What’s the nicest thing anyone has ever done for you?

A forum to which I belong asked that very question today.

And truth be told, I’ve been the recipient of so many kindnesses large and small throughout my life, I’m not sure I can really answer that question. It seems through Providence or serendipity, oh so often exactly what I need has come to me through the kindness of others.

As a small example, when my little netbook died, a reader instantly offered to send me, at no cost, the very laptop on which I’m writing now. Such kindness!  It almost makes me feel bad for pushing that old lady out of my way when she was reaching for the last carton of Rocky Road…

So, I suspect most of you have been similarly blessed by the actions or thoughts of some person, be it family, friend, or stranger. Tell me your story. What is the nicest thing anyone has ever done for you?

About these ads

1 Comment

Filed under Around the web

Jargon~ Tool of a Profession, or Tool of the Devil?

I try to write this blog with the layman in mind, and as such, I try to either avoid jargon, or at a minimum, provide a simple definition so the reader can understand the topic.

The services have always been pretty bad about jargon, but lately, there seems to have been a great upswing in the need to provide the most buzzwords in every possible endeavor.  The former Centers and Schools for the various combat arms have now become Centers of Excellence!  Well, I guess prior to the change of title, they were merely centers of mediocrity.

The Army this morning sent me an update on the plan for getting all of its stuff out of Afghanistan in the coming months.   So, do they call it The Plan For Sending Equipment Home? Of course not.

The Retrograde, Reset, Redeployment, Redistribution and Disposal mission (R4D) in Afghanistan will be a herculean effort. It requires innovation and creativity to meet the national objective of retrograding equipment back to the United States. U.S. Army Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC) the Army Service Component Command to U.S. Transportation Command, is committed to ensuring success of the Afghanistan R4D movement mission…

…SDDC created the Velocity-Volume, Distribution & Retrograde (V2DR) approach to support the R4D equipment retrograde from Afghanistan. V2DR is designed to balance volume (lower cost) and velocity (moving faster) of returning equipment to include exploiting Best Value Routing, sound equipping forecasts, and maintain a free flow of carrier multimodal sites while adhering to equipment required delivery dates. The Joint Distribution and Deployment Enterprise is responsible for R4D. According to SDDC transportation experts, the V2DR approach was developed under the assumption that Pakistan Ground Lines of Communication and the Northern Distribution Network are open.

It seems to me the added verbosity lends nothing to clarity of communication.  It’s not like the Army has never had to redeploy large numbers of vehicles and other equipment before. But apparently, the most important part here is coming up with new titles for old jobs.  One can only wonder how many staff officers spent how many man-hours devising these titles, and then putting together powerpoint briefs to seek approval from their general to so name such endeavors and programs.  Mind you, all that time spent on that, is time not spent actually achieving the redeployment.

Mind you, this isn’t just a small beans rant on my part.

This fetishizing of jargon has real consequences. When you cannot clearly articulate a concept in relatively simple terms, it is almost a certainty that you yourself have no firm grasp on what it is that you wish to convey.

Galrahn has a perfect example of this, based on the Navy’s highly successful Maritime Strategy of the 1980s, compared to the intellectual mush that passes for strategic though today.  Take a look at some of the slides from the earlier strategic statement:

—–

—–

—–

—–

I’ve skipped a bunch of slides, but let’s face it, the guidance above is pretty clear. Even a lubber like myself can gain the thrust of what it was the Secretary of the Navy, CNO, and Commandant of the Marine Corps were telling their subordinates, and the American public. More importantly, it was clear, specific guidance on how to fight a war.

