Rao bulletin 15 June 2016 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles
Download 0.91 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- The Navys largest unmanned vessel prototype, the Sea Hunter, sits at the pier in San Diego where it will undergo testing for the next two years.
- MOH Awards Update 05 ► Green Beret Denied | Doing His Job
- Sgt. 1st Class Earl D. Plumlee, right, assigned to 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne), is presented the Silver Star by Maj. Gen. Kenneth R. Dahl, I Corps Deputy Commanding General.
- The IG findings
- Fisher House Expansion Update 14 ► Fort Bragg | Womack AMC
- * Military History *
- Maj. Gen. Leslie Groves Hiroshima Aftermath
Part trimaran and part robot, this odd-shaped ship is an unusual fit at the naval pier. What’s even more unusual is this self-driving vessel is designed to travel thousands of miles through the ocean and conduct its mission without a single crew member on board. At 132 feet long, the Sea Hunter is a prototype of the largest unmanned ship in the world and Navy officials are now looking at the sea drone’s potential to revolutionize fleet operations. It is light, relatively cheap as far as warships go and can get to places that until now required human exposure, making it an appealing option for risky missions such as trailing a submarine or probing for mines at sea. And, with a price tag of $23 million for the prototype, it was far more expendable than a $1 billion battleship.
The Navy's largest unmanned vessel prototype, the Sea Hunter, sits at the pier in San Diego where it will undergo testing for the next two years. “The fleet the Navy has today is a bit like playing chess, where all the pieces are kings and queens,” said Scott Littlefield, who leads the program to develop this ship at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA. “So you have these extremely capable but very valuable platforms and you can’t afford to lose any of them. In a sense, what were are doing is developing something more like a pawn. You can have much more of them. You can afford to lose them.” “It just opens up possibilities -- about how you configure a Navy and how you fight -- that are different than what we have today,” he added. Known officially as the Anti-Submarine Warfare Continuous Trail Unmanned Vessel, or ACTUV, the program started in 2010 when creative minds at the defense innovations lab decided to look at what could be done with a large unmanned surface vessel and came up with submarine tracking and trailing. Until then, the Navy had been doing lots of work with smaller, unmanned sea vehicles that were meant to be launched from larger manned warships. Wouldn’t it be cool, they thought, if they could make something bigger, that could be launched from the pier and traverse the seas on its own for long periods of time. So, instead of the 10-ton, 40-foot vessels that the Navy was launching off its Littoral Combat Ships, they developed this 145-ton automated ship that they could load with sensors and fuel pumps and send from San Diego to Guam – some 10,000 nautical miles, without a crew. “So you get away from this idea of small things carried around inside a warship, to a future architecture that is really more a mixture of a manned-unmanned fleet,” Littlefield said. “High-end manned vessels that are really capable but we have in limited numbers, augmented by potentially a whole lot of things that are quite a bit smaller but still pretty capable.” Navy brass weren’t asking for a mid-sized surface warfare drone. But DARPA, the Pentagon’s innovation center, isn’t driven by requirements. These scientists are there to come up with “the art of the possible” and spark new ideas, Littlefield said. If they don’t know it’s possible, they aren’t going to ask for it, he said. “Sometimes, we lead the requirements a little bit.” It made sense for a Navy that operates in tens of millions of square miles of ocean and a need to connect its platforms, said retired Vice Admiral Pete Daly, a former Fleet Forces commander who now leads the U.S. Naval Institute. “The Navy is always looking to extend its coverage,” Daly said. “So now as a service with a strong background in technology and in this environment, it makes sense to have more independent vehicles and autonomous vehicles.” Besides, unmanned is the way of the future, he said. The Navy created a new department for unmanned platforms last year and continues to budget for new drone acquisitions. In 2013, the service launched an unmanned aircraft prototype, the X-47B, from a carrier and, while that program is slow in advancing, there are plans to develop it, a Navy spokesman said. Similarly, the Navy is investing in unmanned underwater vehicles and has requested nearly $68 million in the 2017 budget for an ongoing program and an additional $634 million for creating new prototypes, said Lt. Kara Yingling, a Navy spokeswoman. “The Navy has identified many values of unmanned warfare systems, such as reducing risk to human life, increasing situational awareness, survivability and lethality and bringing capabilities into previously inaccessible areas,” she said. “We strongly believe we are making the right investments and recognize our systems will evolve over time and enable future unmanned and optionally manned programs.” So DARPA set out to create a vessel to track submarines, went about designing the ship and it’s automated software, and then bringing Navy leadership on board to see if they liked what they saw. Ultimately, they did, but thought it could be useful in different missions, such as mine sweeping. The big challenge – and one that commercial and military industries alike were watching - was not related to programming the ship for missions. Rather it was more basic – making an automated vessel at sea capable of driving safely, Littlefield said. If the ship couldn’t follow the international regulations for preventing collisions at sea, known as Colregs, people wouldn’t want to use it, he said. They had to be certain that the ship would not only avoid a collision on the open seas, but obey the protocol for doing so. It needed to recognize which ship had the right of way and which would move – in any number of scenarios. And it needed to behave the way an experienced human mariner would behave, and if not, at least in a way that wouldn’t throw off the other ships. At one point, the ship did obey the rule, but instead of slowing down and going behind the stern of the other vessel, it did a whole loop before going behind the other vessel’s stern, Littlefield said. At first, they tested the system in a lab, then later on a surrogate ship – a small vessel they could use to test the program at sea. DARPA worked with a company called Leidos to design and construct the ACTUV prototype. The idea behind the trimaran design was a narrow sleek hull that could slice through the water with ease without taking up too much unnecessary space. Inside the main hull are three rooms – a machine room on either end and a center section containing banks of computer racks that are considered the brains of the ship. Here lies the most proprietary part of the Sea Hunter – the only exotic technology on the vessel, Littlefield said. And while the Navy was willing to offer a tour, it did not allow any photographs on or inside the vessel. To stabilize the ship, they designed external cross braces to hold smaller hulls at either side, giving the vessel the kind of stability it would need to navigate the high seas. They used a fiberglass construction technique, using a mold and sandwiching foam core between layers of fiberglass, then vacuuming the air and pouring in resin that would cure and harden within a few hours. There was one mold for the hull, a second for the deck. After building the prototype in Portland, Ore., the Navy last month towed it to San Diego, where it will undergo two years of testing and software development. The Navy placed a temporary operator house atop the vessel that will allow switching between manual and autonomous operations during testing. It can be removed later. And being in San Diego, next to the fleet, they will have an opportunity to look closely at all the possible missions they can do with it. But Daly warned the Navy was still just scratching the surface with its foray into drone warfare equipment. It’s one thing, he said, to use drone aircraft in conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan, where the opponent has lower-end technology. But if they all get wiped out in the first face-off with a “high-end” opponent, then the technology is useless. Still, Daly said, he expects the Navy will broadly embrace unmanned technology in the coming years. “In the next decade, we will see in the major warfare areas a pairing of manned and unmanned technology,” he said. “I believe you will see a truly broad acceptance of autonomous vehicles out there, operating on their own and phoning home when they need to.” [Source: Stars and Stripes | Dianna Cahn | June 8, 2016 ++] ********************************* MOH Awards Update 05 ► Green Beret Denied | Doing His Job A Green Beret credited by his command with taking down several enemy and saving hundreds of lives during an ambush in Afghanistan was doing the job expected of a soldier of his caliber — and therefore his actions didn't meet the standard of the Medal of Honor. This sure-to-be controversial conclusion was drawn by a member of the Senior Army Decorations Board tasked with considering Sgt. 1st Class Earl Plumlee's nomination for the top valor award, according to a newly released Defense Department Inspector General report. The board member, whose name is redacted, said the bar for obtaining the MoH should be much higher for a senior NCO like Plumlee "versus a private." "One's a leader. One's a Soldier," the member said, according to the investigation. "And so when I looked at the circumstances and, although the battle was ferocious and unfortunately a couple members were killed, I just thought that it wasn't a sufficient level for the Medal of Honor based off the individual and the circumstance and that, I just felt that there was an expectation of a leader who did a phenomenal job, that there was something more that [the nominee] needed to have done in order to, in my mind, to make the recommendation for a Medal of Honor." 
