Saturday, November 6, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Military News: British Military Expands Links To French Allies
Wow, this is interesting. I won’t say much, because I really don’t have a good feel on how both sides feel about this. Or how this impacts each nation’s psyche when their defenses are so closely tied to another country’s defense. I mean it is pragmatic, and helps increase the defensive or offensive capabilities of each country. But what happens when France wants to use a British asset for something that Britain wants no part in? Or when the politics change in each country, how will something like this last? –Matt
British Military Expands Links to French Allies
November 2, 2010
By JOHN F. BURNS
LONDON — Britain and France signed defense agreements on Tuesday that promised cooperation far beyond anything achieved previously in 60 years of NATO cooperation, including the creation of a joint expeditionary force, shared use of aircraft carriers and combined efforts to improve the safety and effectiveness of their nuclear weapons.
The agreements signed in London by Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France were a landmark of another kind for two nations that spent centuries confronting each other on the battlefields of Europe. While neither leader mentioned Agincourt, Trafalgar or Waterloo, or French victories that included the Norman Conquest in 1066, both stirred a brief whiff of the troubled history of Anglo-French relations into the mood of general bonhomie.
The agreements envisaged a new combined force available for deployment at times of international crisis that is expected to involve about 5,000 service members from each nation, with land, sea and air components, and rotating French and British commanders. The pacts also foresee each nation alternating in putting a single aircraft carrier to sea, with the vessels operating as bases for French, British and American aircraft in times of need.
The nuclear agreement was in some ways the most surprising, since it committed the two nations to sharing some of their most carefully kept secrets. Although the two leaders emphasized that France’s “force de frappe” and Britain’s similar, submarine-based ballistic missile force would remain separate and under the sole control of each government, they agreed to establish joint research centers, one in France and one in Britain, to further research on their stockpiles of nuclear warheads.
The cooperation pact was set to last 50 years and could transform the way the countries project force, fight wars and compete for defense contracts with the United States. One goal appeared to be to give the two militaries greater buying power to support the struggling European defense industry.
Mr. Cameron, who has navigated deep hostilities to European integration and deep skepticism toward France in his Conservative Party, emphasized the budgetary benefits, saying the agreements would contribute savings of “millions of pounds” to Britain’s plan to make deep cuts in its $60 billion defense budget.
Previous efforts at military cooperation between the countries have more often faltered than succeeded. In the late 1990s, Tony Blair, then Britain’s prime minister, and Jacques Chirac, then France’s president, promised deeper defense cooperation, but the understanding was undone by differences over the Iraq war. In both countries, there are significant political forces arrayed against anything that smacks of too close a military partnership with the age-old foe.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Maritime Security: Anti-piracy Measures For Sale In Hamburg, Germany
A recent survey of 110 German shipping companies by PWC (formerly PriceWaterhouse Coopers) found that 12 used private security agencies in some capacity. Ruetten believes this is not nearly enough, and that too many companies rely on improvised defense measures like strapping mannequins to strategic positions on deck to make a ship look like it is being guarded.
I found this article over at Deutsche Welle. It gave a good run down of the German maritime security market and how they view PSC’s in the Gulf of Aden. The quote up top was really interesting, but as per usual, they have some folks here giving some very bad advice about the realities of the high seas.
Max Johns, spokesman for the Association of German Ship-owners is wrong on one of his points he brought up as well. The private security team he is referring to, was not armed and had no means of protecting themselves or the boat other than with the pathetic less than lethal crap they had. So his point that PSC’s are a bad idea because they are not dependable is wrong.
Unarmed PSC’s are a bad idea, and I am sure if these folks had a means to defend themselves and the crew, the outcome would have been far different. It is dorks like this spokesman who continue to promote this myth that less than lethal is an appropriate defense against pirates armed with RPG’s, PKM’s and AK 47’s. It is this same myth that creates this mindset that companies should just roll the dice, or pay the ransom if their vessel is taken. Meanwhile, every ransom paid just increases the size of the piracy problem. It is a simple equation–paying ransoms fuels piracy.
And those PSC companies that continue to tell shipping companies that being unarmed in those waters is a good idea, are equally to blame. It’s as if you are selling a company on the idea that you can magically protect them without using lethal force. Your strategies might work for some cases, but they will not cover the instances where a pirate force actually understands how to defeat your less than lethal measures (like using binoculars to tell if you have mannequins on the deck) and/or evasive maneuvers (ransom money allows investments in faster boats).
Just wait until pirates start coming aboard with cutting torches or shaped charges to open the doors of safe rooms or bridges/engineer rooms? Or when they start contracting captains and crews that know how to command these ships? The pirate is not dumb and they are learning and evolving as their industry is fueled by the profits gained by ransoms.
The point is, losing control of your ship is ‘losing control of your ship’. Having armed and competent security on a ship will at least give the crew and captain a fighting chance. Having a strong defense is also a crucial element in taking care of your people, which I would certainly hope a captain or the owner of a company would actually care about?
