Skip to content

Sea Links

February 26, 2010

SPS Castilla, a Spanish Galicia-class landing platform dock is seen off Haiti.

US Navy

U.S. warship docks in Georgia for joint training.

LCS 1 seizes drugs in smuggler encounter. More.

Navy approves more spending on 49-year-old USS Enterprise.

Blast from the past: the National Patrol Frigate.

U.S. to retire nuclear Tomahawk missiles.

Lawmakers criticize shipbuilding budget.

Industry Saves SEAL Sub. More.

See NLOS in action … kind of.

US Navy’s Vision for Irregular Warfare. (pdf)

 U.S. Navy Awakens to Irregular Warfare.

The New Rules of War.


Warships of the World

Royal Navy Chief defends service. The Speech.

Royal Navy’s Role in shaping the international maritime discourse.

QE Carriers, Beyond Invincible.

British Unions Defend Aircraft Carriers.

British Forces in the Falklands.

General:Trident might not be needed in five years.

Royal Navy Introduces New Reconnaissance UUV.

Pakistan Wary Of Indian Navy’s ‘Hegemonic Mindset’.

Australia faces shipbuilding gap.

Israel and Iran Beef Up Their Arsenals.


New Wars at Sea

EU flotilla intensifies control of pirate ports.

Submersible Drug Trade Ongoing.

Spanish Gibraltar Incursions Coincide With New Falklands Standoff.

North Korean Weapons Shipment Reported Seized.

Piracy Task Force Foils Hijacking. More.

Turkish navy seals foil attack on Japanese vessel off Somalia.


From the Navy Vaults

‘Kilroy was here’. (Caswell Messenger)

Navy Days: then and now. (Daly History Blog)

S.C. memorial remembers attack by submarine Hunley. (AP)

Special Boat Service. (War and Game)

Military History: Invasion Japan. (War and Game)

USS Lexington CV-2. (Military Factory)

The Navy Under the Romanovs. (Warships from Russia)


20 Comments leave one →
  1. Graham Strouse permalink
    February 27, 2010 6:15 am

    I have to say a few words regarding politics here, not to defend or attack the Ds or the Rs, but to sight in on what (I think) are relevant subjects for poltical discusssion in this forum, given Mike’s basic mission (as best I can discern).

    I believe it IS relevant to bring up matters regarding Congressional (particularly) Senatorial parochialism and the damage that individual members of Congress (both parties) do to our national security by pumping up local military projects which benefit their constituencies while degrading overall US military defense as a conseqence. This is a real and tangible issue and it should be discussed. Likewise, influence-peddling by individual military contractors is a viable subject for discussion.

    This is important stuff. It can and should be discussed when it’s relevant to matters of national security. This is not a matter of ideology. It’s a matter of economy & functionality. Economy is a matter Mike talks about a lot & I think it’s relevant, if, say, BAW or N-G is getting a sweetheart deal to produce stuff we don’t need and can’t afford.

    I don’t think it’s appropriate or useful to get into liberal v. conservative pissing contests. Calling out individual contractors or congress-critters who wheedle sweetheart deals for junk ships seems perfectly reasonable to me, provided we offer reasonable, well-considered points against.

    I DON’T think it does us any good getting into Left vs. Right pissing contests. This only distracts us & gets us wound up & gets people ranting rather then talking. It’s not useful or productive.

    Do Senators Snowe and Collins wield too much influence as representatives of BAW? I think that’s a legit issue to discuss. Are we building DDGs we don’t need in Maine to prop up their local economy at the cost of degrading our national defense? This is a fair question.

    I believe it’s relevant to discuss the fact that 46 different states got a piece of the $122 million dollar F-22, increasing costs & delivery times to please various local constituencies while delaying the production of a Cold War relic interminably & leaving us with a limited production run 5th generation fighter with no real mission.

    Let’s just avoid the liberal vs. conservative nonsense, people. Snowe & Collins live or die politically with BAW’s success or failure ’cause Maine has little else economically & people ultimately vote with their stomachs and wallets. I think it’s right to be concerned whether what’s good for Maine and BAW is good for the US.

    Likewise, the recently deceased Congressman Jack Murtha was constantly embroiled with his questionable (and considerable) Pentagon contacts. He did a lot of wheeling and dealing and to whose end? I’m not really sure, honestly.

    To the extent that these kinds of political issues impact our ability to create & sustain an effective, cost-efficient military, I think these are relevant topics of discussion. Procurement has a political side we can’t really ignore.

    Let’s just not devolve into liberal & conservative bashing. It’s unproductive, annoying, distracting & frankly it pisses me off. If I want that kind of stress I can go to FOX or the Huffington Post. Part of the reason I like Mike’s blog so much is that generally speaking, it DOESN’T devolve into pointless name-calling & partisan bigotry. Talking about missile systems at New Wars is much less stressful & resonable then debating health care at HuffPo.

    I’d like to keep it that way.

    Graham out.

  2. February 26, 2010 11:13 pm


    I do not find America’s stated neutrality at all troubling from a military point of view,the United Kingdom would not need any help to retake the Falklands in the highly unlikely event that Argentina tried to invade again.

    What is troubling is that the United Kingdom divested itself of the World’s greatest empire on the basis that all peoples have the right to self determination.
    An act which had a great deal to do with the United States government and the Atlantic Charter.
    Now the United States government appears to be suggesting that the right to self determination of the people of the Falkland Islands is of no relevance.


  3. D. E. Reddick permalink
    February 26, 2010 10:32 pm


    It keeps getting weirder, stranger, further convoluted, and more troubling. Well, that is – if you believe this sort of reporting:

    Mail Online: Hillary Clinton steps into Falklands row after ‘feeble’ Obama fails to back Britain in stand-off with Argentina

    By Ian Drury
    Last updated at 4:35 PM on 26th February 2010

    * Hillary Clinton ‘prepared to mediate’ in Falklands row
    * Spanish oil company to drill near Falklands

    U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton is due to meet with Argentina’s president amid accusations of a snub to Britain over America’s refusal to support the UK in the Falklands oil drilling row.

  4. Mike Burleson permalink*
    February 26, 2010 9:41 pm

    Thanks D.E. ! I generally try to swallow my anger at politicians, which is often these days, and hope for the best. Things usually work out, often in spite of, rather than because of the politicos!

  5. D. E. Reddick permalink
    February 26, 2010 9:25 pm


    Sorry about bringing politics into the discussion. Yet, this is an issue of national security interest.

    I like President Obama. I have only a few issues with his policies. Very few, in fact – when compared to the last administration. I’m not a liberal, nor am I a conservative – rather, I’m someone who looks at each instance of policy establishment and judges it on its own merit or lack of such.

    I just think that unstated neutrality would have been preferable to what has now occurred. The statement regarding U.S. neutrality has quite likely damaged relations between the U.S. and the U.K. and may even foment additional agitation within South American regimes to support Argentina in taking an aggressive, offensive posture towards the Falkland Islands.

  6. February 26, 2010 7:53 pm


    I was confident that there would be no fighting in the South Atlantic.
    However,an Argentinian has just read my guide to invading the Falkland Islands:

    Things could soon go kinetic down there……………


  7. Chuck Hill permalink
    February 26, 2010 6:57 pm

    I think our stance may reflect a confidence that a review of the legal question would confirm UK sovereignty.

  8. Mike Burleson permalink*
    February 26, 2010 6:50 pm

    Sigh. This is why I don’t do politics! A relevent quote from FDR:

    “This nation will remain a neutral nation, but I cannot ask that every American remain neutral in thought as well.”

  9. Heretic permalink
    February 26, 2010 5:37 pm

    Reddick … you’re falling for the trap that has been set.

    You mention Hugo Chavez “pontificating” … which he can do as much of as he likes. Has he DONE anything yet? Until words are backed up with action, any “counter-move” on the part of the US is both over-reaction and prompted by provocation.

    The smarter play is to stay “in reserve” until the situation changes, since the status quo favors the UK in the claim to the territory in dispute.

    Obama hasn’t said “you’re on your own in perpetuity no matter what happens and I don’t want to hear about it” in any way shape or form. He’s merely indicated that so long as the status quo is maintained … the US isn’t stepping in on anybody’s side in this dispute. If Argentina does nothing then the UK position is stronger because the US didn’t put their thumb on the scale. At the same time, the US position will be “better” with Latin America … because they didn’t put their thumb on the scale.

  10. D. E. Reddick permalink
    February 26, 2010 4:46 pm


    The U.K. and U.S. are allies, in fact. Following the 9/11 attacks the U.K. came to the aid of the U.S. in Afghanistan. And even with the ‘false war’ engendered against Iraq, the U.K. came in as an ally and assisted the U.S. in bringing down the criminal regime of the Ba’athists and Saddam Hussein. For over ninety years the peoples and governments of both the U.K. and U.S. have been allied in most instances against aggressors.

    I simply find it incredible and an abundantly clear case of abandonment by the U.S. as it states that it is neutral in this resurrection of potential Argentine aggression against the Falkland Islands. With Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez pontificating his support for Argentina, then things seem even more troublesome.

    Oh, in case anyone is wondering – one of my ancestors arrived on the second ship to land colonists in the Plymouth Colony of Massachusetts. So, I’m simply an American who’s truly annoyed with this neutral stand by the U.S. government when that same government has been amply aided by the government of the U.K. in the course of the globe-spanning war against terrorism.

  11. Heretic permalink
    February 26, 2010 4:33 pm

    Oh … something I forgot to mention.

    If Bush/Cheney were still in office, they’d be trumpeting to the high heavens the Anglo Alliance and the “special partnership” between the US and UK and pledging troops and ships to defend the islands … blah blah blah blah blah.

    Not because they particularly like the UK or anything. Nothing so statesman-like.

    There’s OIL there.
    That’s the only reason the “Good Ol’ Texas Boys” would commit the might of the US military to anything.