Compare that to the pablum that passes for the Navy’s current capstone doctrinal statement today, The Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower. As Galrahn notes:

The Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower has almost nothing in common with today’s US Navy, an organization that is being stretched to the limits to meet COCOM demands; a US Navy that is deployed for war in the Middle East; a US Navy that has been deployed again and again to conduct some form of combat operations throughout the rest of the Middle East and Africa since the day the maritime strategy was signed; and a US Navy that is involved in a major pivot to the Pacific specifically for the purposes of reassuring allies during the uncertainty associated with the rise of China, who hasn’t exactly been making friendly relations with neighbors when it comes to maritime territories.
Explain why we need italics to emphasize statements like Seapower will be a unifying force for building a better tomorrow? The US Navy doesn’t build a thing in the world, it insures access so that others build upon the peaceful prosperity the US Navy enables. (emphasis mine-XBradTC)

Seapower may well be a unifying force for building a better tomorrow, but the “strategy” does little to tell sailors or America how the Navy intends to achieve that, nor how it will fight should other nations decide their vision of tomorrow is significantly different.

Perhaps it is the irony of this politically correct age that we can have a Navy that is (somewhat) engaged in war, yet cannot bring itself to mention warfighting in the very document it presents to the American public to justify its continued relevance.

2 Comments

Filed under ARMY TRAINING

Junior Officer Brain Drain?

As the Army slowly disengages from Afghanistan, and in the wake of Iraq, the Army is struggling to draw down its force levels, while cutting its budget, and maintaining a high state of readiness, all while trying to form a clear strategy and mission for the future.

In the midst of that, it is also trying to ensure that its best and brightest junior officers don’t seek greener pastures outside the military. One of the problems there is, those very same officers it wishes to retain are  both those most likely to successfully transition to outside employment, and most likely to chafe under the restrictions of a peacetime army.

Darrell Fawley, one of those  junior officers, shares his thoughts:

The debate about the Army losing its best junior officers between LTG (R) Barno and LTG Hodges on ForeignPolicy.com has been followed eagerly by many of my current and former (those that have left the service) peers.  While both have different views on the issue, both regard retaining the top 10-20% of officers as something important for the Army’s future.  As a junior officer who has performed in the top 10% of my peer group and decided to remain in the Army, I’d like to add to this discussion.  While I cannot speak for my entire demographic, I can provide insight.

I don’t believe that the majority of officers that make up this demographic expect the Army to put together some sort of bonus package to retain them.  I’ve never seen statistics on the bonus payments the Army made a few years ago, but I’ve only met one person who took the money that wasn’t already convinced he would stay in the Army.  I believe that most officers that stay in through a captain-level key assignment (generally command positions and primary staff roles) are not motivated by money or tangible benefits.  However, these officers want to feel like they are not just cogs in the wheel.  They have a level of experience way beyond what their superiors had at similar career points.  We are just now seeing battalion commanders who commanded companies in Iraq or Afghanistan.  Further, the complexity of their positions is way beyond that of what it is for their superiors in similar positions in the 1990’s.  These officers want trust, meaningful education and a voice, they want to be able to rise above their peers who perform below them and they want to see the Army progress not regress.

Read the whole thing.

3 Comments

Filed under ARMY TRAINING

Should Military Sexual Assault Cases Be Transferred To Civilian Jurisdiction?

Sure. Why not?

1 Comment

Filed under ARMY TRAINING

Load HEAT- Natasha Fatale

natasha3

Has there ever been a hotter babe holding a round bomb with a lit fuze?  I don’t think so.   From her insanely high heels to her thick (suspiciously Muscovite) Pottsylvanian accent, she is 100% real woman.

natasha_picture_1

natashafatale_09

Hey, if you can be played by Sally Kellerman and Renee Russo on the silver screen, you gotta be doing something right.  And when a gorgeous 21st Century Russian spy is invariably compared to you, you are an ICON.

natasha

boris_and_natasha_1[1]

natasha-157x300

No question about it.  Even though she was always perpetrating evil for Fearless Leader and Mister Big, whether it is stealing Upsidaisium or fixing football games with Wossamotta U, she was one of the hottest things about the Cold War.   Even if fiendish plan had fiendish plan.

nat

2 Comments

Filed under girls, history, Humor, Uncategorized, war

Deadline looms for Ohio veterans to claim bonuses from state | Marine Corps Times | marinecorpstimes.com

CINCINNATI — Time is running out for eligible military veterans to claim Ohio bonuses of up to $1,500, and officials are worried that thousands of veterans may miss out by not applying.

