Americas

Home page

Americas

US Army picks Azerbaijan for simulated invasion

12 July 2007 09:06 (UTC +04:00)

â€œObservers give different reasons for why Azerbaijan was picked for the simulated invasion. Some say the countryâ€™s varied terrain provided an excellent testing ground for the Armyâ€™s $200 billion "Future Combat Systems." Others believe that the U.S. "now faces a new reality embodied in the Caspian Sea scenario," centered in Azerbaijan. No one suggests that the country is in any imminent danger of American attack.
A July, 2006 "Operational Requirements Document," obtained by DANGER ROOM, outlines out a series of simulations and training exercises that helped form the technical and operational foundation for Future Combat Systems. These trials were all based on Azerbaijanâ€™s "Caspian Sea scenario." Most involve the taking of the capital city, Baku.
Earlier war games were set in other locations -- places where American troops might some day seem to be more likely to fight. Those included a "North Korean Architecture Analysis," to see if a new kind of munitions launch system was feasible. Another, set "in the 2010(+) time frame," evaluated "battle command" systems in "the complex terrain of the Balkans."
But what makes the Azerbaijan model different is that almost every component of the massive Future Combat Systems effort -- from the "Infantry Carrier Vehicles" to the packbackable robots to the flying drones to the next-generation mortars to the commanderâ€™s rolling headquarters -- had their "mission profiles... based on three Major Combat Operations (MCOs: 1, 2, 3) conducted within the Caspian Sea scenario."
Army planners then used these mission profiles to figure out how the system might work in combat. Take the Infantry Carrier Vehicleâ€™s profile, as an example. Based on a series of simulated operations in Azerbaijan, each approximately 70 hours long, the Army decided that the vehicle would typically fire 157.7 rounds from its primary weapon; use its "active protection system" to ward off enemy grenades 8.3 times; be subject to 5.3 hours of chemical, biological, radiological, on nuclear "overpressure"; and have troops get out of the vehicle 13 times.
These profiles then provide the "rationale" for almost everything within Future Combat Systems. They serve as key "source document[s]" on planning for everything from logisitics to testing to manpower needs,â€ the DANGER ROOM
Azerbaijan was picked as the FCS model because "the nation now faces a new reality embodied in the Caspian Sea scenario," Army consultant Clyde T. Wilson in an Armor magazine article.
â€œThe Caspian Sea scenario is not about fighting in the Caspian Sea area, but is all about the next most dangerous situation U.S. forces are likely to face. In many ways, it follows the 1950-53 Korean War scenario. Country A (South Korea) is attacked by Country B (North Korea). The U.S. comes to the assistance of Country A. The thrust of the scenario is how does the U.S. enter the battle area and build-up sufficient forces to achieve its national goals. The scenario is further complicated by Country C (China), which threatens to enter the conflict, especially during the buildup phase when the U.S. is most vulnerable.
The Korean scenario provides national decisionmakers with significant geopolitical issues. The situation becomes more complicated when adding an asymmetric threat like we saw during Vietnam. The Caspian Sea scenario is about getting credible force into the area of operations and deterring aggression by Country C. In the scenario, the arrival of U.S. heavy forces represents endgame. At this point, we dominate the battlefield. After heavy forces arrive in the area, they must be prepared to conduct combat operations against the heavy threat presented by Country C while providing self-protection against an asymmetric threat that specifically targets U.S. vulnerabilities.
Wilson doesnâ€™t specify which nation "County C" represents in this scenario. But, according to the Washington Postâ€™s William Arkin, "the United States and Britain have been conducting war games and contingency planning under a Caspian Sea scenario that could also pave the way for northern operations against Iran (www.washprofile.org)
This Naval Postgraduate School paper, on the other hand, says that Azerbaijan was picked for its â€œcomplex terrain... limited avenues of approach with fast changing relief, such as mountainous terrain." That kind of topography "taxes the mobility and agility of the FCS. With a limited road network, limited infrastructure, and steep, mountainous terrain, the FCS is placed in a difficult scenario which it must overcome". /APA/