Feral Jundi

Friday, April 10, 2009

Industry Talk: David Isenberg’s Final Dogs of War Column

Filed under: Industry Talk — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 5:12 PM

    This sucks, and I really enjoyed reading David’s stuff.  He has done so much for furthering the discussion about our industry, and there will certainly be a void.  I hope he continues to throw out a Dogs of War style story every once in awhile.  So here is the last story. –Matt 

—————————————————————– 

Dogs of War: Lions and contractors and robots. Oh my!

Published: April 10, 2009 at 9:00 AM

By DAVID ISENBERG

WASHINGTON, April 10 (UPI) — This is my final Dogs of War column. Since starting in January 2008, I have covered many different aspects of private military and security contracting, but they have been only a small portion of the total number of issues worth examining.

Like any other issue, there is good and bad news when it comes to contractors doing work that once upon a time people could only conceive of the government doing.

The good news is that despite the often-superficial coverage of the issue, people recognize that the use of contractors is not going away. So rather than wasting time complaining about it, people are dealing with it.

For example, the Obama administration has launched a campaign to change government contracting. In February it introduced a set of “reforms” designed to reduce state spending on private-sector providers of military security, intelligence and other critical services and return certain outsourced work back to government.

Note I wrote “return certain outsourced work back to government.” That is not mere semantics. The Obama administration seems to recognize that contractors are now the American Express card; one does not go to war or do “contingency operations,” to use the favored government euphemism, without them. And if it doesn’t, it will certainly realize it as it conducts its own surge of U.S. military forces to Afghanistan.

(more…)

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Film: Hollywood Attacks the PMC Industry–War Inc., 24 and the Movie State of Play

Filed under: Film — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 8:28 PM

   Disappointing news about ’24’, and I am sure the fans are crushed. Please write in and voice your displeasure with this crap.  And adding Janeane Garofalo to the cast?  What in god’s name were you guys thinking?  I guess they really wanted to kill the show, because that is a great way to do it.

   As for the movie State of Play, who knows how that will turn out.  But obviously Hollywood is in bash PMC’s mode, and to me, that is an extremely tired and way overplayed theme in today’s cookie cutter film industry.  

     How’s this for a unique idea… make a cutting edge movie that actually supports the concept of PMC’s and shows them saving the day for once? Now that would be some interesting film making, because it would actually take some courage to make.  Or you guys could continue to be cowards and take the easy way out with these poorly made and poorly received, PMC bashing flicks. Pffft.

    And what really kills me, is where is the profit motive for making these types of flicks?  I have yet to hear of a ‘PMC bashing flick’ that has been successful.  For example, here is the Wikipedia on War Inc., an absolutely terrible film that did not do well at all. –Mudeer  

—————————————————————- 

Critical reception of War Inc. (Wikipedia)

    War, Inc. received generally negative reviews from critics. As of May 24, 2008, the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported that 30 percent of critics gave the film positive reviews, based on 34 reviews — with the consensus that the film “attempts to satirize the military industrial complex, but more often than not it misses its target.”Metacritic reported the film had an average score of 37 out of 100, based on 21 reviews.

Box office performance

(more…)

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

History: The Q Ship, and How They Could Be Used To Battle Pirates

Filed under: History,Maritime Security,Somalia — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 8:40 PM

   Ok, here is one idea for battling these pirates.  Set up some Q Ships off the coast of Somalia, with the hopes of drawing out some pirates, and either nab them or kill them.  You make the ship look juicy enough, and these pirates will go after it.  The Navy could just lease a few different boats, and cycle them through those areas, all with the intent of drawing out these guys.  We used this tactic back in the day, until the U boat commanders started catching on.  

   My thoughts on it, is that the Navy could use the concept by leasing boats from the shipping industry to do it.  If a boat gets shot up a little, or an RPG hits the big things, the Navy could totally repair the boat, as per the lease agreement.  The shipping company could also have some kind of incentive to lease out to the Navy for putting up a boat, like some kind of insurance discount, tax credit, or just pay really well for the thing.  Even the little yachts out there could be used, and the imagination is the only limit.  The point being, is that boat should look like a really juicy target for the pirates, and then strike when they get close.