Navy veteran Robert Erb III describes his bonus for service in the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan war eras as a “real blessing” for him and his family.

“You don’t join for the benefits, but they can really help when you come back home,” said Erb, 41, of northeast Ohio’s Fairport Harbor.

via Deadline looms for Ohio veterans to claim bonuses from state | Marine Corps Times | marinecorpstimes.com.

Pass the word to any Ohio vets.

Leave a Comment

Filed under ARMY TRAINING

Operation End Sweep (part 1)

CH-53 MK-105 Sled

AN HM-12 CH-53D tows a MK 105 sled during Operation End Sweep

On 8 May 1972, as part of Operation Pocket Money (itself a part of Operation Rolling Thunder), 3 A-6 Intruders (from VMA(AW)-224) and 6 A-7 Corsairs (from VA-22 and VA-94) launched from the USS Coral Sea (CV-43) to deploy mines within the vicinity of Haiphong Harbor in North Vietnam.

map-viet

An illustration of the Southeast Asia are of Operations.

The A-6 flight led by the CAG (Commander, Carrier Air Wing), Commander Roger Sheets, was composed of USMC aircraft from VMA-224 and headed for the inner channel. The A-7Es, led by Commander Len Giuliani and made up of aircraft from VA-94 and VA-22, were designated to mine the outer segment of the channel. Each aircraft carried four MK 52-2 mines. Captain William Carr, USMC, the bombardier navigator in the lead plane established the critical attack azimuth and timed the mine releases. The first mine was dropped at 090859H and the last of the field of 36 mines at 090901H.

3_8

A-6A Intruder from VMA(AW)-224.

Twelve mines were placed in the inner segment and the remaining 24 in the outer segment. All MK 52-2 mines were set with 72-hour arming delays, thus permitting merchant ships time for departure or a change in destination consistent with the President’s public warning. It was the beginning of a mining campaign that planted over 11,000 MK 36 type destructor and 108 special MK 52-2 mines over the next eight months. It is considered to have played a significant role in bringing about an eventual peace arrangement, particularly since it so hampered the enemy’s ability to continue receiving war supplies.

Operation Rolling Thunder itself served as a way to get the North Vietnamese back to the negotiating table in Paris. Prior to Operation Pocket Money, the US Navy planning offices had studied minesweeping operations off Haiphong but the assets to conduct minesweeping were not properly maintained.  However some sweeping had taken place off Saigon in preparation for a non-combatant evacuation. Most of the minesweeping assets in theatre were devoted to Operation Market Time in South Vietnam. Most of the minesweeping equipment dated from the Korean War era. In 1970 the US Navy had made a decision to place more emphasis of minesweeping from helicopters due to the increasing cost of MSO (ocean-going minesweepers).

There were about 8 months between the time that CINCPAC (Commander-In-Chief Pacific) had received orders to begin minesweeping and the time the task force remained on-station to conduct sweeping operations. This allowed time for development of equipment, tactics and training.

Between the dates of May 9-11 of 1972, as assessment of problems was conducted. There were no oceanographic charts of the operational area off Haiphong, there was no data to give accurate predictions of equipment losses that could occur during operations, there was a lack of specialized personnel and training (both in the officer and enlisted ranks).

In 1972 mine countermeasures for both the Atlantic and Pacific Fleets were combined was under one type commander – Commander Mine Warfare Force, based in Charleston, South Carolina. What follows is a list of operational resources that were in this organization:

-One Mobile Mine Countermeasures Command (MOMCOM). This was the command structure to provide worldwide airborne and other support of minesweeping operations.

