CV32

From Defence Talk Iran Threatens Longer Stride For Nuclear Drive Agence France-Presse | Jun 22, 2007 Washington: Iran warned Thursday it would take a "longer stride" in its hotly contested nuclear program if it is slapped with a third set of United Nations sanctions. The comment in a Newsweek interview by Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, came as Larijani prepared to discuss the row with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana in Portugal this weekend. Iran has been hit with two sets of UN Security Council sanctions and faces a third for its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment work, the process which makes nuclear fuel and the fissile core of an atom bomb. "What would be the benefit? Have the past two resolutions impeded our activities?" Larijani was quoted as saying, a day ahead of another set of talks with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei. "They can pass another resolution, and we would make another, longer stride. Therefore they cannot solve the Iranian nuclear program," he said, defying pressure led at the UN by the United States and EU powers. Larijani refused to elaborate on the potential new stride, but said it would not necessarily mean accelerating the uranium-enrichment program. "We don't see a need for a higher degree of enrichment. Because our basic theory is to (create civilian nuclear) fuel. And we don't need higher (weapons) grades of enrichment," he told the magazine. Larijani said that his talks with Solana in Lisbon Saturday would address "meticulous expert-level work done on the ideas so far being introduced," involving increased surveillance of Iranian nuclear facilities by the IAEA. "What is important here is that Iran's logic dictates that we do accept the supervision of the agency," he said. Previous talks between Solana and the Iranian official have foundered on the Islamic republic's refusal to consider either a moratorium or a suspension of its uranium enrichment, and the crisis has only escalated. Larijani welcomed recent remarks by ElBaradei that since Iran has already obtained the knowledge of how to enrich the nuclear fuel, it should be allowed to keep some enrichment capability in any deal. The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) gives non-nuclear powers the right to enrich, the Iranian official said, "and we believe that nobody should deviate toward a bomb." Larijani accused the United States and Britain of flouting the NPT by developing "new generations of nuclear weapons" and noted that non-signatories such as India and Pakistan had built their atomic bombs. But he added that Iran was committed to cooperating with the IAEA and said: "We would like to work within the framework of the NPT."

From Air Force Times Last F-16A retires from service Staff report Posted : Wednesday Jun 20, 2007 16:02:25 EDT The last operational U.S. F-16A Fighting Falcon completed its final mission June 15 when it flew from Tucson Air National Guard Base, Ariz., and touched down at the so-called bone yard — the Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, Ariz. The plane belonged to the 162nd Fighter Wing at Tucson, which has converted to the C and D models. “We constantly transition to newer, more advanced aircraft because that’s what pilots will fly when they graduate from our program,” said wing commander Brig. Gen. Rick Moisio. But the F-16A is not gone from the real world stage at all. Air forces in 24 countries around the world fly the Falcon, including the A models.

Another pic of the planned Canberra class LHD ...

Russia is denying this sale, and I expect it will end up much like the rumoured Syrian Su-27 Flanker sale of a few years back, all fluff and no fact.

Pics of the big winners (or at least a reasonable facsimile of what they might look like):

Decked out with an 7.62mm MG, I like.

Here's one from the USS Cole:

Thanks for the update, Jan. The Aussies must like those Spanish designs, as they've gone with Navantia for the Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) as well.

