Feral Jundi

Friday, July 29, 2011

Aviation: Drone Archer Weapon–The Vanguard Defense Shadowhawk UAV

Filed under: Aviation — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 1:59 PM

Thanks to Mad Duo over at Kit Up for posting this one. I am always on the lookout for potential drone archer weapons, or UAV’s that are small and lethal. I believe tools like this can enhance the lethality of a small unit. The more we can put that capability of small lethal drones in their hands, the more options a small unit has on the battlefield.

The specifics that interested me about this UAV is that they are able to equip the thing with a 40mm grenade launcher and FLIR. Although for a platform like this, I would much rather see a precision weapon system. It would be the ultimate aerial sniper platform, and especially if they can get the stabilization game down. In this case, you could use the drone archer more like a sniper team on the battlefield, and less as a hammer that is armed with just explosive drones.

The down side with this UAV is flight time and it’s durability. If an enemy sniper is able to get one shot on this thing, they could take it out. A shotgun or drone hunter UAV would be some tools that could counter such a weapon. So the thing with this weapon is it might be best served for aerial surveillance/tracking and helping with targeting. Who knows, and what is required is to get weapons like this into the hands of the troops, and let them find it’s utility. –Matt

Military News: Military Retirement Is More Generous And Expensive Compared To Private Sector

Hat tip to Thomas Ricks over at Foreign Policy for pointing this one out. Data like this seems to be missed when we discuss the costs of a standing government army, versus the private industry.  So stuff like this really points out the differences between public and private.

I have yet to work in a company that had any security contractor retirees. Hell, I would be lucky to have a retirement package offered, and most gigs these days seem to be all independent contractor stuff. That is the reality of today’s ‘disposable workforce’. So for me, I just assemble my own retirement plan and continue put into it from the various contracts I work.  Sometimes I was lucky enough to work a contract with a 401K plan, but those were few and far between.

The government seems to be the only industry left that actually has folks that work 20 years or 30 years, and has retirees under that system. It is actually a pretty good deal and many retirees collect pensions and go on to work other jobs.

In the security contracting industry, you see a lot of retired military folks who do exactly that.  They collect a nice pension after working 20 years in the military, and then go on to be a private contractor and make even more money.  So I could understand why the Pentagon and today’s cash strapped US government is taking a second look at this system. You could also guess the reaction of guys in the military that would construe this study as a threat to their good deal. The question to ask is will the government modify the current military retirement system to match that of the federal government, and get a few more years of service out of their soldiers? Or will they succumb to the politics of the matter, and realize that a ton of military retirees and current soldiers vote.

Who knows, but I do know that the US government is in the process of making some adjustments to the budget and spending. So they are looking at all and any options of cutting costs, and the military is no exception.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that I certainly hope these statistics are factored into future cost benefit analysis between government military forces and private military forces.  There are so many costs to consider when maintaining a standing army during times of peace and war.  Not to mention that all of these retirees in the military are also drawing healthcare benefits, and the legacy costs of that must be equally as high.  I mean if a guy retires at age 40 give or take, and the average life expectancy of a human these days is around 75, then that can add up to a lot of money that tax payers will be paying over the course of that individual’s life.

Here is the report that goes into more detail about military retirement and it’s costs. –Matt

Thursday, July 28, 2011

Industry Talk: Iraq Seeks US Training Deal For Interior Ministry

Filed under: Industry Talk,Iraq — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 8:55 PM

Mr. Asadi said. To avoid angering allies, Mr. Maliki, who is also acting defense and interior minister, may opt to bypass parliament and have his ministries sign agreements with Washington for 2,000-3,000 US trainers, sources have said. Mr. Asadi said the US embassy had already signed a contract with Triple Canopy security company to secure facilities and the training mission personnel.

Interesting news and I didn’t know about the Triple Canopy deal. Or maybe I just forgot, but still, that is a pretty big contract for the company if this happens.-Matt

Iraq seeks US training deal for interior ministry
28 July 2011
By SUADAD AL SALHY

Iraq’s interior ministry plans to sign a deal with the US government to supply scores of US civilian security personnel to train its troops, a senior Iraqi security official said. The agreement, which requires Iraqi cabinet approval, would mean the interior ministry at least will have little need for US troops to stay on beyond their planned year-end withdrawal, senior ministry official Adnan Al Asadi told Reuters.Iraq wants the United States to supply several thousand trainers for its military, sources have said, but is still debating whether to ask Washington to leave some troops behind for training, especially to fill gaps in their capabilities.

(more…)

Publications: SIGIR-Control Weaknesses Remain In Oversight Of TWISS Contracts, July 2011

Filed under: Industry Talk,Iraq,Publications — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 2:04 PM

Thanks to David Isenberg for pointing out this publication, and you can find his review of the document here. Probably the big one for me that just continues to boggle the mind, is that the government has known about it’s deficiencies in contractor oversight and yet they continue to not apply the proper attention to this.

Here is the quote from Dave’s assessment, and I think this says it all:

To get a sense of how nothing has changed note that in April 2009, SIGIR reported that 11 of 27 CORs surveyed stated their COR training did not fully prepare them to oversee the TWISS contractors. In the new audit 11 of 28 CORs SIGIR surveyed stated their training did not prepare them to perform COR duties on the TWISS contracts.

This is unacceptable. It truly is the definition of insanity when you continue to do the same thing over and over again, and expect to get different results. And to add to this, I continue to get emails from folks on the TWISS contracts describing deplorable business practices of the companies involved.  Most contractors consider TWISS gigs as the bottom of the barrel contracting in the war, and the attrition rate is very high.  I tell them to contact the SIGIR and anyone else that will listen, and often times their concerns fall on deaf ears. Or in this case, incompetent ears.

