CV32

From Defence Talk China Trashes LEO With Debris From Anti Satellite Test Agence France-Presse | Jan 19, 2007 Washington (AFP): The United States, Japan and Australia voiced concern Friday after US spy agencies said China had shot down a satellite for the first time, raising the stakes over the military use of space. Washington said China fired a missile to destroy an orbiting weather satellite last week, making it the third country after the United States and the former Soviet Union to shoot down anything in space. The successful test means China, which declined to comment, could now theoretically shoot down spy satellites operated by other nations. The ageing weather satellite was hit on January 11 US time and may have left considerable debris behind. The impact reported occurred more than 500 miles (800 kilometers) above Earth, high enough to hit orbiting satellites. Japan, which has long been concerned at China's rapidly growing military spending, joined the United States in condemning the test. "From the view of the peaceful use of space and international security, we naturally have concerns about it," Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki, the government spokesman, told a news conference. The test was first reported by US magazine Aviation Week and Space Technology and confirmed by the White House. "We are not aware of that test. Usually the media writes stories on hearsay evidence, we don't have time to verify such stories," a spokesman with the Chinese defence ministry's foreign affairs department told AFP. But Japan said China told it through diplomatic channels that its intentions were peaceful. "China consistently uses space only for peaceful purposes," Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso quoted the Chinese foreign ministry as saying, but he was also critical of the test. "We did not receive any notification beforehand," Aso told reporters. The way China handled the test is "questionable from the viewpoint of peaceful use (of space) because there could be concerns of scattered debris," he said. The test would be the world's first since the 1980s, when the United States and Soviet Union both destroyed satellites in space. The two superpowers ceased the tests largely because of the problem of debris. But US President George W. Bush's administration has opposed international calls to end such tests, saying in a policy paper last fall that the United States had the right to "freedom of action" in space. China had been a leading critic of Washington's policy on the military use of space, raising the possibility that the satellite-killer test was a calculated diplomatic strategy. The White House was quick to condemn the test and said other countries inclduing Britain and South Korea would also voice concern. "The United States believes China's development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with the spirit of cooperation that both countries aspire to in the civil space area," said national security spokesman Gordon Johndroe. Australia's foreign ministry meanwhile summoned China's ambassador. "Australia sought an explanation from the Chinese government about the nature of the incident and China's assessment of the danger posed by the debris created by that incident," a foreign ministry spokeswoman said in Canberra. Aviation Week said the missile was fired from the Xichang space center in central Sichuan province and had destroyed a Chinese weather satellite that was launched in 1999. China, which in 2003 became the third country to carry out a manned space mission, can now theoretically shoot down spy satellites operated by the United States, Japan, Russia, Israel and Europe, the magazine said. The test "could also have left considerable space debris in an orbit used by many different satellites," it said.

Great idea for a scenario, Pete. Here a few comments which I hope will help you flesh it out ... The ROCAF operates six Hawkeyes, four of them being E-2T aircraft that were upgraded to Hawkeye 2000 standard before 2006 (I think the last may have joined the fleet in 2005), and two E-2K aircraft that joined the fleet in April 2006. They have APS-145 radar and ALQ-217 ESM. I believe all may be operated by the 2nd Electronic Warfare (EW) Sqn at Pingtung (North) in southern Taiwan. If you want the Taiwanese fighters to be capable of air-to-surface ops, you should go with their F-16s rather than the Mirages. The ROCAF fleet of Mirage 2000-5Di/Ei are dedicated to the high altitude, long range, air defense mission. They don't carry any air-to-surface ordnance, other than very capable electronic warfare gear and the ASTAC ELINT pod. I can offer more if you need it.

From Defense Aerospace Aircraft Carriers: What’s the Status of the Anglo-French Project? (Excerpt) (Source: meretmarines.com; published Jan. 16, 2007) PARIS --- It is something of a paradox that, even as the British press is sounding the alarm about planned cuts in the Royal Navy budget, and the possible mothballing of up to half of its frigate fleet, cooperation between Britain and France on their joint aircraft carrier project is proceeding smoothly. “Cooperation has been stepped up. We have redoubled our efforts as this is a crucial phase, and there is a strong will on both sides to reach the next milestone – the French ‘Dossier de Lancement et de Réalisation,’ equivalent to what the British call ‘Main Gate Approval’, by the end of the first quarter,” says an official of MOPA2, the joint subsidiary of DCN and Thales that is prime contractor for the French Navy aircraft carrier project. Shortly before Christmas, the company submitted a binding offer to the French defence procurement agency, DGA, and hopes to follow up by completing the Dossier de Lancement et Réalisation by the end of March. If, as currently planned, the British program reaches Main Gate Approval at that time, an industrial cooperation agreement could be signed and made public during the final Anglo-French ministerial meeting before the French presidential election in April. In France, the DLR marks the start of the detailed design phase, and should lead to the award of a final construction contract in late 2007 or early 2008. French Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie recently reaffirmed her intention of making the program “as irreversible as possible” before she leaves office, adding that the contract for the ship’s catapults will be awarded in early 2007, giving “a clear signal of [her] determination to proceed with the aircraft carrier program according to schedule.” The catapults are made in the United States and are being procured through the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program. Approval of the sale by the Bush Administration, and its notification to Congress, is expected in the coming weeks. Officials involved in the program say there has been a definite improvement in Anglo-French relations in recent months, which makes this ambitious schedule credible. “Cooperation has recently picked up faster than we dared hope,” says a French official. “After completing the preliminary design, we have openly discussed the production phase with the British,” who in recent weeks have closely looked at French production processes and procedures. British teams have visited Saint-Nazaire, where Aker Yards hopes to build the French carrier’s hull, to look at how the company builds its large cruise ships and the French Navy’s BPC amphibious ships. “Cooperation is progressing smoothly both between the two French partners and with the British. In terms of design, we have solved all outstanding technical issues,” says an official of Aker subsidiary Chantiers de l’Atlantique, which now employs several dozen engineers on the project. As the British government wants its shipbuilding industry to begin to restructure before it awards the future aircraft carrier (CVF) contract, British yards are looking to benefit from whatever experience the French have acquired in production processes. “We have offered to make our know-how available if British shipyards adopt our production standards and methods,” says one French industry source. In exchange, Britain has agreed to design changes that accommodate French requirements, including provision for larger ammunition storage holds, including special secure storage areas for nuclear weapons, and for hull anti-roll stabilizers, which will not be fitted to the British ships. In addition to joint procurement of components, originally agreed to reduce costs, the adoption of identical standards could lead to the building of common sections for the three ships. No decision has been taken in this respect, but it is being discussed. “The British benefit from working with us as we make things simpler for them, as they do not currently have the infrastructure, the work-force or the organization needed to build ships of that size,” says a French source involved in the program. Could Britain Scrap the CVF Project? If relations between industrialists on both sides of the Channel seem cordial, and dominated by the common interest, fears subsist as to how MoD will accommodate the spending cuts that appear inevitable to pay for the cost of military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and cancelling the CVF project is one of the possible savings mentioned by British press reports. “We have seen no sign that the program is being reconsidered,” a French defense ministry spokesman said Jan. 11. A French official close to the program concedes that Britain will have to find additional funding to finance military operations in South-west Asia, and that procurement programs will probably come under closer scrutiny, but he adds that, “given Britain’s long sea-faring traditions, and the trauma of the Falklands Campaign, it is particularly improbable that it would abandon its capacity to project naval forces.” Pressure is growing for an agreement between MoD and industry on the cost of the two future CVF carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. MoD says the estimated cost of 3.8 billion pounds (5.7 billion euros) is excessive, although some observers say this could be a negotiating ploy to obtain a lower price. If true, this is a very risky ploy, as in France the future carrier project is supported only by the combined will of President Jacques Chirac and Defence Minister Alliot-Marie, both of whom leave office in four months. (ends) (Originally published in French; unofficial translation and editing by defense-aerospace.com)

