CV32

From RIA Novosti Iranian defense minister in Moscow 'to talk S-300 missile deal' 12:38 | 17/ 02/ 2009 MOSCOW, February 17 (RIA Novosti) - Iran's defense minister is likely to discuss the delivery of Russian S-300 air defense systems to the Islamic Republic during a meeting with his Russian counterpart on Tuesday, a business daily said. Russia's Kommersant said Moscow had signed an S-300 contract with Tehran, but would not rush to implement it due to a seeming thaw in Russia's relations with the new U.S. administration. Iranian media have repeatedly said, citing senior security officials, that Russia has started delivering elements of the advanced version of the S-300 missile with a range of over 150 kilometers (over 100 miles). The reports have alarmed the U.S. and Israel, both of which have refused to rule out the possibility of military action against Tehran, accusing it of a failure to obey international nuclear non-proliferation demands. However, Russia has dismissed the reports. "We do not supply any offensive weapons to Iran, and accusing Russia and Iran of cooperation that undermines regional security is unjust," Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said earlier. Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said ahead of his visit that Tehran would negotiate the delivery of S-300 missiles "when it is necessary." In an official statement, the Islamic Republic's Defense Ministry said: "During his trip to Russia, the Iranian defense minister will hold talks with Russian officials and visit a number of defense industry companies. The main purpose of the visit is the expansion of bilateral [military-technical] ties and the implementation of existing agreements in the military-technical sector." "The contract on the S-300 could be fulfilled any time," Kommersant said, citing an unidentified Russian defense official. "New deals are in the offing. Talks on Buk-M1 medium-range missile systems are continuing. However there has been no political decision, necessary for the deals to go ahead." Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is expected to meet with the new U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in March. The meeting is seen as a sign of a thaw in relations between Moscow and Washington, strained of late over a host of issues, including U.S. plans to deploy missile shield elements in Central Europe, which Russia strongly opposes. Media reports said the new U.S. administration was seeking a compromise on the missile shield dispute that would be linked to Russia's cooperation in preventing Iran from building a nuclear bomb. The "Iranian threat" was one of the reasons cited for the missile shield. Iran recently took delivery of 29 Russian-made Tor-M1 air defense missile systems under a $700-million contract signed in late 2005. Russia has also trained Iranian Tor-M1 specialists, including radar operators and crew commanders.

From ARES Canadian Def. Minister Slams NATO Posted by Paul McLeary at 2/17/2009 10:54 AM CST It looks like the United States isn’t the only NATO member getting frustrated with the way its allies are conducting themselves in Afghanistan. Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay—whose troops are in the thick of the fight in Kandahar, having lost 108 troops in the war thus far—recently called out the rest of the alliance, giving voice to his frustrations in a speech in London: "Afghanistan tests the ability of the alliance to execute its most basic mission in the 21st century and in a global context…If NATO cannot deter or defeat the real physical threat facing alliance members, and indeed contribute to the building of security for the larger international community, then we have to ask ourselves, what is NATO for?" Canada currently deploys about 2,800 troops in southeast Afghanistan, one of the most violent parts of the country, and it sounds like the Ottawa government is growing tired of shouldering so much of the load while German and French troops in quieter parts of the country aren’t doing any real fighting—or much of anything, really. According to the Ottawa Citizen, Mr. MacKay went on to say that the American “re-emphasis on the mission in Afghanistan -- with the commitment of more troops, more development, more diplomacy -- has brought a predictable sigh of relief from some around the alliance,” leading other members of NATO to simply think, “it's OK, the Americans will handle it.” While McKay might justifiably be growing frustrated with the Europeans, it’s not like there isn’t light at the end of the tunnel for Canadian forces—Canada has announced plans to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan by 2011, a move that would blow a huge hole in coalition efforts to pacify one of the most critical areas of the country. And if the fight in 2011 looks anything like it does now, or even if we see some improvement, that hole will certainly fester, no matter how much fighting and capacity building the Canadians are currently doing. [CV32: Those Canadians ... always calling it like they see it! ]

Difficult to put in a nutshell, but I suppose the controversy over DDG-1000 is rooted in the argument that it doesn't make sense to spend a huge amount of money (something like $3 billion per) to build ships that are so dependent upon stealth for survival (they aren't intended to act as part of a carrier strike group, for example), when that "stealth" may be more than a bit illusory. And to explain that latter comment a bit more, there's a respectable argument to be made that the current emphasis on naval stealth (e.g. sloped surfaces to reduce radar signature, IR suppression, etc) - epitomised by DDG-1000 - perhaps misses the fact that the littoral environment is a very busy place with lots of eyes and ears. You are just as likely to be spotted visually (rather distinctive profile on that DDG-1000) by a passing fisherman, merchant cargo ship, sailboat, commercial aircraft, beachcomber, etc, etc. Once you've been spotted by someone, anyone, all of your efforts at stealth could go out the window in a hurry when operating off the shore of a hostile nation. The caption to the image (which originally belongs to the program progenitors, iirc) was emphasizing the idea that this argument was made even more obvious by the fact that the image depicts the DDG-1000 operating during daylight hours within visual range of the shore.

From Aviation Week USAF Chief Defends F-22 Need, Capabilities Feb 17, 2009 By Amy Butler U.S. Air Force Gen. Norton Schwartz, the chief of staff, says more stealthy F-22s are needed – though less than the 381 required by the service in recent years - yet he has stopped short of identifying how many more. “We looked at this in a dispassionate and analytical way” and produced a number that “I feel is credible,” Schwartz said during a Defense Writers’ Group breakfast this morning in Washington. The general said he would not release his new number until presenting it to Defense Secretary Robert Gates - but he noted he would not disagree with statements from Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told Congress 60 more F-22s were needed. This would include orders of about 20 aircraft per year for three years. Lockheed Martin currently has orders for 183 of the twin-engine aircraft. The top four-star USAF general further said it is a “sign of a healthy institution” when it is “willing to revisit its own beliefs.” Gates has ordered a quick-turnaround review of major Pentagon programs ahead of submission of a fiscal 2010 budget. In this review, Gates has directed eight teams to look at the following areas: tactical aircraft, mobility, shipbuilding, network centric capabilities, rotary-wing systems, missile defense, irregular warfare and nuclear capabilities, according to an industry official. Gates is said to be placing an emphasis on technologies that can help with “irregular warfare,” or nontraditional warfighting capabilities, as the Pentagon expects continued battles against non-state actors and insurgent forces for many years. Such a rebalancing of the military force could prompt senior leaders at the Pentagon to assume more risk in traditional warfighting areas, such as air-to-air combat or lead-in operations in the opening hours of a major theater war. Leaders are now looking at how much risk is appropriate for the capabilities offered by systems such as the F-22, Schwartz said. The general notes that any added systems the Air Force wants in the FY ‘10 budget will be paid for with suggested cuts by the service. The new F-22 analysis presumes deliveries of operational F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will commence as planned in 2013 and 2014 without delay. Schwartz defended the F-22’s mission capability (MC) rates. Pentagon acquisition chief John Young criticized the low MC rates last fall, noting that Raptors are ready for a mission around 62 percent of the time, if its low-observable requirements are met (DAILY, Nov. 20). Reliability goes up above 70 percent for missions with lower stealth demands. Schwartz said the F-22’s performance is “respectable,” especially when compared with the first-generation stealthy F-117 and the B-2 bomber. “These are not numbers to be scoffed at,” he says. Young also has criticized plans to spend another $8 billion on the F-22 to modify it from its air-to-air role to also take on ground targets. Schwartz noted that this block upgrade plan has been in the works for a long time. Schwartz was cool on the notion of developing an export version of the F-22. Japan has expressed interest in buying the system, but the so-called Obey Amendment, named after the top House appropriator who drafted the language years ago, prohibits foreign Raptor sales. Citing the cost associated with developing an export variant, Schwartz said, “I don’t see that in the cards now.”

Somebody doesn't like the DDG-1000.

Grackle, thanks for your requests. I will take a look at all of your suggestions. Please note in the interim that the Iranian Ghadir submarine does already appear in the HCDB.

Yes, with the eventual aim of producing enough scenarios to fill out a "beginner's battleset".

From Defense Aerospace President Obama Will Decide the Fate of F-22 This Month (Source: Lexington Institute; issued February 17, 2009) Sometime in the next dozen days, President Obama will make his first big decision about America's future military capabilities. The fiscal 2009 defense authorization act requires the President to tell the Congress by March 1 whether the nation's interest is best served by purchasing more F-22 fighters, or ceasing production. If he decides to end the program, contractor Lockheed Martin will begin laying off workers almost immediately, as will dozens of suppliers. The Air Force will have to make do with the 183 planes it has already ordered. I don't normally discuss defense spending in the first person, because it undercuts the image of objectivity to which we analysts all aspire. But after writing about why the F-22 is needed for a dozen years -- more than I have discussed any other weapons program -- I want to make this last commentary before the President's decision personal. What follows is not a discussion about jobs, or politics, or America's place in the world. It is about the role the F-22 plays in our war plans, and what would happen to our soldiers and sailors and marines if it were not available in sufficient numbers. The greatest gift that has been given to America's warfighters in my lifetime is command of the air. That phrase -- "command of the air" -- is the way the first great exponent of air power described the ability to control and use the air space above our own country and the other nations of the world. Command of the air is the central, indispensable mission of the F-22. It is the reason why the plane is stealthier than any other aircraft in the world, why it is more maneuverable, why it is more fuel efficient at high speeds, and why it is crammed with more sensors and computing power than any plane of similar size. Command of the air is also why it costs so much -- about $150 million for each additional plane. What does that high cost get us? -- an Air Force that can use all its other planes in wartime without fear of horrendous losses; -- an Army that can continue to operate, as it has over the last 50 years, without suffering any casualties from hostile aircraft; -- and a defense posture that can deter war without threatening the use of nuclear weapons. Every potential aggressor in the world knows that if it faces the F-22 in aerial combat it will lose, and that if the F-22 is sent to attack targets in its nation, the targets will be destroyed. Our enemies cannot see the plane with their radars, and they cannot catch it with their fighters. They are defenseless against it, and will remain so for decades to come. No other weapon in our arsenal provides that kind of defense and that kind of deterrence. The F-35 joint strike fighter will deliver similar stealthiness, but it lacks the agility and awareness of F-22. That is why the two planes were designed to operate together -- because there are many things F-22 can do that F-35 cannot. Which makes the F-22 a bargain in a way that tanks and destroyers will never be. It enables the success of all the other weapons and warfighters in the joint force. But if our nation is to benefit fully from the promise of the F-22 then we must buy enough to cover the world, and 183 planes simply isn't enough to do that. (By Lauren Thompson, Ph.D.)

Well, to be clear, I didn't suggest that at all. But it wouldn't surprise me. (There is plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting the French penchant for snooping about and gathering info on the signatures of "friendly" militaries' assets). If deployed, the towed array would have had a chance of detecting a submarine in its baffles, but only a chance. See Warhorse's comments above for just how poor that chance could have been (Harpoon wise, anyway).

From Times Online From Times Online February 16, 2009 French sub unaware it rammed Royal Navy vessel in mid-Atlantic nuclear crash Charles Bremner in Paris, and David Brown A French submarine was unaware that it had rammed and damaged a British nuclear sub in a mid-Atlantic collision until it was informed by the Royal Navy. HMS Vanguard and the French submarine Le Triomphant were both carrying nuclear ballistic warheads when they crashed in the Atlantic this month. Both navies said today that the collision had been unavoidable because the vessels were “running silently” to avoid detection by sonar. Official inquiries have started in Britain and France into the incident which has raised concerns about the sharing of information between the navies. The First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Jonathon Band, said that the incident happened at low speed and none of the 250 crew on board the submarines was injured. “Both submarines remained safe and no injuries occurred,” he said. "We can confirm that the capability remained unaffected and there has been no compromise to nuclear safety.” The French Navy claimed this month that Le Triomphant’s bow sonar dome was probably damaged in a collision with a submerged shipping container while returning from patrol. It discovered that it had hit a British submarine only after one of their regular exchanges of information with the Royal Navy. HMS Vanguard returned to its base in Faslane, western Scotland, on Saturday with dents and scrapes on its hull after the collision that was reported to have occurred on February 3 or 4. Le Triomphant took three days to limp home to port in Brest, northwest France, with extensive damage to its Thales DMUX 80 sonar. The French Navy confirmed today that the collision took place in the Atlantic on a routine patrol and at great depth but would not reveal the location for routine security reasons. Captain Jérôme Erulin said that such collisions were extremely unlikely but always possible between two submarines that are designed to evade detection. “It was a brief contact at slow speed at the beginning of last week,” he added. “These submarines are by definition very silent. The slow speed at the moment of the incident is their normal patrol speed. There was no human error.” A senior Royal Navy source said today that the chances of two submarines colliding in the mid-Atlantic were “very, very small”. “There has been no compromising of nuclear integrity whatsoever and neither has there been any reduction in our deterrent capability,” he said. “Whatever speculation you have seen I can confirm neither of those has been affected." The source said that submarines use “water space management” to separate themselves both geographically and in depth from other vessels when underwater. “It is a well-established rule operated by Nato nations, and other nations when we exercise with them use the same rules, and they have built into them plenty of safety,” he said. “It is remarkably difficult to detect a modern submarine with sonar and we work very hard with our own submarines, as do our allies, in making them as quiet as possible so they are not detectable. “A submarine does not often go active – that is send out an echo – because it gives away a submarine’s position. So a submarine normally operates what we call passively, it does not transmit.” Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane’s Fighting Ships, said: “This is a very serious incident. There are procedural issues that need addressing. “We should not have submarines of friendly nations operating in the same area at the same time.” Commodore Saunders said that although there were reports of collisions between submarines during the Cold War neither side would own up to them. “Nuclear submarines would not normally operate together and I can think of no operational reason why they would operate together. “I can only assume they were both on patrol so there would be no intention for them to be in the same space.” Nato countries share details of submarine patrols and agree which areas and depths their vessels will operate in to avoid the risk of collision. However, France has opted out of Nato’s military command so does not fully share information, although it normally provides some details of its submarine operations. “I would be surprised if the French did not give an indication, or some sort of attempt to give an indication, about the extent of their operations,” said Commodore Saunders. HMS Vanguard, which was launched in 1992, is one of four British submarines that carries the 16 Trident ballistic nuclear missiles with up to eight warheads. At least one of the submarines is on patrol at all times. The 14,335-tonne Le Triomphant, which entered service in 1997, carries 16 nuclear missiles, with six warheads, and is one of four nuclear-armed submarines in the French fleet. The incident is the most serious underwater collision since the USS San Francisco hit an undersea mountain in the Pacific head-on in 2005, killing one sailor and injuring 24 others. Dr Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, said that it was a relief that no one had been injured in the collision. “For two submarines to collide while apparently unaware of each other’s presence is extremely worrying,” he said. “Hopefully lessons have been learnt to prevent anything like this ever happening again in the future.” Nick Harvey, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: “The public entrust this equipment to the Government confident that all possible precautions are being taken. “Now that this incident is public knowledge, the people of Britain, France and the rest of the world need to be reassured this can never happen again and that lessons are being learnt.” Angus Robertson, the SNP leader in Westminster, said: “The MoD cannot hide behind operational secrecy and must make a statement on this as a priority.” John Ainslie, co-ordinator of Scottish CND, said that the all nuclear submarines would immediately be confined to base. The French anti-nuclear group Sortir du Nucleaire (Get Out of Nuclear) criticised the military authorities for taking several days to reveal the collision. “It seems clear that, once again, the first reflex of the nuclear lobby is to hide the truth,” it said.

Yes, it is important to remember that these are Harpoon's best, most optimistic guess at the possible detection range. There are many modifiers and other conditions not taken into account by Harpoon which can make the detection range considerably less.

Excellent question. Vanguard SSBN (UK) Signature: Small/Vquiet Sonars: Sonar 2054 hull array (passive range 4.3 nm pdet 50%) Sonar 2044 towed array (passive range 6.0 nm pdet 50%) Le Triomphant SSBN (France) Signature: Small/Vquiet Sonars: DMUX 80 hull array (passive range 3.4 nm pdet 50%) DMUX 80 flank array (passive range 4.3 nm pdet 50%) Narama towed array (passive range 6.8 nm pdet 50%)

Further relevant info ... From Daily Mail British and French submarines packed with nuclear missiles collide beneath the Atlantic By Ryan Kisiel, Tamara Cohen and Peter Allen Last updated at 4:51 PM on 16th February 2009 British and French submarines armed with ballistic missiles threatened a nuclear disaster after colliding in the Atlantic. The crash - which sparked disbelief among naval experts - is believed to have occurred after state-of-the-art technology fitted in both vessels, which is designed to detect other submarines, apparently failed completely. Each boat is a key part of their respective countries' nuclear deterrent, ready to unleash hugely destructive weapons at a moment’s notice. While both countries claim that security was not threatened by the collision, wide-scale enquiries are currently underway on both sides of the Channel. French Navy sources confirmed that Le Triomphant, one of four strategic nuclear submarines of the ‘Force de Frappe’ (Strike Force), was returning from a 70-day tour of duty when it collided with HMS Vanguard. Britain's most senior sailor, First Sea Lord, Adm. Jonathon Band, said the underwater crash posed no risk to the safety of the submarines' nuclear reactors and nuclear missiles. But he offered no explanation of how the rare incident might have occurred. 'The two submarines came into contact at very low speed,' Band said in a statement. 'Both submarines remained safe.' France's defence ministry said the ballistic missile submarines had been carrying out routine patrols when they collided. 'They briefly came into contact at a very low speed while submerged. There were no injuries. Neither their nuclear deterrence missions nor their safety were affected,' France's defence ministry stated today. During heavy seas in the middle of the night between February 3 and 4, French sailors heard a loud ‘bang’ that all but destroyed the submarine's sonar dome. This part of the boat should have detected the Vanguard in the first place, but Le Triomphant’s crew of 101 neither saw or heard anything before the collision. Between them the submarines had 250 sailors on board. A senior Navy source told The Sun: 'The potential consequences are unthinkable. It's very unlikely there would have been a nuclear explosion. But a radioactive leak was a possibility. Worse, we could have lost the crew and warheads. That would have been a national disaster.' As inquiries began, naval sources said it was a million to one unlucky chance both subs were in the same patch of sea. A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: 'It is our policy not to comment on submarine operational matters, but we can confirm that the UK’s deterrent capability has remained unaffected at all times and there has been no compromise to nuclear safety.' The French last night also tried to play down the collision, with a Navy spokesman saying: ‘The collision did not result in injuries among the crew and did not jeopardise nuclear security at any moment.’ Le Triomphant took at least three days to limp back to her home port, although she did not have to be towed. HMS Vanguard, by contrast, apparently had to be towed back to her home base in Faslane, Scotland with visible scrapes. With a complement of 135, she is the lead boat of the Vanguard class of submarines which carry Trident ballistic missiles around the world. Le Triomphant is also the lead ship in her own class of French nuclear submarines. Both vessels boast 16 M45 ballistic missiles, weighing 35 tons each, which carry six warheads with a range of around 5000 miles. Neither France nor Britain would confirm the exact date of the collision, but said it took place earlier this month. France issued a brief statement February 6 saying the Le Triomphant had struck 'a submerged object' that was probably a shipping container. Naval experts were amazed by the collision. 'This really shouldn't have happened at all,' said Stephen Saunders, a retired British Royal Navy commodore and the editor of Jane's Fighting Ships. 'It's a very serious incident, and I find it quite extraordinary.' He said while Nato countries let each other know what general area of the Atlantic they are operating in, neither submarine would have had a precise position for the other. Saunders said submarines don't always turn on their radar systems or make their presence obvious to other shipping. 'The whole point is to go and hide in a big chunk of ocean and not be found. They tend to go around very slowly and not make much noise,' he said. Lawmakers and disarmament advocates demanded an explanation of how the submarines could have failed to detect each other. Britain's government 'needs to explain how it is possible for a submarine carrying weapons of mass destruction to collide with another submarine carrying weapons of mass destruction in the middle of the world's second-largest ocean,' lawmaker Angus Robertson of the opposition Scottish National Party said. Stephane Lhomme, a spokesman for the French anti-nuclear group Sortir du Nucleaire, said its activists were on alert for any signs of radioactive leaks near French shores. 'This reminds us that we could have a new catastrophe with a nuclear submarine at any moment. It is a risk that exists during missions but also in port,' he said. 'These are mobile nuclear reactors.' Britain's Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament called on Gordon Brown to end his country's nuclear submarine patrols of the Atlantic. 'This is a nuclear nightmare of the highest order,' said Kate Hudson, the group's chair. 'The collision of two submarines, both with nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons onboard, could have released vast amounts of radiation and scattered scores of nuclear warheads across the seabed.' France’s Atlantic coast is notorious for being a ‘submarine graveyard’ because of the number of underwater craft, mainly German U-Boats, sunk in the area during the Second World War. The story of one was immortalised in the classic 1981 film Das Boot. Two sailors died from a blast on a British nuclear submarine in March 2007. An oxygen generator blew up as HMS Tireless cruised beneath the Arctic ice. The tiny compartment the men were in quickly filled with smoke, but rescuers could not open doors buckled by the explosion. Operator Mechanic Anthony Huntrod, 20, from Sunderland, and Leading Mechanic Operator Paul McCann, 32, from Halesowen, West Midlands, were dead by the time their shipmates reached them. The deaths led to Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth issuing an 'unreserved' apology in the House of Commons, after it emerged that the oxygen machine which exploded had been contaminated with oil. A Board of Inquiry heavily criticised the Navy and the Ministry of Defence blamed 'systematic failings' for the tragedy. Analysis by Matthew Hickley, Defence Correspondent: The collision between two nuclear missile submarines appears to be a freak accident, which happened precisely because the vessels are so astonishingly stealthy. Every minute of every day, since June 15, 1968, the Royal Navy has had at least one submarine out on patrol beneath the waves, carrying nuclear missiles capable of destroying whole cities. Just one of these warships - known to sailors as 'boats' rather than 'ships' - carries more destructive firepower than the rest of the fleet, the RAF and the Army combined. Yet they specialise in running away and hiding. One they have left their base at Faslane in Scotland they slip quietly beneath the waves and patrol slowly and almost silently in the emptiest piece of ocean they can find. If the enemy cannot locate them, then he cannot destroy them - and so he dare not start a nuclear war. In submarine warfare hiding means being quiet - too quiet for an enemy sonar system to hear and pinpoint you. Both the British and French missile submarines are extraordinarily quiet, while their own sonar systems are designed to 'hear' the slightest sound from an enemy ship. In this case both boats were on routine deterrent patrols, keeping their deadly missiles safe and ready to fire. Both were listening hard for any other ships or objects to avoid, but each submarine was so quiet that the other was unable to hear it. Only Britain, France and America are thought to operate such sophisticated and silent vessels. Russian boats are noisy by comparison. But whereas British and American submariners routinely inform each other of roughly where their missile submarines are patrolling, to prevent just this kind of freak accident, it is understood there is no similar arrangement with the French. As the French Navy generally has only one missile submarine on patrol at any one time, the British submarine had the remarkable misfortune to collide with the only vessel in the world which it is unable to detect, and knew nothing about. [CV32: Emphasis mine]

From Defence Talk India hopes to test ICBM in 2010: official Agence France-Presse | Feb 16, 2009 Bangalore, India: India hopes to test-fire a home-built inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) before the end of next year, a senior defence official said Friday. "Efforts are on to test the next longer range Agni-V missile before December 2010," M. Natarajan, the scientific adviser to India's defence minister told reporters on the sidelines of the Aero India international air show here. The Agni-V will have an ICBM range in excess of 5,000 kilometres (3,107 miles). The shorter range Agni-I and Agni-II ballistic missiles are currently being introduced into India's arsenal, although they are not fully operational. An Agni-III, with a 1.5-tonne payload capacity and a range of 3,500 kilometres -- enabling it to strike targets deep inside China -- has been tested three times.

From Defence Talk NKorea fuels speculation of imminent missile launch Agence France-Presse | Feb 16, 2009 SEOUL: North Korea on Monday fuelled speculation that it was preparing to test a long-range missile by suggesting it would go ahead with a rocket launch as part of what it called a space programme. Pyongyang has previously tested missiles under the guise of launching a satellite and analysts said the latest comments from the North indicated the communist state was on the verge of another attention-grabbing test. "One will come to know later what will be launched in the DPRK (North Korea)," the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) reported as the hardline communist state celebrated the 67th birthday of leader Kim Jong-Il. The North is under growing pressure to scrap apparent preparations to launch its longest-range Taepodong-2 missile, which could theoretically target Alaska. Media reports citing intelligence from satellite photos say preparations at the Musudan-ri launch site on the northeast coast are well advanced. Hillary Clinton, who this week makes her first Asian tour as US Secretary of State, last week urged the communist state to avoid provocation and stop "unhelpful rhetoric" towards South Korea. The North depicted its launch of a Taepodong-1 missile back in August 1998 as an attempt to put a satellite into orbit. It test-launched its Taepodong-2, with a maximum range of 6,700 kilometres (4,190 miles), in July 2006. US officials said it failed after 40 seconds and the United Nations imposed missile-related sanctions on Pyongyang. It also tested an atomic weapon in 2006 but experts are unsure whether Pyongyang has the capability to put a nuclear warhead on a missile. Analysts said the North would likely portray a test as a satellite launch to avoid antagonising the nnew US administration excessively, even though it would also have a military purpose. KCNA blasted rumours spread by "hostile forces" of a planned long-range missile launch. "This is a vicious trick to put a brake on the wheel of not only the DPRK's building of military capability for self-defence but also scientific researches for peaceful purpose," it said. "Space development is the independent right of the DPRK." The official agency said "dishonest forces" were asserting that the North was planning a provocative act to draw attention. "The DPRK has no need to draw anyone's attention and wants nobody to interfere or meddle in the issue of the Korean peninsula." Analysts believe a launch would be aimed at persuading the Obama administration to make negotiations with the nuclear-armed state a priority. Nuclear disarmament talks involving the United States and four regional powers are currently stalled, and the North is stepping up threats against South Korea's conservative government. On Sunday, North Korea's de facto head of state, Kim Yong-Nam, threatened "decisive actions" against the South if it continues to "challenge" Pyongyang. Kim, the highest-level official to threaten the South since relations soured last year, accused Seoul of pushing relations to the brink of war by violating summit accords in 2000 and 2007. Monday's report was the second time this month that the North has asserted its right to a space programme. "The DPRK's policy of advancing to space for peaceful purposes is a justifiable aim that fits the global trend of the times," Rodong Sinmun newspaper said earlier, noting that Iran successfully launched a satellite. "It's very likely for North Korea to claim that it has been a satellite launch after test-firing the missile," Baek Seung-Joo of the Korea Institute for Defence Analyses told AFP. "It has multiple purposes for doing so -- to avoid a conflict with the new US government, to boast its advanced missile technology and also to boost internal unity by making its people take pride in the nation." Despite Pyongayang's insistence that it has the right to space exploration, Baek said he believed the North "has no space programmes at all." South Korea's JoongAng Ilbo newspaper said Monday the North has moved all necessary materials to its Musudan-ri base. The South's military believes a missile can be assembled faster than initially expected, it quoted an unidentified senior military official as saying.

Barring any new (and quick) replies to the poll, the first scenario will be "ship (towed array) vs submarine" and will appear in Part 4 of Tactics 101: Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW).

Seems it was The Sun that broke the story. There is a lot of head scratching going on right now as to how this could have happened. The fact that both submarines survived without serious injury suggests a rather low speed collision. The sonar dome of Le Triomphant was apparently damaged, which suggests that the Vanguard was ahead of her. This in turn (combined with the low speed) begs the question: why didn't the French sub detect the British sub? Also, the Vanguard was apparently towed into Faslane, suggesting that perhaps sustained some propulsion damage? All speculation, of course.

From BBC News Page last updated at 12:55 GMT, Monday, 16 February 2009 Nuclear subs collide in Atlantic A Royal Navy nuclear submarine was involved in a collision with a French nuclear sub in the middle of the Atlantic, the MoD has confirmed. HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant were badly damaged in the crash in heavy seas earlier this month. First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band said the submarines came into contact at low speed and no injuries were reported. Both the UK and France insisted nuclear security had not been breached. Despite being equipped with sonar, it seems neither vessel spotted the other, the BBC's Caroline Wyatt said. Our defence correspondent said HMS Vanguard, with "very visible dents and scrapes", had to be towed back into its home base at Faslane on the Firth of Clyde. She said it might be that the anti-sonar devices, which hide the submarines, were to blame. "This is clearly a one-in-a-million chance when you think about how big the Atlantic is," she said. "It is actually unbelievable that something happened." The incident is being investigated on both sides of the Channel. The two submarines are key parts of each nation's nuclear deterrent, and would have been carrying missiles, though both the UK and France have insisted there was no danger of a nuclear incident. HMS VANGUARD Launched in 1992 One of four British submarines carrying Trident nuclear missiles Weighs 16,000 tonnes, 150m (492ft) long Can carry 48 nuclear warheads on a maximum of 16 missiles A two-year refit was completed in 2007 as part of a £5bn contract Due to be replaced in 2024 The two submarines were carrying around 240 sailors between them. A French naval spokesman said the collision did not result in any injuries to the crew. Le Triomphant is based at L'Ile Longue near Brest, north-west France. HMS Vanguard arrived back in Faslane on Saturday. France's defence ministry said in a statement, dated 6 February, that Le Triomphant "collided with an immersed object (probably a container)" when coming back from patrolling. "The sonar dome, at the front, was damaged. This incident did not cause any injuries among the crew and did not threaten the nuclear security at any time," it said. "The submarine came back by its own means to L'Ile Longue, escorted by a frigate, as it is the usual practice when leaving or coming back." 'Large ocean' Politicians have demanded more information on the incident. Lib Dem defence spokesman Nick Harvey has called for an immediate internal inquiry with some of the conclusions made public. "While the British nuclear fleet has a good safety record, if there were ever to be a bang it would be a mighty big one," he said. LE TRIOMPHANT Launched in 1994 One of four French ballistic missile nuclear-powered submarines (SSBN) Displacement (submerged) 14,000 tonnes, 138m (452ft) long Can carry 16 ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads 110 crew, including 15 officers Submerged speed over 25 knots "Now that this incident is public knowledge, the people of Britain, France and the rest of the world need to be reassured this can never happen again and that lessons are being learned." Meanwhile, SNP Westminster leader Angus Robertson has called for a government statement. "The Ministry of Defence needs to explain how it is possible for a submarine carrying weapons of mass destruction to collide with another submarine carrying weapons of mass destruction in the middle of the world's second-largest ocean," he said. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament described the collision as "a nuclear nightmare of the highest order". CND chair Kate Hudson said: "The collision of two submarines, both with nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons onboard, could have released vast amounts of radiation and scattered scores of nuclear warheads across the seabed."

From DefenseNews N. Korea Assembling Long-Range Missile: S. Korea By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE Published: 12 Feb 22:01 EST (03:01 GMT) SEOUL - North Korea has apparently started assembling its longest-range missile and it could be ready for launch late this month, a South Korean news report said Feb. 13. Chosun Ilbo newspaper, quoting an unidentified South Korean government official, said the first and second stages of the Taepodong-2 missile had been transported by train to the launch site at Musudan-ri on the northeast coast. "The Taepodong-2 missile has not been seen around the launch pad. It seems that the first- and second-stage rockets are now being assembled," the official was quoted as saying. When assembled, the missile is expected to be moved to the pad, put in an upright position and fueled for test-firing, the official said, adding that the earliest it could be launched is Feb. 25. That is the first anniversary of the inauguration of South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak. The North views Lee as a bitter enemy because he has taken a firmer stance on cross-border relations than his predecessors. It was not possible to confirm the report. South Korean authorities refuse comment on intelligence matters. Analysts say a missile launch would be intended to put pressure on Lee to drop his harder line, and to persuade U.S. President Barack Obama to make the North one of his policy priorities. Chosun said increased activities by vehicles and people had been spotted at Musudan-ri but the missile is out of sight of satellites in a covered plant. It said the components were transported in a 40-meter (132-foot) covered rail wagon from a military plant near Pyongyang, denying U.S. satellites an opportunity to photograph them. U.S. and South Korean officials have previously said the hard-line communist state seems to be preparing for another test of the Taepodong-2. An earlier missile blew up just 40 seconds it was first launched from Musudan-ri in July 2006. At maximum range the missile could theoretically target Alaska. South Korea has said that any such launch would bring the North increased isolation and added sanctions, while the United States has said it would be provocative.

From Jane's Iran will be major concern for Israel's new leadership By Alon Ben-David 13 February 2009 Israel's inconclusive parliamentary election risks extending political instability at a critical moment for the country. Whoever is eventually installed as prime minister will look to the defence minister to play a pivotal role on a number of contentious issues - not the least of which is the threat posed by Iran's continued pursuit of nuclear technology. Operating under the premise that Iran will have enough fissile material to become a nuclear power by the end of 2009, whichever Israeli government is eventually installed will watch with great interest as the new US administration works to engage with Tehran. The concern in Israel is that Iran will use the talks to stall any action against its nuclear programme, while continuing to enrich uranium at its facility at Natanz. As JDW went to press, Benjamin Netanyahu looked set to reclaim the office he left a decade ago. He has made no secret of his desire to retain Ehud Barak as defence minister, but he may be forced to choose a replacement on political, rather than strategic, merit. In a narrow right-wing government, Netanyahu is likely to appoint Moshe Ya'alon, former Israel Defence Force (IDF) chief of staff, for the job. If Livni's Kadima joins Netanyahu in a wider centre-right government, that job could go to another former chief of staff: Shaul Mofaz.

Lots of interesting news today, much of it coming out of the Aero India 2009 exhibition: From Aviation Week's ARES Blog Big Stick For India's Sukhois Posted by Bill Sweetman at 2/13/2009 1:01 AM CST Maxim Pyadushkin writes: The development of the air-launched version of the Russo-Indian BrahMos supersonic cruise missile has got the green light. Visiting the BrahMos booth at Aero India 2009, Indian Defense Minister A.K. Antony said he expects to see the series production of this version to start in 2012. The missile will be launched from the Indian Air Force’s Sukhoi Su-30MKI fighters. India has settled on a configuration with a single 2.5-ton BrahMos under its fuselage, leaving the fighter with another 5,000 pounds of combat load, explains Dr Sivathanu Pillai, chief of the BrahMos joint venture. (It will be the biggest missile ever carried by an operational fighter.) He also said that the air-launched missile will be optimized to engage only ground-based targets as specified by the customer – India’s Air Force. India’s navy has an anti-ship BrahMos version, while the Army uses a ground-based mobile variant. At the show BrahMos continued negotiations with Sukhoi about the modernization of Su-30MKI , including the design of airframe hardpoints and changes to the weapon control system. Tests will be carried out with two Su-30s straight off the Russian production line, plus one airframe for ground test, says BrahMos Russian co-director Alexander Baskakov. The definitive contract between IAF, BrahMos, Sukhoi and Rosoboronexport (Russia’s arms trading agency), is expected to be signed within the next few months. Flight tests will start in Russia in 2011 and later continued in India.

From ARES Sarkozy: Rafales, Rafales, Buy a Rafale! Posted by Robert Wall at 2/12/2009 12:26 PM CST French president Nicholas Sarkozy may yet prove to be a miracle worker. On a trip to Kuwait, Sarkozy says he's gotten close to securing an agreement to sell the Rafale strike fighters to the Middle East country. The deal hasn’t been inked, though, and it wouldn’t be the first time Paris thought it had found its first export customer for the Rafale, only to see the deal fall by the wayside. Kuwait may buy between 14 and 28 fighters, if a contract can be finalized. Kuwait was an operator of Dassault Mirage F1 fighters, although it replaced those after the 1991 Gulf War with F/A-18s. U.S. pilots, who saw the Hornets during the second Gulf War in 2003, joked they’ve been flown so little they still had their “new aircraft smell.” Kuwait could be the first Rafale export customer, although the Swiss government mid-year also is expected to announce the winner of its fighter competition. If Rafale defeats the Saab Gripen and Eurofighter Typhoon there, the Swiss would have the distinction as being the first export buyer. Sarkozy has been on a swing through the Middle East, seemingly hawking the Rafale everywhere he went. During his Oman stop the fighter was also on the agenda.

Results oriented approach --> the "chance of appearing" mechanism does work Mathematical analysis --> see VitP's comments Okay?

Thanks, VitP, I knew you'd come through. Akmatov, the point is that you can use the "chance of appearing" mechanism to ensure that there is always a CAP in place.

Huh? A joke, or a facetious reference on my part to HG member Victor in the Pacific, and his obvious penchant for math. Never mind.