CV32

Briefing slides for E-2D Advanced Hawkeye (PDF)

My guess is the Udaloy II class destroyer Admiral Chabanenko, taking part in the FRUKUS 2011 exercises in that area.

Baseline review delayed till Autumn 2011

From DefenseNews [excerpt]

From Aviation Week [excerpt] CV32: Back from a week away up north, good to see lots of activity on the forums!

Perfectly legitimate post, Pete. I think its clear that the UN/NATO force had sincerely hoped that the Qaddafi regime would have given way by now, either through the application of force, rebel momentum, political uprising, or all of the above. I don't think they counted on Qaddafi and more particularly, his supporters/military forces, being quite this resilient to airpower. (Of course, they had already had some experience of that kind of a result from Allied Force in 1999).

From DefenseNews [excerpt]

From DefenseNews [excerpt]

From DefenseNews [excerpt] And so it begins, or continues. Expect more of the same if buy the F-35 and have to struggle to support that single component of the force at the expense of other programs and capabilities.

Yes, I note DEW Line is now saying so.

From Reuters [excerpt]

JH-XX, looking in some respects like a two-seat F-35 ... Secret Projects DEW Line blog RIA Novosti

Typically attributed to John Cleese, but apparently not by him (and probably not 2011 either), but funny as heck just the same. And to be a good sport, here's the new threat level apparently developed for Canada:

From DefenseNews [excerpt]

From DefenseNews [excerpt]

Its 90 percent of the "war". And think of whom the PR campaign is aimed at: a populace already largely critical/suspicious of US/NATO.

the rhetoric continues ... From RIA Novosti [excerpt]

I wouldn't assume that any such ballistic missile attack must necessarily be large. It may not even be nuclear.

Of course, I think the whole "legal guarantees" idea is worth as much paper. Who thinks the European missile defense system would not be used to defend against Russian ballistic missiles if European sites were targeted, regardless of any paper assurances? And if that's the case, why not provide the guarantee? Wouldn't it serve US/NATO purposes to openly and publicly satisfy Russian concerns and thereby defuse its argument against European missile defense?

Oh, I agree, though capability must always be measured against cost. A very expensive system that doesn't produce what it is supposed to, will always make for a good budgetary 'target'. Meanwhile ... From Reuters [excerpt]

Well that's the whole nuclear deterrence dynamic, isn't it? Why would you want to make a new weapon system or even a new defense system (e.g. SDI/Star Wars) unless you had some intent of using it to further your objectives? It goes both ways. So, from the Russian perspective, European missile defense is just as easily about building a defensive system where the threat of retaliation is negated, therefore opening the way to impecunious first strike capability.

Great post! From the nuclear arms control and deterrence perspective, here's some devil's advocate: Country A and Country B have a long history of facing each other across the strategic nuclear divide. After decades of this 'Cold War', Country B collapses politically, economically, and in many ways, militarily. Country B starts on the long road of rebuilding its political, economic and military might, but in large part the military component must heavily on its remaining strategic nuclear capability for self-defense and deterrence. Country A continues an expansion of its military alliances in the old battleground theaters. Country A and Country B meanwhile, continue to make strides on nuclear disarmament. Then Country A declares an intent to deploy new ballistic missile defense capability in close proximity to Country B, in fact right in the midst of that old battleground, but also says: 'don't worry about that, Country B, this is all about Country C and Country D, not you'. Country B seeks guarantees from Country A that the new BMD system won't be used against Country B. Country A is reluctant to provide such guarantees but continues to make broad assurances. Should Country B be worried at all?

From Reuters [excerpt]

Who else can understand or appreciate the Russian opposition to Europe based missile defense?

The replenishment ship Bandar Abbas and a warship are reportedly also accompanying them.