CV32

Sounds right. A fancy altimeter, I guess. From Joe Baugher: "The APQ-156 integrated radar provides the capabilities of search, target tracking, airborne moving target identification, and beacon interrogation. The high resolution, real beam ground mapping radar, complemented by the Tactical Altitude Director (TAD) system, also provides terrain clearance and avoidance for low-level navigation."

I think the term "all weather", as it first came about and certainly in the context of the A-6E TRAM, was intended to point more to the aircraft's ability to operate under the cover of darkness rather than in all types of inclement weather. Perhaps a more useful term for this example, and admittedly you sometimes see it in use, is "day/night capable".

A lot of talking heads on the Net seem to dislike Mr. Kopp's analyses and conclusions in general, but the collection of data and imagery is interesting nonetheless. Thanks for reminding us of this one, Pete.

Yeah, really.

Those VLCC's look like great torpedo fodder.

From Navy Times New CNO pick could come any time, sources say By Zachary M. Peterson - Staff writer Posted : Tuesday Jul 17, 2007 7:30:21 EDT The Navy’s search for a new chief of naval operations is underway, with an announcement of a nominee expected to come as early as this week, sources tell Navy Times. In June, President Bush nominated the current CNO, Adm. Mike Mullen, to become chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. If approved by the Senate, Mullen will take over for Marine Gen. Peter Pace, who is slated to retire at the end of his term Oct. 1. A date has yet to be set for Mullen’s Senate confirmation hearing. The leading candidate for CNO remains Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., according to sources familiar with the selection process. Roughead is a well-respected surface warfare officer and had a successful tour as Pacific Fleet commander before taking over at Fleet Forces in May. Other candidates include Adm. Robert Willard, a naval aviator who now commands Pacific Fleet, and Adm. Timothy Keating, commander of U.S. Pacific Command. One source, who asked for anonymity when discussing the matter, said Willard would prefer to stay in Hawaii and that it is unlikely the Pentagon would want to pull Keating from PacCom this early into his tour there. Keating took over at PacCom in March. If Roughead is selected for CNO, it is unclear who would fill the vacancy at Fleet Forces Command. Possible candidates include Vice Adm. Jonathan Greenert, a submariner who currently serves as the deputy chief of naval operations for integration of capabilities and resources, and Adm. Harry Ulrich, commander of Naval Forces Europe. Sources said Greenert is the more likely of the two because submariners are not represented in any top Navy posts right now.

From Air Force Times Son of pilot Powers promoting Cold War history By Regina Lee - The Washington Times via AP Posted : Sunday Jul 15, 2007 17:39:55 EDT WASHINGTON — The 63-foot U-2 spy plane suspended from the ceiling of the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum is a constant reminder to Francis Gary Powers Jr. of his educational mission. The son of a historic U-2 pilot shot down over Russia, Powers has worked for 11 years to keep the history of the era that spawned the reconnaissance plane alive. Pondering the relic, which was used to photograph Russian facilities and was one of several planes his father flew, he says its work was instrumental in ending the Cold War. “There was no missile gap. There was no bomber gap,” Powers said. “The Soviets were not as far advanced as we thought they were, or they said they were.” Earlier this month, Powers led a “spy tour” of District of Columbia landmarks and secret drop-off points where double agents handed off intelligence that fueled the Cold War. He has led the tour for years to raise money to open a museum in Lorton devoted to the military and social conflict between the United States and the former Soviet Union. Powers and John C. Welch co-founded the museum in 1996 to promote awareness of the decades-long global struggle that almost took the life of Powers’ father. In 1960, the Soviets shot down a U-2 plane flown by Air Force pilot Francis Gary Powers Sr. He was held captive for 21 months in prisons near Moscow. The Cold War Museum has centered around an online chronicle and a mobile exhibit that has traveled cross country, but the museum is headed toward brick-and-mortar status. Powers plans to transform the former Nike Missile Base in Lorton, which housed an anti-aircraft missile defense system during the first stages of the Cold War, into a 6,000-square-foot museum that will hold a section of the Berlin Wall, a theater and a library. “They’ll start small,” said Judy Pedersen, a Fairfax County Park Authority spokeswoman. “We’ll get them in, and then they’ll expand and grow as their finances allow.” The base is part of a sprawling complex owned by the park authority that was home to the overcrowded D.C. Correctional Facility until 2002. The nonprofit museum has raised $500,000 over the past three years, including in-kind artifact donations. A new capital campaign aims to raise $3 million by 2009 and eventually $46 million to support a 120,000-square-foot museum. “It’s very affordable if you look at it like a million dollars for each year of the Cold War,” Powers said. Local awareness of communism has swelled recently, with the unveiling of the Victims of Communism Memorial last month in Northwest D.C. and the kickoff of the Cold War Museum’s capital campaign. But unlike the memorial, Powers said his museum will document the international conflict from multiple perspectives. “We’re not trying to say that we won and they lost,” Mr. Powers said. “We’re here to talk about it, reflect upon it and learn from it.” Powers and retired Air Force Col. Gail Halvorsen, an adviser to the museum, recently visited Germany for the opening ceremony of a partner museum at the Harnekop Atomic Shelter, which was used as a Soviet communications center. “It’s important to have dialogue and to bring in the two sides of the pancake,” said Halvorsen, who was nicknamed the “candy bomber” for dropping chocolate bars to children during the Berlin Airlift in 1948. Halvorsen hopes the museum will educate younger generations that he said have a “deficit” of knowledge of the Cold War era. Final museum plans include putting an elevator into one of the missile shafts to enable a tour of the storage area. Jerry Gordon, president of the Fairfax County Economic Development Authority and museum board member, said the museum will play a key educational role in his county. “As we get further and further away from [the Cold War], it has less and less reach to the younger generation,” he said.

Lemme see if I can throw some oil on this fire, muhahahahaaa ... some quotes of interest (from various sources): Capt William G. Sizemore II, commander, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 8, Fighter Sqn (VF) 213 "Black Lions": “This is one of the best airplanes ever built, and it’s sad to see it go away. It’s just a beautiful airplane. It’s powerful, it has presence, and it just looks like the ultimate fighter.” Senior Chief Aviation Machinist’s Mate (AW) Gene Casterlin, VF-31 "Tomcatters": “The Navy is getting smaller and more efficient, and it will only get harder to maintain the Tomcat. But no matter what, the Tomcat is the sexiest airplane in the sky.” Cmdr Richard LaBranche, CO of VF-31: “As we near the end of the Tomcat’s last deployment, we are proud of our legacy and take solace in the fact that the Tomcat is going out at the top of its game, but also regret saying farewell to an old, revered and trusted friend." ""Retiring the extremely relevant but maintenance intensive Tomcat was a way to save the exhaustive efforts of our people and better spend their labors ... I will miss flying the Tomcat very much... Saying good bye to the Tomcat will be like saying good bye to an old friend, but in the best interest of our people, it must be done." “It’s the pride of any air show. People come around to see that bad boy.” Lt Jon Jeck, pilot with VF-31 (?): "We're putting the premier fighter to sleep." Lt Chris Rattigan, pilot with VF-31: "It is one of the greatest fighter planes in history... When you think of naval aviation, you think of the Tomcat." Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Houlihan, aviation structural mechanic with VF-31: "The F-14 may be old, but with all the upgrades (over the years), there isn't anything out there tougher and more capable than the Tomcat ... I honestly think that VF-31 has proved that these aircraft, despite the amount of maintenance required to maintain it, have a lot of life left in them." Cmdr Jim Howe, VF-31: “Bittersweet is a perfect term for this ... As a career F-14 pilot, I would be much happier flying the Tomcat until the end of my days in the Navy. But instead we have to enjoy this as long as we can.” “One of the reasons the Tomcat is going away is because it’s so hard to fix ... I’m happy for my young maintenance guys, because they’ve worked their tails off and they can fix just about anything. So, this transition to the Super Hornet, because that particular aircraft is so much easier to maintain, will be an easy one for them.” Lt Cmdr Gregory Knepper, pilot for VF-31: “The Tomcat has been a phenomenal part of naval aviation. It will be sad to see such a storied fighter decommissioned.” Adm Michael Mullen, CNO: “There’s something about the way an F-14 looks, something about the way it carries itself ... It screams toughness. Look down on a carrier flight deck and see one of them sitting there, and you just know, there’s a fighter plane. I really believe the Tomcat will be remembered in much the same way as other legendary aircraft, like the Corsair, the Mustang and the Spitfire.” Aviation Electrician’s Mate 2nd Class (AW) Christopher Buonconsiglio, VF-31: “You gotta rip half of the jet apart just to get one item out ... Every good thing comes to an end.” Capt Drew Brugal, executive officer of carrier Ronald Reagan (who started flying Tomcats in 1984): “I’m not sad ... Having gone from flying F-4s to the Tomcat and seeing the benefit of getting into new technology, I view the new transition as a positive stepping stone to the next level.”

Funny, I also saw this earlier today, Pete. Looks like a free PC game is available for download too.

Coalition forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) were able to take down Saddam Hussein’s regime in less than three weeks, with comparatively few casualties. The speed and relative ease of that victory raise two important questions: - Why did the majority of Iraqi forces fail to offer significant resistance? - Why did the Iraqi leaders fail to adopt defensive measures that would have made the Coalition invasion more difficult and costly? A Rand Project Air Force (PAF) analysis of information derived from interviews with former senior Iraqi officials shows that the rapid collapse of the Iraqi resistance was due to a combination of factors: - Saddam made strategic miscalculations, such as his belief that war with the United States could be avoided; that such a conflict would involve air attacks rather than an invasion; and that the Coalition would accept a negotiated settlement that left his regime in power. - Saddam was preoccupied with internal threats. Measures aimed at forestalling coups and rebellions prevented the adoption of an effective defensive strategy, degraded the quality of Iraq’s military leadership and battlefield decision-making, and prevented the coordination and unified command of Iraqi forces. - Iraq’s military strategy and operations were poorly designed and executed. The defensive scheme failed to exploit potential options for prolonging the conflict and maximizing Coalition casualties. - Poor motivation and morale undermined the Iraqi defense. Harsh service conditions, the belief that resistance would be futile, and lack of willingness to fight and die for Saddam led the majority of officers and troops to do little fighting or to desert their units before being engaged. - Superior military capabilities gave Coalition forces an overwhelming advantage. Coalition ground and air forces were able to deliver accurate, lethal fire on Iraqi targets at long ranges and at night. The Coalition’s ability to maneuver ground forces rapidly and to sustain them over long distances also undermined the Iraqi ability to mount a coherent defense. U.S. decision-makers should be careful not to draw unwarranted lessons from OIF, particularly the notion that high-tech weaponry and communications will inevitably enable smaller ground forces to be decisive against larger, but less high-tech, enemy forces. The extraordinary advantages that Coalition forces enjoyed in Iraq during March and April 2003 may not be replicated in future conflicts. While Saddam did not plan for a protracted guerrilla conflict, Iraqi actions before and during OIF helped facilitate and shape the insurgency that followed. The desertion of Iraqi military and governmental structures in April 2003 released into the countryside numerous persons with the skills, resources, and potential motivation to mount a resistance and deprived Coalition commanders of the indigenous military forces they had counted on to help stabilize Iraq. Finally, OIF may influence the behavior of future adversaries. Enemies might seek to fend off or counter threats from superior U.S. military forces by acquiring nuclear weapons and/or adopting strategies that emphasize urban and guerrilla warfare. Full PDF document here.

Excellent summary of hopefully great things to come, Tony.

From Defence Talk Bulava ICBM Breakthrough RIA Novosti | Jul 12, 2007 Moscow: Russian Space Agency head Anatoly Perminov recently congratulated Yury Solomonov, general designer of the Moscow Heat Technology Institute, on the successful submarine launch of a new sea-based strategic missile, the Bulava, which was developed by his institute. The launch was part of a series of flight tests. Such publicity given to an event so ordinary and routine may seem strange, but only at first glance. It was not on the spur of the moment that Russia's aerospace industry's top man congratulated the developers of the missile. The successful liftoff of the Bulava on June 27 not only broke the streak of bad luck that had dogged the missile, but has also offered hope for a revival of the sea component of the Russian nuclear triad. Historically, the Soviet Union and later Russia have preferred to base their strategic nuclear forces on the ground, giving second place to strategic aviation and missile-carrying submarines. In all probability, there were several reasons for this. To begin with, the ground forces have always outstripped the naval forces in development. Second, sad as it sounds, Soviet strategic bomber aviation was way behind that of the potential opponent. And, most important of all, both sea- and air-based carriers, themselves highly technical machines, needed a high level of logistical support, which at all times in all of the armed forces has only been provided when funds were left over from other projects. On the other hand, it is not true that the Soviet leadership paid too little attention to sea-launched missiles. On the contrary. Within a short period of time, through super-human efforts and inconceivable costs, the Soviet Union was able to outnumber the United States in nuclear-powered missile-carrying submarines and their missiles. Admittedly, the reasons had more to do with politics and intimidation than military and technological advantages. Here is an excerpt from the 1979 Agreed Statement to the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II (SALT-II): "Modern submarine-launched ballistic missiles are: for the United States of America, missiles installed in all nuclear-powered submarines; for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, missiles of the type installed in nuclear-powered submarines made operational since 1965." The Americans decided not to count the first generation of Soviet sea-launched nuclear weapons, believing, with reason, that they posed no threat. But the Soviet leadership was perfectly aware of that, too. So, beginning in April 1962, a real effort was mounted to improve this state of affairs by commissioning the development of a new missile, the R-27, from Vladimir Makeyev's design bureau. A companion project was launched to develop the new Navaga-class submarine. The new missile was launched from a submarine as early as September 1967. The first twin launch followed within six days; and in December 1969, the world's first salvo of eight R-27 missiles was fired. The Navaga-class nuclear-powered missile-carrying submarines became the largest series of Soviet submarines equipped with strategic weapons. In 1975, the Soviet Union outstripped the United States in the number of missile-carrying submarines and missiles. The following short table makes for impressive reading: 1960: U.S. - 3 submarines and 48 missiles (3-48); Soviet Union - 0-0 (the first Soviet K-19 submarine with three missiles became operational in November 1960); 1967: U.S. - 41-656; Soviet Union - 2-32; 1970: U.S. - 41-656; Soviet Union - 20-316; 1975: U.S. - 41-656; Soviet Union - 55-724; 1981: U.S. - 40-648; Soviet Union - 62-950. A several-fold increase in strategic weapons makes no sense without corresponding improvements in cost and quality. Churning out submarines day and night, the shipyards were guided by one overarching principle: The plan must be fulfilled at all costs. But no effort was made to establish a proper infrastructure, develop basing facilities or build up repair capacities. The training system, moreover, was beneath any criticism. The overall result, combined with bad workmanship, was that despite their numerical superiority fewer Soviet submarines were on patrol duty than American ones. Most of their time was spent in repair docks. What is more, preparations for putting to sea were sometimes made with ridiculous negligence. The commander of one Navaga in the Northern Fleet, in order not to upset the patrol schedule, had to mount his own Ural motorcycle, hitch up a trolley and haul two torpedoes up to the ship from its allowance of ammunition capable of destroying half of Europe. To be fair, the fleet's logistics headquarters had allocated an ambulance vehicle, of all things, for the purpose, but it never showed up. The Soviet Union has never lived down its obsession with large-scale projects and big numbers in a drive to get ahead of the potential opponent. In response to the American Ohio-Trident sea-based weapons system, it developed the behemoth Akula (Typhoon)-class submarine, which displaced 33,000 metric tons and came equipped with 20 silos for the rather hefty, solid-fueled R-39 missile with a liftoff weight of 90 (metric) tons. But the American boat, with a much lower displacement of 18,700 tons, could carry 24 Trident missiles and had a more quiet acoustic profile and, as a result, better survivability. One hopes that in view of today's threats, which call for constant readiness and mobile forces, Russia will learn from the past when deploying its new naval strategic weapons.

From Air Force Times Air Force mum on nuclear bombs at Ramstein Inspection list indicates weapons were removed By Bryant Jordan - Staff writer Posted : Tuesday Jul 10, 2007 19:38:03 EDT Maybe they’re gone or maybe they’re not. Officials with U.S. Air Forces Europe simply will not say whether the Air Force removed from Ramstein Air Base, Germany, up to 90 nuclear bombs, as was reported July 9 by the Federation of American Scientists. “On issues associated with nuclear weapons, we follow the longstanding Air Force policy of neither confirming nor denying the presence or absence of nuclear weapons at any specific location,” Air Force Chief Master Sgt. Jesse W. Hall III said in an e-mail to Air Force Times. Hans Kristensen, director for FAS’ Nuclear Information Project, said the removal of the bombs was evidenced by Ramstein not showing up in the latest list of European nuclear weapons sites to be inspected. The list is published by USAFE, according to Kristensen, and in the past has been a valid indicator of weapons removal. “We could see [this] as the drawdown happened from the Cold War,” he said July 10. “We could see bases dropped off the list of those locations that had nuclear weapons inspections.” In 2003 the Air Force removed 20 nuclear bombs from Memmingen Air Base, Germany, when it closed. Two years earlier it removed 20 from a Greek air base after that country pulled out of NATO’s nuclear strike mission, according to Kristensen’s report. If the FAS report is correct, the number of American nuclear bombs currently stored in Europe is 350, down from 7,300 in 1971. Kristensen said the last inspection list came out in 2005 and that, as far as he knows, there is no policy on how often it is published. The new list is included in an unclassified instruction called Nuclear Surety Staff Assistance Visit and Functional Expert Visit Program Management, which USAFE published in January, he said. USAFE bases that still have nuclear arms are RAF Lakenheath, England; Incirlik Air Base, Turkey; and Aviano Air Base, Italy, the federation believes.

From Navy Times U.S. to keep just 2 carrier groups in Gulf By Zachary M. Peterson - Staff writer Posted : Tuesday Jul 10, 2007 17:42:00 EDT Despite a third aircraft carrier strike group steaming toward the Persian Gulf region, the Navy has no current plans to maintain three flattops in the volatile area, a Pentagon official said Tuesday. There are two carriers now in the U.S. Central Command area of operations: the John C. Stennis strike group in the Persian Gulf, and the Nimitz and its escorts in the North Arabian Sea, according to the Navy. The amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard and its expeditionary strike group is also in the region. The carrier Enterprise and its strike group left Naval Station Norfolk, Va., for the region on Saturday. But according to the Pentagon official, who requested anonymity when discussing ongoing operations, the Stennis is slated to return to its homeport in Bremerton, Wash., in late August. So even though it’s possible that the Enterprise could arrive before the Stennis leaves — making for a total of three carrier groups and a big-deck amphib in the area — that shouldn’t last long. The U.S. has no plans to maintain three carriers in the Persian Gulf, the official said. The Nimitz deployed to the region in April and could be replaced by the Harry S. Truman carrier strike group, which is slated to deploy this fall. The Defense Department official would not say where or when the Nimitz would go, but said the Navy likes to maintain “flexibility” with its carrier deployments. Wartime carrier deployments have typically been running from six to eight months. The decision to place a second carrier in the CentCom region was made in January.

From DefenseNews Posted 07/10/07 20:58 Brazil To Invest $500 Million in Nuclear-Powered Sub By REUTERS, BRASILIA Brazil will invest $500 million to revive a long-stalled navy project to build a nuclear-propelled submarine, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said July 10. “We are going to apply the necessary resources to conclude this project,” Lula said at a nuclear research facility in Sao Paulo state. The project requires 1 billion reais ($500 million) invested over eight years, he said. A nuclear-powered submarine could patrol the vast waters off Brazil’s coastline more effectively, Navy Commander Adm. Julio Soares de Moura has said. Brazil has five conventional submarines. The navy would use French or German technology for building large powerful submarines and develop a small Brazilian-made nuclear reactor to power the craft, Moura has said. Lula has publicly defended nuclear energy as a solution to power shortages that could hit Brazil as early as 2009. “Brazil can afford the luxury of becoming one of the few countries in the world to master the entire uranium enrichment cycle and, from there, I think we will be much more esteemed as a nation,” he said on Tuesday. Brazil developed technology for partially enriching uranium during a military dictatorship that ruled from 1964 to 1985. But a post-military civilian government agreed to abandon nuclear research in 1991. Brazil does not produce weapons-grade uranium and sends partially enriched uranium abroad for further processing to make nuclear fuel. With some of the world’s largest uranium reserves, Brazil could save money by fully enriching fuel-grade uranium at home. In June, the government’s energy council revived a plan to build the country’s third nuclear power reactor along the coast near Rio de Janeiro. The reactor, Angra III, has been on hold for two decades. The energy minister said at the time that building a third reactor would increase demand for nuclear fuel, making it more cost-effective to enrich uranium in Brazil.

From Army Times Wars costing $12B a month, analysts say By Andrew Taylor - The Associated Press Posted : Tuesday Jul 10, 2007 6:26:35 EDT The boost in troop levels in Iraq has increased the cost of war there and in Afghanistan to $12 billion a month, and the total for Iraq alone is nearing a half-trillion dollars, congressional analysts say. All told, Congress has appropriated $610 billion in war-related money since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, roughly the same as the war in Vietnam. Iraq alone has cost $450 billion. The figures come from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, which provides research and analysis to lawmakers. For the 2007 budget year, CRS says, the $166 billion appropriated to the Pentagon represents a 40 percent increase over 2006. The Vietnam War, after accounting for inflation, cost taxpayers $650 billion, according to separate CRS estimates. The $12 billion a month “burn rate” includes $10 billion for Iraq and almost $2 billion for Afghanistan, plus other minor costs. That’s higher than Pentagon estimates earlier this year of $10 billion a month for both operations. Two years ago, the average monthly cost was about $8 billion. Among the reasons for the higher costs is the cost of repairing and replacing equipment worn out in harsh conditions or destroyed in combat. But the estimates call into question the Pentagon’s estimate that the increase in troop strength and intensifying pace of operations in Baghdad and Anbar would cost only $5.6 billion through the end of September. If Congress approves President Bush’s pending request for another $147 billion for the budget year starting Oct. 1, the total bill for the wars since Sept. 11 would reach more than three-quarters of a trillion dollars, with appropriations for Iraq reaching $567 billion. Also, if the increase in war tempo continues beyond September, the Pentagon’s request “would presumably be inadequate,” CRS said. Congress approved $99 billion in war funding in May after a protracted battle and a Bush veto of an earlier measure over Democrats’ attempt to set a timeline for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq. The report faults the Pentagon for using the Iraq war as a pretext for boosting the Pentagon’s nonwar budget by costs such as increasing the size of the military and procurement of replacement aircraft as war-related items. The new estimate comes as the White House and Democrats are fighting over spending bills for next year. That battle is over about $22 billion — almost the cost of two months’ fighting in Iraq. “Think about what $10 billion a month would mean to protecting Americans from terrorism, improving security at our ports and airports, and increasing border security,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

From DefenseNews Posted 07/09/07 19:16 Satellite Images Show Work Near Iran Nuclear Site By REUTERS, WASHINGTON Commercial satellite imagery shows Iran is building a new tunnel facility inside a mountain near a key nuclear complex — a possible attempt to protect sensitive uranium enrichment activity from aerial attack, nuclear analysts said July 9. The pictures taken on June 11 were obtained from DigitalGlobe, a commercial satellite imagery firm, by the Institute for Science and International Science, whose president is David Albright, a physicist and former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq. “The construction activity is taking place in the closest mountainous area to the Natanz site, strongly suggesting that the site is affiliated with Natanz,” Albright and colleague Paul Brannen said in a written analysis. The Natanz complex in the central part of the country is Iran’s most ambitious and controversial nuclear facility, where Tehran is enriching uranium in defiance of U.N. Security Council demands and two sets of limited sanctions. Enrichment is key to producing fuel for both nuclear weapons, which major powers say is Iran’s goal, and nuclear energy, which Tehran insists is its objective. The researchers said the construction is new and was not evident in January images taken by DigitalGlobe. Tunnel entrances are not visible in the satellite photos, but two roads under construction can clearly be seen going up the mountain, with one appearing to lead into a tunnel facility, the analysis said. The researchers noted that Iran had earlier built a tunnel complex near the Esfahan uranium conversion facility to protect a range of nuclear-related equipment and materials and natural uranium hexaflouride. “Iran may be constructing a similar facility near Natanz, fearing that the underground halls at Natanz are vulnerable to destruction by military attack,” they said. “A tunnel facility inside a mountain would offer excellent protection from an aerial attack,” they added. Although this is the most likely scenario, they said themountain site could be for the direct defense of Natanz, possibly with anti-aircraft batteries or other weapons. U.S. officials insist they remain committed to a diplomatic solution to the nuclear dispute with Iran, but President Bush has repeatedly made clear that all options, including a military response, are open. Other nuclear experts played down the construction. “It is something that the IAEA wants to clarify, but it does not mean it is related to the nuclear issue just because it is close to Natanz,” said a diplomat close to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. Asked if the apparent tunnel-building would be on the agenda during an IAEA visit to Iran later this week, the diplomat said: “It is not the main objective, but it is something that might come up.” A senior U.N. official familiar with IAEA operations in Iran said: “The excavations have been there for a while.” Another U.N. official said, “It’s not a big issue.” State Department spokesman Sean McCormack refused to comment on the tunnel report, saying he would not discuss intelligence matters.

I envision B-17 and B-24 bombers with nose art depicting the "Holy Cow" in various states of undress. Wait a minute, maybe I should see a shrink about that ...

Blogs that have actually collected, assembled and organized useful information on a topic of interest, are of value to me. Those that simply spout personal opinions ... not so much.

I can't think of a single authoritative text, but I have found that there are many reputable books that speak to specific Soviet aircraft and weapon systems in the Cold War era, many of them in the Red Star series from Specialty Press. Find a book about a platform that performed close air support (i.e. Su-25 Frogfoot), deep strike (i.e. Su-24 Fencer), or air-to-air combat (i.e. MiG-29 Fulcrum), and you'll likely find lots of info about tactics and strategy. Website here: http://www.specialtypress.com/vstore/showp...bjectGroup_ID=8

Dispersed basing. http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text...sed_basing.html

A great source for imagery, geolocation and some analysis of a number of airfields important to Russian strategic aviation. http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/07/russia...on-imagery.html

From Navy Times Enterprise departs for deployment to Mideast Group just returned in November By Andrew Scutro - Staff writer Posted : Saturday Jul 7, 2007 17:14:21 EDT NORFOLK, Va. — As the towering aircraft carrier Enterprise slowly pulled away from the pier for at least a six-month deployment to the Middle East, Lori Kaiser, 18, was not happy about her high school sweetheart going away for so long. Somewhere on board was her boyfriend, Machinist’s Mate 3rd Class Dexter Ledbetter, but the ship is huge, and when it leaves the pier, she can only see a handful of sailors manning the rails. “I don’t know what to think,” she said. “He kind of got me prepared as much as he can. He said he’d call every once in a while. As often as he can. But it gets expensive.” This morning, Enterprise left Norfolk for a regular deployment after coming home from its last cruise in November. Over the next few days, it will be joined by its air wing and other ships of the strike group. Meanwhile, Kaiser, a hairstylist, will try to keep herself busy with a second job, probably as a waitress. “I am pretty upset,” she said without showing it. Or course, Kaiser was not the only one saying goodbye. Many loved ones could be seen crying, others waving, as the ship left. When the strike group finally forms up in the Atlantic before crossing to the Mediterranean and beyond, it will consist of more than 8,000 sailors aboard eight ships: Enterprise, cruiser Gettysburg, destroyers Arleigh Burke, Stout, James E. Williams and Forrest Sherman, attack submarine Philadelphia and the combat support ship Supply. Rear Adm. Dan Holloway, commander of Carrier Strike Group 12, told reporters on the pier before Enterprise departed that the strike group’s purpose will be to provide options for national leadership while conducting maritime security operations. The carrier John C. Stennis and the amphibious assault ship BonHomme Richard are now in the Persian Gulf, and the carrier Nimitz is in the Indian Ocean, according to the Navy. Although it seems like Enterprise just returned from deployment, “Enterprise was the right ship for this time,” Holloway said. For Kaiser, this was her first farewell from the pier. But Jessica Mattison has been through it before with her husband, Aviation Ordnanceman Airman Matthew Mattison. She will “stay busy and get a job,” to make the time speed by; but six months apart still takes getting used to. “It’s still new every time,” she said.

Was he crying uncontrollably ?

From DefenseNews Posted 07/05/07 21:39 China’s New Missile Submarine Seen By Satellite By REUTERS China’s newest ballistic missile submarine, the Jin-class vessel, has been spotted for the first time by a commercial satellite, a nuclear expert at the Federation of American Scientists said July 5. The submarine was photographed in late 2006 south of the northeastern Chinese city of Dalian, said Hans Kristensen, director of the FAS’s Nuclear Information Project. It appeared to be based on Russia’s Victor-3 model and, although photographs are unclear, resembles China’s early-1980s Xia-class submarines, said Kristensen, who spotted the long-anticipated vessel. The 436-foot Jin-class submarine probably will carry Julang-2 sea-launched ballistic missiles in its estimated 12 launch tubes. It was spotted moored at Xiaopingdao Submarine Base, which it has used for testing in the past, he said. “Chinese nuclear submarines are normally not based there. They’re located to the south, near Qingdao,” Kristensen said by telephone. In a defense strategy paper published July 5, Australia echoed previous documents by the U.S. and Japan in voicing concern about a rapid Chinese military expansion and lack of transparency about strategy and policy. The U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence estimated in December that China might build five Jin-class submarines, but that estimate was not included in the Pentagon’s annual report on China’s military power, published in May, Kristensen noted. “The Chinese naval nuclear programs so far have been very, very slow,” he said. “They’ve managed to get this submarine out, but it’s been under construction for many years.” Images of the submarine are published and analyzed on the FAS Web site and visible on Google Earth. Normally secretive China likely sees a deterrent effect in allowing the submarine to be seen from the sky by outsiders, Kristensen said. “The fact that they have it and the fact that it moves around, I’m sure they want the world to know about it,” he said.