From Aviation Week Chinese Test Anti-Satellite Weapon By Craig Covault/Aviation Week & Space Technology 01/17/2007 07:45:59 PM U. S. intelligence agencies believe China performed a successful anti-satellite (asat) weapons test at more than 500 mi. altitude Jan. 11 destroying an aging Chinese weather satellite target with a kinetic kill vehicle launched on board a ballistic missile. The Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, NASA and other government organizations have a full court press underway to obtain data on the alleged test, Aviation Week & Space Technology will report in its Jan. 22 issue. If the test is verified it will signify a major new Chinese military capability. Neither the Office of the U. S. Secretary of Defense nor Air Force Space Command would comment on the attack, which followed by several months the alleged illumination of a U. S. military spacecraft by a Chinese ground based laser. China's growing military space capability is one major reason the Bush Administration last year formed the nation's first new National Space Policy in ten years, Aviation Week will report. "The policy is designed to ensure that our space capabilities are protected in a time of increasing challenges and threats," says Robert G. Joseph, Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security at the U. S. State Dept. " This is imperative because space capabilities are vital to our national security and to our economic well being," Joseph said in an address on the new space policy at the National Press Club in Washington D. C. Details emerging from space sources indicate that the Chinese Feng Yun 1C (FY-1C) polar orbit weather satellite launched in 1999 was attacked by an asat system launched from or near the Xichang Space Center. The attack is believe to have occurred as the weather satellite flew at 530 mi. altitude 4 deg. west of Xichang located in Sichuan province. Xichang is a major Chinese space launch center. Although intelligence agencies must complete confirmation of the test, the attack is believed to have occurred at about 5:28 p.m. EST Jan. 11. U. S. intelligence agencies had been expecting some sort of test that day, sources said. U. S. Air Force Defense Support Program missile warning satellites in geosynchronous orbit would have detected the Xichang launch of the asat kill vehicle and U. S. Air Force Space Command monitored the FY-1C orbit both before and after the exercise. The test, if it occurred as envisioned by intelligence source, could also have left considerable space debris in an orbit used by many different satellites. USAF radar reports on the Chinese FY-1C spacecraft have been posted once or twice daily for years, but those reports jumped to about 4 times per day just before the alleged test. The USAF radar reports then ceased Jan. 11, but then appeared for a day showing "signs of orbital distress". The reports were then halted again. The Air Force radars may well be busy cataloging many pieces of debris, sources said. Although more of a "policy weapon" at this time, the test shows that the Chinese military can threaten the imaging reconnaissance satellites operated by the U. S., Japan, Russia, Israel and Europe. The Republic of China also operates a small imaging spacecraft that can photograph objects as small as about 10 ft. in size, a capability good enough to count cruise missiles pointed at Taiwan from the Chinese mainland. The Taiwanese in the past have also leased capability on an Israeli reconnaissance satellite.

