Today’s Trivia – “From the River to the Sea”

 

“From the River to the Sea” - You’ve heard it at all of the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian, or Hamas-support demonstrations. It is the oft-repeated mantra that most of those who are shouting it likely have no idea what it means. The modern mantra includes the additional phrase “Palestine will be free.”

In Arabic, the words rhyme: it is pronounced “min al-BAHar ilah an-NAHar” – in Arabic, the definite article AL before the letter N changes to AN.*

For those not exactly sure what it means, it’s quite simple. The river is the Jordan River, and the sea is the Mediterranean Sea. While the meaning is quite simple, the implication is not.

A look at a map that shows the area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean reveals that what the Palestinians believe is their country would include what is now the State of Israel, the West Bank of the Jordan River, and the Gaza Strip. 

That is basically the complete territory of the British-administered Palestinian Mandate. The map to the left shows the United Nations partition plan of the Mandate proposed in 1947.

Use of the chant “from the river to the sea” is a call for the elimination of the state of Israel. It also is a refutation of the so-called “two-state solution” called for by the United Nations, European Union, Palestinian Authority, some Arab countries, and even some Israeli political parties. As you would expect, both Hamas and most Israelis are against the plan. 

Ask virtually any of the protesters to explain it – most of them can’t.

 _________________

* In Arabic grammar and pronunciation, the concepts of solar letters and lunar letters are essential for correctly pronouncing the definite article (“al‑”). Do a ChatGPT search on “Arabic solar and lunar letters” for a complete explanation. It’s a complicated language.

Tweet

United Kingdom: The Royal Air Force and Power Projection

 

In response to the obvious question - what does this have to do with the Middle East? While doing some research on the U.S. strike on the Iranian nuclear facility at Fordow nuclear enrichment facility, specifically the use of aerial refueling to support the B-2 bomber attack, I discovered an interesting fact about what I believe is a Royal Air Force refueling shortfall.

Over the last few years, the Royal Air Force (RAF) has acquired more modern aircraft that normally would allow significant power projection capability in addition to enhanced regional operations.

These include:

- E-7A Wedgetail airborne early warning and control aircraft

- P-8A Poseidon (RAF designation Poseidon MRA1) maritime patrol and - anti-submarine warfare aircraft

- C-17A Globemaster III strategic airlifter

    - RC-135W Rivet Joint (RAF name Airseeker) signals intelligence (SIGINT) platform

All of these aircraft were built by Boeing Defense, Space & Security, and include aerial refueling capability via the flying boom system. In this system, fuel is transferred from a tanker aircraft to a receiver aircraft via a rigid, telescoping tube called a boom, which is controlled by a boom operator on the tanker. 

This system is used extensively by the U.S. Air Force, as well as air forces that operate many American built aircraft, such as the F-15 Eagle, F-16 Fighting Falcon, and the F-35A.

Flying boom: U.S. Air Force KC-46A Pegasus refuels a Royal Australian Air Force E-7A Wedgetail

Although the RAF operates a fleet of 14 aerial refueling tankers, none of them are equipped with the flying boom system.

The RAF tankers are Airbus A330 Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) aircraft and are only equipped with a probe-and-drogue refueling system. In this method, a flexible hose with a drogue (a small parachute-like basket) is trailed from the tanker aircraft, and the receiving aircraft inserts a rigid probe into the drogue to receive fuel. 

This system is used by the U.S. Navy* and Marine Corps, as well as air forces that operate some U.S. built aircraft such as the F-18 and some versions of the F-35. Most foreign-built aircraft, many in service with the RAF, are designed to use this system as well.

Royal Air Force Voyager KC3 refueling two Eurofighter Typhoons

Airbus offers a flying boom capability for the A330 MRTT, however, there are no plans to retrofit any of the existing 14 RAF KC2 or KC3 tankers with the Airbus Aerial Refueling Boom System (ARBS).

Of note, the 14 Airbus A330 MRTT Voyager aircraft are owned, managed, and maintained by a private consortium called AirTanker Services Ltd on a 27-year contract that was signed in 2007. The RAF leases these aircraft and its crews operate them for military operations.

This lack of flying boom refueling capability presents an issue for RAF operations planners. Should the United Kingdom have a need to deploy an expeditionary force to anywhere beyond the unrefueled range of these aircraft, they will need to obtain assistance from one of the air forces that operate boom equipped tankers. Also, they have to consider how long they will want the E-7 and RC-135 to remain on station providing command and control, and electronic intelligence support.

Who will they rely on? Obviously, their first call will be to the U.S. Air Force. There is an already established relationship between the two air forces. If for some unlikely reason the U.S cannot or will not support the RAF, there are other options. These are the air forces that operate boom-equipped tankers: United States, France, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Australia, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, Japan, and Chile.

NATO also operates nine boom-equipped aircraft in a partnership of the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Czech Republic.

______________

* U.S. Navy P-8 maritime patrol aircraft and E-6B communications relay aircraft require flying boom refueling, and thus are normally refueled by U.S. Air Force tankers.

