CV32

Ha ha.

From DefenseNews Posted 05/17/07 11:20 USAF May Kill JASSM By GAYLE S. PUTRICH The U.S. Air Force may kill the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) program in the wake of failed tests, the U.S. Air Force’s assistant acquisition secretary said May 17. “Termination is one of the things on the table for that program,” Sue Payton said. “But I think there are some options there.” Three of the four missiles tested in Utah between April 30 and May 1 missed their targets by more than 200 feet after losing contact with GPS satellites, she said. The fourth reached the target but did not detonate due to fuze problems. The Air Force is working with the Joint Staff to determine the next move on the program, which she called “relevant and needed.” The Joint Staff is to determine whether these problems are fixable and announce the program’s fate within 30 days. The $5.8 billion program has seen costs increase more than 25 percent, Air Force officials told Congress last month, putting it in violation of Nunn-McCurdy price-inflation caps. The addition of an “extended range” element to the JASSM program was a big factor in the ballooning costs, Payton said. The Lockheed Martin weapon is designed to destroy well-defended targets from a long distance, keeping aircrews safe from an enemy’s anti-aircraft measures. Should JASSM be terminated, the Navy’s Standoff Land-Attack Missile Expanded Response, a Boeing-built over-the-horizon all-weather precision strike missile, is in the wings as an alternative. At a Capitol Hill breakfast, Payton also highlighted the Air Force’s five top acquisition programs: the KC-X tanker, the CSAR-X combat search and rescue helicopter, the TSAT space communications system, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and a next-generation long-range bomber. But she refused to comment on tankers or the contentious CSAR-X program, citing restrictions by the Procurement Integrity Act. Requests for proposals are out on both programs, with the original contract award for CSAR-X under protest.

From Jane's Intelligence Digest 17 May 2007 Russia seeks first-strike capacity against US bases in Europe In mid-January 2007, US officials formally proposed establishing a ballistic missile defence (BMD) radar system, operated by US personnel, in the Czech Republic. The complex would consist of a X-band radar for mid-course tracking and discrimination of ballistic missiles launched from the Middle East. The US and Poland have also begun discussions about possibly deploying 10 ground-launched US BMD interceptor missiles on Polish territory. US officials have justified the deployment as primarily aimed to protect European countries and the US from a future long-range ballistic missile threat from Iran. Although the US currently seeks to deploy only a few interceptors in Eastern Europe, Russian analysts seem to think that these numbers could increase substantially in the future. Russian officials openly challenge the contention that these systems' function is to intercept long-range missiles from Middle Eastern rogue states. They argue that no state in the region, including Iran, will have intercontinental-range missiles of this type in the near future. They insist, however, that US interceptors stationed in Eastern Europe could attack Russian Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) shortly after their launch from Russian territory. In response, Russian leaders are apparently seeking to acquire the capability to destroy these US missile interceptors before launch. In September 2006, Major General Vladimir Belous said that Russia's military doctrine justifies military operations against threatening installations in foreign countries. Another Russian defense analyst, Alexander Pikayev, acknowledged at the time that Russian forces might use tactical nuclear weapons to eliminate threatening BMD systems in Eastern Europe. At present, the Russian government appears most interested in developing the option to conduct a prompt first-strike attack against US BMD systems in Europe during a crisis.

There was also this story of how the Perry frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts had to be towed ashore after "engineering difficulties" (rumours of a grounding but sounds more like major engine problems to me). No news yet on what will happen to that skipper.

From Stratfor GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT 05.16.2007 The United States, Iran and the Iraq Negotiation Process By George Friedman and Reva Bhalla At long last, the United States and Iran announced May 13 that they will engage in direct public bilateral talks over Iraq. From Washington, it was the office of Vice President Dick Cheney and the National Security Council that broke the news. From Tehran, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad confirmed that the two sides will meet in Baghdad in a few weeks, most likely at the ambassadorial level. That makes these talks as officially sanctioned as they can be. Already there have been two brief public meetings -- albeit on the sidelines of two international conferences -- between senior officials from the Iranian Foreign Ministry and the U.S. State Department in March in Baghdad and in May in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. The upcoming meeting in Baghdad, however, will be the first official bilateral meeting. After months of intense back-channel discussions, both sides have made a critical decision to bring their private negotiations into the public sphere, which means Tehran and Washington must have reached some consensus on the general framework of the negotiations on how to stabilize Iraq. Why Now? The U.S. political situation illustrates why both sides are willing to come to the table right now. Both Iran and the United States are closely eyeing each other's busted flushes, and they understand that time is not on their respective sides. From the U.S. perspective, it is no secret the Iraq war has soaked up an enormous amount of U.S. military bandwidth. With the 2008 presidential election fast approaching, the Bush administration is left with little time to put a plan in action that would demonstrate some progress toward stabilizing Iraq. It has also become painfully obvious that U.S. military force alone will not succeed in suppressing Sunni insurgents and the Shiite militias enough to allow the government in Baghdad to function -- and for Washington to develop a real exit strategy. But by defiantly sending more troops to Iraq against all odds, Bush is sending a clear signal to Iran that it is not in the Iranians' interest to wait out this administration, and that the United States is prepared to use its forces to block Iranian aspirations to dominate Iraq. From the Iranian perspective, Tehran knows it is dealing with a weak U.S. president right now, and that the next U.S. president probably will have much greater freedom of action than Bush currently does. The Iranians learned that dealing with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter would have been preferable to dealing with his successor. If you know negotiations are inevitable, it is better to negotiate with the weak outgoing president than try to extract concessions from a strong president during an increasingly complicated situation. The Iranians also know that the intensely fractious nature of Iraq's Shiite bloc -- which Iran depends on to project its power -- makes it all the more difficult for Tehran to consolidate its gains the longer Iraq remains in chaos. U.S. and Iranian Demands And so the time has come for both Iran and the United States to show their cards by laying out their demands for public viewing. U.S. demands for Iraq are fairly straightforward. Our understanding of what Washington wants from Tehran regarding Iraq rests on these key points: 1. The United States wants Iraq to be a unified and independent state. In other words, Washington knows a pro-U.S. regime in Baghdad is impossible at this point, but Washington is not going to permit an Iranian-dominated state either. 2. The United States does not want jihadists operating in Iraq. 3. The United States wants to be able to withdraw from security operations, but not precipitously, thereby allaying Sunni Arab states' concerns. Essentially, the United States is looking to create an Iraqi government that, while dominated by the Shia, remains neutral to Iran, hostile to jihadists and accommodating to mainstream Sunnis. Iranian Demands Iran's answers to these demands were publicly outlined in a paper at the Sharm el-Sheikh summit. The Saudi-owned, U.K.-based daily newspaper Al Hayat established the details of this paper in a May 5 article. The key points made in the presentation include the following: 1. Iran does not want an abrupt withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq for fear this would lead to reshuffling the cards and redistributing power. Instead, there should be a fixed timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. and British forces from Iraqi cities and relocation at bases and camps inside Iraq, provided the Iraqi forces have reached the point at which they can provide security. The Iranians also stated that they would extend all possible assistance so that foreign forces could exit "honorably" from Iraq. The U.S. decision to surge more troops into Iraq forced Iran to think twice about placing its bets on a complete U.S. withdrawal. An abrupt withdrawal without a negotiated settlement leaves more problems than Tehran can manage in terms of containing Iraq's Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions, and Iran does not want to be left to pick up the pieces in a country that is already on the verge of shattering along sectarian lines. It is important to note that Iran is not calling for a complete withdrawal from Iraq, and actually acknowledges that U.S. forces will be relocated at bases and camps inside the country. Though this acts as a blocker to Iranian ambitions, the presence of U.S. bases also provides Iran with a stabilizing force placating the Sunnis and Kurds. Moreover, the Iranians are sending assurances to the United States that they are willing to cooperate so the Iraq withdrawal does not look like another Vietnam scenario for the U.S. administration to deal with at home. 2. Iran is "strongly opposed to all attempts to partition Iraq or impose a federal system that allows for regional autonomy." No region should be allowed to monopolize the resources in its territory and deprive other regions of the revenues from these resources. Iran is essentially saying that Tehran and Washington have a common desire to see a unified Iraq. The U.S. insistence on a unified Iraq takes into account Sunni concerns of being left with the largely oil-barren central region of the country. Iran is signaling that it is not interested in seeing Iraq get split up, even if such a scenario leaves Tehran with the second-best option of securing influence in a Shiite-dominated, oil-rich southern autonomous zone. 3. Iran wants a plan, involving the Kurds and Sunnis, drawn up to root out the transnational jihadist forces allied with al Qaeda in Iraq. Sunni tribes should also assume the responsibility of confronting jihadists, whether they are Iraqi citizens or are from other Arab and Muslim countries. In this demand, Iran and the United States share a common goal. The jihadists will use every attempt to sow sectarian strife in Iraq to prevent a political resolution from developing. The United States does not want to provide al Qaeda with a fertile base of operations, and Iran does not want its ideological nemesis gaining ground next door and working against Shiite interests. 4. Iran clearly states that the negotiations over Iraq cannot be separated from other regional issues and Tehran's nuclear file. Stratfor has extensively discussed the nexus between Iran's nuclear agenda and its blueprint for Iraq. Iran is trying to link the nuclear issue to its dealings with the United States on Iraq as a sort of insurance policy. Iran does not want to reach an agreement on Iraq and then leave the nuclear issue to be dealt with down the road, when the United States is in a stronger position to take action against Tehran. Iran basically is looking for a deal allowing it voluntarily to agree to freeze uranium enrichment in exchange for political concessions over Iraq, but without it having to dismantle its program. That would leave enough room to skirt sanctions and preserve the nuclear program for its long-term interests. Washington is not exactly amenable to this idea, which is what makes this a major sticking point. The United States already has made it clear that it is leaving the nuclear issue out of the Iraq discussions. 5. Iran wants a new regional formula that would make Iraq a region of influence for Tehran. While it does not appear that Iran explicitly stated this in its presentation, a majority of participants at the conference got the message. Washington cannot afford to allow Iraq to develop into an Iranian satellite, but it is looking for assurances from Iran that a U.S. withdrawal will leave in place a neutral, albeit Shiite-dominated, government in Iraq. Iranian Offers The Iranian paper outlined several key concessions it would offer the United States and Iraq's Sunni faction if its demands were met. 1. Iran would help the Iraqi government rein in the armed Shiite militias and incorporate them into the state security apparatus. 2. The de-Baathification law can be revised to allow for the rehiring of former Iraqi army personnel, the bulk of whom are tied to the Sunni nationalist insurgency. However, Iran wants assurances that former Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and other former Baathists will not be allowed to hold the position of prime minister when the time comes to replace current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. 3. Iran would be willing to see fresh parliamentary elections, the formation of a new Cabinet and the amendment of the Iraqi Constitution to double the Sunni seats in parliament to 40 percent, with the Shia retaining 60 percent. Tehran has said nothing about what would be left for Kurdish political representation, however. 4. Iran has proposed the "fair" distribution of oil revenues in Iraq to satisfy all parties, especially those in "central Iraq," the Sunni-dominated, oil-deprived heart of the country. Tehran's offers illustrate the Iranians' open acknowledgment that they are not going to be able to have their cake and eat it too. Instead, they are going to have to guarantee Iraqi neutrality by giving the Sunnis a much larger slice, leaving the Kurds to get screwed yet again. Back in Washington, the Bush administration is looking at the Iranian withdrawal plan skeptically. Right now, the United States wants assurances that a withdrawal plan worked out with the Iranians does not simply leave a longer-term opportunity for Iran to gradually take control of Iraq once the major roadblocks are out of the way. In other words, the United States needs guarantees that, as it draws down its troop presence, the Iranians will not simply walk in. The Iranian proposal to expand Sunni representation is a direct response to these concerns, provided the relevant parties can actually deliver on their promises. This is still highly questionable, though significant developments are already taking place that reveal the United States, Iran and various Iraqi players are making concrete moves to uphold their sides of the bargain. With Iran's blessing, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) has announced it will undergo a process of "Iraqization" -- a largely symbolic demonstration that SCIRI will not operate simply as an Iranian proxy. Meanwhile, the Sunni tribes and clans in Anbar province are increasingly broadcasting their commitment and progress in combating transnational jihadists. And finally, numerous reports in the Arab media suggest the United States would be willing to heed the Iranian demand that the Iraqi military not have offensive capabilities allowing it to threaten its Persian neighbor. The negotiations are moving, and it is becoming more and more apparent that a consensus is emerging between Tehran and Washington over how the Iraq project should turn out. With enough serious arrestors in play for this deal to fall through, it is now up to all players -- whether those players call Washington, Tehran, Riyadh or Baghdad home -- finally to put their money where their mouths are.

From Defence Talk Hopes rise for NKorea nuclear deal Agence France-Presse | May 16, 2007 Hopes rose Wednesday that North Korea will finally start shutting down its nuclear programme after Pyongyang announced a long-running financial dispute which blocked progress is close to settlement. "The statement by the North Korean foreign ministry expressed its will to implement the February 13 agreement in the most explicit and positive way that we have ever seen," South Korea's Unification Minister Lee Jae-Joung told a forum. Foreign Minister Song Min-Soon said he expected the dispute "to be settled in the near future" but did not elaborate. North Korean accounts totalling 25 million dollars were frozen in a Macau bank in September 2005 at US instigation on suspicion of money laundering and counterfeiting. The dispute has blocked progress ever since on nuclear disarmament. North Korea's foreign ministry late Tuesday promised to start shutting down atomic plants under UN supervision as soon as the funds are successfully transferred. "Work is currently under way to transfer our funds at Banco Delta Asia (BDA) in Macau to our bank accounts at a third country," said a spokesman quoted by official media. "When the funds are transferred we are willing to take measures for suspending the operations at the nuclear facilities right away, according to the February 13 agreement." A delegation from the International Atomic Energy Agency would be immediately invited and "in-depth discussions with the US" about follow-up measures would begin, the spokesman said. A six-nation disarmament deal in September 2005 went nowhere because of the BDA dispute and last October the North tested its first atomic weapon. In February the six parties agreed to a new disarmament deal but again the North insisted on a BDA settlement before it would honour the deal. An April 14 deadline for the first phase of action came and went as the US and other parties tussled with technicalities of how to transfer the cash. "Scepticism over Pyongyang's will to carry out the February deal is spreading among some participants at the six-party talks. The (Tuesday) statement is aimed at easing the doubts," said Professor Yang Moo-Jin at Seoul's University of North Korean Studies. But Yang told AFP North Korea had not been using the BDA issue just to play with time. "Pyongyang is not so familiar with the international financial system." In an attempt to move the nuclear pact forward, Washington announced in March that the accounts had been unfrozen but foreign banks had been unwilling to handle cash seen as tainted. There was no indication in Tuesday's report of how the transfer was being made or when it would be completed. But the communist state made it clear the dispute was not just about the BDA cash. "To make the money transfer possible freely just like before has been our demand ... from the beginning," the spokesman said. The US Treasury's blacklisting of BDA prompted other banks in the region to cut ties with Pyongyang -- effectively cutting off the North from the international banking system, even for legitimate transactions. As a first step under the February accord the North was to shut down its Yongbyon reactor -- which produces the raw material for plutonium to make weapons -- in the presence of UN inspectors in exchange for 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil to be supplied by South Korea. Under the next phase, the North should declare and disable all its nuclear programmes in return for another 950,000 tons of fuel oil or equivalent aid. The US will then consider removing the North from its list of terrorist states and talks will begin on establishing diplomatic relations and on a permanent peace treaty for the peninsula.

From DefenseNews Posted 05/15/07 17:37 U.S. Army General Picked to be ‘War Czar’ By WILLIAM H. MCMICHAEL An active-duty three-star Army general will become coordinator of the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Bush said Tuesday. Lt. Gen. Douglas E. Lute, the director of operations for the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, will be “the full-time manager for the implementation and execution of our strategies for Iraq and Afghanistan,” Bush said in a statement released by the White House. As such, Lute will serve as a direct link between commanders in the field, ambassadors Ryan Crocker and William Wood and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, and will work “closely” with members of Bush’s cabinet, Bush said. Lute will also manage the “interagency policy development process” for the two wars. “General Lute is a tremendously accomplished military leader who understands war and government and knows how to get things done,” Bush said. “While serving at Central Command, General Lute played an integral role in implementing combat operation plans in Iraq and Afghanistan and gained a critical understanding of the challenges we face in the Global War on Terror. He has already earned the respect and trust of the officials with whom he will be working in his new role.” Lute, who must be confirmed by the Senate, will carry the title of Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan. He will report to Hadley. Lute will continue to serve on active duty and will be nominated as a three-star general, a senior defense official said Tuesday. As such, he’ll be outranked by the four-star commander of U.S. Central Command, Adm. William J. Fallon, and the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Army Gen. David Petraeus. By law, Lute must be renominated at his current grade. The announcement ends an administration recruiting effort that lasted for at least six weeks and seemed initially aimed at hiring someone out of uniform. The White House apparently had no luck in that regard, having offered the job to at least three retired general officers, all of whom turned it down. They included retired Marine Gen. Jack Sheehan, retired Army Gen. Jack Keane and retired Air Force Gen. Joseph Ralston, sources say. Sheehan, a former NATO commander, rejected the job in very public fashion, harshly criticizing the administration’s conduct of the war. While Lute’s range of responsibilities and power are yet to be precisely detailed, the administration does not want someone to micromanage or “run the war,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told Pentagon reporters during an Apr. 11 press conference. Gates said he was surprised by the level of interest in the concept and said the phrase “war czar,” quickly coined after news of the administration’s search leaked out last month, struck him as “kind of silly.” “The person is better described as a coordinator and a facilitator, somebody — this is what Steve Hadley would do if Steve Hadley had the time, but he doesn’t have the time to do it full-time,” Gates said. “One of the arguments that we hear frequently — and frankly are very sympathetic with — is that we and the State Department are about the only parts of the government that are at war,” Gates said. “This kind of position is intended to ensure that where other parts of the government can play a contributing role, that in fact they understand what the president’s priorities are and make sure that the commanders in the field, the ambassador in the field gets what he needs.” If confirmed, Lute will fall into a special wartime category of general officers — there currently more than 20 — who serve in special positions at the pleasure of the president, the defense official said. As such, they are not counted against the congressional limit on how many generals the Army can have on active duty at any given time. Lute is a 30-year veteran and armor officer who served much of his early career in Germany during the Cold War. He took part in the 1991 Gulf War as the operations officer for the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment. He later commanded the 1st Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment and the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment, and was assistant division commander (support) for the 1st Infantry Division in Kosovo. Lute will bring a wide range of joint planning and senior staff experience to the White House. His jobs have included two years as the politico-military planner — and later, the chief of the Central and Eastern European Branch — on the Joint Staff. He later served as deputy director of operations for U.S. European Command. From June 2004 to September 2006, Lute was the director of operations for U.S. Central Command, which oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. [i don't like defeatism, but to play devil's advocate, is this position simply being created in order to absorb blame ?]

No problems here, Cap'n.

Had to share ...

From Defense Aerospace Raytheon, Aerojet Test New Propulsion System for Air-Launched Missile Defense System (Source: Raytheon; issued May 14, 2007) TUCSON, Ariz. --- Raytheon Company has demonstrated a key propulsion component of the Network Centric Airborne Defense Element (NCADE) program. NCADE is a missile defense system that will affordably leverage operational tactical missile technologies and infrastructure. As part of the NCADE risk-reduction program, Raytheon and partner Aerojet tested an advanced hydroxylammonium nitrate thruster that provided more than 150 pounds of thrust for longer than 25 seconds. This test, which took place at the Aerojet facility in Redmond, Wash., demonstrated what the Missile Defense Agency calls "knowledge points." The thruster is an advanced monopropellant that provides increased performance and high-density packaging that will result in lighter, higher-velocity interceptors. Hydroxylammonium nitrate is also less toxic and easier to handle than other propellants. This propulsion technology could eventually enable safe shipboard operation. Raytheon also fabricated two prototype NCADE seekers. The seekers have undergone characterization testing in a high-fidelity simulator demonstrating their ability to track a booster in the presence of a bright rocket plume. "Network Centric Airborne Defense Element fills a critical niche in the Ballistic Missile Defense system and provides a revolutionary, low-cost approach to interceptor development and acquisition cost," said Mike Booen, Raytheon Missile Systems vice president of Advanced Missile Defense. NCADE is an air-launched weapon system designed to engage short- and medium-range ballistic missiles in the boost, ascent or terminal flight phases. The NCADE interceptor leverages many proven components and technologies, including the aerodynamic design, aircraft interface and flight control system of Raytheon's Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile. The commonality with AMRAAM enables NCADE to launch from a wide variety of aircraft. NCADE's small size enables it to be carried by and launched from smaller unmanned aerial vehicles, providing a potential operational advantage. Network Centric Airborne Defense Element also leverages proven imaging infrared seeker components from existing Raytheon production programs. This enables a potentially rapid development and fielding path. Raytheon Company, with 2006 sales of $20.3 billion, is a technology leader specializing in defense, homeland security and other government markets throughout the world. With a history of innovation spanning 85 years, Raytheon provides state-of-the-art electronics, mission systems integration and other capabilities in the areas of sensing; effects; and command, control, communications and intelligence systems, as well as a broad range of mission support services. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 73,000 people worldwide. [i've always cringed when AMRAAM has intercepted ballistic missiles in HCE, but perhaps I was hasty ... ]

From Army Times New rule may inhibit military bloggers By Robert Weller - The Associated Press Posted : Monday May 14, 2007 5:28:35 EDT DENVER — The operator of a popular military blogging site says new Army rules will inhibit soldiers from blogging. “The old regulation said you had to register your blog, and if you had any questions about operational security you were supposed to inform your commander,” said former Army Maj. Matthew Burden, who served in the Gulf War and in intelligence. In announcing the new regulations, the Army said the intention of the new rule is not to have soldiers clear every public posting with commanders. “Not only is that impractical, but we are trusting the soldiers to protect critical information,” said Army Maj. Ray M. Ceralde on May 2.” The Army also said rules published in 2005 already required solders to clear postings with security officers. However, the 2005 regulation, provided to The Associated Press by Burden, requires solders to “Consult with their immediate supervisor and their Operational Security program manager, prior to publishing or posting information that might contain sensitive and/or critical information in a public forum — this includes, but is not limited to letters, e-mail, Web site postings, Web log (Blog) postings, discussion in Internet information forums, discussion in Internet message boards, or other forms of dissemination or documentation.” The new rule says soldiers must “Consult with their immediate supervisor and their OPSEC officer for an OPSEC review prior to publishing or posting information in a public forum.” Burden said no commander can ignore the new regulation or liberally interpret it. “He’s going to read it black and white.” Iraq-based soldiers are disappearing from Burden’s blog since the new rule was announced, though many soldiers still e-mail him and he posts their comments under different names, he said. His Web site, www.blackfive.net, has 3 million hits a year. A two-day posting on Sunday from a soldier in Iraq, who name was withheld, said he was astonished support for the war has declined so much because no one in America was being asked to sacrifice anything except soldiers and their families. “The only ones who have TRULY sacrificed are my brothers and sisters in arms who have been killed or wounded and their families that live with that pain everyday. For the rest of America what has been given up? I saw in the news that the stock market is at record levels.” Noah Shachtman, who runs a national security blog for Wired Magazine, said no one questions the Army’s right to protect intelligence and soldiers wouldn’t purposely endanger themselves or their buddies. “This is as much an information war as it is bombs and bullets. And they are muzzling their best voices. The functional result is any solder who blogs will have a sword of his head. And he can be busted for anything he says.” John Noonan, a Air Force captain blogger who declined to be further identified, said, “Officers will just say you can’t blog because that is the safest way to do it. It will have a chilling effect.” Burden said the Army had initially welcomed e-mail because it was such a morale booster. Army public affairs officers e-mail reporters in their hometowns with news of their successful campaigns. The Army’s 2005 Review said: “Internet blog sites and troops’ letters home are full of anecdotes about the gratification U.S. service members get from helping people who have suffered so much.” Recently, the Army began posting videos on YouTube.com showing soldiers defeating insurgents and befriending Iraqis. Iraqi insurgents or their supporters have been posting videos on the site since last fall.

7 August 1942: We departed Midway in the evening. 10 August 1942: Enroute to conduct a raid of the enemy occupied port at Wake Island. In the afternoon, we were attacked by an H8K aircraft but its bombs fell wide. 11 August 1942: Late in the afternoon, we arrived in the vicinity of Wake, where an Asashio destroyer was patrolling as sentry. We attacked and sank this destroyer with a single torpedo from less than 400 yd. The final moments for an Asashio class destroyer. There were several enemy merchants berthed in the harbor, but the water was quite shallow and guarded by several coastal guns emplaced in well protected bunkers. We penetrated as deeply as we dared, and loosed torpedoes at the nearest targets. We damaged a large composite freighter and two large tankers but could not get any closer. Around midnight, with no moonlight to give us away, we surfaced and finished these targets with the 4 inch gun. We had to run at flank speed out of the harbor as the coastal gun batteries woke up. We sustained only minor damage in making our escape. 16 August 1942: During the night, we arrived in the vicinity of Saipan, intent on conducting another port raid. Once again a lone destroyer was acting as sentry, this time a Fubuki. Our first torpedo missed, but the second - a Mk 10 - struck aft. Although it started a fire, the destroyer was still running. We fired one of our stern torpedoes, and again achieved a hit but still did not sink the enemy tin can. The Fubuki then moved off to the north. Later it returned from the east, and a third torpedo sunk her at less than 600 yd. We then attacked the harbor, sinking a small tanker and a small split freighter before surfacing. A pair of small gun boats quickly began to return fire, but we sunk one of these with a torpedo and the other with our gun. Our gunfire then sank a medium split freighter, another small tanker, a small composite freighter and a sub chaser. Raid on Saipan. Before dawn, a second Fubuki destroyer was spotting headed north toward Saipan at high speed. This warship we sank with a stern torpedo at about 700 yd. We then approached the nearby port at Tinian, where we sank a medium composite freighter with a torpedo and a few 4 inch shells before being driven off by enemy fire. During the morning and our egress, we were attacked by a pair of G4M aircraft but sustained no damage. In the afternoon, we were attacked by an A6M2 Zero, and though we brought it down with the 20mm, its wreckage fell partly across our aft deck and damaged the main gun. An hour later, we shot down a second Zero. Late in the afternoon, we received word of a small convoy headed southeast in our direction. While attempting to intercept this convoy, we came under combined attack by Zero and Betty aircraft, and this time sustained moderate damage. We had to break off our attempt to attack the convoy to repair the damage. Coming under air attack, an unpleasant experience while exposed on the surface. 3 September 1942: While enroute to friendly waters, we received news from CINCPAC in the evening that Japanese forces in New Guinea had been beaten by the combined efforts of American and Australian forces. 11 September 1942: Returned safely to port at Pearl Harbor at midday.

From Flight International DATE:11/05/07 SOURCE:Flight International Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter recovers from in-flight power failure By Craig Hoyle Lockheed Martin has launched a planned software modification to its lone F-35 test asset, after suffering an unexpected power failure during the aircraft’s 19th and most recent test flight on 3 May. “We had some very unusual electrical transient through the airplane,” says Joint Strike Fighter programme executive officer US Air Force Brig Gen Charles Davis. “All the electrics dropped offline and came back after a few milliseconds.” Lockheed confirms: “The test pilot observed a partial failure of the electrical power system. The issue required that the pilot return to base and the 45min flight was slightly shorter than planned. Although the aircraft’s redundant systems worked, we wanted to recover the aircraft to investigate the fault as soon as possible.” The JSF uses electrical power to control all its primary flight control surfaces. The conventional take-off and landing aircraft – AA-1 – has been returned to its run station for an engineering review and to receive flight software update FTU-2, which Lockheed says will adjust its flight parameters following the 20h flown to date and introduce on-board prognostic health management systems. “The F-35 team does not expect any overall delays in the flight testing programme as a result of the incident,” it says.

Or perhaps a spectacular memory ? Wallet, wristwatch, car keys, H4 rules, check. And it helps to be the master of your own ship.

H4.1 represents both systems as having third generation guidance systems, with identical speed and maximum range (Storm Shadow/SCALP has a better minimum range). JASSM's warhead is somewhat heavier, and gets better DP (76 vs 67), but I'm not terribly convinced of that. Despite the heavier warhead, JASSM has a slightly lower hang weight. Storm Shadow/SCALP is a bit more mature than JASSM, having undergone system qualification trials in Summer 2002. I think deliveries started late that year, and although it initially appeared doubtful that the missile would be ready for Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003, it did in fact go to war. I think they fired something like 27 missiles, and were "very pleased" with the success rate. JASSM was cleared for operational use in late 2003, but did not enter full rate production until December 2004. Storm Shadow/SCALP has enjoyed some export successes, particularly in the Middle East, with the UAE (Black Shaheen variant) and may go to Saudi Arabia. IIRC, only Australia has plans to buy JASSM. I think the perceived differences are probably buoyed by Storm Shadow's proven combat record, and probably not perceptible by H4.1 rules standards.

From DefenseNews Posted 05/10/07 10:15 Russia Throws Wrench in S. Korea’s Global Hawk Plan AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, SEOUL South Korea’s plan to buy a U.S.-made unmanned spy plane to keep watch over North Korea has hit a snag because Russia opposes the easing of a global arms control pact, a news report said May 10. Dong-A Ilbo newspaper, quoting a diplomatic source, said any U.S. sale of the $50 million Global Hawk would need a revision to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). "The U.S. is trying to persuade MTCR member states to revise the MTCR regulations but Russia is opposed to revising it or making any exceptions," the source said. "South Korea’s planned purchase of Global Hawk will be difficult as long as Russia opposes the revision." Seoul hopes to buy four Global Hawks to improve its capability to spy on nuclear-armed North Korea, the paper said. The defense ministry in Seoul reiterated its willingness to buy the Global Hawks but refused to comment on Russia’s stance. "Since South Korea asked the United States to sell Global Hawk in 2005, bilateral talks have been under way," a defense ministry official said on condition of anonymity. "The MTCR concerns not only us but all member states. We cannot independently confirm the news report [on Russia]."

Afaik, the H4.1 data for JASSM and Storm Shadow/SCALP is virtually identical.

There is a body of opinion that believes the similar British Storm Shadow (and, by extension, perhaps, since they are very closely related, the French SCALP) cruise missile is vastly superior to the American JASSM.

From Air Force Times Technical issues delay Raptors leaving Japan By Eric Talmadge - The Associated Press Posted : Thursday May 10, 2007 7:45:37 EDT TOKYO — Two of the newest — and most expensive — fighters in the Air Force wrapped up a three-month deployment and roared out of Japanese skies Thursday, completing the F-22 stealth fighter’s debut on the international stage. The planes, the last of a dozen F-22s on the deployment, left the southern Japanese island of Okinawa several hours later than the rest because of “maintenance concerns,” the Air Force said in a statement from Kadena Air Base on Okinawa. The statement did not elaborate on what the problems were. It said after a complete check, the planes were approved to leave Kadena and move to “another location in the Pacific region.” The first 10 F-22s departed Kadena on schedule before dawn Thursday for their home at Langley Air Force Base, Va. The fighters arrived on Okinawa in February. The deployment of the Air Force’s most advanced fighter to Japan was intended to show off the jet’s strengths in a region with a complex security balance that is being challenged by the rapid growth of Chinese and North Korean military power, and to provide training opportunities for the pilots and enhance cooperation with the Japanese military. Japan’s Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma hailed the mission, saying it presented a “great opportunity” to train together. Tokyo and Washington were reportedly considering another deployment of the planes to Japan, but there were no plans to regularly bring F-22s to the country. Under a mutual security pact, the U.S. maintains about 50,000 troops in Japan. Japan, which is planning to replace its aging F-4 fighters with a more advanced aircraft, is a potential market for U.S. fighters but has expressed concern over the high cost of the F-22 and possible licensing problems.

From Stratfor's Terrorism Intelligence Report Technology Acquisition and the Chinese Threat By Fred Burton A U.S. District Court jury in Santa Ana, Calif., was still deliberating May 9 in the trial of Chi Mak, a naturalized Chinese-American accused of acting as an agent of the Chinese government and exporting military information, among other charges. Chi's wife, brother, sister-in-law and nephew are awaiting trial in connection with the case. The clandestine and highly sensitive nature of espionage cases, as well as the need to protect the sources and tactics used to discover such operations, makes it difficult to prosecute alleged spies, even when the government is certain the accused party is guilty. For example, alleged American spy Felix Bloch was observed meeting with a KGB officer in a Paris cafe, though he was never prosecuted. Prosecuting suspected spies is further complicated in cases involving the Chinese government, which is renowned for its patient, long-term approach to espionage. Due to these factors, U.S. prosecutors did not accuse Chi of espionage, but of the lesser crimes of being an unregistered foreign agent and violating export laws. Regardless of the outcome of the trial, however, the testimony and evidence presented in this case provide an inside look at the methods the Chinese use in the United States to acquire cutting-edge technology -- and the U.S. government's efforts to counter them. An Age-Old Problem Espionage, often called "the world's second-oldest profession," has been practiced since the beginning of recorded history. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the launch of the global war on terrorism, however, the FBI redirected nearly all of its assets for foreign counterintelligence (FCI) programs into the counterterrorism effort. This meant that for the first time in the bureau's history, practically no counterintelligence efforts were taking place. Although the scope of the damage caused by this virtual FCI hiatus might never be fully appreciated, the October 2005 arrest of the Chi family was one sign that the pendulum was beginning to swing the other way -- that resources were being allocated to address the enormous problem of foreign spies. While the FBI's limited FCI programs run up against the espionage efforts of dozens of foreign countries, no country poses a more aggressive or widespread intelligence threat to the United States than China. The Chinese in many ways use the espionage version of the "human wave" attacks they employed against U.S. military forces during the Korean War. Due to China's size and the communist government's control of society, the Chinese can devote immense manpower to gathering intelligence. For example, the U.S. State Department issued 382,000 nonimmigrant visas and 37,000 immigrant visas to Chinese citizens in 2006. Additionally, more than 62,000 Chinese students were studying at U.S. universities last year. Granted, very few of these people were spies, though the number still represents an enormous pool of potential suspects to vet and watch, especially when one considers that there are only 12,575 FBI agents in the United States -- most of whom are assigned to tasks other than FCI, such as terrorism and white-collar crime. The bottom line, therefore, is that it is very difficult to determine which of these visitors are in the United States to steal secrets and technology. Indeed, many serve in both capacities: They are legitimate students and part of the intelligence effort. Furthermore, not everyone who collects information for the Chinese government realizes they are doing so. By engaging in normal conversations with Chinese friends or relatives about all manner of things, including work, the average person can be providing these friends -- the real intelligence agents -- with critical information. Additionally, in many cases, the activities of Chinese agents do not fit the legal definition of espionage. Scouring open-source material for new and emerging technologies, attending technology conferences and trade shows and hiring firms to look at new technologies are all legal activities -- and U.S. companies do this all the time. Some Chinese agents, then, are engaging much more in business intelligence than in true espionage. Given the blurred lines between civilian and government/military technology in China, however, the information gleaned can easily find its way into military applications. The Chinese Style The Chinese are renowned for their patient and persistent espionage methods, and for their technological reverse-engineering capabilities. They also are noted for taking an extremely long view of their political and military needs and of the intelligence required to meet them. Because of this, the Chinese pose the greatest intelligence threat to U.S. technology. Aggressive efforts by the Chinese government to obtain critical technologies are no secret. The Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology, for instance, lists science and technology acquisition programs such as its National High-tech R&D Program (known as the 863 Program) on its official Web site. This program provides guidance and funding for acquiring or developing technology that will have a "significant impact on enhancing China's overall national strengths." Targeted technologies include those for civilian use in areas such as information technology (IT), biotechnology, agriculture, manufacturing, energy and the environment. Many of these technologies, however, also have military applications. While the 863 Program calls for the Chinese to acquire or develop these technologies, it is far cheaper and quicker to acquire them -- and China has a long history of doing so. A great many of China's weapons systems have been developed either by stealing designs and technologies or by outright copying the entire system. In addition to copying small arms such as the AK-47, the RPG-7 and the Makarov pistol, Chinese military industries have even reverse-engineered fighter aircraft. The Chengdu F-7 fighter, for example, is a copy of the Soviet MiG-21. This crash technological advancement program is intended not only to close China's technological gap with the West, but also to leapfrog ahead of it. To acquire critical technologies, then, the Chinese rely not only on traditional espionage, but also on collecting the needed information via open sources. Such open-source collection is both faster and easier than engaging in espionage -- and it is legal. In effect, the Chinese are exploiting the openness of the U.S. research and development (R&D) system. Such openness allows faster development of technologies in the United States because scientists and engineers from various institutions and companies can share ideas, and thus contribute to different aspects of the concept. The openness, however, also makes it easy for others to "eavesdrop" on the ongoing technological conversation. Other countries, including Israel, France, India and South Korea, do the same thing -- though none has matched China in the amount of effort and resources devoted to this process. To obtain the desired technology, China is sending students, scholars and researchers to work and study in the United States and other industrialized countries. Some of these visitors then return to China to work in high-tech "incubator parks," where R&D takes place. Among this group, however, are real intelligence officers who are sent to steal critical technologies. The Chi case provides insight into this process at work in the United States. According to the U.S. government, Chi was employed as a principal support engineer for Power Paragon, a subsidiary of L-3 Communications/SPD Technologies/Power Systems Group in Anaheim, Calif. Chi, who was born in China and became a U.S. citizen in 1985, was granted a "secret-level" security clearance in 1996 and worked on more than 200 U.S. defense and military contracts as an electrical engineer. During the investigation into Chi's activities, the FBI performed a "trash cover" on him -- literally combing through his trash for evidence -- and found two documents containing instructions for Chi to attend more seminars and lists of the technologies he was to obtain. The lists had been torn up into small pieces, but the FBI was able to reconstruct and translate them. The FBI then performed surreptitious searches of Chi's residence and reportedly found documents pertaining to a number of the technologies listed on both documents. Redefining the 'Company' Efforts to collect sensitive technology are conducted not only by individual intelligence agents, but also by the many corporations established and controlled by the Chinese government. One such corporation is the Xinshidai Group, which was established by the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and is one of China's two largest military hardware conglomerates. One of the armaments companies Xinshidai controls is Norinco, which is widely known in the United States for sales of light arms and ammunition. While conglomerates such as Xinshidai are not officially part of the Chinese government, they were established solely to serve the needs of the PLA and the Chinese military-industrial complex. And one important need of the Chinese government is to acquire advanced defense technology. Many Xinshidai subunits, including Norinco, own subsidiary companies in the United States, and employees of these companies attend trade shows and technology conferences, and also meet with representatives from other companies. Of course, with so much information available online, much of this open-source collection can be accomplished from a desk in China Many times, early technologies related to the defense industry are not yet classified and therefore not protected. These technologies often become classified only after the U.S. government has purchased them. Information on these emerging technologies, then, can be obtained during the early stage, when their developers are applying for patents or looking for venture capital, partners and/or customers. The technology acquisition process more often crosses the line into traditional espionage inside China, where Chinese intelligence officers -- operating without fear of prosecution -- frequently steal sensitive documents or copy a target's hard drive. This situation is further complicated when one considers that many of the major U.S.-based corporations doing business in China or seeking to expand market share there also have lucrative contracts with the U.S. Defense Department or other federal agencies. Some of these companies are going beyond Chinese manufacturing and are establishing design and software development centers in the country, meaning even more technology and proprietary information must be made available there. The expansion of foreign companies into China brings a host of potential targets right to the Chinese intelligence apparatus, allowing China to apply even more pressure to even more points in its quest for technology. Moreover, the techniques used against companies and travelers in China can be far more aggressive than those employed against similar targets in the United States. In addition to the threat posed to U.S. national security, allowing China to close the technology gap through the acquisition of proprietary information -- legally or not -- ultimately will hurt U.S. multinationals as Chinese companies use the information to become competitors. This means U.S. companies wishing to remain competitive by operating in China or partnering with Chinese firms and their subsidiaries in the United States must maintain a high level of vigilance.

The latest issue of Code One Magazine, which is a quarterly publication of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, contains a collection of photographs of the cockpits of a wide range of military aircraft, from the F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning to the PBY Catalina and B-24 Liberator. Pretty nice pics. Find em here: Code One Special Cockpit Issue

Those are impressive numbers, Herman. Congratulations !

From Air Force Times F-22 fighters headed home from Okinawa By Eric Talmadge - The Associated Press Posted : Wednesday May 9, 2007 8:24:25 EDT TOKYO — A dozen F-22 stealth fighters are heading back to the U.S. after completing their first overseas mission, a four-month deployment to Okinawa aimed at showcasing the fighter’s capabilities and giving pilots a chance to train in a new setting. The fighters, which arrived on the southern Japan island of Okinawa in February, will fly out of Kadena Air Base early Thursday, the Air Force and Japan’s Foreign Ministry said in separate statements. The fighters are based at Langley Air Force Base, Va. The deployment, the first outside of the U.S. for the Air Force’s newest and most expensive fighter, was intended to show off the F-22’s strengths in a region with a complex security balance that is being challenged by the rapid growth of Chinese and North Korean military power. The mission also was aimed at providing training opportunities for the pilots and enhancing cooperation with the Japanese military. During their deployment on Okinawa, the fighters conducted joint training with the Japanese. Two F-22A Raptors and two F-15 Eagles took part in the training, which involved mock air battles with four F-4 Phantoms and four F-15 Eagles from Japan’s Air Self-Defense Force. Japan’s Defense Minister Fumio Kyuma said the deployment of the stealth fighters was part of ongoing efforts to improve technology and train at working together. Under a mutual defense past, the U.S. has roughly 50,000 troops in Japan, and the two countries have been strengthening the interoperability of their forces in recent years with Japan hoping to take a more active role in regional security. Officials say there are no plans to regularly bring F-22s to Japan after the current mission ends. F-22 fighters are scheduled to be deployed in Alaska and possibly Hawaii, which would give a significant boost to the Air Force’s firepower in the Pacific. The U.S. is not alone in boosting its air capabilities in Asia. China is rapidly modernizing its military, and recently unveiled its J-10 fighter, which is believed to be one of the most advanced warplanes used by any air force in the world today, though it is not seen as a serious technological rival to the F-22.

From Navy Times Navy official confident about LCS By Christopher P. Cavas - Staff writer Posted : Tuesday May 8, 2007 20:53:03 EDT The Navy’s top acquisition official was upbeat and positive May 7 about the troubled Littoral Combat Ship program, telling a Washington audience, “We’re back on track.” Earlier this year, severe cost overruns and manufacturer problems led the service to cancel plans to buy two more LCS ships in 2007 to pay for cost growth on the first ships. The construction contract for one of two LCSs being built by Lockheed Martin was cancelled, and in a touch of ignominy, a fire damaged the first ship late last month while it was under construction in Wisconsin. The service scaled back its original request for three ships in 2008 to two while the program weathered an intense internal review. Congress seems poised to restore that ship and one more to the 2008 budget request, but only if the Navy can demonstrate they’ve got a handle on the program. “We do believe we can execute four ships,” Delores Etter confidently told reporters May 7 after speaking at a Navy-sponsored small business convention. “We stumbled and we’ve got to show [Congress] that we’ve got things turned around and are on the right track.” Etter’s mood was in stark contrast with the stern countenance over past months of Navy officials clearly alarmed by the dramatically negative turn in the LCS program. Costs for the first ship, originally forecast at about $220 million, ballooned to between $350 million and $375 million. In January, program officials were fired and a deep review led by Navy Secretary Donald Winter revealed a host of problems with the shipbuilders and the Navy’s handling of the program. But Etter now is looking ahead. “It’s such an important part of the future Navy,” she said.

From Navy Times Officials: Chances bleak for return of Pueblo By Jennifer Talhelm - The Associated Press Posted : Wednesday May 9, 2007 7:19:16 EDT The State Department says it can’t negotiate the return of the surveillance ship Pueblo from North Korea while the U.S. is trying to get the communist nation to drop its nuclear ambitions. A State Department official turned aside a suggestion by Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., that the U.S. demand the North Koreans return the Pueblo, taken in 1968. Allard suggested offering to swap a Korean flag captured in the 19th century in exchange for the ship. Allard said his constituents are eager to see North Korean return the Pueblo, which is named for a Colorado town and is the only active-duty U.S. warship in the hands of a foreign power. In a letter to Allard last week, assistant secretary of state for legislative affairs, Jeffrey Bergner, said there are substantial barriers to getting the Pueblo back. The two countries have no formal diplomatic relations, Bergner wrote. Also, the North Koreans haven’t offered to return the ship. “The State Department sees little near-term prospect of negotiating the return of the USS Pueblo,” Bergner wrote. Allard hasn’t given up, spokesman Steve Wymer said. Allard introduced the resolution in Congress last month demanding that North Korea return the Pueblo. He will wait and see what happens and follow up in a few weeks, Wymer said. “Senator Allard wants the Pueblo back,” Wymer said. “Anything he can do to make that happen, he will look into it.” The Pueblo was taken Jan. 23, 1968, after being sent defenseless on an intelligence-gathering mission off the North Korean coast. Navy records show it was in international waters when it was captured, although the North Koreans insist it was inside the Korean coastal zone. The North Koreans display the ship as a trophy. U.S. officials have been told that North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Il, decreed that the ship should be used for “an anti-American education.” The U.S. government believes the Pueblo is being held illegally, Bergner wrote to Allard. North Korea has occasionally suggested to private citizens that it would trade the ship for high-level bilateral talks or for large compensation, Bergner wrote. But the U.S. rejects the idea of such a trade because it would legitimize North Korea’s action. Advocates in Colorado argue that the U.S. should at least return the flag to the Koreans as a show of good intentions. The flag was captured from Korean Gen. Uh Je-yeon in an 1871 battle after American ships attempting to open Korea to trade invaded Kanghwa Island, outside Seoul. It is on display at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md.