Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
New York arena team offers Vick a contract
7 hours, 48 minutes ago
*
Buzz up! 566 votes
*
Print
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP)—Michael Vick has a place on a minor league football team if he can get reinstated by the NFL.
The Albany Firebirds, an arenafootball2 franchise, have offered the 28-year-old quarterback a one-year contract at the league standard: $200 a week plus a $50 bonus for a win.
Vick quarterbacked the Atlanta Falcons for six seasons before being convicted of bankrolling an interstate dog fighting business.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has not said if he will lift Vick’s suspension after he completes a 23-month prison sentence. Vick goes from federal prison to home confinement next month.
The Firebirds’ contract offer requires that Vick donate $100,000 to a local humane society.
A call to Vick’s agent was not immediately returned.
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-arenateam-vickoffer&prov=ap&type=lgns
Deal Could Be Near to Extend Use of Manas Air Base
By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, April 28, 2009 – The United States could be nearing a deal with the Kyrgyzstan government to extend U.S. access to Manas Air Base, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters today.
Morrell reported progress in negotiations he called “reason for hope” about reversing Kyrgyzstan’s previous decision regarding the base.
Kyrgyzstan’s foreign ministry notified the U.S. Embassy in Bishkek in February that it had six months to leave Manas, a major logistical and refueling center that supports troops in Afghanistan, About 15,000 troops and 500 tons of cargo move through the base every month.
The decision was to end the arrangement the United States and Kyrgyzstan entered three years ago that gave the U.S. annually renewal rights through July 2011. The United States pays $17.4 million a year to use the base.
But officials made it clear from the start that they hoped to get Kyrgyzstan to reconsider its decision.
“We … have been engaged in conversations with them about extending our use of that facility,” Morrell said today. “And I think we see reason for hope there, that that can be worked out… We hope we're getting closer.”
In the meantime, he said the military has been looking for alternative air bases in the event that that doesn’t happen
“We have found a number of suitable ones” to support its northern distribution network, he said. “Should it become necessary to find other bases to fly out of and trans-load our personnel into Afghanistan, I think we've got suitable alternatives within the region.”
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/04/mil-090428-afps03.htm
Warsaw to send 400 more soldiers to Afghanistan
IRNA - Islamic Republic News Agency
Berlin, Apr 28, IRNA -- Poland is to dispatch 400 more soldiers to Afghanistan by the end of this month amid the worsening security situation in the war-ravaged country, German news reports said here Tuesday.
Warsaw will increase its overall troop size in Afghanistan to 2,000 by the end of April, said Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk following his meeting with his British counterpart Gordon Brown in the Polish capital.
The situation ahead of the Afghan presidential elections, scheduled for August, requires "utmost efforts," added Tusk.
There are currently 1.600 Polish troops deployed in Afghanistan fighting a rejuvenated Taliban and al-Qaeda insurgency.
Polish soldiers have faced increased attacks in recent times, Polish military officials have been quoted saying.
The US has reportedly pressed Poland to send additional soldiers to Afghanistan.
Polish troops have been based mostly in the Afghan province of Ghasni since last fall as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) which has currently deployed around 55,000 troops.
ISAF is by far NATO's largest mission, and is seen as crucial to the security and long-term credibility of the controversial western military alliance.
The ISAF mission was mandated by the United Nations in December 2001, in the wake of the overthrow of the Taliban.
The largest troop contingents come from the US with 23,220 followed by Britain with 8,910 and Germany with 3,500.
American President Barack Obama announced he would boost the number of US soldiers in Afghanistan by around 17,000.
However, he has also called on European allies to make a similar commitment.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/04/mil-090428-irna01.htm
Iraq army dependent on US defence sales, UK admits
IRNA - Islamic Republic News Agency
London, Apr 28, IRNA – The British government is supporting the country’s defence industry in bidding for new contracts in Iraq but admits that the country’s army has become reliant on US military supplies.
“It is the case that there is a clear Iraqi preference to make procurement for its Armed Forces through United States foreign military sales,” said Business Secretary Lord Mandelson said.
“ Indeed, you could say that they are rather dependent on a foreign military sales system because it is easier for them,” Mandelson told fellow peers in the House of Lords.
But speaking during a brief parliamentary debate on defence industry contracts for Iraq, he also insisted that Iraq was “making moves towards direct contracts with other countries.”
The issue was raised by the Conservative’s shadow defence minister Lord Astor, who claimed that despite Britain being a main coalition partner in Iraq, the government has “sat back and watched the Americans walk away with one of the biggest rearmament and rebuilding programmes ever seen, leaving us with virtually nothing.”
Mandelson insisted that although he appreciated the sentiments, the shadow minister was “slightly understating the presence and activity of UK representatives in this matter,” which included support for the defence industry from Trade and Investment staff and Britain’s defence attaché in Baghdad.
He said that he was also following up the possibility of Iraq being designated for state-backed guarantees for any defence contracts won by British companies, although he said there was “some resistance in view of the considerable risks involved.”
The Business Secretary also did not rule out the possibility of reinvolving former Iraqi interpretors for British troops, some of whom have been resettled in the UK, to assist smaller defence exporting companies, who have language and translation problems.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2009/04/iraq-090428-irna01.htm
Russia to finalize plans for new aircraft carrier by 2012
RIA Novosti
28/04/2009 15:57 ISTANBUL, April 28 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will finish drafting plans for a new aircraft carrier for its Navy by 2012, a deputy defense minister for procurements said on Tuesday.
"We are planning to resolve all the issues in 2010-2011, and after that we will make a final decision. At this point it is necessary to determine all technical specifications of the ship and the means of achieving them. Simultaneously, we have to decide on the strategic uses of aircraft carriers in the future," Vladimir Popovkin said.
So far the Russian Navy only has one aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, built in 1985, with a displacement of 55,000 metric tons, a crew of 1,500, and capability to carry more than 50 aircraft.
Vice Adm. Anatoly Shlemov, the head of defense contracts at the United Shipbuilding Corporation, said in February that Russia's new-generation aircraft carrier would most likely be nuclear-powered, and have a displacement of up to 60,000 metric tons.
He added that the new carrier would serve as a seaborne platform for new-generation fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, in particular a fifth-generation fighter set to replace the Su-33 multirole fighter aircraft currently in service, as well as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).
Shlemov said that unlike in the past, the new aircraft carrier would not be armed with cruise missiles, which were not part of its "job description."
He also said that at least three such carriers were to be built, for the Northern and Pacific Fleets.
Shlemov offered no timeline on the project, saying it was not as yet clear which shipyard would get the contract.
The new carrier has an estimated price tag of $4 billion.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2009/russia-090428-rianovosti03.htm
UAE is world's third-biggest arms importer: think-tank
The UAE's position was all the more striking because in the previous study, covering the period 1999-2003, the UAE was only the 16th biggest importer of military equipment worldwide.
by Staff Writers
Stockholm (AFP) April 27, 2009
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has become the third-biggest arms importer worldwide, a leading defence think tank said Monday.
The figures from the UAE reflected what the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) described as a "worrying" regional trend of increased arms imports into the Middle East.
The oil-rich country accounted for 6.0 percent of the world's arms imports between 2004 and 2008, according to the new report from the (SIPRI) -- the same proportion as South Korea.
Only China with 11 percent and India with 7.0 percent, had a larger share of the market, said the report.
The UAE's position was all the more striking because in the previous study, covering the period 1999-2003, the UAE was only the 16th biggest importer of military equipment worldwide.
The SIPRI described the country's rise to third place as "the most significant change" in its new survey of global arms sales.
The study also found that the average volume of worldwide arms transfers for 2004-2008 was 21 percent higher than the period 1999-2003.
There had been a 38 percent increase in arms transfers to the Middle East region in the latest study compared to its previous five-year survey, said SIPRI.
"During the past five years, we have seen the re-emergence of the Middle East as a major recipient of conventional weapons systems," said SIPRI researcher Pieter Wezeman in a statement.
"While we are a long way from the levels reached in the early to mid-1980s, this is still a worrying trend in a region beset by multiple sources of potential conflict," he added.
The United States remains the biggest supplier of military equipment. Its sales account for 31 percent of exports worldwide, ahead of Russia with 25 percent and by Germany with 10 percent, the report noted.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/UAE_is_worlds_third-biggest_arms_importer_think-tank_999.html
UAE is world's third-biggest arms importer: think-tank
The UAE's position was all the more striking because in the previous study, covering the period 1999-2003, the UAE was only the 16th biggest importer of military equipment worldwide.
by Staff Writers
Stockholm (AFP) April 27, 2009
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has become the third-biggest arms importer worldwide, a leading defence think tank said Monday.
The figures from the UAE reflected what the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) described as a "worrying" regional trend of increased arms imports into the Middle East.
The oil-rich country accounted for 6.0 percent of the world's arms imports between 2004 and 2008, according to the new report from the (SIPRI) -- the same proportion as South Korea.
Only China with 11 percent and India with 7.0 percent, had a larger share of the market, said the report.
The UAE's position was all the more striking because in the previous study, covering the period 1999-2003, the UAE was only the 16th biggest importer of military equipment worldwide.
The SIPRI described the country's rise to third place as "the most significant change" in its new survey of global arms sales.
The study also found that the average volume of worldwide arms transfers for 2004-2008 was 21 percent higher than the period 1999-2003.
There had been a 38 percent increase in arms transfers to the Middle East region in the latest study compared to its previous five-year survey, said SIPRI.
"During the past five years, we have seen the re-emergence of the Middle East as a major recipient of conventional weapons systems," said SIPRI researcher Pieter Wezeman in a statement.
"While we are a long way from the levels reached in the early to mid-1980s, this is still a worrying trend in a region beset by multiple sources of potential conflict," he added.
The United States remains the biggest supplier of military equipment. Its sales account for 31 percent of exports worldwide, ahead of Russia with 25 percent and by Germany with 10 percent, the report noted.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/UAE_is_worlds_third-biggest_arms_importer_think-tank_999.html
Young Slams AF Over UAVs
Young Slams AF Over UAVs
By Colin Clark Monday, April 27th, 2009 5:17 pm
Posted in Air, Land, Policy
Outgoing Pentagon acquisition czar John Young sharply criticized the Air Force today in his last meeting with reporters, saying the service had refused to budget for auto-landing gear for Predator UAVs even though the Air Force has lost a substantial portion of these to landing accidents. The new undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, Ash Carter, was sworn in this afternoon.
Young said the Air Force has lost one-third of the 183 Predators it has bought, and one third of those have crashed because of ground control issues. (Young’s spokesman, Chris Isleib, later sent an email to reporters slightly changing the numbers. “Since 1994 the Air Force has procured 195 Predators. 65 have been lost due to Class A mishaps,” he said.) Isleib added that of the 65 mishaps, 36 percent are laid at the door of human error and “many of those attributable to ground station problems.” About 15 percent of the total was destroyed during the landing phase, Isleib clarified in his email. (For a very human and honest portrayal of the difficulties of flying a Predator, catch this briefing by a NASA pilot who has flown them.)
Young said he told the Air Force to “move as fast as possible to auto-land.” A clearly irritated undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics told reporters “it will not surprise you that the Air Force is resisting this.” No cost estimates are available yet for equipping the Predator fleet with auto-land.
Young drew a sharp contrast with the Army’s Shadow UAV, saying it had lost very few aircraft to landing mishaps because it possesses auto-land capability.
Isleib said in his email that they did “not have similar [crash] data for Shadow. However, we feel that improvements to the ground stations and addition of auto-land capability could reduce the overall mishap rate for Predator by 25 percent.”
Young also criticized the Army and the Air Force for simply not communicating. Although the Predator and Warrior [used by the Army] systems share a great deal in common, the two services have resisted sharing information about new engines and items such as signals intelligence sensors. Young, almost growling, said, “that’s power of OSD” to bring the services together in the same room and make them talk.
Young told reporters he regrets not pushing sooner to segregate various parts of the Army’s Future Combat Systems program by issuing separate contracts for its vehicles, unmanned platforms and other systems.
The contract was heavily weighted so that Boeing and SAIC would receive 90 percent of their award fees based on performance before the program reached its Critical Design Review, leaving the Army with few tools to force better performance out of the program. Most award fees should be based, he said, on performance after CDR to ensure companies remain vigilant about performance.
Young also spoke at length about the acquisition enterprise but I’ll write about that in another post after talking with some acquisition experts to lend some perspective to Young’s remarks.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/27/young-slams-af-over-uav-dough/
China's 'Increasing Naval Threat' Overstated
PLAN-faces.jpg
China's Navy -- officially the Peoples Liberation Army's Navy -- held an impressive naval review in the historic port city of Qingdao on 23 April, the 60th anniversary of the founding of the PLA Navy. By any criteria, the event was a great success. Beyond a Chinese contingent of 2 nuclear and 2 diesel-electric submarines, 5 missile destroyers, and 6 frigates, there were 21 ships representing 14 other nations at the review. The U.S. Navy's contribution to the anniversary celebration was the Aegis missile destroyer Fitzgerald (DDG 62).
By the criteria of many American newspapers and, of course, bloggers, the event revealed the increasing "threat" to Western interests from China's Navy. Indeed, a Time magazine blog showed an Associated Press (AP) photo of a Chinese warship with the caption, "A Chinese navy soldier guards on a battleship at Quingdao port..." The photo, however, shows what is probably a frigate. China does not have any battleships; nor does any other nation.
Other articles -- some citing official Chinese statements indicating that aircraft carriers will be constructed "in the future" -- tell how the Chinese Navy is about to overtake the U.S. Navy, although by which measures is usually ignored. Indeed, one AP article declares that Chinese nuclear-propelled submarines "are considered just a notch below cutting-edge U.S. and Russian craft."
Reality is quite different. First, simplistic numerical comparisons are too often misleading. But quantity does provide a quality. For example:
*
Nuclear aircraft carriers (CVN)
U.S. = 11 China = 0
*
VSTOL/helicopter carriers (LHA/LHD)
U.S. = 11 China = 0
*
Guided missile cruisers (CG)
U.S. = 22 China = 0
*
Destroyers (DDG/DD)
U.S. = 60 China = 27
*
Frigates (FF/FFG)
U.S. = 30 China = 48
*
Ballistic missile submarines (nuclear)(SSBN)
U.S. = 14 China = 3
*
Attack/cruiser missile submarines (nuclear)
(SSN/SSGN)
U.S. = 57 China = 6
*
Attack submarine (non-nuclear) (SS/SSK)
U.S. = 0 China = 55
Second, numbers alone to not convey an adequate comparison. For example, each U.S. CVN-type carrier can operate 60 or more high-performance aircraft. All U.S. cruisers and destroyers have the Aegis advanced radar/fire control system; only a few Chinese ships have the equivalent. Similarly, all U.S. cruisers and destroyers have vertical-launch systems for firing long-range Tomahawk strike (land-attack) missiles as well as surface-to-air missiles. The Chinese have no ship-launched strike weapons and their surface-to-air missiles are inferior.
Further, there is no public evidence that the Chinese SSBNs have an operational missile, and none is known to have undertaken a long-range patrol. No long-range patrols have been reported of nuclear torpedo-attack submarines (SSN), and relatively few are made by diesel-electric undersea craft.
The one category in which the Chinese Navy does pose a potential threat to the U.S. Navy -- in this writer's opinion -- is in non-nuclear submarines. The Chinese Navy has modern, Russian-built Kilo (Project 877EKM) submarines as well indigenous-built diesel-electric submarines. An Air-Independent Propulsion (AIP) submarine program is underway.
The U.S. Navy's ability to detect these craft, especially in littoral areas is limited. This was demonstrated for two years when the U.S. Navy operated against a Swedish AIP submarine, the Gotland, "loaned" for anti-submarine exercises. According to the Swedish officers, the U.S. carrier battle groups operating against the Gotland off the southern California coast invariably failed to locate the craft.
Less is publicly known about the results/lessons of several South American diesel-electric submarines that periodically exercise with the U.S. Navy.
The Chinese Navy, supported by a large, land-based air arm and land-based anti-ship missiles, could most likely deny U.S. surface and air operations off of the lengthy Chinese coast, and in the Taiwan Strait. At this time U.S. (nuclear) submarine operations in those areas appear to be feasible. Those submarines, armed with torpedoes, mobile mines, and Tomahawk missiles provide a considerable war-fighting capability.
But the most likely scenarios for a U.S.-Chinese conflict appear to be in Third World, resource-rich areas, such as Africa and South America. And today, and for the foreseeable future, the Chinese Navy cannot project meaningful political or military power to those distances. To develop such a capability would take at least a decade, and most likely longer.
-- Norman Polmar
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004817.html
Chinese Navy Requires Supercruising Fighter
This article first appeared in Aviation Week & Space Technology.
A supercruising combat aircraft is a high priority of the Chinese navy, the country's top admiral says in a revealing official interview that gives strong clues of perceived shortcomings and future directions for the maritime force.
Adm. Wu Shengli also says China must step up work on precision missiles that can overcome enemy defenses, and the nation should move faster in developing large combat surface ships -- probably meaning the aircraft carrier program that looks increasingly imminent.
Wu's demand for supercruise -- supersonic flight without afterburner -- hints that such performance will be available from the next Chinese fighter, sometimes called the J-XX.
"One possibility is that the J-XX is being designed for supercruise and that Wu is trying to build support for a naval version of the aircraft," says Richard Bitzinger, a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.
The design of the J-XX is unknown. It could be a new aircraft or quite possibly a development of the J-10, a fighter now entering service.
The J-10's configuration is similar to that of the Eurofighter Typhoon, which the manufacturer says can supercruise at Mach 1.5, although it is likely to be somewhat slower with a useful external load.
For the Chinese navy, one advantage of supercruising would be the ability to cover a large defensive area in less time -- quite useful if the imagined target is a U.S. carrier group at long range.
Importantly, Wu lists a supercruising fighter among a series of technological demands that all look quite achievable for the Chinese navy over the next decade or so, suggesting that he does not regard such flight performance as a pie in the sky.
"Sophisticated equipment is the key material basis for winning a regional naval war," says the admiral, evidently referring to the possibility of a confrontation in the Taiwan Strait. "We must accelerate and promote steps to work on key weapons.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004819.html
Floating On The Winds Of Indifference
April 28, 2009: For the last decade, the U.S. Department of Defense has been developing helicopter UAVs, but so far, there has been little enthusiasm to buy a lot of them. The basic problem is that the ability hover, while useful, is not as important as being able to stay over an area for hours and hours, passing on video of what is going on down there. Fixed wing UAVs can do that more cheaply and reliably than can helicopter UAVs. That said, there are plenty of helicopter UAVs to come out of this decade of Department of Defense effort.
Most impressive is the RQ-8A Fire Scout, which is a helicopter type UAV that can stay in the air for up to eight hours at a time (five hour missions are more common). In addition to having an official RQ designation, the RQ-8A is being developed for use on smaller navy ships, as well as with army combat units. The U.S. Army version will be particularly useful supporting combat operations in urban areas. Both versions carry day and night cameras, GPS and targeting gear (laser range finders and designators). It has a top speed of 230 kilometers an hour, and can operate over 200 kilometers from its controller (on land, or a ship.) The RQ-8 is based on a two seat civilian helicopter (the Schweizer Model 333), and has a maximum takeoff weight of 1.5 tons. Each RQ-8 UAV costs about $8 million (including a share of the ground control equipment and some spares.) The flight control software enables the RQ-8 to land and take off automatically.
The slightly larger A160T is built for endurance. It is able to fly under remote control or under its own pre-programmed control. The two ton vehicle has a top speed of 255 kilometers an hour, and was originally designed to operate for up to 40 hours carrying a payload of 300 pounds. Maximum altitude was to be about 30,000 feet, and its advanced flight controls were to be capable of keeping it airborne in weather that would ground manned helicopters.
The U.S. Army has successfully tested a miniature helicopter UAV, called the MAV (Micro Air Vehicle), in Iraq. The 17 pound vehicle can fly as high as 500 feet, and carries day and night cameras. The MAV is most useful in urban environments, where it can quickly flit around buildings and other obstacles. The MAV has its blades contained within a cylindrical enclosure, and uses software control to keep it stable in flight. All the operator has to do is tell it where to go. Endurance, as with helicopters, depends on altitude. At sea level, the MAV will stay in the air for about 60 minutes, before it has to be refueled (it uses the same fuel as military vehicles.) But at 10,000 feet (typical in Afghanistan) it can stay in the air for only about 20 minutes. The MAV and control equipment can be carried in a special container which, when loaded weighs about 40 pounds. It can be backpacked. The MAV costs about $35,000.
The latest helicopter UAV is the Vigilante 502, which is a half ton aircraft based on a manned helicopter. It can carry 300 pounds, and has a cruising speed of 80 kilometers an hour (and a top speed of 171 kilometers an hour). This UAV can stay in the air for about six hours per sortie.
While these helicopter UAVs can carry weapons, this can be done more economically with fixed wing UAVs. Another problem with helicopter UAVs is greater vulnerability to ground fire when they hover. This is a problem with all helicopters, which are also more complex mechanically and more time consuming and expensive to maintain..
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20090428.aspx
The Three Evils
April 28, 2009: Egypt, Finland, and Slovenia have become the center of yet another scandal involving international arms sales, with the fallout is affecting each country in different ways. The Finnish arms manufacturer Patria is being investigated by the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for alleged corruption involving sales to Egypt, and Slovenia. The scandal has resulted in police raids in both countries.
In 2006 Slovenia purchased armored vehicles from Patria. It has long been alleged that Slovenian officials took bribes in order to approve the Patria deal. Patria is also accused of selling defective howitzers sold to Egypt in 1999. Again, Patria officials are suspected of having bribed the Egyptians to obtain the contract to supply them weapons. Worse, the artillery sold to the Egyptians was not NATO-compatible, which is what they had asked for in the first place. Thus the Patria howitzers have stood unused for several years now due to defects that showed up during testing. The Finns promised the Egyptians something compatible, but never followed through.
Of the three countries involved, Egypt is probably the one getting the best end of the deal for several reasons. First of all, the Middle Eastern country doesn't have much to lose in the way of reputation. Egypt being what it is, it's already fairly well-known that government corruption extends to the highest levels in the nation, particularly when it comes to anything involving trade and business. It's simply the way thing are done and this is the kind of thing people and foreign governments have come to expect in this part of the world. The government doesn't really do much about it because those sections of the government aren't necessary to keeping the current administration in power. The security forces are corrupt too, but they do their jobs of suppressing the Muslim Bortherhood/Islamic terrorists and cracking down on pro-democracy protestors, so the powers that be let them slide heavily on accepting thick envelopes.
Secondly, Egypt doesn't desperately need the gear as much as Slovenia needs to obtain it. Egypt already gets over a billion dollars in American military aid every years and has for years. In addition, the Egyptian produce a good chunk of their own gear and most of their small arms under license. Everything from night vision equipment to Ak-47s to M9 pistols are locally manufactured, already giving the Egyptians a big advantage over other nations in the region, like Syria or Libya. Anything else they need really badly they can usually go begging to the Americans, who will probably provide it in hope of maintaining the goodwill and support of the most powerful of the Arab nations. All in all, Egypt can afford to have screwed up. After all, in the Arab world, it's good to be top dog.
Slovenia comes off the worst. A new member of NATO, the Slovenes are eager to prove they are serious about upgrading and participating in future operations. But that participation requires sophisticated equipment. Because of the fallout from the scandal, they are now seriously considering canceling the entire deal. Since arms procurement takes several years, from initial negotiations, to delivery, this leaves the East European country without these upgrades to its armored forces for an undetermined, and probably lengthy, period of time. Their ability to participate in deployments, not to mentions their ability to defend the country, is hampered. Slovenia has made some major strides towards procuring new equipment, small arms and infantry weapons, but they still have a long ways to go.
As for the Finns, their reputation suffers a big hit. Unlike some European countries, like Greece and parts of Italy, Finland and most of Scandanavia have reputations of being almost completely corruption free. Denmark, Finland, and New Zealand have been ranked among the least corrupt countries in the world and this Patria scandal may affect other nations' willingness to buy military equipment from the Finns in the future. Still, Finland has a professional, well-equipped Defense Force that isn't in a hurry to become completely upgraded. Slovenia does and is thus probably going to be left out to dry. As for the Egyptians, they already get all the equipment they want and don't really see any pressing need to change the status quo of their less-than-transparent government practices.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20090428.aspx
Denmark Wants More
April 28, 2009: In Denmark, a governmental defense commission has studied the national defense situation and come back with some surprising suggestions. Since the end of the Cold War, the trend in Europe has been to end conscription, reduce the manpower levels in ground forces, and, especially in the case of Germany, to slash the defense budget in order to allocate money to other government projects. Apparently, Denmark thinks otherwise.
The government's Defense Commission was set up in 2007 to determine what changes were needed for the Danish military, including procurement and manpower, in order to best serve the nation's interests through 2014. The recommendations included a defense spending increase of 10 to 15 percent in order to expand Denmark's ground force capabilities and to purchase new weapon systems and other equipment. High on the list of items to be bought includes better body armor, new armored vehicles, and improved battlefield communications equipment to increase the troop combat power.
More than that, the country commission insisted that there was a need to recruit more soldiers to fill its ranks and be ready for future military deployments. The report found that approximately 2,000 additional soldiers are needed to accomplish this. As for the Danish troops serving in Afghanistan, the commission recommended a funding increase of up to 30 percent, bringing the budget for Denmark's deployment in the Central Asian country to almost $100 million. Most people had been certain of what the commission would both find and recommend, namely no increase in military spending and the abolition of the country's existing system of compulsory military service.
The Royal Danish Army currently holds about 11,000 active troops and is considered to be a modern, well-disciplined fighting force. Whether this increase in troops and funds is actually implemented remains to be seen, but it should come as no surprise that the country's allies, especially the US, are hoping that such increases will lead to increased allied deployments to Afghanistan. Danish defense policy takes note of the fact that conventional threats of invasion are currently, and for the foreseeable future, unlikely at worst and non-existent at best. However, the military feels that asymmetric threats, like terrorism hitting Danish soil, are more than real enough to justify the expansion of personnel and military expenditures. -- Rory Walkinshaw
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20090428.aspx
Sneak And Peek
April 27, 2009: A British Trafalgar class nuclear attack sub (SSN), preparing to head for a tour of duty in the Persian Gulf, honed its navigation and intelligence skills by maneuvering underwater until it was nearly stationary, and only a few meters (10-15 feet) below the keel of a Type 23 frigate. These frigates displace 4,200 tons and have a draft of 7.3 meters (24 feet.) That puts the 5,200 ton SSN about 12 meters (37 feet) beneath the surface, with its sensors checking out the bottom of the frigate. In this way, subs can collect useful information on how enemy ships are designed, built and maintained. Unlike the Americans, the British are more willing to discuss what their nuclear subs are up to, so more details of training exercises are let out.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20090427.aspx
Royal Marines Fight Smarter
April 27, 2009: Britain’s Royal Marines won the information war in Afghanistan during their recent deployment, by employing a new methodology. This was carried out by a combination combat and intelligence outfit, the Information Exploitation (IE) Group. This unit made outstanding progress in defeating the Taliban in Helmand province, largely due to accurate and timely information. Instead of operating alone, the Royal Marines, in an effort to enhance their information advantage, amalgamated their troops with elements from other allied nations and local Afghan security forces and formed an entirely new command called the Information Exploitation Group (IE). The results have been impressive
Instead of concentrating on just human intelligence or electronic information gathering, the IE Group gathered, processed, and acted on information gathered through any available means in order to trick and defeat Taliban fighters. The formation combined unmanned UAVs, reconnaissance patrols, local security forces, and electronic warfare specialists to collect and develop a large picture of enemy dispositions in the province.
The IE group was broken down into four major elements. The first was the Brigade Reconnaissance Force, a British Army combat unit that conducted aggressive offensives and patrolling against terrorist havens. The Afghan Territorial Force (ATF) was the Afghan National Army element working alongside the Marines, helping to better engage the local population and to gather intelligence. Any intelligence gathered was then sent to the Intelligence Section and Y Squadron, a group of electronic warfare experts and intelligence officers who then processed the information and told the Brigade Reconnaissance Force which tips to act on, based on credibility.
The counterinsurgency groups’ success can be seen in the nine major operations conducted against the Taliban in Helmand during the current deployment, preventing weapons and fighters from moving in or out of the region and strangling the safe areas the militants have established. The group’s activities were not merely restricted to engaging the Taliban, but to countering narcotics cultivation and any other criminal threats in the region. On the counter-drug front, at least 10 tons of opium were seized along with 8 tons of cannabis.
The unit just recently returned from its current deployment and there are plans to conduct more operations using Information Exploitation units in the future. The British realize that combat is only half the battle in Afghanistan. The other half is information, without which the enemy cannot be found or fixed. By establishing a compact unit that can gather intelligence, process intelligence, work with the local security forces, jam the Taliban’s communications, and engage in proactive and continuing offensives, the briagde's effectiveness is enhanced. The Royal Marines have made headlines with their successes in offensives during their latest deployments. The IE Group and the information it gathered from every source imaginable was a major contributor to their victories.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20090427.aspx
The Plutonium Scam
NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS
April 27, 2009: Ukrainian police arrested three men trying to sell eight pounds of plutonium, for $10 million. It turned out that they did not have plutonium, but the less radioactive (and not suitable for nuclear weapons) Americium (which could be used for a dirty bomb). The three arrested (a politician and two businessmen from Western Ukraine) had obtained the radioactive material (which was originally produced inside Russia) from someone outside Ukraine.
This incident is typical of dozens that have gone down since the end of the Cold War in 1991. Most of the nuclear material being peddled is not weapons grade. But since 1993, there have been over two dozen instances of smugglers caught with weapons grade uranium or plutonium.
Thefts of non-weapons grade material were reported in many countries around the world since the end of the Cold War. What's amazing is that Islamic terrorists have not yet obtained any of this stuff and used it to set off a "dirty bomb" (explosives surrounded by radioactive material, that makes radioactive the blast area).
Since the end of the Cold War, and the dismantling of over 20,000 nuclear weapons, there is over three tons of additional nuclear fuel sitting around. The stuff cannot be destroyed and remains radioactive for thousands of years. Several terrorist organizations and nations are known to be in the market for this weapons grade nuclear material, and don't care what the source is. Criminal organizations are active in trying to develop the trade. Only an enormous amount of police and intelligence work prevents a more active illegal trade in nuclear material.
But there is a hundred times more, less radioactive, material around. This stuff is used in hospitals and for some manufacturing or food processing work. This is what can be used for dirty bombs. There is a black market for this material as well, but no terrorists have, so far, gotten some and used it.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htchem/articles/20090427.aspx
nice! about time they start going on the offensive
you might want to reread the 2nd Amendment. where does it say that there should be a restriction on what arms we can bear? regardless of when it was written, its says we have a right to bear arms, pretty simple.
he sounds like a US lackey.
and im surprised that he calls anybody fighting Israel a protagonist
more tying of our military's hands. these men and women go out to serve their country and now they have to worry about being thrown in prison for following orders.
the men and women following orders need to be protected form prosecution, put it on those who issue the orders.
congrats to him!!! pretty sad though that a good Samaritan will no longer stop to help someone on the side of the road.
Israeli Phalanx Faces Palestinian Rockets
April 26, 2009: After over a year of deliberation, Israel has ordered one of the modified U.S. Phalanx ship defense system to defend itself against rockets fired from Gaza. There are already two Israeli anti-rocket systems in the works, but it will be another year or two before these are available for service. Meanwhile, Palestinian terrorists have continued to fire rockets and mortar shells fired into southern Israel. Although Israel has been desperate for a weapon that will defend key targets from Palestinian rockets fired from Gaza, there was considerable debate over buying the Phalanx system, mainly because the system is foreign, and two Israeli anti-rocket systems are already in development.
When the Israelis finally decided to buy, they were told that none could be spared. The Israelis wanted at least one of the systems, just to make sure it worked. After some intense diplomacy, they were told they could get one. The U.S. does not need the system much in Iraq any more, but wants to shift the Phalanx systems used in Iraq to Afghanistan. One of these systems will end up in Israel.
It was three years ago, that some Israelis noted how America and Britain were already using an effective anti-rocket system; C RAM. This is a modified version of the U.S. Navy Phalanx system, which was originally designed to protect warships from anti-ship missiles. As originally designed, you turned Phalanx on whenever the ship was likely to have an anti-ship missile fired at it. The Phalanx radar can spot incoming missiles out to about 5,000 meters, and the 20mm cannon is effective out to about 2,000 meters. With incoming missiles moving a up to several hundred meters a second, you can see why Phalanx is set to automatic. There's not much time for human intervention, which is why the Phalanx has to be turned on and set to automatically detect and shoot at incoming missiles. But weapons engineers discovered that Phalanx could take out incoming 155mm artillery shells as well. This capability is what led to C-RAM. Now Israel is bringing one of these system to Israel, to see how well it performs in actually defending against Palestinian Kassasm rockets.
Since 2003, there have been two major Phalanx mods. In one, the Phalanx was adapted to use on land, to shoot down incoming rockets. This was done by using a larger artillery spotting radar, which directs Phalanx to fire at incoming mortar shells and rockets. Not all the incoming stuff is hit, but nearly 80 percent of it is, and every little bit helps. The second mod is for shipboard use, and changes the software so the Phalanx can be used against small boats, especially those of the suicide bomber variety.
Israel originally examined C RAM for possible use in defending northern Israel against another Hizbollah rocket attack. That's where Israelis apparently became aware of how C RAM could be used against Palestinian attacks using more primitive rockets. For defending northern Israel, C-RAM lacked the range to cover a long border against a variety of rocket types. But the home made Palestinian rockets fired from Gaza were another matter. Then, about two years ago, Britain bought a C RAM system to protect its air base in southern Iraq. A C-RAM Phalanx system, which can cover about four kilometers of border, costs $8 million.
C-RAM uses high explosive 20mm shells, that detonate near the target, spraying it with fragments. By the time these fragments reach the ground, they are generally too small to injure anyone. At least that's been the experience in Iraq. The original Phalanx used 20mm depleted uranium shells, to slice through incoming missiles. Phalanx fires shells at the rate of 75 per second. Another advantage of C-RAM, is that it makes a distinctive noise when firing, warning people nearby that a mortar or rocket attack is underway, giving people an opportunity to duck inside if they are out and about.
The first C-RAM was sent to Iraq in late 2006, to protect the Green Zone (the large area in Baghdad turned into an American base). It was found that C-RAM could knock down 70-80 percent of the rockets and mortar shells fired within range of its cannon. Not bad, since it only took about a year to develop C-RAM. Meanwhile, another version, using a high-powered laser, instead of the 20mm gun, is in development.
Israel has several small targets it wants to defend in southern Israel. The most frequent target is the town of Sderot. Since 2001, over 2,000 locally made Palestinian "Kassam" rockets have been fired at Sderot. Ten people have been killed, and over fifty injured. The Israeli army has developed a radar system that provides 10-15 seconds warning, which is enough time to duck into a shelter. But Sderot only has 80 bomb shelters, most of them built 20-30 years ago and in need of repair. If you want to reduce the casualties in Sderot (about one dead or wounded per 30-40 rockets fired), you need to reduce the number of rockets landing. One C RAM system can defend an area about four kilometers in diameter. This makes it possible to defend Sderot with one or two Phalanx guns, and one early warning radar. There's also a power plant and air force base in the south that could eventually be within range of larger Kassam rockets. One or two C RAM Phalanx guns at each would greatly reduce the risk of a Kassam doing any damage. Hamas has been using some longer range rockets as well, putting more Israeli targets at risk. Many of these could be protected with a C-RAM system.
There are nearly 900 Phalanx systems in use, including some on Israeli warships. Most have not gotten these software mods, that enable the cannot to knock down rockets and shells, as well as incoming anti-ship missiles.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20090426.aspx
Magic Powder Backfires
April 26, 2009: The U.S. Army has temporarily withdrawn WoundStat, a granular substance that is poured into a wound to stop bleeding when bandages won't work. The FDA approved WoundStat over a year ago, and medical experts from all the services approved it for combat use. Nearly 20,000 packets were ordered and WoundStat was distributed to combat medics late last year. But subsequent testing showed possible damage to the walls of blood vessels. Moreover, there are far fewer of the serious battlefield injuries WoundStat was designed to deal with. So it was withdrawn, for the moment.
WoundStat was but one of many new medical tools for battlefield that has greatly increased the effectiveness of the immediate (within minutes or seconds after getting hit) medical care for troops. This effort consisted of three programs. First, there was the development of new medical tools and treatments that troops could be quickly and safely taught to use. Then came the equipping of medics (about one for every 30 or so combat troops) with more powerful tools, so that troops were less likely to bleed to death or suffocate from certain types of wounds that are not fatal if treated quickly enough. Finally, there was the Combat Lifesaver program, which more than tripled the number of "medics" by putting some soldiers through a 40 hour CLS (Combat Lifesaver) course in the most common medical procedures soldiers can perform to deal with the most dangerous types of wounds usually encountered. These CLS trained soldiers are not medics, of course, but they do make available in combat crucial medical treatments. Thus they are sort of "medics lite," which is close enough if you are badly wounded and in need of some prompt medical treatment.
The Combat Lifesaver course teaches the troops how to do things like insert breathing tubes, and other emergency surgical procedures to restore breathing. The CLS troops have skills most likely to be needed in lifesaving situations, when a medic is not available. The additional emergency medical training, and new emergency first aid gear (the "CLS bag") has saved hundreds of lives, and reduced the severity of even more wounds. Enough troops have taken CLS training so that there is one for every 10-15 combat troops, and one for every 20 or so support troops on convoy or security duty.
One of the most crucial new medical tools has been the clotting bandage, and later clotting powder (like WoundStat), to stop heavy bleeding. This was a major medical advance to come out of the war effort. But, competition being what it is, there are several clotting products available, all operating a little differently.
Five years ago, the first of the bandages, the Chitosan Hemostatic Dressing (more commonly called HemCon), showed up. It is basically a freeze dried substance, that causes clotting of blood, and incorporated into what otherwise looks like a typical battlefield bandage. But these dressings greatly reduced bleeding (which is the most common cause of death among wounded American troops.) This device was a major breakthrough in bandage technology.
Over 95 percent of the time, the HemCon bandages stop bleeding, especially in areas where a tourniquet could not be applied. Then came two new products, WoundStat and QuikClot (a gauze bandage similar to HemCon, that was actually available in 2003, but had some teething problems). While medics, and troops, prefer the bandage type device, there are situations where the fine granular substance (WoundStat) is a better solution (especially in the hands of a medic).
In the past, troops would often die from loss of blood before a surgeon could get in there to stop the bleeding. In the first two years of use, over 250,000 HemCon bandages were obtained for military needs. This was to make sure everyone in a combat zone had one at all times. While there are not a lot of casualties in base areas, the occasional rocket or mortar shell is likely to cause the kinds of wounds where HemCon can be a lifesaver. So it was a morale boost if everyone could carry a HemCon around (a small first aid kit is a standard part of combat equipment).
Last year, the army standardized on the QuickClot bandage and Woundstat powder. Currently, every soldier is issued one QuickClot bandage. Each combat lifesaver has a "combat lifesaver bag" with medical supplies which now includes three QuickClot bandages. Only the medics get packets (usually two) of Woundstat powder. That's because this is only needed for deep wounds, and has a theoretical risk (it hasn't happened yet) of causing fatal clots if it gets into the bloodstream. The medics will turn in their WoundStat until more tests are completed. Additional instructions were also issued for users of QuickClot, which can cause tissue burns under some conditions.
These clotting devices are also popular with civilian emergency medical services, and the manufacturers are still trying to catch up with worldwide demand.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20090426.aspx
Robosniper
April 26, 2009: The U.S. Army has developed a remote control sniper system. The Autonomous Rotorcraft Sniper System (ARSS) is currently being tested on a helicopter UAV, but could be mounted on fixed wing UAVs, or ground mounts. The sniper rifle is a stripped down Manufacturing Edge 2000 Rifle, weighing 14 pounds and firing the 8.6mm round Lapua Magnum. This round can hit effectively out to about 1,600 meters. Snipers in Iraq, and especially Afghanistan, have found the Lapua Magnum round does the job at twice the range of the standard 7.62x51mm round.
This 8.6mm round entered use in the early 1990s, and became increasingly popular with police and military snipers. Recognizing the popularity of the 8.6mm round, Barrett, the pioneer in 12.7mm sniper rifles, came out with a 15.5 pound version of its rifle, chambered for the 8.6mm.
The key to the success of the ARSS was the development of a lightweight, stabilized turret, accurate enough to enable the remote shooter to accurately hit man sized targets at over 1,000 meters. The scope on the ARSS feeds real-time video back to the controller, which is actually a modified XBox controller.
The army will continue testing ARSS through the Summer, before deciding if the 150 pound system is reliable and accurate enough to send to the combat zone. While useful when mounted on aircraft, ARSS might prove most effective on the ground, as part of a security system protecting large bases, like air fields. Here, you would want precision firepower to deal with threats, as an automatic weapon could possibly harm equipment or personnel on the base, not to mention civilians living in the area. A sniper weapon avoids all this. Given the video game quality of ARSS, you would not need trained snipers to operate it, just troops who had spent thousands of hours playing video games.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20090426.aspx
The Mighty Botmasters Of Ukraine
April 26, 2009: The American FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) announced that it is on the trail a Ukrainian gang (six specific individuals) for putting together one of the largest botnets (PCs secretly controlled via hacker attacks) ever encountered. Earlier this year, between February and March, the gang used spam, containing hidden programs, to take control of 1.9 million PCs. A computer security firm discovered the botnet, and the FBI and other police agencies got the server controlling the botnet taken off line, and identified members of the gang. Ukrainian police have joined an international posse seeking the six hackers.
The Ukrainian gang had help. A botmasters best friend turns out to be Microsoft and ISPs (Internet Service Providers). It works like this. Two years ago, the FBI announced that Operation Bot Roast had identified over a million compromised PCs, in scores of botnets. The FBI tried to get in touch with as many of these computer users as possible, and direct them to organizations and companies that can help them clean the zombie software out of their computers. Help can be had for free, although many of the compromised PCs were found to be clogged with all manner of malware (illegal software hidden on your machine to feed you ads or simply track what you do). But most of these PC owners could not be reached, or otherwise were unable to fix their computers. The FBI did the same thing with many of 1.9 million PCs belonging to the recent Ukrainian botnet.
Most owners of zombiefied computers didn't even realize their PCs had been taken over. Some, with heavily infected machines, do notice that the malware slows down the PC. There have been cases where the user just went out and bought a new computer. Usually, reformatting the hard drive and reinstalling your software works, and is a lot cheaper. But most computer users today don't know how to reformat a hard drive, or even get someone to do it for them.
The problem was that Operation Bot Roast only collected the IP (Internet Protocol) addresses of the compromised PCs. The IP address is the "mailing address" every PC must have when it is connected to the Internet. These addresses are distributed in blocks to ISPs, who assign them to PCs that they connect to the Internet (and collect a monthly fee for that service). Anyone can go to a site like http://www.ip-adress.com/ to find out which ISP controls which IP address.
The FBI began contacting the ISPs, and asking them to contact their customers, preferably via the mail, who were using the infected IP addresses at the time the FBI discovered that IP address to be operating from a zombie PC. Most ISPs cooperated, or tried to, but many did not, especially those outside the United States. ISPs prefer to live with the zombies, rather than incur the added expense, and liability, of trying to get their customers PCs cleaned up.
The FBI also pursued another solution. Nearly all the zombies were running the Windows operating system. The FBI got after Microsoft to do more about getting zombie software off PCs using Windows. This is a lot more difficult to do than the FBI, at least the senior guys at the FBI, realized. The main problem is that most PC users cannot handle bot removal on their own. Automated tools are difficult to create because there are so many different flavors of bot, and many now have anti-removal capabilities. Microsoft does not want to release more powerful automated bot-removal tools that will possibly trigger a flood of customer calls about screwed up PCs. That's because, too often, a new bot will win in a battle with a Microsoft bot-removal program.
So while it's great that the FBI is identifying infected PCs, getting those computers cleaned up is turning out to be a much more difficult chore. The Bot Roast project also made the FBI more aware of who was creating most of those bots. The key culprits are some brazen East European and Russian programmers, who openly sell easy-to-use software for infecting PCs with Zombies. The zombie creation software costs about $500, and IP addresses of machines to attempt to infect go for $100 per million addresses. Laws against that sort of thing are lax, or non-existent, in many countries. So now the State Department has been enlisted to help persuade many nations to crack down on the cyber criminals they inadvertently, or deliberately, shelter.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20090426.aspx
always a pleasure
Bomber pulled from lake, salvaged for museum
By Janet McConnaughey - The Associated Press
Posted : Saturday Apr 25, 2009 13:50:34 EDT
NEW ORLEANS — A dive bomber that had ditched in Lake Michigan on a training run in 1944 was brought to land Friday for restoration in Florida for the National World War II Museum in New Orleans.
The Douglas SBD Dauntless lifted from the water Friday to a pier in Waukegan, Ill., is among 130 to 300 or more planes estimated to have sunk in the lake during training late in World War II.
“Corsairs, Avengers, Dauntless — any number of World War II aircraft are in the water,” said Capt. Ed Ellis, secretary of the foundation that supports the National Naval Aviation Museum in Pensacola, Fla., where the newly recovered plane will be restored.
Ellis puts the total aircraft sunk in Lake Michigan at more than 300. Taras Lyssenko, co-owner of A&T Recovery, created to recover those planes, thinks the number is closer to 130. Whatever the figure, they are spread over some 2,500 square miles of lake bottom.
The Dauntless is the 35th airplane plucked from the waters since the National Naval Aviation Museum began a recovery and restoration program in 1990, Ellis said.
Even the wooden antenna mast was intact, and the rest of the plane was in good shape despite decades in the water, Lyssenko said.
“It was covered with mussels, so it looks like a coral reef,” he said. “But we knocked most of them off.”
Lyssenko said the plane was found in the mid-1990s in more than 300 feet of water, more than 20 miles offshore. He said it took years to obtain Navy permission and secure state and federal permits to mount a recovery.
Because the plane was so deep, submarine robots were called in to survey the area — and, in recent weeks, to set up ropes used to lift the plane to the surface for towing.
He described the salvage as far more delicate than recovering a ship.
“Ships have all kinds of things you can put chains on. You can’t put a chain on this,” he said. And it must be lifted gently. Otherwise, mud-filled wings might get ripped off.
It’s likely to be another 18 months to three years before that plane or another Dauntless restored by the aviation museum is ready for the World War II Museum, spokeswoman Clem Goldberger said.
An SBD that fought at the Battle of Guadalcanal has been on display at the New Orleans museum since August. It’s on loan from the Pensacola museum until the New Orleans museum’s own plane is ready.
“Finding World War II aircraft that actually have a combat record is a rarity,” Ellis said. “We have a number here. The one that we loaned the World War II Museum has a combat record, so we wanted it back. We said, ‘We’ll loan this one to you and we’ll recover and restore another one which we’ll then swap out when the restoration is finished.”’
An anonymous donor paid for the work.
“It costs about a quarter-million dollars to pull one off the bottom,” Ellis said.
He said the Naval Aviation Museum has 102 aircraft displayed indoors, about 60 outdoors — generally awaiting or in restoration — and more than 800 lent to about 600 museums, schools and other institutions nationwide.
The one recovered Friday ran out of fuel Nov. 24, 1944, en route back to its carrier, said Hill Goodspeed, historian and artifact collections manager at the aviation museum.
“The pilot survived. We do not recover aircraft if there was a fatality. They’re considered gravesites,” Ellis said.
He said many planes training in that era had flown from a pair of old paddlewheel steamers decked out as practice aircraft carriers.
Ellis said more than 17,000 pilots trained from the paddlewheelers out of the naval air station in Glenview, Ill. Each needed to make about eight takeoffs and landings on the paddlewheel Wolverine or Sable to qualify for carrier duty.
The ships were built as multideck cargo and excursion boats. Ellis said authorities “cut the top decks off and put 600-foot decks on them” to allow training.
The hundreds of accidents included fewer than a dozen deaths. Fatalities usually resulted from pilots who got out of their planes safely but died of hypothermia in frigid winter waters, Ellis said.
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/04/ap_bomber_salvaged_042409/
Questions On U.S. Air Sovereignty Mission
Apr 23, 2009
By Amy Butler
The impending fighter shortfall in the U.S. Air Force may prompt the Pentagon to turn to the Navy to fulfill some air sovereignty missions – flying patrols in U.S. airspace – in the future, according to Defense Department officials.
The Air Force is facing the retirement of up to 80% of the fleet dedicated to conducing the air sovereignty mission in the United States without timely replacements expected, according to testimony offered at a House Armed Services readiness subcommittee hearing April 22. Of 16 Air National Guard units on alert status, 11 fly F-16s. The aircraft of eight of those units are expected to reach their service lives between Fiscal 2015-2017.
Democrats and Republicans on the subcommittee expressed frustration that the Pentagon hasn’t articulated a plan to conduct the air patrol missions in light of the expected force structure reductions.
Peter Verga, deputy under secretary of defense for policy integration, said in prepared testimony that in the past, the Defense Department “was prepared to reinforce the air sovereignty mission” with U.S. Navy and Marine Corps aircraft. After the hearing, he also cited the example to Aviation Week of carrier-based Navy aircraft filling in for Air Force missions while the F-15 fleet was grounded. Fleet-wide inspections were conducted after a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C broke apart in midair when its front right longeron failed in late 2007.
Verga declined to specify when Navy aircraft may be needed for air sovereignty missions, and which fighters would be used. The Navy also predicts it will encounter a fighter shortfall without the purchase of more F/A-18E/Fs. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, however, says the fleet has an excess capacity in tactical aircraft in light of the missions currently being conducted.
Though the F-15 fleet has returned to flight, some observers worry that similar issues associated with aging aircraft could unexpectedly cripple the Air Force’s ability to execute its missions, especially as planners call for F-22s and F-35s to replace more plentiful F-15s and F-16s.
Verga was joined by Davi D’Agostino, director of the Government Accountability Office’s homeland defense team; Lt. Gen. Daniel Darnell, Air Force deputy chief of staff for air, space and information operations; and Lt. Gen. Harry Wyatt, director of the Air National Guard.
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) was among the most vociferous critics of the Pentagon’s approach. “The future of this mission, I think, is in question,” she said. The Air Force is “ignoring the rapidly approaching fighter shortfall.” The 162nd Fighter Wing, which operates F-16s, is located in Tucson; those F-16s will no longer be flyable in six years without upgrades, she says.
Wyatt says that the Air National Guard, which will operate some F-22s and F-35s will get their aircraft “late to need,” and he says that if his units received the stealthy “fifth-generation” fighters sooner, much of the problem could be averted. Air sovereignty sites will begin to lack aircraft to conduct air patrol missions beginning in late 2014, with the largest number of units to be without them in 2020, according to GAO data presented by D’Agostino.
Giffords questioned purchases of legacy “fourth-generation” fighters, such as F-15Es (variants of which are being sold to Saudi Arabia, South Korea and Singapore) and F-16 Block 60, which includes the active electronically scanned array radar. On the heels of the announcement of Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ plan to end F-22 production at the current 187 on order, Wyatt did not say whether he would advocate for buying older fighters. Air Force policy had been until recently to advocate only for the purchase of fifth-generation fighters, which include stealth, integrated avionics and internal weapons carriage. Should Congress decide in the current fiscal environment that more fourth-generation fighters are needed, Wyatt asks that lawmakers take into account the sophisticated technologies required to tackle cruise missile attacks, hostile unmanned aerial vehicles and marine threats.
Criticized repeatedly by the subcommittee for lacking a long-term plan for air sovereignty, Verga said, “This mission is not going to suffer.” Darnell said the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review will provide some clarity on the issue.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/SOVER042309.xml&headline=Questions%20On%20U.S.%20Air%20Sovereignty%20Mission
Castro says Obama misunderstood Havana's statement on dialogue
RIA Novosti
22/04/2009 12:42 HAVANA, April 22 (RIA Novosti) - U.S. President Barack Obama misconstrued Cuban leader Raul Castro's recent comments on Havana's willingness for dialogue with Washington, Fidel Castro has said.
In his "Obama and the Blockade" article, published by Cuban media late on Tuesday, the father of the Cuban Revolution commented on the U.S. leader's words after the end of the Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago.
''The fact that you had Raul Castro say he's willing to have his government discuss with ours not just issues of lifting the embargo, but issues of human rights, political prisoners, that's a sign of progress,'' Obama said on Sunday at a news conference. "And so we're going to explore and see if we can make some further steps. . . . There are some things that the Cuban government could do.''
However, Castro said that Obama had failed to realize that the Cuban president's statement was an indication of Raul's "bravery and belief in the principles of the Revolution."
He also said that "no one should be surprised that he [Raul Castro] spoke of the pardoning of those people jailed in March 2003, and that they would be sent to the U.S. if that country was ready to free the Heroic Five."
In March 2003, Cuban authorities arrested several dozen people on charges of collaborating with American diplomats. Havana believes they were hired by the U.S. and they were sentenced to prison for terms ranging from 6 to 28 years.
The "Heroic Five" were arrested in the U.S. during an FBI operation more than 10 years ago for activities the U.S. believed threatened the country's national security. Three of the Cubans received life terms in prison, two others were jailed for 15 and 19 years. Havana insists that they are innocent, saying that the accused were collecting information on terrorist activities by anti-Castro groups in Miami.
The U.S. State Department refused a prisoner exchange by Cuba last December.
During the Summit of the Americas, Latin American leaders encouraged Obama to end the embargo, which has been a major handicap for the Cuban economy for almost half a century.
Last week, Obama announced that Americans with relatives in Cuba would be able to visit and send money to the Caribbean island.
However, he also said again that the U.S. would not end its trade embargo against the communist island without steps from Cuba's leaders on lifting restrictions on its own people.
Fidel Castro responded by saying in an article that, "The cruel blockade against the Cuban people costs lives, and results in suffering."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/04/mil-090422-rianovosti02.htm
Turkey Objects to Obama Statement on Armenian Killings
By VOA News
25 April 2009
Turkey's government has objected to U.S. President Barack Obama's statement recognizing the killings of more than a million Armenians during the final years of the Ottoman empire.
Speaking in Bulgaria at a meeting in Sofia, Turkish President Abdullah Gul said Saturday that the U.S. president should also have expressed sympathy for the "hundreds of thousands of Turks and Muslims" killed between 1915 and 1923.
Turkey's Foreign Ministry complained that certain points in Mr. Obama's statement were "unacceptable."
On Friday, President Obama released a statement to mark Armenian Remembrance Day that said the mass killings of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians was one of the "great atrocities" of the 20th century.
During his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama had described the Armenian deaths as genocide, but he has not used that description since taking office.
Mr. Obama also encouraged the Armenian and Turkish people to move toward reconciliation by addressing the facts of the past.
Armenia considers the mass killings genocide by Turkish forces. But Turkey has strongly rejected the genocide claim, saying the Armenian death toll is inflated and that many Turks also were killed during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
Armenians say the early 20th century deaths were the result of an orchestrated campaign by Ottoman Turks against their people and are stepping up efforts to have the deaths internationally recognized as genocide.
France, Canada and Switzerland are among the countries that have recognized the genocide claim. Other nations, including the United States, have not.
Some information for this report was provided by AFP and AP.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/04/mil-090425-voa04.htm
Outpost Gives Hint of Challenges in Afghanistan
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
COMBAT OUTPOST DEYSIE, Afghanistan, April 23, 2009 – Nothing illustrates the difficulties of combat in Afghanistan’s Regional Command East like this base on the Gardez-Khowst road.
Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, visited the base yesterday to hear from the soldiers on the ground what life is like in Afghanistan. He flew from Kabul to Forward Operating Base Airborne, and then to this combat outpost.
Mullen met with leaders and servicemembers who explained their duties and talked about the challenges they face.
The area is “geographically challenging,” said Army Brig. Gen. Mark Milley, deputy commander for operations of Combined Joint Task Force 101. The camp guards what will become a macadamized road. The right of way is marked, and construction equipment soon will move in. The outpost is more than 8,000 feet above sea level, and lowlanders can feel the lack of oxygen.
Mountains surround the camp, and the soldiers of the reconnaissance troop of the 25th Infantry Division’s 4th Brigade Combat Team work with Afghan soldiers to ensure the safety of local people who are building the road.
Roads are important in Afghanistan – and almost nonexistent. One soldier spoke of driving along what he thought was a road, but it turned out to be a dry streambed.
Because roads represent the good intentions of government, they have become a way for federal and provincial officials to show they are trying to improve the lives of average Afghans. But roads also become targets that the Taliban and other enemy groups attack, Milley said.
Without roads, goods cannot get to market, medical care is limited, and tribes and families become isolated. U.S. and Afghan soldiers provide security so progress can continue. The Taliban and their allies kill innocent people and intimidate road crews as a last-gasp measure to show the government is ineffective, Milley said. “They will not be successful,” he added.
Follow-through is almost a mantra to the general, who said finishing the road will demonstrate the government’s commitment to the tribes and families. American and Afghan troops being in the area also represent commitment and follow-through to the people, he noted.
Regional Command East has twice the number of combat brigades that it had this time last year. All are in tough battle spaces, Milley said. In the north, the 1st Infantry Division’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team operates in the Hindu Kush mountains, which top 16,000 feet in some places.
“It is some of the toughest infantry fighting country in the world, and those soldiers are doing a great job in a very tough fight,” Milley said.
An enhanced brigade out of Fort Polk, La., operates with a French battalion in Parawan province; and a Polish brigade operates in Ghazni province.
The 10th Mountain Division’s 3rd Brigade Combat Team is the newest brigade in the area, brings about 3,500 additional soldiers into the region south of Kabul, the Afghan capital.
Operating in the southern portion of Regional Command East is the 25th Infantry Division’s 4th Brigade Combat Team out of Alaska. In addition, Regional Command East has an aviation brigade, engineers and logisticians, as well as the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets and medical facilities needed to maintain the force in the field.
Essentially, five brigades are responsible for security in an area about the size of North and South Carolina, Milley said. The enemy is as varied as the topography.
Terror groups in the region are fractious, with no single unifying philosophy or goal, the general said. “They are murderous groups who want nothing but power for themselves,” he said. “They have no vision for the future, and the Afghan people understand this. Still, they intimidate the population and think nothing of killing innocent men, women and children to further their sick ambitions.”
Westerners talk about the Taliban, but the enemies are varied, though their tactics are similar. The Hakkani network, an extremist group led by Hekmatyar Gulbaddin, Taliban groups dedicated to the overthrow of the Pakistani government, and local groups that simply want power all are part of the mix. “They distrust each other, but can sometimes come together with commonality of purpose,” Milley said.
The general said he does not like to attach a number to the enemy presence, but when pressed, he said the various groups have between 7,000 and 11,000 combatants. But then, he added, the discussion becomes “Who is a combatant? Is an Afghan who joins a raid to feed his family because there is no work in his village a combatant or just someone being used?”
Separating the enemy from the people is the key to winning in Afghanistan, Milley said, and the enemy has four options. “They can fight and die, they can surrender, they can throw their weapons away and run or they can reconcile,” he said.
The American effort in the nation is built around classic counterinsurgency strategy. U.S. forces aim to provide security for the people. Once they establish security, they need to hold the area to prevent the enemy from moving back in. There must be development to provide jobs and opportunities for the people.
Building governance at local, provincial and federal levels is vital. “The people must see the government as a benefit to them,” Milley said. “They must turn to the government for help, rather than the enemy.”
But the most important portion of the counterinsurgency strategy is training Afghans to take on the security challenge. “The best counterinsurgency fighter is an indigenous fighter,” Milley said. “If a stranger comes into a village, a local Afghan will notice in ways that we can’t. They’ll know if the man is trouble or not. Security forces must be the face of the government. If so, people will turn to them.”
The Afghan National Army is the most respected institution in the country, Milley said. “The Afghan soldiers can whip the enemy’s butt every time,” he said. But there are not enough of them, with 82,000 in the service.
“The Afghan army must be a bigger factor,” the general said. In Regional Command East, two Afghan army corps work with Combined Joint Task Force 101. More kandaks – Afghan battalions – are scheduled to join the fight in the region.
Ultimately, part of the solution in the country is a professional police force. Training the Afghan police has been a problem, but it is proceeding, Milley said. Police live among the people, he explained, and are best suited to understand local concerns and -- more importantly -- to know those in the area who cause trouble.
Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan runs 450 miles down the eastern portion of Regional Command East’s area. It has a mountainous terrain, and the people of the border area have tribal and family ties on both sides. At least 2,000 footpaths run across the border in the Regional Command East area alone, Milley said, and another 200 paths can handle at least burros.
The Afghan Border Police have been receiving training and equipment. They are becoming more effective, the general said, but more needs to happen.
On the Pakistan side of the border, the Frontier Corps has made strides in combating Taliban fighters who use the region as a safe haven. “What has to happen now is coordinating our operations,” Milley said. U.S., Afghan and Pakistani officials sit down regularly to talk about common challenges. At the tactical level, U.S., Afghan and Pakistani units are allowed to contact each other, and they do, the general said.
But Pakistan remains a problem. Taliban fighters continue to take refuge in the country, and while the Frontier Corps is effective in Baijur, they are not operating in other areas. “This is going to require a concerted effort,” Milley said.
Combined Joint Task Force 101 will turn over command of the region to a headquarters built around the 82nd Airborne Division later this summer.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/04/mil-090423-afps03.htm
AF Mulls COIN Wing, New Planes
AF Mulls COIN Wing, New Planes
By Colin Clark Friday, April 24th, 2009 5:04 pm
Posted in Air, Policy
The Air Force has been very sensitive about its image over the last eight years of fighting, concerned the country did not appreciate its role in the several wars we are waging.
As part of his effort to make the Air Force a bigger joint player and ensure the service can play an important part in this age of hybrid warfare, Gen. Norton Schwartz, is considering the need for a light propeller driven aircraft for a strike role, similar to laircraft used against the Viet Cong during the Vietnam War.
“There is a legitimate need to talk about the light strike role and the building partner capacity role, and we certainly intend to have that discussion in the coming months,” the Air Force Chief of Staff said at the Brookings Institution today. Schwartz said the Air Force would consider this and the development of a counter-insurgency or irregular warfare wing in June.
Schwartz added that the best approach might be to make the primary trainer aircraft something that “could be easily reconfigured into a light strike platform.”
The Hawker Beechcraft T-6 is the Air Force’s current primary trainer aircraft. Its maker has proposed a modified plane with machine guns and the ability to carry a variety of PGMs so it would seem a natural candidate for this role.
Schwartz said such a plane might be deployed as part of the counter-insurgency wing. To ensure the service gets the most from both its personnel and its equipment, the instructors “could sort of make that transition quickly to a building partner capacity role in the same airplane, and the same crew, and perhaps folks who we have arranged to have language skills that’s a part of their repertoire — that is a very attractive way to solve this problem,” Schwartz said.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/24/af-mulls-coin-wing-new-planes/
Who Needs F-22 Requirements
Who Needs F-22 Requirements
By Colin Clark Thursday, April 23rd, 2009 10:50 am
Posted in Air, Policy
UPDATED: With Sen. Chambliss Comments Accusing Gates of Failing to Develop Strategy And Making “One-Time” Budget Decisions
The F-22 fight is in full swing, notwithstanding comments earlier this week from Lockheed Martin’s CFO that the company will not fight down to the wire for the weapon. Sens. Saxby Chambliss and James Inhofe signaled this week that they are almost certain to keep fighting for the plane.
“Just because you are the boss doesn’t always mean you are right, and it doesn’t always mean you will win,” the former commander of Air Force Material Command, Greg Martin, said Thursday in a clear sign of just how vigorous the fight over the F-22 may become. Martin spoke at an F-22 event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Just who will win over the F-22 and what that will mean for the services and Congress is growing increasingly complex.
For example, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said last week that the service’s requirement for 243 F-22s remained intact. If that’s the case, Gates’ decision to cap the F-22 buy raises basic questions about the role of the services in building budgets and making budget decisions.
An Air Force officer familiar with Schwartz’ thinking told me that the requirement remained but that Gates had made a resource decision and the service understood that. Now defense secretaries are the final decision makers at the Pentagon. No question. But Schwartz’s comments [first reported on Friday by Air Force Magazine] would seem to raise all sorts of questions about the sanctity or relevance or requirements. Are requirements nothing more than guidelines subject to the latest budgetary crisis? Are they largely irrelevant, except as a proof of concept exercise?
Given the impressive amount of national treasure and brain power that goes into determining the requirements for major weapons systems, should they be overruled or ignored when money looks tight? And how much risk is the country accepting? That is not clear from Gates’ arguments yet.
Schwartz and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post that 243 Raptors would have been a “moderate-risk” inventory. The 381 F-22s, the former requirement, was a low-risk number. But Air Force Magazine reported that Schwartz said at a National Aeronautic Association’s luncheon that stopping production at 187 was made very simply because “more F-22s are unaffordable in the context of other things we must do.”
At the CSIS event, Grant questioned whether Gates had performed any analysis to craft the 187 number. “What was the analysis that led us to that number? When we look at it, I think we’ll find there wasn’t any,” Martin said.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss castigated Gates for lacking a strategic basis for his decisions on the F-22 and the Future Combat Vehicle.
“Despite the secretary saying in his April 6 comments that he was not focusing on the budget, when you look at the decisions he made those decisions are purely budget-oriented choices,” Saxby said, adding that Gates made these choices without “a real strategy” and “no analysis” of the F-22 and its military impact.
Rebecca Grant, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, said Thursday that she would characterize 187 as a “high-risk” result. She argued, during the CSIS event, that the F-22 is needed principally because it is the premier weapon against the sophisticated S-300 ground-to-air missiles that the Russians have developed and are trying to sell.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/23/who-needs-f-22-requirements/
Marines Equipment Woes Increasing Problem
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
Due to the strains of simultaneously fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan while running other missions around the world, the U.S. Marine Corps is nearly tripling the planned utilization rates of many of its aircraft platforms, Gen. James Amos, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, told the Senate Armed Services Committee April 22.
The F/A-18C and D; the KC-130; the EA-6B; and the MV-22 Osprey are all "flying at utilization rates far beyond those for which they were designed," the general warned, adding that as the platforms begin to wear out from overuse, the Corps is looking at an increasing deficit of available aircraft for training and future employment.
"These shortfalls include all modifications, intermediate maintenance events, depot maintenance, transition/procurement aircraft, and aircraft damaged beyond repair," Amos said.
As far as all of the Corps' ground, sea and air gear goes, the general pointed to the recent experience of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade's deployment to Afghanistan as an example of how the Corps is currently sending units to fight.
Equipment assets were pulled from a variety of sources, including more than 55 percent coming via new procurement provided by Marine Corps Systems Command, 27 percent from within the Central Command area of operations, "including items made available from units retrograding from Iraq," and about 4 percent from the Logistics Command and the USMC's Prepositioned Program in Norway. Even with all that, "14 percent of 2nd MEB's equipment needed to be drawn from our nondeployed operating forces."
With the tempo of deployments likely to remain largely unchanged in the near-term, Amos warned that this mix-and-match approach isn't sustainable if the Corps is to maintain its readiness between deployments.
Make sure to check out the IQAF's new C2 bird, see where $300 million bones went and check out the laser gravity well from our friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military.com.
-- Christian
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004814.html
A Laser Phalanx?
23-Apr-2009 13:20 EDT
Related Stories: Americas - USA, R&D - Private, Raytheon
Technology Training - Click Here!
Advertisement
ORD_Phalanx_UK_Firing_Night.jpg
UK Phalanx at night
(click to view full)
The Mk15 Phalanx system was originally developed as a ship’s final hope against incoming missiles: a radar-guided 20mm gatling gun would would fire up to 6,000 rounds per minute, throwing up a last-ditch wall of lead. Phalanx has become a popular naval weapon that’s also effective against helicopters, UAVs, and even small boats. It has even migrated onto land, where its “Centurion” version can protect a 1.2 km square area against incoming mortars and rockets.
In September 2007, Jane’s reported from the British DSEi exhibition that Raytheon is working on a Phalanx variant that can fire lasers. Kevin Peppe, Raytheon’s Phalanx program director, said that:
“The Centurion system has provided a near-term C-RAM (Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortars) solution for our deployed forces. But we know that our customers would like a larger defended footprint beyond the kinematics of a gunbased system. A missile is too expensive, so we are looking instead at a solution based on the adaptation of a robust but relatively lowpower, low beam-quality commercial laser…. By using clever optics to focus the laser beam at range, we demonstrated that we could achieve sufficient energy on target to deflagrate a 60mm mortar round.”
The concept has promise – but it also has substantial obstacles to overcome before it can become militarily useful…
Laser Phalanx: Obstacles and Issues
ORD_Iran-Hezbollah_Rockets.jpg
Not just mortars
According to Peppe, a Laser Phalanx solution would offer an effective range about 3 times that of the existing M61A1 20mm gun, along with lower life-cycle costs.
A laser-based Phalanx system certainly sounds interesting. Nevertheless, there are a number of hurdles to cross and tests to pass before it can be considered a true advance over the current set of slug-throwing “last chance” systems out there.
The first obstacle is the requirement for more powerful solid-state lasers, which can fit into a similar “footprint” as existing Phalanx weapons, and are rugged enough to survive the abuse dished out by salt spray, sand, and other inherent hazards of military existence. Most mortar rounds are larger than the 60mm bombs used in the tests, as are the rockets that featured so prominently in the 2006 Lebanon proxy war.
The second obstacle is the environment, which does more than just dish out maintenance-related abuse. Naval deployment would be affected by atmospheric humidity and fog, for instance, or by rain. They weaken lasers, but have very little effect on radar-guided cannon.
The third obstacle is uniquely naval: the growing reality of supersonic ship-killer missiles. Their speed, and ability to perform evasive maneuvers on final approach, gives them added advantages against any weapon that must be held on target for a period of time in order to work. Worse, even pieces of supersonic missile pieces have enough kinetic energy to cause a lot of damage to a ship, unless the incoming object is slowed or deflected by an opposing kinetic force. A naval defense laser, therefore, would require enough power to burn through enemy missiles almost immediately. It would also have to work in such a way that large supersonic missiles either fragment into relatively small pieces when hit, or can be killed far enough away thanks to timely engagement, extra range, and sufficient burn power at range. Even in adverse weather conditions.
A 4th obstacle applies more strongly to land-based lasers. A 20mm cannon shell has a finite range, and can be designed to detonate after a prescribed distance for safety. This protects people on the ground under the shell’s flight path, and also provides a margin of safety to aircraft flying near protected bases. A laser doesn’t have that option, and the same power requirement that ensures fast-enough kills on incoming rockets, also gives a laser more effective range. Maintaining the safety of friendly forces and civilian air traffic in areas protected by laser weapons will be a challenge.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/a-laser-phalanx-03783/#more-3783
Mistral Magic
April 25, 2009: After the second of the new French Mistral class LHDs (amphibious assault ships), the Tonnerre, entered service two years ago, plans were made to build the third one using less expensive techniques, and more quickly. The French navy received the first (the Mistral) of these 21,500 ton ships in 2006. Both were ordered in 2001. These two ships replaced two older amphibious landing ships. This will give France a force of four amphibious ships. The two Mistrals are also equipped to serve as command vessels for amphibious operations. The French have been very happy with how the Mistrals have performed.
The Mistrals are similar in design to the U.S. LPD 17 (San Antonio) class. Both classes are about 620 feet long, but the LPD 17s displace 25,000 tons. The French ships are more highly automated, requiring a crew of only 180, versus 396 on the LPD 17. On long voyages on the open ocean, the Mistrals require as few as nine sailors and officers on duty ("standing watch") to keep the ship going.
The Mistrals carry 450 marines, compared to 700 on the LPD 17s. Both have about the same room for helicopters, landing craft and vehicles (2,650 square meters for the Mistrals, room for nearly a hundred trucks, or 60 armored vehicles). Both have hospitals on board, with the Mistrals being larger (69 beds). The American ships, however have more sensors installed, and larger engines (and thus higher speed.) The LPD 17 can also handle vertical takeoff jets like the Harrier or F-35. The French believe that the smaller complement of marines, who are very capable troops, are sufficient for most missions. And the smaller number of people on the ship makes it possible to provide better living and working conditions. This is good for morale and readiness.
One thing American marines and sailors notice about the Mistral is the wider and higher corridors. This came about because the ship designers surveyed marines and asked what ship design improvements they could use. It was noted that in older amphibious ships, the standard size (narrow) corridors were a problem when fully equipped troops were moving out. That, plus the smaller crew size, makes the Mistrals appear kind of empty, but very roomy. Another thing Americans notice is bars in the two recreation rooms. Unlike American ships, the French serve beer and wine on theirs. That, plus roomier living accommodations (made possible by the smaller ships crew and marine complement), make the Mistrals a lot more comfortable. The French ships can be rigged to accommodate up to 700 people for short periods, as when being used to evacuate civilians from a war zone.
Armament on both classes are defensive. The Mistrals each carry two short-range anti-aircraft missile launchers, two 30mm guns and four heavy machine-guns. The Mistrals can stay out 45 days at a time, unless replenished at sea, and each cost about $600 million. The first LPD 17 cost nearly two billion dollars, and U.S. admirals are after Congress to adopt some of the more efficient French procurement methods. The LPD 17s were ordered in 1996, and the first one entered service two years ago. The navy wants to buy a dozen of them, and get the unit price under a billion dollars.
The third and fourth Mistrals are being built using more commercial techniques, and are expected to cost closer to $500 million each.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htamph/articles/20090425.aspx
Starved Soldiers Serve Queen And Country
April 25, 2009: Britain's military, after decades of funding neglect, may finally be getting a shot in the arm, sort of. The British Army has suffered from chronic lack of money since before the end of the Cold War and had subsequently experienced manpower and equipment shortages as a result. Normally this would break a lesser military, but the Brits have always been able to rely on their primary strength, their professionalism, to see them through the day. The British military, particularly the Army and Royal Marines, have high levels of esprit du corps and regimental standards of readiness. They train as they would fight and so on.
The UK government is planning to increase its defense spending substantially in the next year. For 2010, the military is hoping to receive over $5.1 billion in extra funds to pay personnel, purchase new equipment and spare parts, The extra money to be allocated for equipment upgrades and purchases alone is estimated to be at least $1 billion, money that the services, the Air Force in particular, desperately needs. Unfortunately, it is unclear as to whether this boost in military spending is going to become a regular thing. This seems unlikely and British officials have hinted that the substantial increases are a one-off deal designed specifically to aid Britain's overseas war efforts for the time being. Concerns are being voiced that once British troops are withdrawn from Afghanistan and Iraq permanently, whenever that may be, the services' equipment and salary funding will once again be reduced to dangerous levels. To make matters worse, Britain is facing a problem balancing its own books due to a large defense overspend, again brought on by the significant deployments abroad. Extra money is needed for not only salaries and new equipment, but to ensure that the military does not, once again, spend more money than is allocated to it to cover operational costs.
During the last few decades, the British have luckily been able to get by and be successful despite the dismal state of their defense budget. During the Falklands War in 1982, Britain experienced the same problems with its forces operating on a shoestring after massive defense cuts, with the Navy being hit particularly hard. But the British consistently have extremely high standards of discipline and training that helped them stomp the Argentines during the conflict in the South Atlantic. In many ways their adversaries were better equipped but lacked the skill and competency of their British foes. However, the difference between the Falklands, Desert Storm, and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, is time. The Falklands war lasted only a few weeks, and the first Gulf War was extremely short as well, meaning the British could get away with substituting skill for all of the other shortcomings brought on by huge defense cuts. But Britain has been operating in Afghanistan almost as long as the Americans now and the strain of the long protracted war is making itself felt. Whether Britain learns its lesson and begins to permanently maintain its armed forces better in the future remains to be seen. Britain, unfortunately, is learning the hard way that future conflicts won't be as short and sweet as the Falklands.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20090425.aspx
Old Gold
April 25, 2009: Sometimes old news can be recycled to great effect. A recent example is an interview given by an Indian defense official, to a Japanese newspaper. The Indian official recounted the ten year old incident of the North Korean cargo ship the Kuwolsan. When this vessel stopped at an Indian port back in 1999, suspicious officials inspected the cargo and found 147 crates mislabeled. The real cargo was manufacturing equipment and plans for building ballistic missiles. The destination was Libya. There was quite a lot of high tech manufacturing gear on board, most of it Japanese, that was not supposed to be sold to North Korea. Apparently, the North Koreans got the stuff, via bribes and the assent of the Chinese government, from China.
At the time (1999), India called in technical experts from the United States, Russia, South Korea and other nations belonging to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). This was an informal organization devoted to halting missile proliferation. The foreign experts examined the cargo, and agreed with the Indians that the ship was basically carrying the key components of a ballistic missile factory.
India seized the ship and its cargo, and eventually sent the 44 crew members back to North Korea. The cargo never reached Libya, which has since (September 11, 2001) come clean on its ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs, and dropped both efforts.
Turning this old news into new news is apparently an effort to spotlight North Korean efforts to export missile and nuclear weapons technology, and illegally obtaining the needed tools via China.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20090425.aspx
The Royal Air Force In Tatters
April 24, 2009: Britain’s Royal Air Force is suffering from shortages of more than just helicopters, spare parts, and pilots. The entire force is facing a massive shortage of manpower in all its branches. This is rapidly reaching a crisis point and is causing some of the Air Force’s rules to be bent, if not broken, in order to sustain operational capabilities.
The extent of the problem can be emphasized by the fact that Royal Air Force regulations require that deployed personnel be sent overseas for no more than 140 days per deployment. This applies specifically to pilots, air traffic controllers and weapons officers. Reports vary, but, in contravention of the RAF’s own rules, support personnel, doctors, and nurses have seen deployment periods that range from a few days over the maximum limit, 140, to extremes of 160 days in theatre at a time.
Other specialists such as mechanics and intelligence analysts, are in pathetically short supply. The situation has gotten so bad the RAF is lacking 13 percent of the specialists that it needs in those occupations in order to operate at maximum efficiency. Another element of the service that has been hard-hit is the medical branch.
The ongoing operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are, unsurprisingly, the primary culprits of this shortage. It's been known for years that the RAF and many air forces around the world were consistently facing shortages, sometimes severe, of pilots, but the wars have caused the manpower crisis to infect other areas that are just as important. Things like keeping the planes flying and gathering the intelligence needed to determine which targets to hit on the ground, as well as treating casualties.
In addition to the ongoing wars Britain is trying to wage at the same time, two other factors are emerging that have got the government’s attention. The first, obviously is money, namely the current Labor government's consistent slashing of the Air Force’s budget, and the defense budget in general, which leaves little money left over for salaries and benefits. Secondly, because of either the stress of the job or the aforementioned low pay, hundreds of RAF personnel from all specialties have been resigning their posts recently in order to look for less hectic, and higher paying, jobs. Without more money, more people, and shorter deployment periods, the RAF’s contribution to operations in Afghanistan may be jeopardized.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20090424.aspx
Taliban Flak Wagons Trashed
April 24, 2009: In southern Afghanistan, Afghan civilians tipped off foreign troops that the Taliban were mounting Russian made 14.5mm machine-gun on the backs trucks and were apparently planning to use it against military helicopters. In both cases, air reconnaissance confirmed the reports, and both 14.5mm machine-guns were destroyed with smart bombs, once the vehicles clear of civilians. Anti-aircraft weapons mounted in trucks are called flak (after the German term for anti-aircraft guns) wagons.
Both weapons appeared to be the old Soviet ZPU-1 anti-aircraft machine-guns. These weapons have sights for firing at low flying aircraft. The machine-gun itself weighs nearly 200 pounds, and a complete ZPU-1 weighs nearly half a ton. The effective (aimed) range of the 14.5mm machine-gun is 1,400 meters (4,300 feet). Several American helicopters were shot down by these weapons in Iraq, and last year, Sudanese rebels brought down a government MiG-29 that came in low to fire on them as they were making a surprise raid on the capital. Coalition fixed wing aircraft (except for the A-10) rarely come lower than 3-4,000 meters, to avoid such machine-gun fire.
What apparently angered the villagers was the fact that the Taliban were practicing with the 14.5 machine-gun outside a village market. The 14.5mm bullets can travel up to 8,000 meters, and even at that maximum range, the two ounce slugs can kill or wound whoever gets hit. Older Afghans have bitter memories of the Russians using their many 14.5mm machine-guns (which were mounted on most armored vehicles) indiscriminately. The maximum rate of fire of the 14.5mm machine-gun is 600 rounds a minute, and it is usually fired in short bursts of 5-20 rounds.
Many 14.5mm machine-guns were left over from the 1980s war with the Russians, although most were collected by the government in the past few years, in a campaign to get a lot of these heavy weapons (including mortars and light artillery) out of the hands of civilians. But many of these heavy weapons were not turned in. U.S. Marines had been picking up information from villagers that the Taliban were offering big money for anyone who had a 14.5mm machine-gun hidden away. Some Afghans did, and finally unloaded the weapons (which is why Afghans tend to horde weapons and ammo, even things they don't need themselves). The two that were destroyed were put back in working order, and there are probably more around. The U.S. will probably respond by offering to beat the Taliban price, a tactic that has worked in the past.
The 14.5mm machine-gun is the Russian answer to the U.S. 12.7mm weapon. The U.S. 12.7mm weapon entered service in the early 1920s, with the Russian 14.5mm following over twenty years later, after World War II.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20090424.aspx