KABUL, Afghanistan — International military forces worked on Monday to recover every last piece of a Chinook helicopter that crashed over the weekend, killing 30 American troops, seven Afghan soldiers and an Afghan interpreter, NATO said.
German Brig. Gen. Carsten Jacobson, a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition, told reporters that troops had secured the crash site in a rugged area of eastern Wardak province and nobody was being allowed in or out of the area while the investigation was ongoing.
Jacobson said the coalition still had not yet determined the exact cause of the crash, but some officials have said the heavy and lumbering transport helicopter was apparently shot down. Officials said the helicopter was hit as it was flying in and approaching the area.
"We are still investigating this incident so we have no picture of what was the cause for the incident. That is what the investigation is basically all about," Jacobson said.
The helicopter was ferrying a group of Navy SEALs to reinforce a group of Army Rangers who were under fire. It remains unclear if the Rangers and SEALs were taking part in a night raid to capture or kill an insurgent leader.
Another NATO helicopter made a hard landing Monday in eastern Paktia province, the U.S.-led coalition said. It did not report any casualties and said the cause of the hard landing was under investigation. The coalition said there was no enemy activity in the area at the time.
The helicopter was a CH-47 of the same type that crashed on Saturday. It was flying in to pick up special operations troops, but apparently suffered a mechanical failure and crash-landed, an officer in the war zone said. He could not be named because he was not authorized to comment publicly. The crew was rescued by the troops.
The fatal crash on Saturday highlights the risks confronting the U.S.-led coalition as it looks to rely more on special operations forces while reducing the overall number of troops in Afghanistan by the end of 2014.
A current and a former U.S. official said the Americans included 22 SEALs, three Air Force members and a dog handler and his dog. The two spoke on condition of anonymity because military officials were still notifying the families of the dead.
All but two of the SEALs were from SEAL Team 6, the unit that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan last May, officials said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to release the information. None of the SEALs killed in the crash took part in the bin Laden mission.
The Rangers, special operations forces who work regularly with the SEALs, secured the crash site in the Tangi Joy Zarin area of Wardak province, about 60 miles southwest of Kabul, one of the officials said.
Many of the officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was still ongoing.
Eight Taliban fighters were also killed in the battle, Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said in a statement.
Jacobson said that despite the tragedy, the coalition was undeterred in its mission.
"The incident as tragic as it was in its magnitude will have no influence on the conduct of operations It was a tragic day. It was a tragic loss," Jacobson said. "The campaign is going to continue. We will continue to relentlessly pursue the enemy in the fight that we are taking too them."
SEALs, Rangers and other special operations troops are expected to be the vanguard of the American military effort in Afghanistan as international military forces start pulling out, handing over control to the Afghan forces they have spent billions of dollars arming and training.
Special operations troops are expected to remain in the country after the troop withdrawal for counterterrorism missions and advisory support. Just how many will remain has not yet been negotiated with the Afghan government, but the United States is considering from 5,000 to 20,000, far fewer than the 100,000 U.S. troops there now.
Special forces are frequently used to target insurgent commanders as part of an effort to force the Taliban's leadership to agree to a negotiated peace. The operations, mostly in the form of night raids, are often carried out by Afghan and coalition special operations forces.
Night raids have drawn criticism from human rights activists and infuriated Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who says they anger and alienate the Afghan population.
Army Times Link
Monday, August 8, 2011
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Deal to Cut Defense Spending
WASHINGTON — Cuts to defense spending in the debt reduction bill could total nearly $1 trillion over 10 years — more than double what President Obama had proposed earlier this year — and sap American military might worldwide, say analysts and members of Congress.
Budget cutters may have to consider slashing costly defense systems like the U.S. military’s replacement fighter jet or increase health-care premiums for working-age military retirees to comply with a debt reduction deal that may cut as much as $900 billion from the U.S. military over 10 years.
“They could do this responsibly,” said Todd Harrison, a budget expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “The reality is that it will be very difficult.”
Thomas Donnelly, a military analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, said the Pentagon cuts won’t require “long knives so much as chain saws.”
Harrison estimates the reductions in defense spending could rise to $900 billion over 10 years.
The proposed cuts would force critical weapons systems to be trimmed or eliminated along with reductions in military personnel and training while at war, Donnelly said.
“The question will be what do we do when we get a shock to our system like 9/11?” Donnelly said. “The fact is we haven’t turned down wars, not even President Obama.”
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., has argued that there is “excessive” military spending that can be eliminated in part by scaling back U.S. commitments overseas. But even Obama’s choice for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, told the Senate last week that $800 billion in defense cuts “would be extraordinarily difficult and very high risk,” prompting some on Capitol Hill to withhold support for the debt-ceiling deal.
Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., chairman of a House Armed Services Committee on military readiness, voted against the bill and described the cuts to the military services as “staggering.” He said the deal would require the Army and Marine Corps to shed needed troops “in a world that’s not getting any safer.”
Among the areas likely to attract budget cutters attention:
• Retirees pay $230 a person or $460 a family each year, along with small co-payments for various types of care. The fees have not gone up since 1995.
• The Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35, is to replace an aging fleet of Harrier jets and protect troops in infantry assaults. The cost: $385 billion for 2,457 jets.
• The size of the ground forces. Army has about 550,000 soldiers, up about 40,000 since 2006. There are about 200,000 Marines, up from 175,000. The Pentagon already has planned to cut 27,000 soldiers and 20,000 Marines by 2015 to save about $6 billion in 2015 and 2016.
If the cuts are targeted, Harrison said, the Pentagon could be forced to make tough choices but still maintain a potent force.
“This will really forces (the military) to rethink its strategy,” Harrison said. “That’s not always a bad thing.”
Last week, in a Congressional hearing on military readiness, the No. 2 officers of the armed services said the services could absorb $400 billion in cuts that President Obama had proposed prior to the debt deal cuts. Anything more would be a problem.
“If they would exceed $400 billion, we would start to have to make some fundamental changes in the capability of the Marine Corps,” said Gen. Joseph Dunford, assistant commandant.
ArmyTimes Link:
Budget cutters may have to consider slashing costly defense systems like the U.S. military’s replacement fighter jet or increase health-care premiums for working-age military retirees to comply with a debt reduction deal that may cut as much as $900 billion from the U.S. military over 10 years.
“They could do this responsibly,” said Todd Harrison, a budget expert at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “The reality is that it will be very difficult.”
Thomas Donnelly, a military analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, said the Pentagon cuts won’t require “long knives so much as chain saws.”
Harrison estimates the reductions in defense spending could rise to $900 billion over 10 years.
The proposed cuts would force critical weapons systems to be trimmed or eliminated along with reductions in military personnel and training while at war, Donnelly said.
“The question will be what do we do when we get a shock to our system like 9/11?” Donnelly said. “The fact is we haven’t turned down wars, not even President Obama.”
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., has argued that there is “excessive” military spending that can be eliminated in part by scaling back U.S. commitments overseas. But even Obama’s choice for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, told the Senate last week that $800 billion in defense cuts “would be extraordinarily difficult and very high risk,” prompting some on Capitol Hill to withhold support for the debt-ceiling deal.
Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., chairman of a House Armed Services Committee on military readiness, voted against the bill and described the cuts to the military services as “staggering.” He said the deal would require the Army and Marine Corps to shed needed troops “in a world that’s not getting any safer.”
Among the areas likely to attract budget cutters attention:
• Retirees pay $230 a person or $460 a family each year, along with small co-payments for various types of care. The fees have not gone up since 1995.
• The Joint Strike Fighter, or F-35, is to replace an aging fleet of Harrier jets and protect troops in infantry assaults. The cost: $385 billion for 2,457 jets.
• The size of the ground forces. Army has about 550,000 soldiers, up about 40,000 since 2006. There are about 200,000 Marines, up from 175,000. The Pentagon already has planned to cut 27,000 soldiers and 20,000 Marines by 2015 to save about $6 billion in 2015 and 2016.
If the cuts are targeted, Harrison said, the Pentagon could be forced to make tough choices but still maintain a potent force.
“This will really forces (the military) to rethink its strategy,” Harrison said. “That’s not always a bad thing.”
Last week, in a Congressional hearing on military readiness, the No. 2 officers of the armed services said the services could absorb $400 billion in cuts that President Obama had proposed prior to the debt deal cuts. Anything more would be a problem.
“If they would exceed $400 billion, we would start to have to make some fundamental changes in the capability of the Marine Corps,” said Gen. Joseph Dunford, assistant commandant.
ArmyTimes Link:
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
New Army Physical Fitness Test (3/3)
ArmyTimes Link: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/04/army-test-takers-offer-advice-opinions-on-new-prt-040211w/
Roughly 10,000 soldiers at eight locations will take the new physical and combat readiness tests over the next four months to help officials establish scoring scales.
As an eager Army awaits the details, soldiers have been sharing their views on the new fitness test. They have voiced full support, utter frustration — and everything in between.
The Army’s top officer said that the new dual-test approach is “a good innovation” and that it is time for change.
“It is focused on measuring the things ... that they need in combat,” Gen. George Casey, Army chief of staff, said in an interview with Army Times. “It's moving a little bit away from endurance being everything, aerobic endurance, and to measuring different strengths.”
Capt. LaRue Robinson, an administrative law attorney at Fort Knox, Ky., also gave thumbs up, saying the new PT test will go “miles” in preventing future injuries.
“The old one did a terrible job of measuring total physical fitness, and sit-ups are bad for your back and spine,” she said in an email to Army Times. “I know many soldiers will complain … but most will see the benefits sooner or later.”
Sgt. Tony Yang isn’t so sure. A member of the 12th Psychological Operations Battalion in Mountain View, Calif., Yang liked the idea of a new test but found the changes “puzzling.”
“The test will take twice as long to conduct and require more resources than a good stopwatch and a track,” he said in an email to Army Times. “Reservists who have little time outside of battle assembly to train to excel in the new PT test will suffer disproportionately compared to the active duty army, [which has] free, convenient gym facilities, mandated PT sessions and daily scrutiny.”
Monitoring form also may prove challenging. Although many instructors said the standing long jump consumes “a ton of time,” others saw the rower as the most challenging to administer.
“There are really a lot of points to watch,” said Staff Sgt. Jeffrey Heilman, a drill sergeant with Bravo Company, 3rd Battalion, 34th Infantry Regiment. “Even experienced graders can get burnout just paying attention,” he told Army Times.
James Culak, an ROTC cadet at the University of Tampa, ditched the traditional running, push-ups and sit-ups and implemented the PRT program this semester. The battalion’s APFT average has increased, and overuse injuries have decreased.
“It is a shame that we have been in combat for almost 10 years and we are just now beginning to implement a new PT test that will be more combat specific,” Culak said in an email to Army Times. “How many soldiers could we have saved from [medical retirement] had we just implemented a better system of preparing their bodies physically for the demands of combat, instead of worrying how many times they can flex their spines in two minutes?”
But self-described “old timer” Sgt. First Class Laurie Schultz is concerned about how older soldiers will handle the new events.
“I believe that this PT test forced on anyone over 40 is asking for major injuries,” she said. “Asking anyone over 50 to perform an APFT is wrong.”
This concern was echoed by Col. Kevin Madden, defense and Army attaché in Seoul, South Korea. He said in an email to Army Times that it was right to shorten the run and push-ups to a more “anaerobically demanding” distance and time, but feels the standing long-jump should be axed.
“The inclusion of an event that cannot be substantially improved unless incredible effort is invested ... is not an effective measure of readiness or fitness — just genetic potential,” said Madden, who has more than three decades of experience coaching track and field at all levels and disciplines. “Consideration should also be given to the degradation of the fibers, ligaments and tendons caused by aging. After age 30, the ability to jump becomes significantly impaired. Continuous jumping will accelerate the development of arthritis and bursitis in all but the most hearty of soldiers.”
Rather than focus on the new events, many soldiers such as Staff Sgt. Michael Howard are simply happy to see the end of sit-ups.
“They are bad for your cervical spine,” the North Carolina National Guard paramedic said. “I can't do them as well as the other events. I can still hump a 40-pound ruck up a mountain and run like a deer. So what does making sit-ups measure? Nothing.”
A number of others were unhappy that pull-ups weren’t included in the new test. Hertling agreed that the pull-up is the best measure for upper body strength. But he and the team of 16 fitness and nutrition experts that built the test didn’t include pull-ups because they wanted men and women to do the same exercises.
“Some folks will say it’s too hard and some folks will say it’s too easy,” Hertling said. “But once they apply this, they’ll find this approach to training and testing is the right way to achieve and maintain the type of fitness today’s soldier needs.”
Part 1 Here
Part 2 Here
As an eager Army awaits the details, soldiers have been sharing their views on the new fitness test. They have voiced full support, utter frustration — and everything in between.
The Army’s top officer said that the new dual-test approach is “a good innovation” and that it is time for change.
“It is focused on measuring the things ... that they need in combat,” Gen. George Casey, Army chief of staff, said in an interview with Army Times. “It's moving a little bit away from endurance being everything, aerobic endurance, and to measuring different strengths.”
Capt. LaRue Robinson, an administrative law attorney at Fort Knox, Ky., also gave thumbs up, saying the new PT test will go “miles” in preventing future injuries.
“The old one did a terrible job of measuring total physical fitness, and sit-ups are bad for your back and spine,” she said in an email to Army Times. “I know many soldiers will complain … but most will see the benefits sooner or later.”
Sgt. Tony Yang isn’t so sure. A member of the 12th Psychological Operations Battalion in Mountain View, Calif., Yang liked the idea of a new test but found the changes “puzzling.”
“The test will take twice as long to conduct and require more resources than a good stopwatch and a track,” he said in an email to Army Times. “Reservists who have little time outside of battle assembly to train to excel in the new PT test will suffer disproportionately compared to the active duty army, [which has] free, convenient gym facilities, mandated PT sessions and daily scrutiny.”
Monitoring form also may prove challenging. Although many instructors said the standing long jump consumes “a ton of time,” others saw the rower as the most challenging to administer.
“There are really a lot of points to watch,” said Staff Sgt. Jeffrey Heilman, a drill sergeant with Bravo Company, 3rd Battalion, 34th Infantry Regiment. “Even experienced graders can get burnout just paying attention,” he told Army Times.
James Culak, an ROTC cadet at the University of Tampa, ditched the traditional running, push-ups and sit-ups and implemented the PRT program this semester. The battalion’s APFT average has increased, and overuse injuries have decreased.
“It is a shame that we have been in combat for almost 10 years and we are just now beginning to implement a new PT test that will be more combat specific,” Culak said in an email to Army Times. “How many soldiers could we have saved from [medical retirement] had we just implemented a better system of preparing their bodies physically for the demands of combat, instead of worrying how many times they can flex their spines in two minutes?”
But self-described “old timer” Sgt. First Class Laurie Schultz is concerned about how older soldiers will handle the new events.
“I believe that this PT test forced on anyone over 40 is asking for major injuries,” she said. “Asking anyone over 50 to perform an APFT is wrong.”
This concern was echoed by Col. Kevin Madden, defense and Army attaché in Seoul, South Korea. He said in an email to Army Times that it was right to shorten the run and push-ups to a more “anaerobically demanding” distance and time, but feels the standing long-jump should be axed.
“The inclusion of an event that cannot be substantially improved unless incredible effort is invested ... is not an effective measure of readiness or fitness — just genetic potential,” said Madden, who has more than three decades of experience coaching track and field at all levels and disciplines. “Consideration should also be given to the degradation of the fibers, ligaments and tendons caused by aging. After age 30, the ability to jump becomes significantly impaired. Continuous jumping will accelerate the development of arthritis and bursitis in all but the most hearty of soldiers.”
Rather than focus on the new events, many soldiers such as Staff Sgt. Michael Howard are simply happy to see the end of sit-ups.
“They are bad for your cervical spine,” the North Carolina National Guard paramedic said. “I can't do them as well as the other events. I can still hump a 40-pound ruck up a mountain and run like a deer. So what does making sit-ups measure? Nothing.”
A number of others were unhappy that pull-ups weren’t included in the new test. Hertling agreed that the pull-up is the best measure for upper body strength. But he and the team of 16 fitness and nutrition experts that built the test didn’t include pull-ups because they wanted men and women to do the same exercises.
“Some folks will say it’s too hard and some folks will say it’s too easy,” Hertling said. “But once they apply this, they’ll find this approach to training and testing is the right way to achieve and maintain the type of fitness today’s soldier needs.”
Part 1 Here
Part 2 Here
Monday, April 4, 2011
New Army Physical Fitness Test (2/3)
ArmyTimes Link: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/04/army-test-takers-offer-advice-opinions-on-new-prt-040211w/
The PRT program replaced the 10-year-old physical fitness field manual and incorporates sprinting, climbing drills and other high-intensity exercises that mimic the challenges soldiers face in combat. Everything in the test is covered in the training.
Frank Palkoska, director of the Army Physical Fitness School, said operational units using PRT are seeing a 20- to 30-point improvement in the current test. But this Army-wide program still lacks wide participation. Many units are still using the old program, or electing to go with popular fitness programs sweeping the nation.
But Sgt. First Class Cornelius Trammell said, “If you want to be successful in combat and in your career, you need to get on with the PRT and train your soldiers properly.”
“All of the stuff in the PRT is implemented out here,” he said. “If you do PRT right, you’re going to fly through this test.”
Shoenfelt, a 12-year infantryman who regularly scores a 300 on the PT test, had just finished the CRT, which may replace one of the two PT tests soldiers do each year. He called that test a “smoker” that challenged a lot of muscle groups that hadn’t been challenged before.
He demonstrated the CRT with fellow instructor Trammell. The duo wore the Army Combat Uniform with helmet and rifle for the CRT, which kicks off with a 400-meter run followed by an obstacle course. The soldiers pushed through low hurdles, high crawls and over-under obstacles that tested individual movement techniques. Next was a 40-yard casualty drag of a 180-pound litter, followed by a 40-yard run with 35-pound ammo cans atop a balance beam.
With muscles burning, the pair conducted point, aim and move drills followed by a 100-yard ammo can shuttle sprint. The CRT wrapped up with a 100-yard agility sprint.
Trammell came in at 5 minutes flat. The wheeled vehicle mechanic, who scored a 278 on the last PT test, said his thighs were still feeling the effects of the casualty drag. Shoenfelt was 13 seconds behind him. As they caught their breath, a lean and weathered general offered his blunt philosophy behind the CRT.
“When it comes time for the current test, people who are in shape don’t prepare for it while others cram in the weeks ahead,” said Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, who as deputy commanding general for initial military training was chief architect of the new test. “With this test, even if you are in great shape, it will get the best of you if you are not prepared.”
There was no argument from a winded Hernandez, who described the new test as “more physically demanding.” Foster said it is a “better measuring tool.”
“You can be fat and out of shape and pass the old APFT. That’s impossible with this one,” she said.
“There is a key difference between readiness and fitness,” Hertling said. “This test is about readiness. It’s about soldiers being ready to be a tactical athlete.”
Part 1 Here
Part 3 will be posted later this week.
Frank Palkoska, director of the Army Physical Fitness School, said operational units using PRT are seeing a 20- to 30-point improvement in the current test. But this Army-wide program still lacks wide participation. Many units are still using the old program, or electing to go with popular fitness programs sweeping the nation.
But Sgt. First Class Cornelius Trammell said, “If you want to be successful in combat and in your career, you need to get on with the PRT and train your soldiers properly.”
“All of the stuff in the PRT is implemented out here,” he said. “If you do PRT right, you’re going to fly through this test.”
Shoenfelt, a 12-year infantryman who regularly scores a 300 on the PT test, had just finished the CRT, which may replace one of the two PT tests soldiers do each year. He called that test a “smoker” that challenged a lot of muscle groups that hadn’t been challenged before.
He demonstrated the CRT with fellow instructor Trammell. The duo wore the Army Combat Uniform with helmet and rifle for the CRT, which kicks off with a 400-meter run followed by an obstacle course. The soldiers pushed through low hurdles, high crawls and over-under obstacles that tested individual movement techniques. Next was a 40-yard casualty drag of a 180-pound litter, followed by a 40-yard run with 35-pound ammo cans atop a balance beam.
With muscles burning, the pair conducted point, aim and move drills followed by a 100-yard ammo can shuttle sprint. The CRT wrapped up with a 100-yard agility sprint.
Trammell came in at 5 minutes flat. The wheeled vehicle mechanic, who scored a 278 on the last PT test, said his thighs were still feeling the effects of the casualty drag. Shoenfelt was 13 seconds behind him. As they caught their breath, a lean and weathered general offered his blunt philosophy behind the CRT.
“When it comes time for the current test, people who are in shape don’t prepare for it while others cram in the weeks ahead,” said Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, who as deputy commanding general for initial military training was chief architect of the new test. “With this test, even if you are in great shape, it will get the best of you if you are not prepared.”
There was no argument from a winded Hernandez, who described the new test as “more physically demanding.” Foster said it is a “better measuring tool.”
“You can be fat and out of shape and pass the old APFT. That’s impossible with this one,” she said.
“There is a key difference between readiness and fitness,” Hertling said. “This test is about readiness. It’s about soldiers being ready to be a tactical athlete.”
Part 1 Here
Part 3 will be posted later this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)