Feral Jundi

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Afghanistan: Bagram Air Base Attacked, U.S. Contractor Killed And 9 Soldiers Wounded

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk,Military News — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 2:14 AM

     Insurgents have fired rockets at the base in the past, but the assault was “not something that commonly happens quite in this way,” said Army Master Sgt. Tom Clementson, a U.S. military spokesman at Bagram.

     “That’s a dog chasing a school bus. You don’t attack Bagram with 20 guys,” one U.S. official said. “Either they’re crazy or brave or both.”

***** 

     I haven’t a clue as to who the contractor is, and if they were part of the guard force or not.  If a reader can fill in the details on this, if it is appropriate, feel free to do so in the comments. Rest in peace to the fallen.

     Now on to this attack.  I tried to get as many articles as I could, to piece together how the attack went down.  The reason for this, is there might be some clues that guys can pick up on for the defense of their positions in other parts of the war.  These ever evolving tactics and strategies of the enemy are used in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and contractors as well as the military are in static security positions all over.  So understanding the dynamic of these types of attacks is essential for the defense of outposts and FOBs everywhere.

     Last week I posted a deal on suicide assaulters and the swarming attack that the Taliban and extremists have been using, and they are really playing around with the concepts to find a sweet spot for complex assaults.  I wanted to get the mental juices flowing on this, so everyone is thinking about how best to defeat this in their AO.

     The other point I want to emphasize is that the attackers were supposedly dressed like NATO or US troops.  That isn’t confirmed yet according to the article, but that is a crucial element to this whole thing.  The enemy is famous for using Afghan police or army uniforms as cover, and if this latest deal would not surprise me if they were wearing our uniforms.

     Overall though, it sounds like the defense at Bagram was able to defeat these bumbling fools, and bravo to them for a job well done.  And with attacks like this, the defense will only learn more about how to do it better, and further implement SOP’s that are effective and successful at defeating this stuff.  Attacks like this also emphasize how important it is to be constantly vigilant and focused with your job.  If you let your guard down, the enemy will definitely teach you a deadly lesson.  

     It also emphasizes the point of why you do not want the lowest bidder defending these bases out there.  You want the best value company defending a base, just like you would want the best doctor looking out for your health.

     One last thing with this.  I am completely disgusted with the accountability the government promised when it comes to keeping track of contractor deaths.  Even the current accounting measures with icasualties or Wikipedia sucks, and they have done a terrible job in keeping up or listing everyone that has been killed.  Why is it so hard for the government to keep track of the who, what, where, when, and why’s of contractor deaths or injuries?  That information should be collected(and mandated by law), and it should be available to the public to read. It is also extremely disrespectful to that fallen contractor and their family to not recognize their death.

     It also bothers me that we do not recognize the deaths of local contractors, like in Afghanistan or Iraq.  They died transporting our food or fuel, interpreting our language to other locals, working on our bases, protecting outposts, and to not recognize their sacrifice is just wrong. I know other contractors feel the same, because all of us that have been in this business for awhile have lost local national friends/contractors out there, and their deaths should be counted. Hell, guys have trusted the lives with local national contractors at outposts, or fought side by side with them in combat.  To not recognize their sacrifice is wrong…… just plain wrong. –Matt

Edit: 5/22/2010 -The name of the fallen contractor is Bryan Farr. Ms. Sparky has more on her blog about him here.

——————————————————————- 

U.S. contractor killed, 9 soldiers wounded in Taliban attack on Bagram air base

By Joshua PartlowMay 20, 2010

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN — The Taliban’s brazen assault against the heavily fortified, city-size Bagram air base Wednesday demonstrated again the insurgents’ penchant for headline-grabbing strikes at the most potent symbols of foreign power in Afghanistan.

The attack before dawn, with gunfire, rockets and grenades, killed one U.S. contractor and wounded nine American soldiers. The U.S. soldiers at the base responded by killing 10 insurgents, including four wearing suicide vests.

It was the second ambitious attack in as many days, and possibly a demonstration of the new offensive the Taliban promised this month. As the U.S. military sends thousands of new troops to the southern city of Kandahar, the Taliban vowed to respond by targeting Afghan officials, contractors and NATO forces.

On Tuesday, a suicide car bomber targeted a U.S. convoy in Kabul, killing five U.S. troops, a Canadian and at least a dozen Afghan civilians. The attack, coupled with the death of two American troops in separate bombings, pushed the U.S. death toll past 1,000 for the nine-year Afghan war.

The attack at Bagram involved 20 to 30 insurgents and began before 4 a.m., U.S. military officials said. None of them breached the perimeter, but gun battles continued for several hours.

