CV32

Now that HCE has been released, I have several under-construction-scenarios on the backburners that are being dusted off and polished up for release. This one, 'Iron Wolf', is for play by BLUE in the EC2003 GIUK Battleset. This one sees the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania - all new NATO partners - threatened by Russia and Belarus. Please take it for a spin and let me know if you have problems, issues, thoughts, opinions, whatever. The scenario is NOT ready for release, so please do not distribute it.

Now that HCE has been released, I have several under-construction-scenarios on the backburners that are being dusted off and polished up for release. This one, 'Foxes in the Henhouse', is for play by BLUE in the Westpac Battleset. Its an early Cold War era scenario that pits a pair of US Navy Skipjack class SSNs against a trio of Soviet HENS submarines, a Hotel class SSBN, Echo class SSGN and November class SSN (which began deploying in the early 1960s), before they can deploy into their patrol zones. Please take it for a spin and let me know if you have problems, issues, thoughts, opinions, whatever. The scenario is NOT ready for release, so please do not distribute it.

From Jane's India prepares for significant delay on Phalcon programme 21 November 2007 India's USD1.5 billion contract to mount Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI)-made Phalcon airborne early warning radars on three Ilyushin IL-76 A-50 heavy transport aircraft has been significantly delayed, official sources said. Defence officials conceded that a delay in the delivery of the first Phalcon airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) platform to the Indian Air Force (IAF) by nearly a year to September 2008 was another example of Russia's growing list of delays in supplying military equipment to India. Consequently, the induction of the remaining two AEW&C aircraft to the IAF in September 2008 and March 2009, in accordance with the three-year-old agreement with the IAI, has now been deferred to April 2009 and August 2010 respectively. An IAF spokesman in New Delhi declined to comment on the delays. Official sources said the delay was due to Russia's inability to upgrade the three IL-76s in time, a programme that includes strengthening their airframes and equipping them with more powerful engines.

From Aviation Week's ARES blog U.S. Watches Israeli Raid, Provides Advice Posted by David A. Fulghum at 11/21/2007 7:55 AM There are new details of Israeli’s attack on Syria that suggests the U.S. had knowledge of the event and perhaps some back-channel involvement. The Pentagon was monitoring the electronic emissions coming from Syria during Israel’s Sept. 6 attack and, while there was no active Pentagon engagement in the operation to destroy a nuclear reactor, there was advice provided, say military and aerospace industry officials. The first event in the raid involved slipping Israel’s strike aircraft over the border into Syria without alerting the air defenses. The actual target, a nuclear reactor, was at Dayr az-Zawr. But the main attack was preceded by an engagement with a single Syrian radar site at Tall al-Abuad near the Turkish border. It was struck with a combination of electronic attack and precision bombs to allow the Israeli force to enter and exit Syrian airspace unobserved. Subsequently the whole Syrian radar system went off the air for a period of time that included the raid, say U.S. intelligence analysts. However, there was “No U.S. active engagement other than consulting on potential target vulnerabilities,” says a U.S. electronic warfare specialist. Elements of the attack included some brute force jamming, which is still an important element of attacking air defenses, U.S. analysts say. Also, Syrian air defenses are still centralized and dependent on dedicated HF and VHF communications networks which made them vulnerable. The analysts don’t believe that any part of Syria’s electrical grid was shut down. They do contend that network penetration involved both remote air-to-ground electronic attack and penetration through computer-to-computer links. “There also were some higher-level, non-tactical penetrations, either direct or as diversions and spoofs of the Syrian command and control capability, done through network attack,” says a U.S. intelligence specialist. More details are available in Aviation Week’s Nov. 26 edition. With reporting by Robert Wall, both in Tel Aviv.

The product of many months of hard work (well, hard fun, at least) is finally here. Harpoon: Commander's Edition was released today by Matrix Games. More about the release here. Now, as they say, the real 'work' (or fun) begins.

HarpGamer is very happy to pass on news of the release (at long last) of Harpoon: Commander's Edition ... Link to the game at Matrix Games: HERE

From Jane's Russia commissions first Project 20380 corvette By Richard Scott 20 November 2007 The first Project 20380 multirole corvette for the Russian Federation Navy was commissioned on 14 November after completing contractor's sea trials and state acceptance tests. Named Steregushchiy, the 2,200-tonne-displacement ship is the first of a planned class of up to 20 ships. A further four units of the class are currently in build. Designed by the St Petersburg-based Almaz Central Marine Design Bureau, the Project 20380 corvette is intended to operate in coastal waters, reflecting the Russian Federation Navy's current emphasis on the protection and security of adjacent sea areas.

Saving room in the Mounts Annex is of course a high priority. I think I will probably be taking a Generational approach to implementing EW systems into ships in the HCDB, however, rather than attempting to model each and every type of system in detail. EW systems would be classified by the H4.1/HT approach of Gen 1, 2, 3, etc. This reduces the need for EW in the multi-mounts, but if it can be made to work there, I say go for it.

SPOILERS FOLLOW ... I finally completed my run of hole2 today. The first time I played it through, I just went with the pre-set courses, and got murdered by an Oscar SSGN that popped up out of nowhere from less than 30 nm range and hosed down my carrier group with cruise missiles. I had been holding my own against the bomber attacks, but this SLCM attack killed one of my carriers and severely damaged the other. Second time around, I chose to scoot North through the Kurile archipelago and attack the Kamchatka from the west. The Japanese group was 100 nm to my south, and too far away for me to join the groups together like Tony did. They paid for it dearly - I lost the whole JMSDF task force. Again, I was able to hold my own against the bomber attacks, but it took some doing for sure. I imposed some limitations on my Phoenix inventory in order to inject a bit more realism into the engagement, by progressively reducing my Phoenix loadouts with each sortie so that very soon all my Tomcats had remaining were Sparrows and Winders. If I hadn't re-armed my Hornets for the air-to-air mission, this would have spelled my doom. In the end I lost two or three escorts, iirc. The enemy's heavy bomber and fighter raids seemed to come to an end with about 30 bombers still on the ground at Petropavlovsk. Not sure why that was. Opposition was spotty after that, and I could have finished the game a lot sooner, but I was having great fun plinking the air defenses around the enemy airfield with Skippers and Mavericks. I did not spot that last naval group to the west until very late in the game, and it was a nice surprise. If I had been a little careless with my attacks, they would have snagged quite a few of my planes. Suggestions for possible further tweaking (completely optional, of course, and may not jive with your plans): 1. Put some minefields in the gaps in the Kuriles to stop or at least complicate a backdoor approach to Kamchatka. 2. An airfield in the west (maybe mainland Russia) with even only a few aircraft (bombers or recon aircraft) would have made me work much harder. 3. Try and dig some more to find out why the organized bomber/fighter raids seem to stop at a certain point in the game. 4. Put a few SAMs and such on the western side of Kamchatka, and maybe scatter a few on the Kurile islands. 5. Organize your SAM belts in layers (short, medium and long range systems) or clusters, with AAA or MANPADS in the gaps. This is a tough and enjoyable scenario, Ralf. Well done.

Bizarre.

They must have overheard your comments. (Granted, ASW exercises with diesel subs would perhaps be more useful). From Defence Talk Enterprise Carrier Strike Group Performs Anti-Sub Warfare Exercise US Navy | Nov 15, 2007 USS ENTERPRISE, At Sea: The USS Enterprise Carrier Strike Group (CSG 12) concluded a three-day, multi-unit exercise Nov. 13 aimed at sharpening its anti-submarine warfare (ASW) skills. This exercise was geared toward maintaining security and stability in the region and is one of several exercises taking place in the 5th Fleet area of responsibility ensuring the United States Navy maintains the highest state of readiness and is capable of executing a broad range of operations, focusing on maintaining regional security and stability. The ASW training ranged from practicing individual technician skills to coordinating multi-platform deterrent measures. Carrier strike groups hold these exercises routinely to maintain proficiency and demonstrate anti-submarine capabilities. “This was a routine training exercise to help our forces maintain a full-range of readiness,” said Rear Adm. Dan Holloway, commander, CSG 12. “These exercises also help reassure regional countries of our ability to maintain security for lawful use of the sea.” “The value of conducting an anti-submarine warfare exercise during deployment cannot be understated,” said Cmdr. Rich Bryant, USS Miami’s commanding officer. “We get the best training when we break out the play book and ensure we are ready for anything we’re tasked to do.” “Our efforts are geared toward maintaining regional security, which helps build regional stability and global economic prosperity,” said Holloway. The exercise included participation from CSG 12, USS Enterprise (CVN 65), Destroyer Squadron 2, Carrier Air Wing 1, USS Gettysburg (CG 64), USNS Supply ( T-AOE 6), USS Philadelphia (SSN 690) and USS Miami (SSN 755). CSG 12 is operating in the North Arabian Sea in support of Maritime Security Operations (MSO) and Operation Enduring Freedom. MSO help set the conditions for security and stability in the maritime environment, as well as complement the counterterrorism and security efforts of regional nations. These operations seek to disrupt violent extremists’ use of the maritime environment as a venue for attack or to transport personnel, weapons or other material.

From Air Force Times Nighthawk takes final bow at Dubai By Wendell Minnick - Staff writer Posted : Thursday Nov 15, 2007 7:31:11 EST The Air Force’s F-117A Nighthawk Stealth Fighter made its last air show appearance in Dubai this week. Two Nighthawks were on static display and one took part in the daily flight demonstrations. Pilots and maintenance crews made themselves available to answer questions. “After 25 years in operation, it is the last air show appearance in the world,” said one maintenance crewman. The F-117, which completed combat missions over Iraq, Kosovo and Panama, is now facing the end of its mission life after 26 years of operation. The Nighthawk took its first flight in 1981 and achieved operational status in 1983. However, it was not unveiled to the world until 1988. Produced by Lockheed’s famous Skunkworks, one aircraft was shot down in March 1999 during the Kosovo war by the Serbian 250th Missile Brigade using an SA-3 “Goa.” Lockheed delivered 56 Nighthawks to the Air Force between 1982 and 1990. “Half are already retired and the rest will be retired in April,” said Air Force Maj. Bret Carter, Air Combat Command, 49th Fighter Wing, 8th “Black Sheep” Fighter Squadron based at Holloman Air Force Base, N.M. Carter said the F-117 would be replaced by the new F-22 Raptor. “We are recapitalizing the force. Out with old and in with new,” Carter said. “It is still completely capable of completing the same mission from the beginning. Very few of the stealth [F-117] pilots are going to the Raptor. Most are from the F-15C community who going to go to the Raptor [as pilots].” Carter has flown over 400 hours in Nighthawks over the past two years. “The F-117 is an amazingly incredible aircraft,” he said. “I’m going to miss it.”

I'm still enjoying the slugfest too; sounds like it has become just that ?

Well, not really, Kelly. The first of class supposedly became operational in 1998. They have a teardrop hull, French designed sonar, German diesels, asymmetrical 7-blade skewed propeller, new anechoic tiles, etc. The technology is believed comparable to that of the early 1980s era. P.S. I note the article quoted above is dated November 10, 2007, but the incident itself took place on October 26, 2006.

IIRC, the Soviet Football ECM system (as on the Kirov class) was capable of barrage type jamming. Most systems (at least until fairly recently) focused on receivers, analysis and classification of signals rather than jamming them.

We live in interesting times indeed.

This poem has pretty strong meaning in Canada, but I'm sure it has universal appeal as Remembrance Day (aka Veterans Day, Armistice Day, etc) approaches. It pleases me to know that my kids get plenty of exposure in school to its importance. In Flanders Fields In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved, and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields. — John McCrae

As discussed with Tony via mIRC, there appears to be some problem with Player controlled ships running aground when they are still many miles from the nearest shore. I have (thus far) seen this only in the MEDC battleset. This savegame is from MEDC 2.0 - Breakout, using GE b24. I expect that a savegame is not especially necessary, as it seems to happen instantly on opening the scenario. breakout.zip

Nice ! I'm betting that the box cover art alone was enough to sell this item to you, Tony.

From Defense Aerospace Bush Administration Resists Pakistan Aid Cuts (Source: Voice of America news; issued Nov. 8, 2007) STATE DEPARTMENT --- U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte told Congress Wednesday the Bush administration strongly opposes Pakistani President Musharaff's declaration of emergency rule, but he resisted calls for sharp cuts in U.S. aid to that country. The second-ranking State Department official said General Musharraf has been an "indispensable" ally of the United States against terrorism. The more than two-hour hearing in the House Foreign Affairs Committee featured bipartisan criticism of President Musharraf, but a vigorous defense of U.S. engagement with the Islamabad government by Negroponte, who said continued partnership with Pakistan and its people "is the only option." The Bush administration, in addition to demanding a rollback of the Musharraf emergency decree and free elections in January, has begun a review of U.S. aid programs for Pakistan at least in part because of Congressional pressure. However in his testimony, Negroponte said U.S. assistance - totaling nearly $10 billion since 2001 - has been mainly to help Pakistan combat regional extremism and promote moderation, and he said sweeping cuts would be counter to the interests of both countries: "Cutting these programs would send a negative signal to the people of Pakistan," said John Negroponte. "The safety our citizens and the stability of the region depend on nurturing the ties that we have begun to form. Long-term partnership with the Pakistani people is the only option for the United States." A senior Democrat on the committee, Gary Ackerman of New York, lashed out at the Pakistani leader - depicting him as a "thug" whose resort to emergency rule was more about preserving his own hold on power than fighting extremism. Ackerman said General Musharraf is arresting those politicians who could govern the country effectively, and said last weekend's crackdown requires a decisive U.S. response. "This time there should be consequences," said Gary Ackerman. "We should stop delivery of any further F-16's to Pakistan and cut off all further other U.S. assistance until the state of emergency is lifted, the constitution is restored, the fired Supreme Court Justices are reinstated, opposition politicians and civil society activists are released, independent media is allowed to reopen, a caretaker government is appointed to hold free and fair parliamentary elections and General Musharraf steps down as promised as chief of the Army staff." Negroponte, the former chief of U.S. national intelligence, defended general Musharraf's conduct of anti-terrorism operations since 2001. But he said the current turmoil, if prolonged, could become a distraction that undercuts the Pakistani military's security mission, and said the United States may at some point have to consider punitive action. "I think that the longer this situation goes on, in its present form, the more difficult it is going to become," he said. "And that is why we believe it is so important that this state of emergency end, absolutely as soon as possible, so as to not confront us with the kinds of choices that you were describing." Congressman Ackerman's personal criticism of General Musharraf was echoed by California Republican Dana Rohrabacher, normally a strong supporter of the Bush administration. Rohrabacher said the Pakistani leader has been an enemy of moderates and a friend to Islamic radicals, and that it is time for the United States to, as he put it, "drop" General Musharraf. "Who cares if General Musharraf takes off his uniform? It's time for him to go," said Dana Rohrabacher. "I don't care if he is in his uniform or out of his uniform. It's time for him to go. He's been a political juggler and he has failed at that. He has been a political juggler instead of a leader. He's been a chameleon instead of a bold opponent to radical Islam or even a champion of moderation in his own country." Responding, Deputy Secretary Negroponte said it is not up to the United States to "drop" General Musharraf or any other political figure. He said U.S. support has been for the government and people of Pakistan, and that Pakistanis alone will determine that country's political future. (ends) Pentagon: US-Pakistan Military Cooperation Unaffected by Emergency Rule (Source: Voice of America news; issued Nov. 8, 2007) WASHINGTON --- A senior U.S. military officer says there has so far not been any impact on U.S.-Pakistani military cooperation, since the declaration of a State of Emergency in Pakistan on Saturday. Lieutenant General Carter Ham says the cooperation with Pakistani forces along the country's border with Afghanistan has not been affected by the political turmoil in Pakistan. "From an operational standpoint, the commanders on the ground are not reporting yet any noticeable difference in the relationship, in the communication that they have with their Pakistani counterparts on the other side of the border," he said. General Ham, who is in charge of monitoring worldwide operations for the senior U.S. military staff, says cooperation with Pakistan is important in fighting extremist groups that operate along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. He says the more coordination there is between government forces on both sides of the border, the more successful their efforts are. "Those military operations conducted by forces on either side of the border are done with increasing openness, collaboration, synchronization. There's good communication between U.S. and Afghan forces on one side and the Pakistan forces on the other. And we would certainly not want to see that jeopardized in any way," he said. General Ham says continued cooperation with Pakistan is also important because of the country's role in allowing the United States and other countries to keep their forces in Afghanistan supplied. "Well over half of the supplies, the sustainment, for forces in Afghanistan come either through or over Pakistan. So it is very, very important for us in that regard," he said. The U.S. government is reviewing its aid to Pakistan in the wake of the emergency declaration, including military aid and sales. But senior officials say they are taking into account the importance of Pakistan's help with the fighting in Afghanistan, and the broader war on terrorism. General Ham also reports several attempts by Taliban forces to confront NATO forces in Afghanistan directly in large numbers have failed. He says the Taliban may now be reverting to terror tactics, like the large-scale suicide bombing in northern Afghanistan on Tuesday. He called that "a worrisome trend." And he says there is some concern the Taliban may be trying to conduct as many attacks as possible before the winter sets in. [uh oh. I have to say, guys, this approach does not pass the 'smell test'.]

From Stratfor Pakistan and its Army By George Friedman Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency over the weekend, precipitating a wave of arrests, the suspension of certain media operations and the intermittent disruption of communications in and out of Pakistan. As expected, protests erupted throughout Pakistan by Nov. 5, with clashes between protesting lawyers and police reported in Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad and several other cities. Thus far, however, the army appears to be responding to Musharraf's commands. The primary issue, as Musharraf framed it, was the Pakistani Supreme Court's decision to release about 60 people the state had charged with terrorism. Musharraf's argument was that the court's action makes the fight against Islamist extremism impossible and that the judiciary overstepped its bounds by urging that the civil rights of the accused be protected. Musharraf's critics, including the opposition's top leader, former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, argued that Musharraf was using the Supreme Court issue to protect his own position in the government, avoid leaving the army as promised and put off elections. In short, he is being accused of staging a personal coup under the guise of a state of emergency. Whether Musharraf himself survives is not a historically significant issue. What is significant is whether Pakistan will fall into internal chaos or civil war, or fragment into smaller states. We must consider what that would mean, but first we must examine Pakistan's underlying dilemma -- a set of contradictions rooted in Pakistani history. When the British conquered the Indian subcontinent, they essentially occupied the lowlands and pushed their frontier into the mountains surrounding the subcontinent -- the point from which a relatively small British force, augmented by local recruits, could hold against any external threat. The eastern line ran through the hills that separated Bengal from Burma. The northern line ran through the Himalayas that separate China from the subcontinent. The western line ran along the mountains that separated British India from Afghanistan and Iran. This lineation -- which represented not a political settlement but rather a defensive position selected for military reasons -- remained vague, driven by shifting tactical decisions designed to secure a physical entity, the subcontinent. The Britons were fairly indifferent to the political realities inside the line. The British Raj, then, was a wild jumble of states, languages, religions and ethnic groups, which the Britons were quite content to play against one another as part of their grand strategy in India. As long as the British could impose an artificial, internal order, the general concept of India worked. But as the British Empire collapsed after World War II, the region had to find its own balance. Mahatma Gandhi envisioned post-British India as being a multinational, multireligious country within the borders that then existed -- meaning that India's Muslims would live inside a predominantly Hindu country. When they objected, the result was both a partition of the country and a transfer of populations. The Muslim part of India, including the eastern Muslim region, became modern Pakistan. The eastern region gained independence as Bangladesh following a 1971 war between India and Pakistan. Pakistan, however, was not a historic name for the region. Rather, reflective of the deeply divided Muslims themselves, the name is an acronym that derives, in part, from the five ethnic groups that made up western, Muslim India: Punjabis, Afghans, Kashmiris, Sindhis and Balochis. The Punjabis are the major ethnic group, making up just under half of the population, though none of these groups is entirely in Pakistan. Balochis also are in Iran, Pashtuns also in Afghanistan and Punjabis also in India. In fact, as a result of the war in Afghanistan more than a quarter century ago, massive numbers of Pashtuns have crossed into Pakistan from Afghanistan -- though many consider themselves to be moving within Pashtun territory rather than crossing a foreign border. Geographically, it is important to think of Pakistan in two parts. There is the Indus River Valley, where the bulk of the population lives, and then there are the mountainous regions, whose ethnic groups are deeply divided, difficult for the central government to control and generally conservative, preferring tradition to modernization. The relative isolation and the difficult existence in mountainous regions seem to create this kind of culture around the world. Pakistan, therefore, is a compendium of divisions. The British withdrawal created a state called Pakistan, but no nation by that name. What bound its residents together was the Muslim faith -- albeit one that had many forms. As in India -- indeed, as in the Muslim world at the time of Pakistan's founding -- there existed a strong secularist movement that focused on economic development and cultural modernization more than on traditional Islamic values. This secularist tendency had two roots: one in the British education of many of the Pakistani elite and the second in Turkish founder Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who pioneered secularism in the Islamic world. Pakistan, therefore, began as a state in crisis. What remained of British rule was a parliamentary democracy that might have worked in a relatively unified nation -- not one that was split along ethnic lines and also along the great divide of the 20th century: secular versus religious. Hence, the parliamentary system broke down early on -- about four years after Pakistan's creation in 1947. British-trained civilian bureaucrats ran the country with the help of the army until 1958, when the army booted out the bureaucrats and took over. Therefore, if Pakistan was a state trying to create a nation, then the primary instrument of the state was the army. This is not uniquely Pakistani by any means, nor is it unprincipled. The point that Ataturk made -- one that was championed in the Arab world by Egypt's Gamal Abdul Nasser and in Iran by Reza Pahlavi -- was that the creation of a modern state in a traditional and divided nation required a modern army as the facilitator. An army, in the modern sense, is by definition technocratic and disciplined. The army, rather than simply an instrument of the state, therefore, becomes the guarantor of the state. In this line of thinking, a military coup can preserve a constitution against anti-constitutional traditionalists. If the idea of a military coup as a guarantor of constitutional integrity seems difficult to fathom, then consider the complexities involved in creating a modern constitutional regime in a traditional society. Although the British tradition of parliamentary government fell apart in Pakistan, one institution the Britons left behind grew stronger: the Pakistani army. The army -- along with India's army -- was forged by the British and modeled on their army. It was perhaps the most modern institution in both countries, and the best organized and effective instrument of the state. As long as the army remained united and loyal to the concept of Pakistan, the centrifugal forces could not tear the country apart. Musharraf's behavior must be viewed in this context. Pakistan is a country that not only is deeply divided, but also has the real capacity to tear itself apart. It is losing control of the mountainous regions to the indigenous tribes. The army is the only institution that transcends all of these ethnic differences and has the potential to restore order in the mountain regions and maintain state control elsewhere. Musharraf's coup in 1999, which followed a series of military intrusions, as well as attempts at secular democratic rule, was designed to preserve Pakistan as a united country. That is why Musharraf insisted on continuing to wear the uniform of an army general. To remove the uniform and rule simply as a civilian might make sense to an outsider, but inside of Pakistan that uniform represents the unity of the state and the army -- and in Musharraf's view, that unity is what holds the country together. Of course the problem is that the army, in the long run, reflects the country. The army has significant pockets of radical Islamist beliefs, while Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), the military's intelligence branch, in particular is filled with Taliban sympathizers. (After all, the ISI was assigned to support the mujahideen fighting the Soviets in the 1980s, and the ISI and other parts of the army absorbed the ideology). Musharraf has had to walk a tightrope between U.S. demands that he crack down on his own army and his desire to preserve his regime -- and has never been able to satisfy either side fully. It is not clear whether he has fallen off the tightrope. Whatever he does, as long as the army remains united and he controls the corps commanders, he will remain in power. Even if the corps commanders -- the real electors of Pakistan -- get tired of him and replace him with another military leader, Pakistan would remain in pretty much the same position it is in now. In simple terms, the real question is this: Will the army split? Put more broadly, will some generals simply stop taking orders from Pakistan's General Headquarters and side with the Islamists? Will others side with Bhutto? Will ethnic disagreements run so deep that the Indus River Valley becomes the arena for a civil war? That is what instability in Pakistan would look like. It is not a question of civilian institutions, elections or any of the things we associate with civil society. The key question on Pakistan is whether the army stays united. In our view, the senior commanders will remain united because they have far more to lose if they fracture. Their positions depend on a united army and a unified chain of command -- the one British legacy that continues to function in Pakistan. There are two signs to look for: severe internal dissent among the senior generals or a series of mutinies by subordinate units. Either of these would raise serious questions as to the future of Pakistan. Whether Musharraf survives or falls and whether he is replaced by a civilian leader are actually secondary questions. In Pakistan, the fundamental issue is the unity of the army. At some point, there will be a showdown among the various groups. That moment might be now, though we doubt it. As long as the generals are united and the troops remain under control, the existence of the regime is guaranteed -- and in some sense the army will remain the regime. Under these conditions, with or without Musharraf, with or without democracy, Pakistan will survive.

Welcome, Orion. Its a great time to get back into Harpoon ... lots of good things in store.

From Jane's US stays firm on Pakistan FMF By Jon Grevatt 06 November 2007 The United States is set to continue to provide Foreign Military Financing (FMF) to Pakistan, whose president Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency on 3 November. Pakistan received USD300 million in 2007 from the US' FMF scheme, which stipulates that the funds must be spent on US equipment under the US Foreign Military Sales programme. The same amount has been allocated for 2008. The procurement funds, which are linked to the US' endorsement of Pakistan's role in the 'war on terror', represent nearly one half of total funding under a five-year financial package worth USD3 billion agreed in 2005. Speaking on the day of the declaration, a spokesman for the US Department of Defense (DoD) said that the state of emergency would not affect the military funding. "At this point, the declaration does not impact on our military support for Pakistan's efforts in the 'war on terror'... Obviously, the stakes are high there. Pakistan is a very important ally in the 'war on terror'."

It was a package deal, with the aircraft, weapons, etc, so I expect they will be 'reviewed'. IIRC, it was 500 AMRAAMs and 200 AIM-9M Sidewinders (in the air-to-air dept).

I like two weeks. Lets go with that.