As for the German company IBS mentioned, I haven’t a clue as to who they are or what they are all about. If any of my German readers have anything to add, feel free to comment below. –Matt
Anti-piracy measures for sale in Hamburg
By Ben Knight
October 25, 2010
The hijacking of two ships over the weekend highlights the difficulties Western navies face combating piracy off the coast of Somalia. Many shipping lines are turning to private security firms for protection.
When it comes to global shipping, there is no avoiding the Gulf of Aden, which leads between the failed state of Somalia and Yemen – a nation security analysts describe as at-risk. These waters carry a significant share of the world’s wealth, including 11 percent of the world’s seaborne oil.
The 25,000 cargo ships that pass through the Gulf of Aden every year are tempting targets for heavily armed groups in Somalia, who claim overfishing by foreign vessels has robbed them of their livelihoods.
Earlier this year the International Maritime Bureau warned that attacks on merchant shipping are on the rise. European defense officials say Somali pirates are currently holding 20 ships and more than 400 crew for ransom off the Horn of Africa.
Company Spotlight: Primary Weapons Systems
You know, a lot is said about the various weapons companies and defense companies in the East coast or in the Southwest, but you never hear a lot about the fantastic companies in other parts of the country. And specifically, you never hear much about my neck of the woods here in Idaho. Companies like Primary Weapons Systems, Chris Reeve Knives, Milt Sparks holsters, Gemtech suppressors, Cheytac precision rifle systems, and the list goes on. In the future I plan on doing more company spotlights on Idaho companies that offer some quality equipment, weapons, and weapon parts.
So with that said, let me get started. I have a friend named Dave who works at PWS and he invited me on down to the shop to check out the operation and the guns. While there, I got to see where all the magic happens and talk to some of the folks that make that happen. Stacey Nagy was one of those folks, and he was very helpful and informative as well. A big thanks to both for showing me around.
PWS is probably most famous for their compensators. They reduce felt recoil of the rifle, keep the muzzle steady and reduce the flash. You will see these compensators on many competition and field weapons being used out there, and the fit and finish of these things are fantastic. They are also designed to fit the popular suppressors being used. And believe me, when you see all the attention to detail that the company goes through to produce these compensators and get them out the door to their customers, then you will definitely appreciate what you have when you get one.
They are also in the market of making parts that will help to support this ‘AR piston’ craze that is sweeping the weapons manufacturing world. Everyone is making an AR piston gun or retrofit kit it seems, and they are all experiencing issues with modifying the AR to operate a piston. That is were PWS comes in.
Another part I got a chance to check out was their new buffer tubes, and I was very impressed. It is one of those parts on an AR that I have seen fail or I have seen installed incorrectly on a weapon, and this new PWS buffer tube will help to fix many of those issues. You do not have to peen a castle nut and possibly ruin the finish of your weapon, and installing it only requires an allen wrench and following the directions. (check out the comments about the buffer tube on the site) The ridged/fluted aspect of the buffer tube also provides strength to the thing and they look cool.
Probably what is most important though is that these buffer tubes are designed to deal with piston guns that have had issues in the buffer tube area. Notice how they have a specific buffer tube kit for the HK 416? (hint- there are problems with this gun) These buffer tubes have built in quick detach points and supposedly they reduce recoil as well. Bravo to PWS for making the better buffer tube and I hope they sell a lot of them.
Finally, and this is the one that should be of interest to the companies out there, and that is PWS makes piston AR rifles. My first interest in PWS rifles was their cool little Diablo gun that fired 7.62 x 39 ammo. That thing was cool and here is a video of it in action. But once I started researching what PWS is all about and what they have produced, I wanted to learn first hand about what else they had to offer.
Specifically, these guys are making AR piston guns that not only have the ergonomics of the AR, but have the internal operations of an AK style piston system. And that is what is unique here. They modeled the design of their piston systems on this world famous weapon and they have created a true ‘long stroke piston’ AR. So what you are getting with a PWS weapon, is an AR/AK hybrid. The best of both worlds, thrown into one weapon.
The other big selling point of their weapons was weight. They are close to one pound lighter than their competitors who market similar piston guns. So not only are they tough, reliable and simple, but they are also lightweight.
On a side note, they are also running the excellent BCM Gunfighter charging handles that you see many folks running on their ARs. These charging handles are tough and make charging the weapon a lot easier than with the standard charging handle in ARs. This is a fine addition to the PWS weapon.
The barrels are also standard AR type hardened barrels with 1:8 twist and chrome lining, which will be nice for durability and for using different bullets weights. At the shop, they purposely feed as many types of ammo as possible through the guns to see how they operate. Especially the cheap low grade ammo, which you see PSC/PMC’s resort to using all the time for overseas work. I have yet to be on a contract where the company issued Blackhills ammo or something similar. It is always the cheapest or middle of the road ammo, or it is ammo that they got from the military. Having a piston rifle that can be fed with all types of factory ammo is definitely a plus.
I even asked them about problems with the rifles, and it sounds like the barrels wear out before the piston systems wear out. But the big one here that I clued in on is that no one is sending their rifles back because ‘they are falling apart’. These things are built to last, and have the best features of the AK and the AR incorporated into the design. Did I mention that they have a 7.62 x 51 AR piston gun they just introduced? They will even make a 6.8 piston gun if you ask.
