do, at least it will give me something else to razz them about.

I'll even send a few of them chinstraps for their wedges. Nothing says dominant world airpower like a chinstrap.

A possible answer . . .

. . . to the question of why we have troops in Afghanistan:

"Then he turned to me and said, 'Please excuse their staring. They are just very surprised that you are a woman working with all of these men. I have told them that you climbed over the mountain with us with your heavy bag and that you had no problems. They think that you must be very strong. I explained to them that you are just like the men, and that you can do everything that they can do the same as them.' "

Goddard added: "It was perhaps the greatest statement of equality that I have ever heard — and it was given by a Pakistani-raised, Afghan male in the middle of an Afghan village that is only accessible by a five km walk up a mountain. It just goes to show that anything is possible and that stereotypes are