-Three Mine Flotillas. Each Flotilla was composed of a number of MSOs.

-One Helicopter minesweeping squadron. Helicopter Minesweeping Squadron 12 (HM-12) was the airborne component to the task force.

-One squadron of minesweeping boats (MSB and MSL).

-One Mine Force Support Group. They were responsible for training and equipping personnel for minesweeping operations.

HM-12 was equipped with 12 CH-53Ds. 2 of the helos were in use at the Naval Coastal Systems Laboratory. The CH-53Ds were on loan from the USMC and were configured with towing strong points required for mine countermeasures towing.

image013

HM-12 patch

These helos towed the MK-103 gear for sweeping moored mines, the MK-104 gear for acoustic mines and MK-105 hydrofoil for sweeping magnetic mines.

mk-105 minesweeping sled

Schematic drawing of the MK-105 minesweeping sled, showing the major components of the device.

Other airborne assets that didn’t necessarily belong to MOMCOM but were tasked to them were USAF C-5A Galaxies that were used to airlift the CH-53Ds to the theatre.

800px-USS_Constant_(AM-427)

An example of an MSO used during Operation End Sweep, the USS Constant (MSO-427).

Most of the surface born mine sweeping assets were the 172 ocean minesweeper (MSOs). By 1972 most of these ships were 13 to 19 years of age with 5 in the Western Pacific, 17 on the west coast and 11 on the east coast another 17 were in the Naval Reserve Forces and 13 were in an inactive status.  14 of these MSOs had received new engines to improve their useful lives and decrease the maintenance necessary for effective operation. Other vessels were the eleven 144 foot coastal minesweepers and nineteen 57-foot minesweeping boats.

The minefields off Haiphong were too shallow for sweeping operations by any of these types of vessels. However sensors towed by these vessels like the AN\SQO-14 sonar gave these vessels the ability to map the bottom of the ocean at sufficient resolution to detect mines. The only capability these vessels had to dispose of the mines were EOD divers.

The Naval Scientific Assistance Program (NASP), provided solutions to problems of immediate concern. For example, the NASP developed simulators for use in training and automated minesweeping planning software. As a side note, the NASP expressed a concern of solar flare activity in August of 1972. NASP thought these flares caused a large number of mine detonations of Destructor mines in US minefields off North Vietnam.

There were other problems concerning preparation for Operation End Sweep. Among them being a general lack of funds for training and equipment (which admittedly was a problem throughout all US forces at the time. Problems specific to minesweeping forces detailed to Operation End Sweep were reliability problems for degaussing, sonar (AN/SQO-14), and engines on the MSOs. There was no equipment for precision navigation and mapping of minefields. There was no oceanographic data for sea floor in the vicinity of Haiphong. The was no protection for the CH-53Ds that were involved in minesweeping.

HM-12 conducted training from May to November 1972 off of Charleston, South Carolina. The CH-53Ds operated from an LPD (Landing Platform Dock) and crews learned how to rig the minesweeping equipment to the helo. LCVPs (Land Craft Vehicle and Personnel or “Higgins Boat”) carried the MK-105 sleds to the waiting hovering helos. The sleds were then attached to the towing strong points on the aircraft.

Training of both surface and air forces for Operation End Sweep as done off of Panama City, Florida. Most of these tests were to test the accuracy of the Raydist. EOD teams also conducted training with surface minesweeping forces.

On 6 November 1972, Task Force 78 deployed to Subic Bay in the Philippines. Forces kept a low profile on base because TF-78 was being used as a bargaining chip in the Paris peace talks. The CH-53Ds were deployed to Subic via USAF C-5 Galaxy.

In January 1973 the Paris Peace Treaty was about to be signed and TF-78 forces ramped up training. Crews from HMM-165 trained with HM-12 aboard the USS Ogden and USS Dubuque. MSOs USS FortifyUSS ForceUSS Impervious and USS Engage began sweeping the anchorage for the TF, some approaches to Haiphong. Operations were being monitored by the Soviet Intelligence Collection Ship, Protractor.

