CV32

Yeah, the Mistral class is already in the HCDB. The French Army does use a SA330Ba Puma helicopter, but I expect in future you will see the NH90 TTH variant. Not sure if the air force's new EC725 Cougar CSAR variant will ever deploy from a Mistral, but I suppose they could.

From Navy Times France shows off new, roomy amphib By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer Posted : Thursday May 31, 2007 9:59:56 EDT NORFOLK, Va. — The French Navy’s new 21,500-ton amphibious ship Tonnerre towered over the pier at this sprawling naval base, just as high as the 40,000-ton U.S. Navy assault ships tied up at piers on either side. But on coming aboard, a visitor is struck by something just not found inside the nearly twice-as-large American ships: space. Photos View a gallery of images of the Tonnerre The Tonnerre, second of France’s two Mistral-class Force Projection and Command (BPC) ships, is nearly as roomy as a cruise ship. Wide passageways with high overheads, large stairwells and spacious accommodations permeate the ship’s interior, in stark contrast to the crowded passageways and often tight berthing on U.S. Navy ships. The roominess might seem a waste of space to some sailors. But, said Cmdr. Bernard Longépé, chief architect of the BPC program at the French procurement agency Délégation Générale pour L’Armement, the extra room has distinctly military applications. “The ship was designed with major input from naval operators and the Army,” he said. Chief among the Army needs were room to carry equipment, and wide, clear corridors. Tonnerre and Mistral are designed to carry 450 fully equipped troops, along with as many as 16 helicopters, four mechanized landing craft or two landing craft air cushions and a variety of military vehicles and tanks. Unlike U.S. assault ships, the French ships do not carry a wide range of sensors and cannot operate fixed-wing aircraft such as AV-8 Harriers. But the highly automated Mistrals are a great advance over their predecessor amphibs, the 12,400-ton Foudre and Siroco. Designed to function as people carriers as much as amphibious transports, the Mistrals have a crew of only 167 sailors, down from 235 in the Siroco. More than 700 people can be accommodated in an evacuation situation, and a capacious joint command center comes with 200 plug-and-play workstations. Longépé said that a major goal of the Mistral program was to reduce costs by 40 percent compared with the 11-year-old Siroco. “This ship is double the size but we got it for the cost of the Siroco,” he said, noting that France spent about 650 million euros ($875 million) for both ships. Key to reducing cost, Longépé said, was a modular construction approach that used several shipyards to build different ship sections and the use of three major contractors: * DCN, as prime contractor responsible for cost deadlines and performance, built the aft part of the ships, integrated the combat system and completed the vessels in Brest. More than half the after section was subcontracted to Stocznia Remontowa, Gdansk, Poland. * Alstom Marine-Chantiers de l’Atlantique built the fore sections — including all living and most working spaces — and supplied the propulsion pods. * Thales handled the design, the radar surveillance system and production of the communications system. The influence of Chantiers de l’Atlantique — now owned by Aker Yards — is obvious in the living areas of the Tonnerre. The St. Nazaire shipyard has a long history building passenger ships — including the Queen Mary 2 — and the accommodations are of a high standard. All staterooms have en suite facilities, and all officers have single-berth staterooms. The largest berthing area for the crew handles four sailors, while most troops are accommodated in roomy compartments with six double racks. A lounge also is within a short distance of all staterooms, and the crew is provided with a large game room and an equally sizeable reading room — each with projection devices, sofas, chairs and a bar. The exposed piping and ductwork common among many warships is hidden in the forward areas behind composite-construction beige panels. Quality of life was a major factor in the design, said the Tonnerre’s commanding officer, Capitaine de Vaisseau Philippe Hello. “Yes, the ship is nice,” he said. “Because of that, the crew needs to work more. It’s a very high motivation.” The small crew means the ship needs more sailors with technical skills, and only about one quarter of the crew are junior enlisted, Hello said. “There is a lot of cross-training. It’s the same as on a submarine,” he said. With many functions automated, the Tonnerre can get by with less than a dozen watchstanders. Hello said the ship crossed the Atlantic in April with only nine watchstanders, including three on the bridge. Crewmembers said they can sometimes feel alone while walking the ship’s wide passageways. Because they mix skills, Hello said the ship does not have the usual pyramidal structure of rank. “The pyramid is not a pyramid,” he said. “The key word is productivity.” The high level of modular construction also helped reduce the building time for the ships, another key cost factor, Longépé said. He noted that construction of each ship, from start of fabrication to sea trials, took three years. The usual six-month trials period for the Mistral was cut short last summer when the ship — yet to be formally commissioned for service — was sent to Lebanon to handle the evacuation of foreign nationals during the Israeli invasion. The operation showed modifications were needed to the well deck, said Longépé, and other changes were made to lower-quality winches and hatches that were prematurely wearing out. But since being commissioned Feb. 28, Tonnerre has been busy. The ship left its Toulon base April 10 for a 14-week “verification cruise” and won’t be home until July 24. After stopping in Canada, Tonnerre came here for several weeks in early May for interoperability trials, where it embarked U.S. Navy MH-53E and MH-60S helicopters and LCACs. Martinique is next, followed by calls at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Cape Town, South Africa; and Dakar, Senegal. After a two-week period in drydock, the Tonnerre is scheduled to take part in a NATO exercise in the Adriatic, and Hello noted the ship already has a full schedule for 2008. Mistral and Tonnerre were constructed using civilian International Maritime Organization standards in many places, along with fittings similar to those in other French ships. Supply Officer Arnaud Guigné said the ships “represent a new merger between civilian and military technology.” Hello agreed: “It’s a merger of civilian and military technology and operations to get the best of both.”

From Jane's Navy International 31 May 2007 UK MoD remains open to three-boat nuclear deterrent option By Jon Rosamond The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has refused to rule out replacing its four Vanguard-class ballistic nuclear missile submarines (SSBNs) with a new generation of just three boats. However, officials said a "significant body of work" would have to be carried out before they can judge whether the UK could maintain a continuous nuclear deterrent at sea with fewer, but more reliable, submarines. They also warned that the financial savings that accrue would not be as large as the one-quarter reduction in the size of the SSBN fleet might suggest. The MoD was responding to a report titled 'The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: The White Paper', published in March 2007 by the House of Commons Defence Committee (HCDC). In its report, the committee called on the UK government to "clarify when a decision will need to be made on the number of boats in the new SSBN fleet, and what is the likely level of savings from doing without a fourth boat". In a response published on 22 May, the MoD stated: "The cost savings that might result from a decision to procure only three boats are currently unquantified, although, as was made clear in the White Paper, we believe that they would not be in proportion to the reduction in the number of submarines, because, for example, of the large fixed overhead costs associated with the deterrent programme.”

