Feral Jundi

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Weapons: Goodbye TNT, Hello IMX-101

Filed under: Logistics,Technology,Weapons — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 11:02 PM

     This is excellent news, and a no brain-er. By switching to an explosive like this, IED’s or RPG enemy attacks will have a less likely-hood of detonating these IMX-101 based munitions. I have no idea if they will put this in the smaller munitions, but the bigger artillery rounds will have it.

     That is good news for the guys who have to transport this stuff by air, land or sea. Even those that are posted at combat outposts where one rocket or mortar could land on an ammunition magazine, and potentially blow it and the base up.  Having these types of munitions will at least minimize the chance of ‘secondary’ type deaths and injuries that can happen in these types of attacks. –Matt

——————————————————————

Goodbye to TNT: Engineers qualify safer, more stable explosive

By Tracy Robillard

August 11, 2010

The U.S. Army recently qualified a new explosive that has the same lethality as traditional TNT, but is safer for Soldiers because it is far less likely to explode if dropped, shot at or hit by a roadside bomb during transport.

The new formula, called IMX-101 (Insensitive Munitions Explosive 101), is proven to be safer and more stable than TNT, which ultimately eases the warfighter’s job when it comes to transporting, storing and loading ammunition containing the new explosive.

“It allows us to meet the lethality of TNT, while being more thermally stable,” said Philip Samuels, a chemical engineer with Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC).

“We’re taking the conventional explosive and replacing it with a group of ingredients that are less sensitive.”

Anthony Di Stasio, ARDEC Project Officer, said, “Because it’s less sensitive, the Army can store more shells in a magazine, they can store more of it in one building at a closer distance to the Soldiers. It significantly reduces the logistics burden both here in the U.S. and overseas.”

Throughout the last four years, experts at ARDEC and Project Manager, Combat Ammunition Systems (PM CAS) have worked together to select, test and prepare a more stable explosive to meet the Department of Defense requirement for insensitive munitions.

The goal was to find a safer, less sensitive formula that could easily be fitted for use in the Army’s existing large-caliber projectiles.

In 2007, the Picatinny team began an open competition, soliciting TNT-like formulas from government, foreign, and private organizations under the Common Low-cost Insensitive Munitions Explosive (CLIMEx) program. The team received 23 submissions, and after a year of testing, they selected the top three formulas to advance to another round of system level tests.

(more…)

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Industry Talk: BLISS Could Be State’s New LOGCAP, And More Clarification About WPPS

     Thanks to David Isenberg for posting this on his blog and bringing it to everyone’s attention.  I think this is some interesting information that came out of this letter between Richard Verma and Sen. Claire McCaskill. If in fact BLISS becomes the new LOGCAP for DoS, this could be a pretty sizable contract.  That’s ‘if’ they cannot bring State under the current LOGCAP.  We will see how it goes.

     But what I thought was most interesting in this letter was the clarification as to the fact that contractors will be operating this war equipment that DoD will be loaning to State. That is great, and it will be cool to see Blackhawks and MRAPs rolling out into the skies and roads of Iraq under the control of contractors.  I wonder if they will paint this equipment a different color? Like DoS blue/white/yellow? lol

    Also, will these MRAPS or Blackhawks be stripped of all the life saving electronics and communications stuff that our troops were able to use for the survival of their units?  Probably not, but who knows.  Today’s military hardware has a lot of useful stuff in it that could really come in handy for the contractors that have to operate it.

     One thing that is missing in this letter, is a question and response about the 14 security related functions that State identified, that might have to be done by contractors.  Stuff like EOD or counter mortar/rocket team operations. Or QRF/rescue stuff or other military type activities.  I say this because I have yet to see any answers as to how the DoS will treat contractors if they actually had to fire their weapons and kill enemy combatants while doing any of these 14 security related functions.  Or worse yet, what about firefights that unintentionally ended up in the deaths of civilians? Because the enemy loves to attack from population centers with the hopes of creating such an incident.

     Like I have said before, we might want the war to be over in Iraq, but the enemy could care less about our wishes. If anything, with a limited military presence and an Iraqi government and security forces still trying to establish itself, a lot can happen during the transition and drawdown. DoS must understand that the enemy has learned much from the propaganda value of such incidents like the Nisour Square incident. If they can recreate such an incident again they will gain much, and DoS and the US mission in Iraq will suffer yet again from the consequences.