(more…)

Monday, May 10, 2010

Military News: Secretary Gates Declares War On Defense Spending

Filed under: Afghanistan,Finance,Military News — Tags: , , , , , — Matt @ 4:10 AM

   This seems to be the same rhetoric that every Defense Secretary dishes out, but this time I am going to speculate that there is something a little different about this time.  Saving pennies is now in the vocabulary of the leaders of this war, because they have no other choice.  There is just too much going on out there, for the sacred cow called defense spending to not be impacted.

   I kind of look at it like this.  If the US is part of this massive globalized economy, then things that happen in the global economy will impact the US economy.  A case in point is the Greek debt crisis.   The volcano in Iceland is another, as is the current recession in the US.  The oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is another.  And of course the two wars we are fighting is costing us billions of dollars every year. Eventually all of that debt and chaos will catch up, and I am sure the administration has given the call to Secretary Gates that it is time to cinch up the belt.  Who knows what the conversations at the top entail, and all I can focus on right now is actions.

   Below I have posted three stories.  The first is how Gates’ new mission to curb spending will impact war plans.  If soldiers are costing a million a day in places like Afghanistan, then money for fancy new military equipment that is only marginally better than the current piece of equipment might be axed.  Actually, it will be axed and that is the whole point. Cost effective war fighting measures will come more into play, and the military will be asked to do more with less.  That is what happens when we go into ‘saving pennies’ mode.

   The next story is about the Greek debt crisis.  My question on this, is what will happen to the rest of Europe do to these issues?  And how that impacts the war effort, is if a country is in debt, then paying for troop deployments in the war might be a little much for the citizenry to stomach.  After all, if our Secretary of Defense is talking this kind of talk, what are the secretaries of defense of other countries saying, who are involved in this war?  Could we expect more last minute pull outs where vacuums are created that must be filled by either US troops or ….. contractors? Something to ponder I guess.

   The final story is about the cost of the war.  It is staggering, and the one figure I keep going back to is the cost per soldier for a year in Afghanistan.  $500,000 to a million for one soldier, for the year is a lot of money. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Gates: Runaway Military Spending May Affect War Plans

May 8, 2010

ABILENE, Kansas (Reuters) – Defence Secretary Robert Gates told the U.S. military on Saturday it must rein in spending that he called out of sync with today’s tough economic times, and said budget woes could be a factor in deciding whether to use force against Iran and others.

Promising to play a hands-on role in wringing out savings, Gates held out the possibility of axing headquarters, merging whole agencies and culling the officer corps, taking on entrenched interests sure to put up a fight.

Sticker shock from wars in Afghanistan and Iraq also mean President Barack Obama and Congress may be more cautious about committing U.S. forces to another costly military engagement, he said.

“I do think that as we look to the future, particularly for the next couple of years or so while we’re in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think the Congress and the president would look long and hard at another military operation that would cost us $100 billion (67.6 billion pounds) a year,” Gates told reporters.

“If there’s a real threat out there, the president and Congress will spend whatever it takes to protect the nation. But in situations where there are real choices, I think this would be a factor,” he added.

Asked if Iran fell into the category where costs would be a factor in deciding whether to strike over its nuclear program, Gates said it was unclear. “It depends on developments over the next year or two,” he said.

Gates said his goal was to cut overhead in the Defence Department’s nearly $550 billion baseline budget between two to three percent, or $10 billion to $15 billion per year, starting in fiscal 2012. The savings would allow the Pentagon to sustain force levels and free up funds for modernization programs.

Without such savings, Gates said, “it is highly unlikely that we will achieve the real growth rates necessary to sustain the current force structure.”

(more…)

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Parachuting: Special Forces Get The New MC-6, Marines Get The New T-11

Filed under: Alaska,California,Idaho,Military News,Parachuting — Tags: , , , , , , , , — Matt @ 1:19 AM

   I perked up when I saw a story mentioning smokejumpers in the Stars and Stripes, and this is what they were talking about. Strategy Page just posted about it as well.  The parachute that they were discussing is called the MC 6,  and it has a different name in the smokejumpers. It is called the FS 14 canopy.  It is a round (shape of the canopy) chute, and it is great for steep descents into tight jump spots surrounded by tall trees.  It is also steerable, and you can get different sizes of chutes, depending on the weight and size of the jumper.  I jumped a large when I was using the canopy in the Forest Service, and they are the ones who primarily use this canopy. I think the smallest spot surrounded by trees that I ever jumped with this parachute was the size of a small house. This parachute struggles in higher winds though, and I like a different parachute for that stuff.

   When it comes to a great all around parachute for rough terrain parachuting, I preferred the RAM Air DC 7 canopy or square canopy. The MC 5 is the military equivalent.  This parachute looks like the sport parachutes you see in the civilian world, and they are very nice.