From Navy Times Midway remembered, 65 years later By Audrey McAvoy - The Associated Press Posted : Wednesday May 30, 2007 7:39:26 EDT HONOLULU — Six months after the attack on Pearl Harbor, a weakened and outnumbered U.S. fleet limped north to confront a flotilla of Japanese ships advancing on the remote Pacific atoll of Midway. A U.S. defeat would have enhanced Japan’s naval superiority in the Pacific. Instead, the U.S. sank four Japanese aircraft carriers and snatched the military advantage from Tokyo. Next week marks the 65th anniversary of the three-day battle that changed the course of the World War II. Three Midway veterans in their 80s and 90s and the current Pacific Fleet commander will visit the island 1,300 miles northwest of Honolulu on June 4 for a ceremony hosted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which now runs a nature reserve on the atoll. “Americans like underdogs, and here we are underdogs,” said Donald Goldstein, a University of Pittsburgh history professor. “I think that’s what made it so good — that we shouldn’t have won and we did.” The victory came after a string of U.S. setbacks in the Pacific. Japanese forces ousted the U.S. from Wake Island, Guam and the Philippines in rapid succession in the months after Pearl Harbor. Japan also drove the British from Singapore. By targeting Midway, the Japanese navy aimed to take control of the U.S. patrol plane base there and destroy what was left of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. Conquering the island was a way to protect the Japanese homeland from U.S. air raids and prevent the U.S. from interfering with Tokyo’s plans to dominate the Asia-Pacific. The U.S. thwarted Japan’s intentions with a mixture of codebreaking, smart decisions and luck. The Navy’s intelligence experts deciphered encrypted Japanese communications, giving Adm. Chester Nimitz, the U.S. Pacific Fleet commander, the precise time of the planned assault and what route Japan’s ships would travel to Midway. He was also given notice of what vessels Japan would bring to the battle. Both nations lost dozens of fighter planes, dive bombers and torpedo planes as each sought to sink the other’s aircraft carriers. But the Americans had the benefit of knowing roughly where at sea their Japanese opponents were and how many ships their enemies had. Japan’s commanders were forced to guess about their foes. The U.S. lost one carrier, 145 planes and 307 men. Japan lost four aircraft carriers, a heavy cruiser, three destroyers, 291 planes and 4,800 men. The defeat was so overwhelming that the Japanese navy kept the details a closely guarded secret, preventing the story of the battle from coming to light in Japan until after the war. Goldstein, the co-author of “Miracle at Midway,” said Japan’s military never recovered from the loss because its industrial sector was unable to manufacture replacement aircraft carriers quickly enough to retake the advantage. Over the next three years, U.S. forces moved increasingly westward after hard-fought battles to deny Japan access to Guadalcanal and to retake Guam. The island-hopping led the U.S. to Iwo Jima and Okinawa before Japan surrendered after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. “Midway made it possible for us to take the offense. Before that it had been all defense,” Goldstein said. The Navy handed the two islets that make up Midway — Sand and Eastern islands — over to the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1996. The agency has held commemorative ceremonies every year since, though the last major observation was for the 60th anniversary in 2002. Midway enjoys quieter days today. Its primary residents are the hundreds of thousands of Laysan albatross, or “gooney birds” that have long nested there. Only a few dozen humans live on site to run the wildlife refuge. The atoll is on the upper northwest end of the national marine monument President Bush created last June around the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. The nature reserve, known as the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, is home to endangered species like the Hawaiian monk seal and is the largest marine conservation area in the world.

From Stratfor GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT 05.29.2007 Iran, the United States and Potential Iraq Deal-Spoilers By Reva Bhalla After 27 years of frozen relations, the United States and Iran held their first high-level direct talks in Baghdad on May 28 to negotiate a plan on how to stabilize Iraq. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Kazemi-Qomi, traded accusations about who was the bigger destabilizing force in Iraq. But by the end of the four-hour meeting, both described the negotiations as a positive first step in bringing the two sides together to stabilize Iraq. Kazemi-Qomi even said there probably would be a follow-up meeting within a month if he gets the OK from Tehran. Iran and the United States evidently have come a long way since the spring of 2003, when Washington double-crossed Tehran on the two countries' original understanding that a pro-Iranian, Shiite-dominated Iraq would be allowed to emerge in exchange for Iran's help in effecting regime change in Baghdad. When the United States removed two hostile Sunni regimes from Iran's border -- the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq -- the Iranians knew they had to check the United States on the regional chessboard so Washington understood any U.S. exit strategy from Iraq would have to come through Tehran. Only then, Tehran reasoned, could Iran use Iraq as a launchpad to extend Iranian influence in the Arab world. Feeling a deep sense of betrayal, the Iranian government carried out a variety of deadly maneuvers that ultimately convinced Washington that neither the Iranians nor the Americans were going to succeed in gluing Iraq back together on their own. The negotiations are still marred by mutual distrust, but after four years of explosive negotiating tactics, Iran and the United States have reached a point at which both sides have acknowledged they cannot afford to avoid each other if they want to avoid their worst-case scenarios in Iraq. As the negotiations grow in intensity, so does the noise. The lead-up to the May 28 talks was punctuated by a series of interesting jabs as each side sought leverage against the other. While the United States sent nine warships with 17,000 troops into the Persian Gulf (which the U.S. military deliberately referred to as the Arabian Gulf in the official press release on the naval exercises) and stepped up threats of broadening sanctions against Tehran due to the latter's nuclear activities, Iran continued broadcasting its atomic advances and announced it had uncovered Western-run spy rings inside the Islamic republic. The United States is still holding onto five Iranian officials arrested in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil in January as bargaining chips in talks with Iran. Iran has responded with a series of arrests of Iranian-Americans affiliated with think tanks on allegations they are dissidents working to topple the clerical regime. These belligerent tactics are all part of the game, and will flare up even further as the negotiations grow more serious. The Meat of the Matter It now becomes all the more critical to cut to the meat of these talks: the negotiating terms put forth by Washington and Tehran over how each plans to fix Iraq. Iran handed over a proposal to Crocker during a brief encounter at the May 5-6 Sharm el-Sheikh summit in Egypt, but also chose to unofficially publicize its terms for Iraq through the Saudi-owned, British-based daily Al Hayat. The Iranian Foreign Ministry likely chose Al Hayat, a major Arab news outlet, to make a back-channel broadcast of what concessions it is prepared to make to allay Sunni concerns in the region. In sum, this Iranian proposal called for a non-rushed withdrawal and relocation of U.S. troops to bases inside Iraq, a rejection of all attempts to partition Iraq, a commitment by the Sunni bloc to root out the jihadists and acknowledgement by Washington that the Iranian nuclear file cannot be uncoupled from the Iraq negotiations. In return, Iran would rein in the armed Shiite militias, revise the de-Baathification law and Iraqi Constitution to double Sunni political representation, create a policy to allow for the fair distribution of oil revenues (particularly to the Sunnis) and use its regional influence to quell crises in areas such as Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian territories. The terms put forth by the Iranians are so close to the U.S. position on Iraq that, with little exception, they could have been printed on State Department stationary and no one would have noticed the difference. If these are the terms Washington and Tehran are in fact discussing, then we are witnessing an extraordinary turn in the Iraq war in which the U.S. and Iranian blueprints for Iraq are finally aligning. It does not surprise us, then, that Crocker said after his meeting in Baghdad that the Iranian position "was very close to our own" at the level of policy and principle. The Spoilers The prospect of Washington and Tehran warming up to each other, and of the United States potentially regaining its military bandwidth in the not-too-distant future, is enough to put a number of serious actors into a frenzy. With the exception of the jihadists, most of the actors in question see an Iranian-U.S. accommodation over Iraq as inevitable, and have little choice but to strive to shape what would otherwise be an imposed reality in the coming months -- leaving substantial room for error in these negotiations. The Iraqi Sunnis and Arab states, in particular, will not necessarily sabotage the talks, but they will be working to secure Sunni interests and contain the extent to which Iran emerges as the primary beneficiary of any deal it works out with the United States over Iraq. Jihadists Within Iraq, the transnational jihadists have the most immediate concerns. A political settlement in Baghdad inevitably would involve a concerted effort by Iraq's Shia and mainstream Sunnis to uproot the jihadists and deprive them of the chaotic security conditions needed for their operations. The apex leadership of al Qaeda hiding out along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border is also betting on continued bedlam in Iraq to keep the transnational jihadist movement alive, and will not be happy to see U.S. forces beefed up in the South Asia theater once a deal is sealed in Iraq. Violence aimed at heightening sectarian tensions to derail the negotiations -- particularly attacks aimed at inflaming the Shia -- will escalate substantially over the next few weeks and months in Iraq. High-value political targets also likely will be targeted for assassination in an effort to disrupt the leadership structure of the respective factions. Iraqi Shia The Iranians face a daunting task in whipping Iraq's Shiite bloc into shape to follow through with Tehran's commitment to quell sectarian attacks and consolidate Shiite political power in Iraq for the first time in the country's history. Factionalism is already hardwired into the structure of the Iraqi Shiite community, whose loyalties are spread among the three largest political groups -- the (newly named) Iraqi Islamic Supreme Council, Hizb al-Dawah and the al-Sadrite bloc, as well as a number of smaller Shiite groups in southern Iraq, such as the Fadhila party. The intra-Shiite rivalries within and between these groups are enough to give anyone a headache, but Iran is well aware that violence and a good deal of oil money will be needed to bring the Iraqi Shia in line and make these negotiations work. Though the main political groups are more comfortable with the idea of working with Iran, Tehran has to play its cards carefully to ensure it does not trigger nationalist Arab sentiment among the Shiite actors, who already are deeply suspicious of Iran's intentions and have the arms and access to Iraq's southern oil fields to use as tools for stirring up trouble. Iraqi Sunnis Though not nearly as fractured as the Iraqi Shia, the Sunni landscape in Iraq has plenty of cracks of its own to make these negotiations troublesome. The Sunni factions in play include: * The existing political blocs, divided between the Islamist Iraqi Accord Front and the secular-leaning Iraqi National Dialogue Front; * The tribal groups, such as Anbar Salvation Council, that are actively fighting transnational jihadists to get a seat at the negotiating table; * The Sunni religious establishment, led by the hard-line Association of Muslim Scholars of Iraq that has close links with the insurgent groups and has become increasingly anti-Iranian in recent weeks; * The Sunni nationalist insurgents, who are looking for an acceptable opening into the political process, but remain distrustful of Shiite intentions. The Iraqi Sunnis know they have to drive a hard bargain in these talks to ensure that Iraq's Sunnis are well-integrated in the state political and security apparatus to counter the Shiite majority. And they will continue to rely on explosives during the talks to make sure their demands are heard. Competing factions within the Sunni bloc and resistance from their former jihadist allies will only further complicate these negotiations, but unlike the jihadists, these Sunni groups are not opposed in principle to a deal that includes the Iranians -- they actually want negotiations. Iraqi Kurds By the looks of the Iranian proposal, the Kurds have plenty to worry about. Expanding Sunni political representation and changing the constitution to allow for a more "fair" distribution of oil resources leaves the Kurdish bloc in an all-too-familiar scenario in which Kurdish interests will be sacrificed by the United States to protect the interests of Iraq's neighbors. Thus far, the Kurds have used the distraction of Sunni-Shiite bloodletting farther south to consolidate power between the two main rival Kurdish blocs (an extremely rare occurrence) and push forward with Kurdish autonomous demands to open Iraq's northern oil fields to foreign business. Once Iraq's Shiite and Sunni blocs reach some level of a political understanding in Baghdad, their attention will soon turn to their common adversary in the north, leaving the Kurds to face familiar moves by the Iraqi government to suppress Kurdish autonomy. The Kurds will need to drive a hard bargain by pushing through a Kirkuk referendum by year's end and resisting radical changes to the constitution and pending hydrocarbons legislation that threaten to put Iraq's undeveloped fields in the north under state control. The biggest threats the Kurds could make to a U.S.-Iranian deal over Iraq would involve withdrawing Kurdish support for U.S. forces or threatening to pull out of the government. But in the end, a compromise looks inevitable simply because the Kurds have nowhere else to turn. Ultraconservatives in Washington and Tehran There are ultraconservative factions in both Tehran and Washington that are not nearly as enthused about a U.S.-Iran rapprochement, and could use their influence to complicate the negotiations. Rumor has it that in Iran there are major disagreements brewing between the president and other senior Iranian officials, particularly on foreign policy matters. There are also growing indications that the apex of the clerical establishment is making moves to sideline Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and weaken the influence of his ultraconservative faction as a preventative measure to ensure progress in these talks. Though Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has thus far managed the deep divisions within the Iranian establishment between the ultraconservative and pragmatic conservative factions, his ability to contain these divisions is held hostage by his failing health. Meanwhile, hard-line elements in Washington are actively spreading information in an allegedly covert campaign signed off on by U.S. President George W. Bush to topple the clerical regime. These actors are more interested in effecting a policy of regime change rather than in a rapprochement with Iran, and they view the negotiations as little more than a smoke screen for a covert campaign to rid the Islamic republic of its ruling ayatollahs. These rumors threaten to fuel even more distrust between the two sides while the negotiations are in full swing, especially as Iran's greatest fear is that it will end up being backstabbed all over again once Washington recovers from Iraq and has enough bandwidth to entertain military options. Sunni Regional Powers Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab states are extraordinarily nervous about the idea of having the United States and Iran conduct exclusive meetings over a matter that directly concerns their national security interests. As the leader of the Sunni Arabs, the Saudis believe they have every right to be part of the formal negotiating process, but they also see the inevitability of the United States and Iran working toward an Iraq settlement. With the most at stake, the Saudi government normally would be screeching in protest during these U.S.-Iranian bilateral meetings, but instead it is keeping quiet. For now, the Saudis have to rely on the United States to ensure their demands for Sunni representation and Iranian containment are heard. Meanwhile, the Iranians evidently are working to allay Sunni Arab fears by publicizing Tehran's Iraq proposal (with considerable concessions to Iraq's Sunnis) in the mainstream Arab press and stepping up diplomatic engagements with Iran's Sunni neighbors in the Gulf. But the more the Iranians speak of arming and training the Iraqi army, the more the Saudis have to worry about. The House of Saud does not want to be looking at a scenario down the road in which U.S. troops have withdrawn from Iraq while Iran uses its militant proxies there to create an excuse to intervene militarily, putting Iranian troops within sight of Saudi Arabia's oil- and Shiite-rich Eastern province. The Saudis are also not looking forward to the day when war-hardened Saudi jihadist veterans in Iraq return home to wage attacks in the kingdom. Though the Saudis might see an Iran-U.S. deal as inevitable, they will keep their ties to the full spectrum of Sunni militants to use as their main deal-breaker should an Iraq settlement fail to address their interests. Syria Syrian President Bashar al Assad also probably is lying awake at night over these U.S.-Iran talks. The Alawite-Baathist regime in Syria loved the idea of its allies in Tehran expanding Shiite influence while the United States remained far too militarily occupied in Iraq to bother with Syria. The insurgency in Iraq also provided Syria with a vital pressure release valve for Sunni militants in the country. Like Riyadh, the regime in Damascus does not want to see jihadists returning home from Iraq to carry out attacks on native soil. Despite these concerns, the Syrians are hoping their alliance with Tehran will pay off and result in serious recognition and security assurances from the United States. For this to happen, Syria has to prove it is an integral piece of this Iraq deal by showing it possesses the ability to clamp down on insurgent traffic (by funneling jihadists into Lebanon for now). While Syria offers limited cooperation over Iraq to show its powers, the al Assad regime will become further emboldened to secure its interests in Lebanon, where Syria's priorities are rooted. Russia But the player with perhaps the most to lose is not even located in the Middle East. That player is Russia. At first glance, Russia is an odd party to even be involved in the Iraqi imbroglio. It has no troops in country and, no matter what happens to Iraq in the long run, Baghdad has no impact on anything Russian. Certainly Moscow was friendly with the previous government, but not to the degree that Saddam Hussein's fall appreciably impacted Russian political or economic interests. Russia does, however, have two horses in this race. The first relates to the Iranian nuclear program, which lists the Russian-built Bushehr power plant as its crown jewel. Despite Iranian protestations to the contrary, Tehran's nuclear program is largely a result of Russian technology sharing. And, should the Russians walk away, the Iranian program will have suffered a monumental setback. Similarly, so long as Russia has not finished the reactor at Bushehr, the West cannot ignore Moscow's ability to function as an interlocutor in Tehran. So long as the facility is "under construction," Russia has leverage over both parties. As soon as Russia's technicians finish, however, that leverage evaporates. Second, and far more important: So long as the bulk of the United States' and Iran's political and military attention is absorbed in Iraq, neither has any bandwidth to deal with other issues. Iran has deep and lasting interests in Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan -- states of critical interest to Moscow -- yet Iran's preoccupation with Iraq has prevented Tehran from capitalizing on recent opportunities. Similarly, the United States has faced no foe more challenging than the Soviet Union and its Russian successor. In that vein, there is no country more desirous of challenging Russia's ongoing efforts to rewire European security arrangements in its own favor than the United States. But that requires a Washington not consumed by the black hole Iraq has become. A Rough Road Ahead It took four years of heavy-handed negotiating tactics to bring U.S.-Iranian dealings over Iraq out of the back channels and into the public view. That was half the battle. The aligning of the U.S. and Iranian proposals for Iraq marks a significant inflection point in the war, but we still question whether the three big players negotiating this deal -- Washington, Tehran and Riyadh -- can trust each other enough and carry enough sway among Iraq's state actors to get them to cooperate and actually produce results on the ground. Once you throw the spoilers into this equation, along with a centuries-old Arab-Persian rivalry centered on containing the very rise that Iran is anticipating this deal will yield, the prospect of a U.S.-Iranian accommodation over Iraq coming to fruition does not look so good. Our hopes are not completely dashed, but we do see a bumpy road ahead.

From Defense Aerospace Report Documents Chinese Military Power, Calls for Transparency (Source: US Department of Defense; issued May 25, 2007) WASHINGTON --- China must continue to make strides in military transparency as it moves forward to becoming a global power, Defense Department officials said here today. The officials briefed Pentagon reporters on background following publication of the 2007 Military Power of the People’s Republic of China report. The annual report to Congress covers key developments in China over the past year and changes in Chinese military strategy. President Bush characterized U.S.-Chinese relations as good following his most recent visit with Chinese President Hu Jintao in April. He said the United States and China can work together to further security and economic prosperity in Asia and around the world. The annual report to Congress reflects the U.S. view that China is an emerging regional military and economic power with global aspirations. “It paints a picture of a country that … has steadily devoted increasing resources to their military that is developing some very sophisticated capabilities,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said during a Pentagon news conference yesterday. Gates said the report is a realistic appraisal of Chinese security strategy. Current relations with China have improved since the low point following the collision of a Chinese jet with a Navy EP-3 in 2001. Military-to-military ties are robust; there are troops visits and port calls. Military education exchange programs are being held at the senior and mid-level officer level. Joint military exercises are planned, and the two countries are working together on regional concerns – such as North Korean missile proliferation – and the danger bird flu presents. There are also discussions about disaster relief cooperation, officials said. Gates wants China to have more transparency on military budgeting and strategy. The Chinese test of an anti-satellite capability in January caught the world by surprise and left many wondering what brought about that particular operation. The official Chinese military budget is pegged at around $45 billion this year. But the real number could be as much as three times as high, officials said. China’s defense budget is increasing by double-digit percentages per year, a rate that China has sustained for more than 15 years, fueled by the country’s remarkable economic growth, a defense official said. This year, the increase was 17.8 percent. “We are convinced that China’s real defense spending is substantially higher – in the range of $85 billion to $125 billion in 2007,” the official continued. This discrepancy between the official and actual figure is emblematic of U.S. concerns on transparency. Hiding these sums of money drives uncertainty over China’s intentions, the official said. “It is not just a concern for the United States,” he said. “Many aspects of China’s military programs lead other nations to question China’s intentions and adjust their own behavior.” Among the sums off the books are research and development expenditures, some military procurement, foreign purchases and dual-use technologies, officials said. China is modernizing its forces. Officials said its newest missile -- the solid-fueled, transportable Df-31 -- could be used if needed. About 900 Chinese missiles are in place opposite Taiwan, compared with 710 to 790 missiles in late 2005. China is developing home-grown advanced aviation and shipbuilding capabilities, and buying foreign – armaments, mostly from Russia. The report gives more information on Chinese moves toward building an aircraft carrier. Overall, Gates said yesterday, the report is a balanced portrait of Chinese military capabilities. “It paints a picture of a country that is devoting substantial resources to the military and developing, as I say, some very sophisticated capabilities,” he said. “We wish that there were greater transparency, that they would talk more about what their intentions are, what their strategies are. These are assessments that are in this publication. It would be nice to hear firsthand from the Chinese how they view some of these things.” (ends) DoD Releases Annual China Military Power Report (Source: US Department of Defense; issued May 25, 2007) Pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2000, the Department of Defense released to Congress today the “2007 Military Power of the People’s Republic of China” report. - The entire PDF version (50 pages) of the report can be viewed at: http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/07052...Power-final.pdf A transcript of the Pentagon’s background briefing with Defense Department Officials at the Pentagon can be viewed at: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/tra...anscriptid=3971 Pentagon Says China Working to Project Power Farther (Source: Voice of America news; issued May 25, 2007) The U.S. Defense Department has issued its annual report on China's military capability, citing continuing efforts to project Chinese power beyond its immediate region and to develop high-technology systems that can challenge the best in the world. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates says some of China's efforts cause him concern. The report says "China is pursuing long-term, comprehensive transformation of its military forces" to enable it to project power and deny other countries the ability to threaten it. The report says China's short-term focus is on preventing Taiwan from becoming independent, and preventing the United States from helping Taiwan in any cross-straits confrontation. But it says China is also developing weapons systems designed to protect its access to resources, particularly oil, and to compete in long-range, modern warfare with increasingly sophisticated missiles, aircraft and ships, including possibly aircraft carriers. The report says the modernization is based partly on purchases, especially from Russia, but also on increasingly capable domestic military industries. It says China is also developing the capability to compete in outer space and systems that could attack other nations' computer networks and communications capabilities. China was widely condemned for using an anti-satellite weapon to destroy one of its own satellites in January. Defense Secretary Robert Gates would not say which of China' military moves cause him concern, but at a news conference on Thursday he indicated he is worried about China's continuing refusal to provide detailed information about its defense capabilities. The report says secrecy is part of China's basic defense strategy. "We wish that there were greater transparency, that they would talk more about what their intentions are, what their strategies are," said Gates. "These are assessments that are in this publication. It would be nice to hear first hand from the Chinese how they view some of these things." In the past, China has criticized these annual Pentagon reports, which are required by congress. But Secretary Gates says the report does not exaggerate or attempt to paint China's growing capabilities as a threat. "I think it's a realistic appraisal of the Chinese view of their own security needs and what their strategies are," said the defense secretary. "It paints a picture of a country that has steadily devoted increasing resources to their military, that is developing some very sophisticated capabilities." One area of ambiguity involves China's defense budget, which is officially $45 billion this year, a nearly 18 percent increase over last year. The Pentagon report says China's real defense spending is likely double or triple that figure. The report also says China's longstanding pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons is becoming 'ambiguous,' as Chinese experts debate how to use their growing missile capabilities. But the top U.S. military officer, General Peter Pace, who visited China in March, says China's current intentions are not the most important thing for him. He says the U.S. military needs to plan based on China's growing capabilities, which could be put to a variety of uses in the future. "The most important thing from my perspective is for the United States military to stay well out ahead of any potential adversary, so that we are properly prepared should somebody's intent change to deal with that threat when it arises," he said. The Pentagon report on China's military capability also notes that Chinese leaders have cooperated with the United States on a variety of issues, including North Korea's nuclear arsenal, and that China has a growing interest in global stability as it pursues economic development. But the report also says China has demonstrated an increased willingness to work with rogue states and countries with poor human rights records, if those countries can help China reach its goals. It also says China has sold military technology to some countries in order to secure deals on fuel purchases. The report calls China's efforts to modernize its forces and military doctrines "impressive," and it says there is an emphasis on what China calls "active defense," which the report's authors say means developing a preemptive strike capability, and using it if Chinese leaders feel it is necessary. The report says the concept also involves increasing China's ability to use military coercion, without actually using force. At the same time, the report also expresses concern about potential miscalculation by Chinese leaders of their own military strength that could lead to unnecessary conflicts. And the authors are also concerned that Chinese leaders could respond to internal dissent by launching a foreign military adventure in order to appeal to feelings nationalism and restore domestic stability. It says China's Communist Party leaders have "a deep rooted fear of losing political power" that shapes their strategic outlook and drives many of their decisions. (ends) China: Perceived Arms Buildup Troubles Washington (Source: Radio Free Europe; issued May 28, 2007) A new annual report on China's arms development, issued by the U.S. Defense Department, says China is progressing with the development of long-range weapons that include guided missiles and new nuclear submarines. The Pentagon's report suggests the nature of China's armed forces is changing rapidly away from local self-defense toward strategic capabilities. Beijing rejects criticism that the modernization is aimed at increasing China's weight across the region, and says the impressive array of weaponry is purely for defensive purposes. China's official press has called the Pentagon report an attempt to mislead international opinion with falsehoods that is damaging to Sino-U.S. military relations. The report points to the development of new long-range missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to the United States, plus the ability to deploy those missiles on mobile launchers. It also sees Chinese work on nuclear submarines capable of firing atom-tipped missiles from underwater, as well as modern aircraft. The submarines would have the ability to sail close to targets anywhere in the world to deliver a surprise attack. Each one of the 8,000-ton Russian-designed Jin-class vessels would be able to carry up to 16 missiles. A fleet of five is planned, which would make China the world's third most powerful country in this category of weapons, behind the United States and Russia. Development Questions However, senior analyst Shannon Kile of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute says the submarine program seems to be running into development difficulties. "This is a project which had a long and troubled development history," Kile says. "It's unclear how close the Chinese are to making this force operational. There have been reports in the last few years that they are fairly close, but there is other evidence to suggest that they are still some years away [from deployment]." Another senior analyst, Jean-Philippe Beja of the Center for International Studies and Research in Paris, says Taiwan still appears to be the focus of China's defense efforts. This preoccupation has shaped Chinese thinking on defense for decades, and has not required strategic force projection. "The Chinese army is still in the process of modernizing," Beja says. "It is very backward in comparison to say, the U.S. armed forces. So what the Chinese are saying is that they are only trying to keep up with the latest developments, that they have not changed their strategy, and, that being the case, they have no capability to project strength very far away." 'Still Unclear' Analyst Kile says it is too early to say whether the acquisition of the new arms is a modernization of China's military forces, or actually an expansion of those forces. "What seems to be happening is that China is moving toward a more modern, survivable force -- that is to say, mobile land-based missiles and sea-launched missiles," Kile says. "It's completely unclear whether that means the force will be approximately the same size as at present, or will be considerably expanded over the next decade or so." Not only is China aiming for big strides in military hardware, it has also moved forward rapidly on military-related space technology. Its spectacular interception of an orbiting satellite with a killer missile in January has worried the U.S. defense establishment. The theme of the militarization of space has been taboo for decades. But China's unexpected experiment helps bring the subject to life again.

This game looks quite a bit of fun. How many players can battle at once ?

From DefenseNews Posted 05/28/07 11:17 China Lashes Critical Pentagon Report AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, BEIJING China lashed back Monday at a U.S. report on its military might, saying the Pentagon was playing up the issue for ulterior motives and warning Washington against selling weapons to Taiwan. “The U.S. Defense Department’s report exaggerates China’s military expenditures out of ulterior motives and continues to disseminate the ‘China threat’ theory,” foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said in a statement. “It seriously violates the norms of international relations and rudely interferes in China’s internal affairs. China expresses its strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition.” Jiang also called Taiwan “an inseparable part of China’s territory,” urging the United States to “stop weapons sales and military exchanges with Taiwan and not send any wrong signals to Taiwan pro-independence forces.” China has insisted that Taiwan is a part of its territory since Nationalist armies fled the mainland for the island in 1949 following civil war. Beijing has vowed to use force to retake Taiwan should the island ever declare formal independence. Jiang’s statement was the first direct government response to Friday’s Pentagon report, following scattered commentary in the state-run media over the weekend. The Pentagon report, issued Friday, expressed concern at the deployment of long-range ballistic nuclear missiles, and a ballooning and non-transparent budget. China’s pursuit of weapons strategies “is expanding from the traditional land, air and sea dimensions of the modern battlefield to include space and cyberspace,” the report said. Jiang responded Monday by calling China “a peace-loving country” and “an important force for peace in the Asia-Pacific and the world.” “It’s the duty of any sovereign nation to maintain a necessary defence ability in order to protect its national security and territorial integrity. The American report’s dissemination of the so-called ‘China threat’ theory is misleading and fruitless,” she said. China’s national budget has projected an increase in military spending in 2007 of 17.8 percent to about 45 billion dollars, although the actual size of its spending is a matter of dispute.

From Stratfor Red Alert: Ukraine -- Sliding Down a Slippery Slope The Ukrainian Interior Ministry reported May 26 that some of its forces have begun acting on the order of President Viktor Yushchenko and disregarding the orders from the Interior Ministry. Several thousand Interior Ministry troops loyal to the president are reportedly moving toward the capital, Kiev, in defiance of orders from Interior Minister Vasyl Tsuchko. The normal rule of law in Ukraine has become more and more blurred over the past few weeks. Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich has repeatedly taken advantage of the country's weak institutions in order to peel power away from the increasingly unpopular Yushchenko. That led Yushchenko on April 2 to use his greatest constitution-granted power and dissolve parliament, forcing new elections. But the constitutional order is so degraded that Yanukovich has continued to wield parliamentary power in defiance of the decree. In order to cope with such actions, Yushchenko also has begun doing end-runs around the system. Ukraine's top judiciary, the Constitutional Court, has fallen victim to this escalating fight since courts only have power if their independence is respected, something that neither side is doing at the moment. With the courts out of the picture and two power centers now largely reduced to ruling by decree, the only true means of influencing events now boils down to troops. On May 24, Tsuchko sent troops to the prosecutor's office without consulting the president -- a questionable action explicitly designed to head off Yushchenko's unilateral dismissal of the prosecutor (the institution next in line after the court), an equally questionable answer. Immediately thereafter, Yushchenko decreed that all Interior Ministry forces are his to command. Now, according to the Interior Ministry, at least one faction -- the highly trained Alpha Group -- has heeded the president's call and is moving. At this point, the troop movement is unconfirmed, but if it is true, then the situation has moved the closest to violence in Ukraine's post-Cold War history. Ultimately, during the Orange Revolution, government forces -- all government forces -- refused any hint of orders to fire on civilians. But then, political authority was unquestionably concentrated in the hands of President Leonid Kuchma. Now that concentration is gone, and the leading politicians, to put it mildly, despise one another. Add in the breakdown of the constitutional order and Ukraine is sliding down the slippery slope of "might makes right." If things do go that far, the only country positioned to intervene in any way is Russia. Intervening is something that Russian President Vladimir Putin, well into a long-running effort to reassert influence in the old Soviet space, would sorely love to do. But he will not move until violence has broken out. He wants Russia to serve as savior, not conqueror. Should Putin play his cards right, the West is unlikely to lift a finger. Europe has already warned Yushchenko -- via foreign policy freelancer Javier Solona -- that it does not want to see violence of any sort, while the United States does not dare give the Russians reason to be anything but helpful in strengthening its negotiations with Iran over Iraq. The one bright spot in all this is that Yanukovich and Yushchenko, as recently as a few hours ago, were still civil enough to hold a face-to-face meeting. Although tense and anger-filled, it was a meeting nonetheless. They have not yet reached the point at which they are willing to shoot at each other, but they are certainly getting their firepower ready.

More than welcome here ...

From DefenseNews Posted 05/25/07 08:11 S. Korea Launches Aegis Destroyer AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, SEOUL South Korea on May 25 launched its first Aegis destroyer equipped with advanced air and sea weaponry, on the same day that North Korea test-fired several missiles. President Roh Moo-Hyun, speaking at the launch of the billion-dollar 7,600-ton KDX-III destroyer, said South Korea must be mindful of what he called a regional arms race. "The ship, armed with [a] state-of-the-art defense system and combat capability, is one of the world’s best destroyers," Roh said at a ceremony at the Ulsan dockyard of Hyundai Heavy Industries, which built the ship. "We have to secure our ability to defend ourselves not only in terms of naval power but in all kinds of combat capabilities," he said, adding that South Korea will push on with a program to create an oceangoing navy. Roh said he had considered whether such an expensive ship, the first of three, is really needed. "However, we cannot sit idle in the face of a continuing arms race in the Northeast Asian region," he said. He did not specify countries. A navy spokesman this month said the Aegis destroyer was an attempt to keep up with the naval powers of Japan and China. South Korea’s National Intelligence Service and Joint Chiefs of Staff said the North test-fired several short-range missiles May 25 as part of what is thought to be routine military training. "The firing of short-range missiles is believed to be part of usual military training that the North has been carrying out in the West Sea and the East Sea (Sea of Japan)," the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement. South Korea is the fifth country to have the Aegis integrated weapons control system following the U.S., Japan, Spain and Norway, the navy said. The destroyer — named the King Sejong — “has integrated capabilities in broad-range air defence, support for ground operations, automatic tracking and destruction of enemy aircraft and guided and ballistic missiles," the navy said in a statement. "The new destroyer is expected to greatly boost combat capabilities." A second Aegis destroyer will be launched in 2010, and the third in 2012. The Aegis system, built by U.S. firm Lockheed Martin, allows a ship to combat multiple surface, underwater and aerial threats. The King Sejong is also equipped with locally developed ship-to-ship missiles and torpedoes as well as various ship-to-air missiles and ship-to-surface cruise missiles. Stealth technology has also been used, making radar detection harder. The ship will be deployed operationally in 2009. South Korea has also teamed up with Germany to build 1,800-tonne modern submarines. A second such submarine will be launched early next month. [Aegis technology is certainly proliferating, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not. What will be the next naval battle look like when both sides have Aegis or Aegis-like capabilities ?]

From Army Times Iran deeply involved in Iraq, Petraeus says By Sean D. Naylor - Staff writer Posted : Thursday May 24, 2007 7:38:56 EDT BAGHDAD — The Iranian government has spent the last few years training elite “secret cells” of renegade Shi’a cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, while funding that group and other Shi’a militias in Iraq to the tune of “hundreds of millions of dollars,” said Army Gen. David Petraeus, the senior U.S. commander in Iraq. In an exclusive May 18 interview with Military Times, Petraeus said the involvement of the Iranians is “absolutely nefarious. It is hugely damaging to Iraq. It is fuelling the Shi’a militia side of things and causing enormous problems for Iraq.” The “secret cells” are “Sadr special ops,” Petraeus said. “But they’re different from JAM,” he added, using the acronym for the Mahdi Army’s Arabic name, Jaysh al-Mahdi. “You really have to distinguish between run-of-the-mill JAM and the secret cells,” who, he said, “have had extra training and selection and all the rest.” That training is the work of the Quds Force, an Iranian special operations organization that answers directly to Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Petraeus said. “We have found out an enormous amount about what the Iranians have done, and it is staggering, it really is,” he said. “It is unbelievable. They have trained dozens at a time over there [in Iran] — and dozens doesn’t sound like much, but dozens can just wreak havoc — on the use of explosively formed projectiles, rockets, mortars and IEDs, and how to do operations. “They have been funding, over the last several years, certainly hundreds of millions of dollars of assistance to different Shi’a militia groups, and we have found evidence very recently of assistance being provided to Sunni Arab groups as well. One of the Sunni insurgent leaders was just over in Tehran.” However, Petraeus added, the support the Iranian government is providing to Sunni insurgents in Iraq is “nowhere near the level of what they’ve given to the Shi’as.” U.S. and other coalition forces have scored some victories against the Iranians and their Shi’a proxies, Petraeus said. “We had some surprising early success against the secret cells of Jaysh al-Mahdi,” he said, pointing to the March capture of Qais Khazali, his brother Laith Khazali and several other members of their network in Basra and Hillah. The Khazali brothers were the secret cell leaders who “orchestrated” the Jan. 20 attack on the provincial joint coordination center in Karbala that led to the deaths of five U.S. soldiers. “We found a 22-page document that actually lays it all out on a computer we captured,” Petraeus said. “The guys that did the Karbala attack are part of this network. It is a Sadr special operations attack.” However, he said, “I don’t think we have anything that shows that Sadr approved it [or] was involved in it.” U.S. forces have “also captured a number of others of that network,” Petraeus said. “We’ve got lots of these secret cell guys, quite a number of them. In fact, we got the emergent head, the guy we thought was going to replace Khazali. “More recently we got a guy named Sheibani, who was the Iraq head of the Sheibani [explosively formed projectile] network, and then three nights ago got Abu Musa, who was one of the big logisticians for the secret cells. Unfortunately he had already distributed the rockets and mortars, some of which have been coming in here.” The detailed documentation captured during the hunt for the Karbala killers is a hallmark of “secret cell” operations, Petraeus said. It appeared the militiamen “had to show proof, or records, at least” to the Quds Force “that showed what they’d done,” he said. “And they had it — very, very detailed records.” Petraeus said he showed some of the documentation to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki after the capture of the Khazali brothers, “to demonstrate how widespread their activities had been, how lethal they had been, how murderous they had been, because they had a whole matrix that just tracked their daily attacks.” But despite the Quds Force’s extensive support of Shi’a militias, Petraeus said the training was occurring in Iran and that while there were “perhaps ... some Quds Force running around” in Iraq, he doubted that many of its operators had crossed the border. Five to seven Quds Force members are “in our detention facilities,” he said. “They’re not about to go running around in Iraq with a heck of a lot at this point in time.” However, Petraeus said, Iran’s civilian intelligence agency, the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, was active in Iraq. “I wouldn’t doubt that there are Iranian intel running around,” he said. “Who do you think populates these [iranian] consulates and embassies?” Petraeus said he is “mystified” that there is a debate in the U.S. over whether Khamenei knows about the Quds Force’s activities fomenting violence in Iraq. “He can’t not know,” Petraeus said, noting that Brig. Gen. Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Quds Force, reports directly to Khamenei, not to Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. “It’s a massive operation. ... There are all kinds of different elements of the Quds Force that are engaged in it. If he doesn’t know about it, it’s the most out-of-control operation in the world. And if he does know about it, of course, it’s horrific.” As to the Iranians’ strategic goal in Iraq, Petraeus said he isn’t sure whether the Iranians themselves know for certain. “They have to be a tiny bit conflicted,” he said. “They can’t want a failed state. This is a Shi’a democracy [and] the first Arab Shi’a-run state. They can’t want it to fail, even though they are Persian. They certainly suffered greatly at the hands of Iraq. But with the kinship and the relationships they have with so many of the Iraqi leaders, they can’t want it to completely fail.” On the other hand, the establishment of a viable democracy in Iraq would represent a success for the U.S., which Iran would like to avoid, Petraeus said. “They don’t want us to succeed, certainly,” he said. The Iranians would prefer that the U.S. be “seized” with the war in Iraq, perhaps to divert American attention from Iran’s nuclear ambitions or its activities in the northern Arabian Gulf, he added. Sadr’s profile rising Tehran’s influence over Sadr has raised his profile in the Middle East, according to Lt. Col. (P) Rick Welch, an advisor on political, tribal, religious and cultural issues to Multinational Division-Baghdad commander Maj. Gen. Joseph Fil. “I thought Sadr at one point was just fighting a defensive fight: ‘I’m here, we’re not going to let the Sunni power elite who were in the former regime dominate us again,’ and he was the defender of Iraq,” Welch said. “But then Iran started really meddling here, and he now has become a bigger symbol, beyond just nationalism here. It has a purpose to extend the influence from Iran here, in the same way Hezbollah does it in Lebanon” through its leader Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. Indeed, Sadr, who has modeled his organization on Hezbollah, another Shi’a group that is part political party, part social services organization and part guerrilla army, is strengthening his ties to the Lebanese group, officials here say. “It looks like folks in his organization are connecting to other, similar Shi’a kind of groups around the Middle East, and they’re coalescing together,” Welch said. But there are signs that Sadr fears his links to Tehran might be costing him popular support at home. “There may be some sense that he’s thinking he went a little bit too far, and now he’s trying to ... clean himself up a little bit, but maybe at some point he will say he’s lost his national identity and is now seen as a pawn of Iran, and he doesn’t like that,” Welch said. “Maybe he’s trying to get back a sense of nationalism here so he doesn’t lose influence over people. “He has started trying to spread influence through tribal networks and tribal councils, and that’s not having a real potent effect yet. He’s trying to encourage them to join him and to follow him. He’s not calling on them for violent resistance, openly. He’s saying ‘peaceful’ opposition to the coalition presence, so he’s trying to build a bridge, again trying to paint himself as a nationalist working for Iraq, as opposed to a pawn of Persia.” This instinct accounts for the sudden appearance of Iraqi flags flying throughout Baghdad’s Shi’a neighborhoods in recent weeks, according to Welch. “My religious contacts told me that back [in early] May when Sadr called for the national demonstration, he also put out the order that everyone should be flying an Iraqi flag,” he said. “And the word was that they put out that if you weren’t flying it, you were going to get a visit from a militia member and disciplined or punished for it. ... Again, that’s in line with Sadr trying to promote himself as the Nasrallah of Iraq, so that he could say, ‘I can call the people to nationalism any time I want.’” But these moves may be too little, too late for Sadr, who is said to be currently taking refuge in Tehran. Welch said Sadr’s ties to Iran are already so tight that they guarantee he will be seen as beholden to Tehran.

From Proceedings, June 2007 issue Midway: The Story that Never Ends By Thomas B. Allen On the 65th anniversary, we are still finding out what happened at Midway in the sky and sea in late spring 1942 ... You can read the remainder of the article at the link above.

From Navy Times Kitty Hawk leaves Japan The Associated Press Posted : Wednesday May 23, 2007 10:19:16 EDT TOKYO — The carrier Kitty Hawk, the Navy’s oldest ship in full active service, embarked on its last major maneuvers Wednesday before being decommissioned next year. The 46-year-old vessel — the only American aircraft carrier permanently deployed abroad — eased out of its berth at the Navy base in Yokosuka, just south of Tokyo, escorted by a carrier strike group of cruisers and guided-missile destroyers, Naval spokesman John Nylander said. The voyage, to last several months in the western and central Pacific Ocean, was expected to be the last major mission for the ship before it is replaced next year by the carrier George Washington and sent back to the United States for decommissioning, said Rear Adm. Richard B. Wren, commander of the Kitty Hawk Carrier Strike Group. “This is the last trip for USS Kitty Hawk,” Wren told reporters. The Kitty Hawk, with a crew of more than 5,500, was commissioned in 1961 and has served in Vietnam and Iraq. The diesel-powered ship was deployed to Yokosuka in 1998, and will be replaced with the nuclear-powered George Washington as part of the U.S. military’s effort to modernize its forces in East Asia — an area of potential flashpoints with North Korea or China. But the vessel’s replacement sparked a backlash in Japan, where critics oppose the basing of a nuclear-powered warship in domestic waters. Japan’s government backed the idea, however, saying the George Washington would boost regional stability. Nuclear-powered warships have visited Japanese ports hundreds of times since 1964, and the U.S. has provided firm commitments to Tokyo regarding the safe use of Japanese harbors by the nuclear-powered vessels.

Does sound like a bit of an overstatement to me too, Pete.

It will be a challenge to make the AAV a survivable vehicle in the context of Iraq. Its basically a big box of welded aluminum alloy, with the troops seats along the walls and a bench in the middle. The aluminum armor can only stop small arms fire or shell fragments, and although they developed a bolt-on Enhanced Applique Armor Kit (EAAK), this is rated only as far as 14.5mm armor piercing rounds and adds several thousand pounds of weight. Also, these do not protect the bottom of the vehicle, so mines and IEDs are still a major threat. IIRC, they lost a bunch of Marines when one of these AAVs was hit by an IED in August 2005. And, with the EAAK armor applied and a full load of troops, the AAV can only muster a 15.54 hp/tonne power to weight ratio. Compare this to the Bradley's 19.74 or the M1A1's 24.5. If they're going to add still more armor, the AAV is going to maneuver like a bloated cow. Fix the problems with the EFV already.

ROFL. Yeah, I have H4.1 data for the 9M337 Pantsir-S1. The missile is the SA-19 Grison, also found in the naval Kashtan CIWS (as the SA-N-11). Yes, it is already in the HCDB, and since this will be the database of HCE, yeah it is in HCE.

[iran continues to beef up the point defences, and check out the bold print ... interesting stuff] From Jane's Defence Weekly 22 May 2007 Iran set to obtain Pantsyr via Syria By Robin Hughes Iran is set to acquire at least 10 96K6 Pantsyr-S1E self-propelled short-range gun and missile air-defence systems as a derivative of a major deal struck between Syria and Russia earlier this year. A source close to the deal told Jane's that Russia has agreed to sell Damascus "some 50 Pantsyr-S1E systems", with initial deliveries set to begin later in 2007. Syria is understood to be receiving the Pantsyr-S1E equipped with the latest Roman I-Band fire control radar. While the source noted that most of the Pantsyrs are earmarked for the Syrian Air Defence Command, "the end user for 10 of the systems is Tehran". These should reach Iran, via Syria, in late 2008, the source told Jane's. According to the source, Iran will part finance the Syrian acquisition along with payment for its own 10 systems to recompense Damascus for its compliance in the deal. Syria is understood to have signed a contract with Russia, with an estimated value of USD730 million, for the supply of the Pantsyr-S1E. While Tehran has indicated to Damascus the urgency of the requirement, the source said that the 10 systems to be transferred will not be taken from the first ones supplied to Syria but from later deliveries. The source added Iran has also disclosed plans to acquire at least 50 Pantsyr-S1E systems and is currently now exploring potential options to realise this. He additionally confirmed that Iran has now acquired at least two longer-range S-300PMU-1/2 Favorit (SA-10c/d 'Grumble') air-defence systems. [Emphasis mine] Syrian consent to enable Iran to procure the Pantsyr-S1E systems through Syria is an implementation of the military and technological co-operation mechanism stipulated in a strategic accord signed by both countries in November 2005.

Wow, they are really cleaning house, huh ?

From Defence Talk Military strike on Iran would be catastrophic: Pakistan PM Agence France-Presse | May 21, 2007 AMMAN: Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said Friday that a military strike on Iran over its nuclear activities would be "catastrophic" and hoped US-Iranian talks this month would reduce tensions. "The use of force to solve this issue will have catastrophic implications for the whole umma (Muslim nations) and for the whole world," Aziz told a press conference in Amman. "We are pleased to see that Iran will be engaging in a dialogue with the United States and we hope that leads to a reduction of tensions in the region," said Aziz, who is in Jordan to attend a G11 summit of developing countries. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki announced in Islamabad on Thursday that envoys from Iran and the United States are to meet in Iraq on May 28 for talks on the country's security crisis. "Nothing but Iraq is on the agenda for Iran and US talks," he said. The May 28 talks are believed to be the first official bilateral ambassadorial encounter between the arch-foes since they mothballed relations after Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution. Ties between Tehran and Washington have been bedeviled by both the Iranian nuclear row and the situation in Iraq, where the United States accuses Iran of aiding militant Shiite groups and attacking US forces. Tehran denies that it arms Iraqi insurgents and says that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful. Turning to the G11, Aziz said he hoped the grouping -- Croatia, Ecuador, Georgia, Honduras, Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, Paraguay, Sri Lanka and El Salvador -- could "gradually build into a platform to promote free trade." "The developing world needs today trade more than anything because trade is permanent. Trade creates an industrial base and jobs which will drive growth forward," he said. Pakistan, he added, has no plans to set up diplomatic ties with Israel before a solution is found to the Palestinian issue. "Our stand on relations with Israel is very clear. Once the Palestinian issue is resolved we will consider further steps but we are not planning any diplomatic relations (now)," Aziz said. "The Palestinian people deserve a homeland and the right to live in peace."

From Defence Talk Bush Preparing For British U-Turn On Iraq Agence France-Presse | May 21, 2007 London: US President George W. Bush has been told to prepare for a British U-turn on Iraq once Gordon Brown becomes prime minister, The Sunday Telegraph newspaper said. A Bush administration official, however, described the report as "baseless." Bush has been briefed by White House officials to expect an announcement on British troop withdrawals during Brown's first 100 days in office, the weekly said. The president was advised on how to handle the aftermath of a British pullout and the end of steadfast support from London, said the broadsheet, citing senior officials. Departing Prime Minister Tony Blair is due to step down on June 27 after a decade in power, with finance minister Brown set to take over. Under Blair, Britain has been the United States' staunchest ally in the war in Iraq and its key partner in the decision to invade the country in March 2003. Senior officials in the US National Security Council, the Pentagon and the State Department have expressed their fears about Brown, The Sunday Telegraph said. "There is a sense of foreboding," an unnamed senior official was quoted as saying. "We don't know if he will be there when we need him. We expect a gesture that will greatly weaken the United States government's position." And Mark Kirk, a congressman in Bush's Republican party who discussed Iraq policy at the White House last week, said: "The American view is that's he's a much weaker political leader than Blair. There's the fear in Washington that he won't be as strong an ally." "The report is baseless," a US administration official said from Bush's Crawford ranch in Texas, where the president was spending the weekend. The official, who did not want to be named, declined to elaborate. Blair was in Washington this week for his last talks with Bush, before jetting to Iraq for talks with political leaders in Baghdad and a visit to British troops in the main southern city of Basra. "I have no doubt at all that Britain will remain steadfast in its support for Iraq," the prime minister said there. "Even when I leave government I am sure that support will continue." A source close to Brown said: "These fears are unfounded. Gordon is a committed Atlanticist who wants to strengthen and deepen our ties with America around our shared values, and who wants to persuade the rest of Europe to work in closer co-operation with America." British troop numbers in Iraq are being scaled down from 7,100 to 5,500 this year. Meanwhile The Sunday Times newspaper said that British officials were holding secret talks with leading insurgents in Iraq aimed at dividing them from the Al-Qaeda terror network in a bid to curb sectarian violence. The weekly said that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani was believed to be the driving force behind the talks and British ambassador Dominic Asquith was said to have been co-ordinating them over recent months. "Apart from Al-Qaeda, all the main insurgent groups took part," claimed a Kurdish source close to the discussions. "Representatives of the groups have met with the British several times in recent months," the source told the broadsheet.

From Air Force Times Subsonic bomber wanted by 2018 By Gayle S. Putrich - Staff writer Posted : Monday May 21, 2007 6:50:45 EDT The Air Force may trade building a faster bomber in favor of building a bomber faster — even if it means lowering technological expectations for now. Expectations seem to have been dialed down from a supersonic, super-stealthy long-range bomber to a manned, subsonic aircraft with a range of 2,500 nautical miles. Sources say the service plans to buy only about 100 of the stop-gap planes while exploring other options for future bombers. As recently as last year, the Air Force planned a new bomber program between 2025 and 2037. But the Pentagon’s 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review said the need was more urgent. So service leaders developed a three-pronged approach: modernize existing bombers, use today’s technology to put a new long-range strike plane in the air by 2018, and seek new technology for yet another new aircraft for service no later than 2035. The 2018 deadline means major requirements decisions will have to be made in 2009, with a contract awarded around 2011. “To build by 2018, the Air Force must minimize technological risk. That is really key,” said Rebecca Grant, president of IRIS Independent Research in Washington and author of the Air Force Association special report “Return of the Bomber: The Future of Long-Range Strike.” Grant said the service will have to go with a mature design, a survivable shape and advanced avionics. She also recommended using an engine with a proven track record, at least initially; a newer engine could be retrofitted later, she said. A bomber that could arrive and depart at supersonic speed to strike heavily defended targets would provide a strategic advantage, said Loren Thompson, an analyst with the Lexington Group. “Speed gets you the element of surprise. It puts you in control of the situation,” Thompson said. “In some circumstances, it’s essential. In some cases, it’s more important to be supersonic than it is to be stealthy.” However, senior Air Force leaders said that the heat signature of a supersonic aircraft negates that advantage. A barely subsonic aircraft that isn’t attracting attention with its heat signature is more practical at this point, they said. They also note that such speed requires a large amount of fuel. An aircraft that can almost reach Mach 1 is high subsonic, which is enough speed for an interim bomber and superior to an aging fleet made up of supersonic 1980s-era B-1s, a small number of B-2s and B-52s that have been in service for more than 40 years. As the Cold War thawed, the planned purchase of B-2 bombers was whittled from more than 130 to fewer than 100 and finally to 21, with production ending six years early in 1997. The end of the B-2 left the U.S. without a bomber in production or development for the first time since 1917, Grant wrote. From the very beginning, the late-1980s cockpit technology in the B-2 caused problems for aviators, and there were complaints of not making use of supersonic technology that was used in the B-1. But those problems, and others, have since been solved, Grant said. Since the close of the B-2 program, the technology has been pushed ahead by the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II fighter programs.

From Navy Times New subs will keep Pearl busy By William Cole - Honolulu Advertiser Posted : Sunday May 20, 2007 16:10:31 EDT The new nuclear attack submarine Hawaii and other Virginia-class subs will be the major source of work for the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard in coming years, officials said. The $2.4 billion vessel was commissioned May 5 in Groton, Conn., and is expected to arrive for the first time at its home port of Pearl Harbor in 2009. Submarines account for about 90 percent of the work done by Pearl Harbor’s shipyard, the state’s largest industrial employer with a work force of 4,740. Pearl Harbor has 16 Los Angeles-class submarines. The submarine Buffalo is expected to move to Guam this summer, while the submarine Jacksonville is scheduled to be shifted from Norfolk, Va., to Hawaii in 2008. The Hawaii is the third in the new Virginia class. The second submarine in the class, Texas, was commissioned last September. Reports had placed its home port at either Groton or Pearl Harbor. Although published Navy reports last year pointed to Groton as the base for the Texas, Pearl Harbor may still be in the running. Cmdr. Mike Brown, spokesman for the Pacific Fleet submarine force, yesterday said only the home port “still is a question mark.” “I have not seen a formal announcement to say that it’s going to go to Groton, or any definitive location, yet,” Brown said. Adm. Gary Roughead, who this month stepped down as commander of U.S. Pacific Fleet, recently said as the new Virginia-class attack submarines continue to come on line, “you are going to see the numbers in substantial amounts out here in Pearl Harbor.” Virginia-class and Los Angeles-class submarines are basically similar, said Michael Kawachi, the shipyard’s Virginia-class planning manager. “[but] with new technologies come new challenges,” Kawachi said. “There will be new equipment and different systems, which we have to learn and prepare for.” The 377-foot Hawaii is 17 feet longer than Los Angeles-class subs. Gone is the old hull-penetrating periscope, replaced by cameras and sensors mounted on masts. The Navy expects a slight rise in shipyard workload with the Virginia-class basing. Longer term, the Navy plans to shift from an equal balance of submarines in the Atlantic and Pacific to 60 percent of its force in the Pacific. A team of Pearl Harbor shipyard workers in February visited the Texas in Groton, and the shipyard is identifying changes needed to accommodate the Virginia-class subs. The shipyard said it needs about 40,000 square feet of covered space in a single facility close to the waterfront for Virginia-class equipment storage and workspace. The need also is part of a struggle to modernize to stay competitive with other Navy yards. Most of the buildings within the core of the shipyard and around four drydocks were built during World War I or II, and the classes of ships and many of the functions the buildings were built to support no longer exist. “It’s absolutely essential that we have the flexibility to be able to build the facilities we need near the waterfront, and that’s what’s been hurting us,” said Kerry Gershaneck, congressional and public affairs officer for the shipyard. Gershaneck said the Navy is working on a memorandum of agreement with the historic preservation community to determine what changes can be made.

Tony and I looked at this together, and as he points out, the Annex C2 for Naval Air Defense Guns lists only a handful of "sea skimmer capable" guns. Those lacking the capability include a LOT of electro-optical and optical control systems. The sea skimmer capable systems, on the other hand, tend to include a lot of the well known sea-whizz (CIWS) systems like Goalkeeper, Kashtan, Meroka, Phalanx, etc. That being the case, I'm inclined to say that the rule found in 6.4.1.1 is incorrect, i.e. electro-optical (EO) and optical gun systems are NOT sea skimmer capable unless they are specifically listed as having that capability. I haven't checked to see if this issue is covered in the Errata, and I would of course like to hear from some other H4.1 aficionados like Pete.

Welcome Jon. Yes, the game is still running and in fact is starting to pick up speed with Bill refreshing the teams' websites, maps and documents. You should get in touch with Bill ASAP at bjennings @ mac.com