From The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists "Doomsday Clock" Timeline IT IS 5 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 2007 The world stands at the brink of a second nuclear age. The United States and Russia remain ready to stage a nuclear attack within minutes, North Korea conducts a nuclear test, and many in the international community worry that Iran plans to acquire the Bomb. Climate change also presents a dire challenge to humanity. Damage to ecosystems is already taking place; flooding, destructive storms, increased drought, and polar ice melt are causing loss of life and property. IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 2002 Concerns regarding a nuclear terrorist attack underscore the enormous amount of unsecured--and sometimes unaccounted for--weapon-grade nuclear materials located throughout the world. Meanwhile, the United States expresses a desire to design new nuclear weapons, with an emphasis on those able to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets. It also rejects a series of arms control treaties and announces it will withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. IT IS 9 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1998 India and Pakistan stage nuclear weapons tests only three weeks apart. “The tests are a symptom of the failure of the international community to fully commit itself to control the spread of nuclear weapons—and to work toward substantial reductions in the numbers of these weapons,” a dismayed Bulletin reports. Russia and the United States continue to serve as poor examples to the rest of the world. Together, they still maintain 7,000 warheads ready to fire at each other within 15 minutes. IT IS 14 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1995 Hopes for a large post-Cold War peace dividend and a renouncing of nuclear weapons fade. Particularly in the United States, hard-liners seem reluctant to soften their rhetoric or actions, as they claim that a resurgent Russia could provide as much of a threat as the Soviet Union. Such talk slows the rollback in global nuclear forces; more than 40,000 nuclear weapons remain worldwide. There is also concern that terrorists could exploit poorly secured nuclear facilities in the former Soviet Union. IT IS 17 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1991 With the Cold War officially over, the United States and Russia begin making deep cuts to their nuclear arsenals. The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty greatly reduces the number of strategic nuclear weapons deployed by the two former adversaries. Better still, a series of unilateral initiatives remove most of the intercontinental ballistic missiles and bombers in both countries from hair-trigger alert. “The illusion that tens of thousands of nuclear weapons are a guarantor of national security has been stripped away,” the Bulletin declares. IT IS 10 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1990 As one Eastern European country after another (Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania) frees itself from Soviet control, Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev refuses to intervene, halting the ideological battle for Europe and significantly diminishing the risk of all-out nuclear war. In late 1989, the Berlin Wall falls, symbolically ending the Cold War. “Forty-four years after Winston Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ speech, the myth of monolithic communism has been shattered for all to see,” the Bulletin proclaims. IT IS 6 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1988 The United States and Soviet Union sign the historic Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the first agreement to actually ban a whole category of nuclear weapons. The leadership shown by President Ronald Reagan and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev makes the treaty a reality, but public opposition to U.S. nuclear weapons in Western Europe inspires it. For years, such intermediate-range missiles had kept Western Europe in the crosshairs of the two superpowers. IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1984 U.S.-Soviet relations reach their iciest point in decades. Dialogue between the two superpowers virtually stops. “Every channel of communications has been constricted or shut down; every form of contact has been attenuated or cut off. And arms control negotiations have been reduced to a species of propaganda,” a concerned Bulletin informs readers. The United States seems to flout the few arms control agreements in place by seeking an expansive, space-based anti-ballistic missile capability, raising worries that a new arms race will begin. IT IS 4 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1981 The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan hardens the U.S. nuclear posture. Before he leaves office, President Jimmy Carter pulls the United States from the Olympics Games in Moscow and considers ways in which the United States could win a nuclear war. The rhetoric only intensifies with the election of Ronald Reagan as president. Reagan scraps any talk of arms control and proposes that the best way to end the Cold War is for the United States to win it. IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1980 Thirty-five years after the start of the nuclear age and after some promising disarmament gains, the United States and the Soviet Union still view nuclear weapons as an integral component of their national security. This stalled progress discourages the Bulletin: “[The Soviet Union and United States have] been behaving like what may best be described as ‘nucleoholics’--drunks who continue to insist that the drink being consumed is positively ‘the last one,’ but who can always find a good excuse for ‘just one more round.’” IT IS 9 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1974 South Asia gets the Bomb, as India tests its first nuclear device. And any gains in previous arms control agreements seem like a mirage. The United States and Soviet Union appear to be modernizing their nuclear forces, not reducing them. Thanks to the deployment of multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV), both countries can now load their intercontinental ballistic missiles with more nuclear warheads than before. IT IS 12 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1972 The United States and Soviet Union attempt to curb the race for nuclear superiority by signing the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. The two treaties force a nuclear parity of sorts. SALT limits the number of ballistic missile launchers either country can possess, and the ABM Treaty stops an arms race in defensive weaponry from developing. IT IS 10 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1969 Nearly all of the world’s nations come together to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The deal is simple—the nuclear weapon states vow to help the treaty’s non-nuclear weapon signatories develop nuclear power if they promise to forego producing nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapon states also pledge to abolish their own arsenals when political conditions allow for it. Although Israel, India, and Pakistan refuse to sign the treaty, the Bulletin is cautiously optimistic: “The great powers have made the first step. They must proceed without delay to the next one—the dismantling, gradually, of their own oversized military establishments.” IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1968 Regional wars rage. U.S. involvement in Vietnam intensifies, India and Pakistan battle in 1965, and Israel and its Arab neighbors renew hostilities in 1967. Worse yet, France and China develop nuclear weapons to assert themselves as global players. “There is little reason to feel sanguine about the future of our society on the world scale,” the Bulletin laments. “There is a mass revulsion against war, yes; but no sign of conscious intellectual leadership in a rebellion against the deadly heritage of international anarchy.” IT IS 12 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1963 After a decade of almost non-stop nuclear tests, the United States and Soviet Union sign the Partial Test Ban Treaty, which ends all atmospheric nuclear testing. While it does not outlaw underground testing, the treaty represents progress in at least slowing the arms race. It also signals awareness among the Soviets and United States that they need to work together to prevent nuclear annihilation. IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1960 Political actions belie the tough talk of “massive retaliation.” For the first time, the United States and Soviet Union appear eager to avoid direct confrontation in regional conflicts such as the 1956 Egyptian-Israeli dispute. Joint projects that build trust and constructive dialogue between third parties also quell diplomatic hostilities. Scientists initiate many of these measures, helping establish the International Geophysical Year, a series of coordinated, worldwide scientific observations, and the Pugwash Conferences, which allow Soviet and American scientists to interact. IT IS 2 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1953 After much debate, the United States decides to pursue the hydrogen bomb, a weapon far more powerful than any atomic bomb. In October 1952, the United States tests its first thermonuclear device, obliterating a Pacific Ocean islet in the process; nine months later, the Soviets test an H-bomb of their own. “The hands of the Clock of Doom have moved again,” the Bulletin announces. "Only a few more swings of the pendulum, and, from Moscow to Chicago, atomic explosions will strike midnight for Western civilization." IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1949 The Soviet Union denies it, but in the fall, President Harry Truman tells the American public that the Soviets tested their first nuclear device, officially starting the arms race. “We do not advise Americans that doomsday is near and that they can expect atomic bombs to start falling on their heads a month or year from now,” the Bulletin explains. “But we think they have reason to be deeply alarmed and to be prepared for grave decisions.” IT IS 7 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT 1947 As the Bulletin evolves from a newsletter into a magazine, the Clock appears on the cover for the first time. It symbolizes the urgency of the nuclear dangers that the magazine’s founders--and the broader scientific community--are trying to convey to the public and political leaders around the world.

From The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Clock Moves Forward Two Minutes 15 January 2007 | 10:27 PM The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) is moving the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock on January 17, 2007, from 7 to 5 minutes to midnight. BAS announced the Clock change at an unprecedented joint news conference at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, DC, and the Royal Society in London. In a statement supporting the decision to move the hand of the Doomsday Clock, the BAS Board focused on two major sources of catastrophe: the perils of 27,000 nuclear weapons, 2000 of them ready to launch within minutes; and the destruction of human habitats from climate change. Fourteen leading scientists and security experts writing in the January-February issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, explore further the potential for catastrophic damage from human-made technologies. Created in 1947 by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Doomsday Clock has been adjusted only 17 times prior to today, most recently in February 2002 after the events of 9/11. At that time, BAS underscored the slow progress on global nuclear disarmament. By moving the hand of the Clock closer to midnight—the figurative end of civilization—the BAS Board is drawing attention to the increasing dangers from the spread of nuclear weapons in a world of violent conflict, and to the catastrophic harm from climate change that is unfolding. At the announcement from London, Stephen Hawking, BAS Sponsor, professor of mathematics at the University of Cambridge, and a fellow of the Royal Society, said: "As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth. As citizens of the world, we have a duty to alert the public to the unnecessary risks that we live with every day, and to the perils we foresee if governments and societies do not take action now to render nuclear weapons obsolete and to prevent further climate change." From Washington, Kennette Benedict, executive director of the Bulletin, said: "As we stand at the brink of a Second Nuclear Age and at the onset of unprecedented climate change, our way of thinking about the uses and control of technologies must change to prevent unspeakable destruction and future human suffering." Sir Martin Rees, president of The Royal Society, professor of cosmology and astrophysics, master of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge, and BAS Sponsor said: "Nuclear weapons still pose the most catastrophic and immediate threat to humanity, but climate change and emerging technologies in the life sciences also have the potential to end civilization as we know it." Lawrence M. Krauss, another BAS Sponsor and professor of physics and astronomy at Case Western Reserve University, said: "In these dangerous times, scientists have a responsibility to speak truth to power especially if it might provoke actions to reduce threats from the preventable technological dangers currently facing humanity. To do anything else would be negligent." Ambassador Thomas Pickering, a BAS director and co-chair of the International Crisis Group, said: "Although our current situation is dire, we have the means today to successfully address these global problems. For example, through vigorous diplomacy and international agencies like the International Atomic Energy Agency, we can negotiate and implement agreements that could protect us all from the most destructive technology on Earth—nuclear weapons." The BAS statement outlines a number of steps that, if taken immediately, could help to prevent disaster, including the following: * Reduce the launch readiness of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces and completely removing nuclear weapons from the day-to-day operations of their militaries * Reduce the number of nuclear weapons by dismantling, storing, and destroying more than 20,000 warheads over the next 10 years, as well as greatly increasing efforts to locate, store, and secure nuclear materials in Russia and elsewhere * Stop production of nuclear weapons material, including highly enriched uranium and plutonium--whether in military or civilian facilities * Engage in serious and candid discussion about the potential expansion of nuclear power worldwide

From The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 17 January 2007 We stand at the brink of a second nuclear age. Not since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices. North Korea’s recent test of a nuclear weapon, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a renewed U.S. emphasis on the military utility of nuclear weapons, the failure to adequately secure nuclear materials, and the continued presence of some 26,000 nuclear weapons in the United States and Russia are symptomatic of a larger failure to solve the problems posed by the most destructive technology on Earth. As in past deliberations, we have examined other human-made threats to civilization. We have concluded that the dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons. The effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction that could be wrought by nuclear explosions, but over the next three to four decades climate change could cause drastic harm to the habitats upon which human societies depend for survival. This deteriorating state of global affairs leads the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists--in consultation with a Board of Sponsors that includes 18 Nobel laureates--to move the minute hand of the “Doomsday Clock” from seven to five minutes to midnight. Nuclear weapons present the most grave challenge to humanity, enabling genocide with the press of a button. In 1945, scientists warned the world about the nearly unimaginable destructive power of the atomic bombs they had created. As Eugene Rabinowitch, one of the cofounders of the Bulletin, wrote, “The Bulletin’s Clock is not a gauge to register the ups and downs of the international power struggle; it is intended to reflect basic changes in the level of continuous danger in which mankind lives in the nuclear age, and will continue living, until society adjusts its basic attitudes and institutions.” As inheritors and trustees of the Clock, we seek to warn the world that this level of danger has escalated precipitously. The second nuclear era, unlike the dawn of the first nuclear age in 1945, is characterized by a world of porous national borders, rapid communications that facilitate the spread of technical knowledge, and expanded commerce in potentially dangerous dual-use technologies and materials. The Pakistan-based network that provided nuclear technologies to Libya, North Korea, and Iran is an example of the new challenges confronting the international community. The current period of globalization coincides with an erosion of the global agreements and norms that have constrained the spread of nuclear weapons since 1970 when the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) came into force. The NPT provided standards, set up protocols for inspections and regulation through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and held out a promise of disarmament by the nuclear powers in exchange for restraint by those countries that did not have nuclear weapons. Compliance has always been voluntary, and until the last five years, nearly all governments felt that their interests were served by adhering to the NPT provisions. The 2005 NPT Review Conference, however, ended in failure, without any consensus on the core issues of verification of safeguards on national nuclear programs, the peaceful use of nuclear power, and disarmament. Iran, which is a signatory state of the NPT, has violated its IAEA obligations and obstructed efforts to determine the extent of its activities. North Korea, which withdrew from the NPT in 2003, followed through on its declared intention to test a nuclear weapon three years later. Although this test prompted stern global condemnation, the international community essentially acquiesced. The dominant concern was that North Korea might sell its nuclear weapons abroad. In effect, the message from the international community was “don’t proliferate” rather than “don’t become a nuclear power.” In this regard, the North Korean test was doubly dangerous and sets an unfortunate example for other would-be nuclear powers. The five NPT-recognized nuclear weapon states have failed in their obligation to make serious strides toward disarmament--most notably, the United States and Russia, which still possess 26,000 of the 27,000 nuclear warheads in the world. By far the greatest potential for calamity lies in the readiness of forces in the United States and Russia to fight an all-out nuclear war. Whether by accident or by unauthorized launch, these two countries are able to initiate major strikes in a matter of minutes. Each warhead has the potential destructive force of 8 to 40 times that of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, on August 6, 1945. In that relatively small nuclear explosion, 100,000 people were killed and a city destroyed; 50 of today’s nuclear weapons could kill 200 million people. While the possibility of launching these powerful weapons may seem remote, experts in Russia and the United States are concerned about command and control systems that depend on complex electronic communications and information. Past incidents suggest that technical failures, misperception, and miscommunication happen in even the best-maintained systems. Such errors could lead to an accidental launch already programmed in the event of attack. Experts have documented four nuclear false alarms--in 1979, 1980, 1983, and 1995--where either the United States or Soviet/Russian forces were placed on the highest alert and missile launch crews were given preliminary launch warnings. Sixteen years after the end of the Cold War, following substantial reductions in nuclear weapons by the United States and Russia, the two major powers have now stalled in their progress toward deeper reductions in their arsenals. Equally worrisome, the United States, in its 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, declared that nuclear weapons “provide credible military options to deter a wide range of threats,” including chemical and biological weapons, as well as “surprising military developments.” In early 2004, this new concept, which espouses the quick use of even nuclear weapons to destroy “time urgent targets,” was put into operation. That the United States--a nation with unmatched superiority in conventional weapons--would place renewed emphasis on the need for nuclear weapons suggests to other nations that such arsenals are necessary to their security. In the face of the major powers’ continued reliance on nuclear weapons, other nations are following suit. Since the end of the Cold War, three countries have announced the possession of nuclear weapons--India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Israel possesses weapons but chooses not to declare them. The director of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, believes up to 30 countries have the capacity, and increasingly the motivation, to develop nuclear weapons in a very short time span. Such developments have prompted some to declare the NPT a “failure.” Yet this assessment ignores the decades-long success of the treaty in stemming nuclear proliferation. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy warned of the possibility of the United States facing a world “in which 15 or 20 or 25 nations” would have nuclear weapons. In the decades following the entry into force of the NPT, only six countries have embarked on nuclear weapons programs and many others have shut down their programs, including Argentina, Brazil, Libya, and South Africa. Even at the height of the Cold War, President Kennedy worried about U.S. allies’ acquisition of nuclear weapons technology. In recent years, however, the United States appears focused on denying nuclear weapons only to its adversaries, while accommodating its friends. Yet, as history demonstrates, countries that are deemed allies can quickly become adversaries. And the success of the illicit, Pakistan-based nuclear procurement network, which extended into Europe, shows how even friendly governments can fail to guard against the theft and smuggling of sensitive nuclear technology. Reducing global nuclear arsenals is a key to keeping such weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Through the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, the United States and Russia have succeeded in finding, consolidating, and securing about half of Russia’s nuclear bombs and fissile material in just over a decade. European countries have also pledged to aid this effort to ensure that existing nuclear materials are kept out of the hands of terrorist groups. But bureaucratic and legal disputes, as well as inadequate funding, have frequently slowed the process. The problem of unsecured fissile material is not confined to Russia, however. More than 1,400 metric tons of highly enriched uranium and approximately 500 tons of plutonium are distributed worldwide at some 140 sites, in unguarded civilian power plants and university research reactors, as well as in military facilities. The first report of the International Panel on Fissile Materials in September 2006 focused on the ease with which unauthorized groups, including terrorist groups, could obtain sufficient highly enriched uranium to make nuclear or radiological bombs. The prospect of civilian nuclear power development in countries around the world raises further concerns about the availability of nuclear materials. Growth in nuclear power is anticipated to be especially high in Asia, where Japan is planning to bring on line five new plants by 2010, and China intends to build 30 nuclear reactors by 2020. Over the next five years, some two-dozen nuclear power plants are scheduled to be refurbished or rebuilt worldwide, and countries as diverse as Nigeria, Poland, and Vietnam have expressed interest in nuclear energy. In November 2006, the IAEA announced that four Mideast nations--Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia--had declared their intentions to embark on nuclear energy programs. Several factors are driving the turn to nuclear power--aging nuclear reactors, rising energy demands, a desire to diversify energy portfolios and reduce reliance on fossil fuels, and the need to reduce carbon emissions that cause climate change. Yet expansion of nuclear power increases the risks of nuclear proliferation. Enrichment facilities that produce low-enriched uranium for reactor fuel can be easily modified to produce weapons-usable, highly enriched uranium. Moreover, spent plutonium fuel from reactors is weapons-usable after reprocessing. It does not require much nuclear material to construct a fissile weapon: 1 to 3 kilograms of plutonium or 5 to 10 kilograms of highly enriched uranium is all that is needed for a single bomb. The international community faces a dilemma: How to mitigate climate change without increasing the dangers of nuclear materials proliferation. Global warming poses a dire threat to human civilization that is second only to nuclear weapons. The most authoritative scientific group on these issues, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has concluded, “Most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.” Carbon dioxide, principally from fossil fuel burning, has been accumulating in the atmosphere, where it acts like a blanket keeping Earth warm and heating up its surface, ocean, and atmosphere. As a result, current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years. Observations of changes in the atmosphere, on land, in the oceans, in glaciers, and in polar ice cores have led to worldwide scientific consensus about the causes of climate change. The most distinguished scientific bodies in the United States, including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have come to conclusions similar to those of the IPCC. Disruptions in climate already appear to be happening faster in some regions than earlier predicted. In some areas warming has interrupted normal patterns, allowing insects to spread into new habitats, carrying diseases and destroying flora and fauna in zones that have no evolutionary protection. Through flooding or desertification, climate change threatens the habitats and agricultural resources that societies depend upon for survival. Coral reefs will disappear, forest fires will be more intense and more frequent, and heat waves and storms more damaging. In coming years, coastal cities will bear the brunt of sea-level rise, as we have already witnessed in New Orleans, compelling major shifts in human settlement patterns. As such, climate change is also likely to contribute to mass migrations and even to wars over arable land, water, and other natural resources. Indeed, a “business as usual” scenario--wherein we take no further measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions--would raise the global temperature 2.8 degrees Celsius (5 degrees Fahrenheit) by the end of the century, causing a sea-level rise of about 80 feet. The United States would lose most of its cities on the East Coast: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington, and Miami, and nearly the whole state of Florida. China would have 250 million displaced people; India, 150 million. Because climate change is a global problem, it will require global action. As China and India develop their economies, for example, they will need to find ways to reduce or neutralize their contributions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Currently, however, the United States is the single largest producer of carbon dioxide emissions in the world. Efforts in this one country would have disproportionately large effects on world climate. As a wealthy and technologically advanced country, the United States is well positioned to reduce its carbon emissions. Such reductions do not necessarily depend upon nuclear power as a panacea. Carbon emissions can be cut by implementing auto emissions limits, reducing subsidies for oil and coal production, supporting carbon-trading regimes, increasing taxes on gasoline, increasing energy efficiency by establishing manufacturing standards for appliances and lightbulbs, subsidizing solar and wind power development, and planting more trees, among others. Government funding and private investments are required to develop innovative technologies, such as fuel cells, biomass, and carbon sequestration. If we do not take measures in the next several years to reduce carbon emissions, the costs of disruption from climate change could be as high as 5 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) each year, according to the October 2006 report authored by British economist Nicholas Stern. By contrast, the costs of mitigating climate change could be limited to about 1 percent of global GDP each year. Turning back the Clock will depend on humanity’s ability to think in new ways about how to cooperate to achieve common goals. We ask scientists, in the words of Eugene Rabinowitch, not to "retire in resignation and despair to their laboratories" but to publicly engage these issues and make their voices heard. And we implore governments to actively engage the scientific community for sound, nonpartisan technical advice. We urge immediate attention to climate change and caution those who believe nuclear energy is a problem-free solution. Finally, and most importantly, we call upon policy and opinion leaders, business and civic leaders, and the public to place the dangers of nuclear weapons at the top of their agendas for action. More specifically, major progress toward a safer world would include: * Reducing the launch readiness of U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, and completely removing nuclear weapons from the day-to-day operations of their militaries; * Reducing the number of nuclear weapons by dismantling, storing, and destroying more than 20,000 warheads over the next 10 years; * Greatly increasing efforts to locate, store, and secure nuclear materials in Russia, the United States, and elsewhere. The Cooperative Threat Reduction program has provided an example of how even former adversaries can cooperate to reduce the dangers of nuclear weapons. Extending the principles of that program, including working side by side with other countries, establishing transparency, and initiating partnerships between government and the private sector to downblend highly enriched uranium, would be constructive; * Disavowing the development of new nuclear weapons and ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). To date, the CTBT has been ratified by 137 nations, but notable holdouts include the United States, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel; * Stopping production of nuclear weapons material, including highly enriched uranium and plutonium--whether in military or civilian facilities. The proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty should be taken up by the nuclear powers as a major step toward achieving this goal; * Engaging in serious and candid discussion about the potential expansion of nuclear power worldwide. As a means of addressing the threats from climate change, nuclear power should be considered as an alternative energy source. While nuclear energy production does not produce carbon dioxide, it does raise other significant concerns, such as the health and environmental hazards of nuclear waste, the production of nuclear materials that can be diverted to the production of weapons, and the safety and security of the plants themselves. As such, any contemplation of the expansion of nuclear power must be predicated upon a thorough assessment of the technological and legislative safeguards required to curb these risks; * Providing nuclear fuel for energy production in ways that drastically reduce the risk of spreading nuclear weapons. A number of arrangements have been proposed, beginning with the Acheson-Lilienthal Plan of 1946. More recent plans have called for international consortia that would oversee the production, distribution, storage, and disposal of nuclear materials; * Implementing stricter controls over trade in and shipment of nuclear technologies and materials. Harmonizing domestic laws across countries and enforcing these uniformly, as required under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1540, would be a step in the right direction; * Building on the strengths and successes of the IAEA by giving more authority to the agency to monitor and inspect nuclear facilities worldwide and by providing more financial and staff resources. The agency already has shown that it can effectively dismantle nuclear weapons programs and monitor internal developments over a period of years, as it did in Iraq from 1991 to 2001. It has proven its capacity and should be rewarded and its programs expanded; * Providing meaningful international fora to spur innovative solutions that halt nuclear proliferation and provide blueprints for radical reductions in nuclear weapons worldwide. The NPT Review Conferences could provide such an ongoing forum, if nuclear weapon countries would recognize the benefits of this institution for impeding the spread of lethal technologies. The terrible and still unprecedented destructive power of nuclear weapons led Albert Einstein to observe, “With nuclear weapons, everything has changed, save our way of thinking.” As we stand at the brink of a second nuclear age and at the onset of an era of unprecedented climate change, our way of thinking about the uses and control of technologies must change to prevent unspeakable destruction and future human suffering. The Clock is ticking.

From Navy Times Stennis leaves home port for Middle East The Associated Press Posted : Wednesday Jan 17, 2007 7:56:51 EST DUBAI, United Arab Emirates — The aircraft carrier John C. Stennis set sail for the Middle East on Tuesday, leaving its Bremerton, Wash., home port to help beef up U.S. forces near Iraq and Iran. The Stennis’ arrival, expected in about a month, will mark the first time since the U.S.-led Iraq invasion in 2003 that the U.S. will have two carrier battle groups in the region. The increase in forces is a show of strength by the U.S. in the face of Iran’s growing regional assertiveness and a perception among adversaries that the U.S. is vulnerable in Iraq, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday. Last week, President Bush ordered 21,500 more soldiers to Iraq. The Stennis is part of the call-up. The Stennis, a Nimitz-class carrier with approximately 3,200 sailors, will stop off in San Diego to pick up an air wing of more than 80 planes, including F/A-18 Hornet and Superhornet fighter-bombers. After a monthlong voyage across the Pacific and Indian oceans, the Stennis will join the aircraft carrier Dwight D. Eisenhower, which is already tasked to the Navy’s 5th Fleet, based in Bahrain, said Cmdr. Kevin Aandahl of the 5th Fleet. Once in Middle East waters, the second aircraft carrier will significantly boost U.S. air power in the region and serve as a reminder of U.S. firepower to Iran. “This demonstrates our resolve to do what we can to bring security and stability to the region,” Aandahl said. “That’s obviously to dissuade others from acting counter to our national interest.” The arrival of the nuclear-powered Stennis comes in addition to a Patriot anti-missile battalion that Gates said will be sent to a U.S. allied Gulf Arab country, as well as the additional troops that President Bush said were part of an increase in U.S. forces in Iraq. The Pentagon has not said where the Patriots will be based. The Stennis was previously in line to deploy to the Pacific, where a key concern is North Korea. Instead, the carrier battle group will focus on Iraq, Afghanistan or join the Eisenhower-led task force on its current mission, off the coast of Somalia, Aandahl said. “We are simply reaffirming that statement of the importance of the Gulf region to the United States and our determination to be an ongoing strong presence in that area for a long time into the future,” Gates said. Iran has denounced the Patriot deployment as part of U.S. plan to turn Arab countries into a front line of protection for Israel. In December, Tehran’s top national security official, Ali Larijani, asked Arab leaders to shut down U.S. military bases in the region. Larijani invited Gulf countries to build a regional security alliance with Iran that would replace the U.S. security umbrella. But Gulf Arab governments have shown no interest in a security alliance with Iran. Washington will maintain two carriers in the Middle East “as long as the situation demands it,” Aandahl said. A typical carrier deployment lasts six months. [Emphasis added by CV32]