  This parachute is primarily used by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service is slowly transitioning to this parachute. As we speak, they are doing cross training between the two organizations in order to gain proficiency. The BLM uses this parachute for the Great Basin in the western US, and up in Alaska.  Both areas have higher winds, and big open areas.  But both areas also have their mountains and trees to jump into.  Having jumped rounds and squares (parachute types), I would have to go with squares as being the best all around parachute to use for all types of terrain. What I imagine the SF is doing, is just having the option to use either the MC 5 or the MC 6, depending upon the mission. That is smart, but hopefully they are proficient on both, and muscle memory doesn’t screw them up while using one parachute or the other.  You definitely have to know each parachute and it’s deployment system very well in order to get a good parachuting strategy for getting on the ground safely and in rough terrain.

   As for the T 11, it looks interesting, but I really cannot comment on it.  Just as long as it is stable, easy to control, and gets the guys on the ground safely, then I am all for it.

   Now what is exciting about the T-11 and the MC-6 is that both of these parachutes will make parachute operations a tad more safer, and make the option of airborne operations in war a little more feasible for future missions.  Who knows, maybe the military might take another look at Fire Force  type operations as a viable way of attacking enemies?  Parachuting troops in places like Afghanistan, might be a safer option than flying in with helicopters or driving in via convoys.  Parachuting also distributes the forces more.  One missile or one IED can take out a multitude of troops in a helicopter or vehicle.  Parachuting soldiers who are only exposed in the air for around 40 plus seconds, can make them very spread out and very hard to shoot.

    And because the Taliban are such poor shots, I don’t think they could be very effective at shooting soldiers out of the sky as they parachute to the ground. Especially if there is a sniper team on the ground, or some airship circling around and lighting up any enemy forces that want to take a shot. With good night vision kit, and safer parachutes, night time operations might also be more feasible as well.  I am sure airborne troops have thought about all of this stuff for our current wars, and it would be interesting to hear some of their ideas. You just don’t hear a lot about parachuting operations in this war, and it might be worth some further exploration.  Especially if the military is going to invest millions of dollars into two new canopies for the troops, as well as cycle thousands of troops through airborne training. By the way, bravo to the guys at Paraflite for making some awesome parachutes. –Matt

—————————————————-

MC 6

MC 6 parachute.

T 11 parachute. 

Special Forces look to smoke jumpers for new parachutes

By Warren Peace

May 4, 2010

STUTTGART, Germany — Soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 10th Special Forces Group recently got a chance to try out the Army’s new MC-6 parachute, which they say will be put to good use when dropping into tight combat zones in Afghanistan.

The MC-6 is more maneuverable than the aging MC-1, which has been used by Special Forces soldiers for years, and the Stuttgart-based soldiers are the first unit in Europe to train with the new chute.

When searching for a new parachute that could drop them into a small landing area, Army Special Forces looked to the smoke jumpers, who are tasked with descending into the heart of Rocky Mountain forest fires, said David Roy, program leader for the MC-6.

“The U.S. forest services have been using this canopy for about 16 years now,” Roy said. “They use it to get into postage-size drop zones in the Rockies as they go to put out fires.”

Plus, the small drop zones and high altitudes of the Rocky Mountains are very similar to the conditions faced by airborne soldiers in Afghanistan, said Maj. Jason Morneault, assistant product manager for Program Manager Clothing and Individual Equipment for the Army.

(more…)

Monday, May 3, 2010

Logistics: Energy Islands And Biodiesel

Filed under: Afghanistan,Industry Talk,Logistics,Military News,Strategy,Technology — Matt @ 12:57 AM

     A significant step in reducing the length, complexity and cost of the US military supply chain for fuel.

     According to army-technology.com, “Every 55,702 barrels of fuel burned in Afghanistan by the US military forces corresponded to one casualty…a 10% reduction in fuel consumption over a five-year period could lead to a reduction of 35 fuel-related resupply casualties over the same period.”

     Also, the development of mobile energy systems allows military commanders options for avoiding a trade-off between lighter weapon systems that offer greater range, and heavier weapon or support systems that offer greater armor protection.

     A report by Deloitte calculated that fuel makes up 50 percent of all convoy activity in Iraq and Afghanistan.

*****

    Today’s discussion is about the military going green. I really like the idea of this, because as the articles below have stated, it takes a lot of fuel to power a military during time of war. Fuel is also a strategic asset, and without it, an army can be dead in the water and lose a war. So I like the idea of bringing in alternative sources of fuel, and diversify the fuel consumption process. And I really like the idea of manufacturing fuel locally, via micro processing plants. Better yet, if those micro processing plants focused on fuel, power and water for the operations of the local base as well as the local population center, well then that is a win win situation for everyone.