   Or as a business venture, a Private Naval Company could offer their services for building a Q Ship.  They could buy boats, modify them, paint them up a little based on the customer preference, and then hand them off to the Navy.  I don’t think the Navy would want a PNC to do it all, but their is a precedent for it in a way, with the Q Ships during the WW 1 and 2 and with privateers.  I am sure privateers back in the early days did all sorts of sneaky things to capture their prey, and using a Q Ship was probably one of them (or whatever they called it back then) Bring on the Q Ships! –Matt   

—————————————————————— 

The USS Anacapa

Q-ship

     Q-ships, also known as Q-boats, Decoy Vessels, Special Service Ships or Mystery Ships, were heavily armed merchant ships with concealed weaponry, designed to lure submarines into making surface attacks. This gave Q-ships the chance to open fire and sink them. The basic ethos of every Q-ship was to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

     They were used by the British Royal Navy (RN) during World War I and by both the RN and the United States Navy during the Second World War (1939–1945), as a countermeasure against German U-boats and Japanese submarines.

     In the First Battle of the Atlantic, by 1915, Britain was in desperate need of a countermeasure against the U-boats that were strangling her sea-lanes. Convoys, which had proven effective in earlier times (and would again prove effective during World War II), were rejected by the resource-strapped Admiralty and the independent captains. The depth charges of the time were very primitive, and thus the only method of sinking a submarine was by gunfire or by ramming while on the surface. The problem was luring the U-boat to the surface.

     One solution to this problem was the creation of the Q-ship, one of the most closely-guarded secrets of the war. Their codename referred to the vessels’ home port, Queenstown, in Ireland[1]. These would be known to the Germans as a U-Boot-Falle (“U-boat trap”). The Q-ship would pose as an easy target for the U-boat but in fact carry hidden armament. A typical Q-ship would be an old-looking tramp steamer calmly sailing alone near an area where a U-boat was reported to be operating. By posing as a suitable target for the use of the U-boat’s deck gun, the Q-ship would encourage the U-boat captain to bring his vessel to the surface rather than use one of his expensive torpedoes, which were in short supply. The cargoes of the Q-ships would be wooden caskets and wood (e.g., balsa or cork) so even if torpedoed they would stay afloat, encouraging the U-boat to surface and use its gun. If necessary the crew could even stage an “abandon ship” routine. Once the U boat was in a suitable position the Q-ship would change rapidly, false panels would drop to reveal the hidden guns which would start firing. At the same time the White Ensign (Royal Navy flag) would be raised. With the element of surprise the U-boat could be quickly overwhelmed.

(more…)

Maritime Security: The Pathetic Non-Action of Today’s Shipping Industry Off the Coast of Africa

Filed under: Africa,Maritime Security,Somalia — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 8:20 PM

   If you are the owner of a shipping company, and your ship’s routes go anywhere near Africa, then you should be hiring armed security to protect your ships and crews.  To not defend your boats, is pathetic and damn near criminal.  I say criminal, because you are purposely sending people into harms way, without giving them adequate protection.  It is stupid and this is not taking care of your people.  What this is called, is putting more value on money and minimizing liability, and putting zero value on the lives of your crew, and that is criminal in my book. The security companies and consultants that continue to promote the concept of ‘no weapons’ on ships, are pathetic as well. It is terrible advice and it is not protecting these crews and boats, and it is advice that only caters to the financial goals of these companies. Ship captains need to speak up as well, because your crew is depending on you to do everything in your power to protect them.

   The only winner in this whole deal, are the pirates.  They have completely exploited this weakness in the shipping industry, and the ineffectual maritime strategy.  They are thumbing their noses at us all, and I see them continuing their wonderful business strategy.  It works, and they are making some good money–why should they stop? pffft. 