If anyone finds a source for what version of the AIM-120 is being sold, please let us know.

From Defense Aerospace Korea to Buy 20 Foreign Fighter Jets Next Year (Source: Korea Overseas Information Service; dated Jan. 18, web-posted Jan. 17, 2007) Korea has decided to choose a foreign contractor through open bidding to supply 20 "next-generation" fighter jets in the coming years, a project to cost around 2.3 trillion won ($2.4 billion), defense officials said Wednesday (Jan. 17). The project follows Seoul's contract with the U.S. company Boeing Co. in 2002 to buy 40 F-15K jets for $4.6 billion. Eighteen jets have been delivered so far, with the remainder to be introduced by next year. "We plan to draw up a detailed plan for the procurement project next month and distribute the proposal in March, with the aim of signing a contract by February next year," said Major General Kim Deuk-hwan, director-general for aircraft programs at the Defense Acquisition Program Administration. The decision was made at a defense procurement project committee meeting presided over by Defense Minister Kim Jang-soo at the Defense Ministry building in central Seoul. Korea has pushed for the purchase of 120 next-generation fighter jets as part of its blueprint for overhauling the military's structure and drastically increasing combat capability by 2020. "It is a plan to secure 20 highly efficient multipurpose fighter jets to actively counter threats by neighboring countries under the National Defense Reform 2020 project," Kim said. "We will introduce the aircraft between 2010 and 2012." He indicated that Lockheed Martin's F-35 model will be ruled out, saying the Air Force needs double-engine fighters. "There are a lot of differences between the single-engine F-35 and what our military needs, including weapons capacity and flight scope," Kim said. Korean officials expect the introduction of a foreign model to help the country learn the core technology needed for the designing and manufacturing of advanced aircraft, as well as contributing to the development of the domestic aerospace industry and the creation of jobs. In 2002, Seoul chose Boeing's F-15K, probably in consideration of the long-standing military alliance with the United States, giving a new lifeline to Boeing's then-sputtering F-15 production line in Missouri. The French-built fighter Rafale reportedly beat the F-15K by a narrow margin in the technical phase of evaluation. Two other fighters, the Russian Sukhoi Su-35 and the Typhoon from European consortium Eurofighter, also joined in the competition. [Tony, I think a certain up and coming HCE scenario is gonna need some tweaking ... ]

A handy guide to defence related acronyms in the European sphere (and beyond) has been issued by the European Defence Agency. You can find it (in PDF) here.

From Defense Aerospace Issue Brief: The Slow Death of American Air Power (Source: The Lexington Institute; issued Jan. 16, 2007) By Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D. Now that America has an Islamo-centric security posture, any danger that doesn't fit within the counter-fundamentalist framework tends to be ignored. That's sort of ironic, since the biggest military threats to democracy in the last century came from atheists. Five years into the "global war on terror," the evidence suggests that Islamic radicals are real good at blowing each other up, but not so good at projecting power abroad. As long as western nations maintain halfway decent domestic security arrangements, the fundamentalists seem to be hobbled in repeating their one major success of 9-11. Given that fact -- five years and counting without a second big terrorist attack in America -- maybe we ought to be paying more attention to the kinds of state-based challenges that roiled the world so much in the past. But we aren't. No one gives much thought to Russia's vast nuclear arsenal, which could still obliterate America in a few hours, even though that nation is reverting to authoritarian rule. Nobody seems to care about China's buildup of naval forces, its development of long-range missiles, or its new fighter. And nothing decisive has been done to prevent North Korea's march towards an indigenous nuclear arsenal. Each of these countries wields far more destructive power than the handful of nuts scattered across Arabia that we call Al Qaeda. But because Al Qaeda is a current irritant and other concerns seem less pressing, the capacity of U.S. forces to cope with state-based challenges is allowed to atrophy. The decay is most pronounced in the U.S. Air Force, the service that would have to take the lead in coping with urgent threats posed by Russia, China and other industrialized countries. After 20 years of neglect, the Air Force's fleet of combat aircraft is older than the Navy's fleet of warships. During his four-year stint as defense secretary, Dick Cheney killed the service's cold-war fighter programs, terminated the next-generation B-2 bomber at a mere 20 planes, slashed the future C-17 cargo plane program, and decimated every other facet of U.S. air power. Clinton's defense secretaries added back some planes that Cheney had cut, but delayed and decreased the next-generation F-22 fighter that was the centerpiece of plans for future air dominance. Then Donald Rumsfeld launched the entire department on a leap-ahead trajectory to military transformation that ignored air power for another six years. The end result is that the Air Force now flies 45-year-old aerial refueling tankers using a plane retired by commercial airlines a quarter-century ago; its F-22 fighter program has been cut 75% even though the aging fighters it would replace are so old they operate under flight restriction; its production lines for C-130 and C-17 transport planes are scheduled for closure despite lack of adequate airlift; and the service has canceled its planned family of aircraft for replacing cold-war radar and reconnaissance planes. The only bright spot on the horizon is the tri-service F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, but Navy efforts to slash funding for JSF suggest the Air Force can't even count on that program coming to fruition. Air Force pilots have a favorite story they tell that captures the meltdown of American air power over the past 20 years. Brigadier General David Deptula was flying his F-15 over northern Iraq in 1999 when cockpit gauges went haywire and the fuel reading plummeted to zero. It turned out insulation on the plane's wiring had rotted away with age, shorting out the electrical system. The punch-line of the story was that Gen. Deptula was flying the same F-15 he had flown 20 years earlier as a young captain. But most of the people who tell the story don't know it has a new punch-line: Gen. Deptula's son, a first lieutenant, is now flying the same plane in the Pacific -- nearly 30 years after it was built. Maybe it's time the Air Force finally gets some new planes, before a real threat comes along.

As you probably know, most of the mission specific variation would likely be with regard to the mix of TLAM and Standard SAM loadouts. If one were anticipating a challenging air defense environment, a typical SAM heavy loadout for a Flight IIA might be: 72 x Standard SM-2MR (of which there are more variants then Kelloggs has Corn Flakes) 10 x TLAM (again, with multiple variants possible) 16 x ESSM 4 x VL ASROC If the air threat isn't expected to be as bad, or you really need to reach out and touch someone, a typical TLAM heavy loadout for a Flight IIA might be: 56 x TLAM (the Naval Technology website seems to confirm this number) 24 x Standard SM-2MR 24 x ESSM 4 x VL ASROC This is entirely conjectural, of course. But I hope it helps.

From Flight International Libya 'to order 13-18 Dassault Rafale fighter jets', rejecting Eurofighter, French press reports By Justin Wastnage Libyan leader Col Muammar al-Gaddafi has reportedly selected the Dassault Aviation Rafale fighter jet to re-equip the country's air force ahead of the Eurofighter Typhoon. Libya is reportedly close to finalising an order for between 13 and 18 Rafales in a deal worth as much as €2.5 billion ($3.24 billion), French Sunday newspaper Le Journal du Dimanche says. The newspaper cites industry sources and government insiders as saying Gaddafi chose the French offer over a refurbishing of and unspecified number of the country's mixed RSK MiG fleet of Mig-21s, -23 and -25s. Proposals from China and Russia were also considered, the report continues. If true, the deal would be the first export order for the Rafale. The deal is expected later this year, once technical discussions with Dassault have been completed, it continues. [This has been rumoured for awhile now, and is still being viewed with more than a little skepticism. That said, Libya DOES have a history of operating French aircraft, and it would be a breakthrough for Dassault. Wait and see ... ]

From DefenseNews Posted 01/15/07 11:24 Austria’s New Defense Minister Wants To Drop Eurofighter Contract By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, VIENNA Austria’s new defense minister, Norbert Darabos, in an interview appearing here Friday, said he remained determined to drop a contract signed by the former government to purchase 18 Eurofighter jets. “The objective is still to pull out of the Eurofighter contract. The costs are simply too high,” the Social Democrat minister told the daily newspaper Oesterreich. But he added: “I cannot say yet whether a pull-out is financially feasible.” Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer, also a Social Democrat, made a campaign pledge to scrap the Eurofighter contract, worth some 2.0 billion euros (2.58 billion dollars), before his election Oct. 1. But no such plan appears in the 177-page government contract agreed upon with the conservatives to form a new ruling coalition. The government of former conservative Chancellor Wolfgang Schuessel signed the deal in 2003. In two-month-long coalition talks, the Social Democrats and conservatives only agreed to emphasize the importance of Austria’s air defense and to find ways to guarantee it. A parliamentary commission, launched in late October by the Social Democrats, the environmental Green party and part of the far-right to examine the contract awarded European aerospace group EADS is expected to publish its conclusions in March. In early November, former Defense Minister Guenther Platter estimated that pulling out of the Eurofighter contract would cost Austria at least 1.2 billion euros, based on a preliminary EADS figure. Austria’s outgoing government paid the first two installments, worth some 218 million euros, for the Eurofighters this week, according to press reports, which the the finance ministry refused to confirm. The first four aircraft are being completed at EADS’s assembly line in Manching, Germany, and their delivery is set for early 2007. Darabos said he planned to begin formal talks with the group soon. He added that there had been informal preliminary discussions but “no convergence so far.” “I assume that fair negotiations are possible. I want to achieve the best for the taxpayers. 500 million euros in savings and therefore more money for social benefits would be nice,” the defense minister said. Darabos wants fewer Eurofighters but has not excluded purchasing or even leasing other aircraft, or indeed renewing Austria’s contract to lease F-16 jets from Switzerland to control its airspace.