Sgt. 1st Class Earl D. Plumlee, right, assigned to 1st Special Forces Group (Airborne), is presented the Silver Star by Maj. Gen. Kenneth R. Dahl, I Corps Deputy Commanding General. This logic is "absolutely insane," said Joe Kasper, the chief of staff of Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) the Congressman who has lobbied for reconsideration for Plumlee to earn the MoH. “It was another case where Army leadership was trying to be overly-cautious, and in doing so became pessimistic and prejudicial against Plumlee, personally,” Kasper told Army Times. “This underscores the fact that the Army needs to re-examine this." The three-member board ultimately recommended Plumlee receive a Silver Star for his heroism in the 2013 battle on Forward Operating Base Ghazni. The IG report noted two other reasons the board recommended Plumlee's award downgrade:
The battle The night of 28 AUG, a car bomb blew a hole in the perimeter wall of FOB Ghazni. Seconds later, 10 insurgents armed with assault rifles and wearing suicide vests poured into the compound. About 10 minutes of intent close-combat ensued as those initially believing they were responding to give first aid to victims ended up taking fire. But thanks to Plumlee and other forces who responded, the insurgents would never reach the more populated parts of the camp. One American, Staff Sgt. Micheal Ollis, and one Polish soldier were killed. Plumlee, at times using a pistol, rifle and hand grenades, “aggressively advanced on the enemy,” according to his citation. He is credited with killing at least three insurgents though he shot more. He also pulled Ollis, who had been mortally wounded, out of enemy fire. His nomination for the MoH had notable supporters to include Marine Gen. Joseph "Fighting Joe" Dunford and then-Lt. Gen. Mark Milley, now a four-star and the Army's chief of staff. Former Army Secretary John McHugh and former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno, however, supported the board's recommendation for awarding the Silver Star. Hunter recently petitioned new Army Secretary Eric Fanning, imploring him to reopen Plumlees nomination. "You are in the position to make this right. The Army’s decision to downgrade SFC Plumlee’s nomination for the Medal of Honor is well known in the Special Operations Community — resubmitting his nomination will go a long way to restoring trust and morale among our warfighters at the leading edge of the fight," Hunter said in a recent letter to Fanning. The IG findings Hunter's campaigning led to the DoD IG investigation, which examined Plumlee's nomination process and sheds new light on the board's decision-making.
Army public affairs declined to answer specific questions for this article. "The report speaks for itself," Army spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said. Plumlee was not immediately available for an interview. [Source: Army Times | Kyle Jahner | June 8, 2016 ++] ******************************** Fisher House Expansion Update 14 ► Fort Bragg | Womack AMC On 10 JUN, officials from the Fisher House Foundation were joined by Womack Army Medical Center to open their new home across from the hospital. The foundation, which provides free housing for families of wounded service members receiving medical care, expects to assist 30,000 families across the country this year. The average time people stay at Fort Bragg's Fisher home is seven days, officials said. More than 300 families stayed at the home last year. Edwin Robles was a mechanic deployed to Afghanistan in 2013. He was wounded and later suffered a stroke. All the while, his wife Deborah left her Charlotte home to be with him. "I couldn't even imagine," she said, describing how their lives would be different without the Fisher House. The home originally opened on Fort Bragg in 1993. It was the 11th home built by the foundation, which now has 70 homes across the country. The new home is one-story and has 11 suites for guests. It provides more space than the older home and includes handicap-accessible features. David Coker, president of the foundation, said the home allows people to ease their minds from the financial stress of caring for their injured service member and instead focus on helping that person recover. "This house now serves as a tangible symbol of our support, our love and our respect for all those who have selflessly served our country," he said. "It is this foundation's goal, in fact, we believe it's our duty, to create an environment where families can focus solely on the healing process." For a list of current Fisher house facilities along with contact data refer to http://fisherhouse.org/programs/houses/house-locations. [Source: Fayetteville Observer | Amanda Dolasinski | June 11, 2016 ++] 
* Military History *  
Hiroshima Update 01 ► Cables Reveal Lead-Up to A-bomb Decision On Aug. 6, 1945, Maj. Gen. Leslie Groves sent a top secret cable to his superiors in Washington, D.C. In the now declassified cable, Groves, who was in charge of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, described what had happened. “First there was a ball of fire, changing in a few seconds to purple clouds and flames boiling and swirling upward,” he wrote. “Entire city except outmost ends of dock areas was covered with a dark grey dust layer which joined the cloud column.” The results, Groves told Washington, were “clearcut, successful in all respects.”   