In that case ... From Scott Gainer's "A Guide to Naval Tactics": "Convergence zones (CZ) are another aspect of the bending of sound in water and are chiefly based on the changes in sound speed with increases in depth. Sound typically undergoes a significant decrease in sound velocity when it first enters the water then increases in velocity with increasing depth due to changes in density related to compressibility. Once the speed has increased to match the velocity at the source, called critical depth, the sound travels pretty much horizontally. Past critical depth into the realm where the original velocity has been exceeded the sound bends upward creating parabollically arcing paths through the water. When it strikes the surface, in an area called the annulus, it is reflected downwards again and repeats the process until attenuated or obstructed. Unlike the more usual portrayal in games CZ don’t form concentric cylinders of ensonified water but rather a series or curved three dimensional volumes so that a submarine that is at CZ range could potentially be below the CZ path and thus remain unseen. This also applies to areas between the annuli where shadows will develop. CZ require a minimum depth of 400m to form, at which depth they have about a 50% chance of developing, and increase in probability with depth. 600m yields an 80% probability of CZ production with near certainty of CZ in deeper waters. Topographic features including seamounts, islands and mid-oceanic ridges disrupt CZ paths as do currents with significant changes in water temperature, such as the Gulf Stream. Convergence zones (in this case we are using the terms convergence zone and annulus interchangeably) typically develop at thirty mile intervals with the width of the annulus increasing with distance. The first CZ at 30nm typically has a surface annulus 3-5 nm wide, the second, at 60nm, 6nm wide, and the third, at 90nm, has a width of 9nm. Fourth and Fifth CZ are possible but not common. CZ ranges in the Mediterranean are reduced due to layers of warm water near the bottom. Contrary to what players of computer Harpoon (prior to H4, anyway) have experienced, active sonars, as well as passive sonars, may make use of CZ. This is especially true of the high powered, low frequency, sonars found on such platforms as the Spruance and Udaloy class destroyers. Keep in mind though, that an outbound sound pulse in a CZ may be heard much farther away than the reflected energy will be detected by the emitting platform, the opposition may spot you before you detect him. This last tendency of active emitters to be detectable beyond their detection range is a function of the inverse square law where energy decreases as a function of the inverse of the square of the distance (E=1/D2). If you have a calculator handy try replacing D with 1, 2 and 3 and see what the energy at each distance is then consider that the sensor has to detect sound that has gone out and then come back resulting in an E of something like 1/36. This is basically the principle that car radar detectors and passive EW (see below) rely upon."

Don't feel bad, I couldn't even figure out that your initial post on this thread was actually a question.

From Air Force Times Triple ace who fought in two wars dies The Shreveport (La.) Times Posted : Tuesday Jun 19, 2007 4:41:10 EDT Robin Olds, one of the legends of the Air Force, died of congestive heart failure Thursday at the age of 84. A retired brigadier general, he died at his home in Steamboat Springs, Colo., according to a release from the Air Force. Olds achieved almost legendary status in the Vietnam War, developing a flamboyant leadership style, with a full, handlebar mustache and a panache that was an inspiration to younger pilots. Though a wing commander, he led by example, taking combat to the enemy. His F-4C Phantom fighter “Scat XXVII” — all his airplanes’ names started with the word “Scat” — is