I visited Boston and the USS Constitution around 20 years ago. Great long weekend in Bean Town, and I’ve recovered from my concussion on the ship. Be carful on that ship as men were shorter when she first sailed and the ceiling, and the cross  members sporting them, were low. 

I know the Navy works to manage the wear and tear on the Constitution. They sail it once a year, and rotate which side is docked to even out sun and water wear. I heard the Navy had a small forest of white oak to handle the ships repairs and maintenance. Here is the story  oh how that came about.

Where does a 225-year-old working warship get its parts? At the Navy forest, of course

A forest owned by the U.S. Navy in Indiana ensures that the U.S.S. Constitution—named by George Washington and built with bolts forged by Paul Revere—stays afloat and at the ready.

In the early 1970s, as the United States began preparing for its Bicentennial, Boston decided that the U.S.S. Constitution would be a focal point of the city’s anniversary celebrations, with a new museum to the celebrated warship opening at the Charlestown Navy Yard.

The three-masted heavy frigate, launched in 1797, was named by George Washington and built with copper bolts forged by Paul Revere. Black-sided and red-bottomed, with a single, stark white running stripe, Constitution protected American ships against the French in the undeclared Quasi-War of 1798-1800 and quelled pirate attacks in the Mediterranean during the First Barbary War. The armed vessel defeated five British warships in the War of 1812, and it was in the wake of one of those battles—in which the American crew watched enemy cannonballs bounce harmlessly off Constitution’s white-oak hull—that the warship earned its famous nickname: “Old Ironsides...”

...The Constitution fulfilled its last mission, seizing a slave ship near the Congo River, in 1853 but remains today a fully commissioned warship of the U.S. Navy and—225 years after its launching— the oldest warship still afloat anywhere on Earth, moored in Boston Harbor’s chilly waters.

In 1906, after decades of work as a training ship along the east coast, the Navy made its first attempt to restore Constitution to its original War of 1812 configuration. In order to maintain the ship’s seaworthiness, a near-full restoration would need to be undertaken every 10 years.

But when the Navy went looking for materials to repair Constitution ahead of the 1976 Bicentennial, the enormous white oaks needed for the restoration of Old Ironsides were hard to find in the Northeast, so supervisors at the Boston Naval Shipyard scoured the Midwest and eventually bought timber from a private seller in Ohio.

“Someone in the Navy caught wind of it and wondered why they didn’t just come another four or five hours west, where they had fantastic white oak right on Navy property that they could have gotten for free,” recalls Trent Osmon, the environmental manager at Naval Support Activity (NSA) Crane, a Navy installation 35 miles southwest of Bloomington, Indiana.

That pricey decision prompted the Navy in 1976 to begin harvesting white oak for the U.S.S. Constitution at NSA Crane. To celebrate the occasion, they established Constitution Grove, a ceremonial 40-acre dedicated section of forest on the sprawling base where much of the timber that keeps the formidable warship afloat is harvested. Today, NSA Crane is the only forest in the U.S. managed by the Navy to support its fleet...

...In one corner of NSA Crane’s expanse of white oak trees is the 40-acre area known as Constitution Grove. The white oak trees are tall and slender, with branches that start high in the trunk, culminating in a canopy that blocks most sunlight from reaching the ground.

This part of the forest was originally selected by the Navy due to its high concentration of high-quality white oak. And while Osmon and his crew harvest trees from across the Navy base for use on Constitution, most of it is tagged and felled right in Constitution Grove...

...After felling what it needs for Constitution’s upkeep, the Navy sells the rest of its harvest to private furniture and piano makers, and, thanks to tylosis—the unique cell structure that makes white oak waterproof—bourbon cask-making for distillers just a short drive south in Kentucky’s famed bourbon country...

...Maintenance of a 225-year-old, 304-foot-long wooden warship is a constant job, and in the 50-odd years that Constitution Grove has supplied timbers for the maintenance of Constitution, Osmon estimates that 114 white oaks have been felled for the two most recent dry-dock restorations of Old Ironsides.

...In a dry-dock restoration, Constitution is lifted out of the water for examination and repairs of its wooden hull below the waterline under the watchful eye of Robert Murphy, the production manager at Naval History and Heritage Command, Detachment Boston. Then the copper sheathing that protects the submerged section of vessel is removed, allowing Murphy’s team to more closely study the normally submerged section of the hull, looking for sections to repair and potentially replace. Armed with that knowledge, and knowing exactly how much wood Constitution will need, Murphy’s team contacts Osmon with an order for how many trees to fell for restoration of the storied warship...

...In felling trees for Old Ironside’s hull planks, Osmon’s forestry team seeks out mature trees anywhere from 110 to 125 years old and 120-130 feet tall, which are then loaded on commercial trucks and taken to New England. There, the ship’s caretakers mill the enormous white oaks into hull planks that stretch up to 40 feet long, with leftover pieces repurposed for more ornamental flourishes around the ship, such as handrails and trim...

My best friend passed on a few years back. I remember him showing me in Jane's Fighting Ships the one listed "Sail Frigate," the USS Constitution. He was annoyed because he wanted another carrier  named that, but I said no, let's have something historical like this with such a proud name. 

To the men and women who man that ship and work to keep her up, a grateful nation says thank you. 

Submarines and the Pacific.

An open question in military circles is has the carrier started its sail into the sunset. like the battle ship one-hundred years ago. While projection of power is essential, especially for maritime nations like the US,  surface ships are becoming more risky as other nations obtain technology that can destroy these ships at low cost (drones, missiles, etc). And China is using artificial islands to project power in the South China Sea, where 1/3 of world commerce travels. 

With China becoming more aggressive, many of the areas nations have looked at the US with trepidation. I'm stealing a quote, "Being America's enemy is bad, but being its ally is disastrous." With the current administration, very understandable. 

Now there is no question if South Korea or Japan decided to produce nuclear weapons the time from concept to fielding would be measured in months, not years. We have open reports South Korea is looking at an independent nuclear deterrent. When I was stationed in Korea 88-89, we had a Lance missile battalion just south of Seoul, with a "special weapons" company attached to it. None dare called them nuclear warheads. The Lance was taken out of the inventory in the 1990s, but open source is there always a boomer submarine off the coast of the Korean Peninsula at all times. 

Australia I think would take just a few more months. Personally I think all three should. China and North Korea only understand one thing, force. We must be ready. 

Now I'm no friend of Joe Biden, but this is good news. We need subs, we need a lot, and we need them fast. Not everything we need, but movement in the right direction. 

The Nuclear-Submarine Pact Is a Welcome One

The U.S., Australia, and the U.K. have broken ground on the next phase of AUKUS. This arrangement, initially unveiled in 2021, saw the joint development of nuclear-class submarines between the three countries as its primary goal. President Biden and his counterparts filled in some critical details during an unveiling ceremony this week in San Diego.

To wit: Australia will buy its own class of nuclear-propelled submarine, produced through the agreement. That vessel will be based on a U.K. design, rely on some American tech, and be constructed in Australian and the U.K. shipyards. It will be a true blend of the defense-industrial bases of each country, and it will create important military and industrial links that could serve us well in the future. The submarines are the most important product of this arrangement, but their production sets the stage for more.

But there’s a catch: The sub purchases will begin in the 2030s, and their deployment remains years, likely more than a decade, out. The U.K. will get AUKUS-produced subs by the late 2030s, while Australia will get them in the early 2040s. Yet CIA director William Burns says that General Secretary Xi has ordered the People’s Liberation Army to be capable of invading Taiwan by 2027.

Accordingly, the AUKUS countries will use that gap between present day and the deployment of the submarines to make some impressive progress in further integrating their naval operations and shipbuilding abilities. Australian shipmen are going to train with American and British personnel. U.S. subs will more frequently dock at Australian ports: In fact, Biden said at the ceremony, one such Virginia-class nuclear submarine is already docking in Perth under that new arrangement. Canberra is also updating and expanding its ports to host more submarines.

Within the AUKUS framework, Australia will also purchase three nuclear-powered submarines from the U.S. in the 2030s. Arming the Australians with new subs to replace their aging diesel-fueled ships is a shrewd move, but it will place pressure on America’s fleet.

While this administration is appropriately touting AUKUS as a worthy new development, it has not yet demonstrated seriousness in overhauling America’s defense industrial base and boosting production, even though it has pledged to allocate just under $5 billion to submarine construction. This month, the White House released a budget that would cut defense spending in real terms next year...

Movement in the right direction, I must say.

Excellent Post from AFNN.

Fellow veteran and AFNN writer Dana Pico has an excellent post here. Enjoy.

WW3 Watch: Neocons Who Never Served Are Calling an Iraq War Veteran "Chicken" Because He Doesn't Want the US Involved in Ukraine

March 16, 2023 by Dana Pico

Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL) served in the United States Navy, and his military record, via Wikipedia, is shown at the right. Not in combat himself, he nevertheless saw what happened to our soldiers and Marines in the meatgrinder that was Fallajuh.

Bill Kristol, born on December 23, 1952, is the son of Irving Kristol, who has been the managing editor of Commentary and founder of the magazine The Public Interest, “and was described by Jonah Goldberg as the ‘godfather of neoconservatism.’” A son of privilege, Mr Kristol was educated in a tony private school before matriculating to Harvard. In and around government for much of his career, and the author, with Lawrence Kaplan, wrote The War Over Iraq: America’s Mission and Saddam’s Tyranny, which Amazon describes as:

(T)o understand why we must fight Saddam, the authors assert, it is necessary to go beyond the details of his weapons of mass destruction, his past genocidal actions against Iran and his own people, and the U.N. resolutions he has ignored. The explanation begins with how the dominant policy ideas of the last decade–Clintonian liberalism and Republican realpolitik–led American policymakers to turn a blind eye to the threat Iraq has posed for well over a decade. As Kristol and Kaplan make clear, the war over Iraq is in large part a war of competing ideas about America’s role in the world. The authors provide the first comprehensive explanation of the strategy of “preemption” guiding the Bush Administration in dealing with this crisis. They show that American foreign policy for the 21st century is being forged in the crucible of our response to Saddam. The war over Iraq will presumably be the end of Saddam Hussein. But it will be the beginning of a new era in American foreign policy. William Kristol and Lawrence Kaplan are indispensable guides to the era that lies ahead.

One thing Mr Kristol did not do was ever serve in the military.

And so I came to this tweet from Mr Kristol, which directed me to an attack article in The Bulwark:

The Ukraine Untruths of Disingenuous DeSantis

His recent remarks about the war have been cynical and deceptive.

by Willian Saletan | Wednesday, March 15, 2023 | 5:30 AM EDT

Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, bills himself as an enforcer. Speaking in Iowa last Friday as he prepared to run for president, DeSantis bragged about capturing Haitian migrants and sending the National Guard to control “BLM riots.”

“There’s a new sheriff in town,” he told an audience in Des Moines. He boasted that Sheriff DeSantis was finally taking on one of America’s worst villains: the Walt Disney Company. He proudly informed the crowd that he was “staring down the mouse” and “delivering them the biggest defeat” Disney had suffered in Florida.

That’s DeSantis’s idea of courage: rounding up boat people and stripping tax breaks from Mickey Mouse. But when a real menace emerges—hundreds of thousands of Russian troops invading Ukraine and slaughtering civilians—DeSantis chickens out. He preaches appeasement and blames America.

So, who is author William Saletan? His Wikipedia biography is a bit sparse, but it says nothing about him having ever served in the military. It does say that:

In 2002, Saletan wrote that the George W. Bush administration had failed to prove its asserted connections between Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. In addition, he expressed concern about “an American policy of trigger-happy pre-emption.” But he argued that non-intervention in Iraq’s nuclear program was also dangerous. During the United States Senate debate over whether to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Saletan described the authorization as leverage that could pressure the United Nations Security Council to enforce its resolutions against Iraq. He concluded that although he distrusted Bush, he would support the authorization because “I don’t trust the French, Russian, or Chinese governments to do anything to Iraq that interferes with their commercial or political interests.”

I will admit it: there’s a real irony in the two neocons who never wore the uniform saying that someone who not only did, but served in a combat zone and saw American casualties, has “chicken(ed) out”. Mr Kristol, who never met a war that he didn’t intellectually support, and Mr Saletan, who supported the invasion of Iraq, at least far enough to support the Authorization to Use Military Force, which enabled that invasion, are just wholly upset because Governor DeSantis does not want the United States involved in another war.

So, what happened in Iraq? Well, 4,431 American soldiers were killed there, with another 31,994 wounded. As far as Iraqis, the number of deaths has been the subject od wild-eyed guesstimates, but every guesstimate is in the low-to-mid six-figure range. Today, Iraq is a nation which has undergone changes in government, but none of them have been anything Americans would see as good. We went into Afghanistan, which we had to do, to pursue and destroy Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, but after twenty years, twenty years! we finally pulled out, after “2,402 United States military deaths 1,921 of these deaths were the result of hostile action. 20,713 American servicemembers were also wounded in action during the war. In addition, 18 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operatives also died in Afghanistan. Further, there were 1,822 civilian contractor fatalities.” Yet the same Taliban government, albeit a younger generation of them, control Afghanistan today.

The Russo-Ukrainian War? It might be closer to the set-piece, traditional European war with an actual combat front, but does that mean we can provide enough money and war materiel for Ukraine to drive Russian forces out of the country? Thomas Meaney, in an OpEd published in The New York Times,, said:

The trouble is that Ukraine has only one surefire way of accomplishing this feat (defeating Russia and expelling Russian forces from all of Ukraine) in the near term: direct NATO involvement in the war. Only the full, Desert Storm style of deployment of NATO and U.S. troops and weaponry could bring about a comprehensive Ukrainian victory in a short period of time. (Never mind that such a deployment would most likely shorten the odds of one of the grimmer prospects of the war: The more Russia loses, the more it is likely to resort to nuclear weapons.)

President Kennedy introduced a few American troops into South Vietnam, as trainers and advisers, but it never stopped there. With escalation after escalation, 58,220 Americans gave their lives in Vietnam — a war in which Mr Kristol was of age to have volunteered and served, but he didn’t — and another 304,000 were wounded, and the Communists still took over the country after we left. How likely is it that, if American and NATO aid to Ukraine continues, and the war grinds on and on, that eventually there will be American and NATO troops directly fighting the Russians?

Of course, Messrs Kristol and Saletan won’t be casualties of the war in Ukraine, unless it results in a strategic nuclear exchange, which is not completely out of the realm of possibility. Their children won’t serve on the front lines. But in their ghoulish glee, there will be plenty of men and women and children killed in that war.

If the next President, someone smarter than Joe Biden — which would include almost anyone else! — decides that no, we’re done pouring money and materiel into Ukraine, it would mean that the war would go on and on until one side wins and one side loses. No, we don’t want Russia to win that war, but I want Russia to lose that war far less than I want to keep the United States out of it.

There is, of course, what Mr Meaney said: “The more Russia loses, the more it is likely to resort to nuclear weapons.” That’s the difference between Vietnam and Korea and Iraq and Afghanistan: none of our enemies had nuclear weapons, and none of them had what Russia has, a strategic nuclear arsenal capable of striking anywhere in the United States, over literally thousands of targets. Is the fight to keep Ukraine independent worth even one American city being incinerated in a nuclear fireball? Many people, including some a lot smarter than me, think that’s simply not a concern, but the probabilities are not zero, and a lot of other people, also including some a lot smarter than me, believe that if Russia really does begin to lose, the chances that a ‘tactical’ nuclear weapon will be used against Ukrainian troops or logistics depots increase.

If the nuclear threshold is crossed, only the Lord knows if and how that would spread.

So, Messrs Kristol and Saletan think Governor DeSantis is “chicken” because he doesn’t want the US to fight in Ukraine. As President, Mr DeSantis would be in no more danger than Messrs Kristol and Saletan. But there are a lot of Americans who could wind up fighting and dying if the two neoconservatives get their way, and if Mr DeSantis is “chicken” when it comes to their lives, I say that’s a good thing.
__________________________________
Follow me on Twitter! Check out my website, The First Street Journal, for stories not on American Free News network.
 

Not exactly Boris and Natasha here,...

Being an intel geek, spying has fascinated me for ages. I remember the Walker case, and it's been reviewed for ages. Talk about a cluster f^&*. 

John Anthony Walker Jr. Spy Case

In 1985, dubbed by the press as the “Year of the Spy,” former U.S. Navy warrant officer John Anthony Walker Jr. was arrested for selling U.S. secrets to the Soviet Union.

Walker’s espionage began in 1967 when he walked into the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C., with material that would allow the Soviets to read encrypted naval messages.

During Walker’s time as an active spy, the Soviets went as far as to give him a device that, when placed on top of a cryptographic machine, would record the rotor settings, thus allowing the Soviets to decipher all communication sent using the machines. Among the information Walker provided the Soviets was naval cryptographic technology...

There are spies you rank with Walker, like the Rosenbergs. Then you have people like this:

Nuclear engineer, wife who tried to sell Navy secrets in peanut butter sandwich sentenced for espionage

MARTINSBURG, W.Va. — A former Navy nuclear engineer and his wife, who were accused of trying to sell military secrets using a peanut butter sandwich, found out how long they will spend in prison Wednesday.

A judge sentenced Jonathan Toebbe, 44, of Annapolis to 19 years and 4 months. He also ordered Toebbe to pay a fine of $47,500.

His wife, Diana Toebbe, 46, received a longer sentence: 21 years and 10 months. The judge ordered her to pay $50,000.

Federal investigators said the Toebbes tried to sell restricted data related to the design of of nuclear-powered Navy ships...

...“If not for the remarkable efforts of FBI agents, the sensitive data stolen by Mr. Toebbe could have ended up in the hands of an adversary of the United States and put the safety of our military and our nation at risk,” said U.S. William Attorney Ihlenfeld in a news release, issued the day of the sentencing. “The FBI keeps American citizens safe from enemies both foreign and domestic and this case is an excellent reminder of their important work.”

Peanut better. Sandy Burger was caught trying to sneak classified data out in his socks. Another example of how not to do it. But as I've said countless times, I don't knock stupid people. They insure I have a job.  :<)

Something great on a Saturday afternoon...

As I enjoy a pleasant afternoon with a scotch and finishing an excellent cigar (Rocky Patel Disciple), I picked up the mail and found a package in the box. A few weeks back I finished a great book, Extreme Ownership, written by two retired Navy SEALS who have moved into the corporate world, consulting on leadership. An excellent book on how leaders most own it, the good, the bad, the ugly.

Extreme Ownership is a book to be used, a how to manual if you will. I remember a great commander said of an Army Technical Manuel, they should be written on, dirty, have folded edges. Shows it's been used.  It has a lot of marks and writing in it. Here is the book from the top:

Just before Christmas I mailed it to their corporate office for them to sign. Last few years I've been sending books to the authors for signature. Find making it easy for them, i.e. inclosing return postage, helps! :<)

First it has the signature inside the book:

Michael,

Thanks for serving in the world's finest army, and for sharing your lessons on command and leadership. Persistence wins the world. Lead + win. 

LDF 

1-1 AD "Army SEAL" 

To explain, they were SEALS attached to the 1st Armored Division in Iraq. Many lessons in the book from their experience with the Army. 

There was also a note attached. 

Michael, A well-tabbed, highlighted and underlined book is the best complement you can pay any author. Thanks for serving in Army intelligence. As Jocko and I often say, we didn’t invent anything new. There is only what works and what doesn’t. Keep getting after it! Leif. 

 

Going to my shelve for signed books.  I feel as high as a kite now (Yes, a bit of nerd high). I think this will justify another excellent stick and some more whiskey (like I need justification). I told my wife about this and ended it with the quote from The Duke:

And I am not intoxicated...YET!

Gonna be fun at work at 0600 tomorrow!  

Woke Naval reading...

 I am a prolific reader, if I say so myself. My goal for 2021 is 36 books, and according to my spot on Goodreads, I'm two books ahead. And I subscribe to eight magazines. In both my professions, I believed reading was essential. Two of the best books on the subject was The Leader's Bookshelf by Admiral James Stavridis, and Call Sign Chaos: Leading to Lead by General, and former Secretary of Defense James Mattis. 

One thing I do love is all four of the services have professional reading lists, organized by ranks and area. But today I read an article from National Review which should scare any military professional. 

Woke Books Have No Place in U.S. Navy Training

Roger J. Maxwell

How will reading Ibram X. Kendi help us fight our enemies better?

...Over the past several weeks, it has become quite apparent that the United States Navy is no exception to the relentless onslaught of “woke” politicking.

On February 23, the chief of naval operations Admiral Michael Gilday released an updated version of the Navy’s Professional Reading Program. The program, a long-standing tradition that curates suggested readings for all members of the Navy, has a stated aim of educating and training the sailors that compose this branch of the Armed Forces. According to the Navy’s official website on this program, Admiral Gilday believes that in order to “outthink our competitors, we must study and apply lessons we’ve learned from the past.” He further holds that “one of the very best ways to do that is to foster an environment where every Sailor deepens their level of understanding and learning...” Many of the 48 books listed in the newly released reading checklist cover topics relevant to the Navy’s overall mission of becoming a more lethal fighting force: naval strategy, deep-dives into future world superpowers, leadership development, technology changes in the domain of warfighting, etc.

Very good point Admiral Gilday. However, do you really want a 19 year old reading this propaganda.

...However, the checklist also included several books that are overtly political in nature, threatening what should be the apolitical nature of our nation’s fighting forces. As just one example, Ibram X. Kendi’s overly wrought screed How to Be an Antiracist somehow landed on the admiral’s book list. Writings in a similar vein appear on the list as well, including Jason Pierceson’s Sexual Minorities and Politics, as well as Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow. The inclusion of these books, especially given the hot-button topics they cover (and the controversial takes they provide) seems to place the Navy squarely into the realm of politics, which it has stridently attempted to avoid in the 200-plus years of its existence.

The inclusion of these books on an official DoD website is an embrace of partisan politics by a branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. One need only look at the contents of these pieces of literature (“literature” being used loosely) to understand just how true this statement is. Kendi’s book argues that capitalism is a racist construct. Alexander’s obfuscates real issues of violent crime in order to argue that incarceration rates for minorities are predominately, if not exclusively, based on race. Perhaps most egregious of the three, the openly partisan nature of Pierceson’s “textbook” practically hits the reader over the head with its agenda. Each piece of writing offers its own particular viewpoint; it just so happens that each is of the woke, left-leaning variety....

I would also list as another not applicable book,  No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. When the author says there shouldn't be accommodations made for disabled people (e.g. Special Olympics), he's lost it. Sorry, but a man in a wheelchair cannot move as fast as man on the Olympic track team. 

As the woke books are on the lower "Foundation" section of the list, I have to believe there is an intention of political indoctrination of young minds. Getting memories of the political officers in the Soviet Army and Navy, or the current political officers of North Korea or Cuba. Admiral Gilday, I would respectfully suggest sir you (actually your staff weenie who got tasked with this undertaking) review the Marine Commandant's Professional Reading List or the Army's Chief of Staff Professional Reading List. The list being a lot more reading focused on military operations, strategic vision, history, logistics, leadership and statesmanship for younger developing minds. We are dealing with enough political issues in the service right now (The Commander in Chief stating we must pay for sex change surgery, allowing male soldiers to wear nail polish, lowering standards to attend elite schools). We don't need anything else to weaken the force. 

I wonder if a real James Bond will use this...

One of the great scenes of Thunderball was James Bond using a jet pack to escape from the bad guys. Looking it over, Bond really didn't have much to worry about from them. The way these dudes fired their pistols, they couldn't hit the side of a barn from inside, to use that old cliche.



Now we have a real flight pack, used in Her Majesty's Service. The navy that is:

The Royal Navy is testing jet pack assault teams
For decades, science fiction has been telling us that jet packs are right around the corner. But, while it seems there’ll still be some time before any of us are using them to get to work, the UK and US have been experimenting with jet suits for a number of applications, including defense.

Of course, this isn’t the first time Gravity Industries’ jet packs have been spotted flying around Royal Navy ships. That’s fitting, seeing as Gravity Industries’ founder Richard Browning served in the British Royal Marines prior to beginning his new life as a jet pack mogul. Last year, he had the opportunity to fly his 5-engine jet pack suit around the pride of the Royal Navy, the HMS Queen Elizabeth.

While the Royal Navy hasn’t announced any plans to adopt these jet packs for military purposes, both the Royal and U.S. Navies have acknowledged that they’ve been in contact with Gravity Industries. According to Browning himself, he’s already met with members of the U.S. Special Operations command — specifically, the Navy SEALs — to discuss what capabilities his jet packs could offer...

Last month, the Great North Air Ambulance Service (GNAAS), a UK-based charity that provides helicopter emergency services, began testing jet suits from Gravity Industries to see if they might allow paramedics to fly directly up to hard-to-reach locations where hikers and mountain climbers find themselves injured.

As GNAAS pointed out, “The undulating peaks and valleys can often mean the helicopter is unable to safely land close to the casualty, forcing travel by vehicle or foot.” That’s not optimal for emergency situations and could potentially even put rescue workers in danger. That’s where these jet packs could come in...

I had to give up my private pilot license a few years back because of a medical issue. But who knows, with this I may be able to get up again, and experience the ...lifting mind I've trod the high untrespassed sanctity of space, put out my hand and touched the face of God. 

Or just have some fun and hopefully not get myself killed!

The issue of naval power projection...

A great column from Lawfire, from a retired Navy captain.

I'm a retired Army officer, and while I will cheer with all my comrades in green on the first Saturday in December, I know we're the poor boys of the services, the Navy gets the most. In the post war years, America's projected power primarily with carrier strike forces (CSF). Last month, we put three CSFs into the Pacific in reaction to Chinese provocations. For ages, when a crisis has arisen, one president after another asked one question, "Where are the carriers?"

Now there is a legitimate question of the future of the carrier. A century ago, many admirals were hesitant to see the end of the battle ship as the center of naval power. Now, with the development of hypersonic missiles and other weapons, has the carrier entered its twilight as the center of force projection? Former Secretary of Defense James Mattis was adamantly opposed to the purchase of two more Ford class carriers. He only agreed to the fielding in exchange for the early retirement of the Harry Truman.

Personally I have no question the carrier is coming into its sunset. A possible replacement is unmanned aircraft launched from submarines, or UAVs launched from smaller ships.

Captain Mazzafro has an interesting look at the culture of the Navy, and how it needs correction. As much as platforms and projection, people are even more critical. I recall an introduction to an article I read around 1980, "It takes ten to twenty years to build an effective navy. Two to three years of neglect can put one into decline." And after the abuse of the Obama years, we need work on the Navy (and the other forces).

How to “dewater” the Navy’s listing cultural ship

(BTW, “dewater” is a naval term used to describe part of the process sailors use to right a ship that is listing .)

by Joe Mazzafro

The strain the Navy is operating under

The troubles of the Navy have been well documented in outlets such as Naval Proceedings, Military/Navy Times, Defense One, Real Clear Defense, etc. along with various defense-focused think tank analysis...

...Consider the mismatch in terms of the requirements placed on the Navy for force presence in the Persian Gulf, South China Sea, the Eastern Mediterranean, the Baltic Sea, and the Atlantic Ocean and the number of ships it has for meeting them.

There is also little appreciation on main street America of the time it takes to train officers and sailors to operate their technically complicated ships and weapon systems in the harsh environment of the open seas.

Ms. (Kate Bachelder) Odell presciently observes that the U.S. Navy (USN) is “trying to do too much with too little public support” while its chain of command is fraying from the top. She might have added that the Navy has not enjoyed strong public advocacy since John Lehman was Secretary of the Navy during the Reagan Administration 40 years ago.

This essay appearing in the Wall Street Journal by someone without deep Navy expertise is a good effort at reaching a broader audience not just about what is going on in the Navy but why.

Deterring the Chinese Navy?

Those who think more deeply about the implications of what Ms. Odell says will realize that the U.S. Navy is America’s frontline force for deterring Chinese military adventurism against US national interests in Asia.

Thoughtful analysts will also understand that the naval forces of the Pacific Fleet are not much of a deterrent against a growing modernized Chinese Navy (PLAN) that can operate within the First Island Chain under the protective cover of land based Chinese “ship killer” ballistic missiles and cruise missiles fired from land based bomber aircraft.

Odell’s message is a simple one: the US Navy is struggling at time when our nation needs it most as it confronts a threatening China, a rearming Russia, an unpredictable North Korea, and a dangerous Iran.

You don’t have to be Navy legend Arleigh Burke to understand the Navy needs a new strategy/operating concept so that current US naval forces can face the PLAN with a better probability of success.

Ultimately in a combat environment increasing characterized ubiquitous surveillance, longer range hypersonic missile, 100 knot torpedoes, and spaced based weapons the US Navy will need to move away from naval formations centered on nuclear powered aircraft carriers, which the USN perfected during the industrial age of the Cold War as the most effective means of sea control and conventional force power projection ever seen.

But the Cold War and the Industrial Age are over.

So the Navy needs to change, but as Ms Odell implies that is hard for any large tradition-celebrating organization to do under the best of circumstance, but when the hull is listing it is even more difficult. Therefore, the first order of business is to “dewater” the USN’s listing cultural ship to get it back on an even keel.

Need to define how a 300-ship fleet can be effectively used

To “dewater” the Navy its current leadership would say it needs more resources to grow fleet size to reduce the strain on the force. I would argue a better approach for immediately relieving the strain on the Navy would be for the Navy to lobby for reducing its requirement load by explaining in detail what it can do effectively with a 300 ship fleet and baulk at doing more than that...

...Joe Mazzafro served 27 years on active duty in Naval Intelligence retiring as a Captain. He then served for ten year as the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory’s Scientific and Technical Liaison Officer to the Intelligence Community before joining the private sector advising EMC, Oracle, CSC, and CSRA on how to shape their products and solutions to meet national security needs.

I'll leave the rest out, but I think it can be focused. The Navy (and the leadership of the armed forces altogether) must be reminded of why they exist. Four words. From Douglas MacArthur, his address to the 1962 class of the United States Military Academy:

And through all this welter of change and development your mission remains fixed, determined, inviolable. It is to win our wars.

A quote (I wish I could give the author credit) that characterized the Obama years well, "Diplomacy without force is like playing pool with rope." The current administration is dealing with a large bureaucracy flooded with staff from the previous presidency. Their ideas are not the use of our military for force projection or winning our wars, but for social experimentation. I have yet to speak with one graduate of Army Ranger School or the Special Forces Qualification Course who believes women have graduated "legitimately," i.e. without lowering standards. Openly recruiting confused young men and women, paying for sex change surgery, and allowing them to be non-deployable for two years. Spending hundreds of millions to retrofit summaries so women can sail on them. Enough.

I have no issue with women in most positions. Flying, sailing, etc. But they have no business in infantry, armor, or tube artillery. There is no position for them in the submarine service, as once a submarine submerges, it has one primary function: To stay submerged! What happens when a female sailor comes up to the captain, two months into the cruise, "Sir, I'm six weeks pregnant..."

Still, and excellent look at the issue for the Navy Captain Mazzafro.

A memory of Rocks and Shoals being removed from the Navy....

In my time in the service I was familiar with the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and administered non-judiciary punishment while a company commander. I've heard of the Navy's Rocks and Shoals, where relatively minor offenses were punished with floggings. And I knew of "bread and water" confinement before, but I never dreamed it still existed until last week.

No more bread and water: Navy scraps an age-old penalty

The U.S. Navy has come a long way, from its first wooden frigates to today’s nuclear carriers. But in all that time, one thing remained almost as fixed as the North Star: A skipper’s power to throw troublesome sailors in the brig with nothing to eat but bread and water.

Though it sounds like something from an old pirate movie, the antique penalty is not only still on the Navy’s books, it is still actually imposed, despite a century of abolition efforts.

A sweeping update of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress in 2016, will take effect Jan. 1, bringing dozens of changes intended to make the system fairer and more efficient. Most are the kind of procedural tweaks that concern lawyers, not sailors. But the bread-and-water part will be felt on all decks...

...‘It sounds medieval’

That regulation is no mere neglected relic from a bygone era. As recently as 2017, a destroyer in the Pacific was known as the USS Bread and Water because of the skipper’s liberal use of the penalty to punish missteps like missing a curfew or drinking under the legal age...

...“It sounds medieval, and that is sort of the point,” said Capt. Kevin Eyer, who regularly sentenced sailors to bread and water for minor misconduct before he retired in 2009. “Sometimes you just need to scare a kid. We want them to succeed, but you need to give them a kick in the pants.”

Eyer said that when he joined the Navy in 1982, the penalty was common and never frowned upon by the top brass, who traditionally give ship commanders broad authority.

But the culture in the Navy has drifted away from corporal penalties like bread and water, and officers increasingly view them as counterproductive.

“It just seems anachronistic and stupid,” said Capt. Scott Tait, who joined the Navy in 1992 and has commanded two destroyers.

“I actually can’t believe it’s still around,” Tait said, adding that he had never imposed the punishment himself, nor had he seen it used. “People used to joke about putting guys on bread and water, but I was well into my career before I realized I was actually allowed to do that.”

When young sailors need a minor course correction, he said, instead of ordering a spell in the brig, he often orders them to write reports on works by authors like Patrick Henry or Ayn Rand.

“Some people need to think about character and the consequences of their actions,” he said. “But I don’t want it to impact their permanent record, which could hurt their chances of promotion down the line...”

Having spent a year in jail, as a supervisor, not a tenant, a lot of what we do can sound "medieval." Strapping a fighting suspect to a restraint chair, or in leg restraints (sometimes known as hog tying), securing them in solitary until they wear themselves out. Crude methods, but effective. And I challenge any social justice warrior to come into a jail and use his "de-escalation" techniques on some of these morons.

But I got to say, I'm still shocked it bread and water confinement was still allowed. I know a solider can refused non-judiciary punishment under Article-15 of the UCMJ, and request a court martial. However, sailors at sea, to a degree, don't have that option because they are at sea and there are not full military justice facilities available. Hopefully this change to the UCMJ makes justice more efficient in the Navy.

North Korea's SLBM program.

I've often posted on how I've been interested, and concerned, about North Korea for decades. The Kim family is not as radical as you can get (See Iran), but they have a similar goal. Survival. They see what's happened in Russia, Egypt, and Libya, and they know being an adversary (hell, a friend or alley) of the United States can be problematic. And the Kim's, call them many things, you can call them survivors. And their ruthlessness compares to Stalin, Hitler and Mao.

With that as a backdrop, I've recently become a fan of this website, 38North.com. Back when I was in south Korea at Camp Casey, we had a bad joke, "We're 45 from the 38th." It would take 45 seconds for the artillery from North Korea to hit us.

Now here is an interesting report on North Korea's Sub-launched Ballistic Missile program. For some reason a nation that cannot feed it's population needs nuke launching subs.

North Korea’s Submarine Ballistic Missile Program Moves Ahead: Indications of Shipbuilding and Missile Ejection Testing

38 North November 16, 2017

A 38 North exclusive with analysis by Joseph S. Bermudez Jr.

Commercial satellite imagery of the Sinpo South Shipyard from November 5 indicates that North Korea is on an aggressive schedule to build and deploy its first operational ballistic missile submarine.

The continued movement of parts and components into and out of the parts yards adjacent to the construction halls indicates an ongoing shipbuilding program. The presence of what appear to be sections of a submarine’s pressure hull in the yards suggests construction of a new submarine, possibly the SINPO-C ballistic missile submarine (SSB)[1]—the follow-on to the current SINPO-class experimental ballistic missile submarine (SSBA).[2]

A probable launch canister support, or launch canister, appears to be present within the service tower at the missile test stand suggesting the ongoing ejection testing of submarine launch ballistic missiles (SLBM). Such testing could support the continued development of SLBMs, a new ballistic missile submarine or a combination of both.

Both the SINPO-class submarine and submersible missile test stand barge remain berthed at the same locations as observed since last August and appear capable of putting to sea at any time of Pyongyang’s choosing; however, there are no activities suggesting a forthcoming at-sea or submerged test of a Pukguksong-1/KN-11, a potential Pukguksong-3, or other SLBM.

Building of a New Submarine

Throughout 2017 there has been continued movement of parts and components into and out of the two parts yards adjacent to the constructions halls in the center of the shipyard. Accompanying this has been the movement of the gantry and tower cranes that service the yards.[3] These activities suggest a prolonged and ongoing shipbuilding program, which is supported by the fact that the Sinpo South Shipyard has historically been the primary manufacturer of large submarines for the Korean People’s Navy (KPN).

Imagery from November 5 shows two larger circular objects that may be sections of a submarine’s pressure hull. The diameter of the first object is approximately 7.1 meters, while the diameter of the second starts at approximately 7.1 meters and reduces to approximately 6.1 meters. The larger object has what appears to be two internal cross members that could be used to support decks or internal equipment. If these assessments are correct, then the shipbuilding program is for a submarine with a beam broader (in width) than the ROMEO-class attack submarine (6.7 meters)—meaning it is potentially a SINPO-C SSB, the reported follow-on to the SINPO-class SSBA.

Figure 1. Continued movement of parts and components observed at parts
yards adjacent to construction halls. Image © 2017 DigitalGlobe, Inc.

Figure 2. Close-up of one parts yard shows potential pressure
hull components. Image © 2017 DigitalGlobe, Inc. 

Likely Ejection Testing of Missile

At the test stand, imagery from November 5 shows an object visible at the top of the service tower that appears to be either a launch canister support or launch canister. This object does not appear in previous satellite or ground images of the test stand. While there is no additional activity of note in the immediate area, the service tower remains in place. During the earlier development of the Pukguksong-1/KN-11, it was removed after testing campaigns. Therefore, the continued presence of this object suggests ongoing SLBM ejection tests. If correct, this is likely a continuation of the ejection test campaign reported during July of this year.[4] Regardless, additional ejection tests should be expected in the future for further development of the Pukguksong-1, a potential Pukguksong-3, or other future SLBMs. Such a test would also be valuable for validating missile launch systems for a new class of SSBs.

Figure 3. Close-up of the missile test stand indicates launch canister support
or launch canister present at service tower. Image © 2017 DigitalGlobe, Inc.

ICBMs, submarines with missiles. Look just over the border you see China with its submarines program and carrier development. Seems these nations are interested in projecting power.

No question, the Kim's have learned the lesson of Muammar Gaddafi. The US will turn on you (thank you Mrs. Bill Clinton) after giving up you WMDs. So unless you want to attack North Korea (ugly would not be a word to describe it) you're going to have to live with a nuclear armed rogue state. Personally, I would use an updated version of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Return our tactical nukes to South Korea (open secret is we've had a nuke sub off the peninsula for ages to keep the NK army on their side of the DMZ), deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) to South Korea, Japan and Australia. And finally, arm Japan and Australia with nuclear weapons. These are people who live by the words of Stalin, "Treaties are like pie crust, made to be broken." A signed document means nothing to the Kim’s, or China. Unless we have a fist to hit them with, they hold us at the disadvantage. And we cannot tolerate that.

The USMC HyperSub

I gotta say, this looks interesting:

The Marines Are Eyeing A Badass Speedboat That Transforms Into A Spy Sub

...As part of the Ship-To-Shore Maneuver Exploration and Experimentation (S2ME2) Advanced Naval Technology Exercise 2017, the joint rapid-prototyping demonstration intended to augment existing amphibious assault tactics with 21st-century emerging technologies, Navy and Marine officials are observing more than 100 high-tech prototypes in action. But the crown jewel of the exercises is likely a militarized version of the Hyper-Submersible Powerboat, or HyperSub, a sleek speedboat that converts to a submarine...

...Designed by HSP Technologies, the commercial HyperSub is nearly a decade old, but the company announced Wednesday that a militarized prototype, dubbed “Project X,” would hit the seas at this year’s S2ME2 (Ship-to-Shore Maneuver Exploration and Experimentation...yea, had to look it up! :<) )demonstration. Just 45 feet long and weighing in at 30,000 pounds, the HyperSub’s diesel engines power a 30mph surface cruise speed while hauling up to 6,000 pounds of cargo.

But below the surface is where things get interesting. As The War Zone points out, the HyperSub is a bit more cumbersome than the existing rigid-hull inflatable craft utilized by the Pentagon, and the HyberSub’s two Innerspace Corporation electric thrusters only enable a top speed of 6mph underwater for up to 12 hours. But compared to other ship-to-shore vehicles, the HyperSub is a true submersible, making it an ideal amphibious assault craft...

...This versatility makes the HyperSub ideal for reconnaissance and intelligence-gathering missions, a major emphasis focus of the S2ME2 exercise. From The War Zone:

One of the most obvious missions for a HyperSub with these systems would be special operations tasks, from infiltrating teams of elite troops to scouting hostile coastlines for secretive missions. The results of the tests at Camp Pendleton might spark interest within U.S. Special Operations Command, where seabasing and other maritime requirements are still emerging.

Marine Corps reconnaissance elements could be interested in the craft’s covert capabilities for reconnoitering landing sites before an amphibious assault and for forward deploying frogmen and special operations teams. On top of that, the HyperSub in its current form or the same basic layout in a larger incarnation could perform more conventional duties, like carrying Marines ashore during an amphibious assault or ferrying supplies to an established beachhead or forward base...

Glad to see the Ford class of nuclear carries online, something to build a fleet around, but good to know we can also field smaller end vessels for more directed missions.

China and her navy....

China has come late to the concept of naval power projection. But she is coming on strong. China just launched her first nationally developed carrier, after launching a refitted carrier. Now to add to this, we have a submersible "arsenal" ship.

China is developing a warship of naval theorists' dreams

An arsenal ship that can be submerged in water.

The Chinese navy is taking arsenal ships in a new direction—as giant submersibles. Post-Cold War naval theorists have long dreamed of recreating the old battleships' power through massive "arsenal ships," or warships carrying hundreds of guided missiles that could fire at land and sea targets. Now it looks like China wants to make that dream a reality...

SUBMERSIBLE CRUISER

The submersible warship has four stages: submerged, partial exposure of the superstructure, raising the hull to the 'waterline' and as a low draft, and operating as a high-speed hydroplane.

...What's the big deal about an underwater arsenal vessel? Well submerging all or even most of a large warship would reduce its radar and visual signature, as well as protect it against most missile threats.

There are two concepts in circulation: one is a high-speed warship with much of its hull submerged but otherwise has a functional superstructure with defense weapons and radar, the other is almost completely submerged arsenal ship with two conning towers. The scale of the designs are significant; either ship would displace roughly about 20,000 tons at full load...

...For stealth operations, the arsenal ship would have most of its hull inherently submerged, with only the bridge and a few other parts of the ship above the waterline, reducing the radar cross section. But when traveling with a high-speed naval taskforce, the arsenal ship will sacrifice stealth to use its flat hull bottom to hydroplane at high speeds, cutting across the waves like a speedboat or amphibious armored vehicle.

The second design is more conventional, it is essentially a giant, conventionally propelled submarine with two conning towers stuffed with snorkels, periscopes, and communications antennae. Given its need to keep up with high-speed surface ships and its lack of high-speed endurance underwater, this arsenal ship design would operate similarly to WWII submarines; the majority of its voyage will take place on the surface, and will submerge only during combat and under attack.

Chinese research institutes have been testing sub-models of both arsenal ship configurations since 2011, including open-water tests for the hydroplane arsenal ship and laboratory tests for the arsenal submarine. Unverified rumors on the Chinese internet claim that a full-scale, proof-of-concept is under construction at Bohai Shipbuilding Heavy Industrial Corporation, to be launched after 2020.

CARRIER GROUP

An arsenal ship can rely on the carrier's airwing and surface warship escorts to protect it against airborne threats, while providing the carrier group hundreds of extra missile launchers holding anything from air-defense rockets to land-attack cruise missiles.

I remember a great quote from the movie, The Hunt for Red October:

Skip Tyler: When I was twelve, I helped my daddy build a bomb shelter in our basement because some fool parked a dozen warheads 90 miles off the coast of Florida. Well, this thing could park a coupla hundred warheads off Washington and New York and no one would know anything about it till it was all over.

Conceivably this could park itself off of coast of Japan or South Korea and devastate a target area. There is no guarantee the missiles will only have conventional warheads.

The rise of the People's Liberation Army-Navy.

Yea, I've been off the net for a while. It's been a couple of crazy weeks.

Hope your spring cleaning is going better than mine!

Found this interesting. I did my master's thesis on the rise of China and a sobering thought was with current projections, China will have more nuclear submarines in the Pacific than the U.S. Navy sometime in the 2020s. Will that change with the Trump administration, we'll see.

China's Navy Takes a Bow


Forecast Highlights

Even as China continues to prioritize its near-seas defense, it will accelerate the development of its navy's ability to project considerable force far from the Chinese mainland.

While China already has made considerable strides in developing the necessary components for a globally operating navy, a number of obstacles will limit its global maritime ambitions.

Beijing will continue to build up its naval strength in the years to come, but it will continue to lag the U.S. Navy's force projection capabilities for decades to come.

In many ways, China's rise has been built on the back of its seagoing fleet. Chinese commercial shipping helped carry its economy to global prominence. And its bulked-up naval forces allow it not only to back up its maritime claims in the South and East China seas, but also to increasingly project power far beyond its shores. Now, China's shipbuilding prowess — and its global reach — have taken a demonstrable leap forward with the completion of its first fully domestically built aircraft carrier.

Externally, the Type 001A aircraft carrier, which launched April 26 after 3 1/2 years of construction, is similar to China's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, which the country built atop the hulk of a stripped-down surplus Ukrainian ship. The new carrier features the same ski jump-style takeoff ramp as the Liaoning but incorporates internal features that make it more operationally effective. The technical advances in China's growing carrier program, alongside the rapid development of other aspects of Chinese naval power, point to Beijing growing ability to fulfill its global aspirations and naval ambitions.

The Chinese navy's principal mission remains the "offshore waters defense" of claimed Chinese territory, both the territorial waters 12 nautical miles from its mainland and its maritime claims in the South and East China seas. Those near seas encompass the waters ringed by the series of islands stretching from Japan to the Philippines to Indonesia, which the Chinese dub the "first island chain." To defend those claims, the Chinese have developed a layered approach to denying sea access by other countries. That strategy employs a combination of fast-attack missile craft, submarines, and the land-based anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles of China's Rocket Force rather than large surface ships to counter and intercept encroaching ships and aircraft....

...The Importance of Chinese Shipbuilding

China's global maritime ambitions have been bolstered by a domestic shipbuilding industry that over the past decade has proved remarkably capable at producing large numbers of top-line warships and supply vessels. Indeed, China is already working on its third aircraft carrier, the Type 002. That vessel is expected to use a catapult-assisted takeoff and arrested recovery system that would allow it to launch and land larger aircraft with greater payloads than a ski jump system is capable of doing. Eventually, China is expected to possess a six-ship carrier fleet, allowing its navy to have four in operation at a time, which would give it a capability second only to that of the U.S. Navy....

...China also has a long way to go in modernizing its anti-submarine warfare capabilities. Chinese naval squadrons, particularly those operating with insufficient land-based air cover, would be highly vulnerable to submarine attack. China is only now beginning to make considerable progress in anti-submarine warfare with new helicopter programs and the development of the Type 054B frigate, which is optimized to counter submarines...

COPYRIGHT: STRATFOR.COM

China and intelligent weapons...

Last year I read a sobering novel called Ghost Fleet, the story of a near future (next 20 years) war between the United States and China. It reminded me of the techno-thrillers of Tom Clancy, not quite as fast but very detailed. And disturbing.

We have become dependent on technology to a great degree. I bemoan the fact a lot of my rookie officers cannot use a map well, but they do know how to use the map app on their smart phone. When I was a trainer I would occasionally take control of the car computer and direct my trainee to use his radio and a notebook only. Welcome to the analog world man, and rely on one fact. Technology will fail.

Now we have one of our two great adversaries making significant leaps on technology, but both civilian and military applications. It may mean serious changes to how we view power projection, especially with our carrier operations.

China’s Intelligent Weaponry Gets Smarter

Robert O. Work, the veteran defense official retained as deputy secretary by President Trump, calls them his “A.I. dudes.” The breezy moniker belies their serious task: The dudes have been a kitchen cabinet of sorts, and have advised Mr. Work as he has sought to reshape warfare by bringing artificial intelligence to the battlefield.

Last spring, he asked, “O.K., you guys are the smartest guys in A.I., right?”

No, the dudes told him, “the smartest guys are at Facebook and Google,” Mr. Work recalled in an interview.

Now, increasingly, they’re also in China. The United States no longer has a strategic monopoly on the technology, which is widely seen as the key factor in the next generation of warfare.

The Pentagon’s plan to bring A.I. to the military is taking shape as Chinese researchers assert themselves in the nascent technology field. And that shift is reflected in surprising commercial advances in artificial intelligence among Chinese companies.

Last year, for example, Microsoft researchers proclaimed that the company had created software capable of matching human skills in understanding speech.

Although they boasted that they had outperformed their United States competitors, a well-known A.I. researcher who leads a Silicon Valley laboratory for the Chinese web services company Baidu gently taunted Microsoft, noting that Baidu had achieved similar accuracy with the Chinese language two years earlier.

That, in a nutshell, is the challenge the United States faces as it embarks on a new military strategy founded on the assumption of its continued superiority in technologies such as robotics and artificial intelligence...

..But the global technology balance of power is shifting. From the 1950s through the 1980s, the United States carefully guarded its advantage. It led the world in computer and material science technology, and it jealously hoarded its leadership with military secrecy and export controls.

In the late 1980s, the emergence of the inexpensive and universally available microchip upended the Pentagon’s ability to control technological progress. Now, rather than trickling down from military and advanced corporate laboratories, today’s new technologies increasingly come from consumer electronics firms. Put simply, the companies that make the fastest computers are the same ones that put things under our Christmas trees.

As consumer electronics manufacturing has moved to Asia, both Chinese companies and the nation’s government laboratories are making major investments in artificial intelligence.

The advance of the Chinese was underscored last month when Qi Lu, a veteran Microsoft artificial intelligence specialist, left the company to become chief operating officer at Baidu, where he will oversee the company’s ambitious plan to become a global leader in A.I.

And last year, Tencent, developer of the mobile app WeChat, a Facebook competitor, created an artificial intelligence research laboratory and began investing in United States-based A.I. companies.

Rapid Chinese progress has touched off a debate in the United States between military strategists and technologists over whether the Chinese are merely imitating advances or are engaged in independent innovation that will soon overtake the United States in the field.

“The Chinese leadership is increasingly thinking about how to ensure they are competitive in the next wave of technologies,” said Adam Segal, a specialist in emerging technologies and national security at the Council on Foreign Relations.

In August, the state-run China Daily reported that the country had embarked on the development of a cruise missile system with a “high level” of artificial intelligence. The new system appears to be a response to a missile the United States Navy is expected to deploy in 2018 to counter growing Chinese military influence in the Pacific.

Known as the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, or L.R.A.S.M., it is described as a “semiautonomous” weapon. According to the Pentagon, this means that though targets are chosen by human soldiers, the missile uses artificial intelligence technology to avoid defenses and make final targeting decisions.

The new Chinese weapon typifies a strategy known as “remote warfare,” said John Arquilla, a military strategist at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, Calif. The idea is to build large fleets of small ships that deploy missiles, to attack an enemy with larger ships, like aircraft carriers.

“They are making their machines more creative,” he said. “A little bit of automation gives the machines a tremendous boost.”

Whether or not the Chinese will quickly catch the United States in artificial intelligence and robotics technologies is a matter of intense discussion and disagreement in the United States.

Andrew Ng, chief scientist at Baidu, said the United States may be too myopic and self-confident to understand the speed of the Chinese competition.

“There are many occasions of something being simultaneously invented in China and elsewhere, or being invented first in China and then later making it overseas,” he said. “But then U.S. media reports only on the U.S. version. This leads to a misperception of those ideas having been first invented in the U.S.”

A key example of Chinese progress that goes largely unreported in the United States is Iflytek, an artificial intelligence company that has focused on speech recognition and understanding natural language. The company has won international competitions both in speech synthesis and in translation between Chinese- and English-language texts...