     There are still many questions that come to mind, and that is will DoS support their contractors if involved in a firefight that accidently resulted in civilian deaths, or will they treat the contractor as if they were criminals?  Worse yet, will they hand these individuals over to the Iraqis, or will they insure these men are afforded the same protections and rights that the military or even diplomats would have received in similar situations? Will DoS implement rules for the use of force that are realistic and give contractors the best chance of success for the defense of personnel and property? Or will DoS even allow the proper weapons and tactics required for an effective defense (that could include borderline offensive operations), or even rescues? Stuff to think about and it will be interesting to see how this turns out. –Matt

Edit: 08/02/2011- Hat tip to Ms. Sparky on this news. Supposedly KBR was chosen for this. Check the comment below for the entire post.

——————————————————————

On July 9, 2010 this letter was sent to Sen. Claire McCaskill, from Richard D. Verma, Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs at DoS. (I posed the first question and answer, and the 5th question and answer. Follow the link to read the rest)

*****

1. Will private security contractors, including contractors under the State Department’s Worldwide Personal Protective Services contract, be operating the requested equipment, vehicles, and aircraft?

     The Department of State (DOS) does not presently maintain a cadre of qualified drivers/operators for some requested equipment, such as MRAPS, and, as such, would need to supplement current skill sets within its WPPS contract to ensure operational capability. If/when DoD provides the requested equipment, the Department will modify the relevant contracts to require that the equipment be operated and maintained by contractor personnel in accordance with manufacturer, DoD, or other applicable standards. Contract modifications will also require that contractor personnel possess the necessary qualifications and complete the requisite training to properly operate and maintain the equipment. An aircraft provided to the Department will be incorporated into an existing Department aviation support contract.

5. If the State Department’s request to use LOGCAP is denied, how does the Department plan to ensure that the next contract for life support services is as transparent, competitive, and accountable as possible?

     Should the LOGCAP [Logistics Civil Augmentation Program] be unavailable, the Department will follow Federal Acquisition Regulation competitive procedures in any separate procurement action. Due to long-acquisition lead-time involved, the Department has already initiated action to develop a competitive solicitation for the base life support requirements should it be unable to remain under the LOGCAP program. This solicitation is referred to as the Baghdad Life Support Services acquisition, or BLISS contract. If necessary, the Department could issue a Request for Proposals for the BLISS contract in a very short time.

—————————————————————–

Baghdad Life Support Services

Solicitation Number: SAQMMA10I0009

Agency: U.S. Department of State

Office: Office of Logistics Management

Location: Acquisition Management

(more…)

Monday, July 19, 2010

Publications: CRS-DoD Contractors In Iraq And Afghanistan: Background And Analysis, July 2010

     The 2010 QDR, which runs almost 130 pages, contains little discussion on the role contractors play in military operations. The QDR has a seven page section on counterinsurgency, stability, and counterterrorism operations, including a list of ten priorities for improvement. However, the word “contractor” does not appear once in the discussion, despite the fact that contractors make up more that 50% of DOD’s workforce in Iraq and Afghanistan, including more than 13,000 armed contractors. Some analysts argue that DOD missed an opportunity to address the issue in the most recent QDR.

*****  

     I like posting these, just because they are running records of where contractors stand in this war.  But what I really like about this publication is that Mr. Schwartz has taken aim at the folks who wrote up the QDR.

     The reason why I like that, is because I have been screaming on this blog as long as I can remember that contractors must be included into the discussion on strategy for these wars.  Especially when we account for over half of the manpower in these conflicts (and probably for future conflicts).

     It still amazes me that today’s strategists and war planners do not adequately cover this stuff.  If you read the QDR, it’s like we don’t even exist.  And yet we have thousands of expats, third country nationals, and local nationals, all interacting with today’s populations and militaries in today’s wars. We are also dying and paying our toll in blood for this war–yet nothing is really mentioned about us when it comes to strategy.

     Mr. Schwartz also took the time to cut and paste some key components of today’s COIN strategy out of some manuals, and how contractors should and could intermix with that strategy.  The bottom line is that if contractors are interacting with the populations of these war zones, then they ‘must’ be aligned within the strategies of COIN. We must be on the same sheet of music as the militaries are, or we will continue to inadvertently cause problems.

     Now for a couple of critiques.  In the beginning of this publication, Mr. Schwartz actually mentioned the use of contractors during the Revolutionary War, but he made no mention of the use of privateers or of Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11 of the US Constitution.