    Gotta protect the OIL for your friends …

  12. Heretic permalink
    February 26, 2010 4:21 pm

    re: CBD

    No, I have no information of any kind on EMALS, aside from what’s been commented/reported on by places like Information Dissemination.

    re: D. E. Reddick

    Stumbled across that article this morning as part of my daily perusal of links (to avoid boredom at work) and was both dismayed and not too surprised by the comments appended to the article (which were all pretty much of the BURN THE WHITE HOUSE!!! variety).

    The simple fact of the matter is that the Falklands/Malvinas dispute is fundamentally one of sovereignity for the UK. The islands, and their waters (and mineral rights) are claimed by both the UK and Argentina … and the UK has the better claim (see Mt Pleasant base, etc.). ^_- The US Government has about as much business poking its funnel into this sort of spat as defending the Isle of Wight in a territorial dispute between London and Dublin (for purposes of illustrating the point, not as a matter of equivalent comparison).

    An even simpler fact of the matter is that if the UK is determined to maintain their sovereign claims over the Falklands, then they need to defend their claims by themselves. Otherwise the UK (and by extension, its military apparatus) merely becomes a “protectorate” of the US and its military and stops being a sovereign nation in its own right.

    Or to put it another way … if Argentina attacked the Falklands and declared war on the UK, does anyone even remotely think that QE II would address NATO, as a head of state, invoking the NATO charter clause that an attack on one is an attack on all, and we’d see every NATO member with a navy sending forces to the south atlantic to defend the UK’s claims to the Falklands?

    And if the default assumption is that NATO wouldn’t rush to the defense of “poor beleagered England in her hour of need” if the Falklands were attacked by an Argentine force … why should there be an assumption that the USN would gladly divert a carrier battle group and activate several nuclear attack submarines to “aid poor beleagered England in her hour of need” when NATO wouldn’t?

    Clearly there are some questions which answer themselves … unless you’re a partisan/patriot who wants to see traitors everywhere.

  13. February 26, 2010 4:02 pm

    “The ongoing situation with the Falklands is making the present US administration look amateurish and fickle – i.e., not interested in supporting a close ally.”

    There was strong support for the Latin position in Reagan’s government. I think Reagan’s belief in democracy carried the day. Plus there were strong indications that the Soviets would have started using the Island’s anchorages if the Argentines had kept control. They could hardly appeal to the UN or the US for support.

  14. Mike Burleson permalink*
    February 26, 2010 4:02 pm

    D.E.-I moved the link you posted on the Falklands over to Breaking News. Hope that is OK.

  15. CBD permalink
    February 26, 2010 1:59 pm

    Any info on how EMALS is coming? Last I heard it was at risk of delaying the production of the Ford and that we were awaiting some tests early in this year…

  16. Heretic permalink
    February 26, 2010 12:25 pm

    I wonder if the USN is spending refurb money on Enterprise so as to use her as a test mule for EMALS to trap and shoot aircraft at sea in a representative test as a further proofing of the systems before they get installed into the Ford. *THAT* would probably be worth the extra money being spent on Enterprise before she goes to the breakers to be scrapped (which, Klingon Fanbois to the contrary, is in fact the most honored resting place for any warship which has ever gone to sea … since it means that all the crew have come HOME!).

    Doubtful that’s what the USN is really up to, but I *did* suggest to an employee at General Atomics who was working on EMALS that GA should really talk to the USN about the possiblity of using Enterprise as a test mule at sea before she’s retired with honors.

  17. February 26, 2010 11:05 am

    I am waiting to see what happens down south.

    As I have said here before this is a lot of diplomatic smoke and mirrors.

    The UN has already given the Argentines the quiet brush off.

    I know that facts don’t always outweigh perceptions. History is on our side. We have a former colony of one European power trying to grab a “colony” of another European power on the flimsy grounds of geographical proximity. Though how with these islands being well over 300 hundred miles from Argentine territory counts as close I don’t know. And lest not forget the part of South America that the islands is closet too is under disputed ownership too.

    It must have been an awful shock too many Argentine conscripts in 82 to find themselves on cold wind swept islands that bore little relation to home and populated not by an oppressed people but happy English speaking (mainly Protestant) people who resented their presence. It sadly speaks volumes for the Argentines as a people that after learning at a heavy cost in young lives the truth about “their islands” that this silly dispute raises its head again and again.

  18. James Daly permalink
    February 26, 2010 8:57 am

    I’ve found this on HMS York’s section on the Royal Navy website:

    “In mid-January York… then ventured into international waters to exchange pleasantries with an Argentine Warship, the FFG Drummond, who was in transit during heavy seas”

  19. Mike Burleson permalink*
    February 26, 2010 8:53 am

    Mr X, somehting similiar–I tried to find this on the MoD website without success, but the Merco Press is now saying “UK MOD denies naval incident with Argentine vessel

    The British Ministry of Defence strongly denied Thursday any incident in the Falklands territorial waters involving a Royal Navy South Atlantic patrol and an Argentine Navy corvette, as reported in some London sensational media.

    But I can find no other reference to this story.

  20. February 26, 2010 8:13 am

    Good example of BBC spin there! Headline says Trident might not be needed in 5 years, but does the article say that? No. I hope after the GE that somebody has the courage to root out that biased left leaning cabal at the centre of British media.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: