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.
the current economy could be dictating lower prices just to get the work
i was talking with a lady who works for the local PD the other night, and i asked her what our cops thought about a CNC law. she said most of the cops agreed that we need one in WI. she also agreed that cops are there to mainly clean up a crime scene and arrest the perps.
we were in a bar, and she was hammered along with her husband who was driving.
of course he does, he was probably scared sh!tless while carrying his M-16 in Vietnam because he didnt know how to use it
Michael Vick thinks Michael Vick is still worth a huge contract
By MJD
I don't know what kind of access Michael Vick has had to newspapers, magazines and the Internet in prison, but it seems like the news that he is no longer a hot commodity has not yet filtered down to Michael Vick.
In papers he submitted to a bankruptcy court, Vick indicated that he plans on making $10 million per season, which I'm pretty sure would be a record for an ex-con who had a career quarterback rating of 75.7 when he went away. From the Atlanta Journal Constitution:
The embattled Atlanta Falcons quarterback is hoping to earn as much as $10 million a year or more, according to court filings in his bankruptcy case. Under the plan he submitted to the court, Vick would keep the first $750,000 of his annual income over the next five years. After that, a percentage would go to his creditors based on a sliding scale. [...]
In a March 4 court filing, Vick’s attorneys say he “has every reason to believe upon his release, he will be reinstated into the NFL, resume his career and be able to earn a substantial living.”
“He is hopeful to play quarterback,” Daniel Meachum, an attorney and business manager for Vick, said in an interview. “There is no person with his talent in that position in all the league.”
That may have been true at one time, but there are also no quarterbacks in the league who have spent the last nine months sitting in a jail cell and eating prison food. I'm not a nutritionist or anything, but I'm pretty sure that's not what NFL team doctors would recommend for keeping a guy in optimum game shape.
The fact of the matter is that no one knows how Vick will perform when he gets out of the joint, though it seems extraordinarily unlikely that he'll look exactly the same as he did when he went in. Factor in the amount of teams scared off by the P.R. nightmare, and I think we're looking at a salary closer to $605,000, which was last year's veteran minimum for a seventh-year player.
Gracias, FanHouse.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Michael-Vick-thinks-Michael-Vick-is-still-worth-?urn=nfl,151410
Iraqi Commandos hone combat marksmanship techniques
US Marine Corps News
3/31/2009 By Cpl. Alan Addison, Regimental Combat Team 8
AL ASAD AIR BASE, Iraq — Gunfire erupts and empty shell casings clatter to the ground as Iraqi soldiers take aim at close-range targets. As the shooting ceases, an Arabic voice shouts the commands through a megaphone, instructing the soldiers on the next course of fire. After the command to fire is given, the soldiers once again fire at their assigned targets. These drills are part of a training exercise formed to meet the needs of Iraqi Army personnel with the purpose of transforming them into more effective infantrymen.
To assist the Iraqis in this endeavor, Marines from 2nd Platoon, Company B, 1st Reconnaissance Battalion, Regimental Combat Team 8, assisted Iraqi commandos from the 7th Iraqi Army Division in weapons training, March 19, 2009.
“I’m impressed with their efficiency,” said 1st Lt. Scott Alexander, platoon commander for 2nd Platoon, Company B, 1st Recon Battalion. “They have performed very well.”
The Iraqi commando training is part of a month-long training package put together by their own senior leaders, which focuses on weapons training, land navigation, patrolling, and a host of other combat skills.
The six-day weapons training package included immediate and remedial action drills, and reloading and engagement drills.
“The Iraqi Army requested this training. They put the training package together, we’re just here to help train them and point them in the right direction,” said Alexander. “These guys are meant to be the top notch soldiers of the Iraqi Army; we just want to pass on as much knowledge as we can to these guys.”
Not only does the training exercise help the commandos hone their existing skills, but it also helps them forge a cohesive bond that’s shared amongst soldiers when they train as a unit. “This is the first time some of these guys have trained together so they are trying to get comfortable with each other, but they are eager to learn and they look to the Marines for advice,” said Robert Wise, a Special Operations Foreign Internal Defense Liaison to the Iraqi Army.
The Marines are not the only ones who see the advantages of training with the Iraqis. Iraqi Army 1st Lt. Amer Mowfuc talked about the advantages of his men being trained by the Marines.
“It’s very important that our soldiers receive training like this. When we train with other groups we get the chance to learn many different techniques, as well as sharpen our own skills.”
Mowfuc also stated that this type of training offers his men the opportunity to learn more about their personal weapons, and training alongside Marines gives them an excellent model to follow.
“We have worked with a lot of other military groups, but I personally would like my soldiers to model their performance after Marines,” said Mowfuc.
Gunfire once again erupted from the Iraqi soldiers’ rifles, piercing the targets in front of them. Marine instructors stood close by, supporting the Iraqi Commandos as they conducted the necessary training needed to be more effective marksmen. After six intense training days, the commandos had sharpened their marksmanship skills and were prepared to enter their next phase of unit training.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/03/mil-090331-mcn01.htm
Georgian president vows to build strong, modern army
RIA Novosti
31/03/2009 10:36 TBILISI, March 31 (RIA Novosti) - Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has pledged to build new and stronger armed forces in the light of the recent military conflict with Russia.
Georgia's military suffered a major defeat in a five-day war with Russia in August last year after attempting to regain its breakaway region of South Ossetia. Georgia reportedly lost up to 3,000 servicemen and police in the conflict although Tbilisi confirmed only about 70 deaths.
"This time we are going to build modern, significantly higher quality, significantly stronger armed forces, and no one should have any illusions about that," Saakashvili told reporters late on Monday after a meeting with Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Georgia signed in January a strategic partnership treaty with the United States, which has long provided economic and military support for Tbilisi, including training its troops.
Saakashvili said that previous U.S. training programs were limited to training peacekeepers, rather than prepared the Georgian military for full-scale military operations, and expressed hope that Washington would provide stronger support to Tbilisi in developing its military.
"After signing the treaty Georgia and the U.S. have entered a new stage of military and political cooperation," he said.
Georgia lost control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in bloody post-Soviet conflicts in the early 1990s. The two republics, bolstered by Russian peacekeepers, have had de facto independence since then, and have been a bone of contention between Georgia and Russia.
Russia recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states on August 26, two weeks after the war with Georgia, triggered by Tbilisi's attack on South Ossetia.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/03/mil-090331-rianovosti03.htm
Deja Vu For Obama As US Afghan Policy Turns Full Circle To 1965
US won't speed up troop withdrawals from Iraq: Obama
Washington (AFP) March 30 - President Barack Obama said he would not speed up troop withdrawals from Iraq, arguing the country was "moving in the right direction" but still needed US help. "No, I think the plan that we put forward in Iraq is the right one, which is let's have a very gradual withdrawal schedule through the national elections in Iraq," he said in an interview aired Sunday on CBS program "Face the Nation." "There's still work to be done on the political side, to resolve differences between the various sectarian groups around issues like oil, around issues like provincial elections," Obama said. "I'm confident that we're moving in the right direction. But Iraq is not yet completed. We still have a lot of work to do," he said. "We still have a lot of training of Iraqi forces to improve their capacity. I'm confident, though, that we're moving in the right direction." Obama has ordered an end to US combat operations in Iraq by August 31 next year, but says 50,000 troops will remain under a new mission until the end of 2011.
by Claude Salhani
Washington (UPI) Mar 30, 2009
President Barack Obama's new Afghan policy is eerily reminiscent of President Lyndon B. Johnson's Vietnam policy, when in 1965 Johnson announced the buildup of the war in Southeast Asia, saying he was sending more U.S. combat troops to Vietnam as well as civilian workers.
Just as Obama stressed the importance in deploying civilian advisers to help rebuild Afghanistan, it is worth recalling that by 1964 Johnson had as many as 23,300 American civilian advisers working in South Vietnam alongside 184,300 U.S. combat troops. Less than four years later, U.S. forces in South Vietnam soared to 536,100.
Obama unveiled his latest policy last week, outlining the manner in which the United States should address the war in Afghanistan in view of the rising threat the Taliban and their al-Qaida allies pose to world security. It isn't the most brilliant of policies, as it does not even hint at a time in the near or distant future when U.S. and NATO forces might begin to disengage from Afghanistan. Rather, Obama said he would be sending an additional 4,000 U.S. troops in a first step to increase American military and civilian forces in the country. Under the current circumstances, though, Obama really had no other choice. Had this policy been adopted eight years ago, the world today would have been a very different place.
In fact, Obama's new plan takes the United States back to where it was on the day after Sept. 11, 2001. This is what should have happened then; the brunt of the U.S. forces should have been directed against al-Qaida and their supporters in the Taliban. But there came a distraction in the form of the war in Iraq.
The war in Afghanistan could have probably been won had the emphasis been placed on hunting down the Taliban and al-Qaida's leadership.
One important distinction made in Obama's new policy is the inclusion of Pakistan as part and parcel of the problem. For the first time since the invasion of Afghanistan, the United States is approaching this issue in the most pragmatic manner. The Afghan problem, that of the resurging Taliban, is unlikely to go away so long as the Takfiri rebels can find refuge in neighboring Pakistan.
The problem is this: Both countries are intricately connected in more than one manner.
Neither can be solved so long as the Taliban can enjoy a rear base in the Pakistani border areas. And as long as Afghanistan remains unsettled, it accentuates the risk of the conflict expanding and engulfing other countries in the region.
