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.
without worry about the time involved, do you think an orbital would be better for a hardwood floor also?
not interested in renting a floor sander, unless it would be more economical
Bill seeks to protect gun ownership for vets
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Mar 24, 2009 13:16:01 EDT
Sens. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Jim Webb, D-Va., have joined forces to try to prevent veterans from losing the right to own a gun if a fiduciary is appointed to handle their finances.
Burr and Webb, both members of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, are trying to carve out a loophole for veterans in the Federal Gun Control Act that prohibits the sale of firearms to people who are, in the words of the law, “adjudicated as a mental defective.”
According to Burr, the names of about 116,000 veterans have been turned over to the FBI since 1999 because the Veterans Affairs Department assigned a fiduciary to manage their benefits. That is not the same thing as being a danger to themselves or others, Burr said in a statement included in Monday’s Congressional Record when he introduced a bill, S 669, to prevent the VA from reporting the names of veteran to the FBI.
“VA focuses on whether or not benefits paid by VA will be spent in the manner in which they were intended,” Burr said. “Nothing involved with VA’s appointment of a fiduciary even gets at the question of whether an individual is a danger to themselves or others, or whether the person should own a firearm.”
The bill, the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, was referred to the veterans committee for consideration.
Veterans are not the only ones affected, he said. A surviving spouse or child of a veteran might also have a fiduciary appointed if VA is concerned about their financial responsibility. In the case of a child, their name could be permanently on the list unless they petition for its removal, he said. “This makes no sense.”
Burr said the law is unfair because while the names of veterans and people receiving veterans benefits are reported to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System used by gun shop owners to screen buyers, the Social Security Administration is not required to turn over the names of any Social Security recipients who have someone appointed to handle their finances.
Burr said he isn’t trying to put guns in the hands of dangerous people but wants veterans treated fairly.
Webb is the only Democratic cosponsor of the bill, which has 14 Republican cosponsors. The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars and other major veterans groups support the bill.
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/03/military_veterans_gunownership_032409p/
Bill seeks to protect gun ownership for vets
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Mar 24, 2009 13:16:01 EDT
Sens. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Jim Webb, D-Va., have joined forces to try to prevent veterans from losing the right to own a gun if a fiduciary is appointed to handle their finances.
Burr and Webb, both members of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, are trying to carve out a loophole for veterans in the Federal Gun Control Act that prohibits the sale of firearms to people who are, in the words of the law, “adjudicated as a mental defective.”
According to Burr, the names of about 116,000 veterans have been turned over to the FBI since 1999 because the Veterans Affairs Department assigned a fiduciary to manage their benefits. That is not the same thing as being a danger to themselves or others, Burr said in a statement included in Monday’s Congressional Record when he introduced a bill, S 669, to prevent the VA from reporting the names of veteran to the FBI.
“VA focuses on whether or not benefits paid by VA will be spent in the manner in which they were intended,” Burr said. “Nothing involved with VA’s appointment of a fiduciary even gets at the question of whether an individual is a danger to themselves or others, or whether the person should own a firearm.”
The bill, the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, was referred to the veterans committee for consideration.
Veterans are not the only ones affected, he said. A surviving spouse or child of a veteran might also have a fiduciary appointed if VA is concerned about their financial responsibility. In the case of a child, their name could be permanently on the list unless they petition for its removal, he said. “This makes no sense.”
Burr said the law is unfair because while the names of veterans and people receiving veterans benefits are reported to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System used by gun shop owners to screen buyers, the Social Security Administration is not required to turn over the names of any Social Security recipients who have someone appointed to handle their finances.
Burr said he isn’t trying to put guns in the hands of dangerous people but wants veterans treated fairly.
Webb is the only Democratic cosponsor of the bill, which has 14 Republican cosponsors. The American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars and other major veterans groups support the bill.
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/03/military_veterans_gunownership_032409p/
Boeing Begins Work On DARPA DiscRotor
Mar 23, 2009
By Graham Warwick
Boeing has kicked off work under a 30-month U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency program to study a high-speed rotorcraft design called the DiscRotor.
The concept promises helicopter-like hover efficiency, but speeds in excess of 350 knots in fixed-wing mode. This compares with 150 knots for a typical helicopter and 250-300 knots for a tiltrotor.
The DiscRotor would takeoff and land like a helicopter, slowing the rotor and retracting the blades into the disc as it accelerates, until it morphs into a swept-wing aircraft powered by ducted fans.
DARPA program manager Phil Hunt says the DiscRotor’s combination of high speed for ingress and egress and good high-altitude hover performance would fit the combat search-and-rescue role. The initial concept has a UH-60 Black Hawk-size fuselage.
The 30-month effort is aimed at validating the capabilities of the DiscRotor rather than defining a flight demonstrator configuration. Hunt believes too early a focus on designing the demonstrator caused problems in previous programs, including Boeing’s X-50 “Dragonfly” Canard Rotor Wing — another concept that sought to combine vertical takeoff and landing capability with fixed-wing speed. The X-50 was abandoned after crashes ruined both flight prototypes.
Under the DiscRotor program, the Boeing-led team will build a small-scale model of the aircraft for wind tunnel testing to determine lift-to-drag ratio and stability, and a small model of the rotor system to investigate transition between rotary-wing and fixed-wing modes.
Boeing will also design and build a larger retractable-rotor test rig that will be installed in a 20-foot wind tunnel later in the program. Lightweight airframe and transmission technologies will also be investigated.
Once the study is complete, Hunt says, DARPA will decide whether the results are promising enough to proceed to a flight demonstrator, at which point the agency plans to reopen to program to competition.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/CONVERT032309.xml&headline=Boeing%20Begins%20Work%20On%20DARPA%20DiscRotor
Why The F-22 Is Vital Part Six
disclaimer: image is for illustration purposes only
by Rebecca Grant
Washington (UPI) Mar 20, 2009
For some nations that are adversaries of the United States, the solution to the challenge of neutralizing U.S. intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems is near at hand. Positioning of advanced surface-to-air missiles along border regions can put all current unmanned ISR platforms at risk of being unable to survey crisis areas.
Russia's actions in the former Soviet republic of Georgia in August 2008 lasted briefly, but they were enough to create a prototype lockout scenario.
The Russian Northern Caucasus military district had nearly 300 fighter aircraft: 105 Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29s, 30 Sukhoi Su-24s, 59 Sukhoi Su-27s and 100 Sukhoi Su-25s. Add in the now common SA-20 surface-to-air missile with its fire-control range of 75 miles, and it would have been possible to layer enough air defenses to make reconnaissance nearly impossible. Even the high-flying Global Hawk might not be able to evade top-line Russian air defenses every time.
An airborne intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance lockout over Iran would put the United States and the international community in a very uncomfortable position. One potential solution is deployment of the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor to signal the potential to hold surface-to-air missile systems at risk.
Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance lockout is also imminent over Iran. Reports from summer 2008 suggested that the Islamic Republic of Iran was awaiting delivery of the SA-20, and could have operational systems by the end of 2009. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates remarked on July 9, 2008, that Iran would not get the SA-20s "any time soon," but a senior U.S. defense official quickly clarified that the time period indicated was "months."
Beyond this, several scenarios are possible, and all show the need for the F-22 Raptor's contribution to conventional deterrence.
One of the most vexing, near-term scenarios would be F-22 deployment to support action over Iran.
Two factors are at work. First is the strengthening of Iran's air defenses that threaten lockout. Second, recent intelligence reports have estimated that the period of vulnerability for Iran to develop nuclear weapons would be around the year 2015.
Stern words have had little impact to date. "The international community cannot allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons," wrote U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad on March 4, 2008, in The Wall Street Journal.
Half a year later, nothing had changed. Iran is "determined to develop nuclear weapons at this point," said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, as reported in The Washington Post on Oct. 28, 2008.
Definitive signs of weapons deployment by a bellicose regime in Iran might lead to a decision in favor of pre-emptive, multinational action.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Why_The_F-22_Is_Vital_Part_Six_999.html
The Biggest, The Baddest And The Most Vulnerable
March 24, 2009: The largest intelligence agency on the planet doesn't work for a country, but for a political party. The Chinese Ministry of State Security (MSS) technically works for China, but when officials reach a certain level in the bureaucracy, they are informed that the primary function of the MSS is to insure the survival and well being of the Chinese Communist Party.
The size (in personnel and budget) is classified. But just looking at the range of activities in the MSS, it's apparent that there must be several hundred thousand people involved. For example, the main sections (or "bureaus") of the MSS deal with; Recruiting and Personnel, Foreign Intelligence (overseas spies), "Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan" (keeps an eye on these three areas), Technology (for spying, including satellites), Local Intelligence (collects information inside China), Counterintelligence (seeks out foreign espionage inside China), Circulation (double checks intelligence collected, and prepares and distributes reports), Institute of Contemporary International Relations (a research organization), Anti-Defection and Countersurveillance (works against foreign efforts to recruit Chinese for spying, especially members of the MSS), Scientific and Technological Information (steals foreign technology), IT (Information Technology, controls use of computers inside the MSS, and their use for all sorts of things), and Foreign Affairs (cooperation with foreign intelligence agencies).
The MSS has been very successful at stealing foreign technology. We know this because so much of it shows up in products manufactured in China and exported. China has also been more successful than Russia (during the Cold War) in preventing its citizens from defecting to the West. Not completely successful, and a growing number of MSS officials are fleeing China, and intelligence work. A major reason for these defections is the realization that MSS is fighting a losing battle trying to control the Chinese population. The most visible aspect of this is the 30,000 Ministry of Public Security employees working for the Golden Shield Project (known unofficially as The Great Firewall of China). The main job of these MSS personnel is to monitor Internet use throughout the country, and prevent "troublesome" Internet data from getting in, or out, of China. Since 1998, over a billion dollars has been spent on this effort. While many pundits praise the success of the Golden Shield, the Great Firewall has not kept dangerous (to the Communist Party) from entering or leaving the country.
The MSS has had greater success in getting agents into foreign intelligence organizations, usually by using ethnic Chinese who already work there. However, the Chinese appear to fear that some of these spies have been turned, and are actually working for the nation they are living in. Such paranoia is also growing inside China, as more Chinese realize how much effort the MSS expending to keep the Chinese population ignorant of the rest of the world, and obedient to their Communist Party masters.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20090324.aspx
isnt it great to know your life has no meaning to those who "represent" you?! this is meant for those across the pond
“Most Likely” Threats Driving Budget, Says Cartwright
“Most Likely” Threats Driving Budget, Says Cartwright
By Colin Clark Monday, March 23rd, 2009 12:05 pm
Posted in Air, Cyber Security, International, Land, Naval, Policy
In what will become known as the beginning of a major shift in military acquisition and strategy, Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said today that the Obama administration can’t afford to wait for the 2012 budget to stamp its imprint on the Pentagon and so will make major changes to the 2010 budget. The money will go to systems that address the “most likely” threats, not to those aimed at the “most dangerous” threats, Cartwright told a missile defense conference in Washington.
The country, he said, must fund systems that allow us to “stay ahead of the threat.” No longer can the country afford great weapons that take decades and billions to develop and build.
As examples, Cartwright said the threat cycle for cyber attacks is 14 days and for Improvised Explosive Devices it is roughly 30 days. So our systems and architectures must adapt and get inside these cycles, he said. On a more strategic level, Cartwright said the US must fundamentally change its approach to costs. Weapons systems must impose greater costs on our potential and current enemies than they do on the US. “We have to impose costs on them, not on us,” he said.
In a typical tour de force, Cartwright told an audience of about 1,000 at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics annual missile defense conference that weapons that take decades to build and can address a limited array of threats will fall by the wayside. The nation, he said, cannot afford this approach any more.
“Would you buy in tough economic times something that does one thing well or something that does 100 things well, and can do things you haven’t even thought about yet,” he asked rhetorically.
“My money is going to go on sensors and command control,” he told the audience. Architectures — and the systems they serve — must be changeable, ready to adapt to unforeseen threats with ease.
“We have got to be able to string these things together. Get over the traditional barriers about what domains they fly in, or what INT they are in. The guy who gets a bullet between his eyes couldn’t care less,” Cartwright said.
Combine all this with the need to have a global presence and “the emphasis is going to shift to deployed forces, allies and friends,” the general said.
Although she did not hear his speech, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, echoed many of Cartwright’s themes, in particular the focus on cost. “We need to make some tough defense budget decisions,” she said, noting that the “days are over” when the country could “refuse to make hard choices.”
The one system she highlighted as a major problem likely to be cut: Airborne Laser, built by Boeing. One likely winner, she identified: the Aegis anti-missile system. “We must seriously
consider adding additional Aegis ships and destroyers,” she said, noting the system is operational and proven in testing.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/03/23/most-likely-threats-drive-budget-says-cartwright-charts-major-funding-shift/
thanks for the post excel! he definitely is a hero. im sure those portraits mean a lot to the families
Above And Beyond
March 23, 2009: The scope of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan can be seen in the number of medals awarded. Over half a million U.S. Army personnel have served in Iraq and Afghanistan since September 11, 2001. U.S. Army troops have received 11,900 medals for valorous acts ("above and beyond the call of duty") in combat. These comprised (in order of merit); two Medals of Honor, 19 Distinguished Service Crosses, 542 Silver Stars, 192 Distinguished Flying Crosses, 3,103 Bronze Stars for Valor, 1,273 Air Medal For Valor, and 6,769 Army Commendation Medal For Valor.
There were also 126 Soldiers Medals awarded for valor that did not involve combat. For example, if a soldier ran into a burning building to save other, that would rate a Soldiers Medal. There were also 22,975 Purple Hearts awarded to any soldier who was killed or wounded in action.
There were 52,505 Combat Infantry Badges, 14,018 Combat Medical Badges, 68,511 Combat Action Badges awarded to soldiers who had experienced combat. The Combat Infantry Badge is only awarded to the ten percent of the troops sent overseas who are infantry, while the Combat Medical Badge only goes to those with medical jobs (usually medics in combat units). The Combat Action Badges (CAB) is awarded to troops who are not infantry or medical personnel, who have been in one recorded incident of combat with two witnesses.
The CAB has an interesting background. For the last century, the infantry have suffered most of the casualties (about 80 percent.) But that has been slowly changing. In Iraq, the infantry have taken less than half the casualties. And many artillery and armor units have been temporarily reassigned (after some refresher training) to infantry duties (mainly patrolling.) This is nothing new. During World War II, tanks often served with infantry units. When a tank got hit, most of the crew usually survived, and got out of the vehicle uninjured. They were then expected to "fight as infantry", at least until a new tank was available for them or their damaged tank was repaired. Artillerymen keep their infantry skills up to date, and regularly set up defensive positions when they are in the field. Artillery units sometimes got hit by enemy infantry, or enemy artillery. Despite all this, these other combat troops have never been eligible for the CIB. The CAB was introduced four years ago, for these troops, and the thousands of military police (who run convoy escort duty), EOD (bomb disposal) and support troops of all types who are now getting shot at and exposed to roadside bombs.
Some awards for valor also have versions for extraordinary achievement in the combat zone that does not involve combat. Thus there were awarded 99,583 Bronze Stars and 292,272 Army Commendation Medal for achievement. This would be for things like months of 12-16 hour shifts in a maintenance, medical or supply facility, or simply doing an outstanding job.
Overall, the army has awarded 651,805 medals for the troops who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, meaning that most troops who served there got at least one. About a third of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are from the marines (for the most part) navy and air force. The marines give out far fewer awards than the army, and always have. The air force and navy also adopted a combat badge for their personnel who came under fire while working with the army and marines.
These awards go back to antiquity, as a way to recognizing extraordinary performance in combat. Back then, the medals, ribbons or whatever often included money or goods as part of the reward. The ancient Romans had a long list of military awards, both for combat and non-combat performance. Napoleon Bonaparte is credited for reintroducing the awards in the modern period, as a means of motivating his troops to heroic deeds.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20090323.aspx
you should have had the bastard arrested for vandalism.
A Grain Of Sand Reveals All
March 22, 2009: There are recent revelations about the Syrian site, which was bombed by Israel in September, 2007, and why the Israelis knew it was a nuclear research facility under construction. It all began when an Iranian general, and former deputy defense minister (Ali Reza Asghari) defected in February of 2007. He said that Iran was financing a North Korean effort to help Syria develop nuclear weapons. The site had already been noted by American intelligence, but they were unsure of what it was. It seems that the Syrians had taken extraordinary security measures. No cell phones were allowed on the site, and all messages to and from the workers there were delivered in written form, by courier. In August, 2007, the Israelis sent in a twelve man commando team, by helicopter, to the site. Photographs, and soil samples, were taken. This confirmed that nuclear research was taking place at the site. The bombing mission followed the next month. American and Israeli intelligence concluded that Iran had spent over a billion dollars (much of it to North Korea) to finance the operation. Some intelligence officials doubt this, but Syria hasn't got much cash, and North Korea does not do freebies. Iran has the money and the motivation.
After the bombing, the Syrians promptly removed the structures, both the ones that were bombed and those left intact. Syria has since rebuilt the area with what appears to be a missile control and launching center. After the bombing, and accusations of nuclear weapons research, UN inspectors found that there were traces of uranium and graphite, indicating that there was indeed a nuclear research activity, at the very least, going on. The Syrians apparently did not realize that it was difficult, nearly impossible, to clear away the microscopic evidence that nuclear research was going on there.
North Korean technicians were involved with whatever was going on there, although Syria denied any nuclear work was taking place. Denying that North Koreans were around was more difficult, as North Koreans have been seen entering and leaving this area for months. North Korea is believed to be still selling weapons, and possibly nuclear technology, to Syrian mentor Iran. Moreover, the minute nuclear and graphite material can be traced back to where it came from, which in this case was North Korea.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20090322.aspx
It's Not Easy Being MALD
March 21, 2009: After over a decade of development, the U.S. Air Force has finally received the first production model of its new powered decoy. The MALD (miniature air-launched decoy) appears, on enemy radar, as a warplane. This MALD works. Six years of wasted effort on earlier designs created several versions that did not work. The final version may also get a radar jamming capability.
The new MALD is about ten 9.5 feet long, and its pop-out wings give it a five foot wingspan. The 285 pound MALD is powered by a small turbojet engine that gives it a speed of up to 1000 kilometers an hour, for 45 minutes at 35,000 feet, or 20 minutes at 3,000 feet. It can be programmed to fly a specific course to try and get enemy air defenses to open up, so the enemy weapons can be spotted and destroyed. MALDs are also designed to be used in swarms to overwhelm enemy air defenses. The new MALDs cost nearly $300,000 each.
Early on, the MALD was supposed to be a smaller (eight feet long), simpler and cheaper ($30,000) design. But, as is common with these project, both the air force and the manufacturer, kept coming up with new things the MALD had to have. Some were necessary, others were just part of the usual procurement politics. The current MALD, has a range of nearly 900 kilometers, and is apparently reliable enough to be used in combat. The radar jamming capability of MALD-J will be the first of many electronic warfare capabilities added to the higher (up to half a million dollars, or more, each) priced version of MALD planned for the future.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20090321.aspx
Blown Away
March 21, 2009: In Afghanistan, a Russian transport taxied too close to four Belgian F-16 fighters. The engine exhaust blew sand and rocks into the engines of the F-16s, destroying the engines in three of the fighters. New engines had to be flown in to replace the damaged ones. The F110 engine used in the F-16 costs about $5 million each, but the damaged ones can be rebuilt for less than that. Belgium sent the four F-16s to Afghanistan last September. The 19 ton F-16 can also function as a bomber and ground attack aircraft, and can carry four tons of bombs and missiles.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20090321.aspx
its amazing to watch the sheep believe every word they say to.
they all arent far left libs. lol
there are some level headed democrats out there, even some fiscally conservative ones. its the other idiots that get all the press.
what environmental impact is there to carrying a loaded pistol? i guess you leave slightly deeper foot prints because of it being loaded. i cant think of anything else, but im sure they will come up with some lame excuse, they always do.
i wonder if those guys are buying them one or two at a time or if they are getting them in larges lots? the former would be tough to stop, the latter would be seem to be a lot easier to stop.
Jewel thieves robbed of takings
BBC map
Two men who held up a jewellery store in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, were themselves robbed as they made their getaway, US police say.
A second pair of robbers pounced on their haul of cash and gems in the street outside, sparking a fight followed by a car chase.
Police pulled over both vehicles and arrested four men, all from Illinois.
But no loot was discovered and police are now searching for more suspects, the Associated Press reports.
Police Lt Thomas Welch said the original robbers were aged 40 and 31 and the two who robbed them in turn were 22 and 27.
No estimate was given of the value of the stolen items.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7953421.stm
NKorea may stage clash amid missile launch: ministry
by Staff Writers
Seoul (AFP) March 18, 2009
North Korea is likely to stage a limited clash on the border with South Korea at the same time as its rocket launch early next month, Seoul's defence ministry said Wednesday.
"There is a good possibility North Korea may stage a provocative act in some areas after international attention is focused on its missile launch," the ministry said in a report to a parliamentary committee on inter-Korean relations.
The North has said it will launch what it calls a communications satellite sometime between April 4-8. Seoul and Washington say the launch is a pretext to test its longest range missile, which could theoretically hit Alaska.
Any such provocation would aim to foster conflict between different factions in the South, the ministry report said.
"It appears the North is trying to incite internal conflict in the South while pressuring the United States' Obama administration to come to bilateral talks at an early date," it said.
The ministry said the North may fire short-range missiles near the disputed maritime border in the Yellow Sea or stage limited provocations within the Demilitarised Zone which splits the peninsula.
The sea border was the scene of deadly naval battles in 1999 and 2002. Seoul's forces have already been put on alert following worsening cross-border relations.
The North is angry at President Lee Myung-Bak's government, which has taken a tougher stance on cross-border relations. He links major economic aid to the North's progress on denuclearisation, a stance that enrages Pyongyang.
In late January the North announced it was scrapping all peace accords with the South, including one which recognised the disputed sea border as an interim frontier.
earlier related report
NKorea refuses US food amid missile standoff
Chronically hungry North Korea has refused further US food aid, the State Department and relief groups said Tuesday, ramping up a showdown over the communist state's missile drive.
North Korea slammed the door as it prepares to launch what it calls a satellite next month. The United States and its allies consider it a missile and a top general pledged Tuesday to defend US soil.
North Korea, where hundreds of thousands died in famine in the 1990s, "has informed the United States that it does not wish to receive additional US food assistance at this time," State Department spokesman Robert Wood said.
"We are obviously disappointed," Wood told reporters. "Clearly this is food assistance that the North Korean people need. That's why we are concerned."
Five US non-governmental organizations said their joint 16-member team, which had a mandate to be in North Korea through May, would be leaving by the end of the month after distributing about half the food they intended.
"They didn't give any reason that we know of," Mercy Corps spokeswoman Joy Portella said. "We had been very happy with the program and are certainly very disappointed."
In Seoul, Unification Minister Hyun In-Taek suspected North Korea did not want to be seen as dependent on the United States, which it accuses of preparing an invasion through an ongoing joint military drill with South Korea.
He also noted the pressure from Seoul, Washington and Tokyo on North Korea to call off the "satellite" launch, which the United States calls a guise to test a long-range ballistic missile that could, in theory, reach Alaska.
"I believe the North's rejection is an answer to the international situation it is now in," Hyun told reporters.
The United Nations said Monday that 6.9 million North Koreans have not received food aid they desperately need.
The United States in June last year reached the deal to provide 500,000 metric tonnes of food aid to North Korea but insisted on supervision, fearing that much of it was going to the elite.
"There's now going to be more hunger in North Korea, but we've seen before that this is a regime that is not overly concerned about starving its own people," said Peter Beck, a Korea expert at American University.
"It's more important for them to show who's boss," he said.
Beck said North Korea may calculate it had a better than expected harvest or that China, its closest ally, would replace the aid from the United States and South Korea, whose relations with Pyongyang have been deteriorating.
North Korea, which prides itself on self-reliance, has announced it will launch the communications satellite between April 4-8 and said any attempt to shoot it down would be an act of war.
A US general told a congressional hearing that the military was ready to defend the United States, but regarded North Korea as "a very limited threat."
"If we felt the North Koreans were going to shoot a ballistic missile at us today, I am comfortable that we would have an effective system that would meet that need," said Air Force General Victor 'Gene' Renuart, head of US Northern Command.
Kim Jong-Il's regime fired a long-range missile over Japan into the Pacific in 1998 in what it called a satellite launch.
It tested its updated Taepodong-2 missile in 2006, but it failed after 40 seconds. Three months later, it staged an underground nuclear weapons test.
The United States later entered a six-nation deal with North Korea to end its nuclear drive in return for badly needed fuel aid and security guarantees.
But then president George W. Bush's administration said in December that fuel shipments were being suspended due to the lack of progress in finding a way for North Korea to verify its nuclear disarmament.
The United States agreed to provide the food as a separate humanitarian gesture in the June deal -- 400,000 through the UN World Food Program and the rest through the NGOs.
The NGOs focused on reaching the most vulnerable, including children, pregnant women and nursing mothers. It had brought in 71,000 tonnes and distributed 50,000 so far, Mercy Corps said.
Aid workers still see "rampant malnutrition" in North Korea, said Portella, the spokeswoman.
"It's not the kind of thing you solve in nine months," she said.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/NKorea_may_stage_clash_amid_missile_launch_ministry_999.html
Russian Chinese Asymmetric Anti-aircraft Missile Capabilities: F-22 Vital Part Four
Britain confirms purchase of three F-35 fighters
Washington (AFP) March 18 - Britain on Wednesday formally agreed to purchase three F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft for initial testing, Defense Minister John Hutton confirmed during a visit to the US capital. "I've also got some good news today for the UK-US special relationship," said Hutton, announcing the deal alongside US Defense Secretary Robert Gates. He said Britain would be "fully participating" in the development stage of the F-35 and that the aircraft would form "a very big part of the future for the Royal Air Force." Lockheed Martin's supersonic aircraft is designed to evade radar and replace aging fighter aircraft for the US military and eight other allied countries. The meeting between the two defense chiefs mainly focused a US strategy review for the war in Afghanistan, Gates told reporters. The results of the review are expected to be announced within days, defense officials say.
by Rebecca Grant
Arlington, Va. (UPI) Mar 18, 2009
The balance in international military power may be shifting again. In the last two years, Russia, India and China have all announced or clarified major defense programs that include everything from the development of advanced fighters to upgrading aircraft carriers.
It turns out that adversaries took careful note of the way the United States and its allies used air dominance in all its operations. They reshaped their defense plans to make inroads on that asymmetric advantage. They are building advanced missiles, aircraft and subsystems, and there's also a world market for their best wares.
For all these reasons, conventional deterrence is moving up the list of jobs for America's military. Adm. Michael Mullen, the current chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "A big part of credibility, of course, lies in our conventional capability. The capability to project U.S. military power globally and conduct effective theater-level operations across the domains of land, sea, air, space, cyberspace and information -- including the capability to win decisively -- remains essential to deterrence effectiveness. We must therefore address our conventional force structure and its readiness as a deterrent factor, especially after seven years at war." Mullen wrote that analysis in his article "From the Chairman: It's Time for a New Deterrence Model," in the fall 2008 issue of Joint Force Quarterly.
No one is suggesting that deterrence in this multipolar world will be the same as the Cold War. Far from it. For one thing, the United States will not have the same economic dominance it once enjoyed. The U.S. economy will still probably be the biggest for a time, but economic and financial peers are already on the scene. Some forecast that China's economy may grow fast enough to overtake the United States at some point in the coming century.
With China and other nations, military deterrence will be one part of a much wider relationship encompassing trade agreements, financial deals, diplomacy and yes, other competition for global influence as China navigates its "peaceful rise."
Instead of spies and the Berlin Wall, the deterrence of the 21st century will include gala state dinners, toasts with strong liquor and a shifting series of international consortia and negotiations on everything from trade to climate change.
However, low-level military friction is likely to be a constant. Russia will be active on its borders, and China will continue to build global ties. Expect the spheres of influence of the major world powers to collide from time to time. Conventional deterrence will have a big role in shaping those collisions.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian%20Chinese%20Asymmetric%20Anti-aircraft%20Missile%20Capabilities%20F-22%20Vital%20Part%20Four_999.html
Japan launches helicopter carrier
Bangladesh ship-breaking yards told to close: lawyer
Bangladesh's High Court has given the country's 36 ship-breaking yards two weeks to cease work because of their failure to fulfil environmental regulations, a lawyer said Wednesday. Syeda Rizwana, head of the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers' Association, told AFP the yards had to apply for clearance from the Department of Environment. "Since none of the 36 yards in Bangladesh have ever received or applied for clearance, the court has said they are operating illegally and must be shut down within two weeks," she said. A spokesman for the ship-breakers told AFP they would appeal against the decision. More than 100 large ships are dismantled each year on beaches at Sitakundu, home to the world's largest breaking yards. The industry has long been a subject of controversy over its environmental impact and working conditions.
by Staff Writers
Yokohama, Japan (AFP) March 18, 2009
Japan's navy Wednesday commissioned its largest helicopter carrier yet but stressed that the destroyer complies with the country's post-war pacifist constitution.
The defence ministry said the 197-metre (646 foot) long Hyuga -- which can carry 11 helicopters on its flat deck -- is different from the light aircraft carriers of foreign armed forces which it resembles.
"Aircraft carriers of the United States or Russia or European military forces have a fair degree of offensive functions," the navy's chief of staff, Admiral Keiji Akahoshi, said at the launch in Yokohama port near Tokyo.
"But the Hyuga falls a little outside of that frame."
Under its US-imposed 1947 pacifist constitution, Japan renounced using or threatening force in international disputes. It nonetheless has one of the world's best-funded militaries, the Self-Defence Forces (SDF).
The government has said the constitution grants the SDF the right to possess a minimum level of armed force for self-defence but not aircraft carriers with their greater offensive capabilities and reach.
The 13,950-tonne destroyer is one of the largest vessels built for the Japanese Marine SDF. It will be stationed in Yokosuka port, near Tokyo, and is expected to be sent on overseas disaster relief missions.
The Hyuga has about 340 crew -- including 17 female officers and sailors, the first women to serve on an SDF naval destroyer.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Japan_launches_helicopter_carrier_999.html
In test, US intercepts short-range missile: Pentagon
The exercise was a test of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), which is designed to intercept short to medium range ballistic missiles.
by Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) March 18, 2009
The US military successfully shot down a short-range ballistic missile near Hawaii in a test of its ground-based missile defense system, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.
The target missile was "more likely to be classified as a short-range ballistic missile" because it had a range of less than 621 miles (1,000 kilometers), Ricker Lehner, spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency told AFP.
The Pentagon's announcement came amid growing concern over North Korea's scheduled April 4-8 rocket launch that the United States suspects is designed as a test of a long-range ballistic missile that could theoretically reach Alaska.
It was the first time the US military fired two interceptors at a target missile in a test of defense weaponry designed to knock out missiles in their last stage of flight, Lehner said.
In a genuine attack, it would be more likely to fire more than one interceptor in case one failed, he said.
The first interceptor struck the target and the second was then destroyed by missile range safety officers, Lehner said.
The test was carried out on Tuesday at a missile range off the island of Kauai in Hawaii at 2:30 local time (0230 GMT), according a statement from the Missile Defense Agency.
In the test, the warhead on the target missile was separated from the rocket motor, requiring the interceptors to distinguish between the two.
The dummy warhead was shot down in its last minutes of flight, Lehner said.
The soldiers who operated the system did not know when the target missile would be launched and more than 20 radars and sensors were employed on the test range to collect flight test data from the interceptor and the target, Lehner said.
The exercise was a test of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), which is designed to intercept short to medium range ballistic missiles.
The US anti-missile defense system has come in for criticism from some lawmakers over its reliability and cost, with skeptics charging the tests are not based on realistic conditions.
But the head of Northern Command, Air Force General Victor 'Gene' Renuart, expressed confidence in the system, telling a senate hearing on Tuesday that the military would be able to defend the United States against a possible North Korean long-range missile.
He addded that North Korea represented "a very limited threat."
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/In_test_US_intercepts_short-range_missile_Pentagon_999.html
Russia's submarine fleet has 60 vessels in active service
RIA Novosti
19/03/2009 16:23 MOSCOW, March 19 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian Navy maintains a fleet of about 60 nuclear-powered and diesel-electric submarines, a senior Navy official said on Thursday.
"These 60 vessels include 10 nuclear-powered strategic submarines, over 30 nuclear-powered attack submarines, diesel-electric submarines and special-purpose subs," the source said.
Delta-IV and Delta-III class subs form the backbone of Russia's strategic submarine fleet. They each carry 16 ballistic missiles with multiple warheads, and feature advanced electronics and noise reduction.
"The world's largest Typhoon-class submarines also remain in service with the Russian Navy," the official said.
The Dmitry Donskoy submarine has been modernized as a test platform for Russia's new Bulava missile. Two other subs, the Arkhangelsk and the Severstal, remain in reserve at a naval base in Severodvinsk in north Russia.
"They will most likely be modernized to carry new-generation sea-based cruise missiles to match the U.S. Ohio class submarines," he said.
Russia has started mooring trials of the first Borey class nuclear-powered strategic submarine, which will be equipped with Bulava sea-based ballistic missiles.
The Yury Dolgoruky submarine, built at the Sevmash plant in northern Russia, was taken out of dry dock in April 2007.
The vessel is 170 meters (580 feet) long, has a hull diameter of 13 meters (42 feet), a crew of 107, including 55 officers, maximum depth of 450 meters (about 1,500 feet) and a submerged speed of about 29 knots. It can carry up to 16 ballistic missiles and torpedoes.
Two other Borey class nuclear submarines, the Alexander Nevsky and the Vladimir Monomakh, are currently under construction at the Sevmash shipyard and are expected to be completed in 2009 and 2011. Russia is planning to build a total of eight submarines of this class by 2015.
Russia's nuclear-powered attack submarine fleet comprises vessels of the Oscar II and Akula class. Each sub is equipped with 24 SS-N-19 Shipwreck long-range anti-ship cruise missiles.
A fourth-generation Graney class nuclear-powered attack submarine will be delivered to the Russian Navy in 2010-2011. The Severodvinsk submarine combines the ability to launch a variety of long-range cruise missiles (up to 3,100 miles) with nuclear warheads, and effectively engage hostile submarines and surface warships.
"The tests of the cruise missile for the submarine are under way," the source said.
Diesel-electric submarines in the Russian Navy are represented by Kilo class vessels. They will be gradually replaced by Project 667 Lada class submarines. The sub features a new anti-sonar coating for its hull, an extended cruising range, and advanced anti-ship and anti-submarine weaponry, including Club-S cruise missile systems.
The first submarine of the Lada class, named the St. Petersburg, is undergoing sea trials and may enter service with the Russian Navy this year.
A second Lada class submarine, the Kronshtadt, which is the first in the production series, is also being built at St. Petersburg's Admiralty Shipyards and will be commissioned in 2009.
A third submarine, whose keel was laid in November 2006, is named after a city associated with Russian naval glory - Sevastopol - and is expected to be launched in 2010.
The source also said the Russian Navy has several 'special purpose' submarines designed for testing of new technologies and weaponry. Some open sources earlier reported the existence of Project 20120 B-90 Sarov diesel-electric submarine, which has a nuclear reactor as a supplementary power generator.
The vessel was commissioned in 2007 and according to some reports may be used by Russia's Northern Fleet as a spy vessel in northern waters.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2009/russia-090319-rianovosti02.htm
“Alliance Guy” For NATO Commander
“Alliance Guy” For NATO Commander
By Colin Clark Thursday, March 19th, 2009 9:11 am
Posted in Air, International, Land, Naval, Policy
Adm. James Stavridis will be nominated to lead NATO, a crucial post as the fight in Afghanistan ramps up.
He will bring one crucial skill as he works with the European nations that comprise the bulk of NATO membership. “He is an alliance guy,” said one observer who knows the admiral well. Stavridis possesses the rare gift among senior military leaders of being able to speak to people he knows don’t agree with him and give them a fair and full hearing, this person noted.
For example, the admiral was asked during a Tuesday hearing at the Senate Armed Services Committee about the US relationship with Venezuela, well known for its irritating leader, Hugo Chavez.
This is how Stavridis replied: “As always, when I discuss Venezuela, I like to begin by pointing out that the United States has enjoyed a long, positive relationship with Venezuela stretching back 150 years. Clearly, we have some political differences right now. We do have correct, professional military-to-military relations with the Venezuelan military.” The admiral, as head of Southern Command, is the man responsible for maintaining those “correct” relations with a state that has blustered and bloviated about American foreign policy and military intentions.
Stavridis, known as a fabulously smart and educated leader by those who have worked with him, was senior military assistant to Donald Rumsfeld and executive assistant to Obama campaign advisor Richard Danzig when he was Secretary of the Navy. He would be the first Navy officer to lead NATO.
For those who want to learn more about the admiral, have a gander at his books: “Destroyer Captain: Lessons of a First Command” and “Command at Sea.”
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/03/19/alliance-guy-for-nato-commander/
Battlefield May Soon See Frickin' Lasers
death star.jpgWired reports:
Huge news for real-life ray guns: Electric lasers have hit battlefield strength for the first time -- paving the way for energy weapons to go to war.
In recent test-blasts, Pentagon-researchers at Northrop Grumman managed to get its 105 kilowatts of power out of their laser -- past the "100kW threshold [that] has been viewed traditionally as a proof of principle for 'weapons grade' power levels for high-energy lasers," Northrop's vice president of directed energy systems, Dan Wildt, said in a statement....
The battlefield-strength breakthrough is just one part in a larger military push to finally make laser weapons a reality, after decades of unfulfilled promises. The Army recently gave Boeing a $36 million contract to build a laser-equipped truck. Raytheon is set to start test-firing a mortar-zapper of its own. Darpa is funding a 150 kilowatt laser project that is meant to be fitted onto "tactical aircraft."
Hmph. Call me old fashioned, but I still believe in lethality via high-velocity iron. Lasers sound cool enough, but furiously pushing to deploy them on the battlefield gives me this "someone watched too much Star Trek" vibe -- like there's a secret cabal of Pentagon geeks out there trying to make the Star Fleet a reality.
So the benefits are... what? Ammunition becomes obsolete, logistics simplify. IEDs will be safer to clear and incoming mortars easier to pluck from the skies. And no doubt the nifty -however pricey- airborne laser would be formidable, if it works as advertised.
But even Boeing, one of the technology's most vociferous advocates, seems a bit dubious on the awesome factor for battlefield energy weapons, bragging: "...the system also took a step toward demonstrating a counter-unmanned aerial vehicle capability by destroying two small unmanned aerial vehicles that were stationary on the ground."
Two parked UAVs eh? Suppose the broad-side of a barn was unavailable for targeting.
So color me skeptical. No doubt there's some practical warfighting application here, but when I picture Star Wars-esque blaster fights, I can't help but to picture smirking insurgents holding up their bathrooms mirrors as body armor. Though as a matter of record, I will gladly eat my words if Boeing discovers a way to fix these things to a shark's head.
--John Noonan
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004750.html
glad to hear it. but the problem still is in the white house. i cant believe he thought that was a good idea. its ok to pay for Americans health insurance that just sit on their asses and not work, but we shouldnt pay for these men and women who gave everything to serve their country?!
what other poor judgments can we expect out of him?
Navy Surface Force in Deep Trouble
San-Antonio.jpg
The Obama administration, looking for potential budget cuts, may take aim at the trouble-plagued Navy surface ship programs. As well documented, the San Antonio (LPD 17) amphibious ships and littoral combat ships (LCS) are far behind schedule and over cost. Indeed, the San Antonio herself took almost three years from when the Navy placed her in commission until she was ready to undertake her first overseas deployment -- probably a record for Navy surface ships.
Meanwhile, after some ten years and many millions of dollars in development, the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughead has truncated the Zumwalt (DDG 1000) advanced destroyer program -- and undoubtedly wishes to cancel even the three ships already funded by Congress. Rather, Roughead wants to restart construction of the Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) class destroyers -- a design that dates to 1979. Significantly, the two previous CNOs both strongly supported the DDG 1000 while saying that the Navy did not need any DDG 51s beyond the 62 ships built and under construction.
Similarly, the Navy has periodically announced plans to cease further construction of LPD 17 amphibious ships, knowing that Congress would still fund the ships because of Marine Corps support for them.
These machinations have led Missouri Representative Ike Skelton, the Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, earlier this month to say that the Navy must make a final decision this year about how many and what kind of surface ships it wants to build. Skelton told the American Shipbuilding Association that he did not know yet what the administration's Fiscal Year 2010 shipbuilding request would include, but that the Navy could not afford to wait longer before settling on a course for what warships it wants to build.
"The debate about the future surface Navy needs to end this year. A decision needs to be made. After a decision is made that both the Department [of the Navy] and the Congress can support, we need to fund the surface construction program at the level necessary to restore our fleet," Skelton said. "Whether that number is 313 ships or 340 ships, we need to get there."
Meanwhile, the carrier and submarine shipbuilding programs are relatively settled -- and eating up large chunks of the relatively finite shipbuilding budget. With an estimated FY 2010 budget of $10 to $12 billion -- at most -- the Navy is now building two attack submarines (SSN) per year for a total cost of almost $5 billion in today's dollars. The next nuclear-propelled aircraft carrier, the Gerald Ford (CVN 78), is expected by non-Navy sources to cost some $10 to $12 billion. Although the "flattop" is being funded over several years, such high-cost programs will leave minimal funding for surface combatants -- cruisers, destroyers, and the littoral combat ships plus amphibious ships and fleet auxiliaries.
Today the Navy has some 280 ships in service against an oft-stated requirement of a minimum of 313 ships. To build up to 313 ships the Navy should be building some 10 to 12 ships per year -- at an annual cost of more than $20 billion, clearly a "cost too far."
Addressing the problem, Representative Skelton said, "We would like the Navy to do what the Navy keeps saying makes the most sense: build affordable ships which leverage on commonality with other ship programs, and build them in numbers that allow for economies of purchase and investment in infrastructure."
U.S. sea power today is "on a bad glide slope," he added.
The Obama administration is looking at a military establishment that is fighting difficult and, in realty, open-ended conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Although the president has said that he plans to withdraw all U.S. "combat troops" from Iraq in a little over a year, that will leave some 40,000 or (more likely) more "support and security" troops in country. Add in the U.S. training, advisory, and counter-insurgency operations in Africa and other areas, and the perceived "strategic" threats from China, North Korea, Iran, and Russia, conventional naval forces appear to have a very limited role in the future. (The more significant exception would be the planned ballistic missile defense ships -- now designated CG(X) or, with nuclear propulsion, CG(X)N.)
But looking into the future, with the continued loss of overseas bases, naval ships take on increased significance. This was evident when, without nearby bases, aircraft carriers and amphibious ships were the means of providing tactical support for the initial operations in Afghanistan. Similarly, the inability to fly most combat sorties from Saudi bases in the spring of 2003 again saw the need for naval forces for the invasion of Iraq.
If the United States does have a future confrontation -- not conflict -- with China it will most likely be over resources in Africa and South America. Similarly, Russian support for Venezuela's regime and interests in other areas for political and economic reasons add to the probability of crises in remote areas. And, it will be ships, carrying aircraft and embarking Marines and other troops, which will provide the U.S. president with political and military options in those areas.
The Navy's leadership -- military and civilian -- must develop a reasonable and affordable program that will be saleable to Congress. As important, the program must be articulated properly so that all "players" understand the future importance of naval forces in this uncertain era.
-- Norman Polmar
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004751.html
they have been using the laser tag for a while.
sounds like your son had a good time and he earned the right to puff his chest out.
US approves sale of anti-sub planes to India
by Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) March 17, 2009
Washington has approved the sale to India of eight Boeing anti-submarine aircraft, a 2.1 billion dollar transaction which would be the largest ever sale of US arms to India, the State Department said Tuesday.
"The Department of State has notified Congress of the potential sale of eight P8i long-range maritime reconnaissance, anti-submarine warfare aircraft to the government of India," State Department spokesman Robert Wood told reporters.
"The US government is prepared to license the export of these items, having taken into account political, military, economic, human rights and arms control considerations," he said.
The sale is in keeping with India's drive to modernize its military. The Indian military plans to hand out contracts worth 50 billion US dollars by 2018.
India, which has tense relations with fellow nuclear-armed neighbor Pakistan, currently is mostly outfitted with military equipment from the former Soviet Union.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_approves_sale_of_anti-sub_planes_to_India_999.html
Obama faces shoot-down dilemma with NKorea launch
Weaponry could defend US against NKorean missile: general
Anti-missile weaponry would be able to defend the United States against any ballistic missile fired by the North Korean regime, a US general said Tuesday. "If we felt the North Koreans were going to shoot a ballistic missile at us today, I am comfortable that we would have an effective system that would meet that need," Air Force General Victor "Gene" Renuart, head of US Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command, told a congressional hearing. Asked about the reliability of US land-based anti-missile weaponry, Renuart told the Senate Armed Services Committee the military was focused on North Korea as "a very limited threat."
"North Korea is the system that we're fixed on," he said. North Korea has said it plans to launch a communications satellite next month, scheduled for April 4-8. But Washington says Pyongyang is using the launch as a guise to test a long-range ballistic missile that could, in theory, reach Alaska. North Korea has resisted pressure from the United States and its allies to call off the rocket launch and warned that any attempt to shoot it down would be regarded as an act of war. The reclusive regime has also stepped up its rhetoric against South Korea, even sporadically closing access to a key joint industrial complex.
President Barack Obama's administration has not issued any warning that it plans to shoot down a possible North Korean missile. Kim Jong-il's regime first tested its Taepodong-2 missile in 2006, but it failed after 40 seconds. Three months later, it staged an underground nuclear weapons test. The reliability of the costly US missile defense system has been the subject of intense debate in the United States, with skeptics questioning whether its land-based portion has been tested under realistic conditions.
The Defense Department on Tuesday said it had confidence in the missile defense system but that the Obama administration was reviewing the future of the program. "I think it's the belief of people who deal with this matter in this building that the technology works," said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell. In the event of a North Korean missile launch, the United States could draw on missile defense weaponry on Navy Aegis ships in the Sea of Japan as well as interceptors based in California and Alaska. According to the US Missile Defense Agency, the missile defense system has worked successfully in 37 of 47 tests against a range of missile types since 2001.
In December, the US military said it had conducted a successful test involving a simulated attack of a fake missile mimicking an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) from North Korea. The target was launched from Kodiak island in Alaska and the interceptor missile was set off from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California. But decoys that were supposed to test if the interceptor could distinguish a live missile from counter-measures failed to deploy. The system has cost more than 100 billion dollars so far and would require billions more to deploy.
by Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) March 16, 2009
If the North Korean regime goes ahead next month with a rocket launch, US President Barack Obama will face the dilemma of whether or not to shoot it down.
A decision to knock the rocket out would assume US missile defense weaponry would work as designed, something skeptics question.
Even if military success was assured, Obama would have to weigh the risk of retaliation by the Stalinist regime along with inflaming international opinion.
The window for a decision would be a matter of minutes.
In the early stage after launch during the "boost phase," it would remain unclear if the rocket was bound for space with a satellite as North Korea has announced.
"You don't know from the path it's going on at that point whether it's headed to put something into space or to reach the US or somewhere close," said Bruce Bennett of the Rand Corporation in California.
During those early minutes, the president could order US Aegis destroyers and cruisers in the Sea of Japan to knock out the suspected missile, possibly on grounds that it posed a threat to Japan.
Similar US Navy ships successfully shot down an errant satellite last year over the Pacific.
Further into the launch, the trajectory of the missile would become apparent, either heading towards space or on a lower sub-orbital path like that used by intercontinental ballistic missiles.
"By the time you get over the Pacific depending upon the design of their system, they may or may not have released the satellite, but you have a better idea of whether it's really trying to head toward the United States or put something into orbit," Bennett said.
At that point, Obama could use the second line of defense, interceptors based in Alaska and California, to shoot down the missile. The reliability of that system has been fiercely debated, but the military says it has worked in 37 of 47 tests.
Due to Russia's reluctance, the Security Council has yet to issue a clear warning to North Korea ahead of the April launch. Washington and its allies say any launch would violate UN resolutions.
The absence of Security Council backing would make it diplomatically difficult for Washington to pull the trigger, especially as Obama blasted his predecessor for backing unilateral action.
In its public statements, the US administration has not appeared to be laying the ground for firing on the missile, said Michael O'Hanlon of the Washington-based Brookings Institution.
"I'm dubious that we will or that we should," unless there was a direct threat to Japan or legal backing from the Security Council, he told AFP.
The best case scenario for Obama would be another failed launch by the North Koreans, which was the result in 2006.
If Obama opts for restraint and the North Koreans stage a successful launch, the regime will have demonstrated that is making progress in its missile program.
And analysts say it would provide a boost to North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il as it would come before South Korea's first domestic satellite launch in June.
The more hawkish view is that the United States would then be drawn into a Cold War-era type of standoff, potentially blackmailed by a regime wielding the threat of ICBMs.
But some analysts say the regime is still some distance away from being able to manufacture a nuclear warhead that could be fit onto a missile and survive re-entry into the atmosphere.
Perhaps the greatest risk of ordering a "shoot-down" is that it might fail, an embarrassing outcome that would hand a triumph to North Korea.
"That would significantly undermine the credibility of our missile defense program, both within Congress which would likely say then why are we spending all this money, and with our allies who we are trying to encourage to become involved in the program," Bennett said.
Gauging the right US diplomatic response will also present a dilemma, analysts say, as North Korea might see a softer tone as a sign of weakness while a heavier reaction might be exactly what the regime is looking for.
In 1993, the regime tested another new US president, Bill Clinton, in a similar way, announcing it would withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty.
While the regime is portrayed as erratic, North Korea is "totally predictable" when it comes to missile tests, said Andrew Grotto, an analyst at the Center for American Progress.
"They test missiles whenever they want attention, fear that they are losing diplomatic initiative, or to remind countries in the region that they are a force to be reckoned with," he said.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Obama_faces_shoot-down_dilemma_with_NKorea_launch_999.html
Why The F-22 Is Vital Part Three
disclaimer: image is for illustration purposes only
by Rebecca Grant
Arlington, Va. (UPI) Mar 17, 2009
In the last two decades, the United States has used airstrikes to contain dictators, punish aggression, turn around international violations of sovereignty and stop regime-inflicted humanitarian disasters. No-fly zones squelched Iraqi military activity for a decade.
There's no reason to think the United States and its armed forces will depend less on airpower for conventional deterrence in the future. It remains just the type of flexible, proportionate tool essential to credible, conventional deterrence. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates explained the need for options well. "A conventional strike force means that more targets are vulnerable without our having to resort to nuclear weapons," he said in an Oct. 28 speech to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
It is therefore reasonable to ask: Is the United States keeping far enough ahead to make its conventional deterrence effective? The answer depends, in part, on U.S. airpower in general and the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor in particular.
There is an exceptionally vital aspect of conventional deterrence: how to assure that the United States can open up the airspace and execute a conventional strike. Trends now suggest that the U.S. armed forces can't take that advantage for granted or rely on airpower's conventional deterrence for much longer.
Potential adversaries are moving way too fast on aircraft, weapons and tactics, and the gap is narrowing. Instead of nuclear-warhead throw weight and survivable second strike, the technical details of the balance for conventional deterrence in the 21st century may come down to stealth and supersonic speed without afterburner.
The tactics necessary to exert conventional deterrence are changing. America's defense officials once followed the relative standings of conventional forces very closely.
Conventional deterrence came into vogue in the 1980s when Cold War tensions with the Soviet Union revived interest in strong conventional forces as deterrents in their own right. Back then, scholars researched case studies on historical and regional conflicts and re-examined how military might on each side influenced the causes of wars. Keen interest developed in whether the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact could restrain themselves and fight a conventional war in Europe without resorting to nuclear weapons -- and if so, who would prevail. Major improvements in air and land forces followed.
All that preparation for Europe turned out to be unnecessary -- but highly useful elsewhere. No challengers arose to test the ability of the United States to employ airpower as it chose.
However, there are very clear indications that the military balance may be shifting again.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Why_The_F-22_Is_Vital_Part_Three_999.html
just about my thoughts exactly! lol
Wonder Ship Seeks Work
March 18, 2009: Three years ago the U.S. Navy took possession of a new, experimental ship. It was an 84 foot long, 60 ton, double hull, craft called the M80 Stiletto. The ship took 15 months to build and cost $6 million. With a double M hull shape, which enables high speed operations through rough seas, the vessel is 40 feet wide and 18 feet high, and draws less than three feet of water. With 2,000 square feet of usable interior space, it can carry up to twenty tons of cargo. There is a rear ramp for launching a 34 foot SEAL inflatable landing boat. The top deck can be used for operating UAVs (Manta, Silver Fox or Scan Eagle). The vessel has a range of about 900 kilometers, and a crew of 3-6 or so can stay at sea for several days at a time. Fully equipped with sensors and electronics, the Stiletto would cost about $10 million each. Machine-guns or auto-cannon can be mounted on the upper deck. The Stiletto has already successfully carried out tests delivering SEALs through rough seas. The Stiletto can carry a dozen SEALs, their equipment and inflatable landing boats.
Stiletto was originally designed for use with U.S. SOCOM (Special Operations Command), but since then, it has been used to seek out and catch drug smuggler boats, using army and civilian crews. One recent night, the Stiletto spotted such a boat, and there ensued a high speed chase. Seeing that the Stiletto was catching up, the drug runners headed for some shallow water, not realizing that the Stiletto could handle that as well. The drug boat and its crew were captured.
The Department of Defense doesn't know what to do with Stiletto itself, although the unique shape seems to work, and the carbon fiber material the boat was built of seems to be holding up to years of heavy seas. The Stiletto is 45 tons empty, and thus could be hoisted aboard a cargo ship for transport to any part of the world.
In some respects, the Stiletto is an update of the World War II PT boat, which were the same length, but narrower and shorter. PT boats had the same range and speed, but a larger crew (12-18) to handle the torpedoes and machine-guns carried. The M80 Stiletto can carry lots of computers, radars and sonars. It has already been tested as a mine clearing craft. So far, the Stiletto appears to be a successful solution in search of a problem.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/articles/20090318.aspx
The Way Of The Ranger
March 18, 2009: The 1st battalion of the U.S. 75th Ranger Regiment recently returned from a three month tour Iraq. This was the 12th deployment for the battalion since September 11, 2001. The rangers usually deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan for three months at a time, and serve as special muscle for important operations. The rangers, who belong to SOCOM (Special Operations Command), often act as backup for Special Forces or navy SEALs, but also carry out a lot of operations on their own. During this recent tour, the battalion carried out 350 missions (patrols, raids, etc). During these operations, the rangers killed at least 350 enemy fighters arrested 750 suspects and seized large quantities of documents and weapons.
Although a ranger battalion rarely has more than 600 troops, troops of the 1st battalion received, 60 Bronze Star Medals, 84 Combat Action Badges (to recognize non-infantry troops who have spent at least a month in combat) and 172 Combat Infantryman’s Badges (for infantry who have spent at least a month in combat) for their recent tour. Thus about 40 percent of the 1st battalions troops got their first combat experience during the recent deployment. About ten percent of the battalion were killed, wounded or injured during that time. The battalion will probably spend 3-6 months at their base in the United States, before heading off for another overseas deployment (to Afghanistan, or somewhere else.)
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20090318.aspx
Ad featuring Angelina Jolie ordered off UK TV
LONDON – A TV ad showing actress Angelina Jolie firing weapons must not be shown because it could be seen as condoning gun violence, Britain's advertising watchdog said Wednesday.
The Advertising Standards Authority said the ad for the DVD version of Universal Pictures' 2008 action flick "Wanted" breached ad codes and should not be broadcast.
The film follows the initiation of an office drudge Wesley Gibson (played by James McAvoy) into a mythical group of super-powered assassins. The ad for the DVD release shows McAvoy and co-star Jolie wielding pistols, a shotgun, and generally spraying scene after scene with bullets.
The authority said the ad — which juxtaposes images of gun violence with Jolie showing off her bare back — "could be seen to condone violence by glorifying or glamorizing the use of guns."
It was unclear what practical effect, if any, the ruling would have. The "Wanted" DVD was released in Britain nearly six months ago.
The advertising authority has no power to enforce its writ, but it can refer advertisers to Britain's Office of Fair Trading for legal action.
Universal did not immediately return an e-mail Wednesday seeking reaction to the authority's ruling.
The ruling underlined Britain's sensitivity to gun crime.
There were 59 firearm-related homicides in England and Wales in 2006-2007, compared to the more than 10,000 gun-related killings reported by the FBI in the United States in 2007.
But public concern was heightened in Britain after the shooting death of an 11-year-old boy in 2007. The murder drew national attention and prompted much soul-searching over whether the country's already strict gun control laws were tough enough.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_en_mo/eu_britain_angelina_jolie_ad
thats what i think, the F-35s will last quite awhile. in the meantime they will have a chance to mature the unmanned fighter jet concept
a little hard to do when you have so much sunk into the F-35 project
but i would agree
can you imagine how much money we could have saved by following that line of research back then and just trying to put the f-35 into a development phase? this plane could have been put into production years ago. and we would be able to buy a lot more raptors right now without a major f-35 program ongoing now.
i was surprised buy that minute a loss. and also surprised at the tails being canted now and not before, i wonder why that is?
bet they get fed better on the boats than at home