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.
China Downplays Muslim Countries' Concerns About Uighurs
By VOA News
14 July 2009
The Chinese government is dismissing the prospect that unrest involving Muslim Uighurs in western China could damage its relationship with Islamic countries.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said Tuesday the violence in Xinjiang province was not based on religion.
Clashes earlier this month between Muslim Uighurs and China's Han ethnic majority left at least 184 people dead. Beijing said most of the casualties were Han. Uighur groups dispute this.
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has compared the situation to genocide. And Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, has said Muslim countries are concerned.
A London-based security company said an al-Qaida affiliate in North Africa has vowed to avenge the perceived injustices in Xinjiang by targeting Chinese workers in Algeria.
China's Foreign Ministry spokesman said Beijing would take all necessary measures to protect its institutions and people in Africa.
The spokesman did not specifically refer to the al-Qaida threat in a Tuesday news briefing.
A report by the British security company Stirling Assynt said there is an increased amount of "chatter," or discussion, on the Internet among extremist Islamic militants about China's Uighurs.
The group said al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb has vowed to target the 50,000 Chinese workers in Algeria and elsewhere in Africa.
Three weeks ago, the North African terrorist group killed 24 Algerians who were protecting a Chinese construction project.
In China Tuesday, tensions remained high in Xinjiang's capital, Urumqi. On Monday, police killed two Uighurs, who authorities said were attacking another Uighur. The details of the incident have not been independently confirmed.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/07/mil-090714-voa11.htm
it will be interesting to see how china deals with AQ
Honduran president issues ultimatum to coup leaders
RIA Novosti
09:2614/07/2009 MOSCOW, July 14 (RIA Novosti) - Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, ousted in a coup in late June, has said he will consider talks with interim leaders a "failure" unless he is reinstated in the next round of negotiations.
Zelaya was expected to return home last week, but was blocked at the airport runway by coup leaders and was forced to fly on to Nicaragua.
World powers, as well as the United Nations and the Organization of American States (OAS) have condemned developments and have called for the coup leaders to step down.
"We are giving an ultimatum to the coup regime, that at the latest in the next meeting this week in San Jose, Costa Rica, they should carry out the expressed [OAS and UN] resolutions
(to reinstate me)," Zelaya said at a news conference in Nicaragua's Managua. "If not, then this mediation will be considered to have failed."
No country has recognized interim leader Roberto Micheletti, who took over in Honduras after the military arrested Zelaya on June 28, the day polls were due to open for a referendum on the extension of his non-renewable, four-year term of office, and flew him to Costa Rica.
The first round of talks, which was held in the Costa Rican capital, San Jose, on July 9 and July 10, produced no results. Zelaya and Micheletti have so far refused to hold one-on-one talks but had separate meetings with Costa Rican President Oscar Arias.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/07/mil-090714-rianovosti01.htm
What a bunch of damn hypocrites! these people follow their constitution, which is designed to prevent corruption, and the world is pissing on them. they must be terrified that the one term limits might be adopted in their own backyards
Article 239 of the Honduran constitution
Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution reads:
Article 239 — No citizen that has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or Vice-President.
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.
It’s not exactly like the U.S. Constitution, but does it violate norms of democratic republican government? I don’t think so. The problem of presidents who never leave power is all too common among undeveloped countries, so a very strict prohibition against multiple terms of office seems appropriate.
Zelaya directly violated Article 239 by ordering an election to reform the Constitution in order to keep himself in power beyond his term of office. He was then removed from office as the Constitution of his own country calls for.
How was Zelaya’s removal from office unlawful? It seems to be exactly what the Constitution of Honduras requires given his crime. Obama should be praising Honduras for following its own Constitution and peacefully removing a president from power. Instead, he demands that Honduras violate its own Constitution by bringing Zelaya back.
the rest of the article can be found at the link
http://www.halfsigma.com/2009/07/article-239-of-the-honduran-constitution.html
Bolivian president says U.S. behind Honduras coup
RIA Novosti
13:0314/07/2009 MOSCOW, July 14 (RIA Novosti) - Bolivian President Evo Morales has accused the United States of being behind the military coup in Honduras, Latin American media reported on Tuesday.
The military arrested Honduran President Manuel Zelaya and flew him to Costa Rica on June 28, the day polls were due to open for a nonbinding referendum on extending the president's nonrenewable four-year term of office. The United States has repeatedly condemned the coup.
"I have first-hand information that the empire, through the U.S. Southern Command, is behind the coup d'etat in Honduras," Morales said during his visit to Uruguay's capital, Montevideo.
"Maybe I do not know Obama, but the imperial structure remains in force," he went on, accusing Washington of inciting civil violence in Bolivia and plotting his assassination.
Diplomatic relations between Bolivia and the United States have been strained since Morales took office in 2006. Last September, Morales expelled the U.S. ambassador, declaring him persona non grata for allegedly assisting separatists.
Morales and his Uruguayan counterpart, Tabare Vazquez, have adopted a joint statement, saying they would not recognize any authority in Honduras, other than "the legitimate government of President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales."
No country has formally recognized the interim government of Honduras, led by former parliamentary speaker Roberto Micheletti.
The first round of talks to resolve the political crisis in Honduras, was held in the Costa Rican capital, San Jose, on July 9 and July 10, and produced no results. Zelaya and Micheletti have so far refused to hold one-on-one talks but had separate meetings with Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. The next round could be held in Costa Rica next week.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/07/mil-090714-rianovosti04.htm
Uzbekistan Warns Over Russian Base Plan
July 14, 2009
TASHKENT -- Uzbekistan is warning against a Russian plan to open a military base near the Uzbek border in southern Kyrgyzstan, RFE/RL's Uzbek Service reports.
Uzbek Senator Surayo Odilhodjaeva told RFE/RL that the proposed new base -- reportedly near the southern Kyrgyz city of Osh -- would not contribute to the security of Central Asia.
"I think the less military bases we have in the region, the better," she said.
Uzbek political commentator Sanobar Shermatova said Tashkent's objection to an increased Russian military presence close to its borders is natural.
"Tashkent wants to maintain a balance of power," Shermatova said. "It realizes that Russia may lean [more] toward Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan [than Uzbekistan and that] Kazakhstan may join them, thus leaving the Uzbeks alone and reducing the country's influence."
Russian Deputy Prime Minister Igor Sechin and Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov met with Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiev in Bishkek on July 7. The three reportedly discussed a proposal for a new military base in southern Kyrgyzstan.
If approved, such a scheme would be the second Russian-operated military base in the country, after a base in Kant that opened in September 2003 under an agreement with the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) to station Russian forces for 15 years.
U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns said in Bishkek on July 12 that "any such decision is obviously the sovereign right of the government of Kyrgyzstan."
Uzbek President Islam Karimov told Burns in Tashkent one day later that Uzbekistan is willing to further develop ties with the United States.
Regional analyst Deirdre Tynan told RFE/RL that a move by Russia in Kyrgyzstan gives Tashkent "plenty of room and political justification to cooperate further with the U.S. in order to create a level of security for Uzbeks."
Russian observer Fedor Lukyanov said another step that Karimov might take in response to Russia's attempt to secure another military base would be to withdraw from the CSTO. He said that Karimov has already tried to "sabotage the Russian initiative to establish CSTO's rapid deployment forces last month [by not agreeing to the proposal]."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2009/07/mil-090714-rferl01.htm
China Versus NSA
July 14, 2009: A Chinese citizen, Chi Tong Kuok, was indicted in California for trying to obtain NSA (U.S. National Security Agency) and military encryption equipment for the Chinese government. Kuok, who has been under investigation since 2006, admitted that he was trying to obtain top secret communications equipment for the Chinese.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20090714.aspx
WHAT! The CIA Was Trying to Kill bin Laden?
Panetta.jpg
Ok...so let me get this straight.
Leon Panetta cancelled a secret CIA program to kill or capture Al Qaeda operatives at close range -- meaning using hit teams to do the dirty work instead of Predator drones. The Bush administration makes a presidential finding calling for the assassination or capture of AQ operatives known to Congress, but then conceals the program (which never really got off the ground) from regular briefings since then.
A secret intelligence program canceled by CIA Director Leon Panetta in June was meant to find and then capture or kill al-Qaida leaders at close range rather than target them with air strikes that risked civilian casualties, government officials with knowledge of the operation said Monday.
And why are we all freaked out about this? Doesn't this seem logical in the extreme?
In fact, didn't we execute a couple of those missions of the capture variety with Ramzi Binalshibh and KSM in Pakistan? Sounds like it worked just fine to me.
Panetta canceled the effort on June 23 after learning of its existence, its failure to yield results, and the fact that Congress had been unaware of the program since its inception in 2001, according to one official with direct knowledge of the plan.
That official said former President George W. Bush authorized killing al-Qaida leaders shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, and that Congress was made aware of that. However, the official said, Panetta also told members of Congress that according to notes that he had been given on the early months of the program, then-Vice President Dick Cheney directed the CIA not to inform Congress of the specifics of the secret program.
A.) Tell me how firing hellfires from Predators is more ethical or legal than sending a team to kill or capture a single person.
B.) Doesn't this sort of smack of Sandi Berger-esque national security policy? We know from the 9-11 commission report that Berger got cold feet when he had bin Laden in his sights for a proxy raid in Afghanistan because he was afraid of collateral damage and blowback. Now some of the same national security policy minds are back in the driver's seat so we cancel a program to kill bad guys using CIA assets. Great idea folks.
His private revelation ignited a storm of protests from Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee, who accused the CIA of lying to Congress. Some are calling for a congressional investigation.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, suggested that the Bush administration broke the law by concealing a CIA counterterrorism program from Congress. Feinstein said the Bush administration's failure to notify Congress about the 8-year-old counterterrorism program "is a big problem, because the law is very clear."
According to Feinstein, Panetta told Congress late last month that "he had just learned about the program, described it to us, indicated that he had canceled it and ... did tell us that he was told that the vice president had ordered that the program not be briefed to the Congress."
"We were kept in the dark. That's something that should never, ever happen again," said Feinstein.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said he agreed with Feinstein that the CIA should keep Congress informed. But Cornyn said the new assertion "looks to me suspiciously like an attempt to provide political cover" to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats. Pelosi has accused the CIA of lying to her in 2002 about its use of waterboarding, or simulated drowning, which many people, including Obama, consider torture.
Once again it's politics, my friends. And Republicans have to be salivating over this one as news trickles out of a justice department probe into interrogation methods. That's all this administration needs as it tries to convince us we need Canada-style health care -- a debate over whether we should be sending spooks to kill or capture Al Qaeda operatives and squeeze information from them (without a lawyer) when we nab one.
-- Christian
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004928.html#comments
Officials Make Case For More F-22s
Jul 10, 2009
By David A. Fulghum
A chorus of U.S., Japanese and Israeli officials believe that China, Russia and Iran present common problems that more F-22 Raptors could help solve.
Japan’s F-15J force, once top of the line, is now “outclassed by the new generation of Chinese fighters” such as the Su-30MKK, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Richard Myers (ret.), tells Aviation Week.
Moreover, China’s air defenses, which include variants of Russian-made, long-range SA-10s and SA-20 (S-300 family) missiles, can only be penetrated by the fast, high-flying, stealthy Raptor.
Japan’s Defense Ministry has studied the problem closely and, at least internally, has produced “a very impressive tactical rationale” for buying the F-22 if its sale is approved by the U.S. Congress. Myers predicts that any resistance within the U.S. Air Force to selling Raptor technology to Japan, “an incredibly staunch ally,” will be isolated and not critical.
Such considerations are pressing because tensions are growing over Japan’s far-flung island empire, some of it mineral rich, that stretches to within 125-150 miles of China. That distance, interestingly enough, is the range of the Raptor’s advanced radar, compared to 56 miles for the F-15. Japan feels it must be prepared to defend its area of responsibility from a new generation of regional threats – including China’s increasingly sophisticated fighter force, which boasts the J-10 – that can carry its new, small-radar-signature, air-launched cruise missiles. Japan also needs a precision bombing capability if any of its islands are occupied.
While he won’t pick a fight with the current management of the Pentagon over ending production of the F-22, Myers makes the point in public that only under the umbrella of air superiority that the Raptor provides can U.S. military endeavors succeed. He also contends that there is a fleeting window — now — in which to approve the sale of F-22s to foreign air forces, in particular Japan, which has expressed a willingness to pay twice the price ($290 million) charged to the U.S. Air Force ($142 million) for the stealthy aircraft.
In the same vein, Israeli Air Force officials contend that even a single squadron of F-22s, despite the cost and problems with maintaining a small fleet, is worth the cost in its deterrent value.
In the Middle East, the sale of S-300s and other advanced missiles to Iran and Syria has set off alarms in the U.S. Current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen was asked recently if the sale of SA-20s to Iran had come up in talks with Russia.
As part of the summit in Moscow, there “was a document that I signed with my counterpart, General Makarov, and it focuses on military-to-military cooperation,” Mullen says. “One of the areas I discussed with him ... is that issue and recognizing that particular system is a game-changer. I focused on that. That’s a huge concern because of the potential [the S-300] has.”
Mullen also referred to Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon and discussed what he meant by saying publicly that all options, including military options, for stopping the work are on the table.
“I wouldn’t over-read the fact that I said, ‘including military options,’” he says. “Where we’re challenged here is the time frame [for Iran’s development of a bomb of] one to three years. My concern is that the clock has continued to tick. I believe Iran is very focused on developing this capability and I think, should they get it, it will be very destabilizing.
“Another question is the whole strike option piece,” Mullen says, which refers to preemptive bombing to disrupt Iran’s nuclear weapons manufacturing chain. “I also think that would be very destabilizing and hugely significant.”
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/F22-071009-2.xml&headline=Officials%20Make%20Case%20For%20More%20F-22s%20&channel=defense
Critical U.S. Defense Capabilities At Risk
Jul 10, 2009
Aviation Week & Space Technology editorial
It is hard to believe that the world’s largest aerospace manufacturing base, serving the world’s largest aerospace marketplace, could be struggling to maintain its industrial capability in areas critical to U.S. national security. But it’s true, and it’s getting worse. Most troubling is that the erosion is most advanced in those areas of technological superiority that have historically underpinned U.S. defense strategy.
Recently, we have reported on the industrial-base challenges facing key sectors from solid-rocket motors to military rotorcraft. What we found is that many of the capabilities that have made the U.S. the predominant military force in the world are the very ones that are fragile.
Critics would argue the industrial base does not need coddling because contractors are making huge profits. But a financially healthy industry is not necessarily a technologically robust one. The U.S. must be able to arm its forces for today’s wars, but the surge in demand for the basics of warfare should not come at the expense of crucial specialized industrial capabilities.
When Defense Secretary Robert Gates unveiled his Fiscal 2010 budget outline in April, he noted the decisions were made without taking into account industrial base implications. That may have been the right thing to do when trying to rebalance the budget and flush away outmoded thinking. But it is not the right thing to do when it comes to the Quadrennial Defense Review and shaping U.S. defense priorities for years to come. What value is a defense strategy without the industrial base to deliver the capabilities required?
And setting aside industrial base considerations does not mean the issue goes away; it means the policy is unspoken and incoherent. Traditionally, the Pentagon has given the individual services considerable leeway in how they handle the industrial implications of their procurement decisions. This results in some radically different approaches. The Navy continues to buy small numbers of Tridents to keep the submarine-launched ballistic missile base warm. The Air Force, on the other hand, has nothing in its ICBM plans after the Minuteman III propulsion replacement program ends. Similarly, the Navy keeps buying F/A-18s, while the Air Force has cut its connection to the fourth-generation fighter base. As for the Army, it keeps buying helicopters designed decades ago while the industry teeters on the edge of losing its capability to develop new military rotorcraft.
The Pentagon occasionally has acquiesced to preserve an industrial capability when competing producers were struggling to stay in business. Allowing Boeing and Lockheed Martin to combine expendable launch vehicle businesses was one.
The Pentagon has also shown it can act when needed to protect vital capabilities—for example, by starting work on a replacement for the Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine. Nothing smacks of outmoded Cold War force structure like big boomers, but without a new program there might be no designers left to craft a new strategic submarine when it is needed most, years from now.
Other capabilities are at similar cusps, but it is not clear the Defense Dept. will act in time to preserve them. The U.S. is building fifth-generation fighters, but are they enough to sustain its lead in low-observable technology as a next-generation bomber slips further into the future? Will the Pentagon choose to allow its stealth design expertise to erode, and the airborne leg of the nuclear triad to shrivel?
Gates is right to attack programs where requirements creep and cost growth becomes indefensible. Some programs should be killed, but that discipline must not be twisted to taint what should be a strategic approach to the industrial base. Pentagon leaders have long said their buying power is focused not on programs, but on capabilities. Protecting industrial capability is not the same as propping up foundering programs. Once a highly specialized capability has atrophied, it is difficult and time-consuming to reconstitute it. You can’t just go to Silicon Valley and hire away specialists in radar-absorbing materials; there aren’t any there.
Mention preserving the defense industrial base and critics hear government subsidies. But this is not about preserving jobs or pork barrel stimulus. It’s about holding on to critical design skills and manufacturing capacity on which the U.S. built its security.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/EDIT071009-4.xml&headline=Critical%20U.S.%20Defense%20Capabilities%20At%20Risk&channel=defense
Russian Losses In Georgia Said To Be Worse
Jul 10, 2009
David A. Fulghum/Washington
Douglas Barrie/London
New reports out of Russia contend that Russian forces lost eight or more aircraft - some of them to their own weapons -- during the war with Georgia last year, despite repeated official claims that only four were lost.
These shootdowns all occurred on Aug. 8, 2008 - the first day of the battle. Two Russian airmen were captured and exchanged. Another five (one by fratricide) were killed. Officially, Russia acknowledges losing only three Su-25 Frogfoot attack aircraft and a supersonic Tu-22M3 Backfire from the Black Sea Fleet.
But that is only about half of the actual losses, say editors of Moscow Defense Brief, published by the Center for Analysis of Strategy and Technology (CAST). Other losses they claim to have identified include an Su-24MR Fencer E reconnaissance aircraft, also on Aug. 8; an Su-25 on Aug. 9; an Su-24M Fencer frontal strike aircraft on Aug. 10 or 11; and possibly a Mi-24 attack helicopter on an unspecified date. Another three Su-25s were damaged but returned to base - indeed, pictures of the latter appeared on the Internet while the war was underway.
Russia's Interfax news agency and the British Broadcasting Corp. quoted deputy chief of the General Staff, Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, as saying Russia has already provided full disclosure of their losses during the conflict and has nothing new to add. He further denied "Russian air force planes were shot down by our own air defenses" or that there was a "total absence of co-operation between the Russian army and air force," which led to them conducting separate, uncoordinated campaigns.
Nevertheless, U.S. intelligence officials tell Aviation Week that while the Russian air force is believed to have advanced capabilities for detecting enemy air defenses and attacking them, they have largely failed to field and train with the capability. Soon after the conflict, former Russian air force commander Anatoly Kornukov blamed Russian intelligence for poor analysis of the Georgian air defenses, lamented a lack of effort to attack them, and said inappropriate aircraft, like the strategic Tu-22M, were used for a tactical mission.
The new CAST analysis credits the two Su-24 losses to Georgian shoulder-fired air defense missiles; the Su-25 to friendly fire from a similar Russian-wielded missile; and three Georgian Su-25s to other Russian man-portable missiles. Russian officials say their four recognized losses fell victim to relatively sophisticated, Buk-M1 (SA-11) surface-to-air missiles fielded by the Georgians. The Russians have fielded the Buk-M2 (SA-17) and are selling them to Syria. The Georgians were trained by Ukrainians who also may have supervised their use in combat, the Moscow analysts say.
The report further refers to a sale by Israel's Rafael missile company to Georgia of a Spyder short-range SAM that uses Israel's advanced Python 5 and Derby air-to-air missiles in a surface-to-air role, much as the U.S. exports ground-fired versions of its Aim-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile.
After their initial losses, the Russians regrouped and destroyed both of Georgia's S-125 Neva-M low-to-high altitude (SA-3) SAM battalions, most of the military and civilian radars, and the Buk-M1 and Osa-AK/AKM (SA-8B)low-altitude SAMs. After the Russian counterattack, air defenses were limited to shoulder-fired missiles (SA-7, SA-14 and SA-16). The Georgian radar network included the Ukrainian-supplied 36D6-M mobile, 3-D radar (which as been used with the S-300P, or SA-10 SAM, system), Kolchuga-M passive electronic monitoring radar system and Mandat electronic warfare (jamming) system. The network was connected to the NATO air situation data exchange through Turkey, which allowed Georgia to receive data directly from the unified air-defense system, the CAST analysis says.
A realistic analysis of the Russia/Georgia conflict "should serve as a stimulus for the cardinal modernization of the Russian armed forces [and impel] the Russian air force [to] devote greater attention to the suppression of enemy air defenses [and renew] tactics, electronic weapons and increased military training in these areas," the CAST analysis says.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/GEORG071009.xml&headline=Russian%20Losses%20In%20Georgia%20Said%20To%20Be%20Worse&channel=defense
Replica tanks built by Wash. man draw crowds
By Gale Fiege - The (Everett, Wash.) Herald via AP
Posted : Saturday Jul 11, 2009 12:23:02 EDT
MUKILTEO, Wash. — As soon as Dave Shultz unloaded his radio-controlled model tanks at Mukilteo’s Lighthouse Park, a crowd of passers-by came gawking.
These aren’t toys, as Shultz is fond of saying. The largest of his set of four military tanks is more the size of a VW Bug.
“Hey man,” said one guy in the crowd. “This is waaaay past just being a hobby.”
“It’s downright certifiable,” Shultz admitted.
He smiled and shook some hands.
The tanks — Herman, Helmut, Heinrich and Horst — travel packed just so in a 28-foot trailer pulled by his diesel pickup truck. Designed and built by Shultz, the tanks are lovingly referred to as his “kids.”
His credit cards even bear pictures of three of the tanks.
The model tanks have entertained crowds at car shows and state fairs, and been featured on TV news stations in such places as Ankeny, Iowa. Videos of the tanks are on YouTube. And the Texas Bikini Team once posed with the tanks in Indianapolis.
“People have seen photos that make the kids look full size, and then they ask me what museum the tanks are in,” Shultz said. “Well, they’re nowhere else in the world, and I’m not stretching that truth. OK?” Shultz talks in a booming voice, most likely owing to a hearing loss after decades of machine shop work.
An itinerant engineer and self-described “hired gun,” Shultz currently is doing a contract stint with Boeing in Everett as the second-shift troubleshooter.
Shultz, whose father was a railroad man who had served as a tank driver during World War II, grew up in Wyoming and Utah. He served two years as a machinist with the Navy during the Vietnam War.
Back in Utah, he worked his way through Weber State College, graduating with a degree in engineering technology.
“It gave me the ability to design the processes to make things,” he said. “The first job out of college was for a helicopter company doing a job for the shah of Iran.”
Over the decades, Shultz has lived in 16 states, working for the Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, Northrop Grumman and Spirit aircraft companies. It’s the second time he’s been under contract for Boeing in Washington.
He began making the tanks in the 1980s during a lull in one of his jobs.
The idea was to create World War II tanks that would eventually re-enact the 1943 battle between the Russian and German armies in Kursk, Ukraine.
First up was Herman, an all-aluminum, 1\n-scale reproduction of the German Mark VI, E Model Tiger tank.
Helmut is a radio-controlled, scratch-built, steel, aluminum and plywood ¤-scale reproduction of the German Mark V, JagdPanther tank.
Heinrich, also built from scratch, is a ¤-scale reproduction of the German Mark V, D Model Panther tank.
Horst, a half-scale model of a German Sturmgeschutz StuG III tank, is the largest of the set and made its debut in 2000.
All the tanks were updated in 2006, first with the help of computer-aided drafting programs.
Shultz doesn’t plan to build any more tanks, but he does have other ideas.
He’s written battle movie scripts that he would like to see produced someday as part of a military theme park that would attract tourists from around the world.
“Jurassic Park would not be possible without dinosaurs,” he said. “You can’t have a military theme park without tanks.”
He would also like to see his tanks in parades all over the country, with Army officers operating the radio-controlled units from a Humvee riding ahead.
“It would be a great way to help with recruitment,” Shultz said.
These ideas might seem farfetched, but the tanks could be big moneymakers some day, he said. After all, do people pay to watch monster trucks in stadiums and stock cars driving in circles at the county fair? “I’m a quantum leap ahead of the market. My kids are just the bridge to a dream, and there’s a whole new universe on the other side,” Shultz said. “Bridging that gap may be impossible, but maybe I just haven’t met the right investors yet.”
Dressed in suspenders holding up khaki shorts, Shultz wiped his hands on a grease rag as he ran the tanks out in front of the Mukilteo Lighthouse.
“They’re all so different. Helmut is touchy and Heinrich can’t stand to have anyone else be called your favorite,” he said. “Herman, well there’s no way to retell all the stories.”
“Then there’s Horst, and this one you can’t mess around with. He can really scoot, and can run at about three miles an hour. You get in his road and you’ll get your toes stepped on. OK?”
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/07/ap_replica_tanks_071109/
Marine-themed public schools meet resistance
The Associated Press
Posted : Saturday Jul 11, 2009 9:02:29 EDT
The Corps is wooing public school districts across the country, expanding a network of military academies that has grown steadily despite criticism that it’s a recruiting ploy.
Marine officials are talking with at least six districts — including in suburban Atlanta, New Orleans and Las Vegas — about opening schools where every student wears a uniform, participates in Junior ROTC and takes military classes, said Bill McHenry, who runs the service’s Junior ROTC program.
Those schools would add to more than a dozen public military academies that have opened nationwide, a trend that’s picking up speed as the Defense Department looks for ways to increase the number of units in Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps.
“Many kids in our country don’t get a fair shake. Many kids live in war zones. Many kids who are bright and have so much potential and so much to offer, all they need to be given is a chance,” McHenry said. “If you look at stats, what we’re doing now isn’t working.”
Last year, Congress passed a defense policy bill that included a call for increasing the number of Junior ROTC units across the country from 3,400 to 3,700 in the next 11 years, an effort that will cost about $170 million, Defense Department spokeswoman Eileen M. Lainez said. The process will go faster by opening military academies, which count as four or more units, McHenry said.
Other military branches also are aiming to increase their presence in school hallways, but the Corps is leading the charge.
Passionate debate
In DeKalb County, which includes part of Atlanta, Ga., protests by parents and threats of lawsuits began almost as soon as the school board announced last year that it planned to open a Marine Corps high school. The district wanted to open it this fall, but the approval process in Washington has delayed that. The district hopes to open the school in fall 2010.
Critics such as Mike Hearington, a 56-year-old Vietnam War veteran whose son attends Shamrock Middle School in DeKalb County, say the schools are breeding grounds for the military.
“To pursue children like they are is criminal in my mind,” Hearington said.
Between 5 percent and 10 percent of graduating seniors from the nation’s public military schools end up enlisting, according to an Associated Press review of the majority of the schools’ records. About 3 percent of all new high school graduates join the military, according to the Education Department.
Proponents say the academies aren’t recruiting tools but focus on discipline, ethics and civics, giving at-risk teens a place where they can flourish to help battle the country’s high school dropout rate of one in four kids.
“The whole notion behind this is that there is so much literature out there and myth that kids from low socio-economic levels can’t learn and won’t learn,” said DeKalb County schools Superintendent Crawford Lewis. “We are partnering with the Marines to show, if we come together and do this right, we will debunk that whole stereotype.”
The first public military school in the U.S. opened in Richmond, Va., in 1980. Since then, about a dozen have been added with the number increasing during the past five years as struggling districts look for innovative ways to meet federal No Child Left Behind standards.
In DeKalb County, the school district would get about $500,000 a year plus $1.4 million in startup funds from the Corps, Lewis said. The school would open with 150 cadets, growing eventually to about 650 drawn from a pool of low-performing students who have high test scores and want to attend, Lewis said.
The academy would be much like a typical high school, except students would wear ROTC uniforms and start each day with a military formation and inspection. Besides Spanish club and debate team, students can sign up for the military drill team and color guard. The school’s principal likely will be a retired Marine.
In Chicago, the nation’s third-largest public school district began opening military academies in 1999 with encouragement from Mayor Richard M. Daley and then-Superintendent Paul Vallas. Vallas left in 2002 and took the idea with him to Philadelphia, where two military schools have since opened.
Chicago has six public military academies and is the only district with schools representing all four branches of the military.
For Brenda Hernandez, who will be in the first graduating class at Rickover Naval Academy in Chicago, the option let her avoid the gang-ridden schools in her neighborhood. The 17-year-old commutes an hour each way by bus and train. She credits the school with helping her shake her shy nature through one-on-one attention from teachers and ample extracurricular activities.
“I’ve come out of my shell more,” said Hernandez, who plans to attend DePaul University in the fall to major in business. “I can be more outspoken and confident in what I do.”
Mixed results so far
These academies have the support of U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who ran Chicago Public Schools before being tapped by President Barack Obama. Duncan sees the schools as another option for kids who don’t fit well in a traditional educational setting.
“For the right child, these schools are a lifesaver,” Duncan said.
However, test results have been mixed.
More than 70 percent of 11th graders at Philadelphia Military Academy at Elverson scored at the basic level or better on the state math test in 2008, compared to a district average of 41 percent, according to data on the district’s Web site. For reading, 88 percent met standards, compared to 58 percent districtwide.
Meanwhile, students at the public military schools in Chicago have struggled.
Just 27 percent met standards in 2008 — the most recent data available — compared to the district average of 60 percent and the state average of 74 percent. At Carver Military Academy in Chicago, just 8 percent of students passed muster on state tests.
None of the Chicago military schools made “adequate yearly progress” last year, meaning they fell short of basic standards under the federal No Child Left Behind law.
Chicago schools spokesman Franklin Shuftan said many of the military academies replaced underperforming high schools, and it will take time for them to improve test scores and student achievement.
Chicago’s military schools did reduce chronic truancy from 24 percent to 8.5 percent from 2007 to 2008 and increased the average ACT exam score from 15.8 to 17.3, out of a possible 36.
Mary Ann Hernandez, mother of soon-to-be Rickover graduate Brenda Hernandez, enrolled her daughter because the regular public school in her Chicago neighborhood isn’t as academically challenging. She said she’s proudly watched as her daughter took Advanced Placement and honors courses and became a leader on the drill and color guard squads.
“It’s been an incredible experience for her and for us,” the mother said. “I saw it as an opportunity to get a better education for my daughter.”
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/07/marine_jrotc_071109w/
Dispute over flag protest erupts in Wisc. village
AP
By ROBERT IMRIE, Associated Press Writer Robert Imrie, Associated Press Writer – Fri Jul 10, 2:44 pm ET
WAUSAU, Wis. – An American flag flown upside down as a protest in a northern Wisconsin village was seized by police before a Fourth of July parade and the businessman who flew it — an Iraq war veteran — claims the officers trespassed and stole his property.
A day after the parade, police returned the flag and the man's protest — over a liquor license — continued.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin is considering legal action against the village of Crivitz for violating Vito Congine Jr.'s' First Amendment rights, Executive Director Chris Ahmuty said.
"It is not often that you see something this blatant," Ahmuty said.
In mid-June, Congine, 46, began flying the flag upside down — an accepted way to signal distress — outside the restaurant he wants to open in Crivitz, a village of about 1,000 people some 65 miles north of Green Bay.
He said his distress is likely bankruptcy because the village board refused to grant him a liquor license after he spent nearly $200,000 to buy and remodel a downtown building for an Italian supper club.
Congine's upside-down-flag represents distress to him; to others in town, it represents disrespect of the flag.
Hours before a Fourth of July parade, four police officers went to Congine's property and removed the flag under the advice of Marinette County District Attorney Allen Brey.
Neighbor Steven Klein watched in disbelief.
"I said, 'What are you doing?' Klein said. "They said, 'It is none of your business.'"
The next day, police returned the flag.
Brey declined comment Friday.
Marinette County Sheriff Jim Kanikula said it was not illegal to fly the flag upside down but people were upset and it was the Fourth of July.
"It is illegal to cause a disruption," he said.
The parade went on without any problems, Kanikula said.
Village President John Deschane, 60, an Army veteran who served in Vietnam, said many people in town believe it's disrespectful to fly the flag upside down.
"If he wants to protest, let him protest but find a different way to do it," Deschane said.
Congine, a Marine veteran who served in Iraq in 2004, said he intends to keep flying the flag upside down.
"It is pretty bad when I go and fight a tyrannical government somewhere else," Congine said, "and then I come home to find it right here at my front door."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090710/ap_on_re_us/us_upside_down_flag
Russian military shot down its own planes in Georgian war
Thu, 07/09/2009 - 5:55pm
A new report from the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Strategy and Technology says that half the Russian planes lost in last summer's five-day war were shot down by friendly fire. The latest issue of the Moscow Defense Brief reports that Russia lost six jets in the war with Georgia, not four as officials claimed at the time. At least three were downed by the Russians themselves. The article said:
Russian aircraft were frequently taken by Russian and Ossetian forces for Georgian aircraft, and they were fired upon without identification and in the absence of any aggressive action on their part.
The journal is highly critical of coordination within the Russian military, asserting that the army and the air force ran "completely separate campaigns." It raises concerns as to Russia's capabilities to win a war against a better-trained and better-equipped army in the future.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/07/09/russian_report_reveals_surprising_details_about_2008_war_with_georgia
hide the butter knives, they are next
Dangerous Delusions
July 9, 2009: The U.S. and Russia have agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals from the current target of 2,200 warheads each, to 1,500-1,675, within the next seven years. There will also be a reduction of "delivery systems" (silos, SSBNs, heavy bombers), which was promptly criticized in the U.S. because of heavy use of the bombers for delivering non-nuclear weapons. But there are plenty of fighter-bombers to do this, although at a greater cost per bomb dropped.
There was no deal made to limit Russian high tech weapons sales to Iran in return for the U.S. cancelling the U.S. anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic. This missile defense system was to protect Europe from Iranian ballistic missiles, but Russia was offended because such a system could stop Russian missiles as well. This is part of a larger issue. Russia has a problem with its place in the world. Many Russians, and their leaders, still think of the country as a superpower, or at least a major player on the world stage. Trouble is, no one else agrees with this assessment, and Russians don't like it. Many countries just humor the Russians, but this wears out quickly when the Russians demand a say in major decisions that they are not really qualified to participate in. Russia has lots of land, nukes, natural resources and attitude. But it's industrial might is more pretence than reality. A shrinking population, and authoritarian government that drives away foreign investment, does not persuade the world that the Russians have very promising prospects.
The government is still trying to get the Russian defense industries back into the forefront of military technology. When the Cold War ended in 1991, weapons sales to the Russian armed forces dropped by over 80 percent. Only recently has the military resumed large purchases, but these are still smaller than export sales, which kept many key defense firms alive through the 1990s. The problem is that the old Soviet Union was never in the forefront of military technology. The Russians had some great stuff in the laboratory, but were rarely able to get it to the troops as mass produced weapons. Over a decade of much reduced military R&D has left Russian defense industries even further behind the West. But the Russians are reluctant to admit that they are out of the race, and continue to hype their weapons as equal to Western gear.
The governments battle against alcoholism (which kills 500,000 Russians, mostly men, a year) has lost ground over the last decade. This problem is largely responsible for the shrinking Russian population. The government is planning another crackdown on excessive drinking, and the prospects for this effort succeeding, are not good..
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20090709.aspx
Posted by: redfisher Date: Thursday, July 09, 2009 8:20:16 PM
In reply to: chunga1 who wrote msg# 12787 Post # of 12790 [Send a link via email]
Welcome to Shreveport: Your rights are now suspended.According to Cedric Glover, mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, his cops “have a power that [. . .] the President of these Unites States does not have”: His cops can take away your rights.
Cedric Glover, mayor of Shreveport, Louisiana, claims to have the authority to suspend the Constitution.
And would you like to guess which rights he has in mind?
Just ask Shreveport resident Robert Baillio, who got pulled over for having two pro-gun bumper stickers on the back of his truck — and had his gun confiscated.
While the officer who pulled him over says Baillio failed to use his turn signal, the only questions he had for Baillio concerned guns: Whether he had a gun, where the gun was, and if he was a member of the NRA. No requests for a driver’s licence, proof of insurance, or vehicle registration — and no discussion of a turn signal.
Accordingly, Baillio told the officer the truth, which led the police officer to search his car without permission and confiscate his gun.
However, not only does Louisiana law allow resident to drive with loaded weapons in their vehicles, but Mr. Baillio possessed a concealed carry license!
What does such behavior demonstrate, other than transparent political profiling — going so far as to use the infamous Department of Homeland Security report on “Americans of a rightwing persuasion” as a how-to guidebook, no less?
Mr. Baillio made no secret of his political affiliations: An American flag centers a wide flourish of pro-freedom stickers and decals on his back windshield.
In fact, when Baillio asked the officer if everyone he pulls over gets the same treatment, the officer said no and pointed to the back of his truck.
Baillio phoned Mayor Glover to complain about this “suspension of rights” only to find that his city’s morbidly obese “commander in chief” was elated at the story: According to Glover, Baillio got “served well, protected well, and even got a consideration that maybe [he] should not have gotten.”
Thankfully, Mr. Baillio recorded a good bit of that phone call. You can watch a video with the transcriptions here. I’ve reproduced a chunk of the call below:
Baillio: (in the context of being asked about the presence of a gun) Well, I answered that question honestly, and he disarmed me.
Glover: Which would be an appropriate and proper action, sir. The fact that you gave the correct answer — it simply means that you did what it is you were supposed to have done, and that is to give that weapon to the police officer so he could appropriately place it in a place where it would not be a threat to you, to him, or to anyone in the general public.
[. . .]
Glover: My direction to you is that, had you chosen not to properly identify the fact that you had a weapon and directed that officer to where that weapon was located; had you been taken from the vehicle, and the officer, in the interest of his safety, chose to secure you in a safe position, and then looked, found, and determined that you did, in fact, have a weapon…then, sir, you would have faced additional, [inaudible], and more severe criminal sanctions.
Baillio: So what you’re saying is: I give up all my rights to keep and bear arms if I’m stopped by the police: Is that correct?
Glover: Sir, you have no right, when you have been pulled over by a police officer for a potential criminal offense [which would be what?! - DB] to stand there with your weapon at your side in your hand [Baillio's weapon was nowhere near his side or his hand, and Glover knew that. -- DB] because of your second amendment rights, sir. That does not mean at that point your second amendment right has been taken away; it means at that particular point in time, it has been suspended.
——————————————————————————————-
Will Grigg from ProLibertate, an excellent freedom blog, has this to say:
According to Glover, a police officer may properly disarm any civilian at any time, and the civilian’s duty is to surrender his gun — willingly, readily, cheerfully, without cavil or question.
From Glover’s perspective, it is only when firearms are in the hands of people other than the state’s uniformed enforcers/oppressors that they constitute a threat, not only to the public and those in charge of exercising official violence but also to the private gun owner himself.
NAGR spoke with Mr. Baillio, and he told us that he’s in the process of securing the official procedures and codes for firearm handling and private property confiscation for the Shreveport police department.
So far, the city has been half-heartedly cooperating with him.
“I felt sick,” Baillio told NAGR. “My uncles didn’t die for this country so I could surrender my rights like a wimp. I felt terrible. I was just thinking of all that my family has done for freedom in this nation — including dying — and here they are disarming me at a traffic stop.”
What to do?
1. Read Luke’s commentary here, and participate in the discussion by leaving a comment.
2. Send this around. This kind of behavior cannot go unchecked.
3. Call Mayor Glover’s office to complain: (318) 673-5050.
I’ll leave you with one last consideration. As a licensed firearms instructor in charge of a hundred different students every month, I’m often asked if citizens should voluntarily inform police officers of the presence of a firearm during a routine traffic stop.
While different states have different laws, my answer for Colorado citizens is an emphatic “No”: Colorado law doesn’t require you to volunteer that kind of information, and this case in Louisiana proves why, if at all possible, you should never invite trouble by doing so.
In liberty,
signature
Dudley Brown
Executive Director
National Association for Gun Rights
——————————————————————————————–
I concur, do not offer any information that is not pertenent to the traffic stop. What say you? What does your local/state laws say?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=39418088
that is a very disturbing story! seems like a great lawsuit to me, we can play those games also!
i had never read anything about that before, thanks chunga!
Rebuilding Carriers
July 8, 2009: The USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz class carrier, just completed its mid-life refueling and overhaul. This is a three year process, and cost $3 billion. Part of that involved reloading the nuclear reactors, which requires dismantling part of the ship, as does many of the upgrades and replacements done to electrical and mechanical systems. In effect, the ship is largely rebuilt, enabling it to serve for another 25 years.
The Vinson entered service in 1982, and is scheduled to retire in 2032. But this isn't the only time a Nimitz undergoes scheduled shipyard maintenance. During a half century of service, there are three other trips to the dry dock, and a dozen other shorter stays in the shipyard. But the midlife work is the most expensive, and takes the longest. All this is necessary to keep the carrier up to date in terms of technology, and deal with wear and tear. Other warships undergo similar periods of maintenance, but the nuclear boats all require the mid-life refueling. However, a new generation of naval reactors do not require a complex midlife refueling. These reactors are already being used in the Seawolf and Virginia class subs, as well as the new Ford class carriers.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20090708.aspx
Ships Silver For The USS New York
July 8, 2009: The U.S. Navy is soliciting donations for the ships silver (www.ussny.org) for the new amphibious ship (USS New York, LPD 21) named in memory of the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York city. Like the regimental silver of army units, the ships ceremonial silver collection grows larger as new pieces are added to commemorate notable events in the history of the ship. Ships silver is passed on to the next ship of the same name.
There have been many U.S. Navy ships named "New York." The first was an armed gondola built to serve on Lake Champlain in 1776. In 1800, the USS New York was a 36 gun frigate, which was destroyed by the British in 1814. In 1893, the USS New York was an armored cruiser (ACR-2), that was renamed USS Saratoga in 1911. That was so the next USS New York, a battleship (BB-34), could enter service with the name in 1914 (and be decommissioned in 1946). For over sixty years, there has been no USS New York. The new ship has silver inherited from ACR-2 and BB-34, but the set is incomplete, and donors can buy pieces for the ship, and have their name, or a dedication to someone, engraved on it. Tiffany, in New York, does much of the ships silver for the U.S. Navy, and will be creating the pieces for the LPD-21.
The 24,900 ton USS New York is the fifth of the "San Antonio" class Amphibious Transport Dock ships and was named on 9 September 2002, in honor of those who died in 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. She carries scrap steel from the World Trade Center towers, melted down and recast as metal for her bow. Construction of the $800 million vessel began in late 2004 and she will be commissioned on November 9th this year. The Navy plans for her to see duty until mid-century.
The ship is 684 feet long. It has a crew of 360, and normally 720 marines and all their equipment are carried. There is 25,000 square feet for vehicle storage and a 24 bed hospital, with two operating rooms and the ability to set up another hundred beds in an emergency. Onboard weapons include two Bushmaster II 30mm Close In Guns and two Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) launchers to defend against anti-ship missiles. The ship is designed to carry and use two LCAC (Landing Craft Air Cushion vehicle), and 14 of the new AAAV (Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicle), or the current AAV. The MV-22 (Osprey tiltrotor aircraft), as well as current helicopters, can operate off the ships flight deck. This class of LPD replaces four other classes of amphibious ships (LPD 4, LSD 36, LST 1179 and LKA 113).
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20090708.aspx
Another Casualty Of the Recession
July 8, 2009: The U.S. Army is no longer paying $2,000 bonuses to troops who persuade someone to enlist. It was three years ago that the army established the bonus program, mainly to attract more recruits to the reserves (who were having a hard time attracting new recruits, what will all the reserve units being activated and sent to Iraq.) The active army lowered their standards a bit, and made their numbers. But even there, the bonus program helped. The bonus program was actually an addition to the Recruiting Assistant program (which allowed troops to work briefly with recruiters to attract more people to join.)
By 2007, the Army National Guard was on track to get the 70,000 new recruits it needs that year, and nearly 30 percent of those were brought in via the Recruiting Assistant program. The army has known, for a long time, that the best recruiter is a soldier, or a veteran. The Recruiting Assistant program takes advantage of this because the Recruiting Assistants tend to stay in touch with the men and women they have recruited, which is a big plus for the new recruit, trying to navigate army life for the first time.
The Recruiting Assistant program has also been successful with the active duty army, but not as much as in the National Guard and reserves. The spectacular success of some of the Recruiting Assistants caused the army to rethink some of its recruiting methods. While the most successful Recruiting Assistants tend to be very good with meeting and connecting with strangers, they have also developed some useful new techniques for getting potential recruits interested. For example, while full time recruiters deal with about ten prospects, for each recruit they sign up, Recruiting Assistants average only three prospects for each sign up. There is obviously some new thinking at work, and it's getting results. The army has since adopted some of the Recruiting Assistants techniques, and changed the screening process for selecting soldiers for recruiting duty.
The Recruiting Assistant/bonus program is a better fit for the reserves, as most of the recruits for these units have traditionally come via referrals from people already in the reserves. In rural areas, a reserve units becomes something of a social club, and a good paying part time job. But even in urban areas, the reservists tell their friends about their military experience, and the word gets around. With the bonus program, the reservists have an incentive to follow up on any interest. Some of these Recruiting Assistants have earned close to $100,000 a year, although for most, the take is zero, or under $10,000. Nevertheless, several hundred thousand active and reserve troops have taken the two hour on-line training (about recruiting procedures and paperwork involved), and given it a try. While less than a third make a go of it, the program has been a critical factor in rebuilding National Guard and reserve strength after the exodus of so many troops who did not re-enlist because of the many overseas deployments.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20090708.aspx
thanks Chunga!
Israel drops Indian jets venture under US pressure: report
The Gripen fighter jet.
by Staff Writers
Jerusalem (AFP) July 6, 2009
Israel has dropped out of a multi-billion dollar joint venture with a Swedish firm to develop new fighter jets for India because of US pressure, a newspaper reported on Monday.
Israel Aerospace Industries was planning to develop a new model of the Swedish-made Gripen fighter jet with its manufacturer, Saab, to compete in a tender to sell the planes to India's armed forces, the Jerusalem Post said.
But the state-owned firm backed out on the orders of the Israeli defence ministry "after the Pentagon expressed concern that American technology, used by Israel, would be integrated into the Gripen," the newspaper said.
It said Washington had likely pressured its close ally because two major US aircraft manufacturers -- Boeing and Lockheed Martin -- are also participating in the tender for more than 120 aircraft estimated at 12 billion dollars (8.5 billion euros) .
"This is not the first time that the defence ministry forced a local company out of a deal due to concerns that competition with American companies would cause friction with the United States," it said.
In 2008, the defence ministry ordered Israel Military Industries not to submit a bid for a 500 million-dollar deal for the manufacture of a new tank for Turkey because it would have been in competition with US firms, it said.
Israel replaced France in 2007 as India's second-largest arms supplier after Russia and could grab the number one slot through a vast array of defence agreements already signed with New Delhi.
In May, India took delivery of its first Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) plane as part of a deal with Israel worth more than one billion dollars.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Israel_drops_Indian_jets_venture_under_US_pressure_report_999.html
Taliban launch 'operation' against Marines
US Marine Chief Warrant Officer Joel Schwendinger (R) of 2nd Battalion 8 Marines takes position on his way to the site of a blast which damaged a US vechile in Garmsir district of Helmand Province in Afghanistan on July 6, 2009. US Marines have launched a major offensive into the Taliban heartlands of southern Afghanistan as President Barack Obama's new war plan swung into action. Operation Khanjar - Strike of the Sword - involving nearly 4,000 US forces as well as 650 Afghan police and soldiers, would bring security to the Helmand River valley ahead of presidential elections on August 20, commanders said. Photo courtesy AFP.
by Staff Writers
Kandahar, Afghanistan (AFP) July 6, 2009
Afghanistan's insurgent Taliban movement said Monday they had launched a guerrilla operation to counter a major assault by US Marines on their stronghold in Helmand province.
Operation Foladi Jal, or "iron net" in Pashtu, would teach the Marines "a lesson," Taliban spokesman Yousuf Ahmadi told AFP by telephone from an unknown location.
About 4,000 Marines poured into the southern province on the border with Pakistan in an operation called Khanjar (dagger) that has faced little resistance since it was launched five days ago.
"In response to Operation Khanjar by the invading forces, we have launched Operation Foladi Jal," Ahmadi said.
"Their Khanjar will get stuck in our Foladi Jal," the rebel spokesman said.
"In this operation we'll teach them a lesson so they will never again dare to come into our areas," he said, referring to the militants' long-time stronghold.
The operation would include improvised bomb explosions and "hit-and-run guerrilla attacks.
"We will not engage them in front battles. We would rather hit them by mines and guerrilla attacks," he said.
The assault by Marines, along with about 600 Afghan forces, has pushed into several key towns in southern Helmand and aims to hold the areas to allow Afghans to vote in August 20 presidential elections.
One Marine has been killed but officials have not released casualty figures for the insurgents, adding that many seem to have gone to ground.
Officials have said the Taliban are unlikely to oppose directly such a massive insertion of Marines, but would instead resort to bombings, the main feature of their campaign against the government and its international allies.
The Taliban were in government between 1996 and 2001, until they were ousted by a US-led invasion for sheltering Al-Qaeda.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Taliban_launch_operation_against_Marines_999.html
US denies giving Israel 'green light' to attack Iran
by Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) July 6, 2009
US President Barack Obama's administration denied Monday that it is giving Israel the green light to attack Iran or that it is reconsidering plans to engage diplomatically with the Islamic Republic.
Iranian parliament speaker Ali Larijani, formerly the country's top nuclear negotiator, warned Tehran would hold Washington responsible for any such strike after Vice President Joe Biden said Washington would not dictate how Israel deals with Iran's nuclear ambitions.
But State Department spokesman Ian Kelly poured cold water on suggestions that Biden could be seen as giving the Jewish state a green light to attack Iran, which it views as an existential threat.
"I certainly would not want to give a green light to any kind of military action," Kelly told reporters.
But he echoed Biden's point that Washington considered Israel a "sovereign country" with a right to make its own military decisions.
"We're not going to dictate its actions," Kelly added. "We're also committed to Israel's security. And we share Israel's deep concerns about Iran's nuclear program."
He also refuted any idea that Biden was signaling a move by the Obama administration to drop its policy of diplomatic engagement with Iran.
"I wouldn't read into it any more than what you see," Kelly said.
In an interview with ABC television broadcast Sunday, Biden said: "Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.
"We cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination, that they're existentially threatened," he added.
But Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned in a separate interview Sunday of the dangers posed by any military strike against Iran, despite saying military options should not be ruled out.
Obama has said he wants to see progress on his diplomatic outreach to Iran by year's end, while not excluding a "range of steps," including tougher sanctions, if Tehran continued its nuclear drive.
Hawkish Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not ruled out a possible military strike against Iran.
Larijani warned that Iran "will consider the Americans responsible in any adventure launched by" Israel, a country he said that nobody can imagine acting "without getting the green light" from Washington.
Speaking on a visit to Qatar, Larijani warned that Iran's response to an attack would be "decisive and painful."
Biden's comments, said Trita Parsi, who heads the National Iranian American Council, were "not helpful to those who are trying to find peaceful change in Iran."
But Parsi said it would be wrong to interpret them as heralding a policy shift, even if the administration's plans for engagement now face a "rough ride."
Suzanne Maloney, a former State Department specialist on Iran, said Biden's remarks are not new and did not signal a policy shift, even if the Iranians read more into them.
"Particularly for this administration, an Israeli strike on Iran would have devastating consequences for all its foreign policy initiatives," she said, citing its efforts to broker Arab-Israeli peace and stabilize Iraq and Lebanon.
But she feared the Obama administration may find the Iranians are not in the right "mindset" to engage in talks if they get "so caught up in this narrative of an externally-sponsored velvet revolution."
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_denies_giving_Israel_green_light_to_attack_Iran_999.html
US won't stand in Israel's way on Iran: Biden
Iran speaker warns US over Biden's Israel remarks
Iran's parliament speaker Ali Larijani issued a warning against the United States Monday after Vice President Joe Biden said Washington would not dictate the way Israel deals with Tehran's nuclear ambitions. "We will consider the Americans responsible in any adventure launched by the Zionist entity," Larijani told reporters during an official visit in Doha, referring to Israel. "No politician or person in the world can imagine that the Zionist entity can lead an operation without getting the green light from the United States," said Larijani, Iran's former nuclear negotiator. He warned that Iran's response to an attack would be "decisive and painful". Biden said in an television interview on Sunday that the United States would not stand in the way of Israel in its dealings with Iran's nuclear ambitions. "Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," Biden told ABC television. "Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that... We cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination, that they're existentially threatened." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not ruled out a possible military strike against Iran, insisting that Tehran must not obtain nuclear weapons. Iran denies that is wants to build an atomic bomb. Larijani slammed Biden's comments as a "political manoeuvre. We have heard a lot of these words in the past." "Biden, by saying that they (the United States) can't prevent such an operation, has taken the wrong route and revealed his card," he said. Asked about US calls for dialogue, Larijani said: "We want to work seriously. ... But on one side they tell us 'we want to resolve the problems and negotiate,' on another we hear what Mr. Biden says."
by Staff Writers
Washington (AFP) July 6, 2009
US Vice President Joe Biden said, in an television interview, that the United States would not stand in the way of Israel in its dealings with Iran's nuclear ambitions.
"Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," Biden told ABC television's "This Week" Sunday.
"Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that... We cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination, that they're existentially threatened."
But the top US military officer meanwhile warned of the dangers posed by any military strike against Iran.
"It could be very destabilizing, and it is the unintended consequences of that which aren't predictable," Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff told "Fox News Sunday."
However, he added: "I think it's very important, as we deal with Iran, that we don't take any options, including military options, off the table."
A senior Iranian official visiting Japan said Monday his country would respond "in a very full-scale and very decisive way" if it were attacked by Israel.
"I think that America and Israel are fully aware what kind of result such a wrong judgement will entail," Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of the Iranian Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said.
President Barack Obama has said he wants to see progress on his diplomatic outreach to Iran by year's end, while not excluding a "range of steps," including tougher sanctions, if Tehran continued its controversial nuclear drive.
Hawkish Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not ruled out a possible military strike against Iran, insisting that Tehran, which the Mossad spy agency could have a ready-to-launch nuclear bomb within five years, must not obtain nuclear weapons.
"If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice," Biden said. "But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed."
Israel, the region's sole if undeclared nuclear-armed state, contends -- as does the West -- that Iran is seeking to acquire a nuclear arsenal, despite Tehran's repeated denials.
The Jewish state has also called the Islamic Republic a threat to its existence, citing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call to wipe Israel off the map.
Biden also confirmed that the Obama administration remains open to pursuing negotiations with Tehran, despite the regime's crackdown on protesters following a disputed election outcome last month that saw Ahmadinejad return to power.
"If the Iranians respond to the offer of engagement, we will engage," Biden said. "The offer's on the table."
Mullen declined to say whether the danger posed by a nuclear-armed Iran would be sufficient to outweigh the negative consequences of a US military strike on Tehran's weapons program.
"I think both outcomes are really, really bad outcomes. And that speaks to the very narrow space that we have to try to resolve this so that neither one of those things occur," he said.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_wont_stand_in_Israels_way_on_Iran_Biden_999.html
i think we are going to see more days like this in the near future unfortunately.
found out my brother is going to afghanistan Oct 5. my other brother just got home from there last week
Cyber Can Kill SAMs
Cyber Can Kill SAMs
By Colin Clark Monday, July 6th, 2009 12:45 pm
Posted in Air, Cyber Security, International
Now that cyber command has been approved and it’s grown increasingly clear that the US will deploy offensive capabilities, I thought it was time to revisit recent comments by Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz who said the US can kill advanced surface to air missiles without F-22s, F-35s or any other kinetic capability. In fact, Schwartz may have let some of the cat out of the bag when he told a Brookings Institution audience that the US possesses “the nascent capability” of taking down surface to air missile sites using offensive cyber methods.
[That's right. All those arguments about the F-22 being absolutely necessary because of its unrivalled effectiveness may be a lot less important than the plane's supporters thought. On top of that, one industry expert at the Paris Air Show said that the F-35 has a requirement that it be able to take out triple digit SAMs while the F-22 never did. That's not to say the F-22 isn't capable of it. It just means the plane wasn't designed to do it.]
I’ve been digging around since Schwartz made his very brief comment about the cyber capability. One cyber expert I spoke with was very unhappy about Schwartz’ comments, saying he had no business speaking about such capabilities outside of a classified environment. And no one else I spoke with – who deals with these issues in an operational environment – was willing to say anything about Schwartz’s comments.
I did come across this one interesting tidbit , a study by one of the Air Force research labs about just such capability. I tried calling and sending a couple of emails to the lab and never heard back. The reason may be that this really isn’t something the military is at all comfortable talking about yet. But this exercise study makes clear that portions of the Air Force are beginning to take offensive cyber attacks seriously. The heart of this effort was stated clearly. “For example an airbase has anti-aircraft artillery, radar coverage, and the ability to launch aircraft. Our interface enables us to enable, disable, and reduce the effectiveness of the capabilities. The capabilities of each individual asset are open to attack through cyber vectors,” the study notes.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/07/06/cyber-can-kill-sams/
Lockheed’s F-35 ‘Program Killer’ May Double Sales (Update1)
Share | Email | Print | A A A
By Edmond Lococo and Gopal Ratnam
June 17 (Bloomberg) -- Lockheed Martin Corp., the world’s largest defense company, may double sales of its new F-35 fighter jet in a surge of contracts that could squeeze competitors including Boeing Co. and Saab AB out of the market.
The U.S. and eight partner nations already plan to buy more than 3,000 of the warplanes, and with potential exports to countries including Israel, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Finland and Spain the total could “easily” reach 6,000, Brigadier General David Heinz, the top Pentagon official for the F-35, said today.
Boeing and Saab may come to view the Lockheed model as a “program killer,” said Douglas Royce, a market analyst at Forecast International in Newtown, Connecticut. The F-35 will control half the $17 billion warplane market by 2015, aviation consultants Teal Group estimate, bringing a level of dominance unmatched even by the company’s F-16 and threatening to eliminate other primary manufacturers from the industry.
“There may be fewer primes,” Dan Crowley, Lockheed’s F-35 program manager, said in an interview in Paris yesterday. “Just as we’ve seen fewer shipyards and fewer satellite facilities in the U.S. over time, that is a trend you cannot hold back.”
U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ pledge in April to speed domestic F-35 purchases will give confidence to foreign buyers, both among the eight current partners and beyond. Israel and Singapore, which had F-35 security cooperation pacts yet weren’t full partners in the program, have begun talks with the U.S. government that could lead them to join, Crowley said. Government talks have also begun on possible F-35 sales with Finland, Spain, South Korea and Japan, he said.
One Survivor
“It’s entirely possible that by 2020 there will be only one surviving western fighter plane,” Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with Fairfax, Virginia-based Teal. “The F-35 is designed to do what the F-16 almost did: drive competing manufacturers out of the market.”
Lockheed has held 31 percent of the global fighter jet market over two decades with the F-16 Fighting Falcon, exceeding Boeing’s 24 percent share, according to Teal. The Bethesda, Maryland-based company shipped more than 4,400 F-16s over 35 years, including 2,200 to international customers.
Lockheed aims to emulate that success with the F-35, which is also known as the Lightning II or Joint Strike Fighter, Chief Executive Officer Robert Stevens said in a June 2 interview.
“The F-16 is now in the inventory of 25 air forces,” Stevens, 57, said in Washington. “I wouldn’t be surprised to see that happen to the Joint Strike Fighter, even though we are only talking about eight partner countries today. We think it will expand over time.” The original international partners developing the jet are Australia, Turkey, the U.K., Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Denmark and Norway.
‘Bright Future’
Boeing, based in Chicago, and Sweden’s Saab aren’t ready to concede the market. Boeing sees “a very bright future” for its F/A-18 Super Hornet, Tom Bell, the vice president for military aircraft business development, said in an interview. The company “can very easily see ourselves making Super Hornets for at least a decade or more,” he said.
Boeing is promoting the F/A-18 and an updated version of its F-15 called Silent Eagle to international customers in Paris, Bell said.
Saab’s Gripen would be an “ideal plane” to compete for orders with F-35, yet lacks a home market large enough to give it economies of scale because Sweden’s Air Force is only about 100 jets, Teal’s Aboulafia said.
Price, Performance
“From a price-performance perspective I think the Gripen can compete with the JSF,” Linkoping-based Saab’s CEO, Aake Svensson, said in an interview yesterday. “We can compete very tough from a price and cost perspective and then performance- wise also.”
Still, Norway dealt Saab a blow in November with a contract for 48 F-35s in a contest analysts predicted the Gripen would win. The Netherlands selected the U.S. plane as the best candidate to replace 85 older aircraft a month later, and Denmark may also opt for Lockheed later this year.
The U.S. and the eight partner nations plan to buy 3,173 F- 35s. A full-scale model is on display this week at the Paris Air Show, where Heinz and Tom Burbage, executive vice president for F-35 integration, gave a program update today.
“The partnership is strong, the program is stable and the value proposition on which this program was founded remains intact,” said Heinz, the U.S. military’s F-35 program executive officer. He declined to disclose the price of the first test aircraft sold to foreign customers, two to the U.K. and one to the Netherlands.
Biggest Program
At an estimated cost of about $298.9 billion for research, development and the purchase of more than 2,400 aircraft for the U.S., the plane is the Pentagon’s largest weapons program. The F-35, with common parts for Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps missions ranging from air combat and tactical bombing to close air support, is designed to replace legacy aircraft including the F-16 and A-10.
The F-35 comes in three variants including a conventional version, a short takeoff/vertical landing jet that can hover in place, and a plane optimized for landing on aircraft carriers.
Lockheed’s principal subcontractors on the F-35 are Los Angeles-based Northrop Grumman Corp. and London-based BAE Systems Plc. Two separate, interchangeable F-35 engines are under development: the F135 by United Technologies Corp.’s Pratt & Whitney unit, and the F136 by a team of General Electric Co. and Rolls-Royce Group Plc.
Raptor
The F-35 is one of two “5th Generation Fighters” designed by Lockheed, along with the F-22 Raptor, that incorporate stealth technology with the latest avionics and improved combat performance over older jets. Because the more advanced F-22, which is also capable of high-altitude supercruise flight, is banned by U.S. law from export, only the F-35 is available for sale to allies.
Competition in the fighter jet industry will be preserved at the level of suppliers, Crowley said. Rival warplanes already produced will also stay in service, providing their makers with maintenance work for decades, even if new jets aren’t ordered.
The biggest threat to the F-35’s global dominance is development risk, said Eric Hugel, a New York-based analyst with Stephens Inc. Lockheed must keep the jet on schedule and costs under control.
“A lot depends on what price-point Lockheed can hit,” Hugel said. “If you sign up for the F-35, you have to wait and see what you are actually going to get. The F/A-18 is flying today. It’s a lower risk solution, so there are positives and negatives either way.”
Price Equation
Lockheed in February estimated that the F-35’s average flyaway cost, excluding research and development, would be “upper-$40 million” for the conventional version when measured in 2002 dollars and “mid-$60 million” for the short takeoff and carrier versions.
The flyaway cost for the F-35 model mustn’t rise above $70 million or competition such as the Super Hornet “starts to look pretty good,” Aboulafia said. The base cost for the F/A-18 is about $53.8 million, according to Boeing.
Boeing plans to exploit its cost advantage to expand sales beyond the nine nations already flying legacy Hornet jets, Bell said. Another six countries “are seriously considering” Super Hornets, he said, without identifying them.
“We have never seen more robust demand for information about the F-15 Silent Eagle and the F/A-18 Super Hornet,” Bell said. “International customers are very interested in the cost and capability mix that those two products could offer them as they think about how to recapitalize their tactical aircraft inventory in these difficult economic times.”
Stock Performance
Lockheed shares rose 24 cents to $82.05 at 4:15 p.m. on the New York Stock Exchange and have fallen 19 percent in a year. Boeing declined 28 cents to $48.55 and has dropped 35 percent in 12 months.
Production volume will give Lockheed an advantage from economies of scale, Forecast International’s Royce said.
“The F-35 is the only fighter looking to be in production for thousands of aircraft over the next 20-30 years,” Royce said. “Other fighters have much more narrow prospects. These other manufacturers know they are fighting up hill.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aLSngSRfWm7o
maybe we should get the saudis or isrealis to build our border fence, sounds like they can get the job done right.
The Wonder Wall Around Arabia
July 6, 2009: Saudi Arabia is spending $2.5 billion to construct an electronic surveillance system along 7,000 kilometers of coastline and land borders. EADS, a European firm, won the contract. EADS already built and operates a similar system along Saudi Arabia's Iraq border. The success of that system probably helped EADS win the new contract.
The security system (the Saudi Border Guard Development Program, or SBGDP) along the 900 kilometer Iraqi border is more elaborate. It consists of a double fence, 135 electronically controlled gates, day/night cameras, movement detection sensors on the fence, underground sensors, and barbed wire between the two fences. SBGDP is meant to stop anyone from sneaking into the kingdom from Iraq. The national system does that as well, but only if the local board guard base can catch whoever made one of the sensors go off. This Iraqi border fence is not yet complete. The new national project will not be complete until 2014-15.
The new contract is actually an extension of the SBGDP, and may result in barriers along the 2,000 kilometers long Yemen border similar to those found along the Iraqi frontier. The 22,000 man Saudi border patrol currently makes thousands of arrests each year along the Yemen border, and many of those caught were smuggling weapons.
Israel actually has the most success designing, building and using these barrier systems. But for political reasons, the Saudis had to settle for second best.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htecm/articles/20090706.aspx
The All Seeing Laser Eyes
July 6, 2009: The U.S. Marine Corps are testing an electronic device that sits on the top of a vehicle and watches in all directions for signs of trouble. CVAC2 (Computer Vision Assisted Combat Capability) consists of twelve fixed day and twelve night vidcams, plus, on a turntable, a thermal sensor, a laser rangefinder and a day/night vidcam with zoom. The next version will incorporate a sniper detection system (which uses audio sensors to locate where gunfire is coming from). CVAC2 stabilizes images and can automatically overlay images from several cameras on the single color display the operator uses. CVAC2 has GPS and recording capability, so you can capture useful images, and have a record of the time and location.
CVAC2 allows commanders of armored vehicles to stay inside, safe from enemy fire, but still able to see what's happening around the vehicle. The thermal imager, zoom camera and laser rangefinder make it possible to quickly examine suspicious activity, or a real threat. The marines will be testing the suitcase size CVAC2 this Summer, and the army and air force are looking forward to the marine report on the device.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20090706.aspx
German Troops Allowed To Fight
July 6, 2009: Germany has changed its ROE (Rules of Engagement) for its troops in Afghanistan. While the 3,400 German troops in Afghanistan have not been allowed to go looking for a fight, they were increasingly getting attacked by the Taliban, or whoever the bad guy is where the German troops are. That was because the Afghans were becoming aware of the German ROE, and taking advantage of it. But with five German soldiers killed in Afghanistan so far this year, compared to three for all of last year, the ROE was changed. German soldiers may now attack hostile forces, without waiting to be fired on first. The previous ROE also stipulated that German troops had to let the enemy go if the German troops were no longer being fired on.
While many Germans oppose the presence of their troops in Afghanistan, the restrictive ROEs had become a growing embarrassment. The thousands of German soldiers who had served in Afghanistan continued to complain about that when they returned home. And then there the growing number of soldiers coming back suffering from PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). Last year, 245 German soldiers, who had served in war zones (including Afghanistan), were classified as PTSD casualties. The year before, there were only 83 PTSD casualties. This causes stress. Just the thought of it can be stressful. In the last three years, some 62,000 German troops have been stationed in combat (or peacekeeping) zones, where they can be exposed to traumatic events.
The actual wording of the new ROE isn't that different, in order to make the changes more politically palatable at home. But the commanders in Afghanistan have been told that they can do whatever they need to do to accomplish their peacekeeping mission, and safeguard their own troops. That no longer includes trying to avoid contact with the enemy.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20090706.aspx
Happy 4th of July everyone!
Thank you to all the men and women who give me the chance to celebrate this day every year!
Tank force reductions or statistical juggling
RIA Novosti
16:0203/07/2009 MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti military commentator Ilya Kramnik) - Russia is currently undergoing a controversial military reform. The entirely new troop structure and tables of organization are being hotly debated. Recent media reports concerning planned tank force reductions have triggered various comments, including panicky predictions.
Media articles quoting Interfax reports involving an anonymous Defense Ministry source say the tank force will be reduced more than ten-fold, namely, from over 20,000 tanks to just 2,000 tanks. The news has sparked off a heated debate.
However, all sensational aspects disappear if we study the situation more closely. Although the tank force will be reduced and overhauled substantially, the reform does not envision ten-fold cuts.
At present the Russian Army has about 22,000 tanks, including more than 15,000 at storehouses. This makes up for just over 6,000 combat-ready tanks. Permanent readiness units have between 1,000 and 1,500 tanks.
In the next ten years, army divisions will be replaced with permanent readiness brigades and battalions operating 2,000 to 2,300 combat-ready main battle tanks whose number will increase somewhat. Training units will have several hundred more tanks. Another 3,000-4,000 tanks will remain at storehouses. Consequently, the Russian Army will have a total of 6,000 to 7,000 tanks.
Although the Russian tank force will be reduced three-fold, the specifications of operational tanks, the qualitative and quantitative gap between Russia and its theoretical enemies and the reform's long-term effect on national defense capability remain unclear.
The Russian industrial situation makes it possible to clarify the first aspect. The T-90 main battle tank, a modified version of the T-72 tank, is currently being manufactured for the Russian Army. The T-72 modernization program will bring these tanks up to the current standard. As a result, T-64 and T-80 tanks featuring numerous Ukrainian-made components will have to be scrapped.
The T-72 and its successor, the T-90, will probably form the mainstay of the Russian tank force. Production of the T-95 tank, due to be unveiled in 2009, could be launched in the next two or three years.
But how will Russia's tank force compare with those of neighboring countries? Virtually all major powers plan to reduce their tank units many times over.
NATO forces in Europe will retain about 2,000 combat-ready tanks and will store another 2,000 by 2020.
China will have about 4,000 to 5,000 tanks, including 2,000 modern tanks, by 2020. Although the Russian tank force will be dwarfed by those of its two most powerful neighbors, NATO and China, it is highly unlikely that Moscow will have to simultaneously fight both of them. Such a hypothetical conflict would inevitably escalate into a nuclear war. Consequently, the role played by tank units would diminish greatly.
Although anti-tank weapons are being improved all the time, tanks still dominate the battlefield due to their firepower, mobility and thick armor. Tanks remain a vital asset enhancing the flexibility, mobility and firepower of army units during local conflicts.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2009/russia-090703-rianovosti01.htm
the interesting question is, will our weapons have US military guards?
then the question becomes how much of our weapons they can steal without BO throwing a tantrum?
Taliban Test Chinese Weapons
July 3, 2009: China is taking great interest in the war between the Taliban and the Pakistani army. That's because the Pakistani army is largely Chinese equipped. The Chinese are particularly keen to see how their armored vehicles perform. It's already been noted that the Chinese Type 59 tank was vulnerable to RPG attack. Pakistani armor units did not have some kind of screen (or "slat armor" as the Americans call it) affixed to the side to the tanks, where the armor is quite thin.
China will also be interested in seeing how the entire range of Chinese weapons and equipment perform in combat. Chinese gear has not gotten a real (in combat) workout in several decades, and the manufacturers are eager to see what worked, and what has to be modified.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htintel/articles/20090703.aspx
Sailors In A Bad Mood Over New Uniforms
July 3, 2009: The U.S. Navy, bowing to loud and sustained complaints, now allows sailors living off base, on their way home from work, to get out of their vehicles to perform short errands (picking up dry cleaning, groceries, day care, and so on), while wearing the new navy work uniform (shirt and pants in a gray, blue and black camouflage pattern). Prior to this, navy personnel were forbidden from leaving their vehicles while outside the base, and wearing the work uniform.
In addition, many sailors also think the new work uniform is silly. Most sailors will be wearing the work uniform while on a ship. What's the point of camouflage there? Then again, maybe it's all just the herd instinct. In the last decade, all the services have gotten new camouflage uniforms, or gotten them for the first time.
First, the U.S. Air Force introduced new work uniforms, which employ a distinctly "air force" type of camouflage pattern (lots of blue.) The U.S. Navy followed with a blue and grey camo pattern for the work uniform. For more formal occasions, junior enlisted sailors wear a khaki shirt and black pants (an arrangement the U.S. Marine Corps has made famous). The navy "dress blues" remain unchanged.
While sailors appreciate being allowed to get out of their cars on the way home work, most would prefer to do it while wearing the traditional dungarees and blue work shirt.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmoral/articles/20090703.aspx
Global Squawk
July 3, 2009: The U.S. Air Force is not happy with the manufacturer of the RQ-4 Global Hawk (Northrop Grumman). The unending delays are the major beef. For example, after nearly three years of delays, the first Block 40 RQ-4 was finished on June 25th. While most of the delays were with the AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar, there were problems with the RQ-4 as well. On top of that, the average price per RQ-4 went up 13 percent (from $91 million to $103 million) in the last two years. The air force ordered three Block 40 aircraft in June. These models have the highly detailed AESA radar for searching the ground (or water) in any weather. Commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan really want these Block 40 Global Hawks, and the Department of Defense has ordered the air force to clean up the management mess and get it done. The problem here is that the manufacturer, Northrop Grumman, has had problems managing this project since the beginning, and has consistently responded with more excuses than solutions.
Development of the RQ-4 began in the 1990s, as a DARPA research project. But by 2006, per-aircraft costs were 25 percent over the original price. By 2007, production had slipped as well. The air force and Northrop Grumman disagree over what has caused the problems. The air force blames it on poor management, Northrop Grumman says it's all about dealing with complex technology. The air force points out that the RQ-4 is not high tech. The sensors often are, but they are added to the aircraft after they come off the production line. Northrop Grumman continues to stonewall the air force, and shows no signs of making any changes.
All nine of the RQ-4A ("Block 10") aircraft have been built (seven for the U.S. Air Force and two for the U.S. Navy). The ones in production are the larger RQ-4B (block 20, 30 and 40) models. Five RQ-4s were delivered in 2007, but the air force only had 16 in service, rather than the planned 20, by the end of last year.
The RQ-4 was still in development on September 11, 2001, but was rushed into action. The first production RQ-4A was not delivered until August, 2003. Although the RQ-4 could stay in the air for up to 42 hours, all of them have only amassed about 4,000 flight hours by 2004. But most of those 4,000 hours, which were originally planned to involve testing of a new aircraft, were instead used to perform combat missions. Global Hawk also got to fly under difficult conditions, something an aircraft still being developed, would not do.
Last year, an RQ-4A Global Hawk made the first non-stop crossing of the Pacific, flying 12,000 kilometers, from California to Australia, in 23 hours. The Global Hawk has previously crossed the Pacific in several hops, but it always had the endurance to do it non-stop. In the last seven years, RQ-4s have flown over 25,000 hours, most of that combat missions, and many of them from Persian Gulf bases. The latest models have been able to fly 20 hour missions, land for refueling and maintenance, and be off in four hours for another twenty hours in the sky. The RQ-4 has been very reliable, with aircraft being ready for action 95 percent of the time. The U.S. Air Force has been buying them at the rate of five a year, at a cost of $58 million each. An RQ-4 can survey about 4,000 square kilometers an hour.
The new B version is larger (wingspan is 15 feet larger, at 131 feet, and it's four feet longer at 48 feet) than the A model, and can carry an additional two tons of equipment. To support that, there's a new generator that produces 150 percent more electrical power. The B version is a lot more reliable. Early A models tended to fail and crash at the rate of once every thousand flight hours, mostly because of design flaws. The first three RQ-4Bs entered service in 2006. At 13 tons, the Global Hawk is the size of a commuter airliner (like the Embraer ERJ 145), but costs more than twice as much. Global Hawk can be equipped with much more powerful, and expensive, sensors, than other UAVs. These more the double the cost of the aircraft. These spy satellite quality sensors (especially AESA radar) are usually worth the expense, because they enable the UAV, flying at over 60,000 feet, to get a sharp picture of all the territory it can see from that altitude.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20090703.aspx
Battlefield Promotions Forever
July 3, 2009: The U.S. Army has decided that battlefield promotions for junior NCOs works, and will make it a permanent policy. This came after a one year experiment to see if awarding battlefield promotions to specialist, corporal (E-4), sergeant (E-5) or staff sergeant (E-6) ranks would work. For infantry units, E-4s are NCOs in training, while E-5s usually lead a team (4-5 troops) and E-6s are squad leaders (9-13 troops). Armored vehicle commanders are E-5s or E-6s. Military Police (MP) units have E-5s and E-6s lead the same number of troops as infantry units.
Normally, troops have to meet educational and time-in-grade rules, appear before review boards and generally jump through a lot of hoops to get promoted to E-5 or E-6. Not so for the battlefield promotions, which can be accomplished almost instantly. Well, there is still some paperwork involved, but it gives battalion and company commanders a morale building tool for troops demonstrating leadership ability. That's because, it's always been the case that, when there are casualties, someone has to step up and replace lost team or squad leaders. These men (or women, in MP units) serve in the position without the higher rank, or pay that goes with it. That's bad enough, but in some cases, the acting team or squad leader finds himself later losing that temporary promotion to someone who looked better on paper.
The Enlisted Battlefield Promotion solves a lot of these problems by identifying those with a natural talent for battlefield leadership, and giving prompt recognition, This program is not a substitute for valor awards, but strictly to quickly recognize exceptional leadership skills.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/articles/20090703.aspx