In outlining his new policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, the U.S. president explained the reasons for the new strategy: that the expanding power being gained by the Islamists poses a real and present danger to the security of the entire free world.
Obama described the situation as "increasingly perilous" and said that the power being encroached by the Taliban posed a threat to the people of America and of the free world.
Obama outlined a dual road to what he hopes will bring stability to Afghanistan and Pakistan's border areas: an increase in U.S. military personnel as well as additional support for the civilian restructuring of the country. The first installment would come in the dispatch of some 4,000 additional U.S. troops.
While both countries welcomed Obama's announcement, some Afghan diplomats remain skeptical regarding the success any plan may have as long as some elements in the Pakistani leadership, more particularly in the military, continue to profit from what one diplomat termed "the AAA of Pakistan." The diplomat explained: "Allah, Army and America."
For some leading members of Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency, the AAA has turned into a lucrative business. While the problem of the jihadi Taliban and al-Qaida continues (Allah), the U.S. (America) will continue to send funding to Pakistan and support the country's military in weapons as well as with money, thus keeping the remaining A, the army, in business.
The other novelty in this new policy is that there is a clear sense of mission, with a clearly defined target: "to disrupt dismantle and defeat" the two groups, al-Qaida and the Taliban.
Obama reminded the U.S. allies that the trouble currently brewing just beneath the surface in Southwest Asia is not simply an American problem: "It is instead an international security challenge of the highest order."
Well cognizant of the challenge the region poses to their security, the Russians have indicated their willingness to help out in the Afghan campaign. As a Russian military attache told this reporter last summer, "Had it not been for the tensing of relations between Moscow and Washington over the Bush administration's support of the Georgians during the very brief, but very fierce, war between Russia and Georgia, Russia would have been ready to help out in Afghanistan."
Enough water has since flown under the bridges, and Moscow said it was prepared to help out in Afghanistan. In an interview with the BBC, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Moscow was "ready to participate in the efforts directed at putting things in order" in Afghanistan.
This is an offer Washington cannot and should not refuse.
Claude Salhani is editor of the Middle East Times.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Deja_Vu_For_Obama_As_US_Afghan_Policy_Turns_Full_Circle_To_1965_999.html
i dont agree with everything in the article but its an interesting view
The Endless Wars Of Our Times Part One
The pattern of these already serious wars and conflicts around the world teaches us a great deal about the patterns of 21st century war. The high-tech, "lean, mean" militaries that President George W. Bush and his first defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, so enthusiastically pursued are irrelevant to all of them. Photo courtesy AFP.
by Martin Sieff
Washington (UPI) Mar 30, 2009
"Ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars." Jesus' famous words in the Olivet prophecy have been true for pretty much every generation of history for the past 2,000 years. So why should things be any different now?
New U.S. President Barack Obama and the Democratic foreign policy establishment in the United States know they can't outlaw war. Believe it or not, that was actually done in 1928 in the Kellogg-Briand peace pact. U.S. Secretary of State Frank Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand were awarded Nobel Peace Prizes for their "achievement." They were arguably the most farcical Nobels ever given to anyone. Within nine years, the Imperial Japanese army had slaughtered three-quarters of a million Chinese people in its drive up the Yangtze River valley to Nanjing. Within 11 years of that "achievement," World War II, the bloodiest single conflict in human history, had begun.
However, Obama and his team are confident they can reduce tensions around the world. They are particularly hopeful of being able to end the century-old Israel-Arab conflict and the 30 years of ferocious hostility of Iran toward the Great Satan, as its leaders, broadcasters and educators continually call the United States.
The leaders of the giant European Union of 27 nations encompassing half a billion people -- the third-largest organization of human beings on the Earth after China and India -- are also firm believers in the so-called soft power of economic influence and diplomatic persuasion rather than the hard power of military might. Safe under the protective nuclear-armed shield of the U.S.-led NATO alliance for the past 60 years, they believe that major wars are a thing of the past too. Why should they be wrong?
The first reason is that war has never been successfully abolished in the entirety of recorded organized human history; one hesitates to use the term "civilized" for anything to do with war.
The second reason is that we don't live in an age of peace or even of receding war now. Genocide continues in Darfur, and the organized political groupings of the African Union, the Arab League and China -- together representing around one-third of the population of Earth, all strongly support Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan, who remains completely unrepentant about the continuing brutalities of his armed forces against black Christian and animist peoples of Darfur.
Farther south, things are even worse in Congo, formerly Zaire. It has been in a state of anarchic chaos for well over a decade and is the largest, most populous and most hellish collapsed-state region on Earth. At least 10 million people have died there.
In Afghanistan, the Islamic fundamentalist Taliban and its al-Qaida allies are on the upsurge all across the country. Last week Obama outlined a new strategy he hopes to apply there. However, as yet it remains untested, with many military analysts expressing extreme skepticism about it having any relevance to the real cultural, economic and social conditions on the ground.
Continuing southward, Pakistan, already an Islamic nuclear power, teeters on the brink of disintegration. The civilian government has only the most tenuous control over the armed forces, and one-quarter of the area of the country, the huge North-West Frontier province, is already controlled by the Taliban and their allies.
The pattern of these already serious wars and conflicts around the world teaches us a great deal about the patterns of 21st century war. The high-tech, "lean, mean" militaries that President George W. Bush and his first defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, so enthusiastically pursued are irrelevant to all of them.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/The_Endless_Wars_Of_Our_Times_Part_One_999.html
Why The F-22 Is Vital Part 12
disclaimer: image is for illustration purposes only
by Rebecca Grant
Arlington, Va. (UPI) Mar 30, 2009
The U.S. Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor was designed to combat developments like those described previously. Much of its edge is built into the aerodynamics of the platform.
The whole intent of the F-22 Raptor was to create one fighter with the performance to ensure superiority against upgraded and new adversary fighters, even as they add advanced capabilities. No other fighter flying today has that mission.
Why is a combination of legacy fighters and the new Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter not sufficient to provide conventional deterrence for the U.S. Air Force? Like many other systems, aircraft are all about trade-offs. Yet it has been understood for a long time that at least one fighter platform had to reach for uncompromised design in order to provide a deterrent stretching over several decades.
That aircraft is the F-22. One of its top characteristics is speed. Tests with derivative Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcons in the years between 1982 and 1985 demonstrated the possibility of brief periods of supersonic flight without afterburner. The U.S. Air Force added the requirement for super-cruise -- flying at Mach 1 to Mach 1.6 or more without afterburner -- because it would give the F-22 Raptor significant advantages against other fighters or surface-to-air missiles.
No one had attempted to build supersonic speed with stealth before, but the F-22 Raptor did it, and it remains to this day the only aircraft in the world with this ability.
The other advantage waiting to be claimed was altitude. Stealth designers favored altitudes above 40,000 feet because enemy radar might be less effective in those reaches. However, the F-22 Raptor would have to operate with exceptional maneuverability, which required another technology known as thrust vectoring.
Knowing the F-22 Raptor would take care of the toughest threats, the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter was designed as a single-engine attack aircraft to suit a wide range of customers and operating environments. Beyond this, the whole design of the F-35 was predicated on having the F-22, which was ahead of it by about 10 years, in the force.
Today the F-35 is beginning rigorous flight testing, and initial results are promising. However, there are several years to go before the F-35 reaches its initial operating capability. The F-22 reached that status in 2005.
What is clear already is that the decision to optimize F-22 and F-35 for different missions was wise. There will be challenges ahead, and some of the specific, high-performance features of the F-22 will be extremely important.
Part 13: Tactics and combat performance capabilities necessary for evading surface-to-air missiles and moving through enemy fighters at high altitude and high speed.
(Rebecca Grant, Ph.D., is a senior fellow of the Lexington Institute, a non-profit public-policy research organization based in Arlington, Va.)
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Why_The_F-22_Is_Vital_Part_12_999.html
Busting Open Iranian Bunkers And Silos
the United States has the capabilities, if not the political will, to launch and then sustain a prolonged bombing campaign against Iranian targets, using Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, Boeing B-1 Lancer and Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit strategic bombers armed with bunker-buster bombs along with Tomahawk air-launched cruise missiles.
Iran nuke a 'a couple of years' away: Petraeus
Washington (AFP) March 29 - Iran is still "a couple of years" away from having enough highly enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon, the commander of US forces in the Middle East said Sunday. "The bottom line: we think it's a couple of years away in that regard. It could be more, could be a little bit less," General David Petraeus, the head of the US Central Command, said in interview on CNN. "There are certainly a lot of facts that we don't know about what goes on inside Iran," he added. The United States and its European allies fear that Tehran intends to acquire a nuclear weapon under the cover of a civilian nuclear program, which Iran denies. But Petraeus noted that to acquire a weapon, Iran must have enough highly enriched uranium, must make a warhead and have long-range missiles capable of delivering them. US intelligence believes Iran halted a secret program to design a nuclear weapon in 2003. On the other hand, the head of Israeli military intelligence, Major General Amos Yadlin, predicted last week that Iran will have the capacity to build a nuclear weapon within a year but is not rushing to produce one. "The Iranian strategy is not to get a nuclear bomb as soon as they can so as not to give the world a reason to act against them," Yadlin told the Israeli parliament.
by Ariel Cohen
Washington (UPI) Mar 30, 2009
The Obama administration may need to decide -- and sooner rather than later -- whether to negotiate with, sanction or attack Iran because of its ongoing programs to develop nuclear weapons and the intercontinental ballistic missiles to carry them.
The efforts of the previous Republican administration of President George W. Bush to restrict the Iranian nuclear program failed because of Russia's and China's resistance and the only half-hearted commitment of the major nations of Western Europe. Therefore, soon the new U.S. government of President Barack Obama will have to decide its next move. Its options will include accepting a nuclear Iran, attempting to present more strenuous deterrence measures or approving a pre-emptive series of air attacks to take out Iran's sprawling nuclear infrastructure.
Unlike Israel, the United States has the capabilities, if not the political will, to launch and then sustain a prolonged bombing campaign against Iranian targets, using Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, Boeing B-1 Lancer and Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit strategic bombers armed with bunker-buster bombs along with Tomahawk air-launched cruise missiles.
Bunker-buster bombs were designed during World War II by British designer Barnes Wallis, who also invented the bouncing bombs: Tallboy, which weighed 5 tons, and the 10-ton Grand Slam "Earthquake."
Modern bunker-busters were developed in the early 1990s as a stopgap measure, using old 8-inch -- 203mm -- artillery barrels as casings. These bombs weighed more than 2 tons but carried only 647 pounds of high explosive. They were laser-guided and designated Guided Bomb Unit-28. They worked very effectively when delivered by old General Dynamics F-111 bombers and Panavia Tornadoes.
Today's bunker-busters, known as BLU-113 Super Penetrators, are capable of going through up to 20 feet -- 6 meters -- of reinforced concrete. But even more powerful weapons may be needed to get to the caves and underground facilities of the Iranian nuclear death machine.
The U.S. intelligence community is now facing the question: How soon could all three elements needed for a deliverable nuclear weapon -- fissile material, a weapon delivery system and a ready nuclear warhead -- come together in Iran?
Sufficient fissile material can be obtained within months, and Iran's recently launched satellite was fired into Earth orbit earlier this year by a multistage rocket with obvious intermediate ballistic missile capability. That launch success demonstrated that the Islamic republic already enjoys a viable long-range delivery system program.
Therefore, one can plausibly judge that at least two of the three elements necessary to fire nuclear weapons at American cities from almost halfway around the world will be within Tehran's reach in the short term.
At the same time, it is likely that an ongoing, covert nuclear-weapons development program -- or illicit technology transfers from collaborators, such as North Korea or Pakistan, or even from Russia, Ukraine or Belarus -- may speed the Iranian warhead effort.
According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, Iran already has one of the largest missile stockpiles in the Middle East, including North Korean-manufactured ballistic missiles Scud-Bs, Scud-Cs, and No-dongs. Iran also received missile-technology assistance from Russia and China, which train its engineers and scientists.
(Ariel Cohen, Ph.D., is a senior research fellow in Russian and Eurasian studies and international energy security at the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute at The Heritage Foundation.)
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Busting_Open_Iranian_Bunkers_And_Silos_999.html
Raytheon Standard Missile-2 Destroys Target
This was the third test of the modified SM-2 Block IV missile against short range ballistic missiles and the latest in a series of tests using the SM-2 Block IIIA. Raytheon is also working with the Missile Defense Agency to develop a far-term, sea-based terminal capability.
by Staff Writers
Point Mugu CA (SPX) Mar 31, 2009
A Raytheon Company Standard Missile-2 Block IV missile intercepted and destroyed a ballistic missile target at the U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division. The SM-2 Block IV engagement demonstrated a near-term, sea-based capability for destroying short-range ballistic missiles in their terminal or final phase of flight.
During the same test, a Raytheon SM-2 Block IIIA missile intercepted and destroyed a low-altitude, anti-ship cruise missile target.
The first-of-its-kind test simultaneously demonstrated an air warfare capability against a low-altitude, anti-ship cruise missile and a ship system engagement capability.
The crew of the guided missile destroyer USS Benfold (DDG-65) fired both SM-2 surface-to-air missiles. The ballistic missile target was launched from San Nicolas Island, Calif., while the anti-ship cruise missile target was launched from Point Mugu.
"These intercepts once again prove SM-2, whatever the mission, is the best option for protecting our warfighters at sea," said Frank Wyatt, Raytheon Missile Systems vice president of Naval Weapon Systems.
"SM-2 Block IV can destroy incoming short-range ballistic missiles through direct impact or by detonating a blast-fragmentation warhead close to the target. SM-2 Block IIIA offers the best advanced fleet protection against all air warfare threats."
This was the third test of the modified SM-2 Block IV missile against short range ballistic missiles and the latest in a series of tests using the SM-2 Block IIIA. Raytheon is also working with the Missile Defense Agency to develop a far-term, sea-based terminal capability.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Raytheon_Standard_Missile_2_Destroys_Target_999.html
NKorea to indict two detained US journalists: state media
"We're aware of reports that early in the morning of March 17, China time, two American citizens were taken into custody across the Tumen river by what appear to be North Korean border guards. We are working with Chinese government officials in that particular area to ascertain the whereabouts and welfare of the Americans in question. We've also been in touch with North Korean officials to express our concern about the situation," said U.S. State Department spokesman, Fred Lash.
by Staff Writers
Seoul (AFP) March 31, 2009
North Korea is preparing to indict two detained US journalists after it accused them of illegally entering the communist country, state media said early Tuesday.
"The illegal entry of US reporters into the DPRK and their suspected hostile acts have been confirmed by evidence and their statements," the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said.
The report said "a competent organ of the DPRK (North Korea)" had investigated the pair.
"The organ is carrying on its investigation and, at the same time, making a preparation for indicting them at a trial on the basis of the already confirmed suspicions," the report said.
The pair, Euna Lee, a Korean-American, and Laura Ling, a Chinese-American, who work for Current TV in California, would be allowed consular access and would be treated according to international law, it added.
They were detained before dawn on March 17 along the border with China.
The KCNA report did not specify what was meant by "hostile acts" and did not say when they might appear in court, but specialists in South Korea have said they could be tried for spying.
This latest declaration over the US pair comes as tensions are running high in the region over Pyongyang's plans to launch what it says is a communications satellite early next month.
Washington and its allies say it is really a disguised missile test.
On Monday, the US said a Swedish envoy acting on behalf of Washington had visited the two journalists.
"It was over the weekend," State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid told reporters. "A representative of the Swedish embassy met with each one individually," he said. He gave out no details as to their condition.
US officials said it was the first time that Sweden, which represents US diplomatic interests in Pyongyang, had been able to gain consular access to the two journalists.
The State Department said last week the North Koreans had assured US officials that the pair would be treated well.
South Korean daily JoongAng Ilbo, quoting a South Korean intelligence source, said the pair had been transported to a top-security guest house on the outskirts of Pyongyang a day after they were seized.
But State Department officials have said they do not know where the pair are being detained.
In a separate case, the North has detained a South Korean at a joint industrial estate in the communist state for allegedly criticising its political system and encouraging a local worker to defect, Seoul said Monday.
North Korea is one of the world's most isolated and impoverished countries. Journalists who want to visit must obtain special visas and are accompanied by official guides.
Few such visits have been allowed in recent years.
Pyongyang has in the past freed Americans it has detained.
In 1996, former US congressman Bill Richardson negotiated the release of US citizen Evan Hunziker, who had been detained for three months on suspicion of spying after swimming the Yalu river.
Richardson, who is now the governor of New Mexico, at the time described Hunziker as a confused young man who had engaged in an "adventuresome frolic apparently under the influence of alcohol."
In 1994, Richardson helped negotiate the release of a US military helicopter pilot shot down after straying into North Korea.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/NKorea_to_indict_two_detained_US_journalists_state_media_999.html
Time to Bailout the Sons of Iraq?
Time to Bailout the Sons of Iraq?
By Greg Grant Tuesday, March 31st, 2009 11:23 am
Posted in International, Policy
Meanwhile back in Iraq, this past weekend saw clashes between Iraqi security forces, U.S. troops and fighters belonging to the Sunni Awakening Council, or “Sons of Iraq,” in U.S. military parlance. Today come reports that the rebellious Sunni militia has been forcibly disarmed and disbanded, the first time that has been done with an Awakenings group, and it will not be allowed to reform.
The former Sunni insurgents turned paid security guards will be “offered an opportunity” to join Iraq’s security forces. Hard to say how genuine those job offers will be, coming from Maliki’s largely Shiite government that has proven reluctant to hire ex-Sunni insurgents. Lack of government jobs has been one of the Awakenings group’s major gripes.
Things in Iraq remain tenuous. As we’ve noted, this past month has seen several high-profile, mass casualty attacks by Sunni insurgents both in Baghdad and up north in and around Mosul. A suicide bombing today in Mosul killed or wounded dozens. A lot of stirrings on the Sunni side of the ledger as U.S. troops pull out of the cities, consolidate on bases and the foreign policy establishment shifts it focus to Afghanistan-Pakistan.
I heard Iraq analyst Stephen Biddle recently say that U.S. troops in Iraq are maintaining what amounts to a nationwide “ceasefire” between the Sunnis and Shia. Absent those troops, the country could easily descend back into civil war. Tom Ricks sees the potential unraveling of the deals struck between the U.S. and the Sunnis that removed tens-of-thousands of fighters from the battlefield and were so instrumental in the drop in violence in Iraq over the past two years.
The key to those deals is that the money must continue flowing. Saddam Hussein co-opted the Sunni tribal leaders by funneling money, land and favors their way, which in turn allowed them to keep their patronage networks alive and well, and thus retain power. During 2007-2008, the U.S. took on the role of funding that tribal patronage system through the Awakening, putting some 100,000 former insurgents on the U.S. payroll. The Iraqi government was supposed to start paying them.
The thing with mercenaries is they really hate it when they don’t get paid. Ricks puts the monthly payroll for the Sons of Iraq at $30 million. That sum doesn’t seem like a huge amount considering Iraq is sitting on enormous oil reserves. But oil is no longer trading at $140 a barrel as it was last year. In a number of conference calls with reporters in recent weeks, military officials have repeatedly pointed to the collapse of oil prices leading to budget shortfalls for the Baghdad government. British Army General Mark Lacey, MNSTC-I deputy commander, put the loss of oil revenues at the top of his list of challenges facing Iraq in 2009.
There are still around 140,000 U.S. troops on the ground in Iraq and Gen. Petraeus and Gen. Odierno are not about to let things spiral out of control there. But if these clashes between the Sunni Awakenings groups and the Baghdad government’s security forces continue, there will likely be delays in the withdrawal timetable, which could then have spillover effects on efforts to boost troop strength and needed intelligence and other high priority assets in Afghanistan.
The Maliki government has hired only a handful of the former Sunni fighters and many complain they aren’t being paid. It may be time to put the Awakenings groups back on the U.S. payroll. It would be the U.S. government’s wisest bailout to date.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/03/31/time-to-bailout-the-sons-of-iraq/
ARH Redux; Kiowa Is It, for Now
ARH Redux; Kiowa Is It, for Now
By Colin Clark Tuesday, March 31st, 2009 2:41 pm
Posted in Land, Policy
The Army, perhaps having absorbed the lessons of Comanche and looking to what we are politely calling the constrained budget environment, has put aside all thoughts of building a new recon helicopter any time soon and will instead upgrade the venerable Kiowa Warrior.
The Army will upgrade the existing fleet so it can meet the mission through 2020, Lt. Gen. Ross Thompson, principal military deputy to the assistant secretary of the Army for acquisitions, logistics and management, told the House Appropriations defense subcommittee Tuesday morning. Instead of proceeding with a new helo program, they will “reinvest that money” in the Kiowa. In the best budget tradition, the Army brass offered no funding numbers since the president’s budget has not been released yet.
The fleet will be upgraded by 2015, Army Brig. Gen. William Crosby (PEO aviation) told the HAC-D. At least 52 aircraft remain to be upgraded, the army brass said. Crosby told the committee that that the service and OSD remain “committed” to the requirement for a manned Armed Scout Helicopter. However, they will do without a new one for a while. He said the Army will perform an analysis of the Kiowa program once the upgrades are done and will then decide “if a new capability is needed” or they should keep upgrading the OH-58s.
The current requirement is for 368 helos and the Army is now short 30 of the OH-58Ds, the Army told the HAC-D. So the service plans to upgrade A and C models currently used by the National Guard, Gen. Thompson said. The service has completed an engineering analysis of what must be done but no details were offered.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/03/31/arh-redux-kiowa-is-it-for-now/
How Pakistan Gets Screwed
March 31, 2009: India is paying Israeli firms several hundred million dollars for components, technology and expertise needed to build an effective anti-ballistic missile system. India has already purchased two Israeli Green Pine anti-missile radars. India is apparently impressed by Israel's Arrow anti-ballistic missile system, which can knock down an incoming warhead when it is about a minute away from hitting a target in Israel.
Israel has two batteries of Arrow missiles, and over a hundred missiles available. An Arrow battery has 4-8 launchers, and each launcher carries a six missiles in containers. The Arrow was developed to knock down Scud type missiles fired from Syria, Saudi Arabia or Iraq. The two ton Arrow is being replaced with the 1.3 ton Arrow II, which can shoot down longer range ballistic missiles fired from Iran.
India cannot buy Arrow without permission from the United States. That is because American firms contributed technology to Arrow, and the United States currently needs to maintain good relations with Pakistan (the Indian neighbor with nuclear weapons who is most likely to use them.) However, Israel can assist India in building its own version of Arrow. India already has developed some good anti-missile technology, so what Israel brings to the table are improvements, and experience.
The anti-missile work is part of a $1.4 billion Indian deal with Israel. However, there are accusations that this sale was facilitated by the payment of a $120 million bribe. This sort of corruption has long plagued Indian arms deals, and the government has been going after those receiving the bribes with increasing success. Yet the shady deals continue.
The Israeli contract calls for partial payments based on the achievement of certain technical goals. India is going to pay for results, and only after the results are verified. Given Pakistan's small arsenal of ballistic missiles, an Indian anti-missile system would seriously cripple the Pakistani nuclear threat. Pakistan is not wealthy enough to get into a nuclear arms race, thus the Israeli-Indian anti-missile program leaves Pakistan screwed.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hticbm/articles/20090331.aspx
Medal Of Honor Politics
March 31, 2009: During the last seven years of combat, only five Medals of Honor (MoH), the highest American award for bravery in combat, have been awarded. A lot more MoHs were awarded in past wars. During World War I, there were 124. During World War II- 440, while Korea had 131 and Vietnam, 244. This has raised the question of whether the military are deliberately holding back from awarding the nations highest medal for bravery in combat. To find the answer, you have to take a look at how the MoH was awarded in past wars.
One way to compare the rate of MoHs awards in different wars is to calculate the number of combat deaths per MoH awarded. After all, it’s in combat, during life and death situations, that actions take place deserving of an MoH. During World War I, one Medal of Honor was awarded for every 432 combat deaths. During World War II, it was one every 629 combat deaths. During Korea it was one for every 257. During Vietnam, it was one medal for every 193 deaths. So far, for Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s one for every thousand deaths. Thus, by this measure, a soldier in Vietnam was nearly five times more likely to receive a MoH. But you’ll note that the rate of awards varies with each war. So there must have been different conditions, or criteria, operating in each war.
For example, take a look at the relationship between the number of awards and casualty rates among the various branches of the service during World War II (where, on average, one MoH was awarded for every 432 combat deaths).
Branch Deaths per MoH Award
ARMY
Air Force 861.0
Artillery 1688.4
Cavalry 594.4
Engineers 1665.5
Infantry 800.4
Medical Corps 1124.0
NAVY
Navy 550.0
Coast Guard 811.0
Marines 368.9
The air force awards mainly went to aircrew. Note that it was more dangerous (you were more likely to be killed) to be in a heavy bomber crew over Europe, than to be in the infantry down below. So it’s no surprise that the air force rate was close to that of the infantry. The artillery troops got fewer awards because most of their deaths came from enemy artillery fire. But when enemy troops got real close to the guns, the artillerymen had an opportunity for MoH level heroics. The Cavalry here was “armored cavalry,” a force that performed dangerous reconnaissance work. Plenty of desperate situations resulted, and many acts of bravery. The engineers were often in a situation like the artillery, just doing their jobs while being fired at by enemy artillery, or machine-guns. Same with the medical corps, although most of the MoHs went to medics attached to combat units. The navy had a high rate because when a ship was hit, very dangerous rescue and damage control work had to be done. The Coast Guard rate was lower because they were more of a patrol, not a combat force. The marines were assault troops, usually sent into very desperate battles, where opportunities for brave acts were more abundant.
But the difference in award rates between different wars was also the result of different criteria, and policies about how many awards would be allowed. Since Korea and Vietnam were unpopular wars, more MoHs were awarded, basically as a morale building measure. Men who would have gotten a Distinguished Service Cross or Silver Star (the second and third highest awards) during World War II, got a higher one during Korea and Vietnam. The system was debased so much during Vietnam that many Silver Stars were for actions that would have warranted no award at all during World War II.
The army, in particular, was not proud of this. So after Vietnam, there was much agitation within the Department of Defense to make the standards matter. Then, during the 1983 invasion of Grenada, there were more awards than people participating. There were no MoHs, but there was a collective agreement among the brass that, for these awards to mean anything, they have to be reserved for exceptional acts. Changes were finally made in how the award standards were applied, especially in the army.
Which brings us back to the current situation. Not only are higher standards being applied in Iraq and Afghanistan, but there have also been some dramatic changes in how combat is conducted. Many people outside the military have not noticed that the casualty rates in the current war are the lowest in modern history. For example, you were three times more likely to get killed or wounded in Vietnam, versus in Iraq (2003-9). Casualty rates are even lower in Afghanistan. This is the result of much better trained troops, better protection (truly bullet proof vests) and more effective weapons and equipment. Smart bombs, UAVs, night vision equipment, personal radios (for each infantryman), computers all over the place. It’s a different kind of war.
Moreover, most of the casualties are from roadside bombs, not what we typically think of as combat. That said, if we were fighting World War II with today's troops and equipment, we probably would have had one MoH for every 800 or so dead. So, even by the fairly strict standards of World War II, there would be about twice as many MoHs during the last five years of fighting. That translates to another five, MoHs. Those guys got Distinguished Service Crosses (DSC) or Silver Stars, and most of them are still alive (all the Iraq/Afghanistan MoHs have been awarded to those killed in combat). If you went over the citations (recap of events) for the DSCs and Silver Stars awarded during the last seven years, you could probably pick out the five additional soldiers or marines who would, under World War II criteria, qualify for a MoH. But if you asked these troops about it, they would probably shrug. That’s because you do the deed to help your buddies, not to win a medal. But that’s another story.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20090331.aspx
im sure Japan is shaking in their boots from that threat
sounds like it was a serious case of miscommunication
its a great idea except for the fact that they would be a terrorists dream come true
we will be long dead before our natural gas runs out
wasnt there an article posted here about subdivisions putting in mini reactors?
i work for Exelon and they have 17 nuke plant across the country. they are making money hand over fist on them. they have them running at 96% capacity, which is unheard of in the nuke industry. at least thats what they tell us
The Dragon in the Phone Line
cyber-phone.jpg
Back in January of this year Alex Allan, Chairman of the British Joint Intelligence Committee, briefed a ministerial committee on the rapidly growing threat of cyber attacks and espionage from China. In that briefing, Allan expressed his growing concern because government departments, the intelligence services and the military were all exposed to the threat from computer and network hardware that came from foreign suppliers -- he specifically mentioned China.
British Telecom's new communications network has been installed by Chinese telecom giant Huawei, which is allegedly funded by Beijing and has links to the People's Liberation Army. The ministerial committee on national security was told that Huawei components that form key parts of BT's new 10 billion pound network might be constructed with compromised hardware that contains malicious elements waiting to be activated by China. The Times Online quoted intelligence officials, as saying, "In case of a war like situation, China could use BT to halt critical services such as communications, power, and water supplies." Security experts supported the intelligence chiefs' concerns and warning. They said if an adversary were able to gain control of the communications equipment, the network's mode of operation could be altered. This would give them the ability to basically turn the network off!
Another real possibility is that traffic could be rerouted to network nodes that are controlled by the attacker. While British Telecom has taken preventive security measures to reduce this risk, the government is said to believe that the enhanced security measures would not be effective against deliberate attack by China. It is widely believed that China is already equipped to make "covert network modifications" or to "compromise equipment in ways that are very hard to detect" and that might later "remotely disrupt or even permanently disable the network." It is unknown if British security experts have hard evidence of network hardware espionage or they are just being cautions.
These words of warning came on the heels of multiple reports of the discovery of a vast cyber espionage network (GhostNet) that is controlled from China which has infiltrated government and private 1,295 computers in 103 countries.
INTEL: The British intelligence services and their military all use the new British Telecom network.
INTEL: A Huawei's head executive is Ren Zhengfei, the former director of an arm of the three million-strong People's Liberation Army who was responsible for telecommunications research.
-- Kevin Coleman
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004769.html
Syria Buying MiG-31s, MiG-29s for $1 billion
30-Mar-2009 11:09 EDT
In June 2007, Russian newspapers claimed that Russia had begun delivering 5 MiG-31E Foxhound aircraft to Syria, under a deal that was reportedly negotiated in autumn 2006. The Russian newspaper Kommersant added that:
”...a lot of MiG-29M/M2 jets was sold to Syria as well. They are being sold abroad for the first time and are similar in their technical specifications to the MiG-35 model Russia is now offering India. The total value of the contract for the MiG-31 and MiG-29M/M2 aircraft is estimated at $1 billion.”
The paper added that the deal is being financed by Iran as a back-door purchase. Russia sort-of denied the sale, but careful reading raised doubts. Now, the head of the DIA appears to confirm the Syrian contracts…
* A Cut-Out Purchase?
* Subsequent Developments [updated]
* Appendix A: The Aircraft [updated]
* Appendix B: Additional Readings & Sources
A Cut-Out Purchase?
GEO_Iran_Flag.gif
Kommersant cites a number of indicators that this may be the case, including a Jane’s report in May 2007 that a similar arrangement has being used to funnel some of Syria’s 36 new Pantsir-S1E air defense systems to Iran in exchange for a fence’s (sorry, “intermediary”) fee. They also cite the 2 countries’ recent mutual defense agreements, including the July 2006 agreement signed by both countries’ defense ministers, which envisaged Iranian financing of Syrian arms deals with Russia, Ukraine and China.
In response, Russian authorities have issued non-denial denials.
Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin said in a statement that ”...all of Russia’s deals in the sphere of military-technical cooperation comply with international law and Russia’s obligations under various treaties and United Nations resolutions.” Since none of those obligation prohibit sales to Syria, this response is utterly meaningless.
Sergei Chemezov, head of state arms-trading monopoly Rosoboronexport, is quoted as saying that “Russia has no plans to deliver fighter jets to Syria and Iran.” Of course, a sale of fighter jets only to Syria would comply with this statement – and if the Syrians choose to send them to Iran, that concerns Syria’s plans and not Russia’s.
Subsequent Developments
AIR_MiG-31_Foxhound.jpg
MiG-31 Foxhound
(click to view full)
March 29/09: The Jerusalem Post reports that Pentagon Defense Intelligence Agency Lt.-Gen. Michael D. Maples provided official confirmation of the sale in his testimony “annual threat assessment” to the US Senate Armed Services Committee:
“With regard to its external defense, Syria’s military remains in a defensive posture and inferior to Israel’s forces, but it is upgrading its missile, rocket, antitank, aircraft and air defense inventories…. Recent Syrian contracts with Russia for future delivery include new MiG-31 and MiG-29M/M2 fighter aircraft.”
Appendix A: The Aircraft
AIR_MiG-29OVT_MAKS_2005.jpg
MiG-29OVT/ MiG-35
(click to view full)
The MiG-31E is reportedly offered on a trade-in basis for countries that have the MiG-25 Foxbat interceptor, a list that currently includes only Syria, Libya, and Kazakhstan.
The big MiG-25 caused quite a sensation in the west when it was first unveiled, and incidents in which the planes were tracked at speeds around Mach 3 added to its mystique. In time, the west would learn that its aerodynamic design and lack of a gun made it vulnerable in dogfights, that flying at speeds over Mach 2.5 had a tendency to melt the plane’s engines, and that its range was extremely short. Ddefector Viktor Belenko, who gave the USA its first look by flying his MiG-25 from Russia to Japan, found that the 1-way flight left his fuel tanks nearly dry.
The MiG-31 made a virtue out of the Foxbat’s vices, turning it into a 2-seat hunter-killer of cruise missiles via extra fuel, improved engines and intakes, in-flight refueling, the ‘Flash Dance’ electronically scanned radar, a retractable refueling probe, and an internal gun. Unlike its predecessor, the MiG-31 is capable of low-level supersonic flight, and can reach Mach 2.8 before its engines begin to melt. It also has communications capabilities that allow its pilot to view the full air battle in a C3I mini-AWACS role, and direct other aircraft like a chess player.
Aeronautics.RU described the MiG-31E variant as:
“Export version of basic Type 01. Prototype (‘903’) first noted 1997; simplified systems, no active jammer, downgraded IFF, radar and DASS. Offered to China, India and other countries.”
These planes could be of some use to Syria in an air defense role. Syria’s air force, which was once reliably on the cutting edge of technology during its Cold War years as a Soviet proxy, has not modernized in over a decade.
Iran’s two air forces (regular and Revolutionary Guard) would find the MiG-31’s style crimped by the absence of air-to-air refueling capabilities, but cruise missile defense is important to them given the likelihood of cruise being used in enemy strikes from Israel or America. MiG-31s could also step into the ‘fighter AWACS’ role that has been played to date by Iran’s dwindling but ingeniously maintained fleet of F-14A Tomcat fighters. This would be only marginally useful against a full American offensive, but could make a big difference to Iran’s ability to cover limited targets – such as an Israeli strike on its nuclear bomb-making facilities.
Readers who really want to understand the MiG-31 are urged to book a flight for themselves.
AIR_MiG-29_German_and_F-16_USAF.jpg
Wir haben euch
ge-pwn-t*
(click to view full)
As for the MiG-29, Syria already flies earlier versions. So does Iran, thanks to the Iraqi Air Force who fled to “safe haven” in Iran during the 1991 Gulf War.
The aircraft has a poor combat record, in part because early variants, that were not fully equipped, were used in scenarios that were extremely lopsided from the outset in all respects.
When used on more even terms, however, German pilots who flew East Germany’s older MiG-29As against NATO F-16s and other jets believed that the planes were nearly unbeatable in short-range dogfights when armed with Russia’s AA-11/R-73 “Archer” short range missiles and helmet-mounted display systems. The fallout from those exercises actually led Germany to quit the ASRAAM program, and begin work on the multinational IRIS-T short-range missile instead. It also led to helmet-mounted sights becoming standard equipment on most modern combat aircraft around the world.
The MiG-29A’s biggest weaknesses were short range, engines that produce telltale smoke (very bad in air combat) and lack of true multi-role capability. Its other weakness is Russian spare parts support; India found that the long turnaround times led to terrible readiness rates, with a large portion of its MiG-29A fleet grounded at any given time. In response, they have taken steps that include licensed local engine production.
The MiG-29M/M2 uses welded lithium-aluminum alloys to save weight, while adding extra fuel in a new aircraft “spine” down the back and in the spaces once occupied by the auxiliary air intakes. This is coupled with improved engines, and redesigned horizontal tailplanes that improve maneuvering performance. A new radar and avionics package improves air-air performance, broadens its available arsenal, and adds ground-attack capability, making it a true multi-role aircraft.
The MiG-29OVT, aka. MiG-35, adds further upgrades to the radar and avionics package, and offers multi-directional thrust-vectoring engines for an additional super-maneuverability edge close-in.
In a situation where neither side had external advantages, when flown by pilots of comparable skill, and armed with similar missiles, it is likely that a true MiG-35 would be at least an even adversary for any Israeli opponent, and any American aircraft other than the F-22A.
Of course, war isn’t about even odds. War is about finding the most unbalancing things available, and doing them as quickly as possible. The use of true AWACS aircraft, electronic jamming, better radars, better missiles, and pilot skill differences would all combine to ensure that any fight involving Israel vs. Syria or Iran vs. the USA would be anything but even. Syria’s MiG-25s, MiG-23s, and MiG-21s experienced that first hand in 1982, when they were massacred 80 to 0 over Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/syria-buying-mig31s-mig35s-for-1-billion-03391/#more-3391
A Real Tosser
March 30, 2009: The concept of tossing small combat robots into a room, and letting them broadcast back video of what's there, have never worked out. Partly because the small robots never got small enough to toss, or robust enough to work once they landed. That problem has now been solved with the development of the Recon Scout IR, a small (7.4 inch/18.6cm) wide device weighing 1.2 pounds/.54 kg) robot. It's basically two wheels with a thick axel containing a battery and electronics. The infrared camera can see about 25 feet (8 meters), while the day cam can see much farther. The Recon Scout IR can transmit its images 30 meters from inside a building, and three times that outside. It moves at a speed of about one foot (.3m) per second, and can survive being dropped about nine meters onto a hard surface. The controller weighs less than two pounds and has a 3.5 inch, 640x480 pixel screen. The Recon Scout IR is maneuvered using video game like controls.
To use the Recon Scout IR, you attach two antennae to the device, pull a pin to activate it, and then throw. The controller starts receiving transmissions as soon as the pin is pulled. Battery life depends on how much you move the device around, but it's good for 10-15 minutes of movement, more than enough to check out a large area before sending the troops in.
The Recon Scout IR sells mainly to law enforcement (SWAT teams in particular), but some military Special Operations organizations have bought it as well. Recon Scout IR systems cost about $8,000.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20090330.aspx
Collecting Blood Debts
March 30, 2009: To no one's surprise, as responsibility for the 84,000 Sunni Arab militiamen (the anti-terrorist "Sons of Iraq" or "Awakening Councils") was shifted from the U.S. military to the Iraqi government, the Sunni Arab gunmen lost their benefits. These goodies included regular pay (about $300 a month) and immunity from arrest by the Shia dominated security forces (for past atrocities). The Iraqi government promised the Sunni Arab gunmen that they would get jobs, either in the security forces or civilian ones. That did not happen for 80 percent of the Sunni gunmen. The government is dominated by the Kurdish and Shia Arab majority (about 85 percent of the population), which hates the Sunni Arabs and would rather kill than coddle them. Most foreigners don't appreciate the depth of this hatred. Worse, the Kurds and Shia Arabs would welcome another violent showdown with the Sunni Arabs, because the next time, it's generally believed that the Sunni Arabs would lose, and be driven from the country.
The dispute (over who controls 20-30 percent of Iraq's oil production) between the government and the Kurds up around Kirkuk is unresolved and keeps moving towards an attempt to use violence to resolve it. The Kurds are better fighters (better trained, led and disciplined), but are outnumbered by the government (Shia Arab) forces. In this area, the local Sunni Arab gangs and militias will work with the Shia Arabs against a common foe (the Kurds, who are not Arabs, but ethnically related to Iranians and Europeans.) A likely outcome of a fight would be a bloody stalemate, although the Kurds have a shot at short term success.
Syria, which has been a police state, with carefully controlled borders, for decades, and has finally agreed to control the movement of Islamic terrorists and anti-Iraqi groups from Syria into Iraq. Since 2003, at the behest of Iran, and generous Iraqi Baath Party members (who fled when the Americans arrived), Syria has allowed itself to be used as a base for Islamic terrorists operating in Iraq. But now Iraqi security forces have become powerful enough to guard the border, and make it possible for Iraq to host groups trying to overthrow the Syrian government. The booming economy in Iraq also provides Syria with lucrative business opportunities. And then there is the threat from the United States, to control their border, or else. So Syria decided to do what a police state does best, control who or what crosses its borders.
The terrorist violence in Iraq has fallen to its lowest level since 2003. Actually, if you go by body count, it's lower than it has been in decades. During Saddam's rule, the Sunni Arab security forces and (government controlled) street thugs, killed people individually, rather than with bombs. There have only been six bombings this month, whereas during Saddam's time, there would be hundreds of murders by the security forces in a month, none of them reported in the local or international press. But the families of these dead remember.
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20090330.aspx
Ghost Net
March 30, 2009: Nearly a year ago, the Dali Lama asked computer security experts to examine whether his computers, and those of organizations that support freedom for Tibet (which the Dali Lama is the exiled spiritual leader of). Soon, more experts at the University of Toronto were also called in, and after ten months of carefully examining thousands of PCs, it was discovered that 1,200 computers belonging to anti-Chinese Tibet groups, and other governments they were in communication with, had been infected with a hidden computer program (a virus inserted by hackers) that gave control of the computers to someone, or some group, in China. The security experts dubbed the clandestine hackers effort, Ghost Net. The University of Toronto team did not accuse the Chinese government of being behind this Cyber War operation, although they did find evidence of the Chinese government taking advantage of information gathered by Ghost Net. Some at the University of Toronto speculated this might actually be a CIA operation, to try and discredit China.
When confronted with all this evidence, the Chinese government denied any knowledge of it. Computer security researchers at Cambridge University in Britain, who participated in the investigation, do accuse China of being responsible for Ghost Net.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20090330.aspx
Egypt Legalizes Corruption
March 30, 2009: The Egyptian parliament passed a law allowing the president to buy military equipment and weapons for the next three years, without making details of the deals public, or even reporting them to parliament. The justification for this was the need for secrecy while making certain types of purchases. Exactly what types of purchases the government was considering was not revealed. It's a secret.
Now there are two types of military purchases that would be made easier because of this new law. The most obvious ones are corrupt purchases, with lots of payoffs and exorbitant prices. This, however, is risky, as the law expires in three years, and Egypt is already pretty corrupt. Government officials don't need a special law to help them steal. They do very well without it.
The other type of military purchase that would benefit from this law would be those items needed to build a nuclear weapon. Were such a project to be made public knowledge, the international community would go nuts and, worse for Egypt, much foreign aid would be halted.
Can you think of any other reason for a secrecy law like this?
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20090330.aspx
not a good idea leaving a loaded weapon unsupervised, but im surprised someone else would jump on yours and try firing it.
it was really getting to me for the day and a half it was happening. it almost got a boot. lol
works for me! really well for me in fact. lol
since i downloaded the program from logitech, the problem slowly went away. i never used the disc to download the stuff on it.
the weird thing is i plugged in the hardwired mouse and the problem was worse, but like i said everything is working fine now.
GM CEO Wagoner to step down at White House request
AP
By TOM KRISHER and KEN THOMAS, Associated Press Writers Tom Krisher And Ken Thomas, Associated Press Writers – 38 mins ago
DETROIT – General Motors Corp. Chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner will step down immediately at the request of the White House, administration officials said Sunday. The news comes as President Obama prepares to unveil additional restructuring efforts designed to save the domestic auto industry.
The officials asked not to be identified because details of the restructuring plan have not yet been made public. On Monday, Obama is to announce measures to restructure GM and Chrysler LLC in exchange for additional government loans. The companies have been living on $17.4 billion in government aid and have requested $21.6 billion more.
Wagoner's departure indicates that more management changes may be part of the deal, but it is still unclear who will be put in charge of GM. The automaker recently promoted Fritz Henderson, its former chief financial officer, to become president and chief operating officer. Many in the company thought he would eventually succeed Wagoner.
Detroit-based GM issued a statement Sunday saying only that the company expects a decision by the administration soon but that "it would not be appropriate for us to speculate on the content of any announcement."
A person familiar with Chrysler's management said the company has been given no indication that the government will require any changes at the Auburn Hills, Mich., company, which has been led by former Home Depot chief Robert Nardelli since August 2007. The person also spoke on condition of anonymity because Obama's plan has not been made public.
Wagoner, 56, has repeatedly said he felt it was better for the company if he led it through the crisis, but he has faced sharp criticism on Capitol Hill for what many lawmakers regard as years of missteps, mistakes and arrogance by the Big Three automakers.
Wagoner joined GM in 1977, serving in several capacities in the U.S., Brazil and Europe. He became president and chief executive in 2000 and has served as chairman and CEO since May 2003.
Obama said Sunday that GM and Chrysler and all those with a stake in their survival need to take more hard steps to help the struggling automakers restructure for the future. In an interview with CBS' "Face the Nation" broadcast Sunday, Obama said the companies must do more to receive additional financial aid from the government.
"They're not there yet," he said.
A person familiar with Obama's plans said last week they would go deeper than what the Bush administration demanded when it approved the initial loans last year.
Wagoner, in an interview with The Associated Press in December, had declined to speculate on suggestions from some members of Congress that GM's leadership team should step down as part of any rescue package.
"I'm doing what I do because it adds a lot of value to the company," Wagoner said in a Dec. 4 interview as GM sought federal aid from the Bush administration. "It's not clear to me that experience in this industry should be viewed as a negative but I'm going to do what's right for the company and I'll do it in consultation with the (GM) board (of directors)."
Wagoner has been credited by auto industry analysts with doing more to restructure the giant bureaucratic automaker than any other executive. But given that he has been at GM's helm for so long, many of his critics say he moved far too slowly to take on the United Auto Workers and shrink the company as its market share tumbled.
While GM has improved its cars in the last two years, critics say the company relied for too long on sales of pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles for its profits and was unprepared for a drastic market shift when gasoline prices hit $4 per gallon last year.
During the Congressional debate over whether to give GM and Chrysler loans last year, many lawmakers criticized Wagoner, including Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Banking Committee.
He accused automakers' top management of having a "head-in-the-sand" approach to problems and said Wagoner "has to move on" as part of a government-run restructuring that should be a condition of financial life support for the auto industry.
David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich., said Sunday that Wagoner's departure gives the government a rationale to provide additional aid to the automaker. He was not surprised by the move, but said he is disappointed because he considers Wagoner a capable leader.
"I think that as a condition for further government support, this helps give them a little cover with the public," Cole said. "Essentially he's taking one for the team."
Cole noted that other automakers have been shaking up management as well. He pointed to Toyota Motor Corp., whose president, Katsuaki Watanabe, recently said he would be stepping down as the Japanese automaker weathers financial difficulty. Also, France's biggest carmaker, PSA Peugeot-Citroen, abruptly ousted CEO Christian Streiff on Sunday, saying "exceptional difficulties" confronting the auto industry require new management at the top.
Cole said Nardelli's departure is less likely than Wagoner's because Nardelli is "relatively new" to the automaker, with less than two years at the helm.
Many GM executives likely will be disappointed at Wagoner's departure, Cole said.
"They had great affection for Rick — someone that's fair, that acts like a coach, that holds people's feet to the fire but has a good understanding of human behavior," Cole said.
GM and Chrysler were required by the Bush administration to get major concessions from debtholders and the United Auto Workers, with a deadline of March 31 for signed contracts. But very little headway was being made with either party this weekend as they awaited Obama's announcement.
Members of Obama's auto task force have said bankruptcy could still be an option for GM and Chrysler if their management, workers, creditors and shareholders failed to make sacrifices. Both companies are trying to reduce their debt by two-thirds and convince the United Auto Workers union to accept shares of stock in exchange for half of the payments into a union-run trust fund for retiree health care costs. The deals also call for executive pay cuts and labor costs that are competitive with Japanese automakers with U.S. operations.
Bondholders have been reluctant to accept the cuts, saying they're being required to sacrifice more than others, but they have been reviewing a recent offer by GM. The union has agreed to other terms of the loans, including work rule changes and reducing total hourly labor costs at U.S factories to a level comparable with Japanese automakers.
___
Associated Press Writer Ken Thomas reported from Washington, D.C. AP Auto Writer Dan Strumpf contributed from New York.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/gm_wagoner
i thought that was the problem. tried every battery in the house and then went and bought rechargeable ones. so the batteries are good. and the logitech icon on the bottom right shows they are good
im having problems with my mouse freezing up. i went to logitech and downloaded what it said to download but it is still freezing.
anything else i can do to try and fix it? its only 6 months old and wireless
Report: Support unit for SF groups is lacking
By Sean D. Naylor - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Mar 28, 2009 8:53:45 EDT
A report by an experienced Special Forces officer highlights glaring shortages in special operations support personnel and warns that in some cases, “the train wreck is underway.”
Among the problems are maintenance support for Strykers fielded to the Rangers and property book personnel who are “overwhelmed.”
The report, titled “The Future of Special Operations Forces,” was written by Roger Carstens, who retired in February 2008 as a lieutenant colonel and spent most of the next year conducting research for the report as a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.
The report is based on interviews and briefings Carstens conducted while visiting U.S. special ops units around the world.
“Special Forces groups, sadly, do not have a robust support unit — a common theme that arises when talking to special operators from Fort Bragg, to Afghanistan, to Iraq,” he writes.
Carstens compares the group support battalion created to sustain a Special Forces group with its conventional Army counterpart, the brigade support battalion. “The difference: the BSBs were well-designed and manned at 90 percent,” he writes. “GSBs were designed on the cheap and then manned at 50 percent.”
The 56-page report by Carstens, who testified before the House Armed Services Committee’s terrorism, unconventional threats and capabilities subcommittee March 3, quotes an unnamed group support battalion officer interviewed in September in Bagram, Afghanistan.
“Bottom line: There was little to no analysis done on ‘what is the requirement,’ ” the officer says. “… My thought is that [U.S. Army Special Operations Command] would not give up personnel growth to non-trigger pullers, and so we got shorted in the support side of the house.”
Another GSB officer in Bagram is quoted as saying that “the rest of the Army is growing its logistics support elements; SOCOM is reducing.”
Although each of the five active-duty Special Forces groups is increasing in size from three SF battalions to four, the group support battalions each have only three companies, “a number that seems suboptimal,” Carstens writes. “The general thought expressed is that the GSBs need to grow to four companies, so that a company could train and deploy with a Special Forces battalion, building a habitual relationship between the supported and the supporting.”
“We are fully 10 years behind the Army,” Carstens quotes a GSB officer as saying. “The Army gets it right. We should rotate support elements every trip and those same supporting elements should align themselves with deploying units.”
Even the 75th Ranger Regiment, one of the Army’s highest-priority units, is suffering, wrote Carstens, who states that Rangers are getting 54 Stryker vehicles “but will not receive the motor pool and mechanics needed to maintain the vehicles.”
Asked whether this was true, U.S. Army Special Operations Command replied with the following statement: “The 75th Ranger Regiment maintains a robust Stryker capability to include support and maintenance that provides them with the protective mobility necessary to operate effectively in combat operations.”
Carstens also keyed on one often overlooked community: property book officers and noncommissioned officers who must track a unit’s nonexpendable items.
“[P]roperty book professionals are in short supply and overwhelmed,” Carstens writes. “Units outfitted for garrison management of property are now responsible for property books at home station, Afghanistan and combat outposts. With massive amounts of equipment being given to [special operations forces] and being registered on classified and unclassified property books, the train wreck is underway.”
Army Special Forces Command responded to detailed questions from Army Times with a statement:
“[Army special operations forces] sustainment is unquestionably challenging for several reasons, which includes [sic] aspects of force structure. It is also contextually important to appreciate that ARSOF operates in a very distributed fashion throughout entire countries vice a specific operational area. Couple that with the unique manning and equipping of our Special Forces groups and it leads to our force being stressed to meet the enduring demands of our operational missions.
“Some of the force structure inadequacies are long-standing and in need of modification (e.g., the property book and supply NCO situation),” the statement said. “We recognize that there is a need to improve our support structures and capabilities and we are committed to doing so.”
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/03/army_sfsupport_032809w/
ISR blimp would fly for 10 years uninterrupted
By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Mar 28, 2009 8:42:19 EDT
A blimp that hovers at 65,000 feet and stays aloft for a decade is what the Air Force hopes within five years will revolutionize its intelligence gathering.
Early estimates put the price at $400 million, according to the service’s chief scientist, Werner J.A. Dahm, who is overseeing the project.
The 450-foot-long airship would be a “potentially game-changing” addition to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities because of its 10-year flight time and a radar unit so massive it wouldn’t fit into any aircraft now in the service’s fleet, Dahm said.
“It would allow us to observe remarkably fine details over very long periods,” he said. “That lets us better understand how an adversary operates, how to anticipate their actions, how to interpret their intent, and many other things that we need today, tomorrow and beyond.”
The radar would track coalition and enemy movements on land, sea and air, advancing the capabilities provided by satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles, such as the Predator and the Reaper.
UAVs maintain a presence over the battlefield by cycling in and out of orbits; the blimp, too, would have that “unblinking eye” but without the support of launching and landing aircraft that the unending orbits demand, Dahm said.
The Defense Advance Research Projects Agency, the military’s research arm, has been developing the aircraft since 2004. Work will start this year on the Integrated Sensor Is the Structure, or ISIS, a scaled-down version designed to fly a year without landing.
To keep the blimp in the air 10 years, scientists and engineers have had to design a hull that can withstand the elements at 65,000 feet, including a temperature of 130 degrees below zero, and produce a power source that can regenerate energy.
“We think we have the solutions to meet those technical challenges, and ISIS will let us try to put them all together into a complete functioning system,” Dahm said.
The hull material now can withstand a low of 150 degrees below zero and retain 85 percent of its fiber strength for 22 years, according to a DARPA presentation. Fuel cells recharged by the sun, instead of batteries, will power the blimp.
Lift will come from helium; the craft would have a sustained airspeed of 60 knots and a sprint speed of 100 knots, DARPA said.
Still, Dahm cautions, more work needs to be done. For example, the researchers still need to ensure the blimp can defend itself. Flying at 65,000 feet, the aircraft won’t be vulnerable to many enemy anti-aircraft systems but will be susceptible to “missiles and other threats,” Dahm said. “We need to assess if the technologies needed to make such systems possible are ready, and we need to learn how to effectively integrate those technologies into practical systems,” he said.
Right now, blimps with cameras are tethered above bases in Iraq and Afghanistan to provide security. The blimp in development, though, won’t be like any the military has ever used, Dahm said.
“We’ve never put a radar this large into a blimp before, and we’ve never tried to keep a blimp aloft continuously for years at these altitudes,” he said. “So, while it is a blimp, what we are doing in this joint DARPA/Air Force effort really is something absolutely revolutionary.”
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/03/airforce_blimp_032809/
No Ospreys, for now, to Afghanistan
By Dan Lamothe - Staff writer
Posted : Saturday Mar 28, 2009 9:13:27 EDT
Commandant Gen. James Conway says the MV-22 Osprey, with its speed and nimbleness, is “made for Afghanistan.”
But as about 8,000 Marines prepare for a deployment there with the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade, the Corps’ premier medium-lift aircraft isn’t going with them.
“It is unlikely that we’d have any Osprey squadrons to put into Afghanistan for a while,” said Maj. Eric Dent, a spokesman at Marine Corps headquarters. “Maybe later this year.”
Instead, the Corps will send two CH-53 helicopter squadrons to Afghanistan as part of the brigade’s aviation assets. Marine Heavy Helicopter Squadron 772, based at Naval Air Station Willow Grove, Pa., will deploy with three-engine CH-53E Super Stallions, handling the MEB’s heavy-lift operations. The second squadron — HMH-362 from Marine Corps Air Facility Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii — will deploy with dual-engine CH-53D Sea Stallions handling medium-lift needs, which typically include medical evacuations and troop transportation.
The double-barreled CH-53 plan was adopted for several reasons, officials said. First, both variants of the CH-53 offer superior capabilities to the aging CH-46 Sea Knight, which struggles with high elevations. Additionally, the CH-53 squadrons tapped for duty have had ample dwell time and — perhaps most importantly — there is no Osprey squadron readily available.
Playing catch-up
Had the Corps been able to maintain its original production schedule for the Osprey, none of these decisions likely would be necessary. But with a checkered history that includes at least three fatal Osprey crashes preceding the aircraft’s recent success, the Corps is still standing up MV-22 squadrons as the aircraft become available.
Currently, there are three fully operational Osprey squadrons, all based at Marine Corps Air Station New River, N.C. Two are otherwise committed, with Marine Tiltrotor Squadron 263 working up to become the first Osprey squadron to deploy with a Marine Expeditionary Unit this spring and VMM-266 nearing the end of a seven-month deployment to Iraq.
That leaves only the third fully operational squadron, VMM-162, which has been home from Iraq for about six months, and one nearly operational squadron, VMM-261, which transitioned from the CH-46 helicopter to the MV-22 less than a year ago.
A fifth squadron, New River-based VMM-365, transitioned to the tiltrotor aircraft in January, but is still in the early stages of adding aircraft and manpower, Dent said.
In recent weeks, Marines with VMM-263 (reinforced) have been operating off the coast of North Carolina from the amphibious assault ship Bataan, training in anticipation of leaving this spring with the 22nd MEU. The unit expects to be assigned as the theater reserve force for European Command and Central Command, but could receive other tasks, said Capt. Clark Carpenter, a MEU spokesman.
VMM-261 anticipates that it will be the following Osprey squadron to deploy, most likely in the fall, said Capt. David Brooker, a squadron spokesman. Marine officials would not say where the squadron is likely to deploy, but it is gearing up for a series of qualifications and training, including a monthlong exercise in El Centro, Calif., in April and May.
“There are a certain number of wickets we need to hit in terms of the number of pilots and the training qualifications that those pilots have,” Brooker said. “We’re still getting new pilots out of the pipeline.”
That hasn’t stopped Commandant Gen. James Conway from talking up the possibility of sending the Osprey to Afghanistan. In a meeting in Washington with reporters in late January, Conway said that “our venerable, old CH-46s have really started to come up against their match in Afghanistan” and that the MV-22 would offer more speed, range and maneuverability.
“I really think that if we see the numbers of Marines that we suspect in Afghanistan before the end of the year, you’ll also see at least one Osprey squadron there, as well,” Conway said.
Conway also said that by the time the Osprey deploys to Afghanistan, an all-quadrant 7.62mm Gatling gun will be ready for deployment. The Corps has been working with Special Operations Command to install the gun on seven Air Force Special Operations Command CV-22s, which are going through testing and qualification runs at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. Once the gun is qualified, the Corps will determine how best to deploy it on the MV-22, Dent said.
Marines with the Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force in Afghanistan currently receive helicopter support from AH-1W Super Cobras with New River-based Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 167 and CH-53Es with HMH-466, of Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, Calif., said 2nd Lt. Josh Diddams, a spokesman at Marine Corps headquarters. Conway said when he visited Afghanistan in August, he saw CH-46s carrying just five or six combat-loaded Marines.
The SPMAGTF does not currently deploy any medium lift assets, said 1st Lt. Stewart Coles, a Marine spokesman in Afghanistan.
“Our air combat element’s heavy lift aviation assets are capable of handling all of our rotary-wing lift tasks,” Coles said. “Medevacs are coordinated through a specialized system that draws on assets from throughout NATO’s International Security Assistance Force and other coalition partners.”
New River-based HMLA-167 took over for HMLA-269 on Feb. 21, Coles said. Miramar-based HMH-361 replaced HMH-466 in the SPMAGTF on March 15.
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/03/marine_osprey_afghanistan_032809w/
Sudan says no proof for now Israel behind raids
by Staff Writers
Khartoum (AFP) March 27, 2009
Sudan is investigating the possibility that Israel was behind deadly air strikes this year against suspected Gaza-bound arms convoys, but so far it has found no proof, a government official said.
Foreign ministry spokesman Ali Sadiq said there were two separate bombing raids against smugglers in a remote desert area near the Red Sea town of Port Sudan in January and February, killing about 40 people.
"First we suspected it was the United States, but we received assurances it was not them, and we are investigating other possibilities, including Israel," Sadiq told AFP. "But there is no indication for now that it was Israel."
He said Sudan condemns "any aggression against national sovereignty" and at the same time denounces smuggling in its territory.
State transport minister Mabruk Mubarak Saleem had said on Thursday that foreign warplanes raided a convoy of weapons headed for the Islamist Hamas-run Gaza Strip in mid-January.
The New York Times, citing unnamed US officials, reported on Friday that Israeli warplanes were behind the attack.
Two American officials who are privy to classified intelligence assessments added that Iran had been involved in the effort to smuggle weapons to Gaza, the newspaper reported.
Hamas on Friday denied that the alleged weapons convoys were destined for the Islamist Palestinian movement.
"First of all we are not sure any convoy has been hit, but it is ironic to link these convoys to Hamas," one of the movement's leaders, Salah al-Bardawil, told AFP.
"Should it turn out that there were raids and a high number of people killed, this would mean Israel is seeking to use the opportunity to blame Hamas and hit Sudan," he said.
The fact that the Gaza Strip is not a neighbour of Sudan, with Egypt in between, "shows these are false claims," he added.
An Israeli military spokesman has refused to confirm or deny involvement, saying only: "We are not in the habit of reacting to this sort of report."
Israel fought a devastating 22-day war with Hamas, the Islamist movement that rules Gaza, in December and January, and has vowed to stop the flow of weapons into the Palestinian enclave.
"We operate in many places near and far, and carry out strikes in a manner that strengthens our deterrence," Israel's outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said after reports of the bombing raids emerged.
"We operate anywhere we can target terror infrastructure. There is no point in going into details, anyone can use his imagination."
The New York Times said intelligence analysts noted that the strike on Sudan was consistent with other measures Israel had taken to secure its borders.
The pan-Arab newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat quoted Sudanese officials on Friday as saying the convoys were transporting Eritrean migrants.
News of the alleged raids surfaced as Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir flouted an international arrest warrant against him by going on a series of foreign trips.
Beshir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes in the troubled Darfur province, met Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi in Tripoli on Thursday, following visits to Eritrea and Egypt earlier in the week.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Sudan_says_no_proof_for_now_Israel_behind_raids_999.html
China aviation giant spins off defence branch: report
by Staff Writers
Beijing (AFP) March 27, 2009
China's largest aircraft maker has spun off a 7.3 billion dollar independent defence manufacturing branch that will seek to produce top military hardware for global markets, state media said Friday.
The Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) established the aviation defence branch office Thursday in Beijing to separate the plane manufacturer's civilian and defence operations, Xinhua news agency said.
The new branch will take over most of AVIC's defence business and oversee 10 assembly plants and research institutes which have combined assets of 50 billion yuan (7.3 billion dollars), the report said.
"We are trying to become a world leading defence products supplier by expanding our overseas market for export," the report quoted Wang Yawei, general manager of the defence branch, as saying.
Building combat aircraft, including China's homemade third generation fighter jet the J-10, will remain a core task for the branch, it said.
Xinhua did not give a formal name for the defence branch, which will also continue to manufacture AVIC's L-15 Falcon, a supersonic training aircraft, and the FC-1 Fierce Dragon, a light-weight multipurpose fighter, for export.
In November 2008, the Chinese government formed AVIC by merging the nation's two largest airplane manufacturers in an effort to establish an aviation giant.
AVIC owns 22 listed companies in China, Xinhua said.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/China_aviation_giant_spins_off_defence_branch_report_999.html
first article i have read the says the J-10 is a 3rd generation fighter, most say it is comparable to the F-16 that it is a copy of.