   I also believe the current maritime strategy to combat these pirates, is completely lacking.  What good is naval security, when it is 100’s of miles away?  What naval strategist thought that this was an adequate method of protection?  It would be like sending a principle out in his car in the worst areas of Iraq, with no PSD team, and telling him to call when he is in trouble. I wouldn’t do this on the roads of Iraq, and I wouldn’t do this off the coast of Somalia.  The Gulf of Aden is clearly dangerous, and certainly requires armed security on each boat.  If anything, the security on each boat could allow enough time during the fight, for a Quick Reaction Force to come to the rescue.  That’s if a naval QRF force could close the distance fast enough.  But really, how embarrassing if this is the best strategy folks can come up with?  

   Either way, both the naval strategy and the shipping company strategy is not working, and the pirates are still able to do their thing.  Put a fully armed Maritime Security Detail on each boat and make this happen.  And if there are issues with being armed while going through various country’s waters, then post a ship in international waters that can fly these MSD teams on to the boats when the time is right.    

   And these MSD teams should be adequately armed and trained to handle this stuff.  That means having something bigger than a Glock 19 or a smoke grenade on the boat.  I am talking about something that has reach and can sink a boat.  Do the math, and let your imagination go with it.  I have mentioned several weapon possibilities, and the time is over for messing around.  How many more boats and crews are we going to allow to be taken by these clowns?  Pathetic I say. –Matt 

——————————————————————

Somali pirates find US ship _ and a fight

By CHARLES J. HANLEY 

04/08/09

The equatorial sun had just passed high noon Wednesday when a text message flashed on reporters’ cell phones in Nairobi: 17,000-ton boxship seized 400 miles off Somali coast.

The informants, a local Kenyan seamen’s group, then added this startling note: All 20 crewmen were American.

The tropical seas off Somalia had grown treacherous with pirates in recent years. In 2008, the seaborne marauders stormed and seized a record number of commercial vessels, a giant Saudi supertanker among them, though never an American crew.

The high-seas hijackings, generating tens of millions of dollars in ransoms for the pirates, had eased off early this year, as a U.S.-led international naval force aggressively patrolled the Gulf of Aden. When they managed to mount attacks, the Somali pirates were left in ships’ wakes, foiled nine out of 10 times.

It was a lull during which Shane Murphy, a veteran of east African sea lanes as first mate of the U.S.-flagged freighter Maersk Alabama, returned home to talk to a class at his alma mater about this 21st-century scourge.

He told the Massachusetts Maritime Academy students he thought the pirates “knew better than to go against the American ships,” one recalled.

(more…)

Monday, April 6, 2009

Industry Talk: Pentagon Seeks to Dump Contractors for 30,000 New Workers

Filed under: Government Work,Industry Talk — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 9:47 PM

  Cool.  More jobs for folks.  The key now, is for the government to be able to hang on to these new civil servants, or suffer the same fate as the poor companies that treat their people like crap or have poor management.  And if the government does not pay a fair wage for these positions, then they will have a tough time filling some of this stuff.  But like I said, this is great news for those that need jobs.

   As for the war related jobs, I just don’t see a major shift.  In fact, security contractors will probably be in more of a demand, as the war expands in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Africa, as well as maintains itself in Iraq over the coming years.  –Matt

——————————————————————    

Pentagon seeks to dump contractors for 30,000 new workers

By Christopher Hinton

Last update: 4:02 p.m. EDT April 6, 2009

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — The Pentagon wants to hire 13,000 new civil sernvants in 2010, with plans to hire as many as 30,000 new workers over the next five years, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said Monday. “Under this budget request, we will reduce the number of support service contractors from our current 39% of the workforce to the pre-2001 level of 26%, and replace them with full-time government employees,” Gates said. Military suppliers have seen a windfall of contracts from the military since 2001 to provide services such as security, translation, logistics, and technical training. 

Story Here

 

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress