Pakistan Measures in U.S. Defense Bill 'Counterproductive'

ISLAMABAD - Measures to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in funds for Pakistan in the recently passed U.S. defense authorization bill for 2012 have been labeled counterproductive by regional experts.

The measures seek to withhold $700 million for Pakistan until Congress is convinced by the defense secretary that Islamabad is moving to combat the IEDs used to attack NATO/ISAF troops in Afghanistan.

The Pakistani government and military have not released a response to the measures.

However, former Australian defense attaché to Islamabad, Brian Cloughley, said the measures were "petty and spiteful" and "put in place by politicians who are anxious to play the patriotism card to win votes."

He said the measures were also unworkable as one of the main concerns of U.S authorities was to restrict the flow of fertilizer from Pakistan to Afghanistan. Fertilizer from Pakistan is a main ingredient in the production of homemade explosives.

Cloughley said that fertilizer was desperately needed in Afghanistan because of the generally poor soil quality and, therefore, he believes the fertilizer would be imported regardless of what the U.S. Congress wants.

"There is no possible means of detecting it other than individual search of every truck moving through official border check posts, including, of course, via northern routes," Cloughley said.

Cloughley added: "Fertilizer doesn't come only from Pakistan. It, along with much other contraband, enters through Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; probably Iran, too."

He said Congress had also ignored the fact that "over 150,000 Pakistani troops have been committed to the western border, more than the U.S. and ISAF have in the whole of Afghanistan", and that "of the claimed 170,000 Afghan army troops supposed to be serving … only 3,000 to 4,000 [troops] are in the east of the country."

Even if Pakistan was able to stop the flow of fertilizer through the border crossings, Cloughley said smugglers would resort to more simple measures by loading it onto donkeys trained to make their own way across the border.

The withholding of finances is a keenly felt issue in Pakistan.

Analyst Haris Khan, of the Pakistan Military Consortium think tank, said "Under the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund (PCCF) aid, no money or funds have been released since June 2011."

The Pakistani government and military have been somewhat silent on the non-payment of funds, Khan said.

Kahn described the silence in terms of the continued non-reimbursement of payments Pakistan made for 28 embargoed F-16C/Ds under the Pressler Amendment in the 1990s. Pakistan initially continued to make payments for the embargoed aircraft despite it being unlikely they would be released.

He said Pakistan should take a more forceful and "businesslike" approach to the non-payment of funds for services rendered, and be more active in demanding payments.

Just what Pakistan can do in this regard is uncertain, as all movement of NATO supplies through Pakistan has already stopped due to the NATO/ISAF attacks on two border posts on the night of Nov. 25/ 26.

Pakistan may not have much leverage, but Cloughley said he believes the U.S. is also in a similar position.

While the measures sound very severe, Cloughley said, "the freeze will not affect Pakistan gravely."

Ultimately, Cloughley said the measures are counterproductive as the "only definite outcome" will be "increased distrust and hatred of the U.S. throughout Pakistan."

Pakistan Condemns 'Unprovoked' Border Attack

ISLAMABAD - Pakistan accused NATO and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) of a deliberate and unprovoked attack on two of its border posts along the Afghan-Pakistan border on the night of Nov. 25/26, killing 24 Pakistani soldiers, and wounding 13.

Trucks carrying supplies for NATO forces in Afghanistan are parked Nov. 26 at the Pakistan's Torkham border crossing after Pakistani authorities suspended NATO supplies. (STR / AFP via Getty Images)

A statement from the Army's Inter Services Press Release, said the attack on the two army-manned posts in Mohmand Agency had been "unprovoked" and that the chief of army staff, Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, "strongly condemned NATO/ISAF's blatant and unacceptable act".

The release also stated Kayani had "directed that all necessary steps be under taken for an effective response to this irresponsible act," and that a "strong protest" had been lodged with NATO/ISAF which demanded "strong and urgent action" be taken against those responsible for the "aggression."
Pakistan sealed its Afghan border to NATO, shutting down a lifeline for the estimated 130,000 U.S.-led foreign troops fighting the Taliban, and called on the United States to leave a secretive air base reportedly used by CIA drones.
The Associated Press of Pakistan said a strong protest had been lodged with U.S ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter. Protests were also lodged in Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels.
The Pakistani foreign office issued a statement saying the attacks were "totally unacceptable, constituted a grave infringement of Pakistan's sovereignty, were violative of international law and a serious transgression of the oft conveyed red lines and could have serious repercussions on Pakistan-U.S./NATO/ISAF cooperation."
No further details of the attack or explanation were forthcoming from the Pakistan Army or the Air Force when asked just how the attack was able to take place in the aftermath of the U.S. Navy Seals raid into Pakistan in May when the military was supposed to be more alert to threats emanating from the western border, or why ISAF/NATO attacked posts they knew to be manned by the Pakistan Army, or why the Pakistan Air Force was not able to intervene.
South Asia analysts and former Australian defense attaché to Islamabad Brian Cloughley said the consequences of the raid would be probably severe.
"This is quite outrageous and I have no doubt it signifies the end of the last lingering shreds of trust that the Pakistan army had for the U.S.," Cloughely said.
He added: "The locations of Pakistani posts have been notified to ISAF. There is no excuse whatever for this incident, especially after the meeting between Kayani and [ISAF commander Gen. John R] Allen."
Cloughley visited Mohmand Agency in early November and was hosted by the Pakistan Army's 77 Brigade that is based there. The brigade had just concluded Operation Brekhna, a three-phase operation to clear the area of some one thousand Taliban militants that took place between January and September 2011.
The operation faced substantial threats from IEDs (which accounted for 47 of the brigade's 74 killed), uncovered nine bomb factories, and an elaborate tunnel system (one part of which contained a 40-bed hospital).
Cloughley also said the Pakistani officers complained that no ISAF or Afghan forces were based between the border and the Kunar River in Afghanistan, and that this area had militant bases (which remained unharmed) from where raids were carried out into Pakistan.
A raid emanating from this area of Afghanistan in August killed 16 Frontier Scouts in the Pakistani region of Chitral.
Information from Agence France-Presse contributed to this report.

U.S. Army Moves Forward on JLTV

The U.S. Army insists it plans to go forward with its open competition for Joint Light Tactical Vehicle following completion of its two-year technology development phase even as many defense analysts have the program pegged for cancellation.
Tim Goddette, director of Sustainment Systems, said in a July 28 statement that the program has taken steps forward, refining the requirements during the technology development phase in order to "meet the designated capability gaps."

A program that could be worth up to $20 billion already has a host of defense companies, including BAE Systems, General Dynamics Land Systems, Lockheed Martin, AM General and General Tactical Vehicles, all vying to build the next-generation light vehicle.
Army officials hope to build a spree of capabilities into JLTV to include "fortified improvised explosive device, or IED, protections designed to withstand blast attacks, off-road mobility, variable ride height suspension, exportable power and essential command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, or C4ISR, capabilities," Goddette said.
However, budgets are shrinking and the Army also plans to field the Ground Combat Vehicle in the next seven years and complete a recapitalization of the Humvee fleet. Army leaders know JLTV costs can't spiral out of control in the current budget environment.
Originally intended to replace the Humvee, the House Appropriations defense subcommittee wrote in the 2012 defense spending bill that "the operational niche to be filled by the JLTV appears to be shrinking," and cut $50 million off the Army and Marine Corps research and development budget request.
"We gained valuable insight into the cost of each capability and effect that one capability might have on another," Goddette said in the statement. "We've learned that some trade-offs are necessary to pursue an overall strategy that best synchronizes requirements, resources, mature technologies and a cost-reducing acquisition strategy."
One such trade-off could be to not include add-on armor known as B-kits to each vehicle. Goddette said the Army does not expect every JLTV will need that level of armor and protection. He also expects more lightweight protective material to be developed in the coming years.
Goddette also tried to dispel the belief that the Army no longer needs JLTV if it recapitalizes the Humvee fleet, integrates MRAPs and delivers the GCV. He said JLTV and the Humvee recap "complement one another as part of an integrated Light Tactical Vehicle strategy."
"These two competitive efforts are also synchronized with one another to invest a limited amount of resources up front enabling a 'try before we buy' approach and capitalize on the vast experience our industry partners have gained over that past five years," Goddette said

Blast Chimney Shows Promise, Questions Remain

Since its veiled debut at an annual U.S. Army conference last year, there has been little news of the structural blast chimney, a potentially groundbreaking technology that promises to protect Humvees and other military vehicles from roadside bombs.

A BLAST FROM an IED-like explosive envelops a Humvee equipped with a "chimney" structure intended to protect vehicle passengers. The U.S. Test Center has put the chimney through a number of such blast tests. (DARPA)

Now, new information is emerging, including blast test results from the Army's Test Center in Aberdeen, Md., and new data from the Marine Corps on the vehicle's durability in difficult terrain. The test results paint a complicated picture of a promising technology that still has to work out some kinks. And until there is more data, it remains unclear how much the chimney contributes to the safety of the people inside.

Back in October, those invited to an off-site art gallery near the Washington Convention Center could view a blast-tested Humvee and learn of its ability to vent explosive energy up through a blast channel that ran through the center of it.

News of the chimney immediately drew questions from skeptics. There were whispers that Hardwire, the company behind the chimney, and its teammate on the project, Humvee-maker AM General, had oversold the technology's potential.

Others wanted to know how a blast channel running straight up through the interior of a Humvee affected the space and visibility for the soldiers inside.

As the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Army and the Marine Corps proceeded to blast-test the vehicles in Aberdeen, defense officials talked about the technology's potential in congressional testimony and in meetings with reporters.

"Visually, it looks very, very promising," Army Secretary John McHugh told lawmakers March 16.

He said he'd watched classified videos in Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey's office of the vehicles being blown up.

Until now, no one outside the program has learned what "very promising" means.

M-ATV PROTECTION, HALF THE WEIGHT

While the tests' results remain classified, DARPA officials say the blasts indicate a Humvee equipped with the structural blast chimney provides the mandatory survivability level required of an M-ATV, the lightest version of the military's mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles. And it does so at almost half the weight.

The gross weight of the Humvees being tested is 16,300 pounds. An M-ATV weighs roughly 30,000 pounds, while the average MRAP weighs 40,000 pounds.

"The data to date indicates that the occupant survivability of this vehicle is comparable to the M-ATV," said Leo Christodoulou, who directs DARPA's Defense Sciences Office.

There have been 11 survivability tests to date, and eight have been under a joint DARPA-Marine Corps-Army program. The Army Test Center has conducted all of the tests.

Five more survivability tests are scheduled before the end of the summer, Christodoulou said.

A DARPA chart prepared earlier in the year for Congress shows that the goal is to achieve MRAP-like survivability at less than half the weight. The companies behind the effort remain confident that such results will be achieved in upcoming tests.

The structural blast chimney holds a lot of promise for even bigger explosions, according to AM General CEO Charles Hall. He said the structural blast chimney could provide the survivability of vehicles two to three times its weight.

Chris Yunker, who leads the vehicle requirements team at the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, said the service is watching the blast testing closely.

"When they do the blast testing on this rigid cabin we're seeing pretty good results," Yunker said. "That really caught our attention and we said, 'This is a good design; let's keep looking at it.'"

Despite its moniker, there is much more to the new vehicle design than the chimney.

Hardwire CEO George Tunis explained that all of the components working together keep the vehicle intact, on the ground and its occupants safe.

The clutter inside the vehicle has been cleaned up, with new racks designed to hold gear and ammo. Hardwire picked seats designed by Jankel, which Tunis described as the best blast-mitigating seat on the market.

Hardwire has also redesigned the way the Gunner Protection Kit responds during a blast event, greatly reducing the blast overpressure, he said.

The floor has also been redesigned to absorb as much blast energy as possible, Tunis said.

Finally, there is the chimney, which not only creates a hollow space through the vehicle but a very rigid cab structure that can withstand big explosions. The chimney also connects the ceiling to the floor, which reinforces the floor's strength, Tunis said.

But what once seemed like the key feature - the hollow blast channel - might only play a small role in the vehicle's protection.

Christodoulou said DARPA is still running tests and simulations that will help decouple the contributions of the various components. For the chimney, "the jury is still out," he said.

First and foremost, the chimney provides structural rigidity to the cabin, Yunker said. "There's a little bit of debate on whether there is any venting effect of that chimney."

The numbers he's seen show it may contribute 3 to 7 percent in the decrease of the vehicle's acceleration.

"I have the luxury of being a combat developer," he said, "and I tell people, 'I don't care if it's bubble gum on the window that makes the thing work.' If it works, we're interested in it."

He said that of the three ways that Marines and soldiers die in roadside bomb attacks, the chimney may be protecting against two.

The chimney does not mitigate a bomb's energy impulse, which still hits the vehicle's underbody, but it may help decrease acceleration from overpressure, according to Yunker.

"It looks to me like there's some venting, because you see smoke and dirt coming out of that chimney," he said.

Troops are also killed by fragmentation and debris, and some of that appears to be going through the chimney as well, he said.

"No matter what the percentage, if it reduces injury by any percent it's worth it," Tunis said.

SYSTEM'S FLAWS

While DARPA continues to investigate the question of the chimney, the Marines are focusing on the Humvee's structural durability after thousands of miles of driving.

"What we're seeing in the structural blast chimney design is similar to a problem we're seeing in other designs," Yunker said. The rigid cabin structure is putting pressure on the Humvee's frame and this is leading to fatigue problems.

"You can drive it a few thousand miles and you'll have some structural damage and pretty quick you'll have some real component failures, so our next step is to focus now on the automotive issues," he said. "It's kind of like we're looking at a house, but we've got a foundation problem."

The Army and the Marine Corps also have to consider cost. The question becomes how much does it cost to solve the problem versus buying new vehicles.

Meanwhile, both services will have other candidates to consider.

"Honestly, we're seeing other designs in that same weight class that are making M-ATV-level protection," Yunker said.

AM General even has another potential offer for the Army and Marine Corps' upcoming Humvee recapitalization programs.

After canvassing industry a few years ago, AM General decided to throw its luck and investment behind the Hardwire solution and a different one from Israeli armor-maker Plasan.

"This [chimney] program is not supposed to be a point solution for anything; it's supposed to inform us to make the next vehicle decisions," Christodoulou said.

While questions about the chimney remain, officials agree that people should let the data speak for itself.

"Let's follow the data. Let's continue to do experimentation and see where the data and the facts take us," Yunker said.