     Imagine having the local populations focused on growing fuel, for their use and for the local military base’s use? Plus, each processing plant that we cart into that area, could be a gift to the local population when that military base leaves? Better yet, we could teach the locals how to make biodiesel, and an entire industry could emerge. We keep looking at alternative crops for the farmers in Afghanistan? How about we have them grow fuel for the war effort. I have also talked about that here before, and I really like that concept because it makes sense. I also determined in my research that fuel producing plants like Jatropha could be grown in the south of Afghanistan.

     What’s cool about Camelina Sativa or wild flax seed is that it can be grown very easily in ditches or whatever, and does not require a lot nitrogen or water. Therefore, it does not compete with the local food growing or suck in a massive amount of water. It’s a weed more or less, and I like the idea of turning weeds into fuel. It is also native to Central Asia, so that means it could be grown in Afghanistan.

     The energy island concept is very cool. An all in one processing plant, that takes in the biomass and converts it to fuel, heat and power for the base and the local community. If these ARIES systems can do all of that, that is impressive and that is the kind of thing that could win over populations for COIN strategy. It would keep locals busy processing fuel, it would provide power to light homes and streets so they can see threats at night, and it would invigorate business and make people’s lives more comfortable. Lots of benefits from an energy island. Plus it defines the ‘small and many’ aspect of war. You want multiple power/fuel sources, not just one big one in which all of your cookies are in one basket. So I like having multiple energy islands scattered throughout a war zone, and that makes strategic sense.

     There is also another benefit of processing fuel locally, as opposed to shipping it in. Contractors and military personnel are both tasked with transporting fuel in war zones. If it cannot be flown in, it is convoyed in. And like the quote up top has mentioned, how many deaths can we attribute to this high demand for imported fuel for the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan? How many contractors have died, trying to bring in fuel or water to some outpost? It is an interesting question, and my thoughts on the matter is that if we can minimize the amount of convoy operations it takes to supply an outpost or some FOB, the better. –Matt

—————————————————————-

The Green Side of War

Defense & Security News — By International Relations and Security Network

May 3, 2010

On Earth Day, 22 April, the US Navy conducted a test flight of an F/A-18 Super Hornet at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland, run on a 50-percent mixture of a fuel refined from the crushed seeds of the flowering Camelina sativa plant. The flight of the Green Hornet, as it was called, followed an Air Force test a month earlier of an A-10C Thunderbolt II at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, fueled with a similar blend.

Both events had the purpose of testing the performance of biofuel/petroleum mixtures with an eye toward the eventual certification of the fuels for routine use. They also demonstrate the efforts of the Department of Defense to increase its use of renewable energy, not only for environmental reasons but also to protect the military from energy price fluctuations and dependence on overseas sources of petroleum.

Friday, April 30, 2010

Military News: Military Pay Competitive With Private Sector

Filed under: Finance,Military News — Tags: , , , , , , — Matt @ 12:12 AM

   I tend to agree that the total compensation package that the military offers these days, is pretty damn good.  I have yet to work for a company that has offered the same benefits that the military has to offer.  If anything, the only reason why salary is more for contractors, is because of this fact.  Not to mention that many companies that use independent contractors do not offer retirement plans or medical plans.  Nope, when you cut away from the military umbilical cord, you are on your own.  That is why I tell guys to save your pennies, because you never know how long your contract will last or even how long your company will be around.

   And to add further to this article, I know of some contractors that have gone back to the military.  One of the reasons for that is stability for their family, or to get certifications that are tough to get anywhere else (like clearances).  Some guys join up in Guard units so they can serve and be a contractor at the same time.  That is an optimum set up, but you don’t have much of a personal life with that one.

   Finally, there are the tax incentives of military versus contractor.  If a contractor does not get their 330 days overseas, or is not able to claim residency in a foreign country, they will be taking a huge hit in taxes.  Some guys are able to get their 330 days, but many are not able to enjoy the foreign earned income tax credit.  The reason for that is a family emergency or the company just doesn’t have enough work for you to stay overseas for that long.  Or your contract could end. There is a number of things that could happen to you last minute, that could screw up your plans for taxes, and it pays to be prepared. –Matt

———————————————————————

Military pay competitive with private sector

April 30, 2010WASHINGTON: Military compensation is competing well against the private sector, as evidenced by the high rate of recruitment and retention, a Defense Department official told a Senate subcommittee today.

Therefore, the department is focusing on targeted special pays and bonuses as an efficient means to give incentives for people to sign up for hard-to-fill and hard-to-retain specialties, William J. Carr, deputy undersecretary of defense for personnel policy, told the Senate Armed Services Committee’s personnel subcommittee.

Using regular military compensation – basic pay combined with housing and food allowances and federal tax advantages – as a comparison, military members are paid higher than 70 percent of their private-sector peers of similar education and experience, Carr said.

(more…)

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress