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.
if you havent heard his comments on what he thinks about the Constitution, im not going to bother finding them for you.
you guys really cant pump your own gas? wow
i would be hard pressed to find one full service gas station here in a city of a 100,000
nice to see someone able to stand up for themselves and others
that is the scariest thing about this administration. he cant even control what Biden says, what doest that mean about the rest of his administration?!
the man thinks that the Constitution needs to be revised. that doesnt make him much of a Constitutional lawyer. a Constitutional lawyer defends the Constitution, he doesnt revise it.
the only people to revise it are the ones who vote these idiots into office. and they hopefully arent that stupid
GI Bill transfer rights rules anger some vets
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday May 5, 2009 12:17:45 EDT
As the Aug. 1 launch date nears for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, more people are realizing they won’t be able to share education benefits with their families.
One of the requirements to transfer benefits to a spouse or children is that the service member must still be in the military Aug. 1 — bad news for people about to separate or who have already separated.
Air Force Lt. Col. Lisa Henry-Hamilton, dean of academics at the Defense Language Institute’s Foreign Language Center, will miss the Aug. 1 date because she has a previously approved July 1 retirement date that it is too late to change. Already on terminal leave while awaiting the end of her 23-year career, Henry-Hamilton feels cheated.
“I might have changed my date if I had known this,” she said in response to the Pentagon’s announcement last week of how transfer rights will work.
“I have served 23 years,” she said. “For two months to make this difference after serving on 9/11 and deploying to both Iraq and Afghanistan just seems like perhaps everything wasn’t taken into consideration.”
Henry-Hamilton said she knows transfer rights were included in the new GI Bill as a recruiting and retention benefit, but “it is called the Post-9/11 GI Bill for a reason. Shouldn’t the transfer apply to those who were in since then?”
Iraq war veteran Dana Beausoleil said the transfer rights policy is unfair to Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who were unable to stay in the military because of combat-related medical conditions or who were denied re-enlistment since their combat service ended.
“It is a national tragedy,” said Beausoleil, who said he has more than 27 years of service in the Navy, Navy Reserve, Army Reserve and Army National Guard.
“I am a wounded warrior with TBI, tremors, massive nerve damage in my right shoulder and arm, loss of feeling in my right hand, PTSD, and back injuries,” he said. “Under the ‘approved guidelines,’ I am not eligible to transfer any benefits to my children, even though my disability has cost me my military career.”
He said he has earned GI Bill benefits that he could use himself, but has no plans to do so because he already has a master’s degree that “I had to pay for myself.” He would have liked to use the new benefits to pay for the college education of his two daughters.
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/05/military_gibill_transferrights_050509w/
Honor Flight to take 91 WWII vets to memorial
By Garry Mitchell - The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday May 5, 2009 14:40:03 EDT
MOBILE, Ala. — John Deloney said he was caring for horses for the ROTC at Auburn University to help pay his tuition when Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941.
Within months, Deloney and his classmates were called to fight in World War II.
“We people in the horse-drawn artillery from Auburn went in as a unit,” he recalled in an interview at his home in Daphne. “We did not stay in the artillery. By then, they had gotten jeeps to pull the howitzers instead of horses.”
On Wednesday morning, 87-year-old Deloney will be among 91 south Alabama veterans from that war to take an Honor Flight for their first look at the National World War II Memorial, which opened in 2004 in Washington, D.C. They will be accompanied by 42 guardians, including medical staff.
Flight organizer Margaret Coley said the oldest veteran in the group is 95-year-old Colwin Steadham of Grove Hill, and two others are 92. The flight returns Wednesday evening.
Some 20,000 veterans in the U.S. over the past five years have taken the flights sponsored by a Springfield, Ohio-based nonprofit organization, said Earl Morse, a former Air Force pilot who founded Honor Flight. Morse said flights have been organized in 48 states, with none yet from Alaska and Hawaii.
“Once they land, they usually are met by a cheering crowd. Just about everybody is crying,” Morse said by telephone Monday. He said airport officials announce the special passengers’ arrival, generating the crowd.
Morse said the flights are important because some veterans never got a cheering welcome when they returned from the war. He said some hitchhiked home, and now, their numbers are dwindling with age.
The flights are free to veterans, but guardians must pay. Corporate sponsors and individuals raised $75,000 for the charter flight. Some 260 veterans applied for the trip, so at least two more flights are planned later and fundraising continues for those trips, Coley said Tuesday.
During Wednesday’s flight, letters written by schoolchildren will be delivered to the veterans, and the students’ hand-crafted gifts, such as cushion neck rests, will be handed out.
In an interview Monday, Delonge, who served in the Army’s 102nd Infantry Division, said he didn’t give any thought about the lack of a WWII memorial in the nation’s capital after the war.
“I had not even thought about it. I was so busy living a good life, and I didn’t have to speak German,” he said, recalling his combat days in Europe against the Nazis.
He said he expects the memorial in Washington will affect him emotionally.
“You can’t help but be close to the person with a rifle protecting your right side and your left side. When I walk up to that memorial and see the names of those people, sure it will affect me. In fact, I wish I didn't have to see that. Not that I don’t want to see it. I wish it had never happened.”
He survived the war with a shrapnel graze on his forehead. He said that “thanks to the GI bill,” he became a professor at Auburn and later was president of what is now the University of West Alabama in Livingston.
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/05/ap_honor_flight_wwii_050509w/
50 amphib sailors have flu symptoms
By Andrew Scutro - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday May 5, 2009 18:05:53 EDT
A possible outbreak of the so-called swine flu aboard the San Diego-based amphibious transport dock Dubuque has caused Navy leadership to cancel the ship’s planned June 1 deployment in the Pacific.
One sailor on the ship was confirmed to have the virus, also called H1N1, and 50 other crew members are exhibiting flu-like symptoms, said Cmdr. Cappy Surette, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon. It was not immediately clear if the 50 sailors have been confirmed as having a “novel virus” such as H1NI, as opposed to seasonal flu.
“Those are awaiting confirmation from the [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] one way or another,” Surette said.
The ship is weeks away from a four-month deployment on its Pacific Partnership 2009 cruise, Surette said.
“The Navy has decided to proceed with an abundance of caution,” he said, noting the “degree of uncertainty as to how long this will run its course.”
A replacement ship has not been identified, but “the Navy is exploring its options to meet operational commitments,” he said. “It’s under discussion.”
The Dubuque sailor is one of five confirmed cases of H1N1 throughout the Navy as of Tuesday afternoon. All five cases are in the San Diego area.
The sailor from Dubuque and the 50 others are being treated with five days’ worth of the antiviral medicine TamiFlu, a course they began last Wednesday. The remainder of the 420-member crew has been on a 10-day preventive course of TamiFlu since May 3. Surette said the 51 sailors are confined to quarters ashore but the rest of the crew is able to report to duty aboard the ship.
Before today, the Navy had confirmed three cases: the Dubuque sailor; a hospital corpsman at Camp Pendleton, who is recovering; and a sailor at the 32nd Street Naval Station, who already has recovered, Surette said.
The two additional cases confirmed today were one at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado and one with Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron 77 at Naval Air Station North Island.
“There is nobody hospitalized,” Surette said.
He was not sure if more such scenarios will arise. “This is the best information we have today,” he said. “We obviously continue to monitor the health of the force.”
A Navy-wide message released Friday by the Navy’s surgeon general offered ship-specific guidance to reduce the risks of disease spread. The guidance told commands to: remove every other seat in the mess decks; make sure sailors sleep with a “head-to-toe orientation” in berthing areas; reduce crowding in work areas; “maximize ventilation” aboard ship; and “consider restricting non-essential travel to areas with known outbreaks.”
Dubuque was to deploy in a new role for the gator fleet: winning hearts and minds through what’s become known as a “soft power” mission. It would have been the fourth such annual trip in the Pacific area to provide medical, veterinarian and engineering support to local populations, according to a March 3 notice announcing the mission.
The Pacific Partnership cruise for 2009 was to make stops in Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Samoa, the Solomon Islands and Tonga. The Norfolk-based amphib Nashville is now winding up a similar mission off the coast of western Africa called the Africa Partnership Station.
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/05/navy_flu_dubuque_050509w/
and it will probably get worse with continued use in iraq and afghanistan
Thompson Files: F-35 good value for U.S.
disclaimer: image is for illustration purposes only
by Loren B. Thompson
Arlington, Va. (UPI) May 4, 2009
When U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates "rebalanced" the Pentagon budget recently, he put the future of fighter aviation in the United States on the shoulders of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter.
The U.S. Navy will probably buy more Boeing F/A-18s, and the U.S. Congress may do right by the Air Force and fund 60 more Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptors, but after that, it's all F-35. And the U.S. defense establishment in Washington probably won't be able to resist putting the mammoth program through an intense round of scrutiny. Can the Lockheed Martin F-35 deliver?
In the 1990s the Clinton administration scrapped several other new U.S. aircraft to pool money and research for a born-joint tactical aircraft program. Britain joined in, and later so did several other allied partners. The F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter picked up innovations from the F-22 Raptor program, but it also cleared hurdles of its own, such as development of a revolutionary lift-fan engine for the short take-off and vertical landing version requested by the U.S. Marine Corps. The result was joint and global. Three close-cousin variants of F-35 will deliver to the Marines, allies, the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy.
Three things stand out about the F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighter. First is its production line. In an era when U.S. manufacturing is under pressure, the F-35 line in Fort Worth, Texas, is one that will make you feel good about the United States. The line is a marvel of sophisticated automation, laser-guided assembly and precision tolerances. The F-35's exterior stealth materials are light years beyond previous coatings. They go on more evenly and are so durable that factory officials let visitors literally walk on samples of the radar-absorbing material.
Second, the F-35 Lightning is a good value. Yes, it will be expensive overall because of its sheer magnitude. What makes it a good value is its efficiency. Ramping up to production of more than 100 aircraft per year will create momentum and help keep unit costs in line. Third, the F-35 Lightning is a hard-power weapon but a soft-power partnership. Achieving true interoperability with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and its member states and other allies will be doubly important as air forces shrink because of decreased defense spending.
However, a few clouds are gathering on the F-35 Lightning's horizon, of course. Intensive flight testing of the F-35 is getting under way, and flight tests usually do yield change orders. Expect the F-35 to have fewer changes than normal because so many of the systems have been pre-tested in labs or on other flying aircraft.
The bigger risk by far will come if the U.S. Department of Defense slows production or cuts the total buy. The so-called acceleration of the F-35 program briefed by Gates sped up parts of the test program but was dwarfed by the much bigger decision to cap peak yearly production for the U.S. Air Force at 80 F-35s per year, instead of the 110 per year budgeted by the service.
The Gates budget will actually leave the U.S. Air Force with almost 80 fewer F-35 Joint Strike Fighters in this five-year budget cycle. If this is a sign of more cuts to come, that's a problem.
Understand that the U.S. Air Force has no other advanced fighter, bomber or unmanned combat aircraft in development in the wake of the Gates decisions. On the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program's broad shoulders rest significant hard- and soft-power options for the United States in the years to come.
(Loren B. Thompson is chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, an Arlington, Va.-based think tank that supports democracy and the free market.)
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Thompson_Files_F-35_good_value_for_US_999.html
No Navy Fighter Gap: PAE
No Navy Fighter Gap: PAE
By Colin Clark Tuesday, May 5th, 2009 9:43 am
Posted in Air, Rumors
UPDATED: With Latest CRS Analysis Doubling the Navy’s Projected Shortfall
The Pentagon’s top weapons analysts are reportedly arguing that the Navy does not face a fighter gap, something Boeing and various lawmakers have argued is a pressing problem the country must fix.
A congressional source tells us that “apparently PA&E is convinced that there isn’t actually a strike fighter shortfall, while the Navy is convinced they’ll be 240-plus planes short of Naval strike fighters… We’re trying to figure out how PA&E can possibly come to this conclusion, but we’re not getting many answers.”
Several senior OSD sources told me that PA&E is making this argument, based on a range of capabilities offered by the Air Force.
“PA&E’s contention is that we have excess Air Force strike fighter capacity, so the Navy shortfall doesn’t affect us strategically… But I don’t think the Air Force can land their fighters on a carrier,” our congressional source said wryly.
The fighter numbers were summarized recently in a study by the Congressional Research Service’s naval analyst, Ron O’Rourke. “The Navy projects that a current strike-fighter shortfall of about 15 aircraft will grow to about 30 aircraft in FY2009, to more than 50 aircraft in FY2016, and to more than 90 aircraft in FY2017-FY2020, before declining to more than 50 aircraft in FY2021 and to roughly zero aircraft by FY2025. At its peak in FY2017, the Navy states, the Dept. of Navy projected strike-fighter shortfall will be 125 aircraft, of which 69 will be Navy strike-fighters,” O’Rourke wrote.
[Since writing the above, I received the newest CRS analysis. It doubles the estimated shortfall. This is what the report, by Christopher Bolckum, says:
"The Navy projects that if no additional action is taken, a DON strike-fighter shortfall of about 15 aircraft in FY2009, to 50 aircraft in FY2010, and to a peak of 243 aircraft in FY2018. The projected strike-fighter shortfall is hoped to decrease after FY2018, but the DON will still have a gap of over 50 strike fighters in 2025. At its peak in FY2018, the projected DON strike-fighter shortfall will be 129 Navy strike-fighters and 114 Marine Corps strike-fighters.
"This projected strike-fighter shortfall is twice as big as the Navy’s earlier projected shortfall of 125 aircraft. 9 (See Figure 1, below) The earlier estimate was the Navy’s, “most optimistic” projection because it assumed, among other things, that the service lives of Hornets could be extended from the current planning figure of 8,000 flight hours to 10,000 flight hours." You can read it here.]
We’re trying to get more information from Boeing here at the Navy League conference.
Boeing has been making a valiant effort to convince the Pentagon and the public that the Navy’s fighter gap should be closed using F-18 E/Fs. These planes are cheaper than F-35s, are already available in production models and they meet the service’s current operational requirements, the company has argued.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/05/no-navy-fighter-gap/
Iran Survives The Scams
May 5, 2009: The U.S. is again prosecuting a Korean-American, Juwhan Yun, who earlier served 30 months in prison for offering to export 500 bombs full of nerve gas. Yun didn't have the 500 pound bombs, or the nerve gas, but he had entered into negotiations with Iranian officials, who were very interested. Iran has nerve gas, but very low quality stuff, and were eager to obtain higher grade sarin gas.
Yun behaved himself after he got out of jail in 1991, but was arrested again on April 15th, and is now accused of negotiating with South Koreans to obtain Russian RD-180 rocket engine technology for them. This would enable South Korea to get into the satellite launching business. It's unclear if Yun actually had access to this technology. The investigation, which involved obtaining thousands of Yun's emails and telephone conversations, revealed that Yun was also peddling other high tech items (radar, sensor and smart bomb technology.) Yun claimed to be working with South Koreans who were trying to steal rocket technology from Western nations as well.
There has been some technology stealing activity in South Korea, but nothing compared to the Iranian efforts. For the last three decades, Iran has had to deal with embargoes that prevent it from getting spare parts for its large inventory of elderly Western weapons. In response to this, Iran has sought to obtain spare parts via a smuggling network, with some of the less complex parts manufactured inside Iran. The network is under increasing assault, as the U.S., and other Western nations uncover parts of the network, and prosecute those running it. Yun is not the only person to plug into this network, and try to scam the Iranians. Some of these criminals have succeeded in deceiving the Iranians, who simply swallow these losses and write them off as a cost of doing business.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20090505.aspx
Multinational Naval Force Sinks ex-USS Connolly
Navy NewsStand
Story Number: NNS090501-53
Release Date: 5/1/2009 9:24:00 PM
By Chief Mass Communication Specialist Dawn C. Montgomery, U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command - U.S. 4th Fleet Public Affairs
ATLANTIC OCEAN (NNS) -- On the morning of April 29 the ex-USS Connolly (DD 979) served as the target for a sinking exercise (SINKEX), the highlight of the annual exercise UNITAS Gold.
The assault began at 9:30 am when a Colombian AS-555 Fennec helicopter from the ARC Almirante Padilla (FL 51) aimed its crew-served machine guns at her empty hull and opened fire. Following close behind was a Mexican B0-105 Bolkow helicopter from the frigate ARM Mina (F-214) carrying 2.75" high-explosive rockets. In all, a multinational force of 15 ships and 12 aircraft unloaded over 450 rounds of ammunition, one Maverick, three Harpoon and two Sea Sparrow missiles, two 2.75" High Explosive rockets and four MK-83 during the six-hour SINKEX.
Back in Barksdale, La., two U.S. Air Force B-52 bombers were standing by and ready for flight to the Atlantic Ocean. Their target was anything that remained afloat of the ex-Connolly. However, the B-52s weren't needed.
"The Navy has done it's job," announced Cmdr. Larry Legree, commanding officer of the amphibious transport dock ship USS Mesa Verde (LPD 19), over the ship's public address system. In the end, it was a Harpoon missile shot from the frigate, USS Donald Cook (DDG 75) that finally sank what was left of the once mighty warship. Upon completion, Legree congratulated the crew and thanked them for a long day at sea.
UNITAS Gold is being held from Arpil 20 to May 5 off the coast of Jacksonville, Fla. This year marks the 50th iteration of UNITAS, the longest-running multinational maritime exercise in the world.
Participants and observers from Argentina Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Germany, Mexico, Peru, the United States and Uruguay have brought together more than 25 ships, 50 rotary and fixed wing aircraft, 650 Marines, 6,500 Sailors and four submarines to participate in scenario-driven, realistic exercises. UNITAS provides opportunities for participating nations to increase their collective ability to counter maritime activities that threaten stability in the region.
Three months of planning and coordination culminated this week with training exercises that included an amphibious land assault on the beaches of Mayport, Fla., a search and rescue exercise, multinational replenishments-at-sea, maritime interdiction operations and the sinking of the ex-Connolly. UNITAS Gold's final phase is a scripted, simulated war scenario between participating nations and elements from the USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) Carrier Strike Group.
For more news from U.S Naval Forces Southern Command - U.S. 4th Fleet, visit www.navy.mil/local/cusns.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/05/mil-090501-nns02.htm
Murtha Yields on Tanker Buy
Murtha Yields on Tanker Buy
By Colin Clark Friday, May 1st, 2009 5:22 pm
Posted in Air, Policy
Rep. Jack Murtha had insisted that his plan to divide the tanker buy between Boeing and Northrop Grumman would not only ensure the contract was not challenged but would actually save the country billions of dollars.
We all make mistakes and Murtha seems to have realized that he may have made one in this case. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the folks in the acquisition shop kept insisting that a split or dual buy would cost the country billions it can ill afford right now. Murtha had gone from supporting a split buy would ensure the country got capability to a split buy would actually save the country billions.
Murtha’s spokesman wouldn’t say much when I asked him why the powerful appropriator backed off the plan. “Chairman Murtha remains committed to working out a plan that gets tankers in the air faster. The Committee will address this issue in the coming months within the FY10 bill,” he said in an email. He added that Murtha would offer more details on Monday to House Appropriation Committee members.
This reversal may well be a symptom of Murtha’s declining influence in the light of what appear to be increasingly worrying legal problems faced by close supporters of his, including former Murtha staffer Paul Magliocchetti, who founded the former PMA Group. The company shut its doors at the end of March after the FBI raided its offices.
Yesterday the pressure grew a bit more as four good government groups, Democratic Democracy 21, Common Cause, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG, called on the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to probe the relationship PMA had with Democratic Reps. John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, Peter J. Visclosky of Indiana and James P. Moran of Virginia. The lawmakers secured lucrative earmarks for defense contractors represented by The PMA Group and received political donations from family members of the lobbying firm’s founder.
One crucial thing to figure out in the next few days: did Gates win or did Murtha lose. If it’s a Gates win, that would mark one big notch in the defense secretary’s congressional cannon. Some evidence that industry feels Gates is the ascendancy: Lockheed Martin’s declaration that it would not fight to the death to keep building F-22s. With the budget likely to come out at the end of next week or early the next week Congress will get the crucial numbers it needs to start analyzing Gates’ decisions and something they can use to argue their own case.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/murtha-yields-on-tanker-buy/
Lawmakers Gather Pro F-22 Ammo
Lawmakers Gather Pro F-22 Ammo
By Greg Grant Friday, May 1st, 2009 12:35 pm
Posted in Air, Policy
A former head of Air Combat Command is aware of “no analysis whatsoever” that could have produced a requirement that the Air Force buy just 187 F-22 air superiority fighters. That’s the number Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Pentagon intended to buy, after which the aircraft’s production line would be shut down.
Retired Air Force Gen. Richard Hawley said the only “detailed analysis” he knows of generated a requirement for 381 F-22s, the number needed to fight two simultaneous wars “against adversaries capable of contesting our control of the air.”
Hawley’s not terribly surprising call for more F-22s was made in front of a largely sympathetic group of senators from the Armed Services Air Land Subcommittee on Thursday, most of whom, including chairman Sen. Joe Lieberman, Ct., appeared to be looking for ammunition to refute Gates’ recommended F-22 buy. Piling on the Gates’ decision at the same hearing was CSBA senior fellow Barry Watts, who said DOD’s 187 F-22 number “was purely budget driven, it had nothing to do with analysis.”
Hawley said a fleet of 187 F-22s might be able to support one major war against an adversary with advanced air defenses, but even that number could be too low. Due to normal attrition, maintenance and the need for training aircraft, the general rule-of-thumb is that it takes 100 aircraft to produce 72 “operational” aircraft. By that formula, a fleet of 187 F-22s would be able to generate at best 100 combat ready aircraft, he said.
Hawley said he participated in the original analysis that produced the “actual requirement” for 381 F-22 number, based on generating ten operational squadrons for the two major war scenario. Moreover, a large F-22 fleet is vital to maintaining our “conventional deterrent posture,” he said. Because the stealthy aircraft is able to penetrate advanced air defenses it threatens a potential enemy’s high value targets, where other aircraft in the U.S. fleet cannot. “The F-22 is an investment in deterrence just like our investment in nuclear weapons during the Cold War.”
If the Obama administration decides fighting two simultaneous wars against advanced adversaries in different parts of the world is no longer the force sizing construct, then shutting down the F-22 production line would be appropriate, Hawley said. The “prudent” move would be to continue F-22 production until at least a year from now when the national security strategy hopefully becomes a bit clearer. While praising the attributes of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, he said it was very much a complimentary aircraft, not a replacement for the F-22.
The future of the Air Force’s Next Generation Bomber was also a hot topic at Thursday’s hearing. Watts said the aging fleet of 20 B-2 stealth bombers would not see us through the next 20 to 30 years, and development must begin immediately on a replacement. Referring to Gates’ decision to hold off on the NGB program until after the QDR strategic review, Watts said “we’ve studied the NGB issue to death, we don’t need more studies.” Hawley raised the ghosts of Vietnam as a warning against short changing pilots with inferior aircraft in the face of a determined enemy, saying the Air Force entered that war ill-trained and ill-prepared and had over 2,000 aircraft shot down, against what he called a “third rate” adversary.
Updated: Hawley’s 100 operational F-22 comment came in response to a question regarding how many aircraft would be operational over the long term after x number of a 187 strong F-22 fleet had been lost through normal attrition. His exact quote: “Given that that’s likely the number, about 100, we must understand that you never are able to deploy all of those airplanes. In my experience you shouldn’t expect to have more than about 75 percent of that force available in surge cases to support a combatant commander who faces a serious threat, so it’s even less than 100.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/05/01/lawmakers-gather-f-22-ammunition/
The Thousand Year War
May 3, 2009: For the last three decades, Greece and Turkey have been engaged in their own little cold war over Cyprus. But the roots of their conflict, and thus the mutual distrust and sometimes hatred between the two countries, goes back over a thousand years. The threat of an all-out conventional war between Greece and Turkey in the near future is somewhat unlikely, but the two nations are still enemies and age-old rivalries, like those in the Balkans of the 1990s, have a nasty habit of flaring up again at the blink of an eye. The potentially destructive results of such a confrontation are enhanced since the international community continues to sell both nations sophisticated military equipment. Whether these continued sales are a good idea depends on who is asked. Certainly both Greece and Turkey claim that continued procurement and development are necessary to their respective national security commitments.
The conflict over Cyprus was all about a Greece attempt to annex Cyprus in the 1970s, and their defeat by a Turkish invasion of the island. The Cyprus incident itself is only one small addition to the collection of conflicts between Greek and Turk, and certainly not the most bitter of recent confrontations. Certainly the defeat in Cyprus was difficult to stomach, but it was less intense than other wars. If anything, the 1919-1922 Greco-Turkish War is the more important of the 20thcentury conflicts and more integral to understanding why the Greeks feel so much cultural antagonistic towards the Turkish Republic. After World War I, the Allies had promised Greece an large expansion of territory which included Ottoman Empire lands, effectively an attempt to partition the Empire. The Ottoman Empire effectively collapsed and was being divided up between the triumphant Allies, eager for victors’ justice.
One of the primary motivations for the Greek expansion into Turkish homelands in Anatolia was the idea of the Megali, or Greater Greece. This idea is essentially the same as the concept of the Greater Serbia that fueled the Balkan Wars of the 1990s. The goal is to expand Greek territory into all areas in the Mediterranean with significant Greek populations. Unfortunately for the Greeks, the idea was not achieved and, furthermore, the Greeks suffered a bitter and devastating defeat at the hands of Turkish troops, led by former Ottoman general Kemal Ataturk, who later founded the modern state of Turkey. The war cost Greece extremely heavy casualties, no territorial gains, and forced them to return to their pre-conflict borders, and undertake an exchange of peoples between the two countries. The war was the most humiliating defeat in 20th century Greek military history. This is something the Greeks have never forgotten or forgiven, no matter how much diplomatic progress is made in warming relations between the two countries. Even changes in Greek history textbooks several years ago, that presented a more positive image of Turkey, aroused bitter controversy in the Hellenic Republic, effectively dividing the country into two camps (moderates and nationalists). Ultranationalist attitudes towards the Turks no longer hold an all-consuming grip on the country, but it remains a major part of Greek society that is unlikely to go away anytime soon.
The military buildup itself is of concern. Things are different now, compared to 30, or even 80, years ago. For one thing, the Greeks have a well-trained, well-equipped military that is more than capable of holding its own against the Turks. The Greek military today is certainly more competent than the forces facing the Turks during the 1974 Cyprus crisis. The Greek Army contains around 200,000 active soldiers and can mobilize 300,000 reserve troops. Finances are more disparate and this is one of the major advantages the Turks have over their Hellenic rivals. The Greek annual military budget is almost $10 billion, compared to the more than $30 billion Turkish budget. The Greeks are outnumbered on the ground, where 515,000 Turks confront 400,000 Greeks. To make up for their deficiency in numbers, the Greeks maintain high standards of training and discipline and maintain several excellent special forces formations. Greece has evolved into a regional military power in its own right that is definitely to be reckoned with.
The more worrying aspect of the conflict is the fact that both sides are well-equipped with high-tech arms that the world community continues to sell Greece and Turkey. This is a unique situation in terms of the nation-state standoffs going on in the world. For example, South Korea and North Korea have been, technically, at war for more than half a century, but the North’s capabilities for waging war have declined because of aging equipment, a wrecked economy, and famine. A similar situation exists between Syria and Israel, with the mighty IDF possessing the best weaponry on the market and first-class training, and the Syrians still struggling to modernize their own forces on a meager budget.
Nations continue to sell both Greece and Turkey weapons because neither country is considered by the UN to be a rogue or outlaw nation. Both countries are very pro-Western, maintain relatively good diplomatic relations with the rest of the world, and are, all things considered, not regarded as tyrannical dictatorships bent on regional hegemony. Turkey and Greece maintain, at least for the moment, stable democratic societies, further improving their image on the world stage. Because of this, they get a free hand in procuring equipment.
Despite the seeming detent between the two countries, the standoff between the two countries continues, as a somewhat worried international community looks on. Nonetheless, arms companies continue to sell, both countries continue to buy, and neither side fully trusts each other yet.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20090503.aspx
Take Two Aspirin And Die
May 3, 2009: The U.S. Department of Defense has banned the sale of aspirin in the military version of 7-11s (the Base or Post Exchanges) in combat zones. The reason is simple; aspirin "thins the blood" (inhibits clotting). The medical community has known this for generations, and sometimes uses aspirin for treating patients in need of less clotting. But American soldiers are recruited for, among other things, sound health. A soldiers biggest risk, especially in a combat zone, is getting wounded, and then you need rapid clotting to help halt the bleeding. Thus the ban on aspirin. There are other drugs available that can do the same pain relieving job as aspirin, but do not inhibit clotting. Troops are also told not to bring aspirin with them when they are transferred to a combat zone. This is a policy that will save a few lives, and lead to less serious injuries. Blood loss, and its complications, are a major cause of combat deaths and more severe injuries.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20090503.aspx
Explosive Developments
May 3, 2009: Merchant marine sailors have been filling up their discussion boards and email groups with ideas on how to defeat pirates, and a consensus has formed that the most practical tactic is to establish a drill for sending a distress message to the owner, or nearby warships, quickly shutting down the engines (including any auxiliary generators) and getting all the crew to a safe room. It's already part of ship procedure to send an emergency message quickly, and someone is always on the bridge to do so. Shutting down the engines is also a normal procedure, but doing it quickly, and making sure some savvy pirate can't get them started again, takes some planning and practice. But some crews have already done it, to good effect. Once the engines are shut down, the pirates are stuck. With help on the way, the pirates usually abandon ship, unless they capture one of more of the crew.
That's why you need a safe room, and have to get everyone into it once the pirates are on board. The safe room is a space that is very difficult for the pirates to get in to, and stocked with water, food and some toilet facilities, as well as some kind of radio or satellite phone, and whatever else the crew decides they need. There are several spaces on the ship that could be modified to serve as a safe room. During the recent capture of the U.S. merchant ship Alabama, the crew made for the steering gear space (room), which is at the rear (stern) of merchant ships and usually easy to make very difficult for someone to get into. The Alabama also took advantage of the general alarm that ships have (meant to alert everyone to a ship wide emergency) and the powerless phone system (that works when the engine is shut down, again, another emergency feature of ships) to get everyone alerted to the pirates, and down to the steering space.
Merchant sailors are a very practical bunch, and adept with tools. They also know that if the "shut down and safe room" practices are generally adopted, pirates will start coming prepared (with bolt cutters, explosives, grenades or even cutting torches). That's already happening. A Portuguese warship recently captured 19 pirates, and found that they were carrying four sticks of dynamite, along with their usual AK-47s, RPGs and boarding ladders. The pirates were disarmed, and then released, because the Portuguese government will only keep pirates prisoner if a Portuguese ship was attacked.
The merchant marine sailors discussions continue on how best to deal with each of those potential problems. As more ships defeat a pirate boarding with these tactics, more crews will adopt, and improve on, the techniques. All this also requires practice and drills (to insure that everyone can do their part in time.) Some sailors are also discussing ways to counterattack the pirates, if they don't leave. That has also been done successfully by some crews. More dangerous, but also more satisfying to crews that can carry it off.
Ship officers are also suggesting to the owners that some money (under $10-100,000 per ship) be made available for these anti-piracy improvements. Some owners are inclined to make the investment, if only for the morale benefit.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htseamo/articles/20090503.aspx
nice to see a state stand up to the feds
The Sound Of Victory
May 2, 2009: Civilians living near military air bases are becoming increasingly angry about the noise. This is caused by two separate factors. First, many bases, which were originally built in sparsely populated rural areas, are now surrounded by civilian housing. Second, recent aircraft designs are using more powerful, and noisier engines. This was first noticed with the F-18E, back in the late 1990s, when this model first entered service. The F-18E is about as loud as the new F-35, but there are fewer than 400 of them. And F-18Es spend much of their time at sea. There will be five times as many F-35s, most of them will be operating from land bases.
While the new American F-35 fighter-bomber is superior in many ways to the aircraft it is replacing (F-16s and F-15s), it is noticeably louder on takeoff, and whenever it is in the air, especially at low altitudes. The navy is already getting growing number of civilian complaints from people living around land bases where the F-18E operates. There air force fears there will be lawsuits, and headaches for base commanders. There might even be bans and groundings. To try and get a sense of the extent of the problem, the few F-35s that are flying are being taken to air bases so that more data can be collected. There are already a growing number of civilian complaints around bases where F-35s are being flight tested. Civilians may not be noise experts, but they can sense when an aircraft is demonstrably noisier, and they don't like it.
There are other problems as well. The powerful jet engines of the F-18E, F-35 and F-22, are so loud that the noise goes right through the head and damages the delicate tissues that enable us to hear. The air force equips its ground personnel with sound protection equipment, especially electronic noise cancellation devices. But the vibrations still get through. It's going to take a while for evolution to catch up with this one, although acoustic engineers believe they will come up with a solution in the next decade.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htpeace/articles/20090502.aspx
Those Priceless Americans
May 1, 2009: The government has released data showing that 110,000 Iraqis have died, mostly from sectarian and terrorist violence, since 2003. The killing has declined considerably in the last year. In March, 2008, 1,276 died, versus 335 for March, 2009. But now there is a surge in the violence. About half the recent attacks were against Shia targets, apparently a continued effort by Sunni Arab radicals attempting to trigger a civil war between Sunni and Shia. This has always been a bad idea, as it is based on the fantasy that the Sunni Arabs would somehow win, and regain control of Iraq. Over the last five years, Sunni Arab terrorism has only resulted in the much stronger Shia population (which controls the government) retaliating and chasing half the Sunni Arab population from their homes. Over a third of the Sunni Arab minority (about five million people in 2003) are now in exile, and many Kurds and Shia (who are over 80 percent of the population) would like to drive all the Sunni Arabs out.
For the second month in a row, over 300 people died from suicide bomb attacks. As violent as this is, it's still way down from last year's violence (over 1,200 deaths a month). Last month, fifteen American military personnel died in Iraq. That's up from the record low (9 dead) in March. Iraqi security forces suffered 339 dead in April, and 278 in March.
British forces have officially withdrawn from Iraq, after having been there since they captured the city in March of 2003. Several hundred troops and civilians actually remain, to provide training and advice. Some 5,000 U.S. troops have taken over the security duties performed by the 3,800 departing British troops.
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20090501.aspx
Anything Goes
May 1, 2009: The U.S. Army has been unable to find a light helicopter that meets its requirements for a new armed scout helicopter. So now the army is looking further afield, even at UAVs. Two existing possibilities are the 1.5 ton RQ-8A and the two ton A160T. Both of these are based on light manned helicopters. So maybe a UAV version of a heavier commercial chopper, like the 2.7 ton Bell 407.
Four years ago, the army tried to convert the Bell 407 into a new scout helicopter for American use. The 2.8 ton ARH-70 (a militarized Bell-407), was to replace the elderly OH-58D scout helicopter. But the ARH-70 ran into problems getting the new military electronic systems adapted to the Bell-407. This should not have been a difficult problem. Both the contractors and the military people said so. But the electronics intended for militarizing the Bell-407 were not as ready for prime time as advertised. Bad leadership and poor supervision, plus unforeseen problems and unsuccessful attempts to overcome them, caused the ARH-70 to be cancelled two years ago.
The Bell 407 is a very successful commercial helicopter. And the army asked other manufacturers of light helicopters to offer proposals. None met the army's requirements. Originally, the Bell 407, which costs about $2.4 million each, was to have been militarized and delivered to the army for about $5 million each. At the time of the ARH-70 cancellation, per aircraft cost had risen to about $10 million. The Iraqi version will have to cost more like $5 million each to work.
A UAV version of the Bell 407 would be able to carry more (over a ton) weapons and sensors. Of course, the big disadvantage of the UAVs is that, without people on board, there is less "situational awareness" (being able to see and feel what is around you.) But UAV and sensor manufacturers have been working on the problem. Lighter, cheaper, more powerful and reliable sensors are available. Fit a 407 UAV with a dozen or more vidcams, and use new pattern recognition (another burgeoning field) software, and you get situational awareness equal, or even superior (because of the rapid zoom and pattern recognition) to that of a manned aircraft. Or so the proponents claim. The flight crew on the ground (a pilot and one or more sensor and weapons operators) can more quickly and thoroughly scan the surrounding terrain. That's what a scout helicopter does. With a multi-barrel machine-gun and two or more Hellfire (or other lightweight) missiles, the ARH UAV would be cheaper to build (by eliminating all the gear needed to hold and protect people) and stay in the air longer (because it would not have to carry around two crew), in addition to having better ability to see and find things. Maybe. But the army is now open to new ideas, since the old ones aren't working too well.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20090501.aspx
Commandos In Chains
May 1, 2009: Once again, Special Operations troops in Afghanistan have run into problems with ROE (Rules of Engagement). This time around, Czech commandos were recently sent home because their ROE prevented them from doing what commandos do. In at least one case, Czech commandos were held back from an operation because it was considered too dangerous. In other situations, the Czechs opted out of an operation because they believed they did not have sufficient manpower.
This sort of thing influences the use of most foreign troops in Afghanistan. NATO commanders in Afghanistan are not happy with all the strings attached to their authority by politicians back home. The ROE for NATO troops contain over seventy restrictions on how the NATO commander may use troops assigned to him. Most of these have to do with where national contingents can be moved, and how much they can be exposed to danger.
Last year, Germany is pulled its commandos out of Afghanistan. The KSK commandos have been there for most of the last seven years. Many Germans, especially leftist politicians and journalists, have not been happy with that. This has resulted in several unflattering, and largely inaccurate, articles about the KSK in the German media. There was also an investigation of several KSK men, accused of kicking an Afghan prisoner. While the KSK were allowed to fight, they also operated under an increasing number of restrictions. They generally could not fire at the enemy unless first fired upon. This led to at least one senior Taliban leader getting away from the KSK. The fleeing Taliban honcho was not firing at the pursuing KSK, so the commandos could not take him down.
Germany sent 120 KSK commandos to Afghanistan in late 2001. They were not given their own area of operation, but worked with American special forces and commandos as needed. The KSK commandos were the first German troops to engage in combat since 1945 (not counting some communist East German military advisers who may have had to defend themselves in places like Africa. German peacekeepers in the 1990s Balkans did not have to fight.) KSK's achievement was celebrated in late 2001, when a supply of quality German beer was flown in for the troops. This celebration became a scandal, at least according to indignant media reports, back in Germany.
The KSK were respected by their fellow special operations soldiers, and particularly liked because the Germans were sent beer rations (two cans a day per man). The KSK troops would often share the brew with their fellow commandos, which sometimes resulted in favors in the form of special equipment or intel data. Even with the restrictions, the KSK saw lots of action, but little of it was publicized, lest it generate more criticism back home. But the growing list of restrictions on the KSK led to them becoming useless for commando operations, and they were withdrawn.
There were also Arab commandos in Afghanistan, who eventually got pulled because of a growing list of restrictions, and fear that the presence of these elite troops be widely known. "Moslems fighting Moslems" is a hot button issue in the Islamic world, even though the Arab commandos were eager to go after al Qaeda, and other Arab terrorists known to be operating in Afghanistan.
All this was a major disappointment to the commandos involved. Afghanistan has become something of an Olympics for foreign commandos, a place where they could operate under fire against a dangerous (and thus worthy) foe. Most commandos have trained to deal with Islamic terrorists (especially commandos in Islamic countries) and Afghanistan was an opportunity to do what they have trained so hard for.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsf/articles/20090501.aspx
Virtual Al Qaeda Rocks
May 1, 2009: Last year, the al Qaeda Internet media operation (mostly in Iraq, but in other countries as well) was taken apart. This was an aftereffect of the defeat of al Qaeda in Iraq, where many of their key Internet people were operating. These terrorist geeks were either captured or killed. Some escaped, and joined the many Islamic terrorist Internet specialists who don't get their hands dirty. These guys are pretty smart, and have useful Internet skills. They quickly rebuilt the al Qaeda network, maintaining 15-20 sites that are designed to be difficult to shut down. These sites frequently shift their IP address, and the servers they operate from. This effort employs the same tools and techniques that Internet criminals use to stay ahead of the police.
The al Qaeda geeks need these evasion techniques not to avoid the police, but to protect themselves from continuing efforts by anti-terrorist hackers (individuals and groups) to shut down pro-terrorist web sites. Sometimes these vigilantes are exceedingly effective, and lately they may have shut down all but a few of sites used as distribution points for important new terrorist videos. The dozen or so main al Qaeda sites are needed to provide distribution for terrorist propaganda (especially videos) and recruiting materials (which the videos are also a big part of) are under constant attack. It's a war you don't hear much about, but it's pretty fierce and has been going on for years.
That brings up another point. Islamic terrorists are often described as having "thousands (usually 5,000+) of web sites." But nearly all of these are basically fan sites. There are only a dozen or so sites that actually conduct the business of terrorism. While these sites are under heavy attack by anti-terrorism hackers, they are also closely watched by many intelligence agencies, and a few private anti-terrorism organizations.
Islamic terrorists have been reaching out to their supporters on the Internet, openly asking for ideas and information. This is a dangerous thing for terrorism fans to participate in. If the local police catch someone sending suggestions or information to terrorist groups, it can get you arrested and jailed. Apparently it does put a lot of people on the police radar, and eventually leads to arrests.
The intelligence agencies prefer that the Islamic terror sites stay online, so their users can be watched and identified. But the anti-terror vigilante hackers want to fight back, and no one has the heart, or the means, to stop them. The intel people know that Osama Bin Laden believed, from the beginning (in the 1990s), that electronic communications would be an essential element in keeping the jihad ("struggle" in Arabic) going. Because of this, Arab speaking (or literate) intel operatives have long participated (as users) on these web sites for over a decade, collecting much valuable information in the process.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20090501.aspx
A United Nations First
May 1, 2009: In response to North Korea's recent ballistic missile tests, the UN has, for the first time, imposed sanctions on individual firms for arms embargo violations. In this case, it's North Korean companies (owned by the state) associated with North Korea's missile program. The three firms, Korea Mining Development Trading Corp., Tanchon Commercial Bank and Korea Ryongbong General Corp., had already been sanctioned by the United States. This was particularly troublesome for the North Koreans, as the U.S. has been using its ability to enforce its will on the world banking system, to make it more difficult for these three firms to operate internationally.
North Korea always responds that these sanctions and legal bans do little damage. But that is not true. At the very least, the North Koreans have to pay additional fees and bribes to move money internationally. The scrutiny is also unwelcome, since it has, in the past, uncovered illegal operations (like drug smuggling, and smuggling in general, currency counterfeiting and so on) that the North Koreans would rather keep quiet. It's gotten so bad that, recent negotiations over halting North Korean nuclear and missile programs, usually involve demands that North Korea be freed from many of the banking restrictions.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htun/articles/20090501.aspx
im surprised at how lax the penalties are in PA.
here they can take just about everything you have if you are caught poaching
U.S. Marine Corps Reconsiders JLTV
Apr 29, 2009
Bettina H. Chavanne chavanne@aviationweek.com
If Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) development prototypes do not get lighter, the U.S. Marine Corps will not participate in the program, according to the armed service's commandant.
Gen. James Conway told reporters at the Pentagon today that the Marines "will not buy a vehicle that's 20,000 pounds." Depending on what the "evolution of development looks like, we may have to depart that buy and rehabilitate what we've got," he said.
"I believe the industry hasn't stayed apace of the vision" the Marine Corps has of a lightweight vehicle that provides the same level of protection as its heavier counterparts, Conway said. He reiterated a point he has made numerous times in the past: "The Marine Corps doesn't need more MRAPs." The service is retro-fitting its Category I and II Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles with a new suspension system at what Conway called a fraction of the cost of buying new trucks. "We're pretty happy with ourselves," he added.
When pressed on the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), which has faced continual criticism for cost overruns and schedule delays, Conway was firm in his support. "I'm unequivocal on the requirement" for fast, forcible entry of Marines from 25 miles off shore, he said, adding that no other manufacturer has been able to offer what General Dynamics has in the EFV.
"If someone comes up with a faster, better, cheaper means to [get Marines ashore], then I'm happy to" look at the option, but that has not happened, Conway said.
The first three MV-22 Osprey squadrons have had great success in Iraq, Conway said. What remains is to field the tiltrotor on board a ship underway - which is next on the list. "We've got to answer questions about seaworthiness, the effects of sea air and conditions on-board ship." An upcoming Marine Expeditionary Unit will include the V-22, with a subsequent unit taking the aircraft to Afghanistan. "It will be a wonderful machine in that environment," Conway added.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/LIGHT042909.xml&headline=U.S.%20Marine%20Corps%20Reconsiders%20JLTV&channel=defense
Marines Engineer Afghanistan-Worthy MRAP
By Fred W. Baker III
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, April 29, 2009 – The Marines are working to build an Afghanistan-worthy mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicle.
With 8,000 Marines on their way there now, the Marine Corps wants an off-road version of the MRAP that is now fielded, said Marine Corps Commandant James T. Conway at a news conference here today.
While the MRAPs work well to save lives, the bulky, 16-ton vehicle does not work so well where there are not improved roads. In Afghanistan, where there are few improved roads, the vehicles have been known to get bogged down.
Conway said that instead of pursuing a new line of vehicles, he asked engineers to look at modifying a current version of the MRAP with an independent wheel suspension. A prototype has been tested with good results, he said.
Unfortunately, initial modifications to the V-shaped hull reduced the vehicles resistance to roadside bombs, he said.
“It didn't work very well -- didn't work like an MRAP is supposed to,” Conway said. “And the dummies inside all died, based on the testing.”
A second modification and testing yielded similar results, he said.
The third time was the charm, though, and now the Marines are modifying the remainder of their fleet of MRAPs for Afghanistan use.
“… The long-term use of MRAPs in the Marine Corps is going to be very positive, and we can do it all at a fraction of the cost [of pursuing a new line of vehicles],” Conway said.
The Marine Corps has about 2,200 MRAPs and Conway said the service does not need anymore.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/04/mil-090429-afps04.htm
France Wants New Tankers Too
France Wants New Tankers Too
By Colin Clark Wednesday, April 29th, 2009 10:19 pm
Posted in Air, International, Policy
France’s defense attache met with defense reporters this morning and said his country hopes to buy 14 to 15 airborne tankers. No date is set for a Request for Information yet, but France does plan to buy tankers, said Air Force Maj. Gen. Gratien Maire.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Maire said that France would place a premium on interoperability with allies and noted that Britain is buying the EADS tanker” “It is important for us that the equipment is completely interoperable.”
I asked the general, who was attending a Defense Writers Group breakfast, how the French military had reacted to Gates’ decision to kill the VH-71 presidential helicopter and the long slow madness of the tanker competition. After all, France has been one of America’s staunchest allies, especially since 9-11. They have shared a great deal of intelligence, provided fly-over rights, helped the US make excellent use of Djibouti, and most important, they have consistently provided large numbers of highly capable troops in Afghanistan and other theaters. I pressed him, asking if he felt that France had gone unrewarded on the industrial side after contributing so much treasure and blood.
Maire said simply that France did not “expect something back.” Being plain spoken did not stop him from playing a diplomatic card, however. He referred to the industrial balance between Europe and the United States. “This is not a good balance. The US buys equipment from Europe about Euros 880 million and Europe buys about 3.3 billion from the US,” he said, adding that it is of course “a competition.”
The top French officer in America also made a point that caught most of the reporters — including myself — by surprise. France has roughly 1,600 troops in Afghanistan as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). There have been persistent reports that French and other NATO troops operate under fairly restrictive rules of engagement designed to lower casualties. This, Maire insisted, is simply not true for french troops. Several of us made sure there was no linguistic barrier and asked the question several different ways, and we checked with his press aide. French troops can operate and engage the enemy as needed — end of story.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/04/29/france-wants-new-tankers-too/
"Split Down the Middle": Why China Won't
Dominate the 21st Century
Posted Apr 29, 2009 08:30am EDT by Aaron Task in Investing, Newsmakers
Related: FXI, EPP, PAF, GCH, PGJ, EWJ, EEM
China's astronomical growth is one of the great economic and geopolitical stories of the modern era. But it's also coming to an end, says George Friedman, founder of STRATFOR and author of The Next 100 Years.
"China has had extraordinary growth for 30 years - the probability it will do it for 60 years is statistical negligible," he says.
Friedman predicts China will fragment in the coming century and be overshadowed (again) by Japan as the region's dominant power.
The critical issue - something that's lost on most Westerners who visit or invest in the country, he says - is that China is "split right down the middle" between its booming, modern Eastern seaboard and extremely poor rural heartland.
"Beijing is trying to balance - in a very ancient way - between one region that's lost its bearings in China vs. the rest of China that's bitterly poor and extremely angry," Friedman says. "It's difficult to see how a coastal region that has more in common with Los Angeles is going to be held together with 1.1 billion [people] living barely above poverty."
The ruling Communist Party may be able to suppress rebellion and maintain its power, he says. But it won't be able to prevent these internal divisions or from other nations, including Western powers and Japan, from making inroads into China.
This will have profound implications for investors who are betting big on China, as well as for U.S. interests in the region, as we discuss in more detail in a forthcoming segment.
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/237940/%22Split-Down-the-Middle%22-Why-China-Won%27t-Dominate-the-21st-Century?tickers=FXI,EPP,PAF,GCH,PGJ,EWJ,EEM
The Next 100 Years: War in Space
Posted Apr 30, 2009 10:44am EDT by Aaron Task in Newsmakers
Related: TUR, EWJ, RSX, ^DJI, SPY, EEM, DIA
With the U.S. military already space-based, war in the stars will inevitably move from the realm of science fiction and into reality later this century, says George Friedman, founder of STRATFOR.
In his latest book, The Next 100 Years, Friedman explains how war in space is unavoidable; "wherever humans go, war will follow," he writes. Moreover, any enemy that seeks to attack the United States must, ultimately, try to take out our space-based military satellites. Knowing this, U.S. military command will move toward a system of permanent bases in space - manned by humans and robots - to defend and repair those critical assets.
It's really not so far-fetched to imagine war in space occurring later this century if you think about how dramatically military technology advanced in the first half of the 20th Century - from cavalry to the first tanks to supersonic jets and nuclear weapons.
What's more surprising, perhaps, is Friedman's forecast of the major combatants of the first space war: On one side, he sees the U.S. allied primarily with Poland vs. an alliance between Japan and Turkey.
As detailed in the book and discussed in earlier segments (see links below) Friedman sees:
* China fragmenting, leading Japan to cement its status as Asia's primary power. With its lack of natural resources and aging population, Japan will have to expand its sphere of influence later this century, by force if necessary. (Friedman says Japan's "pacifist" constitution is easily changed, and offset by the reality of its already robust military.)
* Turkey emerging as Europe's leading power, thanks to its historically powerful status in the Muslim world while Germany and Russia face sharp drops in their population and economic prowess.
* With Turkey and Japan both naval powers, their potential combination will pose a threat to America's naval dominance, something the U.S. fears and ultimately putting the nations on a collision course.
* Meanwhile, much like South Korea was after WW2, he predicts Poland will be the primary beneficiary of U.S. military and economic assistance in Europe because of its geographic position and educated workforce. Poland, therefore, will be positioned - militarily and culturally - to aid America in what Friedman says will be a war fought primarily for the dominance of space.
See the accompanying video for Friedman's thoughts out the outcome of WW3 and check out our earlier segments with this leading geopolitical thinker
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/239054/The-Next-100-Years-War-in-Space?tickers=TUR,EWJ,RSX,^DJI,SPY,EEM,DIA?sec=topStories&pos=8&asset=&ccode=
Chinese Carrier Goes Into Dry Dock
April 30, 2009: China has moved its aircraft carrier, the Shi Lang, into dry dock, apparently to install engines and other heavy equipment. A year ago, the Russian aircraft carrier Varyag was renamed the Shi Lang (after the Chinese general who took possession of Taiwan in 1681, the first time China ever paid any attention to the island) and given the pennant number 83. The Chinese have been refurbishing the Varyag, one of the Kuznetsov class that Russia began building in the 1980s, for five years now. It is expected to be ready for sea trials by the end of the year. Maybe. No one is sure exactly what plans the Chinese have for the Shi Lang, although work has been going on for years, and it's believed that the carrier will eventually be used to train the first generation of Chinese carrier aviators and sailors.
The Varyag has been tied up in a Chinese shipyard at Dailan since 2002. While the ship is under guard, it can be seen from a nearby highway. From that vantage point, local military and naval buffs have noted that some kind of work is being done on the ship. The only visible signs of this work are a new paint job (in the gray shade used by the Chinese navy) and ongoing work on the superstructure (particularly the tall island on the flight deck.) Many workers can be seen on the ship, and material is seen going into (new stuff) and out of (old stuff) the ship. Shipyard workers report ever tighter security on the carriers, and stern instructions to workers to not report details of what is happening on the carriers.
Originally the Kuznetsovs were to be 90,000 ton, nuclear powered ships, similar to American carriers (complete with steam catapults). Instead, because of the high cost, and the complexity of modern (American style) carriers, the Russians were forced to scale back their plans, and ended up with the 65,000 ton (full load ) ships that lacked steam catapults, and used a ski jump type flight deck instead. Nuclear power was dropped, but the Kuznetsov class was still a formidable design. The thousand foot long carrier normally carries a dozen navalized Su-27s (called Su-33s), 14 Ka-27PL anti-submarine helicopters, two electronic warfare helicopters and two search and rescue helicopters. But the ship can carry up to 36 Su-33s and sixteen helicopters. The ship carries 2,500 tons of aviation fuel, allowing it to generate 500-1,000 aircraft and helicopter sorties. Crew size is 2,500 (or 3,000 with a full aircraft load.) Only two ships of this class exist; the original Kuznetsov, which is in Russian service, and the Varyag. Currently, the Kuznetsov is operating in the Mediterranean.
The Chinese have been in touch with Russian naval construction firms, and may have purchased plans and technology for equipment installed in the Kuznetsov. Some Chinese leaders have quipped about having a carrier by 2010 (this would have to be a refurbished Varyag). Even that would be an ambitious schedule, and the Chinese have been burned before when they tried to build new military technology in a hurry.
Late last year, China announced that its first class of carrier aviators had begun training at the Dalian Naval Academy. The naval officers will undergo a four year course of instruction to turn them into fighter pilots capable of operating off a carrier. China already has an airfield, in the shape of a carrier deck, built at an inland facility. The Russians have warned China that it may take them a decade or more to develop the knowledge and skills needed to efficiently run an aircraft carrier. The Chinese are game, and are slogging forward.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20090430.aspx
Bullets, Pills, And Clean Water
April 30, 2009: All of the extra troops the UK is deploying to Afghanistan this year are to be sent to the volatile Afghan-Pakistani border regions, opening the start of the Britain's new strategy there. The Brits have been operating almost exclusively in the Helmand province and Afghan-Pakistan border regions for the past three years, and have recently enjoyed major success. But they have been fighting without adequate numbers to cover the entire area. They have also been operating without sufficient funds to make a sweeping impact on the area's educational and medical infrastructure, necessary to building popular support. The British are staying in Afghanistan and carrying on the fight, but, due to recent events, their troops are finally getting the boost they need to possibly finish off the Taliban in Helmand.
This new strategy means several changes and revisions to what the Brits had planned for the coming year. First off, the British government had already earlier planned to deploy 8,000 more troops to Afghanistan to help combat the terrorists and provide security for the government. The commanders on the ground wanted a lot more troops, claiming the number being given to them was much too small to accomplish their mission, a view justified by the large tracts of territory they must patrol and clear ( 8,000 troops simply wasn't enough manpower).
However, their requests were shot down by the government, particularly the Treasury who claimed the monetary strain would be more than the country could bear. But it looks as though the commanders will be getting exactly what they wanted in the first place, which is over 2,000 more troops. Instead of simply providing security for the upcoming elections in the summer, the additional troops will participate in the aggressive patrolling and offensive operations that have worked so well in previous months. Protecting the coming elections is still on, but the Brits want to follow up the successes they've had lately in their attacks on the terrorists, meaning more emphasis on attacking and less on security. The British have also decided this month to increase the size of the Special Air Service specifically in order to meet the increasing demand in Afghanistan for special operations forces.
Depending on how the plan works out, this could either be a good thing or a bad thing. Having more SAS is something all British commanders, and their allies, want. However, increasing the SAS numbers is easier said than done. The SAS selection course is far more intense than regular army training and boasts a dropout rate of well over 50 percent. This means the SAS can only grow very slowly. So far, the defense ministry has set a very reasonable goal of a 5 percent manpower increase. Since withdrawing from Iraq, the SAS are being redeployed to Afghanistan. Critics are claiming that the regular army needs to make up for its 4,500 recruit shortfall, troops that supply the bulk of combat manpower, before it begins tinkering with the special ops people. The Army is counting on adding 5,000 new recruits this year. Still, the plan to increase the "tan berets" is the most welcome part of the new strategy among commanders in Afghanistan, along with the added bodies they're set to receive.
Secondly, the new strategy isn't just limited to combat personnel. Over a billion dollars in economic and humanitarian aid is going to the border provinces, funds that the Brits are hoping will draw the local populace further away from Taliban influence and hopefully get them to grow something other than poppies. The UK had already planned to disperse the money, but they are realizing that they're going to have to do it more quickly if it is to do any good in conjunction with the beefed up combat power they're putting in theatre. The money was supposed to be distributed over a period of four years, but the increased activity along the border and the urgent need to hurry up and crush the Taliban, along with any local support for it, has forced the Crown to speed up its efforts to get the people over to their side. The money was always here, but it's mow being given in one large lump small instead of gradual installments.
Building up Afghanistan's infrastructure has long been a priority, but the latest increase of funds will mean more than just a few schools and hospitals erected by the Royal Engineers. The British are learning that, in a place as impoverished as Afghanistan, building a few clinics isn't enough, especially when the entire country exists in an almost medieval state. In order to win "hearts and minds" and in a short time at that, a massive undertaking is required and time is at a premium. The allies already have the Taliban on the defensive and are eager to take advantage of that and exploit their waning popularity as much as possible. In Afghanistan, and especially the border provinces, clean water and Western medicine translates into popular support. The sooner people are being fed and their children get vaccines against childhood diseases, the sooner they'll start telling the allies where the bad guys are.
This comes as even worse news for a Taliban that is under attack both in Afghanistan and Pakistan and whose popular support is waning heavily. The British have fought in Afghanistan before and are not eager to repeat the mistakes of every other invading force in history.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20090430.aspx
Superconductors At War
April 29, 2009: The U.S. Navy has developed a technique, using superconductors, to rapidly degauss the hull of a warship, and make is less detectable by naval mines that sense large metal objects. This does not make ships immune to naval mines, but does make it more difficult for modern mines to detect their targets.
This is because current naval mines are "smart mines", containing its own computer, and able to detect targets via acoustic (detecting the sound of the target ship), pressure (detecting the pressure on the water a ship over head makes), and magnetic (detecting the metal in a ship) sensors. Many details of these bottom (they are placed on the sea bed of shallow coastal waters) mines are classified, and some are believed to have an electrical field sensor as well. Some can also be detonated by remote control. The computer in these mines are programmable, so the mine can be instructed to attack only certain types of ships. This is where the degauss technology becomes useful, because a smart mine will often go off only if a certain type of ship (setting off a specified number of sensors in a specified way) passes overhead. If the mine sensors do not detect the right combination of characteristics, they do not detonate. If the new degaussing technology becomes widely implemented, smart mines will have to be reprogrammed to try and deal with it.
While often ignored, naval mines, in general, are a formidable weapon. But they just don't get any respect. The historical record says otherwise. Modern naval mines were widely used for the first time a century ago, during the Russo-Japanese war (1904- 1905). These were contact mine, floating in shallow water and kept in place with an anchor and chain. When the tide was right, they would be just below the surface, ready to explode whenever struck by a ship. Some 2,000 of these mines were used to destroy sixteen ships during that first wartime use.
During World War I (1914-18), many modern mine tactics were developed. Thousands of mines were laid to provide defensive barriers against enemy movement in the North Sea. Mines were used offensively by secretly placing them across known enemy sea routes. More than 1,000 merchant and war ships were lost because of the 230,000 mines used. During World War II, a total of 2,665 ships were lost or damaged to 100,000 offensive mines. That's one ship for every 37 mines. Some 208,000 mines were used defensively to inhibit enemy movement and tie up his resources.
Naval mines achieved several striking successes during World War II. In the Pacific, naval mines proved more destructive to the Japanese war effort than the atom bombs. During a 10 week period between April and August 1945, 12,000 mines were delivered by American bombers. These destroyed 1,250,000 tons of Japanese shipping (670 ships hit, 431 destroyed). That's 18 mines for each ship hit. The Americans had air superiority, so losses during these 1,500 missions amounted to only 15 planes, most of them to accidents. Had these missions been flown against opposition, losses would have been between 30 and 60 aircraft, plus similar losses to their fighter escorts.
A conventional submarine campaign was also waged against Japanese shipping. Comparisons to the mine campaign are interesting. A hundred submarines were involved in a campaign that ran for 45 months from December, 1941 to August, 1945. Some 4.8 million tons of enemy shipping was sunk. For every US submarine sailor lost using submarine launched torpedoes, 560 tons of enemy ships were sunk. During the mine campaign, 3,500 tons were sunk for each US fatality. On a cost basis, the difference was equally stark. Counting the cost of lost mine laying aircraft (B- 29's at $500,000 each) or torpedo armed submarine ($5 million each), we find that each ton of sunk shipping cost six dollars when using mines and fifty-five dollars when using submarines. These data was classified as secret until the 1970s. It indicates that mines might have been more effective than torpedoes even if the mines were delivered by submarine.
The Germans waged a minelaying campaign off the east coast of the United States between 1942 and 1944. Only 317 mines were used, which sank or damaged 11 ships. This was a ratio of 29 mines used for each ship hit. In addition, eight ports were closed for a total of 40 days. One port, Charleston, South Carolina, was closed for 16 days, tying up not only merchant shipping but the thousands of men, warships and aircraft dealing with the situation. American submarines also waged a limited mine campaign in the Pacific. For 658 mines used, 54 ships were sunk or damaged (12 mines per ship). No subs were lost. Considerable Japanese resources were tied up dealing with the mines. On the Palau atoll, the port was closed by the mines and not reopened until the war ended. Even surface ships were used to lay mines. Three thousand mines were laid by destroyers. Only 12 ships were hit, but these were barrier fields, not the ambush type mine fields that a submarine can create by sneaking into an enemy held area.
In Korea during the early 1950s, the Soviets provided North Korea with 3,000 mines, many of 1904 vintage. These were used to defend Wonson harbor. It took several weeks for UN forces to clear these at a loss of a dozen ships hit. Half of these ships were destroyed.
During the Vietnam war, over 300,000 naval mines were used, primarily in rivers. The vast majority were not built as mines but were aerial bombs equipped with magnetic sensors instead of fuzes. These bombs/mines used a small parachute to insure that no damage occurred on landing. In shallow water these makeshift weapons sat on the bottom and performed as well as any other bottom mines. Haiphong Harbor was mined with 11,000 of these "destructors," as the US air force called them, and less than a hundred conventional mines. Haiphong Harbor was shut down completely for months, and it took years to clear out all the American mines. The "destructor" mine design was so successful, that it is still in use, using more modern electronics, as the Mk 62 mine.
During the 1991 Gulf War, the Iraqis laid over a thousand mines off the Iraqi and Kuwaiti coast. The predominantly US naval forces did not have sufficient mine sweeping resources to deal with this situation and had an amphibious ship and cruiser hit and damaged while trying to clear the area. This effectively prevented any US amphibious operations, although the Marines were not going to be used for a landing anyway. It took over a month of mine clearing after the fighting ceased to eliminate all the mines. In the meantime, two U.S. warships were damaged by these mines.
In any future war, naval mines will again surprise everyone with how effective they are. It is feared that terrorists might get their hands on some bottom mines, but so far, there do not appear to have been any attempts.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/articles/20090429.aspx
The Adolph Hitler Fan Club
April 29, 2009: Mass murder has long been a grisly feature of human history. But the speed and extent of such massacres accelerated in the 20th century, with the spread of electronic mass media. First radio, then television and now the Internet, made it possible to more quickly spread and intensify the hatred and dehumanization of the victims necessary to get mass killings started. This was most vividly seen during World War II, when Nazi propaganda against Jews and Slavs, and Japanese propaganda against non-Japanese, made it easier to slaughter nearly 40 million people. The communists were even more successful in using electronic media to facilitate the murder of a hundred million "enemies of the people."
After World War II, there was much talk of preventing this sort of thing from happening again. But the communist propaganda continued to mobilize populations for mass murder, the most terrifying example being the Cambodian communists and their slaughter of several million "enemies of the people" in the 1970s. After most communist governments were swept away by popular movements in the late 80s and early 90s, it was thought that the age of mass murder was gone.
But it's still with us. In the 1990s, the communist police state in North Korea used all its propaganda and media resources to keep the population quiet and under control as ten percent of them (nearly two million) starved to death. China had carried out a similar feat in the late 1950s, as over ten million starved. Russia had done the same thing in the Ukraine in the early 1930s, killing over five million. So it should have been no surprise when, in 1994, Hutu radicals in Rwanda used months of intense radio propaganda, demonizing the Tutsi minority, and leading to the mass murder of nearly a million people. Around the same time, Serbs and Croats in the Balkans were using similar propaganda to support the slaughter of over 200,000 Bosnian Moslems. A decade later, the government of Sudan used electronic and print media to mobilize Arab nomads against African farmers in western Sudan (Darfur). To date, this has led to over 300,000 deaths and ten times as many African farmers driven from their homes.
So it's quite clear that the mass murders will walk among us. Many of them are still trying to make their genocidal dreams come true. That is, there are many parts of the world where the genocide-to-be is still in the propaganda phase. In fact, one of the largest media hate campaigns in the last century has not been able to generate a mass killing, yet. This is the anti-Semitic campaign against Israel and Jews. Ostensibly in support of the Palestinians (the local Arabs who tried to drive Jews out of what is now Israel), the campaign basically calls for the death of all Jews. The campaign began before World War II, and during the war, many prominent Arabs openly supported the Nazis and their murder of millions of Jews. Many Arabs still support the Nazi efforts, and hope to emulate them. The propaganda campaign has largely been restricted to Arab language media. But it's pretty clear what's going on, even for a non-Arab speaker. The visuals on many Arab web sites are unambiguous.
Some non-Arab media is also enthusiastically following the Arab lead. Iran is the most prominent example, but the hate campaign has become a popular media topic throughout the Moslem world. Criticism from the West, or foreigners in general, is generally shrugged off. Given the opportunity, there's no doubt these decades of hate filled propaganda could turn into another incident of mass murder.
The hate campaigns usually have political roots. The anti-Bosnian campaign in the Balkans came as a result of the breakup of Yugoslavia, and opportunistic politicians using the hate campaign to generate support for themselves. Politicians have long used ethnic animosities and the media to create an enemy that the politician can then offer to protect his people from. It's an ancient technique, made much easier with electronic media (especially when much of the population is illiterate.) This is the root of the anti-Semitic campaign in the Moslem, especially the Arab, world. Arab countries are largely run by dictators and monarchs. Arab economies are poorly managed and crippled by corruption and exploitation by self-serving national leaders. The populations are not stupid, and know that their leaders are the cause of most of the poverty and lack of freedom. But the anti-Semitic propaganda campaign does resonate, especially as it includes blaming the West, and non-Moslems in general, for the poverty and poor government. That's what al Qaeda is all about, the removal of corrupt Arab governments, and replacing them with righteous religious dictatorships. And if some mass murder will help the cause, as so often happened in the past, it shall come to pass.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htterr/articles/20090429.aspx
Smart Security Specialists Saving Ships
April 29, 2009: Thousands of experienced security specialists, now out of work because of a much less violent Iraq (and a much smaller demand in Afghanistan), are finding work guarding commercial shipping. Most of these teams (4-6 men) are armed, usually just with pistols. But it's not firepower they depend on, but a growing toolkit of techniques for keeping pirates off a ship.
The professional security teams are usually defending the most lucrative targets (large ships carrying valuable cargoes). These teams began to show up last year, and the first ones were not equipped with firearms. Instead, several of them had an LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device). Commonly called a "sonic cannon", it is basically a focused beam of sound. It was designed to emit a very loud sound to a very small area. Anyone whose head was touched by this beam of focused energy, heard a painfully loud sound. Anyone standing next to them heard nothing. It was believed that those hit by the beam would promptly flee, or fall to the ground in pain. Some U.S. Navy ships also carry it to keep suspicious civilians away . While the LRAD worked in one case last year, when two boats of pirates were going after a cruise ship, it failed later when pirates went after a merchant ship. Apparently the pirates did some research and discovered that the LRAD was painful, but survivable. That's all they needed to know.
The security teams don't rely on high tech, but will instead organize and drill the crew on things that can be done to keep the pirates from boarding. This ranges from stringing barbed wire around likely boarding points, to showing the sailors how to use fire hoses and other tools (like long poles) to keep the ladders or grappling hooks from enabling the pirates to get aboard. These drills build confidence, and show how the security team will take the big risks, and how the crew can play a role in defending their ship. The security team also keeps track of how close warships are, and prepare a "safe room" (an area of the ship the crew can barricade themselves in, if they have to, until help arrives.) The security personnel make sure emergency communications is available in the safe room, and that the pirates cannot take control of the ship unless they have the crew. Usually this comes down to barricading the crew in the engine compartment.
The security teams get on the ship outside the danger zone (which, these days, is as far east as the Seychelles islands (1,500 kilometers east of Africa), or the Straits of Hormuz, and get off as the ship enters safe areas, like the Red Sea or south of Kenya. The security teams have to arrange for all these pickups and drop offs, and this adds to the cost (which is $20,000 or more). But the owners of many large ships, with expensive cargoes, find the cost worth it, even though the risk of getting captured by pirates is quite low.
For most of the past decade, the pirates preyed on foreign fishing boats and the small, sometimes sail powered, cargo boats the move close (within a hundred kilometers) of the shore. During that time, the pirates developed contacts with businessmen in the Persian Gulf who could be used to negotiate (for a percentage) much larger ransoms with insurance companies and shipping firms. The pirates also mastered the skills needed to put a grappling hook on the railing, 30-40 feet above the water, of a large ship. Doing this at night, and then scrambling aboard, is more dangerous if the ship has lookouts, who can alert sailors trained to deploy high pressure fire hoses against the borders.
Few big ships carry any weapons, and most have small crews (12-30 sailors). Attacking at night finds most of the crew asleep. Until recently, very few of these ships had any armed security. Ships can post additional lookouts when in areas believed to have pirates. Once pirates (speedboats full of armed men) are spotted, ships can increase speed (a large ship running at full speed, about 40+ kilometers an hour, can outrun most of the current speed boats the pirates have), and have fire hoses ready to be used to repel boarders. The pirates will fire their AK-47 assault rifles and RPG grenade launchers, but the sailors handling the fire hoses will stand back so the gunmen cannot get a direct shot.
Last year about one ship out of every 500 passing near Somalia was captured by pirates. Those odds have persuaded most ship owners to just pay the higher insurance rates, and have the crews practice avoiding capture, and taking advantage of warships in the area (knowing who and where they are, and how to quickly contact them.) Armed security details are, to many ship owners, not worth the cost.
With the pirates getting more and more ransom money for each ship, the number of pirate groups operating in the Gulf of Aden, and elsewhere, is growing. An increasing number of mother ships, usually captured fishing trawlers (able to stay out for weeks at a time, and carry speed boats for attacks) are traveling farther from the coast in the search of victims. Now the danger zone extends 1,500 kilometers from the Somali coast, to the Seychelles Islands. This is putting many cruise ships and super tankers at risk, and these ships are most frequently hiring the security teams to help avoid any problems with the pirates.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htseamo/articles/20090429.aspx
The Persian Gulf Arms Race
April 29, 2009: The UAE (United Arab Emirates) has become the third largest importer of weapons in the world, and the largest in the Middle East. The other two bigger spenders worldwide are India and China. In the Middle East, the UAE imports 50 percent more weapons than Israel. The UAE is a confederation of small Arab states at the southern end of the Persian Gulf. With a population of only 5.5 million, and large oil and gas deposits, the emirates have a per-capita income of $43,000. Thus the UAE has a lot to defend, and an increasingly belligerent neighbor just across the Gulf. The UAE controls one side the entrance to the Gulf (the Straits of Hormuz). Iran is on the other end, and both nations dispute ownership of some islands in the middle.
The UAE wants to defend itself from potential Iranian aggression. To that end, they are spending $7 billion on American THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) anti-missile systems to protect itself against the growing arsenal of Iranian ballistic missiles. The UAE is also buying lots of aircraft, including 75 U.S. F-16s and 50 French Mirage 2000-9 fighters. There are also ten U.S. C-103J and four C-17 transports on order. Then there are munitions, 1,300 American laser and GPS guided bombs. Several warships are also on the way.
The UAE is also spending nearly a billion dollars to put up four radar satellites. The GulfSAR (synthetic aperture radar) satellites will use an orbit that will cover an area 43 degrees north and south of the Equator. The UAE is also spending billion on armored vehicles, artillery and other equipment for their ground forces. More billions being spent on bases, training, support and logistics.
Iran is spending less that 15 percent of what the UAE is. That's mainly because Iran is under several arms embargoes, and is cash poor because the religious dictatorship in charge is financially inept and corrupt. But the Iranians have a long (over 3,000 years) reputation for aggressive behavior, and dominating the region. Going retro on the neighbors is growing more popular with Iranians, especially if the neighbors are rich and Iran could use the money. At least that's how the Arabs on the other side of the Persian Gulf see it.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htproc/articles/20090429.aspx
and their ground forces number only 26,000 men and women. that is quite a large commitment from such a small army
i have noticed that the countries still giving allegiance to the Queen of England have contributed more than most of the NATO partners
great! that just means that venezuela is allowing terrorists to enter their country and make their way here
not sure i would want to be on that ride. lol