CV32

Nope, 'shambolic' is a rather new one on me.

Tony, don't read Michael Crichton's book "Prey".

From DefenseNews Expert: Robots Used for War Are Threat to Humanity AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE Published: 27 Feb 08:18 EST (03:18 GMT) PARIS - Increasingly autonomous, gun-toting robots developed for warfare could easily fall into the hands of terrorists and may one day unleash a robot arms race, a top expert on artificial intelligence told AFP. "They pose a threat to humanity," said University of Sheffield professor Noel Sharkey ahead of a keynote address Feb. 26 before Britain's Royal United Services Institute. Intelligent machines deployed on battlefields around the world - from mobile grenade launchers to rocket-firing drones - can already identify and lock onto targets without human help. There are more than 4,000 U.S. military robots on the ground in Iraq, as well as unmanned aircraft that have clocked hundreds of thousands of flight hours. The first three armed combat robots fitted with large-caliber machine guns deployed to Iraq last summer, manufactured by U.S. arms maker Foster-Miller, proved so successful that 80 more are on order, Sharkey said. But up to now, a human hand has always been required to push the button or pull the trigger. If we are not careful, he said, that could change. Military leaders "are quite clear that they want autonomous robots as soon as possible, because they are more cost-effective and give a risk-free war," he said. Several countries, led by the U.S., have already invested heavily in robot warriors developed for use on the battlefield. South Korea and Israel both deploy armed robot border guards, while China, India, Russia and Britain have all increased the use of military robots. Washington plans to spend $4 billion by 2010 on unmanned technology systems, with total spending expected rise to $24 billion, according to the Pentagon's Unmanned Systems Roadmap 2007-2032, released in December. James Canton, an expert on technology innovation and CEO of the Institute for Global Futures, predicts that deployment within a decade of detachments that will include 150 soldiers and 2,000 robots. The use of such devices by terrorists should be a serious concern, Sharkey said. Captured robots would not be difficult to reverse-engineer, and could easily replace suicide bombers as the weapon of choice. "I don't know why that has not happened already," he said. But even more worrisome, he said, is the subtle progression from the semiautonomous military robots deployed today to fully independent killing machines. "I have worked in artificial intelligence for decades, and the idea of a robot making decisions about human termination terrifies me," Sharkey said. Ronald Arkin of Georgia Institute of Technology, who has worked closely with the U.S. military on robotics, agrees that the shift toward autonomy will be gradual. But he is not convinced that robots don't have a place on the front line. "Robotics systems may have the potential to outperform humans from a perspective of the laws of war and the rules of engagement," he told a conference on technology in warfare at Stanford University last month. The sensors of intelligent machines, he argued, may ultimately be better equipped to understand an environment and to process information. "And there are no emotions that can cloud judgment, such as anger," he added. Nor is there any inherent right to self-defense. For now, however, there remain several barriers to the creation and deployment of Terminator-like killing machines. Some are technical. Teaching a computer-driven machine - even an intelligent one - how to distinguish between civilians and combatants, or how to gauge a proportional response as mandated by the Geneva Conventions, is simply beyond the reach of artificial intelligence today. But even if technical barriers are overcome, the prospect of armies increasingly dependent on remote-controlled or autonomous robots raises a host of ethical issues that have barely been addressed. Arkin points out that the U.S. Defense Department's $230 billion Future Combat Systems program - the largest military contract in U.S. history - provides for three classes of aerial and three land-based robotics systems. "But nowhere is there any consideration of the ethical implications of the weaponization of these systems," he said. For Sharkey, the best solution may be an outright ban on autonomous weapons systems. "We have to say where we want to draw the line and what we want to do - and then get an international agreement," he said. [CV32: I happen to be a fan of fiction (movies and books alike) depicting artificial intelligence bent on human destruction (eg. Terminator), but in any event, are the concerns mentioned in the above article just silly or are they rooted in some measure of sense? ]

From Defense Aerospace Fitzgibbon Ignores Facts on Super Hornet (Source: Liberal Party of Australia; issued Feb. 27, 2008) Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon’s latest claim in relation to costs associated with the Super Hornet purchase are not based on fact, Shadow Defence Minister Nick Minchin said today. Today 27 February 2008, Joel Fitzgibbon said “Sadly the taxpayer now looks like paying the price if the project was to be cancelled, there would be a penalty, if the project proceeds there is no doubt we would have paid too much for the project.” The fact is Australia will pay the best possible price for the Super Hornet. In Senate Estimates, 20 February 2008, Dr Stephen Gumley, CEO, Defence Materiel Organisation said “We get the same unit prices as the US government. I know no way of getting better prices than the US government, particularly in the home market; therefore I am confident that the price we are paying for the aircraft is as good as Australia is going to get.” “The Super Hornet is the right aircraft to fulfil our air capability requirements and the Coalition government secured it at the best possible price.” said Senator Minchin. (EDITOR’S NOTE: Australia has up to A$23 billion ($21.5 billion) worth of risky defence projects underway and will re-think several costly purchases, including U.S. fighter planes, Reuters reported Feb. 27, quoting Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon. "This is a list of projects that are under real risk, real risk in terms of capability and real risk for the Australian taxpayer," Fitzgibbon told reporters, brandishing a confidential list of troubled military buys. Fitzgibbon's centre-left Labor government, which won power in November, may dump several projects including the A$6.5 billion purchase by the former conservative government of 24 Super Hornet fighter planes from Boeing, Reuters said, quoting Fitzgibbon as saying that "The Super Hornet project is of great concern to us." The Super Hornets were intended to fill a six-year gap between the retirement of Vietnam-era strike bombers and the 2016 arrival of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters (JSF), but Labor believes they may not be needed despite JSF delays. Also under review are a A$1.5 billion fleet of naval Seasprite helicopters, manufactured by Kaman Corp. and the problem-plagued A$1.4 billion upgrade of guided missile frigates by the local division of French defence electronics group Thales, Reuters added.) (ends) Fitzgibbon's Shambolic Approach to Military Aircraft (Source: Liberal Party of Australia; issued Feb. 26, 2008) Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon’s latest utterances on military aircraft reflect a completely shambolic approach to Australia’s air defences, Shadow Defence Minister Nick Minchin said today. “Mr Fitzgibbon and the Labor Party have been constant and incessant critics of the former Coalition Government’s decision to acquire Super Hornet aircraft” said Senator Minchin. On 15 March 2007, Joel Fitzgibbon said “The Super Hornet purchase is a $6 billion taxpayer funded election year fix. It’s a patch-up job.” “Despite clear evidence that Defence itself strongly supports the Super Hornet decision, Labor has played cheap party politics to attack the Howard Government decision. “Labor set up an Air Capability Review presumably as a pretext to scrap the Super Hornet contract. “Mr Fitzgibbon said only last week he “would have no hesitation in cancelling” the Super Hornet contract if that’s what his review advises. “Yet today on ABC Radio Mr Fitzgibbon said “I am really hoping that the air combat review recommends that we retain the Super Hornet.” “Mr Fitzgibbon’s erratic and clumsy statements on this vital air capability acquisition are an embarrassment to the Rudd Government and to Australia and its international reputation. “The Howard Government decision to acquire the Super Hornet is backed “100%” by Defence, as confirmed by the Chief of the Defence Force, Air Chief Marshal Houston, in Senate Estimates last week. “Mr Fitzgibbon has been playing a dangerous and irresponsible political game with Australia’s air defences. “He would be well advised to keep his mouth shut until his air capability review is completed and then back its inevitable conclusion that the acquisition of the Super Hornet and the JSF are the right decisions for Australia” said Senator Minchin. [CV32: Shambolic, eh? I must try and remember that one].

From Aviation Week Fire On Takeoff Downed B-2 Feb 26, 2008 David A. Fulghum/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report One of the pilots of the B-2 stealth bomber that crashed Feb. 23 reported a fire at takeoff from Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, which was followed quickly by loss of control of the bomber, according to a senior Air Combat Command (ACC) official. The stealth bomber rolled uncontrollably to the right and fell between the taxiway and the ramp at 10:45 a.m. Guam time just after passing the control tower. It was attempting a takeoff toward the seaward end of the runway. The two pilots ejected with one being hospitalized. A dark plume of smoke arose from the crash site and civilians outside the base reported a second explosion about 30 minutes after the initial impact. The aircraft can lose one or even two of its four General Electric F118-GE-100 17,300-pound thrust engines and still take off, so it’s unlikely that engine failure was to blame, says a retired U.S. Air Force pilot who has flown the B-2. Moreover, early suggestions that the aircraft struck birds or stalled in a steep takeoff climb also have been dismissed as unlikely. Also, the weather was reported as clear. The bomber Spirit of Kansas, tail no. 890127, was the second in a four-aircraft flight that was ending its deployment and taking off for return to home base at Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo. They were being replaced by six B-52s as a forward-based, heavy-bomber force in the Pacific. The loss cuts the number of combat-coded B-2s to 15 from 16 out of the total force of 21. The force has a minimum aircraft requirement of 19 airframes. The other three B-2s later returned to Whiteman, where the wing commander has declared a “safety pause” for the fleet, ACC officials say. During the pause, procedures are being reviewed with the pilots and training is at a standdown. However, if the stealthy bomber is needed for an operational mission it is cleared to fly. The aircraft that crashed rolled off Northrop Grumman’s line in 1989 and had accumulated 5,176 flying hours at the time of the crash. Early testing indicated that the aircraft would remain structurally intact for about 40,000 flying hours. Analyses also posited that the rudder attachment points would be the first structural failure item. This is the first B-2 crash, but another of the Air Force’s heavy bomber fleet, the B-1, has suffered a number of seemingly similar in-flight emergencies. A pelican-sized bird ripping through fuel and hydraulic lines downed the first, a fuel-fed fire on takeoff destroyed another, a fire in the instrument panel over Kentucky struck another and a fourth was abandoned by its crew about 100 miles short of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean while returning from a bombing mission in Afghanistan.

From Flight International DATE: 25/02/08 SOURCE: Flight International Boeing expects to seal Seoul deal for F-15Ks By Craig Hoyle South Korea should conclude a deal on a follow-on batch of 20 Boeing F-15K multirole fighters within the next month, says F-15 programme director Steve Winkler. The manufacturer also believes other potential fresh orders from existing Eagle users Japan, Saudi Arabia and Singapore could extend production of the type beyond 2012. Boeing has now delivered 32 F-15Ks from South Korea's 40-strong order worth $4.2 billion, with the rest to follow by late this year. Although Seoul held an original requirement for 120 F-X fighters, Winkler expects any additional deal to be subject to a fresh competition, potentially starting around 2009-10. Highlighting the US Air Force's long-term commitment to support operations of 178 single-seat F-15Cs until 2025 and 224 two-seat Es until 2035, Winkler says the service's planned integration of technologies such as an active electronically scanned array radar and digital electronic warfare equipment could match "the sort of configuration we would offer in Japan". Other enhancements to the design could include avionics, radar cross-section and weapon systems, he adds. Boeing will decide whether to offer Tokyo an F-15 variant or its F/A-18E/F Super Hornet as a McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom replacement once a request for proposals - potentially for about 50 aircraft for delivery from 2012-13 - is issued from later this year, says Winkler.

From Flight Global DATE: 25/02/08 SOURCE: Flight International Algeria returns 'faulty' MiG-29s By Vladimir Karnozov Algeria is returning 12 RSK MiG-29SMT single-seat fighters and UBT-model trainers to Russia, after refusing to accept the aircraft amid allegations of poor manufacturing quality. The aircraft are part of a package for 34 MiG-29SMT/UBTs worth $1.3 billion, with an additional $500 million for the modernisation of 36 early-model MiG-29s acquired for $18 million each from Belarus and Ukraine. These should have been upgraded to the SMT/UBT standard, but following shipment of the first batch last year, the Algerian air force found that some "new" equipment actually dated back to the early 1990s, when the aircraft had been manufactured. RSK MiG says all avionics and targeting equipment supplied with the aircraft is new, and reflects its current production variants. Algeria also took delivery of its first three of 28 Sukhoi Su-30MKA two-seat multirole fighters between December 2007 and January, and is now negotiating with Russia's Rosoboronexport arms agency for a further batch of the aircraft to replace its unwanted MiGs. Sources say Algeria also wants to use some of the money from the abandoned deal to buy additional Yakovlev Yak-130A trainers, with these to join 16 aircraft ordered with the MiG and Sukhoi fighters as part of a wider arms package worth $8 billion signed with Russia in 2006.

From Navy Times Lake Erie CO describes anti-satellite shot By Zachary M. Peterson - Staff writer Posted : Friday Feb 22, 2008 17:34:18 EST Only a small group of sailors and a small team of government and industry experts knew the nature of the cruiser Lake Erie’s mission when the ship left port in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on Feb. 14. As the ship began steaming northwest, the news that a Navy ship would attempt to shoot down an errant spy satellite was breaking at the Pentagon. Capt. Randy Hendrickson, the skipper of Lake Erie, told Navy Times via telephone that he waited until the ship was at sea to call an all-hands meeting and inform his crew of 360 sailors what they were about to attempt. Until then, all the crew knew was that it was training for an unspecified mission, the captain said. The ship spent four days conducting rehearsals, Hendrickson said, prior to steaming to its launch site in the ocean. The ship arrived on station northwest of Hawaii a “few hours prior to launch” Feb. 20, the skipper said. “[We] were granted weapons release authority, and the crew performed superbly,” he said. “They were very calm.” The SM-3 was launched, and there were cheers in the control room as the missile hit “dead center to the basket,” Hendrickson said. “We could see the radar as filled with debris.” After the shot, the crew and a team of about 30 government and industry experts began conducting the lethality analysis, Hendrickson said. As the civilian team did the analysis and advised the crew, the sailors manned all the equipment, Hendrickson explained. “The crew was very astute to what they were doing,” he said. The missile launch was the fifth SM-3 the ship had launched since April 2007. The other four missiles were launched as part of the Missile Defense Agency’s sea-based ballistic missile defense tests. Pacific Fleet commander Adm. Robert Willard called Hendrickson on the radio to congratulate the Lake Erie on what appeared to be a successful shot, the skipper said. Hendrickson also received e-mails from Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead and Strategic Command chief Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton. Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave the final go-ahead for the launch after receiving information from Chilton about eight hours prior to the launch, Marine Gen. James Cartwright, vice Joint Chiefs chairman, told reporters at the Pentagon the morning after the shot. The satellite carried hydrazine, a toxic fuel, which Pentagon officials said would make its re-entry dangerous. The satellite, known as USA 193, experienced problems upon launch in 2006 and was roughly the size of school bus. As the Lake Erie steamed back toward Pearl Harbor, Hendrickson said the crew plans a “little celebration” of the first-of-its-kind shot. The party will be conducted “moderately and modestly,” he added. It took the Navy about six weeks to make the necessary modifications to the missiles and radars to “take it to sea with some degree of confidence,” a Navy official said Feb. 19 at a press briefing. The Navy had no prior capability to shoot down satellites and had previously “not explored that,” the source added. Cartwright called the shot a “one-time thing” the morning after the missile hit. He said he does not anticipate satellite shoots becoming a regular mission for the military. Because of the hazardous nature of the fuel carried aboard USA 193, Cartwright said “it would have been irresponsible” not to reduce some of the risk of harmful materials hitting land. In response to suggestions that the satellite shot would be a boon to the Pentagon’s nascent missile-defense capabilities, Cartwright said the only “elements of missile defense” involved in the shot were in the sensors, instrumentation and software used in the test. “This was a one-time modification,” he said. Hendrickson said his crew returned from a Pacific deployment last summer and is “well-versed” in many forms of operations. Nonetheless, he admitted the satellite shot “pushed its limits.”

From Aviation Week U.S. Navy Plans EPX Intel-Gathering Aircraft Feb 22, 2008 By David A. Fulghum The U.S. Navy is asking three companies each to design an aircraft that can conduct simultaneous intelligence-gathering missions that were considered impractical, perhaps impossible, even a couple of years ago. In particular, the Navy wants a single, EPX aircraft that can use a powerful radar and at the same time operate an array of sensitive receivers that can collect faint electronic emissions or communications from hundreds of miles away. The multisource information would be fused to locate and identify objects of interest as fleeting and elusive as the low-power cell and satellite telephones used by terrorists and insurgents. Requirements for an EP-3 replacement would add “organic systems that can do accurate, definitive targeting,” says Paul Summers, Boeing’s director of airborne signals intelligence campaigns. “Radar will be part of the sensor suite.” What’s not defined is the type of radar or how it would be used. That means the “field of regard, instantaneous field of view, power out and range” also haven’t been determined, Summers says. Lockheed Martin adds mystery to its effort by saying it will “draw on the depth and breadth of its Advanced Development Programs” (ADP) organization which gained fame as the “Skunk Works” and of late has specialized in stealthy, unmanned aircraft. “Expendable systems,” which may include stealthy unmanned air vehicles small enough to be launched by EPX to fly into enemy air defenses, are “becoming smaller and more capable than ever before,” says Frank Blesi, ADP’s EPX study lead. “By ensuring that EPX can employ expendable systems in the basic concept design, we reduce the cost and risk of integration.” The Navy’s refinement and apparent expansion of its requirements since last summer has shocked contractors. “It’s a changed doctrine with new capabilities that include electro-optical/infrared [sensors], synthetic aperture radar/inverse SAR, maritime moving-target indicating, multi-intelligence targeting, wideband satellite communications and searching for [global war on terrorism]-type signals,” says Dennis Hayden, Northrop Grumman’s EPX campaign manager. The need for a simultaneous active/passive system is part of a just-released set of requirements from the Navy with which teams led by prime contractors Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are wrestling. Two advanced technologies under consideration for EPX are the active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar (with greater range and target discrimination than manually scanned radars) and widespread use of conformal antennas attached to the aircraft’s exterior. “Radar is going to be a must,” Hayden says. “Any product, sensor or system that can perform multiple jobs [like AESA arrays for sensing, electronic attack and wideband communications] will be attractive.” L-3 Communications’ business development liaison to Northrop Grumman, Ted Klapka, notes, “It’s safe to say it will be a flying antenna. But it will look less like an F-22 or F-35 [whose wing and tail leading edges are packed with sensors]. Those have stealth requirements—EPX not so much. There are more cost-effective ways to give yourself large apertures. We’re looking at conformal arrays. We’ll probably end up putting an aperture on just about every square inch of the airplane that we can because, with the [new Navy] requirements, it will take some head-scratching to figure out how to accommodate them all.” Boeing is also exploring antenna innovation. “One of our trade studies is to look at phased and conformal arrays for radar, communications and general broadband applications across the platform,” says Summers. “The drawings we released show conventional antennas. But the Navy has us looking at lots of enhancements to that antenna layout. Major structural mods to accommodate in-structure arrays are going to be limited. We’ll do things to minimize impact to physical structures, so we’re looking at a pretty broad selection of conformal arrays for various frequency bands. You’ll see configurations migrate to something that looks a little less conventional.” All those antennas need management. “Needless to say, that presents unique electromagnetic compatibility issues,” Summers notes. “The program will require a lot of dedication to basic physics so that the platform can provide a broad array of wideband passive sensors as well as an active array.” Moreover, Klapka adds that “there are going to be a number of new mission areas—some that were previously classified and some that didn’t exist until recently.” Industry officials won’t discuss details, but some of the new missions being considered include information operations, electronic attack and network exploitation. In the past, there were emitter aircraft—such as the Air Force’s EC-130 Compass Call or E-8C Joint Stars—and passive, listening aircraft such as the RC-135 Rivet Joint and EP-3 Ares. No aircraft could both emit and listen because the noise from radar or electronic attack would overwhelm the receivers. But passive electronic surveillance has to be continuous to build an effective order of battle that details what is emitting and from where. When the Air Force’s E-10 multi-sensor, command-and-control aircraft (now a victim of budget cuts) was designed, service officials wanted a version that also would combine a powerful AESA radar with a very sensitive electronic surveillance system. In addition, the 20-ft.-long antenna was designed for the collateral mission of disabling air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles with bursts of high-power microwaves as a self-defense capability. It would have the offensive capability of similarly disabling stealthy cruise missiles, as well, which it was capable of detecting at tactically useful ranges. The combination was dropped because it was deemed impossible due to cost and improbable due to technology restraints. The basic problem remains: How to harmonize the use of passive and active sensors? “Co-site interference on an airplane of this sort is always going to be an issue,” Klapka concedes. “You’ve got to be able to listen all the time. Part of that [is made possible by] being precise in using the spectrum. You’ve got to know when you put energy out, that you can look through it.” Another way to solve co-site problems is to “use somebody else’s receive apertures” through networking distributed sensors, Klapka says. “As the P-8A [maritime multimission aircraft] and Broad Area Maritime System [unmanned aircraft] get out there, and with the availability of satellites and other systems, we can tap them along the way.” The Northrop Grumman team, predictably, is focusing on intelligence-gathering systems. They plan to pull on mission management capabilities from the E-8 Joint Stars, signals intelligence from the EP-3 and electronic attack and information operations from the EA-6B Prowler, EA-18G Growler and Rivet Joint. “The Navy has decided that EPX is a manned aircraft,” Klapka says. “[it] has to complete a mission on its own, but that includes things in the weapons bay or hanging on the wings. We have expendables with wings to deploy and those will be factored in as we go along.” There also is a requirement for level-four control of UAVs that are sure to include stealthy, penetrating designs. Northrop Grumman officials say they are working their way through a group of about 150 aircraft to see what best meets Navy needs. They are considering a family of sensors and aircraft that might also meet the demands of the Army’s Aerial Common Sensor program and, eventually, the Air Force’s Rivet Joint replacement. Boeing is somewhat more focused on airframes so that it can leverage the Navy’s previous investment in the P-8A Poseidon patrol aircraft. “This is a different mission, so there may be some changes required to the air vehicle to accommodate this unique, multi-intelligence payload,” Summers says. “The Navy has already spent a great deal in modifying the 737-800 with the larger -900 wing to be NavAir certified, so it would be foolish of us not to trying to leverage this to the maximum extent.” Yet another element of the EPX design will be deciding how to staff crews adequately while simultaneously lessening the personnel burden on the Navy. There are two parts to the answer. Boeing is offering a large aircraft with baseline accommodations for 14 operator stations aft of the flight deck. But there is the option to increase the number of operators to 24-25 persons. “We’re approaching this design as though it will be a major node in the command-and-control network, including target information handoff to other aircraft such as strikers,” Summers say. “That number could change up or down, depending on workload and tasking studies. Automation will be key to our approach and continue to add capability to the platform.” Since any work station can do any operation, “the Navy can choose at any time to have more comint, elint or radar operators.” Lockheed Martin, apparently concentrating on a “cost-effective, executable EPX program,” is considering rebuilt EP-3Es, a C-130J derivative or an Orion 21 development of the original P-3 design, Blesi says. Northrop Grumman’s team has adopted the theme of “dynamic compose-ability.” Roughly, that means aircrews won’t be fixed. Each day the crews can be tailored for very different missions. “Because of the distributed nature of onboard and off-board processing, we’re looking at a fully integrated, virtual crew with members that are half a world away and that have never met,” Hayden says. That could produce ripples throughout the personnel structure. “Not everyone will have to go through flight training and survival school. Some crewmembers will never have to leave the ground, and that will help the Navy with costs.” Boeing plans to have an aircraft that is compatible with Air Force refueling airplanes. Northrop Grumman sees problems with relying on another service that’s not part of the planning for EPX. “It’s not just the refueling system; it’s the force structure in the Air Force,” Hayden says. “Does the tanker force allow for that? I don’t know if they’ve contemplated the need to refuel maritime patrol aircraft while they’re out on station. What would that add to the cost?”

I'm no merchant mariner, but I'd say not terribly fast given (1) the fairly insignificant wake she seems to be leaving behind; (2) the proximity of other (commercial?) ship traffic; and (3) the nature of the Strait itself.

From Navy Times Navy hits wayward satellite on first attempt By Zachary M. Peterson - Staff Writer Posted : Wednesday Feb 20, 2008 23:45:04 EST The Navy cruiser Lake Erie successfully shot down a malfunctioning spy satellite Wednesday night over the Pacific Ocean. At 10:26 p.m. EST the Lake Erie fired a Standard Missile-3 at 133 nautical miles over the Pacific Ocean, according to the Pentagon. The SM-3 traveled at approximately 17,000 mph, a Defense Department statement said. The objective of the shot was to take out the satellite’s fuel tank which contains about 1,000 pounds of hydrazine, a hazardous fuel that could pose a danger to people if it hit land, the DoD release noted. Confirmation that the fuel tank was hit should be available in 24 hours, according to the Pentagon. The debris from the satellite will begin to re-enter the atmosphere immediately, the Pentagon said. “Nearly all of the debris will burn up on reentry within 24-48 hours and the remaining debris should re-enter within 40 days,” the DoD statement said. The destroyers Decatur and Russell also took part in the engagement, providing long range surveillance and tracking, the Pentagon noted. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was supposed to give the final go ahead for the launch after receiving information from the U.S. Strategic Command chief Air Force Gen. Kevin Chilton, a senior military official told reporters at the Pentagon on Wednesday morning prior to the shoot. The Pentagon first became aware of the potentially dangerous re-entry of the satellite early this year, according to press reports. The satellite, known as USA 193, experienced problems upon launch in 2006 and is roughly the size of school bus, DoD officials confirmed. It took the Navy about six weeks to make the necessary modifications to the missiles and radars to “take it to sea with some degree of confidence,” a Navy official said Tuesday at a press briefing. The Navy had no prior capability to shoot down satellites and had previously “not explored that,” the source added. [Apparently they intend to de-convert the remaining two SM-3 missiles to their previous BMD role, but one would think they'd want to keep a couple of these ASAT SM-3s on hand. Perhaps they will. ]

With the news that India finally has firm (well, maybe) plans to induct the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) into service, I'm wondering if anyone has worked up some H4 specs. Peter? Craig?

From Flight International DATE: 20/02/08 SOURCE: Flightglobal.com Singapore 2008: India to induct two squadrons Tejas Light Combat Aircraft from 2010 By Siva Govindasamy India is to induct two squadrons of the long-delayed Tejas Light Combat Aircraft from 2010, with up to six squadrons possible if the first batch impress in operations. The decision is a shot in the arm for the programme, which national research organisation Aeronautical Development Agency developed and state-owned contractor Hindustan Aeronautics is responsible for production. The long-delayed and much derided aircraft was to enter service early this decade, but design and performance issues and problems with the development of an indigenous engine have delayed it. “There were hitches in the past but in the tests that we have been doing over the last few months indicate that those have been resolved. The programme was streamlined and it is a much better aircraft now. We are confident that it can serve our needs,” says Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major, Chief of Air Staff, at the Singapore Airshow. The induction of the LCA, a replacement for India’s aging MiG fighters such as the MiG-21s that is scheduled to be retired in 10 years, will boost the service’s operational capability. The programme’s problems and delays in the progress of a tender to select 126 multi-role combat aircraft (MRCA), led some analysts to say that the Indian Air Force’s operational capability could soon fall below optimal levels. New Delhi has tried to overcome this by ordering additional Sukhoi Su-30MKI fighters that are licence-produced in India by HAL. Responses to the request for proposals (RFP) for the MRCA competition will be submitted in the first week of March, and ACM Major says that the first aircraft will be delivered in 2012. “As the Chief, I’m in a hurry to rejuvenate the service as soon as possible,” he adds. “I will do my darnest to ensure that we keep to that schedule.” The Boeing F/A-18E/F, Lockheed Martin F-16, Eurofighter Typhoon, RAC MiG-35, Dassault Rafale and Saab Gripen are in contention for the $12-15 billion contract, an indication that India seeks to move away from its traditional dependence on Russian arms. The relationship with Moscow, however, remains strong through joint programmes to develop a Medium Transport Aircraft and fifth generation fighter. “The relationship with Russia is excellent, they have been very good friends. But the political imperatives of the past that dictated that we source almost everything from them has changed. That’s good for India, which has top companies from around the world keen to do business with us. It leaves us in a good position to get the best deal,” says ACM Major.

From Flight International DATE: 20/02/08 SOURCE: Flightglobal.com US Air Force clears remaining Boeing F-15s to fly By Graham Warwick All remaining US Air Force Boeing F-15A-D Eagles have been returned to flight, contingent on completion of individual inspections on each aircraft's fuselage longerons. The USAF does not expect any of the 149 aircraft to require repair and says there will be no operating restrictions on Eagles that pass these final inspections. But all F-15A-Ds will require repetitive checks for longeron cracks every 400 flying hours. After a lengthy series of grounding and inspections following the 2 November 2007 crash of a Missouri Air National Guard F-15C, caused by structural failure, longeron cracks have been found in only nine of the US Air Force's 438 A- to D-model Eagles. The fatigue cracks were found where machining during manufacture had reduced the thickness of the upper fuselage longerons below blueprint specification or where there was surface roughness that could cause stress concentration. On 8 January, the USAF returned 259 of the F-15s to flight after they passed inspections for manufacturing deficiencies. The remainder remained grounded because at least one longeron on each aircraft did not meet blueprint specification at one or more points. The F-15s that remained grounded are undergoing tailored inspections unique to each tail number. The USAF has recommended that aircraft with longerons that do not meet specification, but pass these inspections, be returned to flight, effectively ending the groundings. Air Combat Command says it has not been decided whether the nine aircraft with longeron cracks will be repaired, although the Warner Robins Air Logistics Center responsible for F-15 depot overhaul is manufacturing a batch of replacement longerons.

Yes, and this has been fixed in the updated version of the HCDB database. A very good suggestion, eclipse.

From Aviation Week OnSpace Blog Shootdown Simulation Posted by Frank Morring, Jr. at 2/18/2008 8:04 PM Here's an interesting simulation prepared by orbital-debris experts at Analytical Graphics, an Exton, Pa.-based software firm, illustrating what would happen to debris from the upcoming shootdown of an errant National Reconnaissance Office satellite. Click here for the simulation. In the simulation, one of the three Aegis-equipped air-defense warships assigned the task fires a Standard Missile-3 -- modified to go after the satellite instead of an incoming missile warhead -- and makes the kill. Using debris modeling and prediction software, Analytical Graphics shows a possible debris track after the impact. Based on statistical spacecraft models, the green dots in the simulation represent the debris as it falls out of orbit, turning to red dots as it reenters and burns up. The U.S. government says it is attempting the shootdown to prevent about 1,000 pounds of toxic hydrazine propellant in a satellite tank from causing possible injury or death if it falls in a populated area. The shootdown task force will make the shot from an undisclosed spot in the northern Pacific Ocean, probably as early as Wednesday night Eastern Standard Time based on warnings to aircraft in the area.

ROFL. Yes, Virginia, land based air does exist. (Its no secret that Tony has a Tomcat fixation).

From DefenseNews Satellite Shoot-Down Attempt To Be Feb. 21: Report AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE Published: 18 Feb 22:07 EST (17:07 GMT) WASHINGTON - The United States will take its first shot at an out-of-control spy satellite on Feb. 21, trying to knock it into the sea before it crashes to Earth, possibly causing damage, CNN news reported Feb. 18. A second attempt would be possible if the first misses, the channel said, citing military sources. Pentagon officials were not immediately available for comment. Without intervention, the crippled satellite is due to break into the Earth's atmosphere on March 6 and crash down at an unpredictable spot, risking rupturing its tanks of toxic fuel, U.S. authorities warned last week. A U.S. warship will fire a surface-to-air missile at the satellite at a specific point in its orbit that ensures any Earth-bound debris will splash into the ocean. The shoot-down plan drew criticism on Feb. 17 from Russia, whose defense ministry said in a statement it looked like a veiled weapons test and an "attempt to move the arms race into space." Washington has denied seeking to cover up the satellite's technological secrets or to make a show of strength after China used a missile to shoot down an old weather satellite in January 2007.

From Flight Global DATE: 19/02/08 SOURCE: Flightglobal.com Singapore 2008: Royal Australian Air Force chief backs Super Hornet selection By Siva Govindasamy The Royal Australian Air Force appears keen to convince its new government about the merits of keeping with last year's purchase of 24 Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet multirole fighters, with the service's chief officer expecting a "a rational" outcome from the nation's ongoing review of the purchase. Canberra's new Labor government earlier this year launched a review of its air power requirements, including the former administration's order for Super Hornets as replacements for the RAAF's ageing General Dynamics F-111s, and the planned acquisition of Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. "We are asking them to spend a lot of money, so it is understandable that they want to examine it," said Air Chief Marshal Geoff Shepherd during the Global Air Power Conference, held prior to the start of the Singapore air show. "The review is under way, and it is a process we want to fully participate in. Perhaps, because they were in the opposition when the decision was made, they did not have all the information," he said. "I am confident that these rational men in power will make a rational decision. We are confident that will be the case when the facts are put to them." Any cancellation of the Super Hornet order could result in Australia having to pay damages to Boeing, which has already cut metal on the RAAF's first aircraft. Australia last March became the first export customer for the aircraft, with its two-seat fighters scheduled for delivery from 2010. While some in Australia have suggested that the RAAF's F-111s could be upgraded while the country waits for JSF deliveries, that idea may face problems as the service has already begun retiring the type. "Under the previous government's plans, the F-111 fleets were starting to be wound down from 12 months ago, and they are scheduled to retire in 2010. To reverse that may prove to be difficult," said Shepherd. The F-35, though, remains at the fore of Shepherd's plans, even though the review will also examine the various options if there are further delays to the project. "Our future is with the JSF by 2020 we want to have an all F-35 fleet," he said. "We believe that the Super Hornets will serve us well until the F-35s come in. If the government gives us the OK for the F/A-18s, we will be able to handle any delays to the F-35 through mid-life upgrades for the Super Hornets."

Doesn't exactly instill confidence in the prospective purchaser, does it?

The Matrix patch will contain an updated HCDB, but I'll put out an update if the patch doesn't get released soon.

Yup.

Good to hear. Make a scenario or two (or more) and we'll be even happier.

From DefenseNews Algeria Plans To Return 15 Fighters to Russia: Report AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE Published: 18 Feb 16:40 EST (11:40 GMT) MOSCOW - Algeria wants to return 15 fighter jets it bought from Russia because of their poor quality, the Kommersant daily reported on Feb. 18, citing an official from Russia's state United Aerospace Corporation. The official said Russia was proposing to take back the MiG-29 jets, which were delivered to Algeria in 2006 and 2007, but only if Algeria bought more modern and expensive planes such as the MiG-29M2 or the MiG-35. Kommersant quoted another Russian official from the energy and industry ministry saying that a deal on the MiG jets had been reached. The ministry's press service, contacted by AFP on Feb. 18, could not immediately confirm or deny the report. Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika was to meet his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin for talks on "military cooperation" in the Kremlin on Feb. 19, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told AFP, without giving further details. In return for Russia agreeing to cancel Algeria's Soviet-era debts, Algerian authorities bought Russian arms worth $6.3 billion, including $3.5 billion in fighter jets, during a visit by Putin to Algeria in 2006. [CV32: From time to time, there is discussion (and debate) about why the Harpoon gaming system appears to sometimes ascribe lower performance and quality standards to Soviet/Russian produced weapons systems and platforms. Some believe there is no basis for such a position. Well, the issue is arguable, and I'm not saying Western systems don't also sometimes fail to meet the grade, but articles like these are useful. If this isn't enough to convince you that there is at least some basis for the approach, I'd suggest you search for similar reports on equipment sold to India and China in recent years.]

Thanks for the suggestions, eclipse. Some good ones there that I will need to look into. As far as the Alpha Jets are concerned, unless the Portuguese aircraft differ significantly from others, I'd suggest you look at and use the Alpha Jet entry listed as one of the International (INTL) platforms.