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.
Bringing Back Burke
April 19, 2009: The U.S. Navy will only build, at most, three of the new DDG-1000 class ships, and resume building Arleigh Burke class destroyers. It's a matter of cost. The new DDG-1000 destroyers (and slightly larger versions designated as cruisers) would cost more than $4 billion each if built in large quantities. The Burkes cost a billion dollars each. The last of 62 Burkes was ordered in 2002 and is under construction. Another Burke will being construction next year, and more will be built over the next decade.
Meanwhile, the navy will buy some time (about a decade) by upgrading dozens of existing destroyers and cruisers. This is a bitter pill to swallow, as only eight years ago, the navy was so sure about the new DDG-1000, that it accelerated the retirement of a dozen of the 31 Spruance class destroyers, in order to save the $28 million a year it would cost to keep each of them in service. These ships were not just retired, they were all either broken up, or sunk in training exercises. The dozen that entered service between 1979-83 could have been refurbished and been available until 2019. That's a lost opportunity. But what can now be done is refurb the Burke class destroyers (which began entering service in the 1990s). Most of the Ticonderoga class cruisers (which entered service in the 1980s and 90s) can use the refurb as well, which could boost their service into the 2030s. This, plus building a dozen or more Burke class destroyers will be built.
The refurb policy will cost about $200 million per destroyer (and 20-25 percent more for the cruisers). Normally, these ships get one refurb during their 30 year lives. This not only fixes lots of things that have broken down or worn out (and been patched up), but installs lots of new technology. A second refurb is expected to add another 5-10 years of serviceability. But this special refurb will do more than that. The navy wants to add some of the DDG-1000 technology to these older ships. In particular, the navy wants to install the "smart ship" type automation (found in civilian ships for decades) that will enable crew size to be reduced. The "smart ship" gear also includes better networking and power distribution. In effect, the ship would be rewired. This could reduce the crew size by 20-30 percent (current destroyers have a crew of 320, with the cruisers carrying 350). In addition to considerable cost savings (over $100,000 a year per sailor), a smaller crew takes up less space, enabling the smaller crew to have more comfortable living quarters. This is a big deal as far as morale and retention (getting people to stay in the navy) goes. Most other new items are not space dependent, except for some of the power based ones (like the rail gun). But these technologies are receding farther into the future. Right now the navy has to find a way to live within its budget, and refurbishing existing warships shows more promise than trying build affordable new ones.
The new destroyer (DDG-1000/Zumwalt Class, also known as DD-21 or DD-X) design has a stealthy superstructure, and is as big as a battleship, at least a battleship of a century ago, The new destroyer is a 14,000 ton ship, 600 feet long and 79 feet wide. A crew of 150 sailors operate a variety of weapons, including two 155mm guns, two 40mm automatic cannon for close in defense, 80 Vertical Launch Tubes (containing either anti-ship, cruise or anti-aircraft missiles), six torpedo tubes, a helicopter and three helicopter UAVs. The cruiser version (CGN, as Congress has mandated that these be nuclear powered) would drop one of the 155mm guns, as well as the torpedo tubes, but carry more vertical cells for missiles (especially anti-ballistic missile missiles). This would be a 20-25,000 ton ship.
For comparison purposes, consider a modern ship of a century ago. Not a support ship like a destroyer, but a "capital ship." Back then, a Mississippi class battleship displaced 14,400 tons, was 382 feet long and 77 feet wide. A crew of 800 operated a variety of weapons, including four 12 inch, eight 8 inch, eight 7 inch, twelve 3 inch, twelve 47mm and four 37mm guns, plus four 7.62mm machine-guns. There were also four torpedo tubes. The Mississippi had a top speed of 31 kilometers an hour, versus 54 for DDG-1000. But the Mississippi had one thing DD-21 lacked, armor. Along the side there was a belt of 9 inch armor, and the main turrets had 12 inch thick armor. The Mississippi had radio, but the DDG-1000 has radio, GPS, sonar, Aegis radar, electronic warfare equipment and the ability to shoot down ballistic missiles. The century old Mississippi class ships cost about half a billion dollars (adjusted for inflation). The DDG-1000 class destroyers will cost over $4 billion each, thus possessing the price, and size, the firepower, if not the name, of a battleship. The U.S. Navy can't afford battleships.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsurf/articles/20090419.aspx
Navy Commissions New Guided Missile Destroyer Stockdale
The Navy will commission the newest Arleigh Burke class guided-missile destroyer, Stockdale, during an 11:00 a.m. PST ceremony on Saturday, April 18, 2009, in Port Hueneme, Calif.
Designated DDG 106, the new destroyer honors Medal of Honor recipient Vice Adm. James Bond Stockdale (1923-2005), the legendary leader of American prisoners of war (POWs) during the Vietnam War.
Stockdale was the highest-ranking naval officer ever held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. His plane was shot down Sept. 9, 1965, while flying combat missions over North Vietnam. Stockdale spent more than seven years in captivity at prisons in North Vietnam, including time at the infamous “Hanoi Hilton.” Four of those years were spent in solitary confinement. While imprisoned, Stockdale is credited with organizing a set of rules to govern the behavior of fellow prisoners of war and for helping to develop a code for prisoners to communicate with each other that included tapping on cell walls. In recognition of his leadership and sacrifice he was awarded the Medal of Honor in 1976.
Stockdale received 26 combat medals and awards, including two Distinguished Flying Crosses, three Distinguished Service Medals, two Purple Hearts and four Silver Stars. He was also named to the Aircraft Carrier Hall of Fame, National Aviation Hall of Fame, and was an honorary member of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots.
Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, Adm. Timothy Keating, will deliver the ceremony's principal address. Sybil Stockdale will serve as sponsor of the ship named for her late husband. The ceremony will be highlighted by a time-honored Navy tradition when she gives the first order to “man our ship and bring her to life!”
Stockdale is the 56th of 62 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The ship will be able to conduct a variety of operations, from peacetime presence and crisis management to sea control and power projection. Stockdale will be capable of fighting air, surface and subsurface battles simultaneously and contains a myriad of offensive and defensive weapons designed to support maritime warfare in keeping with “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower,” the new maritime strategy that postures the sea services to apply maritime power to protect U.S. vital interests in an increasingly interconnected and uncertain world.
Cmdr. Fred W. Kacher, of Oakton, Va., will become the first commanding officer of the ship and will lead the crew of 276 officers and enlisted personnel. The 9,200-ton Stockdale was built by Bath Iron Works, a General Dynamics Company. The ship is 509 feet in length, has a waterline beam of 59 feet, and a navigational draft of 31 feet. Four gas turbine engines will power the ship to speeds in excess of 30 knots.
For more information on Arleigh Burke class destroyers, visit http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=900&ct=4.
http://www.defenselink.mil/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=12614
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/04/mil-090416-dod02.htm
nothing like that radar though
i would agree, and BO seems to want to be their friends
Fighting In A Fishbowl
April 18, 2009: While American military commanders debate how to get their troops ready for the next war (be it "irregular war" or conventional combat), they are also beginning to realize that both forms of conflict are being overshadowed by a unique new form of combat that is supplanting, or greatly modifying, all previous types. It's called Information War. While Information War has been around for a long time, it's never been as decisive as it is today. This sort of sneaked up on everyone.
For thousands of years, information (orders, reports) and news travelled slowly. Battles were noted for lots of noise and confusion, with commanders having a hard time issuing new orders, and depending on subordinates to be quick to size up new situations and act effectively on their own. That began to change nearly two centuries ago, as, in rather rapid succession, the telegraph, telephone and radio suddenly made it possible for senior political and military commanders to communicate with distant subordinates. This was a radical change, because for thousands of years, when you sent an army or fleet off to fight, it was understood that the commanders would be on their own, with no (prompt) interference from the boss back home. A century ago, this was suddenly no longer true. Over the past hundred years, this change in how far and fast information could travel has not just changed warfare, but cultures as well. War has become a group experience, with the folks, not just the leaders, back home having influence on if, and how, distant wars will be fought.
The mass media developed at the same time, and made it possible to get the message out to everyone quickly. As time went by, "quickly" morphed into "immediately." Politicians have always had to worry about public opinion, even when information moved at the speed of a horse or ship, and most of the population was illiterate. Now politicians have to respond very quickly to cell phone photos tweeted, from the scene of some newsworthy disaster, to the entire world. While military commanders who could anticipate problems have always been more successful, generals and admirals are now learning to anticipate what the media impact will be, as well as what the enemy is capable of.
Last year, the U.S. Army came out with a top line field manual (FM 3-07) "stability operations" (the kind of "small wars" being waged in Iraq and Afghanistan.) The army has always had an FM-7 for "full spectrum operations" (total war, against troops in uniform, armed with a full spectrum of weapons and tactics). Now it is committed to training for both types of combat. The key to this is training the commanders. One discovery in the last decade is that the troops can switch from conventional combat, to irregular type operations, more quickly and efficiently than their bosses.
What the army doesn't like to touch too much, at least officially, is the media angle in all this. The brass are aware of the problem, and have been for decades. It was only in the 1980s that a serious effort was made to address the problems inherent in Information War. But even then, everyone at the table knew it was, well, politically sensitive, to address dealing with how the media, and its impact on the political leaders, would influence what the troops and their commanders would have to do. But the subject is being discussed by officers more and more, if only because it's the elephant in the room that really can't be ignored anymore.
This year, the army will begin holding brigade level training exercises for conventional warfare. These will mainly be for the commanders. The army has simulation technology that makes it cheap and easy to set up a realistic wargame, with brigade, and higher level, commanders, standing in their usual headquarters (everything from a tent, to an office suite back in DC, full of PCs, datalinks and flat panel displays), having to deal with realistic wartime decisions. Some of those decisions will involve how to cope with the media and Information War angle.
Brigades that are now able to stay at their bases for 18 months, will also have a chance to practice conventional warfare, as a brigade, at the electronically monitored training centers. This sort of thing, an army innovation of the 1980s, has proved to be the closest thing to actual combat ever developed. What the army is seeking to confirm is the usefulness of combat experience, which so many troops now have, to enabling them to quickly relearn the skills needed for conventional war. In practice, much of what a soldier does in conventional, or irregular, warfare, is the same. Shooting accurately, carefully planning raids or patrols, attention to detail and discipline are all used in both forms of combat. There are different tactics, but these are learned more quickly by troops who have been in combat. Being a combat veteran makes a big difference, and the coming series of conventional war exercises at the training centers will measure how much. The army is also seeking to see how well the "media relations" training troops are given, at all levels, sticks with the troops.
The army also wants to measure how quickly the commanders can switch from conventional, or irregular warfare, and back again. The colonels and generals now have their two playbooks, and over the next few years, they will be tested. But in the background, officers are debating how best to deal with matters-that-cannot-be-mentioned. While pundits and academics go on about whether the army should concentrate their training on irregular or conventional combat, the officers know that this is concentrating on the wrong problem. The real unknown in combat is how to successfully fight any kind of war in an increasingly wired world, where everyone knows everything right away.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20090418.aspx
Dare To Be Different
April 18, 2009: American counter-terrorism organizations believe they have discovered a new form of Islamic terrorism. It's basically intimidation via staged controversy. One tactic has Islamic clerics boarding an aircraft as a group and deliberately acting suspiciously, but legally, hoping to attract the attention of security officials and being removed from the aircraft. In one case, three years ago, the six clerics involved then sued, claiming discrimination. They also tried to sue other passengers who had pointed out the odd behavior to flight crew. A year before, a similar incident occurred at a football stadium in New Jersey.
The tactic may seem strange to Westerners, but Islamic radicals discuss among themselves the need to create fear and confusion in Western nations they plan to convert to Islam. Many Islamic radical leaders living in Western nations openly speak of somehow converting Western nations to Islam, as part of the plan (a favorite of al Qaeda) to turn the entire planet into an Islamic state. Using the Western legal system to harass the local population and government, and creating situations where Moslems can claim discrimination and oppression, are two tactics often mentioned.
A third benefit of these methods is to make non-Moslems reluctant to report odd activity by Moslems, especially terrorists or activists. Since the Islamic radicals believe it is a sure thing that they will succeed, they believe any attention is good for their cause. The reality is that it does not work out that way. The attention makes most Westerners hostile to the demonstrative and combative Moslems. It's basically mutual incomprehension. Islamic radicals believe that this hostility towards Moslems will make it easier for the radicals to recruit, and make security forces more reluctant to oppose violent behavior by Moslems.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20090418.aspx
the man is beyond naivete if he thinks he can make friends with our enemies. and hanging our allies asses in the wind is really going to back fire
Who Won The 60 Year War?
April 17, 2009: It’s a well-known fact that more and more Arab nations are losing their enthusiasm for making war on Israel and are adopting an air of either ambivalence, or normal diplomatic relations, with the Jewish state. What is less apparent, largely because of the latest round of fighting in the Gaza Strip and the rhetoric coming from Iran, is how far the Israelis have come in 60 years, with their nation becoming progressively safer and more secure with each passing decade.
As time has gone by, the Israelis have combined military force with some shrewd diplomatic maneuvering to progressively reduce the numbers of dangerous enemies opposing her. When the nation was founded, Israel was under threat of being destroyed almost immediately after its creation, being set upon by the entire Arab world. Fast forward to the present day, and Israel has not been invaded in over 30 years. Egypt and Jordan have both resigned themselves to the fact that they can’t beat the Israelis and the Jordanians have always been more pro-Western and sensible than most of their Arab brothers, having retained a lot of British influence in their military and government sectors.
The first cracks in Arab resolve to destroy Israel began even before a peace process got started. In 1973, the Egyptians and Syrians made war on Israel, but the Egyptians were under no illusions about their inability to totally wipe out Israel and instead pursued more limited gains. Syria remains recalcitrant but, like so many other poor countries in the Middle East, their armed forces possess obsolete equipment and pathetic levels of training and readiness. Money is also an issue outside of the Gulf oil states, with countries like Syria and Libya barely able to keep what equipment they do have running. Syria’s entire annual defense budget amounts to a pitiful $1-2 billion a year, and no longer receives massive amounts of equipment from a defunct Soviet Union. Such a force would be cut to pieces within minutes of engaging the state-of-the-art Israeli Defense Force. Syria has recently reached some agreements with Russia on force modernization and upgrades, but rebuilding the army completely will take years.
Furthermore, the Arab states, primarily Egypt, that are well-equipped and moderately well-trained, owe their military power to the United States, which provides billions in equipment every year. Making war on Israel again would be the quickest way to lose that aid. This is something Egypt can’t risk since it can hardly afford to maintain and buy a complete range of up-to-date equipment on its own.
Some of the Moslem states, like Saudi Arabia and Iran, are unlikely to ever recognize Israel or accept its existence. In the case of the Saudis, they don’t really have a choice, their country being the world center for the Moslem faith and run by the conservative Wahabi sect. Although possessing high-tech equipment, the Saudis don't have the manpower or the geographic location to go it alone and, again, have close contacts with the West. As for Iran, nothing will really change until, or if, the radical Islamic government falls.
After 60 years, Israel has pared the number of real military threats down to Iran, and the militant groups operating in the West Bank and Gaza, areas at which their forces can strike at will. Although Iran continues to threaten the Jewish nation and Hamas still fires rockets into their territory, the days when Israel very existence was threatened have long passed into history. Today, the Arab militaries are either too broke, too dependent on Western arms supplies, or just simply resigned to Israel’s permanent existence. Any Arab nation, most likely Syria, planning a new conventional attack on Israel in the future will find itself without the benefit of the substantial allies of the past. Such an attack would be not only ill-advised, but almost suicidal. -- Rory Walkinshaw
Make A Comment View Comments (1)
Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted
RtWingCon logic has nothing..... 4/17/2009 8:10:13 PM
IMO- the article makes a valid point as to the capability and geographic problems of total islam invasions of Israel. However, I've come to believe that logic or level headed reasoning and islam don't seem to go well together. Given the fanaticism of islam, including the ruling classes, to believe Egypt or Jordan and some of the other "friendly states" will no longer pose a threat to Israel is fantasy and wishful thinking. Its suicidal now for those nations to attack, but it only takes confidence and the will to win to start another war. Israels best defense is a fractured middle east. Perhaps that's Israels greatest weapon, keeping them divided.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20090417.aspx
and china would still try to steal the tech. lol
they still dont have the technical and manufacturing parts down to effectively copy our stuff yet. but im sure our new president will make sure they catch up quickly, he seems to think we arent being fair by being the only superpower.
china also isnt able to produce a quality military grade jet engine yet
pakistan has F-16s and is also getting china's J-7s (piss poor copy of the F-16)
here are some of india's inventory
they are actually looking at using women as pilots now. there arent enough people educated to the standard of being a pilot
in a non-nuclear war, india would destroy them. in a nuclear contest, nobody wins
i would agree if you were referring to saudi arabia or jordan, but pakistan is too corrupt. and if they dont have a maintenance contract for upkeep on those planes, then they arent being maintained very well.
pakistan has also had a problem with having enough trained pilots to fly their planes
the amazing part they dont get about guns, they are tools! instead of taking care of the criminals misusing these tools, they take away our freedoms
i think they still have a chance to turn things around, but doubt they will.
just because they have them doesnt mean they can use them effectively against a real military
Medvedev seems like he is trying to get himself some real power in the govt. so it wont surprise me if he 'steps down'.
considering the shambles that country is in, he never should have had much punch to begin with
didnt realize pakistan was that far gone already. or we have a few pentagon eggheads thinking they know more about this region than the people running it
NATO needs to dump the diplomats and let russia have it. quit holding their hands like you are afraid of them. we have never intended to invade russia, but they need to know they arent playing with the class dork
im sure they would be lining up for that one! lol
i think there should be an export version of the F-22 for very specific allies.
i agree, its not in the same league as the F-35, to many other planes with the same or better capabilities. but using it as a defensive weapon sounds like a good idea
The Stealthy F-15 Battles The F-35
April 16, 2009: Boeing recently unveiled its newest 5th generation fighter the, F-15SE (Silent Eagle) which could well be a F-35 killer on the export market. The aircraft is essentially an F-15 with improved radar and avionics and a modified airframe to add stealth (resistance to radar detection). Conformal fuel tanks mounted underneath the airframe create two internal weapons bays. Each bay has two stores hard points; an upper swing out weapons rack and a lower trapeze with separate doors. The trapeze can carry a 1000 pound JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) or an AIM-120 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile). The upper swing out weapon rack can be fitted with a rail to mount an AMRAAM or smaller AIM-9X Sidewinder missile. It also can be fitted with a 500 pound bomb. All four hard points can carry two SDBs (Small Diameter Bomb) each.
Apart from the internal weapons bays, the major retrofit to the airframe is the two tail fins canted 15 degrees outwards to eliminate nose ballast and the trim, reducing the radar cross section towards the sides. The aircraft’s frontal radar signature has been further softened out by using radar absorbent coatings to the airframe, particularly to the leading edges. Boeing claims the end-result is an aircraft that can match the frontal-aspect stealth profile of any fifth generation fighter in configurations cleared by the US government for export release. The US government has very strict regulations on export of aircraft with low radar signature. For an example the USAF’s primary air superiority stealth fighter the Lockheed Martin F-22 is not cleared for export. Boeing acknowledges the F-15SE’s stealth improvements do not help against ground-based radar systems, which are critical for waging offensive strikes against opponents armed with surface to air missile systems. Lowering the F-15SE’s thermal signature - a critical stealthy feature for the F-22 - is also not part of Boeing’s plans. But it says the F-15SE is aimed at international customers who are more likely to use the aircraft for defensive, counter-air operations where the aircraft would be harder to detect by airborne radar of an enemy aircraft.
Another key feature of the F-15SE is its electronic warfare system. Boeing has selected the BAE Systems digital electronic warfare system (DEWS), which includes a digital radar warning receiver, digital jamming transmitter, integrated countermeasures dispenser and an interference cancellation system. This enables the aircraft to continue to jam enemy radars even as its own radar and radar warning receiver (RWR) continues to function. The main sensor for the aircraft will be the Raytheon APG-63(V)3 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.
Boeing’s estimated cost for a new aircraft is $100 million, including spares and training. However, if the existing F-15E customers want to retrofit their aircraft to the F-15SE standard, the company would undertake same at a much lesser cost. Boeing plans to offer the aircraft initially to Israel, Japan, Singapore, Saudi Arabia and South Korea, with all being current F-15 customers.
The unique feature of all the improvements is that the aircraft can be quickly reconfigurable to its former non stealthy standard. With its new sensors and the Electronic Warfare suit plus it’s 14 ton payload makes it a front runner in the non stealth multi-role fighter market at any case.
Although Boeing doesn’t admit the implications of the arrival of the F-15SE on the export market for the F-35, the shrinking defense budgets of many counties who were potential customers for the F-35 may be attracted to the new aircraft. Already two customers on the F-35 prospect list (Israel and Singapore) are on the list of potential customers for the F-15 SE, and a third, Japan is due to make a request for proposals for its F-X fighter program. The F-35 still being under the specification and over-budget adds more weight in to the Boeing’s prospects. Independent analysts also see potential markets for the SE in Taiwan and in other Middle East countries such as UAE and Kuwait. However according to Boeing, USAF the largest F-15 operator, still is not an “official” sales target. -- Chaminda Perera
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20090416.aspx
The Stealthy F-15 Battles The F-35
April 16, 2009: Boeing recently unveiled its newest 5th generation fighter the, F-15SE (Silent Eagle) which could well be a F-35 killer on the export market. The aircraft is essentially an F-15 with improved radar and avionics and a modified airframe to add stealth (resistance to radar detection). Conformal fuel tanks mounted underneath the airframe create two internal weapons bays. Each bay has two stores hard points; an upper swing out weapons rack and a lower trapeze with separate doors. The trapeze can carry a 1000 pound JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) or an AIM-120 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile). The upper swing out weapon rack can be fitted with a rail to mount an AMRAAM or smaller AIM-9X Sidewinder missile. It also can be fitted with a 500 pound bomb. All four hard points can carry two SDBs (Small Diameter Bomb) each.
Apart from the internal weapons bays, the major retrofit to the airframe is the two tail fins canted 15 degrees outwards to eliminate nose ballast and the trim, reducing the radar cross section towards the sides. The aircraft’s frontal radar signature has been further softened out by using radar absorbent coatings to the airframe, particularly to the leading edges. Boeing claims the end-result is an aircraft that can match the frontal-aspect stealth profile of any fifth generation fighter in configurations cleared by the US government for export release. The US government has very strict regulations on export of aircraft with low radar signature. For an example the USAF’s primary air superiority stealth fighter the Lockheed Martin F-22 is not cleared for export. Boeing acknowledges the F-15SE’s stealth improvements do not help against ground-based radar systems, which are critical for waging offensive strikes against opponents armed with surface to air missile systems. Lowering the F-15SE’s thermal signature - a critical stealthy feature for the F-22 - is also not part of Boeing’s plans. But it says the F-15SE is aimed at international customers who are more likely to use the aircraft for defensive, counter-air operations where the aircraft would be harder to detect by airborne radar of an enemy aircraft.
Another key feature of the F-15SE is its electronic warfare system. Boeing has selected the BAE Systems digital electronic warfare system (DEWS), which includes a digital radar warning receiver, digital jamming transmitter, integrated countermeasures dispenser and an interference cancellation system. This enables the aircraft to continue to jam enemy radars even as its own radar and radar warning receiver (RWR) continues to function. The main sensor for the aircraft will be the Raytheon APG-63(V)3 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar.
Boeing’s estimated cost for a new aircraft is $100 million, including spares and training. However, if the existing F-15E customers want to retrofit their aircraft to the F-15SE standard, the company would undertake same at a much lesser cost. Boeing plans to offer the aircraft initially to Israel, Japan, Singapore, Saudi Arabia and South Korea, with all being current F-15 customers.
The unique feature of all the improvements is that the aircraft can be quickly reconfigurable to its former non stealthy standard. With its new sensors and the Electronic Warfare suit plus it’s 14 ton payload makes it a front runner in the non stealth multi-role fighter market at any case.
Although Boeing doesn’t admit the implications of the arrival of the F-15SE on the export market for the F-35, the shrinking defense budgets of many counties who were potential customers for the F-35 may be attracted to the new aircraft. Already two customers on the F-35 prospect list (Israel and Singapore) are on the list of potential customers for the F-15 SE, and a third, Japan is due to make a request for proposals for its F-X fighter program. The F-35 still being under the specification and over-budget adds more weight in to the Boeing’s prospects. Independent analysts also see potential markets for the SE in Taiwan and in other Middle East countries such as UAE and Kuwait. However according to Boeing, USAF the largest F-15 operator, still is not an “official” sales target. -- Chaminda Perera
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20090416.aspx
Echoes Of Empire
April 16, 2009: Although most people think the British Army is simply the land forces of the United Kingdom, the situation is far more complex, and is often to the advantage of the British themselves, particularly when it comes to recruiting. Although the British Empire no longer exists and places like Australia, New Zealand, and Canada are legally sovereign nations, they aren't, in a way. The Commonwealth of Nations that has replaced the legacy of British imperialism continues to provide Britain with a complex, but still strong relationship with its former dominions and for the past century, even before the Empire's demise, has continued to use this special relationship to its military advantage.
Although sovereign countries, Commonwealth Nations, especially Australia and New Zealand, continue to recognize the British Crown as their heads of state and incorporate the British flag into their national emblems. Commonwealth armies are organized, trained, and led according to largely British traditions, with a heavy responsibility for non-commissioned officers and regimental sergeant majors. But this link with the Crown goes beyond mere symbols. Both Australia and New Zealand have their own Special Air Service Regimen, modeled after their British counterparts. Also, soldiers from Commonwealth countries are permitted to transfer their services over to that of the main United Kingdom Army and vice versa. Therefore, you have Australian soldiers transferring to the British Army and British Soldiers transferring to the Australian Army. This type of service swapping has been common for decades.
The often confusing nature of the British and Commonwealth military forces means that not only do many, many countries swap soldiers on a regular basis, but that regiments are often "segregated" and even recruiting from countries who nominal links to the Crown expired decades ago. In the British Army, regiments are the building blocks of the infantry and are grouped according to their places of origin and national make up. Thus, there are regiments for Scottish, Irish, English, Nepalese, and Welsh troops. Unlike past segregation in the US Army, this type of organization is not viewed as discrimination but as a source of pride for the regiment's soldiers and calls to disband certain regiments, especially those of Scottish origins, would and have ignited intense protests.
For the Irish regiments, largely recruited from Northern Ireland, enlistments are not limited to males from the North. The Republic of Ireland cut its links with the Crown in the 1940s but, despite this, a sizeable portion of Irish Citizens serve in the Irish Guards. Basically, there is an understanding between the two governments that Irishmen are permitted to enlist in the Guards on their own initiative, but the Guards are not allowed to actively recruit in the Republic. The situation of close links between Commonwealth countries and their British allies is unlikely to fade away anytime soon, there is simply too much history and tradition associated with it and the cooperative links between the nations have proven far to beneficial in the past, particularly when major wars break out.
The British Army during major war time has never been "just British". During both World Wars, Australian and New Zealand troops were amalgamated into ANZAC (Australia New Zealand) Army Corps units which were often under the command of regular British Army generals, alongside their Irish, Indian, Canadian and South African compatriots. During the Malayan Emergency, Rhodesian SAS troops operated alongside their British allies and, since demise of the Rhodesian Republic, the designation of "C" Squadron is left unmanned out of respect for the lost Rhodesian element, sort of like retiring a jersey. This tradition provides the Commonwealth with a kind of loosely organized, transnational military force capable of banding together and defeating larger enemies should another major war break out. That kind of protection is hard to find elsewhere and the Crown is, unsurprisingly, not interested in giving it up.
Currently, soldiers from Commonwealth origin countries make up around 6 percent of the British Army's total strength, with recruits from the Republic of Ireland growing at a massive rate in recent years from around 5 percent to almost 20 percent. Some British politicians feel that the growing involvement of Commonwealth soldiers in the regular forces is diluting the national identity of the Army, but this ignores the fact that "British national identity" has, over the centuries, long been a fluid concept, particularly when the multiple nations swear allegiance to Britain's monarch. -- Rory Walkinshaw
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20090416.aspx
yes they do. they consider the entire populace a reserve force
im sure they will chunga, might be the next one though
USN Wants To Retire Carriers Early
April 15, 2009: The U.S. Navy wants to decommission its oldest aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) three years early, in 2012. Originally, the Enterprise was going to stay in service until the USS Ford entered service in 2015. But changes in aircraft weaponry, namely smart bombs and targeting pods, have reduced the need for eleven carriers. The navy believes ten will get the job done. Plus, the Enterprise, as the world's first nuclear powered carrier, will also be the first to be decommissioned. That will mean removing eight nuclear reactors. Unlike later nuclear carriers, which had only two reactors, the Enterprise was designed so that one reactor replaced one of the steam boilers of a non-nuclear power plant. The navy had decommissioned nuclear powered surface ships before, having retired nine nuclear powered cruisers in the 1990s. This was done because these ships were more expensive to operate and upgrade.
The Enterprise was an expensive design, and only one was built (instead of a class of six). While a bit longer than the later Nimitz class, it was lighter (92,000 tons displacement, versus 100,000 tons). The Enterprise was commissioned in 1961, almost 40 years after the Langley entered service (1923). In the two decades after the Langley, the first U.S. carrier, went to sea, there were tremendous changes in carrier aviation. While the innovation slowed after World War II, major changes continued into the 1950s (jet aircraft, nuclear propelled carriers, SAMs). But in the ensuing half century there has been no particular innovation in carrier design. This has not been a problem because the carriers have proven useful, at least for the U.S. Navy (the only fleet to use large carriers.) Only the U.S. has a constant need to get air power to any corner of the planet in a hurry. But no navy has been able to give battle to the U.S. carrier force since 1945. The Soviets built new weapons and made plans to do so, but that war never occurred. Many naval planners worry that the next war will find carriers coming off second best to nuclear submarines and missiles. As in the past, we'll never know unless there's a war to test any new theories about how you give battle to aircraft carriers.
Smart bombs, shipboard automation, computer networks, UAVs and major advances in electronics have created another burst of change for carriers. The USS Ford will incorporate many of those innovations. But the biggest change was the predictable precision of the JDAM (GPS guided bomb). Unlike dumb (unguided) bombs, JDAM can hit the target in any weather. Even in clear weather, it would take over 100 dumb bombs to obtain the same effect. This is a big deal for a carrier, which only has a few dozen bomber aircraft, and limited quantities of jet fuel and bombs. But with one F-18 now able to do the work of a hundred, carriers suddenly became far more powerful. Thus the navy would rather save some money, and retire the Enterprise early. The Nimitz, due to retire in 2024, might also be stricken five or more years early. The navy knows it needs more money for new tech, like combat UAVs operating from carriers. These are smaller and burn less fuel than manned fighter-bombers, further increasing the combat capabilities of existing carriers.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20090415.aspx
Silver Stars For Wanat Warriors
April 15, 2009: The U.S. Army recently awarded 53 medals for valor to soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, 503rd Infantry (2/503). These included eleven Silver Stars, the third highest award for valor, 17 received Bronze Star Medals for valor and 25 Army Commendation Medals for valor. These awards were for actions in Afghanistan last Summer in which U.S. troops, outnumbered three to one, defeated a Taliban attack.
On July 13th, 2008, the Taliban launched a surprise attack on a new base being established in the Afghan town of Wanat. A force of 72 U.S. and Afghan troops suffered 39 casualties (nine U.S. dead, and 26 American and four Afghan wounded). The 200 Taliban suffered about a hundred casualties (up to fifty dead, but it was difficult to get an exact count because smart bombs were used, which tend to blow bodies apart, and the Taliban will try to drag their dead away, to prevent identification.)
It took longer (95 minutes, compared to the usual 15) for MEDEVAC (medical evacuation) helicopters to arrive because the choppers had to wait until smart bomb and artillery attacks could finish. It also took nearly two hour (108 minutes) for the first reinforcements to show up. Before then, there was artillery support (over 90 shells), smart bombs, Hellfire missiles (from a Predator UAV) and a helicopter gunship. The UAVs and AH-64s arrived within 30 minutes. There are still questions about U.S. intelligence work, and how the Taliban were able to assemble that large a force, so close to U.S. troops, without being detected. Apparently the local police were working for the Taliban, or had been paid off or intimidated to say nothing to the Americans.
The Taliban attack was carried out early in the morning (4:20 AM) after the enemy has sneaked into town and told the locals to leave. These same civilians had warned the coalition force that the Taliban were going to attack. But those warning had been coming daily, since the troops moved into Wanat on July 8th and began building an FOB (Forward Operating Base) in an area about 300 meters long and 100 meters wide. There was also an outpost on small hill 50 meters away, manned by nine troops. Two thirds of the defending troops were American. The enemy attack was well planned, with the Taliban firing from three sides. The enemy tried to overrun the base, and at one point some of them entered through a breach in a wall, but were killed or forced back. The battle lasted four hours, ending when the Taliban survivors pulled out. U.S. troops moved out of Wanat on July 15th.
The Taliban tried to make this out to be a big victory, but there was never any video released, as is usually the case with real or imagined victories. Apparently their video guy was blown up, as no video cameras were found among all the debris.
The 173rd Airborne Brigade is stationed in Vicenza, Italy, where it was reactivated in 2000 (having been deactivated in 1972). The unit serves as a fire brigade for U.S. forces in Europe and nearby regions. The 3,300 member brigade has two paratrooper battalions.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20090415.aspx
i have an email address for you but the last time i sent something it didnt go through
i was just about to try that. lol
its a funny video, you want me to email it to you?
i just watched a video from an email and was wondering how to find a good link for it also. i was going to post it on talkzilla
hey Phil, that link didnt work for me
if they think holding hands with the enemy is going to change their minds, they will only get a knife in the back.
just as dumb as sending food aid into all these hot zones. all we are doing is feeding the fanatics, the innocent people will never rise up if they are being fed for free. force them to find and/or grow their own food with all the fighting going on and they will rebel, if not why keep wasting food and money on people who dont get it. they need to earn their freedom, not have it handed to them
seems they are dropping the ball every chance they get. this would have been the best available test of both the radar and the interceptors.
and the president didnt want to upset the north koreans?! wtf is that about? they were the ones launching a missile over japan against un resolutions. ah wait, they were UN resolutions, meaning NOTHING!
thats the policy in isreal
thanks for the info
always figured the B-2 would mature into something else
NKorea warns Japan against searching for missile debris
by Staff Writers
Seoul (AFP) April 8, 2009
North Korea warned Japan Wednesday against searching for debris from the communist state's rocket launch, official media reported.
The North's military accused Japan of deploying warships to search for rocket parts and termed this an act of espionage and an "intolerable military provocation."
The first stage of the rocket fired Sunday landed in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) between Japan and Korea and the remaining stages fell in the Pacific.
Japanese media reported Wednesday that Japan's Defence Minister Yasukazu Hamada told the upper house foreign and defence affairs committee the previous day that his ministry would study the possibility of retrieving debris.
"If it is possible to retrieve the debris, I think it is better to retrieve it. We want to study matters including this possibility," Hamada was quoted as saying.
In a statement reported by the Korean Central News Agency, the North Korean military's general staff said the "revolutionary armed forces will not tolerate irrational provocative activities targeting the DPRK (North Korea) by Japanese reactionaries, the century-old arch enemy."
It would "not forgive them if they dare to violate our sovereignty in the slightest."
The general staff called on Japan to "immediately stop its ridiculous military espionage activity" in the name of searching for parts.
An official at the press division of Japan's Defence Ministry told AFP Wednesday: "Our office has no idea if preparations are underway to retrieve the debris.
However, deputy foreign minister Kazuhide Ishikawa was quoted by the Asahi Shimbun as saying Tuesday: "I understand that the Defence Ministry is not considering retrieving it (debris)."
"There is no established interpretation in international law about the legal nature of the retrieval of a fallen object."
"As the object has fallen inside Japan's exclusive economic zone, I think it is permissible under the law of the sea to retrieve it."
The North says its rocket put into orbit a communications satellite which is beaming back patriotic songs.
South Korea, Japan and the US military say there is no sign of the object in space and the launch was in any case a disguised long-range missile test in violation of UN resolutions.
The United States and its allies are seeking a strong UN response to the launch but the Security Council is struggling to agree on what action to take.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/NKorea_warns_Japan_against_searching_for_missile_debris_999.html
good luck! lol
Outside View: USAF needs more F-22s
disclaimer: image is for illustration purposes only
by Rebecca L. Grant
Arlington VA (UPI) April 13, 2009
When Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said April 6 that the U.S. Air Force advised him it wanted 187 Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptors, the reaction was shock.
That is because evidence indicates the U.S. Air Force was ready and willing to cap off production after buying a total of 243 F-22s, not 187. Do the simple math: Just 187 F-22s to replace 522 Boeing F-15 Eagles now in the total inventory is not enough in a crisis. A total buy of 243 F-22s is the minimum to fill out 10 F-22 squadrons for overseas missions and homeland defense.
What happened to the 243 number? Is the Obama Pentagon clamping down on the U.S. armed services?
Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed in December that he and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz were discussing 60 more, or 243 total, F-22s. On April 7 a reporter asked Gates, "As recently as a few weeks ago, the U.S. Air Force leadership was still publicly saying 260, 265. When did that change for them?" Gates' verbatim reply: "Well, you'll have to ask them. (Chuckles.)"
Recall how things work in normal times. The Pentagon budget is a $650 billion behemoth that relies on a formal process derived from the checks and balances in the Constitution. The armed services submit their budgets. The Office of the Secretary of Defense makes adjustments, then sends the budget to the president, who sends it to Congress. Key committees call generals, admirals and civilian officials to hearings where they swear under oath to give Congress their undiluted opinions.
Here is the dog that didn't bark in the night. Last summer Schwartz said in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee that he believed 381 F-22s were too many but 183 were too few. He promised to "delve deeply" into the analysis and return with a new number. Schwartz had numerous opportunities to call a halt to the F-22 at 183 aircraft. He did not.
Going forward, Congress appropriated partial money for the next 20 F-22s based on the longstanding requirement for the F-22 to replace F-15s. Outgoing Bush administration officials threw in procedural delays to prevent the Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Pratt & Whitney team from getting to work.
Then came the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 4. Many applauded President Barack Obama's decision to retain former President George W. Bush's secretary of defense to ensure wartime continuity.
What few bargained for was that the first three months of the Obama presidency would give Gates a chance to craft what Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., has called a "novel" approach to the defense budget.
Gates kept Bush-Rumsfeld holdovers in crucial program-analysis posts and formed a small team to cut the budget in secret, a technique he mastered as CIA director. Next, in February Gates did what no previous secretary of defense had done. He directed top uniformed officers to sign non-disclosure agreements pledging not to talk about the budget process -- even to other senior officers in their services. Can you picture even experienced former Secretaries of Defense Caspar Weinberger or William Cohen making a demand like that?
Schwartz never had a chance to present his analysis for 243 F-22s to Congress as promised. To speak up given Gates' new restrictions might risk the tradition of civilian control begun by President George Washington. Air Combat Command, whose airmen fly and maintain F-22s and other fighters, is left to pick up the pieces after this shattering break in faith. Is this what change in Washington means?
(Rebecca Grant, Ph.D., is a senior fellow of the Lexington Institute, a non-profit public-policy research organization based in Arlington, Va.)
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Outside_View_USAF_needs_more_F-22s_999.html