By 26 February, airborne units from HM-12 were ready to be deployed aboard ships. HM-12 was divided into 4 detachments, each aboard 4 ships in the task group. Dets Alpha and Bravo embarked aboard the USS Ogden, USS Dubuque, and USS New Orleans. Dets Charlie and Delta embarked aboard the USS Inchon (LPD-12) and USS Cleveland (LPH-7).

General planning for sweeping operations in Haiphong actually started in 1972 as part of general contigency planning on the part of JCS. By mid-1972 however clearing the mines in Haiphong become a diplomatic issue at the Paris Peace Talks. The initial planning for End Sweep were known as Formation Sentry I and Formation Sentry II. These plans differed from End Sweep through the numbers and assets to be used. The Sentry plans were completed by 1972 but held ready by CINCPACFLT (Commander-In-Chief Pacific Fleet).

Imputes to expand Formation Sentry I into Formation II occurred because of what became known as the Warrington incident in June and July 1972. While conducting naval bombardment 10 to 20 miles northeast of Dong Hoi, the USS Warrington was damaged by an underwater explosion that was determined to have been possibly caused by a Destructor mine laid as a result of an aircraft navigation error.

This incident led the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) to determine that MSOs were particularly suited to ocean-sweeping operations in this area and prompted a danger zone to be established in the area. The area was never swept because a Naval Oceanographic team was trying to survey the area and was fired on by shore batteries. The area was never cleared (except for the self-destruction of the mine). The Warrington incident did bring increased interest of Minesweeping to the JCS and the appropriate planning offices were notified.

748px-Task_Force_78_Gulf_of_Tonkin

Ships of Task Force 78 at anchor in the Gulf of Tonkin.

By 24 November 1972 Task Force 78 (TF-78) was activated. TF-78 consisted of the following:

-Surface Support Group (Task Group 78.0) consisting of LPH and LPD types to serve as helicopter platforms and supporting ships such as the fleet ocean tug and salvage ship. Five helicopter platforms were available plus a flagship-maintenance platform. An amphibious squadron commander led the Surface Support Group.

-Mobile Mine Countermeasures Group (Task Group 78.1) the airborne group, contained the 4 airborne units (A,B,C,D), the special minesweeper Washtenaw County and various other units. Commander TG-78.1 was in overall command of sweeping in coastal and port areas.

-Surface Mine Countermeasures Group (Task Group 78.2) consisted of the 10 MSOs assigned to End Sweep. TG-78.2 acted as control ships for the helo minesweeping operations.

-Advanced Base Mine Countermeasures Group (Task Group 78.3) was stationed at Subic Bay. This group provided maintenance, repair and supply to the entire task group; trained Marines in MCM and coordinated installation of sweeping kits and the Swept Mine Locator Camera System on the helicopters. Civilian technical representative from the various contractors were also part of this group.

-Contingency Mine Countermeasures Group (Task Group 78.4) was activated later and primarily responsible for sweeping the inland waterways in North Vietnam. They were also primarily responsible for supervising North Vietnamese sweep personnel.

-Salvage Group (Task Group 78.5) was responsible for finding and disposing buried mines in the Haiphong Channel.

On 27 January, MSOs began sweeping the anchorages of Haiphong where the main ship in TF-78 would be operating. On the 29th, the Paris Peace Agreement was formally signed by representatives from the United States, The Republic of Vietnam, The Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the National Liberation Front.

By May of 1972, the largest mine countermeasures force the world had ever seen, up to that time, had assembled and was ready for action.

In the next part of this series we’ll get into the minesweeping equipment used in Operation End Sweep and the operation itself.

This was my first attempt to tell some “non-aviation” history that I felt needed to be told.  If I’ve missed something or said something in error as usual you feedback is more than welcome.

 

4 Comments

Filed under navy, history, helicopters