in the National Museum of Air Force at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Olds was rated a “triple ace” for having shot down a confirmed total of 16 enemy aircraft during World War II and the Vietnam War, with another 11 aircraft destroyed on the ground. His assignments ranged from England, Germany and Libya to Thailand and the United States, and his positions in command or senior staff went from squadron, base, group and wing commander to assignments to Air Force headquarters and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “Triple-ace Robin Olds’ legendary leadership and heroic service to the cause of freedom have been an inspiration to our nation and our Air Force,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley. “He is one of our ‘great captains’ and a pioneer of air power. “He became an ace with 12 aerial victories during World War II, flying P-38 Lightnings and P-51 Mustangs, and later shot down four MiGs in Vietnam to bring his total to 16. He also led the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing — the famed “Wolfpack” — to a record 24 aerial victories, a total unsurpassed by any other wing during the war in Southeast Asia,” Moseley said. “Throughout his career, he was a staunch advocate for better fighters, better pilot training and new tactics, culminating in the war-winning air-to-air tactics and doctrine of surgical precision bombing we use today,” Moseley said. Olds was born in Honolulu on July 14, 1922, the son of Maj. Gen. Robert and Eloise Olds. He spent his younger years in Hampton, Va., and attended the Military Academy at West Point, where he was an All-American tackle. He graduated in 1943 as a second lieutenant. Following graduation from pilot training in 1943, Olds was assigned to the European Theater at the end of World War II, where he flew 107 combat missions. During the Vietnam War, he flew 152 combat missions in the F-4 Phantom as the wing commander of the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing at Ubon Air Base, Thailand. Olds’ exploits as the creator and mission commander of Operation Bolo, the most successful aerial battle of the Vietnam War, have been documented in the recent History Channel Dogfights Special series “Air Ambush.” Non-combat honors include assignment in 1946 to the first jet P-80 squadron, membership in the first jet Aerial Acrobatic Demonstration Team, second-place showing in the Thompson Trophy Race jet division in 1946 and participation in the first dawn-to-dusk transcontinental round trip flight. He was a squadron commander of the British Royal Air Force’s 1 Squadron, a fighter unit based in Sussex, U.K., during a 1948 exchange tour. Olds’ military decorations begin with the Air Force Cross. He also was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star with three oak leaf clusters, Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross with five oak leaf clusters, Air Medal with 39 oak leaf clusters, British Distinguished Flying Cross, French Croix de Guerre, Vietnam Air Force Distinguished Service Order, Vietnam Air Gallantry Medal with gold wings and the Vietnam Air Service Medal. After his duty in Vietnam, Olds was commandant of cadets at the Air Force Academy from 1967 to 1971. His last assignment before retiring from the Air Force in 1973 was as director of safety for the Air Force. He was married to Ella Raines, who died in 1988, and then to Morgan Olds. Olds is survived by two daughters, Christina Olds of Vail, Colo., and Susan Scott-Risner of North Bend, Wash.; one granddaughter, Jennifer Newman of Santa Monica, Calif., and half-brother, Fred Olds of Virginia. A memorial service will be held at the Air Force Academy on July 7. The service and his family ask that memorials be made to the Red River Valley Fighter Pilots Association toward scholarships for the children or spouses of armed forces aircrew members killed or missing in action.

Oh, for sure, far be it from me to hold you back on whipping a comprehensive and all encompassing scenario. In fact, there are a whole host of other possible platforms if thats the route you'd like to take.

From Marine Corps Times Navy: Super Hornet rep for problems untrue Corps may be responsible for bad rap By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer Posted : Sunday Jun 17, 2007 9:09:10 EDT NAVAL AIR STATION PATUXENT RIVER, Md. — Inside Naval Air Systems Command headquarters at this southern Maryland base, Navy program officials for the F/A-18 Super Hornet strike fighter program have heard the stories circulating in the Pentagon. Their aircraft, the stories go, can’t carry certain weapons, can’t fly high enough, can’t go fast enough. Design problems such as wing flutter plague the plane and — perhaps worst of all — parts that will wear out fast enough to severely shorten the plane’s life-span are not being replaced. There’s just one problem with the stories, say the Navy officials: None of them is true. “We’re really scratching our heads, thinking, ‘What’s going on?’ ” Super Hornet program manager Navy Capt. Don Gaddis said. So who’s spreading these stories about the Super Hornet? The answer, which surprised some program officials: the Marine Corps — which isn’t even part of the Super Hornet program. The Corps plans to replace its aging Hornets and AV-8B Harrier jump jets with the F-35B short-takeoff-or-vertical-landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter. So why do the Marines even care about the Super Hornet? “The Marines seem to be trying to discredit the Super Hornet as a way of heading off efforts to cut their purchase of the STOVL JSF,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute think tank in Washington. “If JSF is delayed,” said naval analyst Norman Polmar, “the Marines will be forced to buy Super Hornet, which will leave them with nothing to operate off amphibious ships.” The STOVL JSF for the Marines isn’t set to enter service until 2012 at the earliest. The Corps, unlike the Navy, is strongly committed to the new strike fighter and is eagerly anticipating an all-STOVL aviation strike force. But the JSF program has suffered several delays, and in contrast to the Marines, neither the Pentagon — the Navy and Air Force also will fly the plane — nor Congress seem to have a sense of urgency about keeping the program on schedule and getting the aircraft into service. The Marines are afraid that if their plane is struck by further delays, they won’t be able to buy new JSFs fast enough to replace their aging strike aircraft, and they might need something else to bridge the gap between new planes and old. Into that gap, the Marines fear, could fly the Super Hornet. And for each new F/A-18 the Marines get, that’s likely one less STOVL JSF. “We’ve had this vision for a long time to be an all-STOVL force,” said Marine Brig. Gen. Robert Walsh, deputy assistant commandant for aviation. “We’re a swing force, where we can go expeditionary, land on a big runway at a major operating base,” Walsh said June 7 in his Pentagon office. “We can go smaller runway, [conduct] dispersed, distributed operations. We can go on amphibious shipping, we can go on large aircraft carrier decks. We can pretty much go everywhere with the flexibility the JSF STOVL brings.” The aircraft the Marines are most worried about replacing sooner rather than later are the Harriers and the two-seat F/A-18D Hornets, Walsh said. “Our F/A-18A+ and F/A-18C Hornets aren’t in that bad shape,” he said. “But we’re watching them very closely because we’ve got hour and fatigue limits on those aircraft.” The high operations tempo for all aircraft in recent years “has caused some stress between us and the Navy,” Walsh said. “There’s pressure there in how you reduce the strike fighter shortfall.” F/A-18 Super Hornets already are flying with the Navy — the single-seat F/A-18E replaced older Hornet aircraft and the two-seat F/A-18F replaced the fleet’s F-14 Tomcats. A new two-seat EA-18G electronics countermeasure version of the aircraft is due to begin operational evaluation next year. Three versions of the F-35 JSF are being developed — F-35A for the Air Force, F-35B STOVL for the Marines and the British Royal Navy, and the F-35C carrier version for the Navy. But the $276 billion program — the largest single program in the defense budget — also is a fat target for budget cutters, and worries persist that the program will continue to suffer delays. Hence, the Marines are worried about being sucked into the Super Hornet program, to the detriment of their JSFs. Problems spark ‘déjà vu’ Several unofficial briefings and papers listing alleged defects in Super Hornets have circulated for at least a year inside the Pentagon. Some have been leaked to the media, including Military Times. The Marines officially disavow the materials. “Unofficial, unendorsed and old briefs are nothing more than opinions which may have been used to make decisions on which direction Marine aviation was headed long ago. They do not represent the one position that matters: the Marine Corps’ official position, which is: The F-35B represents the centerpiece of Marine Corps’ aviation, and this is supported by the program of record,” said Maj. Eric Dent, a Marine spokesman. Still, the allegations continue to make the rounds. A recent story in the Boston Globe about one of the alleged problems sent program officials hurrying to Capitol Hill to reassure Congress there were no serious issues with the aircraft. “This is déjà vu,” Gaddis said from NavAir. “Some of those things they’re digging up are literally 12 to 15 years old.” Gaddis and his team actually have a game plan for each time the issues reappear. “Every so often, about every two or three years, these questions come up. We can answer pretty much anything you want answered,” he said. Widespread enthusiasm for the Super Hornet throughout the naval aviation community belies the alleged problems with the aircraft. The Boeing-built twin-engine jet, a development of the original McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet, deployed in 2002. Originally intended as a stopgap measure between the demise of the old A-6 Intruder and failed A-12 replacement and the JSF, the Super Hornet has legions of admirers despite some shortcomings. With the APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar installed in new aircraft, the Navy is even more enthusiastic. “By any measure — reliability, availability, flexibility, bombs dropped, accuracy — we exceeded the F/A-18Cs in expectations across the board,” said Capt. Jeffrey Penfield, head of air-to-air missile systems for NAVAIR. Penfield, who commanded Strike Fighter Squadron 115 during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and wrote the operational evaluation for the Super Hornet, is adamant in his support for the aircraft. “It went beyond expectation,” he declared. “It knocked the ball out of the park.” Debunking the claims Gaddis, Penfield and the Super Hornet team at NavAir addressed numerous alleged issues with the aircraft. * Claim: There is still “manageable wing flutter” with the aircraft and the “wing drop” problem persists. Rebuttal: “We do not have a flutter problem with this airplane and have never had a flutter problem,” declared Gaddis. “The only thing we can think of is they are getting it confused with the old wing drop problem. That was solved.” NAVAIR engineers noted that wing drop and wing flutter are different phenomena. Flutter, explained engineer Mike Masse, “is a self-excited oscillation” — basically, vibrations that cause aircraft instability. “There are no stability problems or restrictions on F/A-18 E/F,” he said. The well-publicized wing drop problem discovered during flight tests in 1997 was entirely different, Super Hornet chief engineer Ed Hovanesian said. “It’s a momentary loss [of lift] on one wing,” he said, causing a quick roll-off in a specific portion of the flight envelope. Although a slight vibration — dubbed “residual lateral activity” — remains, a series of fixes essentially solved the problem by 1999, he said. Now, “as you pull the airplane, you get a little bit of lateral oscillation that is only there from 7.8 to 8.1 degrees [angle of attack],” he said. “You can pull a little bit harder and it’s gone. You can pull a little bit less and it’s gone.” Many pilots notice no effect at all, he said. “The most important thing about it,” Hovanesian added, “is it did not cause any task abandonment at all.” * Claim: The wing drop led to the weapons pylons being canted outboard six degrees, causing increased wear on weapons and severely cutting their ability to acquire a target before launch. Rebuttal: Canting the pylons is “totally different,” Gaddis said. “It’s not related [to wing drop] in any form.” “That’s been a myth for about 12 to 14 years,” he said. “We never flew the aircraft with straight pylons,” Hovanesian said. Rather, they pointed out, the cant was developed to ensure proper weapons separation as bombs and missiles are launched from the aircraft. Super Hornets have three weapons stations under each wing, compared with two on the older Hornets, and a four-degree outboard cant was developed to increase the distance between weapons. One by one, the team debunked the other allegations. Missiles are not showing excessive wear due to the cant, they said. There are no unusual weight, speed or altitude limitations with a combat-loaded aircraft. “The [F/A-18C] with a full load has the same limitations” in altitude and speed, Penfield said, while the Super Hornet has no problems carrying its top-rated full load of 66,000 pounds. “The airplane launches at 66,000 all the time,” he said. A claim that weight restriction problems extend to the new EA-18G Growler also was brushed aside. Test aircraft have flown with five ALQ-99 electronic warfare pods weighing about 1,000 pounds each, Gaddis said. There are no restrictions for carrying certain weapons, the team said, other than weapons that have not yet gone through a certification process. Another claim says the aircraft cannot go supersonic while carrying a full weapons load. True enough, Penfield said — the aircraft “wasn’t designed for that.” Critics also claim delivery of weapons pylons is two years behind schedule and not enough pylons are available, limiting training for the Super Hornets. “The idea about being two years late on pylon delivery is just not true,” Gaddis said. Early aircraft were delivered with no pylons due to a previous $440 million budget cut, he said, but the issue was resolved a few years ago with more funding. “We were in catch-up mode,” he said, until supply caught up with demand “about two years ago.” Gaddis and Hovanesian scoffed at claims that not enough pylons are available for training. “Why carry six bombs when you can just carry one for training?” Hovanesian said. “It’s just cost.” The Boston Globe article reported that failure of some parts could cause the aircraft’s planned 6,000-flight-hour life to be limited to 3,000 hours. “That was probably one of the most egregious statements” in the article, he said. The problem referred to in the article would have shortened the planes’ lives, but it has been solved, Gaddis said. “We found it early on” and a redesigned part already is being installed on new aircraft, he said, with a retrofit planned for earlier aircraft long before they reach any flight-hour limitations. Back in Washington, no one knows whether the Marines will be forced to buy Super Hornets. Rear Adm. Bruce Clingan, director of the Navy’s Air Warfare Division in the Pentagon, said June 4 there are no plans to integrate the aircraft into Marine Corps aviation. Walsh noted that even if the Marines’ F/A-18Cs and A+ models wear out before they can be replaced with F-35Bs, Navy F/A-18Cs replaced by Super Hornets could be used by the Marines until more STOVLs are available. “We can’t have a big huge beast,” Walsh said about the need for STOVL JSF. “We need a small footprint.”

From Defence Talk Britain feared US would 'nuke' Afghanistan: ex-diplomat Agence France-Presse | Jun 18, 2007 Britain joined the United States' invasion to oust the Taliban in 2001 because it feared America would "nuke the shit" out of Afghanistan, the former British ambassador to Washington reportedly told a television documentary to be screened Saturday. In comments printed in advance in the Daily Mirror tabloid on Monday, Christopher Meyer said that fear explained why Prime Minister Tony Blair chose to stand with US President George W. Bush in his decision to invade Afghanistan in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks -- to temper his aggressive battle plans. "Blair's real concern was that there would be quote unquote 'a knee-jerk reaction' by the Americans ... they would go thundering off and nuke the shit out of the place without thinking straight," Meyer reported told the documentary, according to the Mirror. In other excerpts of the documentary, printed in The Observer newspaper on Sunday, members of Blair's inner circle said the prime minister agreed to commit troops to the March 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq despite believing that the United States had failed to prepare adequately for post-war reconstruction. Channel 4 will air the first part of "The Rise and Fall of Tony Blair" on Saturday.

Well, truth be told, none of these are necessarily required for a submarine scenario, least of all the Mi-26 heavy lift helicopter.

The Venezuelan aircraft are the Mi-35M2 (to be known as Caribe), Mi-17V-5 (the Panare) and the Mi-26T2 (the Pemon).

Hiya Jan. Good to see you around.

The Su-30MK2V Flanker is just a slightly modified derivative of the Su-30MK2, with an upgraded communications suite and improved ejection seats. You can find more about the Su-30MK2 here. I am not familiar with an Mi-17B version of the Mi-17 Hip helicopter. I think this is probably actually Mi-17MTV-5, with stub wings (four hardpoints on each, typically for rocket pods) and up to 26 passengers. The Mi-35 is the export designation for the Mi-24V Hind E helicopter. The Mi-26 Halo is a heavy transport helicopter.

To take this scenario a little further along ... From the recent RIA Novosti news posted here: "The South American country [Venezuela] has been vigorously pursuing modernization of its naval fleet to counter a possible U.S. blockade of its oil fields and prepare for direct military confrontation with Washington .... He said the negotiations were focused on the procurement of the new Amur-class diesel submarines and Project 636 low-noise submarines with Club-S integrated missile systems. Meanwhile, Russia's popular Kommersant daily reported Thursday that Venezuela had approached Russia with a request to build nine diesel submarines, five of the Project 636 and four of the project 677 Amur." I am thinking of an American blockade scenario in which one or more US Navy surface ships (perhaps Burke and/or Perry) seek to oppose transit of one or more Venezuelan oil tankers before they reach a certain geographic line. The politically unacceptable potential of disaster from oil spill would necessitate actually boarding and taking over the tanker(s) rather than crippling or destroying them. The Americans could be prevented from conducting an airborne (helo) assault by the threat of MANPADS aboard the tanker(s) or a continuing air battle in the area. So, the US Navy would have to approach closely enough to either employ small boats with raiding parties aboard, and/or use carefully aimed gunfire. With the possibility of one or more Venezuelan Amur or Project 636 Kilo submarine(s) operating in close proximity to the tanker(s), the scenario arises ... The island of Isla de Margarita and the refineries around Puerto La Cruz in the northeast (as shown below) could potentially set the scene ...

Hmm, back to the 1980s era AGM-109 MRASM, huh ? I don't know if adapting Tomahawk for air launch use would be viable, given for example that Tomahawk (even without the booster) is considerably heavier and longer than the JASSM. It might eliminate potential employment by aircraft like the F-16, which JASSM was aiming at. The Navy's AGM-109L MRASM concept was much closer in dimensions, but that's distant history and would require a significant change to the current Tomahawk airframe, I would think. And what about the SLAM-ER possibility ?

From RIA Novosti Venezuela mulls purchase of Russian submarines - source 13:14 | 14/ 06/ 2007 MOSCOW, June 14 (RIA Novosti) - Venezuela is close to striking a deal with Russia on the procurement of several diesel submarines for its Navy, a source in the Russian shipbuilding industry said Thursday. The South American country has been vigorously pursuing modernization of its naval fleet to counter a possible U.S. blockade of its oil fields and prepare for direct military confrontation with Washington. "At present, military experts from Venezuela are conducting active consultations with Russian colleagues on the purchase of a large number of submarines," the source said, adding that the number and type of submarines and their delivery schedule had not yet been determined. He said the negotiations were focused on the procurement of the new Amur-class diesel submarines and Project 636 low-noise submarines with Club-S integrated missile systems. Meanwhile, Russia's popular Kommersant daily reported Thursday that Venezuela had approached Russia with a request to build nine diesel submarines, five of the Project 636 and four of the project 677 Amur. The value of the contracts, depending on the final size of the order, is estimated at $1-2 billion, the paper cited its own sources in the defense industry. The Project 636 design is a generally improved development of the Project 877EKM Kilo class that represents an interim design between the standard Kilo-class and the new Lada project. The submarine has improved range, firepower, acoustic characteristics and reliability, and it is actively promoted on the world markets by the Russian state-run arms exporter, Rosoboronexport. Russia has repeatedly stated that it would actively participate in the modernization of the Venezuelan armed forces until 2013. In 2005-2006, Venezuela ordered weaponry from Russia worth $3.4 billion, including 24 Su-30MK2V Flanker fighters, Tor-M1 air defense missile systems, Mi-17B multi-role helicopters, Mi-35 Hind E attack helicopters and Mi-26 Halo heavy transport helicopters. The country also purchased 100,000 AK-103 Kalashnikov assault rifles from Russia in 2005. With the addition of arms contracts signed in 2006-beginning 2007, Venezuela has become the world's second largest importer of Russian weaponry after Algeria, which signed arms deals with Russia worth $7.5 billion. Kommersant said that the submarine deal could be finalized during the visit by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to Russia on June 29, prior to President Vladimir Putin's visit to the United States. The submarine contract, if concluded, could become an additional irritant in the already testy relations between Moscow and Washington, the paper said. [Now that would make for an interesting H4 scenario, Pete].

From Flight International DATE:14/06/07 SOURCE:Flightglobal.com Team of C-27J Spartan wins JCA contest By Craig Hoyle Alenia Aeronautica's C-27J Spartan tactical transport programme received a massive boost yesterday, with the type's selection to meet a combined US Air Force and US Army requirement for a new fleet of Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA). Led by L-3 Integrated Systems and also comprising Alenia North America and Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, the C-27J team was announced as the winner of a deal to supply an initial 78 aircraft worth $2 billion under the JCA programme. The JCA programme currently envisages the production of 70 aircraft for the USAF and 75 for the army, although Alenia Aeronautica parent company Finmeccanica believes the order could rise to 207 aircraft worth an estimated $6 billion. L-3 Integrated Systems president Bob Drewes has attributed the success to the team's "best value" offer, which saw the C-27J defeat the EADS Casa C-295 offered by EADS North America and Raytheon. Alenia Aeronautica has previously received firm orders to supply 32 C-27Js to Bulgaria, Greece, Italy and Lithuania. C-27J Spartans can be configured for any mission: troops, medical evacuations, airdrop or cargo.

From Navy Times Michigan returns to duty Conversion breathes new life into old sub By Melanthia Mitchell - The Associated Press Posted : Wednesday Jun 13, 2007 7:20:26 EDT SEATTLE — The USS Michigan was welcomed back to duty Tuesday during a ceremony at Naval Base Kitsap that celebrated its conversion to a guided-missile submarine. The afternoon fanfare marked the end of a $1 billion, nearly three-year modification process at neighboring Puget Sound Naval Shipyard on the Kitsap Peninsula west of Seattle. The Bangor-based Michigan was transformed from a Trident missile sub, equipped to carry nuclear missiles, to one capable of using conventional Tomahawk cruise missiles and supporting special operations forces. “This transformation ... will bring incredible payload, incredible volume in terms of conventional strike capabilities with its Tomahawk cruise missiles and ability to insert and extract special operations forces,” said Navy Capt. Kerry Ingalls, commander of Submarine Squadron 19, which includes the Michigan. The Michigan was commissioned in 1982, and the conversion breathes new life into the aging sub. The guided-missile submarine “brings with her the opportunity to experiment with new payloads ... so that we can continue to transform, continue to improve on the concept as we see the need down the road,” Ingalls said. Tuesday’s ceremony included remarks by Rear Adm. Frank M. Drennan, commander of Submarine Group Trident and responsible for administrative command and control of all U.S. ballistic and guided missile submarines. The Michigan and its 154-member crew — it will eventually have two crews operating on rotating schedules — now begin certification and testing that can last more than a year before it will be available for deployment, said Lt. Kyle Raines, a Navy spokesman. It’s the third of the Navy’s four ballistic missile submarines to be converted. The Ohio, also home-ported at Bangor, and the Florida at King’s Bay Naval Submarine Base, Ga., are currently in the testing phase of their transition. Meanwhile, the Georgia is scheduled to complete its retooling at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Va., later this year. The four submarines are the Navy’s oldest of the Ohio-class and had been scheduled for inactivation in 2003 and 2004. However, the Navy opted for a $4 billion upgrade that changed their mission from a Cold War nuclear deterrent to a stealth weapon better capable of more conventional warfare. The Michigan’s makeover began in March 2004. It will be able to carry as many as 154 Tomahawk missiles, more than double the number of cruise missiles carried by standard Navy attack submarines. It also can carry and support as many as 66 special operations forces for up to 90 days. The 560-foot-long submarine has a built-in war room, extra bunks and two of its 40-foot, Trident missile-firing tubes were converted to airlocks so Navy SEALs in scuba gear can exit the sub underwater.

From Navy Times Admiral confident of LCS despite setbacks By Andrew Scutro - Staff writer Posted : Wednesday Jun 13, 2007 15:34:01 EDT Despite major cost problems with the program and some skepticism about the design concepts, Adm. Gary Roughead remains convinced that Littoral Combat Ships are the ships the Navy needs. “I’ve always believed in the LCS, believed in the need for LCS,” he said. “And that’s just reaffirmed to me that that is going to be a ship of the future for the U.S. Navy.” Roughead, the new leader of Fleet Forces Command in Norfolk, Va., toured the ships on a recent cross-country trip that also took him to San Diego for the homecoming of the amphibious assault ship Boxer. The LCS program has two different designs for fast ships, crewed by only 40 sailors, meant to operate in shallow water close to shore. Both ships have a large open bay for interchangeable combat modules and mission crews. But Navy hopes for a fleet of 55 Littoral Combat Ships have been hampered by cost increases from $220 million to $400 million in the first ship — not including the warfare modules — and the cancellation of the another LCS due to price hikes. Likewise, the first LCS, built by Lockheed Martin, has been delayed. Navy Secretary Donald Winter told reporters during a visit to the Hampton Roads area on June 6 that the Navy will be looking hard at the way it buys ships, partly because of the LCS snags. “We have some pressurization on the shipbuilding budget. That’s evidenced, if you will, in challenges we’ve seen on programs like the Littoral Combat Ship,” he said. “We’re engaged in a very significant reassessment of how we acquire our ships.” Roughead is taking a look at LCS, too, not as a program, but to ensure that Fleet Forces Command is prepared to man, train for and equip the new ships. “Our responsibility here is the introduction of that ship and to make sure we doing the things here at Fleet Forces Command and in the surface force that introduces those ships to the Navy in the best way we possibly can,” he said in a recent interview. Early in Roughead’s career, he served on Asheville-class gunboats — small, aluminum craft designed for coastal combat. In a precursor to the LCS, his small crew was made up of “hybrid sailors,” who filled several job descriptions aboard ship. “Because of the size of the crew, we didn’t have the luxury of, ‘I’m an electrician. I do electrician stuff.’ Or ‘I’m an engineman. I do engineman stuff.’ All that is off the table,” he said. “And we, because of that, were an incredibly effective crew.” As for the ship itself, Roughead says he found the innovative designs promising for the future LCS crews and the fleet. He said LCS is “a great ship that I see can complement our more traditional formations — the strike groups — but yet a ship that can easily adapt to other operating environments because of the shallow draft, the speed, the reconfigurable nature of the mission capability,” he said. “I just see it being a very versatile, very effective and quite frankly, a likely workhorse of the Navy.”

Cool pics, Pete. You should have been sticking out your tongue on the Turkey pic. Tony has a soft spot for those.