Listen, the way this should work is that a COR should be actively seeking out the input and feedback of those who work in this program, if they want to find out any wrong doing on the contract. And then once they find out about this wrong doing, then with the full power and weight of the government, they should have the ability to put that company in check. If there is no teeth within the system, then companies will get away with whatever they want to do on these contracts.

Furthermore, I have yet to hear anything from SIGIR or any CORs out there?  I would think that any COR that actually cares about what is going on with the contract, or lacked certainly knowledge about how things work, would actually take the time to reach out to guys like myself or David Isenberg. Or better yet, get out of your office, and get on the ground and talk it up with the Ugandans and other contractors on these sites. Listen to their concerns, and act on it.  If it is your job to manage and monitor these contracts, then do not make excuses.

Likewise, the DMCA needs to realize that you just don’t send guys out to do this work, and not give them everything they need to be successful.  It’s called taking care of your people, and if they are asking for training or feel ill-prepared for the job, then the DMCA needs to do the right thing and make that happen. Because if the CORs are not able to do their job, then now you have contracts that become out of control, and security could be hurt by it.  You have incidents where entire guard forces just don’t show up to work, because the company is playing games.

Another thing I would like to throw out there, once again.  These companies that bid and won the contracts for TWISS, did so under the LPTA concept or lowest priced, technically acceptable contracting. I call it a race to the bottom, and I have totally protested such methods.  It is just dumb, and it causes more problems than it is worth.  But if the government is going to continue using LPTA, then it has to have a strong CORs force to keep on eye on this beast they created. The security of these camps depends on the effectiveness of this contract, the US tax payer demands a good value for their dollar spent, and the men and women on these TWISS contracts need to know that someone is in their corner looking out for them.

And then there is the companies?…..Well they are just big dumb animals anyways. They will do whatever is required, but if no one is tending to that cow, then that thing is going to trample all over the place and do what it wants. The buyer (the US government) needs to exercise it’s power as the consumer of these services, and demand excellence and a good service.  But if you have no one watching over those services, or those that are watching those services have no idea what to look for, then that company is just going to do whatever it wants.

Finally, this is a message to law makers like Jan Schakowsky or Bernie Sanders. Instead of attacking private industry, how about attacking those government agencies tasked with managing these contracts?  Or to put it in simpler terms, if your dairy cow escaped the pasture and ruined the neighbor’s flowers, do you kill that cow, or do you punish the rancher in charge of managing that cow? I mention these two law makers because they are behind an effort to destroy a strategic asset of the US called ‘ private security contractors during times of war’.  Or in other words, they want to kill the dairy cow, because they suck at keeping their ranchers in line.   –Matt

SIGIR-Control Weaknesses Remain In Oversight Of Theater-wide Internal Security Services Contracts, July 28,…

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Legal News: Italy And Norway Produce National Regulations On The Use Of Armed Guards For Maritime Security

Right on, and this is great news that countries are now starting to wake up about this stuff. I also think that this move to put armed guards on boats and backing that up with legal authority to do so, is actually helping to fuel the opinio juris of the world body that armed security is a good idea on these boats. If Italy or Norway thinks it’s a good idea, then other countries might be more inclined to do the same thing. I have also seen this change in attitude with places like the UN, Germany and the UK.

Now will armed guards on boats, eventually lead to states granting Letters of Marque? Who knows, but as armed guards on boats present certain unavoidable situations (like taking prisoners after sinking a pirate boat, killing pirates, killing innocents, clashes with other navies or armed guards, etc.) then further legislation might lead countries to just go back to the tried and true license called the LoM. In other words, if the sum of all of the laws created over time add up to being just a basic LoM, then why not just implement the LoM?

The Declaration of Paris (DoP) is old and outdated, and as we put more private armed guards on boats and states continue to pass laws allowing for such things, then why hold to the DoP? Especially as pirates continue to flourish, and navies continue to fail at stopping this virus. Stuff to think about, and bravo to Italy and Norway for doing the right thing. –Matt

National regulations on the use of armed guards
July 22, 2011
Italy

The Italian Decree no. 107, dated 12 July 2011, (Italian only) states the general principles of the deployment of military forces or private security guards onboard Italian Ships.
—————————————————————
Norway

On 29 June 2011, the Norwegian Government announced a new framework on the use of armed guards by amendments to Regulation 972/2004 on ship security and amendments to Regulation 904/2009 relative to arms. The changes came into force on 1 July 2011.
The new framework follows the IMO guidelines, and allows Norwegian owners to have armed guards onboard in a certain geographical area within the legal limits laid down. An owner wanting to place armed guards onboard must apply for authorization with Norwegian Police Authorities and provide necessary documentation to the Norwegian Maritime Directory. However, the owner is required to conduct an independent risk evaluation to prove the need for armed guards. In addition the owner must be able to show the Security Company’s documentation on procedures for training, qualification and storage and use of weapon.
The simultaneously issued Provisional Guidelines the use of armed guards  offer practical guidance on the interpretation of the new framework.
The minister of Trade and Industry states in a press release (Norwegian only) that the amendments do not imply an encouragement to have armed guards onboard Norwegians ships. The purpose is to control the selection and use of security companies to ensure the safety of Norwegian ships and their crew. He emphasizes that all other efforts to protect the ship and its crew must first be fulfilled before armed guards are used.
Link to post here.

Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress