DOCSLIB.ORG

Naval Surface Fire Support

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Naval Surface Fire Support C O R P O R A T I O N BRADLEY MARTIN, BRITTANY CLAYTON, JONATHAN WELCH, SEBASTIAN JOON BAE, YERIN KIM, INEZ KHAN, NATHANIEL EDENFIELD Naval Surface Fire Support An Assessment of Requirements rr-4351_cover_6x9_v5.indd All Pages 4/6/20 11:07 AM For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR4351 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0475-6 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2020 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: U.S. Navy photo by Joshua Adam Nuzzo. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface The objective of this study was to develop recommended changes to existing naval surface fire support (NSFS) requirements in light of Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant of the Marine Corps warfighting concepts published since the last NSFS requirements update in 2005, such as Littoral Operations in Contested Environ- ments (LOCE), Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO), and Expe- ditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO). This study addresses both the need established for support of forces ashore and the require- ments implied for the surface ships that will deliver these effects. This research could form the basis for requirements documents and a capabilities-based assessment, as well as long-term investment. This research was sponsored by the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and conducted within the Navy and Marine Forces Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office of the Secre- tary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense intelligence enterprise. For more information on the RAND Navy and Marine Forces Center, see www.rand.org/nsrd/nmf or contact the director (contact information is provided on the webpage). iii Contents Preface ............................................................................. iii Figures and Tables ...............................................................vii Executive Summary ............................................................. ix Acknowledgments ..............................................................xiii Abbreviations .....................................................................xv CHAPTER ONE Introduction ....................................................................... 1 Background ......................................................................... 1 Research Approach ................................................................. 2 Report Organization ............................................................... 2 CHAPTER TWO The Historical Context and Current Capabilities .......................... 3 Historical Trends and Lessons Learned ......................................... 3 Current Capability to Meet Naval Surface Fire Support Requirements .... 8 CHAPTER THREE Naval Surface Fire Support Capability Development Requirements ...............................................................15 The “Hanlon Letter” .............................................................15 Documents Since the Hanlon Letter Have Addressed Gaps but Not Specified Requirements .................................................... 20 Formal Requirements Summary ............................................... 22 v vi Naval Surface Fire Support: An Assessment of Requirements CHAPTER FOUR Scenario Analysis as a Basis for Additional Requirements ............. 23 Four Scenarios for Analysis ..................................................... 24 Overall Scenario Findings .......................................................37 Scenario Implications for Program Execution .................................39 CHAPTER FIVE Volume Requirements Modeling ..............................................41 Basic Modeling Parameters for Volume Requirements ...................... 42 Random Distribution of Targets ............................................... 43 Denser Target Groupings ....................................................... 44 Hardened Targets ................................................................ 44 Suppression Fire ...................................................................47 Modeling Findings ................................................................47 CHAPTER SIX Naval Surface Fire Support Developmental Efforts .......................51 Capabilities for Range Improvement ...........................................52 Materials to Improve Projectile and Barrel Performance .................... 54 Technologies to Improve Magazine Capacity and Volume ..................57 Capability Development Summary ............................................ 60 CHAPTER SEVEN Conclusion, Findings, and Recommendations .............................63 Capability Findings ...............................................................63 Recommendations ................................................................65 Bibliography ......................................................................67 Figures and Tables Figures 2.1 Mk 45 5-Inch Gun ................................................... 9 2.2 CG 47–Class Cruiser ................................................12 4.1 Palawan Scenario ................................................... 26 4.2 Aden, Yemen Scenario.............................................. 28 4.3 Yemen Scenario, Detailed Airfield Graphic .....................29 4.4 Yemen Scenario, Al Anad Air Base ............................... 30 4.5 Latakia Scenario .....................................................32 4.6 Tallinn Scenario .....................................................35 Tables 2.1 Mk 45 Inventory .....................................................10 3.1 Naval Surface Fire Support Requirements Summary Matrix ................................................................19 3.2 155-mm Battery Day of Ammunition ............................ 20 5.1 Random Distribution of Targets, Modeling Results ............45 5.2 Denser Target Groupings, Modeling Results .....................45 5.3 Ninety-Five-Percent Confidence Intervals for Denser Target Groupings (Rounds) .................................................45 5.4 Hardened Targets, Modeling Results ............................ 46 5.5 Ninety-Five-Percent Confidence Interval Bounds for Denser Bunker Scenario (Rounds) ......................................... 46 5.6 Denser Hardened Targets, Modeling Results ................... 48 5.7 Suppression Fire Modeling, Results .............................. 48 vii Executive Summary The objective of this study was to develop recommended changes to existing naval surface fire support (NSFS) requirements. The most recent requirements do not reflect recent operational concepts devel- oped by the U.S. Navy (USN) and U.S. Marine Corps (USMC), such as Distributed Maritime Operations (DMO) and Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO). But, in fact, the failure to cor- rectly and precisely define requirements has been an issue for decades. Although there have been letters from command in the Marine Corps, the only formal requirements that the Navy uses are decades old and simply reflect a general requirement to perform the mission. Objectives and Approach We first examined existing requirements documents and reviewed his- torical uses of NSFS. This phase also included discussions with NSFS subject matter experts (SMEs) in USN and USMC. We then refined these requirements by applying battalion-level scenarios to support development of baseline fire support requirements for ashore maneuver elements. Next, we applied a formal model to address volume of fire and required magazine size. In parallel, we evaluated the program of record (POR) for NSFS systems and platforms against the projected requirements as derived from a literature review and sponsor-approved scenarios and modeling. We also considered possible technological and platform solutions, although we note that there is not always a formal requirement to guide these efforts. By comparing requirements— ix x Naval Surface Fire Support: An Assessment of Requirements actual and potential—we then made recommendations for require- ments and capability development. Findings Our research revealed the following findings. • Targeting, particularly in denied environments, is likely to be very challenging and will be highly dependent on organic assets, principally
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Failure of UN Security Council Resolution 2286 in Preventing Attacks on Healthcare in Syria
    The Failure of UN Security Council Resolution 2286 in Preventing Attacks on Healthcare in Syria January 2017 SYRIAN AMERICAN MEDICAL SOCIETY C1 Contents Acknowledgements C3 Foreword 1 Background 2 Methodology 2 Executive Summary 3 Attacks on Healthcare, June–December 2016 4 Advanced and Unconventional Weaponry 7 All Forms of Medical Facilities and Personnel Targeted 7 Conclusion 8 Appendix: Attacks on Medical Personnel, June–December 2016 9 ABOUT THE SYRIAN AMERICAN MEDICAL SOCIETY The Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS) is a non-profit, non-political, professional and medical relief organization that provides humanitarian assistance to Syrians in need and represents thousands of Syrian American medical professionals in the United States. Founded in 1998 as a professional society, SAMS has evolved to meet the growing needs and challenges of the medical crisis in Syria. Today, SAMS works on the front lines of crisis relief in Syria and neighboring countries to serve the medical needs of millions of Syrians, support doctors and medical professionals, and rebuild healthcare. From establishing field hospitals and training Syrian physicians to advocating at the highest levels of government, SAMS is working to alleviate suffering and save lives. On the cover: Aftermath of an attack on a hospital in Aleppo, October 2016 Design: Sensical Design & Communication C2 The Failure of UN Security Council Resolution 2286 in Preventing Attacks on Healthcare in Syria Acknowledgements None of our work would be made possible without Syria’s doctors, nurses, medical assistants, ambulance drivers, hospital staff, and humanitarian workers. Their inspiring work amidst the most dire of circumstances con- tinues to inspire us to help amplify their voices.
    [Show full text]
  • Prepared by Textore, Inc. Peter Wood, David Yang, and Roger Cliff November 2020
    AIR-TO-AIR MISSILES CAPABILITIES AND DEVELOPMENT IN CHINA Prepared by TextOre, Inc. Peter Wood, David Yang, and Roger Cliff November 2020 Printed in the United States of America by the China Aerospace Studies Institute ISBN 9798574996270 To request additional copies, please direct inquiries to Director, China Aerospace Studies Institute, Air University, 55 Lemay Plaza, Montgomery, AL 36112 All photos licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, or under the Fair Use Doctrine under Section 107 of the Copyright Act for nonprofit educational and noncommercial use. All other graphics created by or for China Aerospace Studies Institute Cover art is "J-10 fighter jet takes off for patrol mission," China Military Online 9 October 2018. http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2018-10/09/content_9305984_3.htm E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/CASI https://twitter.com/CASI_Research @CASI_Research https://www.facebook.com/CASI.Research.Org https://www.linkedin.com/company/11049011 Disclaimer The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Government or the Department of Defense. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 51-303, Intellectual Property, Patents, Patent Related Matters, Trademarks and Copyrights; this work is the property of the U.S. Government. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights Reproduction and printing is subject to the Copyright Act of 1976 and applicable treaties of the United States. This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This publication is provided for noncommercial use only.
    [Show full text]
  • Winning the Salvo Competition Rebalancing America’S Air and Missile Defenses
    WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK 2016 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2016 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mark Gunzinger is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Gunzinger has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources. A retired Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot, he joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2004. Mark was appointed to the Senior Executive Service and served as Principal Director of the Department’s central staff for the 2005–2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. Following the QDR, he served as Director for Defense Transformation, Force Planning and Resources on the National Security Council staff. Mr. Gunzinger holds an M.S. in National Security Strategy from the National War College, a Master of Airpower Art and Science degree from the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, a Master of Public Administration from Central Michigan University, and a B.S. in chemistry from the United States Air Force Academy.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs December 9, 2010 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R41526 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress Navy Shipboard Lasers for Surface, Air, and Missile Defense Summary Department of Defense (DOD) development work on high-energy military lasers, which has been underway for decades, has reached the point where lasers capable of countering certain surface and air targets at ranges of about a mile could be made ready for installation on Navy surface ships over the next few years. More powerful shipboard lasers, which could become ready for installation in subsequent years, could provide Navy surface ships with an ability to counter a wider range of surface and air targets at ranges of up to about 10 miles. These more powerful lasers might, among other things, provide Navy surface ships with a terminal-defense capability against certain ballistic missiles, including the anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that China is believed to be developing. The Navy and DOD are developing three principal types of lasers for potential use on Navy surface ships—fiber solid state lasers (SSLs), slab SSLs, and free electron lasers (FELs). The Navy’s fiber SSL prototype demonstrator is called the Laser Weapon System (LaWS). Among DOD’s multiple efforts to develop slab SSLs for military use is the Maritime Laser Demonstration (MLD), a prototype laser weapon developed as a rapid demonstration project. The Navy has developed a lower-power FEL prototype and is now developing a prototype with scaled-up power.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Manager Combat Ammunition Systems Product Manager Excalibur Product Manager Guided Precision Munitions and Mortar System
    AMMUNITION tem (GPS) precision-guidance technology mortar cartridge with 10 meters CEP accu - with an inertial measurement unit to pro - racy to rapidly defeat personnel targets The Program Executive Office for Am - vide accurate, first-round fire-for-effect ca - while minimizing collateral damage. APMI munition (PEO Ammunition) has the mis - pability in an urban setting with accuracy is compatible with U.S. dismounted 120 mm sion to continue being the best provider of better than 4 meters circular error probable weapons and fire-control system, and the conventional, leap-ahead munitions, mor - (CEP). Excalibur is approximately 1 meter Stryker double-V hull mortar carrier and tars, towed artillery systems and counter- in length and weighs 106 pounds. Its ex - fire-control system. It has been successfully improvised explosive device (IED) prod - tended range (up to 40 kilometers) and used in operations in OEF. ucts by fostering innovation and diversity high accuracy result in increased lethality The PGK is a GPS guidance kit with prox- for the warfighter. Project managers within with a decrease in required volume of fire imity and point detonating fuzing func - the PEO are Combat Ammunition Systems, per engagement. Excalibur Increment Ia is tions. It is compatible with existing high-ex - Maneuver Ammunition Systems, Joint Pro - currently completing the last of its full-rate plosive, 155 mm M549A1 and M795 cannon gram Manager Towed Artillery Systems, production, and Excalibur Increment Ib has artillery projectiles. The PGK corrects the Close Combat Systems, Project Director initiated low-rate initial production. ballistic trajectory of the projectile to reduce Joint Services and Project Director Joint delivery errors and improves projectile ac - Products.
    [Show full text]
  • Landmine Monitor 2014
    Landmine Monitor 2014 Monitoring and Research Committee, ICBL-CMC Governance Board Handicap International Human Rights Watch Mines Action Canada Norwegian People’s Aid Research team leaders ICBL-CMC staff experts I © December 2014 by International Campaign to Ban Landmines – Cluster Munition Coalition (ICBL-CMC). All rights reserved. ISBN: 978-2-8399-1160-3 Cover photograph © Jared Bloch/ICBL-CMC, June 2014 Back cover © Werner Anderson/Norwegian People’s Aid, November 2013 Cover design by Rafael Jiménez Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor provides research and monitoring for the Cluster Munition Coalition (CMC) and the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL). For more information visit www.the-monitor.org or email [email protected]. Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor makes every effort to limit the environmental footprint of reports by pub- lishing all our research reports online. This report is available online at www.the-monitor.org. International Campaign to Ban Landmines The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) is committed to the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty (or “Ottawa Conven- tion”) as the best framework for ending the use, production, stockpiling, and transfer of antipersonnel mines and for destroying stockpiles, clearing mined areas, and assisting affected communities. The ICBL calls for universal adherence to the Mine Ban Treaty and its full implementation by all, including: • No more use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of antipersonnel landmines by any actor under any circumstances; • Rapid destruction of all remaining stockpiles of antipersonnel landmines; • More efficient clearance and destruction of all emplaced landmines and explosive remnants of war (ERW); and • Fulfillment of the rights and needs of all landmine and ERW victims.
    [Show full text]
  • According to Wikipedia 2011 with Some Addictions
    American MilitMilitaryary Historians AAA-A---FFFF According to Wikipedia 2011 with some addictions Society for Military History From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Society for Military History is an United States -based international organization of scholars who research, write and teach military history of all time periods and places. It includes Naval history , air power history and studies of technology, ideas, and homefronts. It publishes the quarterly refereed journal titled The Journal of Military History . An annual meeting is held every year. Recent meetings have been held in Frederick, Maryland, from April 19-22, 2007; Ogden, Utah, from April 17- 19, 2008; Murfreesboro, Tennessee 2-5 April 2009 and Lexington, Virginia 20-23 May 2010. The society was established in 1933 as the American Military History Foundation, renamed in 1939 the American Military Institute, and renamed again in 1990 as the Society for Military History. It has over 2,300 members including many prominent scholars, soldiers, and citizens interested in military history. [citation needed ] Membership is open to anyone and includes a subscription to the journal. Officers Officers (2009-2010) are: • President Dr. Brian M. Linn • Vice President Dr. Joseph T. Glatthaar • Executive Director Dr. Robert H. Berlin • Treasurer Dr. Graham A. Cosmas • Journal Editor Dr. Bruce Vandervort • Journal Managing Editors James R. Arnold and Roberta Wiener • Recording Secretary & Photographer Thomas Morgan • Webmaster & Newsletter Editor Dr. Kurt Hackemer • Archivist Paul A.
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress Updated September 30, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL33745 SUMMARY RL33745 Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) September 30, 2021 Program: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke The Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) program, which is carried out by the Missile Defense Specialist in Naval Affairs Agency (MDA) and the Navy, gives Navy Aegis cruisers and destroyers a capability for conducting BMD operations. BMD-capable Aegis ships operate in European waters to defend Europe from potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as Iran, and in in the Western Pacific and the Persian Gulf to provide regional defense against potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as North Korea and Iran. MDA’s FY2022 budget submission states that “by the end of FY 2022 there will be 48 total BMDS [BMD system] capable ships requiring maintenance support.” The Aegis BMD program is funded mostly through MDA’s budget. The Navy’s budget provides additional funding for BMD-related efforts. MDA’s proposed FY2021 budget requested a total of $1,647.9 million (i.e., about $1.6 billion) in procurement and research and development funding for Aegis BMD efforts, including funding for two Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania. MDA’s budget also includes operations and maintenance (O&M) and military construction (MilCon) funding for the Aegis BMD program. Issues for Congress regarding the Aegis BMD program include the following: whether to approve, reject, or modify MDA’s annual procurement and research and development funding requests for the program; the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the execution of Aegis BMD program efforts; what role, if any, the Aegis BMD program should play in defending the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016’’
    S. 1356 One Hundred Fourteenth Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen An Act To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the Depart- ment of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Depart- ment of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016’’. SEC. 2. ORGANIZATION OF ACT INTO DIVISIONS; TABLE OF CONTENTS. (a) DIVISIONS.—This Act is organized into four divisions as follows: (1) Division A—Department of Defense Authorizations. (2) Division B—Military Construction Authorizations. (3) Division C—Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and Other Authorizations. (4) Division D—Funding Tables. (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.—The table of contents for this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title. Sec. 2. Organization of Act into divisions; table of contents. Sec. 3. Congressional defense committees. Sec. 4. Budgetary effects of this Act. Sec. 5. Explanatory statement. DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS TITLE I—PROCUREMENT Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations Sec. 101. Authorization of appropriations. Subtitle B—Army Programs Sec. 111. Prioritization of upgraded UH–60 Blackhawk helicopters within Army National Guard. Sec. 112. Roadmap for replacement of A/MH–6 Mission Enhanced Little Bird air- craft to meet special operations requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • Israeli Arms Transfers to India: Ad Hoc Defence Cooperation Or the Beginnings of a Strategic Partnership?
    Policy Brief: Israeli Arms Transfers to India: Ad Hoc Defence Cooperation or the Beginnings of a Strategic Partnership? Richard A. Bitzinger April 2013 Policy Brief: Israeli Arms Transfers to India: Ad Hoc Defence Cooperation or the Beginnings of a Strategic Partnership? RICHARD A. BITZINGER 2 Executive Summary Israeli arms exports to India are at the core of Indo-Israeli defence cooperation. Israel has been selling weapons to the Indian military for over 20 years. These transfers are mutually benefi cial: Israel has become one of India’s most important arms suppliers, as well as a critical provider of military technologies and know-how, while India has become Israel’s single largest arms market. This arms relationship has subsequently expanded into other areas of defence cooperation, such as combating terrorism, and joint naval and space activities. However, any expectations that such cooperation will result in a broader and deeper “strategic partnership” – particularly one that could help Tel Aviv enlist New Delhi’s help in hindering Iran’s anti- Israeli activities – are overly optimistic. India and Israel do not share enough of a common worldview or common goals to form the basis of such a partnership. Consequently, Indo-Israel defence cooperation will likely remain a tactical, ad hoc arms- for-cash relationship for some time to come. Defence cooperation has always been a low-key but essential Recent Israeli transfers to India include: element in relations between Israel and India.1 While most of • Searcher and Heron surveillance UAVs this cooperation has taken place at the rather discreet level • Harpy and Harop loitering anti-radiation drones of Israeli arms sales to India, these deals have nonetheless • The Popeye air-to-ground missile been critical to the expansion of military ties between these • The Python-4 air-to-air missile two countries since the establishment of bilateral diplomatic • The Spike anti-tank missile relations in 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • Explosive Weapon Effectsweapon Overview Effects
    CHARACTERISATION OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS EXPLOSIVEEXPLOSIVE WEAPON EFFECTSWEAPON OVERVIEW EFFECTS FINAL REPORT ABOUT THE GICHD AND THE PROJECT The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) is an expert organisation working to reduce the impact of mines, cluster munitions and other explosive hazards, in close partnership with states, the UN and other human security actors. Based at the Maison de la paix in Geneva, the GICHD employs around 55 staff from over 15 countries with unique expertise and knowledge. Our work is made possible by core contributions, project funding and in-kind support from more than 20 governments and organisations. Motivated by its strategic goal to improve human security and equipped with subject expertise in explosive hazards, the GICHD launched a research project to characterise explosive weapons. The GICHD perceives the debate on explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA) as an important humanitarian issue. The aim of this research into explosive weapons characteristics and their immediate, destructive effects on humans and structures, is to help inform the ongoing discussions on EWIPA, intended to reduce harm to civilians. The intention of the research is not to discuss the moral, political or legal implications of using explosive weapon systems in populated areas, but to examine their characteristics, effects and use from a technical perspective. The research project started in January 2015 and was guided and advised by a group of 18 international experts dealing with weapons-related research and practitioners who address the implications of explosive weapons in the humanitarian, policy, advocacy and legal fields. This report and its annexes integrate the research efforts of the characterisation of explosive weapons (CEW) project in 2015-2016 and make reference to key information sources in this domain.
    [Show full text]
  • Legacy of the Pacific War: 75 Years Later August 2020
    LEGACY OF THE PACIFIC WAR: 75 YEARS LATER August 2020 World War II in the Pacific and the Impact on the U.S. Navy By Rear Admiral Samuel J. Cox, U.S. Navy (Retired) uring World War II, the U.S. Navy fought the Pacific. World War II also saw significant social in every ocean of the world, but it was change within the U.S. Navy that carried forward the war in the Pacific against the Empire into the Navy of today. of Japan that would have the greatest impact on As it was at the end of World War II, the premier Dshaping the future of the U.S. Navy. The impact was type of ship in the U.S. Navy today is the aircraft so profound, that in many ways the U.S. Navy of carrier, protected by cruiser and destroyer escorts, today has more in common with the Navy in 1945 with the primary weapon system being the aircraft than the Navy at the end of World War II had with embarked on the carrier. (Command of the sea first the Navy in December 1941. With the exception and foremost requires command of the air over the of strategic ballistic missile submarines, virtually Asia sea, otherwise ships are very vulnerable to aircraft, every type of ship and command organization today Program as they were during World War II.) The carriers and is descended from those that were invented or escorts of today are bigger, more technologically matured in the crucible of World War II combat in sophisticated, and more capable than those of World Asia Program War II, although there are fewer of them.
    [Show full text]