Not only that, but Paul Howe of CSAT is now recommending this rifle on his website. He has mentioned them twice in his newsletters and the rifle is in his ‘recommended equipment’ section here. As everyone knows, Paul has had some bad experiences with another piston gun that I won’t mention, so for him to endorse this AR piston gun says a lot. (Although I am sure after he runs it over time, he will be able to provide more input about the weapon.)
Finally, there is the part of this visit that I really was impressed with, and that was the customer service aspect of this company. Everyone there was very helpful, friendly and honest about answering my questions. They really helped me to get a good picture of the AR piston industry and what their company has to offer. It is a confusing and fast paced part of the industry, and everyone is trying to make the best product out there. It is exciting to watch and PWS is working hard to become a leader in this field. –Matt
Disclaimer: I was not paid to make this review, nor have I bought or was given any weapons or parts by PWS. I also shot their 5.56 piston rifle during the tour, and the recoil and function were excellent.
Primary Weapons Systems, Inc (PWS) is a Federally-licensed firearms manufacturer located in Boise, Idaho. PWS is the designer and manufacturer of the MK1 and MK2 series rifles and uppers in addition to a complete line of flash suppressing compensators such as the FSC556, SM556, FSC30, and more. PWS develops items based on real world requirements with the goal of redefining accuracy and performance in the piston-driven platforms.
All parts manufactured by PWS are done so on state of the art CNC Machines such as Okuma Multus B300 lathes, HAAS VF-4 mills and more. Any components that are not produced by PWS are purchased from only the best manufacturers to ensure the highest quality products are delivered to the end user.
Our CNC machines are programmed and operated by true craftsmen who are also shooters. It is this combination that enables us to provide our clients with the highest quality products that are not only aesthetically appealing, but also very functional.
Our mission is to provide the highest quality products and best customer service to shooters, sportsmen, military and law enforcement alike, and do this at a fair and competitive price. It is our goal to create lifelong relationships with our customers who believe in our ideas and the quality of our products. We invite our customers to provide feedback through direct contact as well as through customer reviews on the product pages throughout the website.
Link to company website here.
Video tour of company here.
Facebook page for company here.
Industry Talk: The Rise Of The UK’s Private Security Companies
Good little story on the UK private security industry. Also it is good to see Andy Bearpark of BAPSC and Mr. Binns of Aegis get a little attention in the report.
One area that I would like to further clarify though is that British companies are not immune from making mistakes or being involved in ‘gung ho’ operations, as the article below has stated. They typically do a good job, but believe me, back in the early days of Iraq, the British companies did stupid things out on the roads and on the bases as well. None of the companies were immune from making mistakes out there. But what defined the good companies from the bad ones, were those that cared to get it right and learned from those mistakes.
Also, there was no mention of the upcoming International Code of Conduct signing taking place on Nov. 9th in Switzerland? Partners in the UK and the US have been involved in the creation of this code, and this will be a document that will help to further classify ‘industry best practices and standards’ that could be instrumental in weeding out the bad companies, both in the UK and the US. –Matt
Graham Binns says the future is bright for the UK’s private security industry.
The rise of the UK’s private security companies
1 November 2010
By Edwin Lane
Major General Graham Binns is not your typical chief executive.
As a lifelong soldier, he is more used to commanding an armoured division than a company boardroom.
In 2003 he commanded British troops invading southern Iraq, and in 2007 returned as the commander of British forces overseeing the handover of Basra to the Iraqis.
But now, four months into his new job as chief executive of Aegis Defence Services – a British private security company (PSC) – he has left army life behind.
“It’s liberating,” he says, sitting in Aegis’s comfortable headquarters in a plush office building in central London.
“Thirty-five years in government service was a wonderful experience. But in the world of business, ex-military people have got a lot to offer – I certainly hope so anyway.”
For Aegis, netting a leading figure from the Iraq war can only be good for business – particularly when your business is in the often-controversial world of armed private security.
Now one of the UK’s biggest PSCs, Aegis has made millions from the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan since it was founded just eight years ago.
Iraq bubble
It is even fair to say that Aegis, like much of the private security industry, owes its very existence to the last Iraq war.
“Certain activities can be done much more cost-effectively by the private sector” said Andy Bearpark of BAPSC
When the occupying forces found themselves trying to reconstruct the country while overwhelmed by Iraqi insurgency and sectarian violence, PSCs saw a lucrative opportunity.
“In Iraq in 2003 and 2004 money was basically free,” explains Andy Bearpark, director-general of the British Association of Private Security Companies (BAPSC).
“That meant [private security] contracts were being let for ridiculous amounts of money – millions and millions of dollars of contracts being pumped into the industry.
“The industry exploded in terms of the volume of business on the back of Iraq.”
Dozens of firms from the US and the UK stepped in to offer their services, providing governments and reconstruction NGOs with armed security personnel, convoy escorts, logistics support, training for the Iraqi security services, and risk analysis.
Names like Armorgroup and Control Risks, which had been around in the UK since the 80s, saw a chance to expand their businesses.