Maj. Gen. Leslie Groves Hiroshima Aftermath Groves’ memorandum, not publicly released until decades later, is just one of countless top-secret cables, meeting minutes, memorandums and decrypted Japanese messages sent in the days and weeks leading up to the decision by the U.S. to drop the world’s first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. With U.S. President Barack Obama set to visit that city on 27 MAY, the debate over the bomb’s necessity and morality has been rekindled on both sides of the Pacific. The question is often rooted in long-standing media and popular culture-generated conceptions — and misconceptions — about the period and what leaders in Washington and Tokyo were thinking in the fateful weeks leading up to the bombing. It was not until the 1960s that many primary sources about the atomic bomb decision, in the form of declassified U.S. government cables, began to become available. Today, many are stored on the National Security Archive website, offering researchers, professional and amateur, a trove of official documentation about the decision. On April 27, 1945, as Germany was about to surrender, ending the war in Europe, U.S. military brass and nuclear scientists met in Washington for the first time to discuss the atomic bombing of Japan. Though the weapon was still under development, the meeting’s purpose was to discuss how, when and especially where it should first be dropped. In a top-secret memo of the meeting, eight possible targets — Tokyo, Yokohama, Nagoya, Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe, Yawata (a steel works area in Kitakyushu) and Nagasaki — were listed, and four — Hiroshima, Yawata, Yokohama and Tokyo — were commented upon. “Hiroshima is the largest untouched target on the 21st Bomber Command priority list. Consideration should be given to this city. Yawata is an area that should be considered … and is on the A priority list (steel industry). Yokohama is lower on the priority list of targets,” the memo said. “Tokyo is a possibility but it is now practically all bombed and burned out, and is practically all rubble with only the palace grounds left standing,” it said, referring to the March 1945 firebombing of Tokyo that killed more than 100,000 people. By June of that year, the Battle of Okinawa was ending. U.S. leaders were looking ahead to the next step: an invasion of Japan itself. In a June 18, 1945, meeting, U.S. President Harry Truman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff prepared to dispatch over 766,000 troops for an invasion of Kyushu, to commence on 1 NOV. The meeting minutes read: “It seems that if the Japanese are ever willing to capitulate short of complete military defeat in the field they will do it when faced by the completely hopeless prospect occasioned by (1) destruction already wrought by air bombardment and sea blockade, coupled with (2) a landing on Japan indicating the firmness of our resolution, and also perhaps coupled with (3) the entry or threat of entry of Russia in the war.” Among the items discussed that day was whether the U.S. should demand Japan’s unconditional surrender. Adm. William Leahy was against it, saying he feared an insistence on unconditional surrender “would result only in making the Japanese desperate and thereby increase our casualty lists.” No decision was made. But by the end of July, the testing of the atomic bomb in New Mexico was a success and unconditional surrender had become a firm condition. While Hiroshima remained on the target list, the ancient city of Kyoto was removed, reportedly at the insistence of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, who had honeymooned there. Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence was intercepting messages from the Japanese Foreign Ministry, which had approached the Soviet Union, seeking help to end the war. Japan appeared to be unaware that the Soviets had already decided to declare war once a neutrality pact expired the following month.
Preparations for dropping the bomb accelerated. On July 24, a secret U.S. War Department cable said the Army Air Forces “will deliver the first special bomb as soon as the weather will permit visual bombing after about 3 August 1945 on one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura (in Fukuoka Prefecture), Niigata and Nagasaki.” Just under two weeks later on Aug. 6, the decision was made. A top-secret memorandum Groves sent after the bombing stipulated the reason for the choice of location: “The target used was Hiroshima, the one reserved target where there was no indication of any POW camp.” The atomic bomb was then dropped. Negotiations to end the war would continue, with the Soviet Union formally entering the conflict on Aug. 9, the same day the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Last year, a diary from a senior U.S. official in 1945 was published. In it, the official said that a few months after the war ended, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, who would later become president, said privately he had hoped the war would have ended without the use of nuclear weapons. But on Aug. 13, 1945, with no announcement of surrender from Tokyo, a memo of a phone conversation between Col. L.E. Seaman, an associate of Groves, and Gen. John E. Hull, assistant chief of staff for the War Department’s Operations Division, made it clear more atomic bombs were being prepared for the coming weeks. “You have a possibility of seven, with a good chance of using them prior to the 31st of October,” Seaman said. Two days later, however, on Aug. 15, Japan surrendered unconditionally. The war was over. But as history would show, the debate on the use of atomic weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just beginning. [Source: Japan Times (Tokyo) | Eric Johnston | May 25, 2016 ++] ********************************* Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2016 2016 -> 2017 afoCo Landmark Scholarship Program 2016 -> Instructions for the Preparation of Camera-Ready Contributions to the Conference Proceedings 2016 -> Step student Scholarships for Year 10-13 2016 -> The united church of canada 2016 -> Idan raichel biography – May 2016 Brief Producer, keyboardist, Lyricist, composer and Performer Idan Raichel 2016 -> An introduction to centre’s interventions expanding access to justice 2016 -> Sanchar Shakti 2016 -> Unit analysis should help here. We want number of bananas 2016 -> The Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates 2016 -> The Great Heat and the Rhode Island Deep Water Bay Scallop (Argopecten irradians) Fishery 1875-1905 Download 0.91 Mb. Share with your friends:
|