VertRep

VertRep

Friday, June 07, 2019

Back to "Bumper Drills" - Russian Destroyer Violates Nautical Rules of Road to Harass U.S. Navy Cruiser

Let's begin with the U.S. Navy official statement 7th Fleet Statement on Unsafe Maneuver by Russian Destroyer /a>
At approximately 11:45 am on June 7, 2019 while operating in the Philippine Sea, a Russian Destroyer (UDALOY I DD 572) made an unsafe maneuver against guided-missile cruiser USS Chancellorsville (CG-62), closing to approximately 50-100 feet putting the safety of her crew and ship at risk.

While USS Chancellorsville was recovering its helicopter on a steady course and speed when the Russian ship DD572 maneuvered from behind and to the right of Chancellorsville accelerated and closed to an unsafe distance of approximately 50-100 feet. This unsafe action forced USS Chancellorsville to execute all engines back full and to maneuver to avoid collision.
The videos are below. More damning, however, is this photo, obviously taken from the U.S. Navy helicopter:
Russian ship is on the left, as you face the photo. Note that its wake shows it maneuvering to intercept the course of Chancellorville, whose wake show it maintaining a steady course.

Under the International Rules of the Nautical Road, a vessel overtaking another ship has the obligation -the burden -to avoid the vessel being overtaken, see here for the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGs). Rule 13 governs in this instance, but background Rules are provided:
Rule 1
Application
(a). These Rules shall apply to all vessels upon the high seas and in all waters connected therewith navigable by
seagoing vessels.
****
Rule 2
Responsibility
(a). Nothing in these Rules shall exonerate any vessel, or the owner, master or crew thereof, from the consequences of
any neglect to comply with these Rules or of the neglect of any precaution which may be required by the ordinary
practice of seamen, or by the special circumstances of the case.
(b). In construing and complying with these Rules due regard shall be had to all dangers of navigation and collision and
to any special circumstances, including the limitations of the vessels involved, which may make a departure from these
Rules necessary to avoid immediate danger.
***
Rule 3
General definitions
. For the purpose of these Rules, except where the context otherwise requires:
(a). The word “vessel” includes every description of water craft, including non-displacement craft, WIG craft and
seaplanes, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.
(b). The term “power-driven vessel” means any vessel propelled by machinery.
(c). The term “sailing vessel” means any vessel under sail provided that propelling machinery, if fitted, is not being
used.
(d). The term “vessel engaged in fishing” means any vessel fishing with nets, lines, trawls or other fishing apparatus
which restrict manoeuvrability, but does not include a vessel fishing with trolling lines or other fishing apparatus which
do not restrict manoeuvrability.
(e). The word “seaplane” includes any aircraft designed to manoeuvre on the water.
(f). The term “vessel not under command” means a vessel which through some exceptional circumstance is unable to
manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of another vessel.
(g). The term “vessel restricted in her ability to manoeuvre” means a vessel which from the nature of her work is
restricted in her ability to manoeuvre as required by these Rules and is therefore unable to keep out of the way of
another vessel. The term “vessels restricted in their ability to manoeuvre” shall include but not be limited to:
(i). a vessel engaged in laying, servicing or picking up a navigation mark, submarine cable or pipeline;
(ii). a vessel engaged in dredging, surveying or underwater operations;
(iii). a vessel engaged in replenishment or transferring persons, provisions or cargo while underway;
(iv). a vessel engaged in the launching or recovery of aircraft;
****
Rule 8
Action to avoid collision
(a). Any action to avoid collision shall be taken in accordance with the Rules of this Part and shall, if the circumstances
of the case admit, be positive, made in ample time and with due regard to the observance of good seamanship.
(b). Any alteration of course and/or speed to avoid collision shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, be large
enough to be readily apparent to another vessel observing visually or by radar; a succession of small alterations of
course and/or speed should be avoided.
(c). If there is sufficient sea-room, alteration of course alone may be the most effective action to avoid a close-quarters
situation provided that it is made in good time, is substantial and does not result in another close-quarters situation.
(d). Action taken to avoid collision with another vessel shall be such as to result in passing at a safe distance. The
effectiveness of the action shall be carefully checked until the other vessel is finally past and clear.
(e). If necessary to avoid collision or allow more time to assess the situation, a vessel shall slacken her speed or take
all way off by stopping or reversing her means of propulsion.
(i). A vessel which, by any of these Rules, is required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel
shall, when required by the circumstances of the case, take early action to allow sufficient sea-room for the safe
passage of the other vessel.
(ii). A vessel required not to impede the passage or safe passage of another vessel is not relieved of this obligation if
approaching the other vessel so as to involve risk of collision and shall, when taking action, have full regard to the
action which may be required by the Rules of this part.
(iii). A vessel the passage of which is not to be impeded remains fully obliged to comply with the Rules of this part when
the two vessels are approaching one another so as to involve risk of collision.
***
Rule 13
Overtaking
(a). Notwithstanding anything contained in the Rules of part B, sections I and II, any vessel overtaking any other shall
keep out of the way of the vessel being overtaken.
(b). A vessel shall be deemed to be overtaking when coming up with another vessel from a direction more than 22.5
degrees abaft her beam, that is, in such a position with reference to the vessel she is overtaking, that at night she
would be able to see only the sternlight of that vessel but neither of her sidelights.
(c). When a vessel is in any doubt as to whether she is overtaking another, she shall assume that this is the case and
act accordingly.
(d). Any subsequent alteration of the bearing between the two vessels shall not make the overtaking vessel a crossing
vessel within the meaning of these Rules or relieve her of the duty of keeping clear of the overtaken vessel until she is
finally past and clear.
***
Rule 16
Action by give-way vessel
. Every vessel which is directed to keep out of the way of another vessel shall, so far as possible, take early and
substantial action to keep well clear.
***
Rule 17
Action by stand-on vessel
(a).
(i). Where one of two vessels is to keep out of the way the other shall keep her course and speed.
(ii). The latter vessel may however take action to avoid collision by her manoeuvre alone, as soon as it becomes
apparent to her that the vessel required to keep out of the way is not taking appropriate action in compliance with these
Rules.
(b). When, from any cause, the vessel required to keep her course and speed finds herself so close that collision
cannot be avoided by the action of the give-way vessel alone, she shall take such action as will best aid to avoid
collision.
(c). A power-driven vessel which takes action in a crossing situation in accordance with subparagraph (a)(ii) of this Rule
to avoid collision with another power-driven vessel shall, if the circumstances of the case admit, not alter course to port
for a vessel on her own port side.
(d). This Rule does not relieve the give-way vessel of her obligation to keep out of the way
Now, look at these videos, not much doubt that the Russian destroyer is overtaking, as defined above the U.S. cruiser. In addition, the U.S. ship was conducting flight operations, thus adding to the Russian's breached obligation to stand clear of the U.S. ship.





This sort of behavior was not uncommon during the Cold War, and it appears that Cold War mentality is creeping back into the Russian psyche. Or at least that of its leadership.



Thursday, June 06, 2019

George Will Reviews Rick Atkinson’s "The British Are Coming"

As we honor the brave men who stormed the beaches in Normandy, or fought at Midway, or flew the planes on daylight missions over Europe or fought the war at sea in the Pacific, or faced the U-Boats in the Battle of the Atlantic, or held the line in the Cold War, or won the battles in Korea and Vietnam and in the deserts of the Middle East, it is good to recall the lessons our founding.

George Will does so in his review of the next book on my reading list, Rick Atkinson’s "The British Are Coming" in his National Review piece, "A Nation Not Made by Flimsy People"

***
One lesson of The British Are Coming is the history-shaping power of individuals exercising their agency together: the volition of those who shouldered muskets in opposition to an empire. Another lesson is that the democratic, sentimental idea that cobblers and seamstresses are as much history-makers as generals and politicians is false. A few individuals matter much more than most. Atkinson is clear: No George Washington, no United States.

Washington, writes Atkinson, learned that “only battle could reveal those with the necessary dark heart for killing, years of killing; that only those with the requisite stamina, aptitude, and luck would be able to see it through, and finally — the hardest of war’s hard truths — that for a new nation to live, young men must die, often alone, usually in pain, and sometimes to no obvious purpose.” The more that Americans are reminded by Atkinson and other supreme practitioners of the historians’ craft that their nation was not made by flimsy people, the less likely it is to be flimsy.
We too often forget that there are sturdy men and women still working against "war's hard truths" today and writing history in their own time. We are still a new nation, constantly reinventing itself, constantly fighting against tyranny in all its forms.

That so many would give up the fight, either not knowing or caring that surrendering to evil does not bring peace, but only greater horrors, is a sign that "flimsy people" (perhaps "men without chests") are always present. As set out here, C.S. Lewis wrote about those who lack core beliefs except in their own correctness:
In his book, The Abolition of Man, Lewis was prophetic in pointing out that relativism—the idea that there are no absolute truths—would lead to the decay of morality and a lack of virtue within society. Without a belief in and the teaching of universal moral laws, we fail to educate the heart and are left with intelligent men who behave like animals or as Lewis puts it, “Men without Chests.”
So when we see a free Europe, a free South Korea, a peaceful Japan, a free Singapore, or even a China that is soon to choose a path that may bring true peace or something else, it ought to remind us that our ancestors - our fathers and grandfathers did what they did not to create an empire ruled from our shores, but to create a world in which peoples of all countries can seek the blessings of freedom for themselves if they so choose.

75th anniversary of the Allied landings in Normandy

Landing forces in war is hard, sustaining forces you've put ashore is very hard.

So, on this 75th anniversary of the landing in Normandy, a re-posting of a logistics post from a couple of years ago.

You can read a lot about those landing here:
The Normandy invasion took place in the Bay of the Seine, on the south side of the English Channel between the Cotentin Peninsula and the port of Le Havre. Some fifty-five miles broad and twenty deep, its waters were shallow, had a considerable tidal range, and, when the wind blew from the northward, could be very choppy. The planned landing beaches covered about forty-five miles of the Bay's shoreline. Westernmost was "Utah" Area, stretching eight miles southward along the low-lying southeastern coast of the Cotentin Peninsula. Directly to the east was "Omaha" Area, covering twelve miles of generally hilly terrain. United States forces were assigned to take both of those areas, with important assistance from the navies of Great Britain and other Allies. British and Canadian troops would assault the areas code-named "Gold", "Juno", and "Sword", which ran twenty miles eastward from "Omaha". This sector ended at the mouth of the Orne River, some fifteen miles west of Le Havre, where the German Navy based a group of potentially very dangerous torpedo boats.

The actual landing beaches occupied a fraction of the width of each area, but were
intended to provide sufficient initial footholds to allow rapid reinforcement and expansion inland, with the attacking soldiers joining their flanks to create a continuous beachhead perimeter before the enemy could mount a major counterattack. Each area would be assaulted by approximately one army division, with initial landings being made by much smaller units at 6:30AM in the American areas and about an hour later in the British. Their arrival on the shore was to follow a bombardment by ships' guns and aircraft ordnance, kept relatively brief to maintain as much as possible of the element of surprise. As a result, German shore defenses frequently remained intact, and would prove troublesome to both the landing forces and ships offshore.

To protect the invasion zone's western extremity, and to facilitate the "Utah" landing
force's movement into the Cotentin Peninsula, the U.S. 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions descended by parachute and glider in the small hours of "D-Day", 6 June 1944. Though badly scattered and lacking much of their equipment, these brave paratroopers kept the Germans occupied and helped ensure that the "Utah" Beach assault went relatively easily. The British and Canadian attacks, assisted by an air-dropped division on their eastern flank and a longer naval bombardment, generally also went well.

Not so in the "Omaha" area, where deep beaches backed by steep hills meant that the U.S. troops landing there were exposed to withering fire from enemy small arms, machine guns and artillery. Casualties were very heavy and the assult only succeeded after a day of brutal fighting, with warships coming in close to provide direct gunfire in support of the hard-pressed soldiers.

By nightfall on the sixth of June, the situation was favorable, even on Omaha. Entered the popular culture as THE "D-Day", a name it has retained ever since.
As impressive as the landing were, it is important to remember that the landings would not have been
possible without the huge build up of men, material and machinery that went into Normandy, too. Today we should give pause to honor those in the world of logistics who made these landings and those in North Africa, Italy, and the islands of the Pacific possible.

And by honor I mean thinking about what it took to mine the iron, smelt the metal, design and build ships, aircraft, landing craft, rifles, artillery pieces, tanks, bombs, bullets, drill for and produce and refine the petroleum products that powered the fleets of ships, air forces, tanks, trucks, grow and harvest the grains, raise the cattle and other food for the forces abroad and at home . . . to the often overlooked merchant shipping industry ships and crews who transported all these things to England, Italy, North Africa and throughout the Pacific, thereby sustaining not only the fleets, Marines, armies but also much of the civilian populations of countries like Great Britain.

For more background on U.S. logistics during WWII, you can get a version of the whole story at The Big 'L'--American Logistics in World War II:
A remark by a captured German soldier best summarizes the importance of logistics in the battle for Europe in World War II. As he was marched past one of the many roadside supply dumps that dotted the Normandy landscape in the wake of the invasion, he was heard to remark "I know how you defeated us. You piled up the supplies and then let them fall on us." He was right. The war in Europe was what the Germans called materialschlact, "matériel battle." It was a "matériel battle" on a scale greater than any other conflict in history, a contest pitting the industrial capacities of Germany and the United States against each other. In the end, triumph was the result of the ability, of the United States to mobilize its industrial capacity" to provide the instruments of war for its troops and those of its allies and to deliver them where and when they were needed--to pile them up and let them fall.

Logistics in the European Theater of Operations (ETO) is a massive and complicated subject, one that accounts for thousands of pages in the official histories of the war. Although these events are over a half century past, the fundamental issues that concerned World War II logisticians--how to know what you need and how to get it where you need it when you need it--are the same problems their successors face today. . .
***
The story of theater logistics in WWII is not a unitary one; rather, it is two distinct stories. The Pacific and European theaters of operation were each unique in their strategic geography and military situation. In the European theater, the basic logistical task was to mass strength in a secure forward base to support operations--both land and air--against a nearby enemy. The United States entered the war after the British had forestalled Hitler's plans for a cross-Channel invasion. Therefore, Great Britain afforded a large, secure staging ground for the buildup of combat power. Moreover, as an advanced industrial nation, Great Britain possessed the ports, rail lines, and other facilities to support a massive influx of material and personnel. This buildup would require large numbers of ships to transit a single, highly vulnerable line of communication, the Atlantic route from the United States to England.

With the notable exception of the Battle of the Atlantic, the war in Europe is largely an Army story. The Army provided the theater commander and virtually the entire theater logistical structure. ...
(Barry Dysart, Chapter VII)

Here's quick summary of what D-Day meant in terms of logistics:


Sustainment of forces in the field is a challenge in any war. D-Day and its aftermath was the creation of a huge number of unsung heroes.

Give them a little thought and a tip of the hat.




Sunday, June 02, 2019

On Midrats 2 June 2019 - Episode 491: Early Summer Melee

Please join us at 5pm on 2 June 2019 for Episode 491: Early Summer Melee
He’s back! EagleOne is back in the studio to help us kick of summer with a Midrats early-summer melee! With most schools out, what you need right now is a good maritime hour to refocus the brain. For the full hour we’ll try to cover it all from the latest McCain kerfuffle to WESTPAC to NATO to the FFG(X) dropouts and more, we’ll cover the waterfront. As always, the phones and chatroom will be open if you want to join the show. See you Sunday!
Join us live if you can, but if you miss the show you can always listen to the archive at Spreaker.

If you use iTunes, you can add Midrats to your podcast list simply by clicking the iTunes button at the main showpage - or you can just click here.

Saturday, June 01, 2019

Saturday Is Old Radio Day: The Pacific Story - "The Milk and Meat of the Far East" (1946)

Soybeans:
Soybeans originated in Southeast Asia and were first domesticated by
Chinese farmers around 1100 BC. By the first century AD, soybeans were grown in Japan and many other countries.



You might have heard of a trade dispute with China, China halts purchases of U.S. soybeans, report says:
China is reportedly putting purchases of U.S. soybeans on hold amid the growing trade war with the U.S., according to a report from Bloomberg News. As the world's largest soybean buyer, China's move could ramp up the economic pressure on American farmers.


China doesn't plan to cancel orders it's already made, Bloomberg reported, citing people familiar with the situation. Even though China had agreed earlier this year to buy 10 million tons of U.S. soybeans, the purchases have halted, with about 7 million tons of soybeans yet to be delivered to China, Bloomberg noted.
China may make up for a halt to U.S. soybeans by buying more from Brazil according to this Press release from Business Wire:
It is expected that with an expanding population and improving living standards, the demand for soybeans in China will continue to grow in the next few years. As the domestic soybean yields can hardly be increased, over 80% soybean consumption will rely on imports.

There are many uncertainties in the Sino-U.S. trade war. If China and the U.S. can reach a compromise on bilateral trade, in 2019, U.S. soybean imports to China may rebound rapidly; otherwise, the tariffs will remain at the current level or be increased, and there will be a surge in the prices and a plummet in the volume of U.S. soybeans imported to China.

Even if Chinese importers turn their attention to countries such as Brazil, the soaring demand will push up the prices of soybeans from these countries and press Chinese importers in cost. Overall, the ongoing Sino-U.S. trade war will increase the cost of importing soybeans, which means that Chinese consumers will have to pay more for soybean oil, bean products, dairy products, pork, eggs, etc.

Friday, May 31, 2019

Friday Film: "The Seventh Fleet" (1957)

Our fleet for Asia and the Indian Ocean as it was during the Cold War when the Seventh Fleet was the "balance of power in the Far East" and "the most powerful single sea force in the world today."



Saturday, May 25, 2019

Saturday Is Old Radio Day: War and Peace

On this Memorial Day weekend, a selection of old radio and television clips on American values

Grant and Lee at Appomattox:


General Pershing from France:


General MacArthur "Old Soldiers"


President Eisenhower "Imperatives of Peace"


President Eisenhower Farewell Address


President Kennedy Inaugural Address


President Reagan at the 40th Anniversary of D-Day in Europe

Friday, May 24, 2019

Friday Film: Early WWII in the Pacific - Battles of Coral Sea and Midway and a Little More

Memorial Day honors:




By the way, if you missed it theaters yesterday, the documentary The Cold Blue, it will be on HBO soon. Don't miss it. My father flew 35 missions over Germany in B-17s as a member of the 8th Air Force and some of his story was not really comprehensible to his kids - not that he talked about it much - but this film helps set up the context.

The crew my dad flew with (he's front row, second from left):






Take some time this weekend to remember those who have died to preserve our freedom.

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Russia's Contaminated Crude Oil Problem

The latest issue of the Oil & Gas Journal offers up some analysis about the rise in oil prices, courtesy of Rystad Energy OIL PRICE RISKS RISE TO PRECARIOUS LEVELS:
Supply disruptions in the Middle East on top of an already tight crude market could send oil prices violently upward, according to Rystad Energy.

Two Saudi Arabian oil tankers were reportedly attacked off the coast of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) this weekend, sending crude futures sharply up Monday morning.

Commenting on the incident, Bjørnar Tonhaugen, Head of Oil Market Research at Rystad Energy, says:

“In the short term, the perceived risk of supply disruptions from the area will only add to the premium of short-dated oil contracts compared to deferred contracts on the futures curve, which are already trading at a high premium.”

The tightness in prompt supplies is caused by declines in production from Iran and Venezuela, along with ongoing OPEC cuts, outages in Russia owing to the Urals contamination, maintenance in Kazakhstan, plus planned maintenance in the North Sea during the summer months.

“The oil market is reacting today not because the physical market suddenly has lost more oil supplies, but because of risks that the market may lose more oil in the coming weeks and months given the heightened risk of supply disruptions from the critical Persian Gulf region. Raising tensions even higher, news flows suggest the latest incident might be related to the conflict between Iran and the US, which puts the Strait of Hormuz in play,” Tonhaugen said.
Wait, what? That part I highlighted says something about contaminated Russian crude oil? Perhaps you haven't heard that about The Giant Soviet Pipeline System That's Full of Tainted Crude
Europe’s oil refineries stopped accepting piped deliveries of Urals crude from Russia this week after flows were found to be contaminated with abnormally high levels of organic chlorides that, when refined, become hydrochloric acid that can damage the plants.
***
Russia’s government has blamed a private storage terminal in the center of the country for the problem. It will now take two weeks to ensure uncontaminated crude is flowing along the entire length of the pipeline.

The millions of barrels tainted crude will need to blended with larger quantities of unblemished oil to get the impurities down to safe levels, a task that might some weeks or months.

Organic chlorides are generally not present in crude oils, but are used to dissolve wax and during cleaning operations at production sites, pipelines or tanks.
Ah, well, Russia's Plan to Cleanse Tainted Oil Pipe Proves Slow-Going:
While there is nearly 1 million tons of contaminated oil in Belarus, the overall amount of substandard Urals crude in pipelines across the country, Russia, Ukraine and Poland may have been as much as 5 million tons as of the end of April.

Most of the tainted crude remains in the pipelines and is “eating away at them,” Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko said on Saturday. The nation and Russia are discussing what to do with the oil with no clear deadline for removing it.
Apparently, part of the Russian plan is to ship contaminated product to "Asia": Contaminated Urals cargoes stranded in Europe head for Asia:
With some contaminated cargoes of crude from the Urals headed to China and the Bahamas, the remaining oil cargoes are stranded in Europe while Asian buyers are sought
Oil traders sell dirty Russian crude to Asian buyers:
Trading companies Vitol and Unipec are sending around 700,000 tonnes (5.1 million barrels) of contaminated Russian oil to Asia in an attempt to place the barrels rejected by buyers in Europe, according to trading sources and ship tracking data.
***
Vitol has sold its cargo to Chinese independent refiner Bora Group while Unipec is moving the oil to refineries in China owned by its parent company China Petroleum and Chemical Corp (Sinopec), the sources said.

“We took the oil after evaluating that our refineries are able to process the crude,” one of the sources told Reuters, adding that the price was also attractive given that Middle East crude grades are trading at multi-year highs on tight supply.
A good time is being had by everyone except the Russians and the companies that bought the contaminated product and had it screw up their refineries, Total Declares Force Majeure On German Refinery After Russian Oil Contamination:
On Thursday, Total declared force majeure on shipments of refined oil products from the Leuna refinery after the suspension of the oil flow via the Druzhba pipeline.

Russian pipeline operator Transneft will compensate its customers for the losses they have sustained due to the contaminated crude oil, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Kozak said on Thursday, noting that refiners must first prove their damage and loss in order to claim compensation.
And, it's all one more reason while oil prices go up.

"US-China Confrontation Will Define Global Order" - Victor Davis Hanson

Interesting read at the Hoover Institution -Victor Davis Hanson: US-China Confrontation Will Define Global Order. Some of the better thoughts:
... Trump believes that if present trends are not reversed, China could
in theory catch and surpass the US. And as an authoritarian, anti-democratic superpower, China's global dominance would not be analogous to the American-led postwar order, but would be one in which China follows one set of rules and imposes a quite different set on everyone else—perhaps one day similar to the system imposed on its own people within China.
***
China does not honor patents and copyright laws. It still exports knock-off and counterfeit products. It steals research and development investment through a vast array of espionage rings. It manipulates its currency.

Its government companies export goods at below the cost of production to grab market share. It requires foreign companies to hand over technology as a price of doing business in China. And, most importantly, it assumes, even demands, that Western nations do not emulate its own international roguery—or else.

The result is a strange paradox in which the United States and Europe assume that China is an international commercial outlaw, but the remedy is deemed worse than the disease. So, many Western firms make enormous profits in China through joint projects, and so many academic institutions depend on China students, and so many financial institutions are invested in China, that to question its mercantilism is to be derided as a quaint nationalist, or a dangerous protectionist, or a veritable racist. China is an astute student of the Western science of victimology and always poses as a target of Western vindictiveness, racism, or puerile jealousy.
***
Global naval dominance is not in the Chinese near future. Its naval strategy is more reminiscent of the German Kriegsmarine of 1939 to 1941, which sought to deny the vastly superior Royal Navy access at strategic points without matching its global reach. China is carving out areas where shore batteries and coastal fleets can send showers of missiles to take out a multibillion-dollar American carrier. And its leasing of 50 and more strategically located ports might serve in times of global tensions as transit foci for armed merchant ships. But for now they do not have the capabilities of the American carrier or submarine fleet or expeditionary Marine forces—so the point is to deny America reach, not to emulate its extent.
Thought-provoking and, in my humble view, spot on.

An outlaw nation that seeks to revive the idea that it is the "center" of civilization and that all other nations owe some sort of obeisance to it needs to get a better grip on how cooperative engagement works to make the world better for all of us.

Sadly, with Europe's apparent lack of interest in becoming anything more than an administrative, politically correct gaggle, once again the key player in calling out China's outrageous contact is the U.S.

UPDATE: Well, at least one article in Foreign Affairs says Europe is going to resist China in some way Why Europe Is Getting Tough on China:
. . .an effective coalition to manage China’s rise can no longer center on Asian security partnerships alone but must now include the world’s principal concentrations of economic power, technological progress, and liberal democratic values. Among these are many of the United States’ partners in the Indo-Pacific, such as Australia, India, and Japan. But the European Union and its major member states are also becoming increasingly critical U.S. counterparts in dealing with China.
***
As next week’s EU-China summit approaches, Europe has begun to fundamentally rethink its China policies. The shift is so substantial than even seasoned Asia hands have described it as a “revolution.” Despite differences among the EU member states, the overall thrust of the change is in convergence with the new U.S. approach. As recently as three years ago, member states resisted even modest changes to strengthen EU trade defense instruments, despite the flood of Chinese steel imports. The notion of an EU-level mechanism to scrutinize Chinese investments was still anathema to most European leaders. If the United States in early 2016 had suggested closer coordination in restricting Chinese access to Western technologies, a common public front on China’s non-market practices, or cooperation on infrastructure financing as a counterbalance to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), European allies would have responded with a bemused rebuff.

The same logic that has driven the U.S. policy shift, however, has led Europe to change its stance. In March, European heads of state debated a new European Commission strategy paper that describes China as an “economic competitor in the pursuit of technological leadership, and a systemic rival promoting alternative models of governance.” The proposals in the paper would change policies in areas ranging from procurement to data, antitrust rules to telecommunications, industrial strategy to artificial intelligence.
***
What accounts for the shift in European thinking? No doubt political and security developments have played a role—from China’s deepening authoritarianism under President Xi Jinping to its efforts to extend political influence in Europe. The strongest drivers of the change, however, are economic. Europe has lost hope that China will reform its economy or allow greater access to its markets, and at the same time, China’s state-backed and state-subsidized actors have advanced in sectors that Europe considers critical to its economic future.
It's always about the money and it always seems to come very late.

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

National Power and the Merchant Fleet

In light of the excellent Midrats show Sal and Claude had with John Konrad, I am re-posting a piece on the size of the useful American shipping industry, which readers of Mahan know, and which the Chinese have followed, is key to international strength and a reason for a strong navy.

First, the episode:



My original post



As of 15 March 2019, the inventory of U.S. flagged merchant ships of "over 1000 gross tons that carry cargo from port to port" was 180 ships.

As noted in the above video, only 78 of these 180 ply international trade. This is down from nearly 200 in 1990, as seen in the chart below:

A partial explanation for the decrease in such international shipping is the increase in capacity of tankers and container ships. Another explanation is the higher cost of operating under U.S. law as opposed to operating under a foreign "flag of convenience."

Of the 180, 73 are tankers, many of which are not deemed "militarily useful."

Nine of the 180 ships have gross tonnage of under 2000 tons. Most of the latter are not considered as being "militarily useful." Gross tonnage (GT)\is a function of the volume of all of a ship's enclosed spaces (from keel to funnel) measured to the outside of the hull framing."

Here's the MARAD list of U.S. flagged privately owned ships most of which operate from U.S. port to U.S. port, subject to the Jones Act:



As part of trying to maintain a U.S. flag merchant fleet, MARAD operates the Maritime Security Program Fleet:
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 requires that the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to establish a fleet of active, commercially viable, militarily useful, privately-owned vessels to meet national defense and other security requirements. All Maritime Security Program operating agreements are currently filled by 60 ships. In the event that an operating agreement should become available, the Maritime Administration would publish a notice in the Federal Register requesting applicants. A copy of the Maritime Security Program application is listed below. Participating operators are required to make their ships and commercial transportation resources available upon request by the Secretary of Defense during times of war or national emergency.
Click on image to enlarge

You might note that MSP ships also appear on the MARAD list.

In addition to merchant shipping, the Military Sealift Command maintains an inventory of ships:


Some of these ships also appear in that MARAD merchant list. I note this to ensure the same ships are not counted twice or three times as assets available if needed.

Concerns? Suppose we need more ships to carry things needed for national security? We are short merchant mariners, as noted by the GAO here:
Stakeholders GAO spoke to identified two primary challenges in sustaining the internationally trading U.S.-flag fleet for national defense needs.
• First, even with the annual MSP stipend, maintaining the financial viability of U.S.-flag vessels is a challenge. This challenge largely results from the higher costs of operating a U.S.-flag vessel. According to U.S. Maritime Administration (MARAD) officials, the additional cost of operating a U.S. flag vessel compared to a foreign-flag vessel has increased—from about $4.8 million annually in 2009 and 2010 to about $6.2 to $6.5 million currently— making it harder for such vessels to remain financially viable. In addition,
government cargo volumes have fallen in recent years. In response to this challenge, Congress increased the MSP stipend from $3.5 million per vessel for fiscal year 2016 to $4.99 million per vessel for fiscal year 2017. MARAD officials said this increase has temporarily stabilized the financial situation of MSP vessel operators. However, MARAD officials stated trends in operating costs and government  cargo suggest this will remain an ongoing challenge.
• Second, a potential shortage of U.S.-citizen mariners available to crew the government-owned reserve fleet during a crisis is a challenge. DOD counts on mariners working on U.S.-flag vessels to crew this fleet when activated. A MARAD working group recently estimated a shortage of over 1,800 mariners in the case of a drawn-out military effort, although it also recommended data improvements to increase the accuracy of the count of available mariners.

What difference does it make? Mahan's view is that the purpose of a navy is that "Navies exist for the protection of commerce" - and what happens when the ships carrying your commerce are not of your own nation? You end up providing open lines of commerce for "free riders" who garner the benefit of free trade routes without incurring the costs of maintaining them. Under the U.S.'s post-WWII leadership, commerce among nations ballooned - China's resurgence has been, in large part, due to its embrace of international trade and its use of the trade routes protected by the United States Navy and its allies.
The first and most obvious light in which the sea presents itself from the political and social point of view is that of a great highway; or better, perhaps, of a wide common, over which men may pass in all directions, but on which some well-worn paths show that controlling reasons have led them to choose certain lines of travel rather than others. These lines of travel are called trade routes; and the reasons which have determined them are to be sought in the history of the world.

Notwithstanding all the familiar and unfamiliar dangers of the sea, both travel and traffic by water have always been easier and cheaper than by land. The commercial greatness of Holland was due not only to her shipping at sea, but also to the numerous tranquil water-ways which gave such cheap and easy access to her own interior and to that of Germany. This advantage of carriage by water over that by land was yet more marked in a period when roads were few and very bad, wars frequent and society unsettled, as was the case two hundred years ago. Sea traffic then went in peril of robbers, but was nevertheless safer and quicker than that by land. A Dutch writer of that time, estimating the chances of his country in a war with England, notices among other things that the water-ways of England failed to penetrate the country sufficiently; therefore, the roads being bad, goods from one part of the kingdom to the other must go by sea, and be exposed to capture by the way. As regards purely internal trade, this danger has generally disappeared at the present day. In most civilized countries, now, the destruction or disappearance of the coasting trade would only be an inconvenience, although water transit is still the cheaper. Nevertheless, as late as the wars of the French Republic and the First Empire, those who are familiar with the history of the period, and the light naval literature that has grown up around it, know how constant is the mention of convoys stealing from point to point along the French coast, although the sea swarmed with English cruisers and there were good inland roads.

Under modern conditions, however, home trade is but a part of the business of a country bordering on the sea. Foreign necessaries or luxuries must be brought to its ports, either in its own or in foreign ships, which will return, bearing in exchange the products of the country, whether they be the fruits of the earth or the works of men's hands; and it is the wish of every nation that this shipping business should be done by its own vessels. The ships that thus sail to and fro must have secure ports to which to return, and must, as far as possible, be followed by the protection of their country throughout the voyage.

This protection in time of war must be extended by armed shipping. The necessity of a navy, in the restricted sense of the word, springs, therefore, from the existence of a peaceful shipping, and disappears with it, except in the case of a nation which has aggressive tendencies, and keeps up a navy merely as a branch of the military establishment. As the United States has at present no aggressive purposes, and as its merchant service has disappeared, the dwindling of the armed fleet and general lack of interest in it are strictly logical consequences. When for any reason sea trade is again found to pay, a large enough shipping interest will reappear to compel the revival of the war fleet. It is possible that when a canal route through the Central-American Isthmus is seen to be a near certainty, the aggressive impulse may be strong enough to lead to the same result. This is doubtful, however, because a peaceful, gain-loving nation is not far-sighted, and far-sightedness is needed for adequate military preparation, especially in these days.
We allowed our international merchant fleets to decline because it allowed for the lower cost import and export of goods on foreign hulls. It depended on the good faith participation of the entire sea-going world in maintaining good faith trade. Now, what happens if a great power develops a naval force that is not designed to allow for the continuation of these great trade routes but seeks to protect its own agenda in nearby waters - as in the South China Sea. What if that state, which engages in spirited trade with both the U.S. and the rest of the world decides to shut off the use of its state-owned "merchant ship" from that trade and attempts to create "no sail" zones for the merchant and/or naval vessels of other states. What if this power is used to coerce other states not to intervene in protection of allied states in its "sphere of influence?"

We need both a larger navy and an larger, well-manned merchant marine as a preventive measure against such blackmail efforts.



Monday, May 20, 2019

U.S. Navy Office of Naval Intelligence Worldwide Threat to Shipping (WTS) Report 10 April - 15 May 2019 and HORN OF AFRICA/GULF OF GUINEA/ SOUTHEAST ASIA: Piracy Analysis and Warning Weekly (PAWW) Report for 9 - 15 May 2019

Special note at the beginning of the Worldwide Threat to Shipping is a warning about Iran:
MARAD U.S. MARITIME ADVISORY 2019-006: Threat Type: Threats to U.S. Interests from Iran Geographic Area: Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, Bab-el-Mandeb, and Red Sea. Reference: U.S.
Maritime Advisory 2019-004. Issue: Reporting indicates heightened Iranian readiness to conduct offensive operations against U.S. forces and interests. Since early May, there is an increased possibility that Iran and/or its regional proxies could take action against U.S. and partner interests, including oil production infrastructure, after recently threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz. Iran or its proxies could respond by targeting commercial vessels, including oil tankers, or U.S. military vessels in the Red Sea, Bab-el Mandeb Strait, or the Persian Gulf.
And another:
MARAD U.S. MARITIME ADVISORY 2019-005: Threat Type: GPS Interference. Geographic Area: Eastern Mediterranean and Red Seas. This revised Advisory cancels U.S. Maritime Advisory 2018-014. Reference: U.S. Maritime Alerts 2018-004A, 2018-004B, 2018-008A. Issue: Multiple instances of significant GPS interference continue to be reported by vessels and aircraft operating in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. These reports have been concentrated near Port Said, Egypt, the Suez Canal, and in the vicinity of the Republic of Cyprus. Instances of similar interference were also reported between Hadera, Israel and Beirut, Lebanon and near Jeddah Port, Saudi Arabia. This interference is resulting in lost or otherwise altered GPS signals affecting bridge navigation, GPS-based timing and communications equipment.



Friday, May 17, 2019

Friday Film: "The Fighting Lady" (1944)

USS Yorktown (CV-10) (second carrier with that name) at war in the Pacific in a "NewsDrama."

I must note that no sea movie is ever just about "a ship" which is just a big hunk of metal until put to life by a crew. Here the crew was splendid.

You need a little over an hour to watch this gem:



Narrated by Robert Taylor who served as a flight instructor for the Navy.

Monday, May 13, 2019

U.S. Navy Office of Naval Intelligence Worldwide Threat to Shipping (WTS) Report 3 April - 8 May 2019 and HORN OF AFRICA/GULF OF GUINEA/ SOUTHEAST ASIA: Piracy Analysis and Warning Weekly (PAWW) Report for 2 - 8 May 2019

U.S. Navy Office of Naval I... by on Scribd


Back

Back from my adventure, at least for a little while but perhaps longer.

I was hiking a section of the Appalachian Trail and managed to strain my left Achilles tendon. My medical guide says to stop doing what you were doing that caused the injury so after plodding limping along for a couple of days, when I got to a good stopping place I called Enterprise to come pick me up, rented a car and drove home.

It was a tough call - I wanted to stay on the trail, but the reality of such an injury is that you can only make it worse by pushing on, so I let my head overcome my heart and left the Trail.

Don't know yet how long it will take to recover, I know I didn't rupture the tendon but will seek medical advice in the next few days. Meanwhile, it's rest, ice, compress and elevate for me.

The AT is great, the other hikers are great, but as so many learn, it only takes a slight misstep to cause an injury that sends you home.

Monday, April 29, 2019

Dream Chasing

I am off on adventures which means that posts on this site are going to become more irregular in timing and numbers. Please enjoy the older posts and visit some of excellent Navy and national security blogs and sites out there.

Not quite sure how long these adventures will last, but be assured that I am well in both body and spirit and having a great time!

There are periods of your life when everything opens up to allow you to fulfill a dream, and this is one of those moments for me.

When time and opportunity allow, I will be posting, but not daily.

Be of good cheer and when you find a dream to chase, go after it with all your heart and soul!

Wednesday, April 24, 2019

Gulf of Guinea Counter-Piracy- Regional Agreement

Interregional Institute for Maritime Safety (ISMI) Empowers Maritime Officers To Fight Piracy In The Gulf Of Guinea:
The Interregional Institute for Maritime Safety (ISMI) has deepened
the capacity of maritime officers to fight against piracy on the seas.

Participants were brought together from Benin, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea Conakry, Liberia, Mauritania, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo, and Côte d'Ivoire.
***
The Regional Coordinator of the Action of the State of the Sea, Guillaume de Beauregard, noted that the threat of piracy is still high and prevalent hence, the need to empower officers with the necessary ability to tackle the canker on sea.

"From 2017 to 2018, 40% of the 180 to 201 attacks worldwide were in the Gulf of Guinea. All the kidnappings that took place in 2018 took place in the Gulf of Guinea,” he stated.

According to him, the first figures for 2019 are rather encouraging, though all specialists agree that the Gulf of Guinea remains a hot spot for piracy in the world.
Interesting. The area needs a little less talk, though, and a lot more action.

Somali Pirates: Fishing Vessels Attacked Off Somali Coast

Seems that Somali pirates are up to their old tricks, grabbing a dhow to use as a "mother ship" and sending skiffs out to attack. EU NAVFOR reports:
EU NAVFOR photo
On 21 April, fishing vessels FV Adria and FV Txori Argi were attacked by suspected pirates in the Indian Ocean, 280 NM off the coast of Somalia. The piracy attacks were thwarted, and the crew and vessels remained safe, thanks to the application of Best Management Practices (BMP) protection measures by the Masters, the crews and the private security teams embarked on both fishing vessels.
EU NAVFOR Somalia Operation Atalanta confirms these attacks. It is likely that the attacks were facilitated by a mothership, which was reportedly seized by armed men on 19 April off the central Somali Coast.
EU NAVFOR subsequently dispatched its Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Aircrafts to search the area. In addition, EU NAVFOR flagship ESPS Navarra left the port in Mombasa in order to proceed into the area.
On 23 April, ESPS NAVARA successfully intercepted and boarded the dhow being used as a mothership.
The operation is still ongoing, and more details will be provided upon completion.
EU NAVFOR remains committed to deterring, preventing and suppressing piracy and emphasizes that the Maritime Industry must adhere to BMP measures in order to maximize the safety of the ship and their crews whilst transiting the high-risk area.
Hmmm. Looks like Perry-class frigate was useful in the operation, Spanish FFG Navarra. Too bad the US doesn't have something like them.

Hat tip to Lee.

U.S. Politics, Somalia, and the Very Best of Intentions

A must read article on some aspects of "humanitarian interventions" that get overlooked Here's What Rep. Ilhan Omar Gets Wrong About 'Black Hawk Down'
Task Force Ranger was the 1993 military effort ordered by President Bill Clinton to capture Aidid and his lieutenants so the U.N. could deliver food and medical aid without fear of being attacked or killed by Aidid’s forces. The American soldiers Omar attacked in her tweet — the men of Task Force Ranger –weren’t sent to Somalia for fame or fortune. They weren’t there because of a deep desire to visit the God-forsaken nation of Somalia. They were deployed to support peacekeepers who were desperate to rescue the country from starvation and the ravages of civil war. To do that, they had to capture the men responsible for it.
What gets forgotten, is that the original intention - to feed and protect the starving masses gets lost in the stories of those "saved" - thus Rep. Omar  seems to know only  the tales told by her elders who fled Somalia, who repeat the  stories of violence, some of it by "invaders" and not the tales of UN forces and US forces coming with food and medicine. Her bitterness seems largely second hand.

She doesn't seem to know that some of the first pirating of vessel off the Somali coast was done to ships carrying relief supplies and that those hijacked supplies were used to increase the power and wealth of some of same warlords who caused many of the problems in Somalia as it turned into a failed state.

Bitterness toward rescuers is not unusual in this world. Something about "biting the hand that feeds you."

Sunday, April 21, 2019

Easter

The Empty Tomb, 1889, Mikhail Nesterov

Matthew 28King James Version (KJV)

28 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.

3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:

4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.

7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

8 And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word.

9 And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him.

10 Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.