CV32

I expect Pete is applying the specifications and rules that come with Bulldogs Away rather than applying other known figures? Not all missile hits are created equal, e.g. USS Stark, INS Hanit. It sounds like Bulldogs Away models poor hits as well as the solid ones.

From Navy Times No standoff between carrier, China, DoD says By Chris Amos - Staff writer Posted : Thursday Jan 17, 2008 12:21:54 EST Defense Department officials are denying reports in the Asian news media that the Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group was involved in a 28-hour standoff with a Chinese destroyer and submarine while transiting the Taiwan Strait last November. The Kyodo News Service reported Tuesday that the strike group came to a “battle ready halt” during the standoff with a Chinese destroyer and submarine, which it said happened a day after the strike group was refused permission to spend a four-day Thanksgiving day holiday in Hong Kong as it has done in previous years. The Kyodo News Service report was based on an earlier report in a Taiwanese newspaper that cited U.S. military sources. The confrontation occurred during the strike group’s return to its homeport at Naval Base Yokosuka, Japan, the media outlets reported. But Defense Department spokesman Marine Maj. Stewart Upton said the report was false. “There were no incidents during the Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group’s transit of the Taiwan Strait last November,” Upton said in a statement. “The Taiwan Strait is international water, and these transits are routine. We will exercise our free right of passage whenever we choose.” Upton declined to say whether the Kitty Hawk strike group had made any contact with a Chinese destroyer and submarine during the dates in question or how it responded if contact was made, but a second Defense Department official made a more pointed denial. “The story is flatly wrong,” the official said Thursday. “The Kitty Hawk had no unusual encounters during its transit back through the Taiwan Strait. There’s no truth to it. We flatly deny that there was any kind of standoff.” The Kyodo News Service report came amid rising tensions between the U.S. and Chinese governments. American officials have recently protested the Chinese government’s decision to turn away the Kitty Hawk and another decision to deny two Navy minesweepers refuge from a brewing storm, forcing the Patriot and Guardian to refuel at sea and return through rough seas to their homeport in Sasebo, Japan. That incident happened four days before the Kitty Hawk strike group was turned away.

From RIA Novosti Russian Navy to conduct exercises in the Atlantic next week 16:27 | 17/ 01/ 2008 TOULON, January 17 (RIA Novosti) - Russian warships from the Northern and the Black Sea fleets will conduct joint maneuvers next week in the Atlantic Ocean, the Northern Fleet commander said on Thursday. A Naval Task Force, consisting of the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, the Udaloy-Class destroyers Admiral Levchenko and Admiral Chabanenko, and auxiliary vessels, is currently on a two-month tour of duty in the Mediterranean Sea and North Atlantic. Vice-Admiral Nikolai Maksimov, who leads the task force on the tour, said the Moskva guided missile cruiser of the Black Sea Fleet, which left Sevastopol on January 12, was to join the group in the next few days. "We will meet in the Atlantic on January 20 and start a joint exercise," Maksimov said. "The two fleets and strategic bombers will practice interoperability for several days." He said the current expedition to the Mediterranean, which started on December 5, is aimed at ensuring Russia's naval presence "in the key operational areas of the world oceans" and establishing conditions for secure Russian maritime navigation. "I think that after this visit to the Mediterranean and France, the first in 15 years, we will establish a permanent presence in the region," the admiral said. "We have discussed naval cooperation with our French colleagues and they confirmed their readiness to receive our combat ships at French ports in 2008, including at Toulon," he added.

I'm liking the Greek Roussen (Super Vita) class these days ... http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hellenic/ but of course, the Israeli Sa'ar 4.5 is hard to beat, even if they are older ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_4.5_class_missile_boat

From Jane's Iran set to acquire S-300PTs from Belarus By Mark Harrington 17 January 2008 Amid conflicting reports that Moscow has agreed to sell Iran a number of S-300 low-to-high altitude air-defence systems emerging at the end of 2007, Jane's has learned that Tehran is actually in the final stage of negotiations with Belarus for the acquisition of two surplus trailer-mounted towed S-300PT (SA-10A 'Grumble') systems. These systems were, until recently, deployed near Minsk as part of Belarus's operational air-defence configuration, and include command-guided Fakel 5V55K missiles (with a range of 47 km) and the baseline 5V55R semi-active radar and Track Via Missile (TVM) guided missile (range 75 km). Defence industrial sources in Belarus told Jane's that although the value of the contract has yet to be finalised, Belarusian negotiators are asking for USD140 million for the two systems (including parts, maintenance and training). The sources noted that while that figure is considered high for older S-300PT systems (the S-300PT entered Soviet service as far back as 1978), the inflated price reflects an awareness of Iran's urgent requirement for such systems and its consequent willingness to pay well, enhanced by the intense international scrutiny placed on Tehran's efforts to acquire missile technologies and the country's difficulty to fast-track acquisition of such systems from other sources. Further, the price also reflects the risk involved for Minsk in releasing such systems to Tehran - particularly in its political relations with Moscow. The sources confirmed that after the contract is finalised, the S-300PT systems would be transferred from Belarus to Iran in semi-knocked down (SKD) condition aboard a number of cargo aircraft. These flights will fall within the framework of the many regular flights (including military aircraft) between Iran and Belarus, and will include the transfer of spare system parts as required by Iran.

From Defense Aerospace Government of Canada Awards Tactical Airlift Contract (Source: Public Works and Government Services Canada; issued Jan. 16, 2008) GATINEAU --- The Honourable Michael M Fortier, Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada, along with the Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, Minister of National Defence, today announced that the government has awarded a contract to Lockheed Martin Corporation for the acquisition of the Canadian Forces new tactical lift aircraft. "Canada has long been in dire need of renewed tactical airlift capabilities," said Minister Fortier. "The government is now delivering on commitments it has made to ensure the Canadian Forces are properly equipped with aircraft necessary to support its operations." "The airlift requirements of the Canadian Forces is a top priority," said the Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay, Minister of National Defence. "We are confident that the C-130J will provide Canada with a cost-effective, operations-proven tactical airlift capability." Tactical airlift is the lifeline of the Canadian Forces, providing reliable aircraft to quickly and safely carry passengers, heavy equipment and supplies over long distances in support of operations, or in response to crises, such as natural disasters. The purchase contract for 17 C-130J Hercules aircraft is valued at approximately $1.4 billion U.S., with an additional amount to be added in 2009 for at least 20 years of in-service support. Under the contract, Lockheed Martin Corp. is required to invest in the Canadian economy, dollar for dollar, what the Government of Canada spends in procuring and maintaining the aircraft over the life of the contract. "We are continuing to make sure Canada's aerospace and defence industries obtain maximum benefit so they can build and sustain capacity to support these aircraft over the long-term," Mr. Fortier said. "Under the in-service support portion, the contractor will be required to spend in Canada 75 per cent of the total cost in direct industrial regional benefits – well above the 60-per-cent ratio negotiated by the previous government for purchases of this magnitude." The Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry, believes Canadian firms will play a significant role in the project's progress. "Through the government's industrial benefits policy, we are delivering maximum, high-quality economic benefits to Canadians while providing the military with the best equipment for its needs," said Mr. Prentice. Delivery of the first aircraft is expected in winter 2010. (ends) Lockheed Martin Receives $1.4 Billion Contract for 17 C-130J Super Hercules Aircraft for Canada (Source: Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company; issued Jan. 16, 2008) MARIETTA, Ga. --- Lockheed Martin has signed a contract with the Government of Canada valued at $1.4 billion for the purchase of 17 C-130J Super Hercules airlifters and related equipment and services. "We are extremely proud that the C-130J has been selected as Canada's next tactical airlifter. The Super Hercules will be the new workhorse of the Canadian Forces," said Jim Grant, Lockheed Martin vice president for Air Mobility and Special Operations Forces business development. "The C-130J is a proven, available, rugged aircraft capable of performing a full spectrum of tactical airlift missions in demanding environments." The Canadian Forces' new Super Hercules will be the longer fuselage or "stretched" variant of the C-130J, similar to those being delivered to the U.S. Air Force. Deliveries to Canada will begin in 2010. Canada joins the growing number of nations with C-130J fleets. Allied operators include the United States, Australia, Demark, Italy, Norway and the United Kingdom. "This contract begins the process for working with Canadian industry to establish a 20-year In-Service Support (ISS) program for the new fleet," said Grant. Under the terms of the agreement, Lockheed Martin is required to conduct a series of competitions to select the Canadian companies that will make up the ISS capability in Canada. "We look forward to utilizing this acquisition to further strengthen our relationship with Canada. This program represents an outstanding opportunity to grow the capabilities and expertise of the Canadian aerospace industry," Grant said. The new C-130J generates much greater operational efficiency than the older C-130s, such as Canada's E and H model, by flying farther, faster, with more payload and higher reliability. Additionally, the C-130J only requires three crew members for most missions so fewer flight crew members are exposed to potential threats in-theatre. C-130Js are currently deployed in several theatres and are operating at a very high tempo efficiently and reliably. C-130Js are being used daily for troop and equipment re-supply via ground delivery and airdrop, for air-to-air refueling, ground refueling and humanitarian relief. Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin employs over 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The corporation reported 2006 sales of $39.6 billion.

From Defense Aerospace CNO: 'LCS Will be the Workhorse of the Navy' (Source: US Navy; issued Jan. 16, 2008) MARINETTE, Wis. --- Marinette Marine Corporation, which is building the Navy's first littoral combat ship, USS Freedom (LCS 1), was the final stop, Jan. 14, for Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Gary Roughead on his eight-day tour of private and public shipyards throughout the U.S. Roughead received a progress report on the ship, designed to provide the U.S. Navy with greater flexibility and capability in operating in the littoral or "green water" coastal areas. "The Navy has a gap we need to fill in the littoral and that is what LCS is going to do for us," Roughead said. "This ship is perfectly suited to operate near the shore and to engage in Maritime Security Operations that will ensure the free-flow of commerce and resources around the world. [/b]I predict that the LCS is going to be a workhorse in the United States Navy."[/b] [Emphasis mine]. CNO said the Navy is closing in on some of the critical milestones to get the first LCS to sea. He was pleased with the progress he saw during his visit. "Bringing a ship into the final stage and getting it to sea is not an easy thing," Roughead said. "The critical thing is to get it to sea, get it tested and get it to work doing the Navy's mission." As the crew prepares for the final months before bringing the ship to life at its commissioning this fall, the CNO reiterated to them the importance of their mission to the future of the Navy. "They are fulfilling a very important role in this program and in our Navy. They are the ones who will be responsible for making sure this ship goes to sea and realizes its full potential at sea. They are the ones, the only ones, that will set this class of ship up for success," Roughead said. "It is a significant responsibility. But it is a responsibility well suited to a United States Sailor. They are ready and they are eager and I look forward to them taking this ship to sea." The 377-foot Freedom is capable of speeds in excess of 40 knots and can operate in water less than 20 feet deep. The ship will act as a platform for launch and recovery of manned and unmanned vehicles. Its modular design will support interchangeable mission packages, allowing the ship to be reconfigured for antisubmarine warfare, mine warfare, or surface warfare missions on an as-needed basis. Freedom will be manned by one of two rotational crews, blue and gold, similar to the rotational crews assigned to Trident submarines. The crews will be augmented by one of three mission package crews during focused mission assignments. Freedom was christened Sept. 24, 2006. She is slated for commissioning the fall of 2008 in Milwaukee, Wis., and will be home-ported in San Diego. As detailed in the 2007-2008 CNO Guidance, building the Navy's future fleet is a top priority for Roughead. The trip served to deepen Roughead's understanding of the shipbuilding industry and help inform shipbuilding decisions. "It is vitally important that I have up-to-date, first-hand knowledge of the latest developments, technological advances, and infrastructure improvements in the shipyards," Roughead explained. He said that a stable shipbuilding plan relates directly to the quality and quantity of ships the Navy acquires. "Shipbuilding is complex, and the decisions I'll make regarding it are critically important to the future of the Navy," Roughead added. The eight-day trip also included visits to Portsmouth Shipyard (Portsmouth, N.H.); Bath Iron Works (Brunswick, Maine); three Northrop Grumman Ship Systems sites to include: Ingalls (Pascagoula, Miss.), Avondale (New Orleans, La.) and Gulfport (Gulfport, Miss.); Austal USA Shipbuilding (Mobile, Ala.), and National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (San Diego). This visit will also play a larger role as CNO emphasizes his commitment to making the Navy a "Top 50" workplace. On this trip and in those of the future, Roughead will meet with Sailors, Navy civilians and family members, as well as business leaders and educators to help define the Navy's way ahead and integrate change, as needed. "I'm a firm believer that if you don't walk the ground, you will not have a good sense of what's going on," Roughead said. [CV32: Is he just towing the line on this troubled program? Or does the CNO really believe it?]

From Navy Times Sonar gets green light for ASW training By Pauline Jelinek - The Associated Press Posted : Wednesday Jan 16, 2008 12:06:18 EST WASHINGTON — President Bush exempted the Navy from an environmental law so it can continue using sonar in its anti-submarine warfare training off the California coast — a practice critics say is harmful to whales and other marine mammals. The White House announced Wednesday that Bush had signed the exemption Tuesday while traveling in the Middle East. The Navy training exercises, including the use of sonar, “are in the paramount interest of the United States” and its national security, Bush said in a memorandum. “This exemption will enable the Navy to train effectively and to certify carrier and expeditionary strike groups for deployment in support of worldwide operational and combat activities, which are essential to national security,” the memo said. A federal judge had issued a preliminary injunction earlier this month requiring the Navy to create a 12-nautical-mile, no-sonar zone along the California coast and to post trained lookouts to watch for marine mammals before and during exercises. Sonar would have to be shut down when mammals are spotted within 2,200 yards, under the order. The court found that using midfrequency active sonar violated the Coastal Zone Management Act and Bush exempted the Navy from a section of that act. Complying with the environmental law would “undermine the Navy’s ability to conduct realistic training exercises that are necessary to ensure the combat effectiveness of carrier and expeditionary strike groups,” Bush said. The Natural Resources Defense Council had sued to force the Navy to lessen the harm of its sonar exercises. In November, a federal appeals court said the sonar problem needed to be fixed. Critics contend sonar has harmful effects on whales, possibly by damaging their hearing, and other marine mammals worldwide. The council’s lawsuit alleges the Navy’s sonar causes whales and other mammals to beach themselves. In an argument that has been going on for years, the Navy has continually argued that the exercises are vital for training and that it works to minimizes the risk to marine life. [The power to make exceptions to the rule of law is probably the most powerful weapon of all. -CV32]

From Air Force Times Where might next-gen aircraft be headed? Staff report Posted : Wednesday Jan 16, 2008 10:46:47 EST The Air Force chief of staff has released the “roadmap” for the Air Force’s future, detailing which bases are in the running to house the service’s next-generation aircraft. Gen. T. Michael Moseley’s outline of future forces is the result of meetings with top leaders from the regular Air Force, the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve in December, according to an Air Force press release. The preliminary lists generally follow present assignments: Bases hosting F-16s are in the running for the F-35, and the potential bed-down sites for CSAR-X already operate search-and-rescue missions. For an installation to be certified for a new airframe, it must first undergo an environmental impact study in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. These studies will be taken into consideration with financial and logistical factors to determine if and how different missions will begin at each base. Foreign bases are not on the list because the Air Force must seek host-nation approval before placing new airframes at those installations. The potential sites for each mission are: MQ-1 Predator * Cannon Air Force Base, N.M. * Ellington Field, Texas * Fort Huachuca/Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. * Grand Forks Air Force Base/Hector International Airport, N.D. * March Air Reserve Base/Southern California Logistics Airport, Calif. RQ-4 Global Hawk * Grand Forks Air Force Base, N.D. * Andersen Air Force Base, Guam Distributed Common Ground System (Processing, Exploitation, and Dissemination of Intelligence Data) * Hulman Regional Airport, Ind. * Otis Air National Guard Base, Mass. KC-X (Next-generation tanker aircraft) * Altus Air Force Base, Okla. * Andrews Air Force Base, Md. * Bangor International Airport, Maine * Birmingham International Airport, Ala. * Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. * Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska * Fairchild Air Force Base, Wash. * Forbes Field, Kan. * Grand Forks Air Force Base, N.D. * Grissom Air Reserve Base, Ind. * Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii * Lincoln Municipal Airport, Neb. * MacDill Air Force Base, Fla. * March Air Reserve Base, Calif. * McConnell Air Force Base, Kan. * McGhee Tyson Airport, Tenn. * McGuire Air Force Base, N.J. * Pease Air National Guard Base, N.H. * Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, Ariz. * Pittsburgh International Airport, Pa. * Rickenbacker International Airport, Ohio * Salt Lake City International Airport, Utah * Scott Air Force Base, Ill. * Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Mich. * Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C. * Sioux Gateway Airport, Iowa * Tinker Air Force Base, Okla. Joint Cargo Aircraft * W.K. Kellogg Airport, Mich. * Bradley International Airport, Conn. * Hector International Airport, N.D. * Key Field, Miss. * Luiz Munoz International Airport, Puerto Rico * Mansfield Regional Airport, Ohio * Martin State Airport, Md. CSAR-X (Combat Search and Rescue Helicopter) * Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. * Francis Gabreski Air National Guard Base, N.Y. * Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M. * Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska * Moffett Field, Calif. * Moody Air Force Base, Ga. * Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. * Patrick Air Force Base, Fla. F-35A Lightning II * Andrews Air Force Base, Md. * Barksdale Air Force Base, La. * Boise Air Terminal, Idaho * Buckley Air Force Base, Colo. * Burlington International Airport, Vt. * Dannelly Field, Ala. * Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. * Des Moines International Airport, Iowa * Duluth International Airport, Minn. * Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. * Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. * Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska * Fort Smith Municipal Airport, Ark. * Fort Wayne International Airport, Ind. * Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth, Texas * Hill Air Force Base, Utah * Homestead Air Reserve Base, Fla. * Kelly Field Annex, Texas * Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M. * Luke Air Force Base, Ariz. * Madison Truax Field, Wis. * Martin State Airport, Md. * Moody Air Force Base, Ga. * Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho * Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. * Selfridge Air National Guard Base, Mich. * Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C. * Shaw Air Force Base/McEntire Air National Guard Base, S.C. * Sioux Falls Joe Foss Field, S.D. * Toledo Express International Airport, Ohio * Tucson International Airport, Ariz. * Tulsa International Airport, Okla. * Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo. F-35A Lightning II or F-22 Raptor * Atlantic City International Airport, N.J. * Barnes Air National Guard Base, Mass. * Fresno Air Terminal, Calif. * Great Falls International Airport, Mont. * Jacksonville International Airport, Fla. * Klamath Falls International Airport, Ore. * NAS Joint Reserve Base New Orleans, La. * Portland International Airport, Ore. F-22 Raptor * Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii * Holloman Air Force Base, N.M. Next-Generation Bomber * Dyess Air Force Base, Texas * Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D. * Barksdale Air Force Base, La. * Minot Air Force Base, N.D. MQ-9 Reaper * Cannon Air Force Base, N.M. * Fort Drum/Syracuse, N.Y. CV-22 Osprey * Cannon Air Force Base, N.M.

From Navy Times Report: Chinese ships confronted Kitty Hawk Kyodo News Service Posted : Tuesday Jan 15, 2008 16:08:22 EST TAIPEI — A Chinese attack submarine and destroyer shadowed U.S. warships in November in the Taiwan Strait, sparking a 28-hour standoff that brought the group to a battle-ready halt in the tense waters, a report in a Taiwan daily said Tuesday. The confrontation occurred as the Navy aircraft carrier Kitty Hawk and other ships in its battle group were heading back to Japan following China’s sudden cancellation of a long-scheduled holiday port call in Hong Kong, the China Times said, citing U.S. military sources. The carrier strike group encountered Chinese destroyer Shenzhen and a Song-class sub in the strait on Nov. 23, causing the group to halt and ready for battle, as the Chinese vessels also stopped amid the 28-hour confrontation, the Chinese-language daily reported. The Kitty Hawk battle group had planned to pass the Thanksgiving holiday in Hong Kong as it had done in previous years, but China refused it entry without giving a reason. By the time China reversed its decision, the U.S. ships had already turned around and headed for their home port in Japan. China later told the U.S. that its earlier refusal was a “misunderstanding.” But that incident came on the heels of China’s refusal of safe harbor in Hong Kong for two Navy minesweepers seeking refuge from a brewing storm. Due to that refusal, the ships had to get refueled at sea so they could return to their home port in Sasebo, Japan. The two incidents have ruffled feathers in Washington. Adm. Timothy Keating, who heads the U.S. Pacific Command, is in Beijing this week to discuss what he has called China’s “perplexing” refusals, its worrisome weapons programs and U.S.-China military ties. He told reporters Tuesday that U.S. warships will cross through the Taiwan Strait whenever they choose to. “We don’t need China’s permission to go through the Taiwan Strait,” Keating said, stressing that it is international waters. “We will exercise our free right of passage whenever and wherever we choose.” China has expressed its “grave concern” to the U.S. over the Kitty Hawk’s transit through the Taiwan Strait. Beijing claims Taiwan as its own, vowing to attack the self-ruled island if it moves to formalize its de facto independence. The U.S., Taiwan’s chief security benefactor, is legally obligated to help defend the island in the face of Chinese saber-rattling. In 2006, a Chinese attack sub stalked the Kitty Hawk without being detected until it surfaced within firing range of the group. Last November’s incident, however, could have been unintentional as the Shenzhen was also headed to Tokyo for an historic port call there, just as the Kitty Hawk was denied Hong Kong entry. Destroyers are known to travel with a submarine escort. The confrontation ended without incident as all vessels continued on course toward Japan by Nov. 24.

From Stratfor The Strait of Hormuz Incident and U.S. Strategy January 14, 2008 | 1955 GMT By George Friedman Iranian speedboats reportedly menaced U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz on Jan. 6. Since then, the United States has gone to great lengths to emphasize the threat posed by Iran to U.S. forces in the strait — and, by extension, to the transit of oil from the Persian Gulf region. The revelation of an Iranian threat in the Strait of Hormuz was very helpful to the United States, coming as it did just before U.S. President George W. Bush’s trip to the region. Washington will use the incident to push for an anti-Iranian coalition among the Gulf Arabs, as well as to push Iran into publicly working with the United States on the Iraq problem. According to U.S. reports and a released video, a substantial number of Iranian speedboats approached a three-ship U.S. naval convoy moving through the strait near Iranian territory Jan. 6. (Word of the incident first began emerging Jan. 7.) In addition, the United States reported receiving a threatening message from the boats. Following the incident, the United States began to back away from the claim that the Iranians had issued threats, saying that the source of the transmission might have been hecklers who coincidentally transmitted threats as the Iranian boats maneuvered among the U.S. ships. Shore-based harassing transmissions are not uncommon in the region, or in other parts of the world for that matter, especially when internationally recognized bridge-to-bridge frequencies are used. And it is difficult if not impossible to distinguish the source of a transmission during a short, intense incident such as this. The combination of Iranian craft in close proximity to U.S. warships and the transmission, regardless of the source, undoubtedly increased the sense of danger. Two things are interesting. First, the probability of a disciplined Iranian attack — and, by U.S. Navy accounts, the Iranian action was disciplined — being preceded by a warning is low. The Iranians were not about to give away the element of surprise, which would have been essential for an effective attack. While the commander on the scene does not have the luxury we have of dismissing the transmission out of hand — in fact, the commander must assume the worst — its existence decreases the likelihood of an attack. Attacking ships need every second they can get to execute their mission; had the Iranians been serious, they would have wanted to appear as nonthreatening as possible for as long as possible. Second, the U.S. ships did not open fire. We do not know the classified rules of engagement issued to U.S. ship captains operating in the Strait of Hormuz, but the core guidance of those rules is that a captain must protect his ship and crew from attack at all times. Particularly given the example of the USS Cole, which was attacked by a speedboat in a Yemeni harbor, it is difficult for us to imagine a circumstance under which a ship captain in the U.S. Navy would not open fire if the Iranian boats already represented a significant threat. Spokesmen for the 5th Fleet said Jan. 13 that the U.S. ships were going through the process of determining the threat and preparing to fire when the Iranians disengaged and disappeared. That would indicate that speed, distance and bearing were not yet at a point that required a response, and that therefore the threat level had not yet risen to the redline. Absent the transition to a threat, it is not clear that this incident would have risen above multiple encounters between U.S. warships and Iranian boats in the tight waters of Hormuz. The New York Times carried a story Jan. 12, clearly leaked to it by the Pentagon, giving some context for U.S. concerns. According to the story, the United States had carried out war games attempting to assess the consequences of a swarming attack by large numbers of speedboats carrying explosives and suicide crews. The results of the war games were devastating. In a game carried out in 2002, the U.S. Navy lost 16 major warships, including an aircraft carrier, cruisers and amphibious ships — all in attacks lasting 5-10 minutes. Fleet defenses were overwhelmed by large numbers of small, agile speedboats, some armed with rockets and other weapons, but we assume most operated as manned torpedoes. The decision to reveal the results of the war game clearly were intended to lend credibility to the Bush administration’s public alarm at the swarming tactics. It raises the issue of why the U.S. warships didn’t open fire, given that the war game must have resulted in some very aggressive rules of engagement against Iranian speedboats in the Strait of Hormuz. But more important, it reveals something about the administration’s thinking in the context of Bush’s trip to the region and the controversial National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran’s nuclear program. A huge controversy has emerged over the NIE, with many arguing that it was foisted on the administration against its will. Our readers know that this was not our view, and it is still not our view. Bush’s statements on the NIE were consistent. First, he did not take issue with it. Second, he continues to regard Iran as a threat. In traveling to the Middle East, one of his purposes is to create a stronger anti-Iranian coalition among the Arab states on the Arabian Peninsula. The nuclear threat was not a sufficient glue to create this coalition. For a host of reasons ranging from U.S. intelligence failures in Iraq to the time frame of an Iranian nuclear threat, a nuclear program was simply not seen as a credible basis for fearing Iran’s actions in the region. The states of the Arabian Peninsula were much more afraid of U.S. attacks against Iran than they were of Iranian nuke s in five or 10 years. The Strait of Hormuz is another matter. Approximately 40 percent of the region’s oil wealth flows through the strait. During the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, the tanker war, in which oil tankers moving through the Persian Gulf came under attack from aircraft, provided a sideshow. This not only threatened the flow of oil but also drove shipping insurance rates through the roof. The United States convoyed tankers, but the tanker war remains a frightening memory in the region. The tanker war was trivial compared with the threat the United States rolled out last week. The Strait of Hormuz is the chokepoint through which Persian Gulf oil flows. Close the strait and it doesn’t flow. With oil near $100 a barrel, closing the Strait of Hormuz would raise the price — an understatement of the highest order. We have no idea what the price of oil would be if the strait were closed. Worse, the countries shipping through the strait would not get any of that money. At $100 a barrel, closing the Strait of Hormuz would take an economic triumph and turn it into a disaster for the very countries the United States wants to weld into an effective anti-Iranian coalition. The revelation of a naval threat from Iran in the Strait of Hormuz just before the president got on board Air Force One for his trip to the region was fortuitous, to say the least. The Iranians insisted that there was nothing unusual about the incident, and Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said that “Some political factions in the U.S. are pursuing adventurism to help Bush to spread Iran-phobia in the region. U.S. officials should apologize to Iran, regional countries and the American people.” This probably won’t happen, but he undoubtedly will be grateful that the Iranians said there was nothing out of the ordinary about the incident. If this incident was routine, and if the U.S. war games have any predictive ability, it means that the Iranians are staging routine incidents, any one of which could lead to a military confrontation in the strait. Bush undoubtedly will be distributing the Iranian statement at each of his stops. Leaving aside the politics for a moment, the Iranian naval threat is a far more realistic, immediate and devastating threat to regional interests than the nuclear threat ever was. Building an atomic weapon was probably beyond Iran’s capabilities, while just building a device — an unwieldy and delicate system that would explode under controlled circumstances — was years away. In contrast, the naval threat in the Strait of Hormuz is within Iran’s reach right now. Success is far from a slam dunk considering the clear preponderance of power in favor of U.S. naval forces, but it is not a fantasy strategy by any means. And its consequences are immediate and affect the Islamic states in ways that a nuclear strike against Israel doesn’t. Getting the Saudis to stand against Iran over an attack against Israel is a reach, regardless of the threat. Getting the Saudis worked up over cash flow while oil prices are near all-time highs does not need a great deal of persuading. Whatever happened in the strait Jan. 6, Bush has arrived in the region with a theme of widespread regional interest: keeping the Strait of Hormuz open in the face of a real threat. We are not certain that a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier could be sunk using small swarming ships. But we are certain that the strait could be closed or made too dangerous for tankers for at least a short period. And we know that, as in land warfare, finding the bases that are launching ships as small as speedboats would be tough. This threat had substance. By dropping the Iranian nuclear threat and shifting to the threat to the strait, Bush moves the Iran issue from being one involving the United States and Israel to being one that excludes Israel but involves every oil producer in the region. None of them wants this to happen, and all of them must take the threat seriously. If it can establish the threat, the United States goes from being an advocate against Iran to being the guarantor of very real Arab interests. And if the price Arabs must pay for the United States to keep the strait open is helping shut down the jihadist threat in Iraq, that is a small price indeed. This puts Iran in a tough position. Prior to the issuance of the NIE, the Iranians had shifted some of their policies on Iraq. The decline in violence in Iraq is partly because of the surge, but it also is because Iran has cut back on some of the things it used to do, particularly supporting Shiite militias with weapons and money and urging them to attack Sunnis. It also is clear that the limits it had imposed on some of the Iraqi Shiite politicians in the latter’s dealings with their Sunni counterparts have shifted. The new law allowing Baath Party members to return to public life could not possibly have been passed without Iranian acquiescence. Clearly, Iran has changed its actions in Iraq as the United States has changed its stance on Iranian nuclear weapons. But Iran shied away from reaching an open accommodation with the United States over Iraq following the NIE. Factional splits in Iran are opening up as elections approach, and while the Iranians have shifted their behavior, they have not shifted their public position. The United States sees a shift of Iran’s public position as crucial in order to convince Iraqi factions, particularly all of the Shiite parties, to move toward a political conclusion. Reining in militias is great, but Washington wants and needs the final step. The NIE shift, which took the nuclear issue off the table, was not enough to do it. By raising the level of tension over a real threat — and one that has undebatable regional consequences — the United States is hoping to shape the internal political discussion in Iran toward an open participation in reshaping Iraq. Iran doesn’t want to take this step for three good reasons. First, it wants to keep its options open. It does not trust the United States not to use a public accord over Iraq as a platform to increase U.S. influence in Iraq and increase the threat to Iran. Second, Tehran has a domestic political problem. In the same way that Bush saw an avalanche of protest from his supporters over the NIE, the Iranians will see resistance to open collaboration. Finally, the Iranians are not sure they need a public agreement. From their point of view, they have delivered on Iraq, the United States has delivered on the NIE and things are moving in a satisfactory direction. Why go public? The American desire to show the Iraqi Shia that Iran has publicly abandoned the quest for a Shiite Iraq doesn’t do Iran a bit of good. The Iranians have used the construction of what we might call a guerrilla navy as a lever with the United States and as a means to divide the United States from the Arabs. The Iranians’ argument to the Arabs has been, “If the United States pushes us too far, we will close the strait. Therefore, keep the Americans from pushing us too far.” The Americans have responded by saying that the Iranians now have the ability to close the Strait of Hormuz, potentially regardless of what the U.S. Navy does. Therefore, unless the Arabs want to be at the mercy of Iran, they must join the United States in an anti-Iranian coalition that brings Iran under control. In its wooing of the Arabs, Washington will emphasize just how out of control the Iranians are, pointing out that Tehran is admitting that the kind of harassment seen Jan. 6 is routine. One day — and the day will be chosen by Iran — this will all get really out of hand. The Iranians have a great deal to gain from having the ability to close the strait, but very little from actually closing it. The United States is putting Iran in a position such that the Gulf Arabs will be asking Tehran for assurances that Iran will not take any action. The Iranians will give assurances, setting the stage for a regional demand that the Iranians disperse their speedboats, which are purely offensive weapons of little defensive purpose. The United States, having simplified the situation for the Iranians with the NIE and not gotten the response it wanted, now is complicating the situation again with a completely new framework — a much more effective framework than the previous one it used. In the end, this isn’t about the Strait of Hormuz. Iran isn’t going to take on the U.S. Navy, and the Navy isn’t quite as vulnerable as it claims — and therefore, the United States obviously is not nearly as trigger-happy as it would like to project. Washington has played a strong card. The issue now is whether it can get Iran into a public resolution over Iraq. The Iranians appear on board with the private solution. They don’t seem eager for a public one. The anti-Iranian coalition might strengthen, but as clever as this U.S. maneuver is, it will not bring the Iranians public. For that, more concessions in Iraq are necessary. More to the point, for a public accommodation, the “Great Satan” and the charter member of the “Axis of Evil” need to make political adjustments in their public portrayal of one another — hard to do in two countries facing election years.

Herman is correct. Its a hypothetical platform built around the Mobile Offshore Base concept that was being discussed a few years back. Try and keep up.

Old news. It has to do with the sheer size of the map.

Correct. Not a code issue. Its been remedied in the HCDB.

You're right. I will review these F-22 loadouts. The problem with modeling a weapon like the SDB is that it punches well above its weight. A DP rating of 4 or 5 is not going to permit the bomb to destroy a bunker, for example, or much else for that matter. The SDB will therefore retain the DP rating of 40 for the moment.

From Navy Times ‘Filipino Monkey’ may be behind radio threats, ship drivers say By Andrew Scutro and David Brown Posted : Friday Jan 11, 2008 17:24:25 EST The threatening radio transmission heard at the end of a video showing harassing maneuvers by Iranian patrol boats in the Strait of Hormuz may have come from a locally famous heckler known among ship drivers as the “Filipino Monkey.” Since the Jan. 6 incident was announced to the public a day later, the U.S. Navy has said it’s unclear where the voice came from. In the videotape released by the Pentagon on Jan. 8, the screen goes black at the very end and the voice can be heard, distancing it from the scenes on the water. “We don’t know for sure where they came from,” said Cmdr. Lydia Robertson, spokeswoman for 5th Fleet in Bahrain. “It could have been a shore station.” While the threat — “I am coming to you. You will explode in a few minutes” — was picked up during the incident, further jacking up the tension, there’s no proof yet of its origin. And several Navy officials have said it’s difficult to figure out who’s talking. “Based on my experience operating in that part of the world, where there is a lot of maritime activity, trying to discern [who is speaking on the radio channel] is very hard to do,” Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead told Navy Times during a brief telephone interview today. Indeed, the voice in the audio sounds different from the one belonging to an Iranian officer shown speaking to the cruiser Port Royal over a radio from a small open boat in the video released by Iranian authorities. He is shown in a radio exchange at one point asking the U.S. warship to change from the common bridge-to-bridge channel 16 to another channel, perhaps to speak to the Navy without being interrupted. Further, there’s none of the background noise in the audio released by the U.S. that would have been picked up by a radio handset in an open boat. So with Navy officials unsure and the Iranians accusing the U.S. of fabrications, whose voice was it? In recent years, American ships operating in the Middle East have had to contend with a mysterious but profane voice known by the ethnically insulting handle of “Filipino Monkey,” likely more than one person, who listens in on ship-to-ship radio traffic and then jumps on the net shouting insults and jabbering vile epithets. Navy women — a helicopter pilot hailing a tanker, for example — who are overheard on the radio are said to suffer particularly degrading treatment. Several Navy ship drivers interviewed by Navy Times are raising the possibility that the Monkey, or an imitator, was indeed featured in that video. Rick Hoffman, a retired captain who commanded the cruiser Hue City and spent many of his 17 years at sea in the Gulf was subject to the renegade radio talker repeatedly, often without pause during the so-called “Tanker Wars” of the late 1980s. “For 25 years there’s been this mythical guy out there who, hour after hour, shouts obscenities and threats,” he said. “He could be tied up pierside somewhere or he could be on the bridge of a merchant ship.” And the Monkey has stamina. “He used to go all night long. The guy is crazy,” he said. “But who knows how many Filipino Monkeys there are? Could it have been a spurious transmission? Absolutely.” Furthermore, Hoffman said radio signals have a way of traveling long distances in that area. “Under certain weather conditions I could hear Bahrain from the Strait of Hormuz.” Cmdr. Jeff Davis, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon, could not say if the voice belonged to the heckler. “It’s an international circuit and we’ve said all along there were other ships and shore stations in the area,” he said. When asked if U.S. officials considered whether the threats came from someone besides the Iranians when releasing the video and audio, Roughead said: “The reason there is audio superimposed over the video is it gives you a better idea of what is happening.” Similarly, Davis said the audio was part of the “totality” of the situation and helped show the “aggressive behavior.” Another former cruiser skipper said he thought the Monkey might be behind the audio threats when he first heard them earlier this week. “It wouldn’t have surprised me at all,” he said. “There’s all kinds of chatter on Channel 16. Anybody with a receiver and transmitter can hear something’s going on. It was entirely plausible and consistent with the radio environment to interject themselves and make a threatening comment and think they’re being funny.” This former skipper also noted how quiet and clean the radio “threat” was, especially when radio calls from small boats in the chop are noisy and cluttered. “It’s a tough environment, you’re bouncing around, moving fast, lots of wind, noise. It’s not a serene environment,” he said. “That sounded like somebody on the beach or a large ship going by.” He said he and others believe that the Filipino Monkey is comprised of several people, and whoever gets on Channel 16 to heckle instantly gets the monicker. “It was just a gut feeling, something the merchants did. Guys would get bored, one guy hears it, comes back a year later and does it for himself,” he said. “I never thought it was one, rather it was part of the woodwork.” The former skipper noted that he warned his crew about hecklers when preparing to transit Hormuz. “I tell them they’ll hear things on there that will be insulting,” he said. “You tell your people that you’ll hear things that are strange, insulting, aggravating, but you need to maintain a professional posture.” A civilian mariner with experience in that region said the Filipino Monkey phenomenon is worldwide, and has been going on for years. “They come on and say ‘Filipino Monkey’ in a strange voice. They might say it two or three times. You’re standing watch on bridge and you’re monitoring Channel 16 and all of a sudden it comes over the radio. It can happen anytime. It’s been a joke out there for years.” While it happens all over the world, it’s more likely to occur around the Strait of Hormuz because there is so much shipping traffic, he said.

From DefenseNews Posted 01/10/08 11:23 Russian Warships Cruise With Italians By NABI ABDULLAEV In the latest move by Moscow to re-establish a global military presence, Russian warships exercised with Italian naval forces Jan. 8-10 in the central Mediterranean on Jan. 10. The exercises were part of a 12,000-mile deployment of six Russian Northern Fleet warships based in Arctic Ocean ports. The deployment, which began Dec. 5, is the Russian navy’s first cruise to the Mediterranean Sea since 2000 and first to the Atlantic Ocean since 2004. The ships included the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov and its embarked Su-33 and Su-25 fighters, destroyers Admiral Levchenko and Admiral Chabanenko, the rescue ship Nikolai Chikerm, and the ships Ivan Bubnov and Sergei Osipov. During the exercise, the warships held sea maneuvers under a single command, deflected hypothetical attacks from small vessels, fired naval guns at targets and held communication training, the Russian defense ministry said in a Jan. 10 statement. The Admiral Chabanenko and Nikolai Chiker participated in the maneuvers with Italian frigates Espero and Bersagliere. The exercises were commanded by Vice Adm. Nikolai Maksimov, the chief of the Northern Fleet, and Italian Rear Adm. Ruggiero Di Biase. Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, while reporting about the cruise to resident Vladimir Putin then, said that by sending these ships into the northern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, Russia resumes its naval presence in the world’s oceans. Russian Defense Ministry officials said Dec. 19 that NATO intelligence units paid a special attention to the cruise, with British Nimrod and Canadian Aurora maritime patrol aircraft following the group of the warships. In another display of the Russian military pushing to re-conquer the ground lost during the post-Soviet collapse in the 1990s, up to six British and Danish fighters scrambled to monitor Russia’s strategic bombers patrolling above the Arctic and Atlantic oceans on Dec. 24- 26, a spokesman for the Russian air force, Alexander Drobyshevsky, told Itar-Tass news agency. “There were no provocations while NATO fighters followed our strategic bombers; it is a usual practice,” he said. Putin ordered the patrols to resume last August. Drobyshevsky said the patrols will continue in 2008. Putin is set to leave his presidential post in May after eight years of increasingly assertive international posturing during which Russia’s economic and military might grew.

From DefenseNews Posted 01/10/08 15:27 U.K. May Delay Carrier 18 Months By ANDREW CHUTER LONDON — British defense officials are considering delaying the Royal Navy’s 3.9 billion pound ($7.7 billion) program to build two aircraft carriers for up to 18 months or longer to help plug a yawning hole in the defense budget. Partners in the BAE Systems-led alliance set up to deliver the 65,000-ton carrier have been asked to look at ways of adjusting the spending profile on the program to help overcome cash shortages at the MoD over the next three years. Britain is cooperating with France to design the carriers, which will be the Royal Navy’s largest warships ever. “One option being considered is continuing the design work but delaying cutting metal by 12 months. Another is to freeze the program entirely for 18 months,” said one industry source. The former would just be tenable, but the latter would likely kill the program, the source said. Another source said the program could be delayed by as much as five years. Some executives here wondered whether the government is seriously considering delaying the program, or if it was just an option to be considered, then ruled out. The carrier is among the programs being reviewed by the Ministry of Defence as it attempts to iron out the peaks in its budget over the next two or three years by altering spending plans rather than abandoning or heavily delaying projects. The carrier alliance, which also includes Babcock, Thales UK and the VT Group, is expected to respond within days to the MoD request with proposals for keeping the program in place while easing pressure on the budget. “Changing spending profiles on defense programs happens all the time,” said one industry executive. “The alliance could choose to do a number of things like push equipment procurement to the right and delay supplier payments to change the spending profile on the program. It would certainly be a preferred option to a delay which eventually costs everybody money.” Threat to Proposed Merger A substantial delay in the program would throw into doubt an agreed merger of Britain’s only two remaining naval surface ship builders. BAE Systems and the VT Group initialed a tie-up of their respective yards on the Clyde in Scotland and at Portsmouth in Southern England last summer. Completing the deal is contingent on a Terms of Business Agreement (ToBA) with the government, which sets out a 15-year partnering arrangement. The carrier is the centerpiece of a defined workload to be undertaken by the merged operation throughout the duration of the agreement. A spokesman for the MoD said the two sides were now “finalizing the last few details of the ToBA.” The spokesman was unable to comment in time for this article. The alliance, which has the MoD as a partner, has agreed to terms for undertaking the construction program but the deal remains unsigned. Under current plans, the first of the carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth, is to enter service in 2014; the second vessel, HMS Prince of Wales, two years later. The original in-service date for the first carrier was 2012. Cutting the first metal on the program is expected to take place around the end of this year. The warships will be built in large blocks at yards around the United Kingdom before being floated to the Babcock yard at Rosyth for final assembly. Alliance leader BAE declined to comment. “Any issue concerning budgets is a matter for the MoD, it would be inappropriate for us to comment,” he said. Broad Spending Cuts The move comes as the defense sector here is bracing itself for spending reductions of about 1.5 billion pounds a year for at least the next three years as the MoD attempts to balance its books. Government spending plans for defense over the next three years were rolled out in July. The figures showed a planned 1.5 percent a year average increase in real terms, taking spending up to 36.9 billion pounds in 2010/11. That’s not enough to stave off a squeeze on the military and industry. Ministry officials and the armed services have for months been battling, sometimes among themselves, to agree exactly where the ax will fall to achieve the required cuts as part of a process known as Planning Round 08. That process is reaching its climax ahead of the financial year 2008-09, which gets underway in April. Wherever the ax falls, controversy is likely to follow. For that reason the government, currently unpopular and under constant fire for what many say is its failure to properly fund a military heavily engaged for years now on overseas operations, may want to limit major program cuts and head off more criticism. Finding the required level of cuts is proving a tough task. Part of the reason for that, say government insiders, is that the MoD’s room for maneuver has been limited by a political commitment in July to go ahead with three large defense programs. On the day it rolled out its spending plans in July, the government signaled its intention to proceed with renewal of the nuclear deterrent, a British Army armored vehicle program known as the Future Rapid Effects System, and the aircraft carriers. “Contractually, we haven’t committed ourselves to these three programs but politically we have. If you add that to programs which are already under contract with industry, the amount left in the middle to cut is not that large,” said a government source. In a heated debate in the House of Lords late last year over the future of the armed forces, Adm. Lord Boyce, a recent chief of the Defence Staff, said the MoD was putting “blood on the floor” as it slashed defense programs. He said he was particularly concerned about the future of a Royal Navy that had already suffered numerous cuts to its frigate and destroyer numbers and faced the possible prospect of still more reductions in fleet numbers. The two carriers are likely to initially operate with GR9 Harrier strike aircraft currently deployed on the small 21,000-ton Invincible class carriers, but are expected later in the decade to switch to the short take-off and vertically landing version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Thanks to Tony for finding this gem. From Journal of Simulation (2006) 1, 29–38. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jos.4250003 "Each of the five search patterns from the National Search and Rescue Manual are described below. For each pattern, a graphic of the pattern is presented each of which indicates a commence search pattern (CSP) point ... When the point of last contact with the target involves a high degree of certainty, and the search area is large, either the parallel ... or the creeping line ... search pattern is preferred. The parallel pattern is most desirable when the target is assumed equally likely to occupy any part of the search area. The creeping line pattern ... is typically employed when the target is more likely to be in a particular end of the search area. When the point of last contact is well known, or established within close limits, the square ... and sector search ... patterns are preferred. The square pattern is used when uniform coverage of the search area is desired ... while the sector search pattern is used in scenarios where the target is difficult to detect. Finally, when the target is fast moving or when a strong current is present in the search area, the barrier patrol search pattern ... is preferred (its CSP is either starting point). The barrier patrol pattern was used extensively during the actual Bay of Biscay U-boat war."

More like liver cirrhosis.

I'm on it like stink on a monkey.

Confirmed. Interesting phenomenon. Consider it fixed. Good eye, Akula.

From Flight International DATE: 10/01/08 SOURCE: Flightglobal.com Australia to weigh Lockheed Martin F-22 against Russian fighters By Siva Govindasamy Australia plans to request access to the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, and will also consider Russian fighters such as the RSK MiG-29 and Sukhoi Su-35, as part of a review of its air power capabilities that could lead to the cancellation of a A$6.6 billion ($5.8 billion) deal to buy 24 Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornets. The USA has refused even close allies like Japan access to the F-22 (pictured below left, with US Navy F/A-18E), and Congress has banned its export. But defence analysts say that if Washington changes its mind, Japan and Australia could be among the first to get access to the type. Lockheed is also keen to keep its Raptor production line open, but a major deterrent to a foreign sale could be a reported development cost of up to $1 billion for an export variant. But Australia's new defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon appears unfazed in the search for a replacement for the country's General Dynamics F-111s (pictured below) and early-model F/A-18s. "I intend to pursue American politicians for access to the Raptor," he says. "We are well placed to talk to Democrats on the Hill about it, and I want it to be part of the mix." Fitzgibbon adds that all possible options will be studied before a decision, including the possible purchase of Russian aircraft. "The review should include a comparative analysis of everything on the market," he says. "I'm not ruling out any option." Observers believe that domestic politics are behind the Labor Party's review of almost A$23 billion worth of defence projects, given that the Liberal Party which lost last December's general elections is now led by former defence minister Brendan Nelson. He was at the helm when Australia pledged to buy 100 Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, which are not expected to enter service until the middle of the next decade, and when it ordered its Super Hornets as a bridging measure. Fitzgibbon charges that the latter decision was made without "proper due process or capability justification", while some military analysts have claimed that the aircraft lacks the stealth capability and power that the Royal Australian Air Force needs. The new defence minister has meanwhile warned that Canberra will not tolerate further delays or an increase in the cost of the F-35. Another project under review is a A$1 billion programme to upgrade 11 Kaman SH-2G Super Seasprite helicopters. These were purchased in 1997 to operate from the navy's Anzac-class frigates, but have been plagued by technical problems and have been grounded for more than a year. Nelson said last year that the helicopters will be upgraded and available for use around 2010.

From Aviation Week ARES Blog NATO's Defense Spending in Real Terms Posted by Joris Janssen Lok at 1/10/2008 4:23 AM The figures on NATO nations' 2007 defense expenditures, released by NATO, show dramatic differences in how much each nation contributes to the North Atlantic Alliance (see also related post). In real terms, current prices and current U.S. dollar/local currency exchange rates, NATO's 26 countries in 2007 spent this on defense: U.S.: $545.3 billion, that's roughly $45,500 per head of the population. Figure out for yourself what kind of car you can buy for that kind of money. U.S. military personnel number more than 1.3 million. U.K.: $63.2 billion, or $34,800 per head. Military personnel: 190,000. France: $60.3 billion, or $32,100 per head. Military personnel: 354,000. Germany: $41.8 billion, or $33,800 per head. Military: 247,000. Italy: $37.5 billion, or $30,100 per head. Military: 298,000. Canada: $18.5 billion, or $38,100 per head. Military: 65,000. Spain: $17.3 billion, or $30,100 per head. Military: 132,000. Turkey: $13.4 billion, which translates to only $8,900 per head. That's a rather small car. Military: 496,000. Netherlands: $11 billion, or $38,600 per head. Military: 51,000. Greece: $8.6 billion, or $29,000 per head. Military: 142,000. Poland: $7.8 billion, that's $16,100 per head. Military: 150,000. Norway: $5.5 billion, a whopping $52,500 per head of the population! Then again, in Norway everything is more expensive. Military personnel: 20,000. Belgium: $4.9 billion, or $35,000 per head. Military: 39,000. Denmark: $4 billion, or $37,400 per head. Military: 18,000. Portugal: $3.3 billion, $21,500 per head. Military: 41,000. Romania: $3 billion, $11,800 per head. Military: 76,000. Czech Republic: $2.6 billion, or $23,500 per head. Military: 25,000. Hungary: $1.5 billion, $19,100 per head. Military: 20,000. Slovakia: $1.2 billion, $19,600 per head. Military: 18,000. Bulgaria: $869 million, $11,200 per head. Military: 41,000. Slovenia: 706 million, $27,600 per head. Military: 7,000. Latvia: $448 million, $17,400 per head. Military: 6,000. Lithuania: $443 million, $18,500 per head. Military: 10,000. Luxembourg: $359 million, which still translates into $78,400 (!) per head because of the country's tiny size. Military: 1,600. Estonia: $341 million, or $21,400 per head. Military: 5,000.

From Navy Times Group: Pirate attacks up 10 percent in 2007 The Associated Press Posted : Wednesday Jan 9, 2008 7:17:27 EST KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — Global pirate attacks rose by 10 percent in 2007, marking the first increase in three years as sea robbers made a strong comeback in Nigeria and Somalia, an international maritime watchdog said Wednesday. Last year, there were 269 attacks on ships, up from 239 in 2006 and reversing a downtrend seen since 2003, the International Maritime Bureau said in its annual report released by its piracy reporting center in Malaysia. “The significant increase in the [2007] numbers can be directly attributed to the increase in the incidents in Nigeria and Somalia,” IMB director Pottengal Mukundan said in a statement. Attacks in Nigeria surged to 42 from 12 cases in 2006, he said. Somalia reported a threefold increase of 31 cases, from 10 in 2006. The IMB report said pirates were better armed and more violent in 2007, with 18 vessels hijacked worldwide, 292 crew members taken hostage, five killed and three still missing. Guns were used in 72 attacks, up 35 percent from 2006. It said 64 crew members were assaulted and injured, compared to only 17 in 2006, with majority of the incidents occurring off Somali’s coast. The report said pirates used rocket-propelled grenade launchers and automatic weapons, as well as mother vessels to launch smaller craft to attack ships further away from Somali’s coast. Somalia’s 1,880-mile coastline is the longest in Africa and near key shipping routes connecting the Red Sea with the Indian Ocean. Wracked by 16 years of violence and anarchy, Somalia does not have its own navy and the transitional government formed in 2004 with U.N. help has struggled to assert control. The IMB urged ships to stay as far away as possible from the Somali coastline. In Nigeria — Africa’s oil producer — attacks were focused in hotspots like Lagos, and some were linked to so-called militants claiming to pursue political goals, the report said. Indonesia remained the world’s hottest piracy spot with 43 attacks last year, but this was down from 50 cases in 2006 and were mainly low-level crimes, the report said. The IMB also applauded authorities in Bangladesh for curbing attacks to 15 last year, down from 47 in 2006. Cases in the Malacca Strait, a bustling shipping route that carries half of the world’s oil and more than one-third of its commerce, also fell for a third successive year to seven, from 11 in 2006, it said.