     It’s odd to me that he wouldn’t, because our use of privateers is actually a fantastic example of using contractors during times of war to achieve a strategic goal.  Our privateer industry is what we had as a continental navy at that time. The damage they inflicted onto the enemy’s logistics, as well as the capture of enemy weapons and munitions were very significant components of that war. Not to mention the massive infusion of wealth into our young country from all of the commerce raiding done by this government licensed privateer force. And the Letter of Marque in the US Constitution is proof of that existence between private industry and government for ‘offensive’ operations against an enemy.  How’s that for ‘inherently governmental’? lol

     The only other critique that is missing is a combination of DoS’s and other’s numbers into a report like this. I know the DoD doesn’t want to mix with those ‘others’, but it gets kind of old for us to continue to see separate reports all the time. I say combine all of them to save a little money and time, and let’s see every last contractor be counted.  I would also like to see the deaths and injuries of all, and get that stuff on one nice (and complete) report for everyone to analyze and reference. Something to think about for all of you analysts out there who keep throwing this stuff together. –Matt

——————————————————————-

Department of Defense Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan: Background and Analysis 

Moshe Schwartz

Specialist in Defense Acquisition

July 2, 2010

Summary

The Department of Defense (DOD) increasingly relies upon contractors to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which has resulted in a DOD workforce that has 19% more contractor personnel (207,600) than uniformed personnel (175,000). Contractors make up 54% of DOD’s workforce in Iraq and Afghanistan. The critical role contractors play in supporting such military operations and the billions of dollars spent by DOD on these services requires operational forces to effectively manage contractors during contingency operations. Lack of sufficient contract management can delay or even prevent troops from receiving needed support and can also result in wasteful spending. Some analysts believethat poor contract management has also played a role in abuses and crimes committed by certain contractors against local nationals, which may have undermined U.S. counterinsurgency efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(more…)

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Quotes: ‘We Still Have Car Bombs (expletive) ha ha’, Juarez Cartel

     Could this signal the next phase of the drug war down south?  Because once these guys get into competition with each other over whose car bomb is bigger, more deadly, and used to greater effect than the other guy, I think we will see a level of violence that will equal Iraq or Afghanistan.

     Remember, these cartels are watching and learning what combatants are doing in other parts of the world. The various uses of the IED has become an art form with many of these folks, and I have no doubt that the cartels will make their own little masterpieces of death and destruction. –Matt

——————————————————————

We Still Have Car Bombs

A wall at a shopping center is covered by graffiti that reads in Spanish “What happened on the 16 (street) is going to keep happening to all the authoritiesthat continue to support the Chapo (Guzman), sincerely, the Juarez Cartel. We still have car bombs (expletive) ha ha.” Cartel assailants laid a trap for federal police and attacked them with a car bomb on Thursday the first time a drug cartel have used explosives to attack Mexican security forces, marking an escalation in the country’s drug war. – From Borderland Beat

Monday, June 28, 2010

Strategy: Secrets From Inside The Obama War Room

Filed under: Afghanistan,Strategy — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 2:01 PM

     I know this is a little old, but it is totally relevant to today’s discussion about the future of Afghanistan.  As you read through this story, you come to understand why McChrystal or any other military leader in this war might be frustrated.  I said this before, and I will say this again.  There is not a general out there that thinks that declaring a withdrawal date is a good idea in the context of winning wars.  This administration is set on July 2011, and General Petraeus has made his promises to that administration that he could finish this in that time frame. It is a promise he will have to break in my view.

     Most of all, the Taliban love this date, and it is a countdown to their victory. The enemy will certainly pour it on as this date gets closer, and I just don’t see how this is helpful for any kind of plans with Afghanistan. Or the Taliban will just sit and wait, and then pour it on as soon as we leave. It just makes no strategic sense.

     Petraeus has a lot of work to do in turning around the war. There is alleviating the fears that Karzai has with this date, there is letting our troops fight the way they see fit and allowing them to win battles, there is dealing with Pakistan and ensuring they continue their fight, there is the training of the ANA and police so they can take control of the country, and all of this is dependent on changing that stupid date for withdrawal. Or Petraeus can keep his promise of defeat and go down with the ship. Only time will tell, and the clock is ticking. –Matt

——————————————————————

Secrets From Inside the Obama War Room

by Jonathan Alter

May 15, 2010

The first of 10 “AFPAK” meetings came on Sept. 13, when the president gathered 16 advisers in the Situation Room in the basement of the White House. This was to be the most methodical national-security decision in a generation. Deputy national-security adviser Tom Donilon had commissioned research that backed up an astonishing historical truth: neither the Vietnam War nor the Iraq War featured any key meetings where all the issues and assumptions were discussed by policymakers. In both cases the United States was sucked into war inch by inch.

The Obama administration was determined to change that. “For the past eight years, whatever the military asked for, they got,” Obama explained later. “My job was to slow things down.” The president had something precious in modern crisis management: time. “I had to put up with the ‘dithering’ arguments from Dick Cheney or others,” Obama said. “But as long as I wasn’t shaken by the political chatter, I had the time to work through all these issues and ask a bunch of tough questions and force people to sharpen their pencils until we arrived at the best possible solution.”

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress