CV32

Great post, Pete. A lot of respect for those who have gone before, when war was really WAR.

From DefenseNews Posted 03/28/07 18:15 Lawmakers Offer Ships That U.S. Navy Is Reluctant To Accept By WILLIAM MATTHEWS Some in the U.S. House of Representatives want to buy the Navy 12 new ships next year, not just the seven the service requested in the 2008 budget proposal. But when asked by appropriators in the Senate “what number is prudent,” the Navy’s top officer suggested maybe eight. After complaining for years that its fleet is shrinking and that its shipbuilding budget isn’t big enough, the Navy finds itself in the awkward position of having to turn down an opportunity to dramatically increase shipbuilding. One problem is that U.S. shipyards would be hard-pressed to increase production to 12 ships a year, said Adm. Michael Mullen, chief of naval operations. Another problem is that two of the Navy’s shipbuilding programs are so problem-plagued that buying more of them poses an unacceptable risk, he said. A third problem is that buying an extra submarine requires about two years of advance procurement. The Navy would like an extra LPD-17 amphibious ship, but it’s “not affordable,” Mullen told the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee March 28. The one extra ship that the Navy could probably accommodate, Mullen said, would be a T-AKE — a fairly inexpensive, civilian-manned ammunition carrier. That “could be done relatively easily,” he said. The Navy has asked for $13.65 billion for shipbuilding in 2008, up from $10.4 billion this year. If ships are added, the 2008 total could increase to more than $17 billion. Instead of welcoming the extra spending, Mullen and Navy Secretary Donald Winter cataloged the difficulties besetting Navy shipbuilding. Damage wrought by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 continues to hobble shipyards in Mississippi and Louisiana, making questionable the ability to actually build extra ships, Mullen said. Inability to increase production capacity means that if Congress adds money for extra ships to the 2008 budget, it is likely that the Navy would “essentially be booking a ship, not actually building it,” Mullen said. The U.S. shipbuilding industrial base is so diminished that “ramping up” ship production is very difficult, Mullen said. Adding a submarine to the 2008 budget would involve other complications, he said. Submarines require two years of partial funding to buy the nuclear propulsion system and other advance procurement items before the main purchase is made. So construction of an extra submarine wouldn’t begin until 2010, Mullen said. An extra submarine then also would start two-per-year sub building two years early, which, in turn, would leave a “$5 billion hole” in the budget for 2011, when the Navy plans to have only enough money to build one submarine, he said. The Navy’s two newest classes of ships might seem like logical places to spend some extra money, except that both are experiencing serious development problems. Adding ships to either program in 2008 would put money at risk, he said. The Littoral Combat Ship program has experienced cost overruns of between 50 percent and 75 percent on the three ships under construction. What was supposed to be a $220 million ship now is $350 million to $375 million. The Navy has been forced to cut ship production to pay for the overruns. The DDG-1000, the Navy’s new destroyer, is projected to cost $3.3 billion but analysts say the actual cost could rise to $5 billion or higher. The DDG-1000 program is in its early phases, thus too risky to merit extra spending in 2008, Mullen said. In case that suggests to some buying more DDG-51s, Mullen said he wanted to “make it clear that we do not want to go back” to building any more of the Cold War-era ships. The last DDG-51s were bought in 2005. Confronted with out-of-control ship costs and storm-damaged shipyards, senior Navy officials look with envy at foreign shipbuilding capabilities. Winter told the subcommittee that a tour of foreign shipyards showed that many have superior technology. “We need to take a look at our plans for shipyards.” They need infusions of advanced technology, modernized processes, new facilities and a better work force, he said. Who will pay for all that? “That’s worthy of significant discussion,” Mullen said when asked whether improvements should be financed by the federal government or the industry itself.

From Defense Aerospace MOD Briefing Shows Royal Navy Personnel Were In Iraqi Waters (Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued March 28, 2007) The Ministry of Defence has presented evidence which shows that the fifteen personnel detained by Iranian authorities on Friday 23 March 2007 were operating in Iraqi waters when they were seized. The briefing, at defence headquarters in London, was given by Vice Admiral Charles Style, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Commitments). Vice Admiral Style, who is responsible for providing strategic advice to operational commanders, explained in detail where the Royal Navy personnel were located when they were seized: "The aim of this brief is to provide a factual account of the incident during which fifteen Royal Naval personnel were seized by the Iranians last Friday. By way of background, HMS CORNWALL was in charge of the coalition force, which - alongside the Iraqi Navy - is operating in the Northern Persian Gulf. "This force maintains the sovereignty and integrity of Iraqi territorial waters under UN Security Council Resolution 1723, and with the approval of the Iraqi Government. The ship – and others in the coalition - maintain a presence patrolling there. They are also charged with protection of the Iraqi offshore oil infrastructure – economically very important - and the security of merchant vessels. "On 23 March a boarding team consisting of seven Royal Marines and eight sailors - who were embarked in two of HMS CORNWALL's boats - conducted a routine boarding of an Indian flagged Merchant Vessel which was cooperative throughout. They investigated this vessel after witnessing her unloading cars into two barges secured alongside. Since early March the force has conducted 66 routine boardings. So the one that I'm talking about was entirely routine business, and conducted in a particular area where four other boardings have been completed recently. "As shown on the chart, the merchant vessel was 7.5 nautical miles south east of the Al Faw Peninsula and clearly in Iraqi territorial waters. Her master has confirmed that his vessel was anchored within Iraqi waters at the time of the arrest. The position was 29 degrees 50.36 minutes North 048 degrees 43.08 minutes East. This places her 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi territorial waters. This fact has been confirmed by the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. "The Iranian government has provided us with two different positions for the incident. The first we received on Saturday and the second on Monday. As this map shows, the first of these points still lies within Iraqi territorial waters. We pointed this out to them on Sunday in diplomatic contacts. "After we did this, they then provided a second set of coordinates that places the incident in Iranian waters over two nautical miles from the position given by HMS CORNWALL and confirmed by the merchant vessel. The two Iranian positions are just under a nautical mile apart – 1800 yards or so. It is hard to understand a reason for this change of coordinates. We unambiguously contest both the positions provided by the Iranians. "I should just explain at this point that the boats remained connected at this point. One of the seaboats was connected via data link, which communicated its position continually to the ship where it was displayed, superimposed on an electronic chart, on a purpose built console. During the boarding this console was constantly monitored and indicated, throughout, that the boats had remained well within Iraqi territorial waters. "Our boarding started at 0739 local time and was completed at 0910 with the merchant vessel having been cleared to continue with her business. Communications were lost with the boarding team as the boarding was finishing … at 0910. HMS CORNWALL's Lynx helicopter, which had been covering the initial stages of the boarding, immediately returned to the scene to locate the boarding team. "The helicopter reported that the two seaboats were being escorted by Iranian Islamic Republican Guard Navy vessels towards the Shatt 'Al Arab Waterway and were now inside Iranian territorial waters. Debriefing of the helicopter crew and a conversation with the master of the merchant ship both indicate that the boarding team were ambushed while disembarking from the merchant vessel. Both boats were equipped with a GPS chart plotter. "On Sunday morning, 25 March, HMS CORNWALL's Lynx conducted an overflight of the merchant vessel, which was still at anchor, and once again confirmed her location on Global Positioning System equipment. Her Master confirmed that his vessel had remained at anchor since Friday, and was in Iraqi territorial waters. "Ladies and Gentlemen, my primary message is clear. HMS CORNWALL with her boarding party was going about her legal business – in Iraqi Territorial waters, under a United Nations Security Council Resolution, with the explicit approval of the Iraqi government. "The action by Iranian forces in arresting and detaining our people is unjustified and wrong. As such it is a matter of deep concern to us and the families of the people who have been taken. We continue not only to call for their safe, but for their safe and speedy, return, and we continue to seek immediate consular access to them as a prelude to their release."

Gloomy indeed. On the bright side, in the fantastical sense ... this, "A disaster in Iraq will in all likelihood result in a widened regional struggle which will endanger America’s strategic interests in the Mideast for a generation”, has already been used as a backdrop to a few of my own HC scenarios, and I expect there's plenty of fodder there yet.

From Navy Times Coalition forces share risks in gulf patrols Iranian capture of British sailors, Marines raises questions on rules of engagement By Andrew Scutro - Staff writer Posted : Tuesday Mar 27, 2007 19:07:45 EDT The 15 British sailors and Marines captured by Iran on Friday could just as easily have been Americans — both navies, along with Australian forces, constantly patrol the contentious and confined waters of the northern Persian Gulf. But Navy officials would not discuss the possibility that American forces might have resisted the Iranian sailors rather than face capture, after a U.S. Navy officer in the region was quoted talking about rules of engagement in a British newspaper. “We do not talk [rules of engagement]. We just don’t,” said Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl, public affairs officer for the U.S. 5th Fleet in Bahrain. Allied forces continuously patrol the area of the north Persian Gulf in the area around Iraq’s two offshore oil pumping terminals while Iran maintains a regular naval presence in its nearby waters. But while Iran has a regular navy that maintains professional relations with coalition forces, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy generally has a more belligerent posture, according to officers who have operated in the area. It was IRGCN forces who captured the British troops, according to Aandahl. He said the British were operating in two rigid-hull inflatable boats, boarding commercial traffic in Iraqi territorial waters, a task coalition forces do regularly. “They were conducting a compliant boarding of what we learned later was an Indian-registered ship,” he said. “The particular ship was of interest because it matched the description of a vehicle-smuggling ship.” After a search, “nothing untoward” was found on the ship, but when the British sailors and Marines reboarded their boats, they were “swarmed” by six motor patrol boats from the IRGCN, he said. In 2004, eight British sailors were captured and accused of crossing into Iranian waters in the waterway that borders Iraq known as the Shatt Al-Arab. They were later released. But Aandahl said the incident Friday was not in the narrow channel between the two countries. “They were in the gulf. They were not in the Shatt Al Arab waterway,” he said. “They were well within Iraqi territorial waters.” The allies operate in the northern gulf under the designation Task Force 158. Command of the force is rotated among the coalition navies. It is now under command of a British commodore aboard the flagship HMS Cornwall. The captured sailors and Marines are members of the Cornwall crew. Aandahal could not say how the situation escalated between the Iranian and British forces but he commended the allied sailors for their actions. “I think the British boarding team demonstrated remarkable professional prudence and restraint in not escalating a bad situation and making it worse,” he said. While U.S. forces are also in the area, Aandahl would not say what they did during the incident. “We were aware of the situation as events were unfolding,” he said. Meanwhile the U.S. has two carrier battle groups in the area, further to the south, with the John C. Stennis group inside the gulf and the Dwight D. Eisenhower group also in the region. “We know the waters fairly well. The ships come in knowing where the ‘go’ and ‘no-go’ boundaries are,” he said. “This is not new territory for us.”

From Navy Times British admiral: Vessels were in Iraqi waters Iran provided coordinates of sailors at time of capture, then revised them By David Stringer - The Associated Press Posted : Wednesday Mar 28, 2007 7:21:42 EDT LONDON — Britain’s military said Wednesday that navy vessels were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when Iran seized 15 British crew members. Vice Adm. Charles Style told reporters that the Iranians had provided a position on Sunday — a location that he said was in Iraqi waters. By Tuesday, Iranian officials had given a revised position 2 miles east, placing the British inside Iranian waters — a claim he said was not verified by Global Positioning System coordinates. “It is hard to understand a legitimate reason for this change of coordinates,” Style said. Britain and the U.S. have said the sailors and marines were intercepted Friday after they completed a search of a civilian vessel in the Iraqi part of the Shatt al-Arab waterway, where the border between Iran and Iraq has been disputed for centuries. Iran has said that the 15 British sailors and marines were being treated well but refused to say where they were being held, or rule out the possibility that they could be brought to trial for allegedly entering Iranian waters. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said the case was following normal procedures, holding out the possibility that the Britons could be brought to trial. He said the Britons were being treated well and that the only woman among the sailors, 26-year-old Faye Turney, had been given privacy. “They are in completely good health. Rest assured that they have been treated with humanitarian and moral behavior,” Hosseini said. In talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett demanded that British diplomats be allowed to meet with the crew to make their own assessment.

Bill has passed along the address for the recruiting website: http://homepage.mac.com/bjennings/Sites/2012/start.html Loads of fun, people !

From DefenseNews Posted 03/27/07 12:54 U.S.: Gulf Exercise to Reassure Allies, Not Confront Iran AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, WASHINGTON An unusual exercise involving two U.S. aircraft carrier strike groups in the Gulf is aimed at reassuring friends and allies, not raising tensions with Iran, a Pentagon spokesman said March 27. He also denied that the two-day exercise involving the aircraft carriers Dwight D. Eisenhower and John C. Stennis is in response to the seizure by Iran of 15 British sailors and marines. "We are not interested in confrontation in the Gulf," said spokesman Bryan Whitman. "The fact of the matter is ... we have an interest in the stability and security in the Gulf and the United States continues to reassure our allies in the region that we are good partners.” Exercises involving two carrier strike groups are unusual because two such naval formations are rarely in the same area at the same time. "This is an excellent opportunity," Whitman said. "These two carriers have never operated together before. This is the first chance they’ve had to operate together. "The exercise should reassure our friends and our allies of our commitment to security and stability in the region," he said. The U.S. 5th Fleet, based in Bahrain, said two air wings from the aircraft carriers will conduct exercises while warships from the strike groups practice anti-submarine, anti-surface and mine warfare. Whitman said the standoff over Iran’s seizure of the British marines and sailors March 23 in the northern Persian Gulf was a separate matter that is being handled diplomatically. President George W. Bush ordered a second U.S. carrier to the Gulf in January amid a mounting diplomatic confrontation with Iran over its uranium enrichment program and U.S. suspicions that it is bent on developing nuclear weapons. The second carrier raised the U.S. naval presence in the Gulf to its highest level since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other top administration officials have repeatedly denied that the U.S. has plans to attack Iran.

No problem. Two carriers, their air wings, a couple of Tico VLS cruisers, and 5 Burkes, plus the mine warfare ships. Somebody is seriously wanting to show a little bicep, it seems.

From Navy Times U.S. launches show of force in Persian Gulf By James Calderwood - The Associated Press Posted : Tuesday Mar 27, 2007 10:25:36 EDT ABOARD THE USS JOHN C. STENNIS IN THE GULF — The Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, deploying two aircraft carriers and conducting simulated aerial attacks. The maneuvers, involving 15 U.S. warships and more than 100 planes, were certain to increase tension with Iran, which has frequently condemned the U.S. military presence off its coastline. The exercises began four days after Iran captured 15 British sailors and marines whom it accused of straying into Iranian waters near the Gulf. Britain and the U.S. Navy have insisted the British sailors were operating in Iraqi waters. Aboard the carrier John C. Stennis, F/A-18 fighter jets rocketed off the deck in one of a dozen rapid-fire training sorties against enemy shipping and aircraft. “These maneuvers demonstrate our flexibility and capability to respond to threats to maritime security,” said Navy Lt. John Perkins, 32, of Louisville, Ky., as the Stennis cruised about 80 miles off the United Arab Emirates. “They’re showing we can keep the maritime environment safe and the vital link to the global economy open.” At U.S. 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain, Navy Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl said the U.S. maneuvers were not organized in response to the capture of the British sailors — nor were they meant to threaten the Islamic republic, whose navy operates in the same waters. He declined to specify when the Navy planned the exercises but added they would last several days. Aandahl said the U.S. warships would stay out of Iranian territorial waters, which extend 12 miles off the Iranian coast. A French naval strike group, led by the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, was operating simultaneously just outside the Gulf. But the French ships were supporting the NATO forces in Afghanistan and not taking part in the U.S. maneuvers, Aandahl said. Overall, the exercises involve more than 10,000 U.S. personnel on warships and aircraft making simulated attacks on enemy aircraft and shipping, hunting enemy submarines and finding mines. “What it should be seen as by Iran or anyone else is that it’s for regional stability and security,” Aandahl said. “These ships are just another demonstration of that. If there’s a destabilizing effect, it’s Iran’s behavior.” The U.S. drills were the latest in a series of American and Iranian war games. Iran conducted naval maneuvers in November and April, while in October the Navy led a Gulf training exercise aimed at blocking nuclear smuggling. In January, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Stennis strike group was being sent to the Middle East as a warning to Iran that it should not misjudge America’s resolve in the region. Iran has grown increasingly assertive in the Gulf as the U.S. military has become bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iranian officials have publicly called on America’s Gulf Arab allies to shut down U.S. military bases and join Iran in a regional security alliance. Gulf Arab leaders have grown increasingly uneasy with the aggressive U.S. stance toward Iran, believing it could provoke an unwanted war that could bring attacks on their own soil. But none has shown interest in an alliance with Iran. In February, then-5th Fleet commander Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh said he had assured Arab allies that Washington was trying to avoid “a mistake that boils over into war” with Iran. The Stennis strike group, with more than 6,500 sailors and Marines, entered the Gulf late Monday or early Tuesday along with the guided-missile cruiser Antietam, the Navy said. The Stennis, which had been supporting the Afghan war, joined the strike group led by the carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, the first time two U.S. aircraft carriers have operated in the Gulf since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, Aandahl said. The Eisenhower was operating off the coast of Somalia in January and February. Each carrier hosts an air wing of F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet fighter-bombers, EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft, S-3 Viking anti-submarine and refuelers and E-2C Hawkeye airborne command-and-control craft. Also taking part were guided-missile destroyers Anzio, Ramage, O’Kane, Mason, Preble and Nitze; and minesweepers Scout, Gladiator and Ardent. [Note the heavy contingent of Aegis escorts and the three Avenger class mine warfare ships. Never know when you might need those, eh Pete ? ]

An unpleasant welcome to the nasty world of littoral warfare, huh.

From Defence Talk US Troops Would Have Defended Themselves Against Iran Agence France-Presse | Mar 27, 2007 London: American naval personnel would have defended themselves against Iranian forces, who seized 15 British sailors and marines last week, were they faced with a similar situation, a US commander said in an interview published Monday. Speaking to The Independent daily, Lieutenant-Commander Erik Horner, second-in-command on the USS Underwood in the Gulf, said the British personnel had "every right in my mind every justification to defend themselves." The 14 men and one woman seized on Friday by Iran were all based on the British warship HMS Cornwall, part of a British-controlled task force to the south of Iraq, of which the Underwood is also a part. Asked by the newspaper whether the men under his command would have fired shots at the Iranians, Horner said: "Agreed. Yes." "I don't want to second-guess the British after the fact but our rules of engagement allow a little more latitude. Our boarding team's training is a little bit more towards self-preservation. "The unique US Navy rules of engagement say we not only have a right to self-defence but also an obligation to self-defence. They had every right in my mind every justification to defend themselves rather than allow themselves to be taken. "Our reaction was, 'Why didn't your guys defend themselves?'" But a senior British defence source told The Sun on Saturday: "They (the sailors) did the right thing. They were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. There was no point in putting up a fight. No shots were exchanged and from what we understand so far, none of our people have been harmed." British authorities said Sunday they did not know where the personnel were being held but that Iranian officials told them the group were all in good health. The eight British Royal Navy sailors and seven Royal Marines were seized in the Gulf waterway that divides Iraq and Iran. Britain says the group was conducting "routine" anti-smuggling operations in Iraqi waters, but Iran said Saturday the group had admitted to illegally entering Iranian waters.

From Defense Aerospace Detention of Royal Navy Personnel Unjustified and Wrong – PM (Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued March 25, 2007) Prime Minister Tony Blair has expressed very serious concerns over the detention of fifteen Royal Navy personnel by Iranian Authorities in a statement today, 25 March 2007. Speaking at a meeting of European heads of Government in Berlin, the Rt Hon Tony Blair MP said: "I have not been commenting up to now on this because I want to get it resolved in as easy and diplomatic way as possible, because it's the welfare of the people concerned that have been taken by the Iranian Government that is most important. "But this is a very serious situation and there is no doubt at all that these people were taken from a boat in Iraqi water, it simply is not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters. And I hope the Iranian Government understand how fundamental an issue this is for us. We've certainly sent those messages back to them very very clearly indeed. "I hope that this can be resolved over the next few days but the quicker it is resolved the easier it will be for all of us. But they should not be under any doubt at all about how seriously we regard this act which was unjustified and wrong." (ends) Government Demands Immediate and Safe Return of 15 British Personnel Seized by Iranian Navy (Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued March 23, 2007) 15 British naval personnel have been seized by Iranian naval vessels today, 23 March 2007. The incident took place at approximately 1030 Iraqi time. The British Personnel, eight personnel from the Royal Navy, and seven from the Royal Marines, were engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters in support of UNSCR 1723 and the government of Iraq. Operating from HMS Cornwall, the UK boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters. We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and on the instructions of the Foreign Secretary, the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office. The British Government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment. Any speculation about what might happen or the way our people may be treated could be genuinely dangerous, and the MOD urges media to refrain from such speculation whilst the Government conducts its urgent discussions with the Iranian authorities. Next-of-kin of all personnel seized have now been informed. In the interests of protecting their anonymity at this difficult stage, we would ask all editors to refrain from publishing or broadcasting anything that could lead to even partial identification of any of the individuals involved. The MOD has activated a helpline for concerned families. The number is 08457 800 900 Speaking to the press today, Royal Navy Commodore Nick Lambert, Commander of the coalition forces operating in the North Arabian Gulf, said: "My immediate concern obviously is for my people. I've got 15 sailors and marines who've been arrested by the Iranians and my immediate concern is that their safety and that their safe return to me is ensured. And I can assure all of the families who are listening out there that everything is being done at the highest levels of the UK government and indeed of the coalition structure that we are working under to ensure that safe return is possible. "I'm speculating to a certain extent; we know our helicopter reported that they saw the boats being moved up the Shatt-al-Arab waterway towards an Iranian base up there and we know that there was no fighting, there was no engagement, no weapons or anything like that; it was entirely peaceful and we've been assured from the scant communications that we've had from the Iranians at a tactical level that the 15 people are safely in their hands. "I know that my people behaved in an extremely professional way, I've been out with the boarding parties on many occasions myself. Everything I've seen from the report of the situation suggested that they reacted in impeccable fashion, totally professional, entirely in line with the rules of engagement and the direction that I have given them. And I have to say that I'm extremely impressed with what they have done, and I look forward to seeing them on their return to the vessel."

From DefenseNews Posted 03/26/07 09:22 Britain Builds Pressure on Iran Over Naval Detainees AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, LONDON Britain kept up pressure March 26 on Iran over the plight of 15 arrested naval personnel as its ambassador to Tehran met officials again to "press hard" for their release, the Foreign Office said. Geoffrey Adams spent an hour at the ministry of foreign affairs in Tehran and was assured that the group was "fit and well and in Iran." His second meeting with Iranian officials in two days came as Tehran signaled that they were being interrogated on charges of violating Iranian waters. Shockwaves from the seizure, which Prime Minister Tony Blair has labeled "unjustified and wrong," continued to reverberate around the world. With tensions rising in the region over both the group’s capture and Iran’s disputed nuclear program, oil prices rose to their highest levels this year — well above 62 dollars in Asian trade. Iran announced March 25 that it would limit cooperation with the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, due to a fresh Security Council resolution on sanctions. Media reports suggest that Iran could lodge charges against the 15 sailors and marines. But Blair has stressed that the 14 men and one woman, who were seized March 23 and are thought to be in good health, were not in Iranian waters. "The quicker it is resolved, the easier it is for all. But it is quite unjustified and wrong," Blair told reporters on the sidelines of European Union 50th anniversary celebrations in Berlin. "They were in Iraqi water. It is not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters." Iraq’s Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari backed this up, saying in a statement that the personnel were detained inside Iraqi territorial waters. The 15 sailors and marines, all based on the British warship HMS Cornwall, were seized in the Shatt al-Arab waterway that divides Iraq and Iran. Britain says the group was conducting "routine" anti-smuggling operations and Iran has claimed the group admitted to illegally entering Iranian waters. Iran’s ambassador to London has been summoned to the Foreign Office twice over the incident — once to meet a senior civil servant March 23 and again for talks with Foreign Office minister Lord David Triesman the following day.

From Jane's Intelligence Watch Report 26 March 2007 Tamil rebels take to skies to attack Sri Lankan base EVENT On 25 March, the ethnic insurgent Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) became the world's first non-state armed group to undertake a bombing raid using its own aircraft without external support. The LTTE’s use of air power is not unexpected. The Sri Lankan government has long accused the rebels of developing an air wing, possibly called Vaanpuligal, stating in mid-2005 that the LTTE had built and was maintaining a 1,250 m air strip in Mullaitivu district. Photographs released by the LTTE on 26 March show the LTTE leader Prabhakaran with six air wing personnel, a light aircraft that appears to be a Czech-built Zlin Z-143, and bombs attached to an aircraft. FORECAST The low casualty rate of the bombing raid (three dead and 16 injured) and the failure to damage any aircraft, which have hampered LTTE operations, demonstrates the limited tactical utility of such an air wing, unless used in a suicide capacity. As such, continued violence in the east and north and further military defeats for the LTTE are probable, while the group will likely use more unconventional and suicide tactics to try to prevent further losses.

From Marine Corps Times Iran questioning seized British crew By Nasser Karimi - The Associated Press Posted : Monday Mar 26, 2007 14:57:34 EDT TEHRAN, Iran — Iran said Monday it is interrogating 15 British sailors and marines to determine if their alleged entry into Iranian waters was “intentional or unintentional” before deciding what to do with them — a first, tentative sign it could be seeking a way out of the standoff. The two countries continued to disagree about whether the sailors were in Iranian waters when they were captured, with Britain categorically saying they were not and Iran saying it has proof that they were. So far it has been impossible to independently confirm where the sailors were, but the British Defense Ministry said they were seized in the Shatt al-Arab, the waterway flowing into the Gulf that marks the border between Iran and Iraq. But the exact path of the border in the waterway, known in Iran as the Arvand River, has long been disputed. The Iranian emphasis on the sailors’ intent Monday was a noticeable deescalation from the certainty expressed Saturday by Iran’s military chief, Gen. Ali Reza Afshar. Afshar had said the 15 sailors had “confessed” to “aggression into the Islamic Republic of Iran’s waters.” Other Iranian officials suggested afterward that the 15 might be charged with a crime — presumably espionage or trespassing — for knowingly entering Iranian territorial waters. But Deputy Foreign Minister Mehzi Mostafavi said Monday that the 15 — 14 men and one woman — were still being interrogated. “It should become clear whether their entry was intentional or unintentional. After that is clarified, the necessary decision will be made,” Mostafavi said. Iran has refused to give an indication of the sailors’ whereabouts or to allow British officials to speak with them, but assured the British ambassador to Tehran, Geoffrey Adams, that they were in good health. There were fears in Britain that the fate of the 15 could get caught up in the political tensions between Tehran and the West, including the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program and accusations of Iranian help to Shiite militants in Iraq. In particular, there were worries Iran might seek to exchange the Britons for Iranians detained by U.S. forces in Iraq. Mostafavi denied Iran was seeking a trade, but there were powerful calls within Iran’s leadership for the government to hold out for a swap. A Web site run by Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the influential Expediency Council and a former Revolutionary Guard commander, quoted an unidentified lawmaker saying, “If Iranian diplomats in Iraq have no security, there’s no reason why we should forgive and turn a blind eye to aggressors into Iranian territories.” Some members of the Iranian public also called for the British to be held and tried, with Iranian students turning out by the hundreds near the coast where the sailors were seized to urge an escalation in the confrontation with the West. Britain sought to play down fears the situation could escalate and become intertwined with the nuclear and Iraq disputes. “This is a matter that should be dealt with on its own merits,” British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s official spokesman said. The seizure of the crew was an issue to “be treated on its own, and that is how we are approaching it.” Blair said Sunday he hoped the situation could be resolved in as diplomatic a way as possible, and his office stressed the British leader had been “very careful when he intervened,” mindful of the potential repercussions on other issues. Iran’s ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Qomi, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from Baghdad that there was no connection between the capture of the sailors and other disputes between the West and Iran. “They entered Iranian territorial waters and were arrested,” Qomi said. “It has nothing to do with other issues.” Mostafavi, the deputy foreign minister, also denied Iran was aiming for a prisoner swap. The sailors and marines were intercepted Friday just after they completed a search of a civilian vessel in the Shatt al-Arab. The British Defense Ministry said they were in an Iraq-controlled area, but Iran insisted it had proof they were in Iranian waters. A 1975 treaty between Iran and Iraq set the border as running down the center of the river, but Saddam Hussein cancelled the treaty before invading Iran in 1980. Iran claims the border runs along the deepest part of the river. A U.N. diplomat speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation said the U.N. had not yet become involved and the issue was being handled in bilateral meetings between Iran and Britain. The United States, under whose command the British sailors were serving when they were captured, Iraq and the European Union have called for the immediate release of the sailors. On Monday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki that the personnel were captured in Iraqi territorial waters, and called for their release. Meanwhile, Iranian state television said that despite Iran’s decision to partially cut off cooperation with the U.N.’s nuclear inspection agency — a response to the U.N. Security Council’s vote Saturday to approve additional sanctions on Iran — it was open to negotiations. “Iran looks at negotiations as the only solution to the nuclear case,” it said. The U.N. sanctions were meant to send Tehran a strong message that its defiance would leave it increasingly isolated, and the U.S. has warned of even tougher penalties ahead.

From Jane's Navy International 23 March 2007 Iranian forces capture UK Royal Navy personnel By Denise Hammick Fifteen UK Royal Navy (RN) personnel have been detained at gunpoint inside Iraqi territorial waters by Iranian forces. The four sailors and 11 marines attached to the Type 22 Batch 3 frigate HMS Cornwall, flagship of Combined Task Force 158, were engaged in routine boarding operations when the incident occurred, according to the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD). The boarding party had completed a successful inspection of an unflagged dhow when "Iranian gunboats came over and seized them", said MoD spokesperson Captain Mike Davis-Marks.

From DefenseNews Posted 03/23/07 08:25 Britain: 15 Navy Personnel Held by Iran REUTERS, LONDON Iran captured 15 British Royal Navy personnel during a "routine boarding operation" in Iraqi waters March 23, Britain’s Ministry of Defence said. Iran’s ambassador in London has been summoned and Britain is demanding the immediate safe release of the sailors. "At approximately 1030 Iraqi time this morning, 15 British naval personnel, engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters ... were seized by Iranian naval vessels," the ministry said in a statement. "We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and on the instructions of the Foreign Secretary, the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office. The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment." The U.S. Navy in the Gulf said none of its military personnel was captured by Iran during an incident in Iraqi waters March 23. "We can confirm that there are no U.S. military involved or held in this incident," a spokesman for U.S. Naval Central Command said. From BBC News Last Updated: Friday, 23 March 2007, 14:55 GMT UK sailors captured at gunpoint Fifteen British Navy personnel have been captured at gunpoint by Iranian forces, the Ministry of Defence says. The men were seized at 1030 local time when they boarded a boat in the Gulf, off the coast of Iraq, which they suspected was smuggling cars. The Royal Navy said the men, who were on a routine patrol in Iraqi waters, were understood to be unharmed. The Foreign Office has demanded the immediate and safe return of the men, who are based on HMS Cornwall. The frigate's commander, Commodore Nick Lambert, said he was hoping there had been a "simple mistake" over territorial waters. "There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they [british personnel] were in Iraqi territorial waters. Equally, the Iranians may claim they were in Iranian territorial waters. "We may well find that this is a simple misunderstanding at the tactical level." Helicopters had reported seeing two British boats being moved along the Shatt al-Arab waterway to Iranian bases and there had been no evidence of fighting, he added. He said that despite scant communication, the 15 people were understood to be safe and had reacted in an "extremely professional way, in line with the rules of engagement". "I look forward to seeing them on their return and congratulating them." He said naval authorities were doing everything possible to ensure their safe return. The Ministry of Defence said: "The group boarding party had completed a successful inspection of a merchant ship when they and their two boats were surrounded and escorted by Iranian vessels into Iranian territorial waters. "We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level. "The British government is demanding the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment." Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett summoned the Iranian ambassador in London to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in an attempt to negotiate the men's release. There has been no immediate response so far from Iran, where many ministries and official buildings were closed for a public holiday. Liberal Democrats leader Sir Menzies Campbell also called for their immediate release. The incident comes at a time of renewed tensions with Iran over its nuclear programme, which Western powers fear could be used to develop a nuclear weapon. British Army Colonel Justin Maciejewski, who is based in Iraq, said most of the violence against UK forces in Basra is being engineered by Iranian elements. Col Maciejewski said Iran was providing "sophisticated weaponry" to insurgents and "Iranian agents" were paying local men to attack British troops. Iranian officials have in the past denied such claims. In 2004, Iran detained eight British servicemen for three days after they allegedly strayed over the maritime border. The UK claimed the men were "forcibly escorted" into Iranian territorial waters. While they were being held, the men were paraded blindfold and made to apologise on Iranian TV before their release was agreed. The BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Robbins said the difference this time, and a cause of concern, is that the present Iranian government under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was much more hardline. "The political climate is worse with Britain among those confronting Iran over its controversial nuclear programme," he added. From Navy Times Iran seizes 15 British sailors, Marines in Iraq By Robert Barr - The Associated Press Posted : Friday Mar 23, 2007 10:16:54 EDT LONDON — Iranian naval vessels seized 15 British sailors who had boarded a ship suspected of smuggling cars in the Persian Gulf off the Iraqi coast on Friday, officials said. The British government demanded “the immediate and safe return of our people and equipment.” The British Navy personnel were “engaged in routine boarding operations of merchant shipping in Iraqi territorial waters,” and had completed a ship inspection when they were accosted by Iranian vessels, Britain’s Defense Ministry said. “We are urgently pursuing this matter with the Iranian authorities at the highest level and ... the Iranian ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office,” the ministry said. The seizure comes at a time of rising tensions between Iran and the West, which accuses the Islamic republic of violating a U.N. call for it to halt uranium enrichment and open its nuclear program for inspection. It also comes amid U.S. accusations that Iran is funding and arming Shiite militias in Iraq, worsening sectarian tensions there. The U.S., Britain’s chief ally, has built up its naval forces in the Gulf in a show of strength directed at Iran. Two American carriers, including the John C. Stennis — backed by a strike group with more than 6,500 sailors and Marines and with additional minesweeping ships — arrived in the region in recent months, ratcheting up tensions with Iran. A Pentagon official said the Britons were in two inflatable boats from the frigate HMS Cornwall during a routine smuggling investigation, said the official, who spoke on condition on anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the incident. He said the confrontation happened as the British contingent was traveling along the boundary of territorial waters between Iran and Iraq. They were detained by the Revolutionary Guard’s navy after inspecting a merchant ship believed to be smuggling cars, he said. A fisherman who said he was with a group of Iraqis from the southern city of Basra fishing in Iraqi waters in the northern area of the Gulf said he saw the Iranian seizure. The fisherman declined to be identified because of security concerns. “Two boats, each with a crew of six to eight multinational forces, were searching Iraqi and Iranian boats Friday morning in Ras al-Beesha area in the northern entrance of the Arab Gulf, but big Iranian boats came and took the two boats with their crews to the Iranian waters,” he said. In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the Shatt al-Arab between Iran and Iraq. They were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally, then released unharmed after three days.

From Flight International DATE: 22/03/07 US Army orders Bell to stop work on ARH and come up with new plan By Graham Warwick The US Army has told Bell to stop work on the troubled ARH-70 Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) programme and given the company 30 days to come up with a plan to overcome spiralling costs and schedule delays. The ARH is intended to replace the army’s Bell OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. The stop-work order was issued yesterday after a special Army Systems Acquisition Review Council meeting on the programme. The army says cost estimates for system development and demonstration (SDD) and low-rate initial production (LRIP) have grown by more than 50%, while the date for the first unit to be equipped has slipped from September 2008 to December 2009. Bell has been given 30 days “to describe a strategy to maximize contract performance while minimizing the negative cost and schedule impact on the government”, says the army. Bell was awarded a $210 million development contract in July 2004, but the army says the estimate for completion of SDD is now more than $300 million. The army also has firm fixed-priced options of the first two LRIP lots, and Bell has warned it will lose money on these helicopters. “We are not in negotiation with Bell on the price,” says the army, which originally planned to buy 368 ARHs, but recently increased this to 512 to include the National Guard. Bell has built four flight-test ARH-70s under the SDD programme, but the third helicopter crashed on its first flight on 21 February after the engine lost power, possibly because of fuel starvation. The helicopters are grounded while the investigation continues.

From Aviation Week Bill Redirects ARH Funds Toward UH-60s Mar 23, 2007 The Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) approved legislation March 22 that would transfer supplemental fiscal 2007 funds requested for two Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters (ARH) to replace two UH-60 Black Hawks lost in combat. The roughly $122 billion bill also would fully fund seven other requested UH-60s, according to a summary of the legislation provided by SAC staff. The Senate is expected to take up the bill March 26, SAC Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) said after a markup hearing. Bell Helicopter Textron's prototype ARH-70A crashed on a golf course in Mansfield, Texas, on Feb. 21 (DAILY, Feb. 23). Senators and their staff did not note the crash in their decision to redirect funds, but legislators across Capitol Hill have turned to military aircraft - and in particular, those under development if not delayed - to make up for other spending in the respective supplementals working through the House and Senate. But not all developmental efforts are sacrificed, according to the SAC staff's summary. The panel provided $1.2 billion in requested defense research, development, test and evaluation funds, including $52 million to integrate advanced targeting pods on B-1 and B-52 bombers and Hellfire missiles on A-10 attack aircraft. The committee also allocated $20 million to improve the targeting of Predator drones and $19 million to boost signals intelligence capabilities on Global Hawk unmanned aircraft. The House, meanwhile, began debating its version of the supplemental spending bill March 22. Lawmakers may vote on March 23. Both bills contain provisions that try to effect a withdrawal timeline for U.S. combat troops in Iraq while re-emphasizing global antiterrorism efforts such as pursuing Al-Qaeda, drawing the concentrated resistance of Hill Republicans who decry the efforts as meddling in military decision making (DAILY, March 20).

From DefenseNews Posted 03/22/07 12:06 Iranian Navy Starts War Games in the Gulf: Report By REUTERS, TEHRAN Iran’s navy started more than a week of war games in the Gulf on March 22 using tactical submarines and small vessels carrying missile launchers, state television reported. The exercises are the latest in a series of maneuvers staged by Iran’s military in the Gulf, where the United States has deployed a second aircraft carrier, a move widely seen as a warning to Tehran over its nuclear ambitions. State television said the war games staged by Iran’s regular naval forces "showed their defensive power for protecting the Persian Gulf". It said the maneuvers would last until March 30. "The aim of these war games is to prepare to confront any kind of threat (and to) increase combat capabilities," Naval Commander Sajjad Kouchaki told state radio. He said the maneuvers were taking place along Iran’s Gulf coast, from its north to Sea of Oman. Military experts have viewed such exercises as a show of force in the strategic waterway through which 40 percent of the world’s traded oil is shipped and say they are aimed to deter any possible U.S. attack on the Islamic Republic. Washington, which accuses Tehran of seeking to build atomic bombs, has said it wants a diplomatic solution to the nuclear row but has not ruled out the use of force if that fails. Iran, which insists its atomic plans are peaceful, has warned that it would target U.S. interests in the region if it came under attack. The latest war games involved small vessels with missile launchers and tactical submarines, state television said, adding that the exercises involved Iranian-made equipment. In previous maneuvers, Iran has tested what it called advanced home-made missile systems and other weaponry. Military experts say Iran rarely gives enough details to indicate the precise capabilities of equipment put on show. They say some of Iran’s new weaponry, such as missiles, are often modified versions of imported equipment. Although Iran may not have the technology to match that of U.S. forces, experts say it could still cause trouble for shipping in the Gulf and disrupt crude flows, if it wanted. Alongside the regular military, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have also staged war games in the Gulf in recent months. The Guards are the ideological force of the Islamic Republic and have a separate command structure to the regular army.

From DefenseNews Posted 03/21/07 08:40 South Korean Air Force Chief Resigns REUTERS, SEOUL, South Korea South Korea’s air force commander resigned March 21, becoming the latest leader in the country brought down in part by a golfing scandal. President Roh Moo-hyun accepted the resignation of Air Force Chief of Staff Kim Seong-il, a presidential spokesman said. In an abrupt announcement, Kim said he was offering to resign to take responsibility for air crashes that occurred during his tenure, an Air Force spokesman said. But he was also facing intense criticism for reportedly playing golf while the nation mourned the death of the first South Korean soldier killed in an overseas assignment in decades. Kim played golf on March 1 during a military mourning period for the soldier who was killed in a bomb attack outside a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, local media reported. In March 2006, then-South Korean Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan left office after being criticized for playing golf while a railway strike was causing transport chaos. [i have always said that a golf course was a waste of a perfectly good shooting range. ]

From Defense Aerospace Op-Ed: Fate of Surface Navy Rides on Littoral Combat Ship (Source: The Lexington Institute; issued March 20, 2007) By Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D. When the cold war ended, the U.S. Navy faced a crisis of relevance. For the first time in living memory, no Red Navy or Imperial Fleet challenged America's control of the high seas. Having spent the entire 20th Century preparing for such an enemy, the Navy was poorly postured for conducting combat operations closer to shore. Fearing that the Marine Corps would become the tail wagging the Navy Department bulldog, senior admirals began formulating plans for making their warships more useful in fighting enemies on land. The idea made sense. Most of the world's population lives within 200 miles of the sea, meaning the Navy could play a big role in waging war ashore if its sensors were upgraded for littoral (coastal) surveillance and its weapons had the accuracy and reach needed for targeting assets on land. Thus the undersea warfare community increased its emphasis on covert reconnaissance along coastlines, while the aviation community pursued a "revolution in strike warfare" aimed at equipping carrier-based planes with smart bombs. The efforts paid off: most submarine missions today are devoted to littoral intelligence collection, and the strike aircraft on carriers can use reconnaissance from subs and other sources to destroy hundreds of land targets per day. Bolstering the relevance of surface combatants -- frigates, destroyers and cruisers -- has been harder. Aside from shooting cruise missiles and providing air defense of the joint force, traditional surface combatants don't bring much to land warfare. That's not what they were designed to do. So the Navy has poured money into developing a new family of combatants that can be more versatile and less vulnerable when operating in littoral regions. The best known next-gen vessel is the DDG-1000 (formerly DDX), a multi-mission destroyer built around guns that can sustain high rates of fire a hundred miles inland using precision munitions. DDG-1000 is the technology test-bed for innovations in sensors, propulsion and manning that will be shared across the fleet. It is a very pricey warship -- which is why the Navy is also developing a smaller warship called the Littoral Combat Ship, or LCS. As the name indicates, the Littoral Combat Ship is designed for dealing with threats found near coastlines, like floating mines, diesel submarines and terrorists in speedboats. Its hard-to-track hull hosts both helicopters and small boats suitable for conducting anti-mine, anti-ship and anti-submarine warfare. Its sensors and wireless connectivity make it a good collector of local intelligence for the entire joint force, and at least in theory its low cost and light crew make dangerous littoral operations more feasible. But people inside and outside the Navy are beginning to wonder whether LCS is too good to be true. Naval engineers say too much capability may have been sacrificed to achieve high speed, and a slip of the tongue by Navy acquisition czar Delores Etter revealed that the first ships in the class could cost up to $400 million each (not counting the various mission modules each vessel will require). Now the Navy wants contractors to sign up to fixed-price development contracts -- even though it probably will demand further changes in the ship's design and performance. LCS is beginning to look like the latest example of a Navy top-heavy with big ideas, but a bit light on the successful execution of programs. Maybe DDG-1000 isn't so bad after all.

From Defence Talk Indian Air Force Retires More Old MiGs Agence France-Presse | Mar 21, 2007 India’s air force bid farewell March 20 to some of its last active Soviet-era jets, which are set to be replaced by new hardware from either Russia, the U.S. or Europe. Four of its five remaining MiG-23 jets, which have top speeds of up to 2,500 kilometers (1,150 miles) an hour, staged a fly-by from an air base in western India before the entire squadron was declared retired, an air force spokesman said. The planes — referred to by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as "Floggers" — were bought from the Soviet Union in the early 1980s during a frenetic arms race with South Asian archrival Pakistan. "The last flight of these aircraft is special as they were among the only two units to have operated the swing-wing variants of the MiG-23 in countering possible threats from Pakistan’s F-16s," the air force said. Air force chief S.P. Tyagi, top military brass and diplomats were on hand at the Jamnagar air base in Gujarat which was India’s key aviation base during its 1971 war with Pakistan, for the final fly-by of the supersonic jets, witnesses said. "Although we are mothballing them, they remain one of the most powerful single-engined fighter aircraft in the world to date and perhaps one of the most feared," a MiG-23 pilot told AFP by telephone from Jamnagar. In April 2006, the air force scrapped its 30-year-old Soviet-era MiG-25 spy planes, citing a shortage of spares. India still retains an aging fleet of some 700 MiG-21 fighters, some of which date back to the 1960s but is hunting for replacements amid frequent crashes and warnings that the country is lagging behind Pakistan. Contenders for an order for 126 fighter planes potentially worth US$9 billion dollars include U.S. giants Lockheed Martin and Boeing, the Russian Aircraft Corp., France’s Dassault Aviation, Sweden’s Saab and the Eurofighter consortium.

From Jane's Defence Industry 21 March 2007 Japan narrows next-generation fighter requirement choice By Jon Grevatt Jane's Asia-Pacific Industry Reporter Japanese Ministry of Defence (MoD) officials have decided to continue formal interest in three aircraft to meet its F-X next-generation fighter requirements - the Eurofighter Typhoon, and Boeing's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-15E Strike Eagle - although a plan to lobby Washington to acquire Lockheed Martin's F-22 has not been ruled out. A source at the Japanese MoD said: "Officials from the Ministry of Defence went to the US and Europe from 25 February to 15 March and have decided on three aircraft that could meet Japan's next-generation fighter aircraft." He added that, contrary to media reports, Dassault's Rafale "is not being considered". Speaking on 20 March, the Japanese MoD source refused to say whether interest in the F-22 had been discontinued. "We have decided on three aircraft to meet Japan's next-generation fighter requirements. But the F-22 is a modern, hi-tech fighter - so yes, of course, we are very interested. But of lot of things would need to be cleared before we would have a chance of acquiring the F-22." Jane's Comment: According to Jane's Defence Forecasts, the Eurofighter Typhoon is favourite the win the contest for Japan's next-generation fighter requirement. If Eurofighter were to win the contract, the cost of the aircraft - based on the 80 aircraft Japan would need to replace its current F-4EJ fighters - could reach more than USD9 billion.