U.S. Air Force KC-135 Stratotanker refuels a U.S. Navy E-6B TACAMO over our house (red dot)

Russian Deployment of North Korean Artillery in Ukraine

 

170mm Koksan self-propelled howitzer in Iraq

A recent article in Military Watch magazine reported on Russia's use of North Korean-made heavy artillery in Ukraine. The article was based on comments made by the commander of the Ukrainian Defense Intelligence Directorate.

“Unfortunately, this gun is demonstrating itself quite well in battle. It’s firing from quite a long range, and it’s quite good in terms of accuracy. We have data that the Russian Federation was provided 120 pieces. But I think that supply will continue because these guns are demonstrating themselves quite well. This is unfortunate for us because this is artillery for long-range firing.” 

Why I am writing about a North Korean artillery piece being used by Russian forces in Ukraine? This is, after all, Middle East Perspectives by Rick Francona. Read on.

I am very familiar with the Koksan gun. In fact, I believe I am one of the few Americans who have ever had the opportunity to get in, on, and under the weapon. I took the above photograph in 1988 at an Iraqi Army artillery depot south of Baghdad. At the time, I was serving as a liaison officer to the Iraqi Directorate of Military Intelligence at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. It was the eighth year of the Iran-Iraq War; we had developed a relationship with the Iraqis to prevent a recurrence of Iraq's mistaken attack on the USS Stark in the Persian Gulf in 1987 in which 37 sailors were killed.

I wrote about this experience in my book, Ally to Adversary - An Eyewitness Account of Iraq's Fall from Grace. From the book:

PROJECT MORNING STAR

Our cooperative relationship with the Iraqis allowed us unprecedented access to the Iraqi military. For example, the Iraqis had captured a large artillery piece from the Iranians during the liberation of Al-Faw. They could not identify its origin and were perplexed by the unusual 170-mm bore. Artillery pieces worldwide are generally manufactured in standard bore sizes, normally 122-mm, 130-mm, 152-mm, 155- mm, 175-mm, and 203-mm. We knew they had captured this gun: Army Colonel Gary Nelson—our newly assigned defense attaché in Baghdad and an artillery officer by training—had seen it while it was on display at a victory celebration in Baghdad. We knew what it was, and we wanted it.

The Iranians had acquired this self-propelled howitzer in 1987. At that time, it was the longest-range artillery piece made anywhere in the world, capable of firing a rocket-assisted projectile to a range of almost sixty kilometers. It had been used by the Iranians to conduct harassment fire from the Al-Faw Peninsula into Kuwait’s northeastern oil fields. The Iranians were applying military pressure on the Kuwaitis in a variety of ways, as punishment for supporting Iraq in the war and for alleged violations of oil export and pricing policies of OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). This artillery fire was complemented by Chinese-made “Silkworm” cruise missile attacks on Kuwait’s oil ports and by naval attacks on Kuwaiti shipping in the Gulf. 

The attacks were the catalyst for the March 1987 decision to register Kuwaiti oil tankers under the American flag (a procedure called “reflagging”) to offer some protection for oil shipping in the region. The U.S. Navy could not legally protect foreign shipping, but a merchant ship flying the U.S. flag was entitled to armed escort through the Persian Gulf war zone.

The high level of U.S. interest in the gun had little to do with the situation in the Persian Gulf and rested instead on the fact that the weapon had been designed half a world away to fire on the capital city of a close U.S. ally, South Korea. What the Iraqis had captured on the Al-Faw Peninsula, though they did not realize it, was a weapon designed and built by North Korea to fire on Seoul from the North Korean side of the Demilitarized Zone. The U.S. military refers to it as a Koksan gun.

While inspecting the gun (the project was called Morning Star), we discovered more evidence of Iraq’s use of nerve gas. As I rooted around the cramped driver’s station of the gun system looking for anything of intelligence value—maps, notes, logs, manuals, firing tables, communications charts, and so forth—I found several used atropine injectors. These auto-injectors had been manufactured in Iran and were similar to those I had found earlier on a battlefield on Al-Faw. I showed one of the injectors (and pocketed another) to both Majid and the brigadier general commanding the artillery depot, explaining that these used injectors indicated to me that a nerve agent had been used at Al-Faw. 

I was careful not to accuse the Iraqis, but the implication was clear. The brigadier general replied that Iraqi artillery doctrine calls for use of obscurant smoke in the preparatory artillery barrages. His “analysis” was that the Iranians mistook the smoke rounds for nerve gas and, therefore, self-administered atropine. 

Not wanting a confrontation while standing in the middle of an Iraqi military installation, I did not mention to the Iraqi officers that we had also discovered decontamination fluid in many places on the weapon, most noticeably trapped in the headlights. It would make no sense for the Iraqis to decontaminate the vehicle if they had only fired smoke rounds at the Iranians.

In the end, the Iraqis decided not to allow us to move the gun back to the United States, so I arranged for a small team of artillery experts and engineers to fly to Iraq and do a field exploitation of the piece. I remember that working on the gun in the blazing sun in the Iraqi desert was, and still is, the hottest I have every been. My insides felt like I was being roasted.

Just as the Ukrainian intelligence chief noted, the gun was well-engineered and manufactured. It was an intelligence boon - these guns pose a threat to U.S. forces in South Korea.