From DefenseNews Posted 01/12/07 17:58 Stop-Work Ordered for Third LCS U.S. Navy Struggles To Rein In Soaring Program Costs By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS Scrambling to regain control of Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program costs and forestall a congressional firestorm, U.S. Navy leaders have called for a temporary halt on construction on the third LCS while examining why cost growth on the first one has jumped as much as 86 percent. A recent cost review of the USS Freedom (LCS 1) showed that the estimated price had jumped from a planned $220 million to between $331 million and $410 million, according to a Navy official. That ship is under construction by Lockheed Martin and scheduled to be delivered to the Navy this summer. The third ship is in fabrication, an early stage of construction. As a result of the findings, Navy Secretary Donald Winter decided on Jan. 12 to put out a 90-day stop-work order on Lockheed’s second ship until the causes of the cost growth are found and a way ahead is determined. The Navy, a service official said Jan. 12, needs to “fully understand whether the cost problems are unique to the lead ship or an indicator of increased follow-on ship costs” before building more Lockheed ships. Service leaders have been aware of cost growth in the LCS program, but until recently were not aware of the extent. “It appears that we’re having considerable cost overruns on it,” Delores Etter, the Navy’s top acquisition officer, told reporters Jan. 11. “We don’t know the numbers.” Etter spoke a week after deciding to reassign the program executive officer for ships, Rear Adm. Charles Hamilton, to a position outside the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). Sources said the reassignment was not due solely to problems with the Littoral Combat Ship. The Navy is examining cost estimates prepared by several groups, including the Navy’s LCS program manager, NAVSEA, Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon’s Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG). Navy officials would not reveal specific cost estimates by each group, although the estimates range from 50 percent to 86 percent above the hoped-for $220 million price tag. On Jan. 10, Etter briefed Winter and Adm. Mike Mullen, chief of naval operations (CNO), on the situation. She said the Navy has also “shared this with Congress.” Service leaders met again Jan. 12 to decide how to proceed. Navy officials stressed that the cost figures applied only to the Freedom, the first LCS, and not to a competing LCS design being built by General Dynamics (GD). But the price of GD’s first ship also is rising, although one source claimed the price for the first GD ship remains well under $300 million, and that “the estimate for the second GD ship will be around $240 million to $250 million.” As a result of the cost analysis on the Freedom, a Navy official said, a similar cost review will be performed on the General Dynamics ship. Centerpiece at Stake The 55-ship Littoral Combat Ship program is a centerpiece of Mullen’s 313-ship fleet plan. But Congress has been less than pleased with the cost estimates. A year ago, the Navy increased the projected per-ship cost to about $300 million. Senate appropriators were dissatisfied enough with the Navy’s explanations to recommend turning down the 2007 request for two ships and rescinding funds for the third of three authorized in 2006 until the service could get a handle on LCS costs. Although those threats died in conference, Congress said its concerns remained and told the Navy to do a better job at cost estimation or risk greater oversight. The service clearly is worried about cost growth. “They’ll take a lot of heat from the Hill from this,” said one congressional naval analyst familiar with the program. “There are a lot of people on the appropriations and armed services committees who have not been happy with the relatively modest cost increases that have occurred in the program. “Now if we’re talking about greater cost increases they’re going to be extraordinarily unhappy, and the Navy should expect much greater oversight into how it’s managing the program, especially as [in a Democrat-controlled Congress] this is seen as very much a Bush and Rumsfeld program.” Construction of the Freedom began in February 2005 at Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wis. The ship was launched in September and is expected to be delivered to the Navy this summer. A second Lockheed ship — upon which the Jan. 12 stop-work order was aimed — is being built at Bollinger Shipyards in Lockport, La. Lockheed plans to alternate construction of its LCS ships between the two builder yards. General Dynamics is building its ships at Austal USA in Mobile, Ala. Construction of the first GD ship, the Independence, began in November 2005, with delivery scheduled for 2008. GD plans to build all its ships at the Mobile shipyard. One reason the cumulative cost growth is so apparent on Lockheed’s ship, Navy and industry officials pointed out, is that progress on the Freedom is further along than on other ships. Freedom is about 73 percent complete, Lockheed said, while the Independence is about 50 percent. A cost analysis like that done on the Freedom hasn’t yet been performed for the Independence. “It is premature to draw any conclusions about the General Dynamics ship,” GD spokesman Kendell Pease said Jan. 11. But that doesn’t mean GD’s ship isn’t affected by cost concerns. “If we find that the GD ship is experiencing the same type of cost growth,” the congressional naval analyst said, “then Congress is left with a choice — they can either act to dramatically scale-back the program, or cancel it. Or they could take a wait-and-see approach to see if maybe these are lead ship problems and maybe the Navy can bring the cost back down. “If, however, the GD ship does not have the same type of cost growth,” the Congressional naval analyst added, “there is going to be very intense pressure from Capitol Hill for the Navy to down select to one design rather than the Navy’s current plan to buy a total of 15 before making a decision.” Another factor in gauging Congressional response to the program’s cost growth, the Congressional naval analyst pointed out, is that the ships are being built at three small shipyards that have not done a lot of Navy work. “People from the big yards” — the six major shipyards owned by Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics — “have always regarded LCS as a threat,” the analyst said. “This doesn’t help that.” Fast-Track Pace The pace of acquisition is key to the Navy’s desire to rapidly get the ships in service to perform close-to-shore combat missions. Championed by previous CNO Adm. Vern Clark, the LCS is aimed at filling a gap where the Navy’s blue-water warships are less effective or too expensive to be risked. The program has been on an exceptionally fast track from its inception in 2002, and rather than building larger and more costly ships loaded with weapons and sensors, the Navy has developed a modular plan to shift equipment on and off ships depending on a particular mission. The service is anxious to begin getting actual sea experience with the ships to flesh out their concepts of operations. Any change in the acquisition plan could ripple through the service’s wish to develop operations and send the ships overseas to areas they’re needed. A factor in the rapid development of the program is the large number of new-to-the-U.S. Navy components in the ships due to their relatively small size. About 20 percent of the equipment is foreign-supplied or designed, and a number of companies offered their products at near- or below-cost to enter the potentially lucrative U.S. Navy market. Although Navy officials declined to cite specific factors leading to price hikes on the Freedom, Lockheed spokesman Craig Quigley cited a number of reasons. • The first ship in a new class historically experiences cost increases as shipbuilders learn the best ways to build the ships. Quigley noted that numerous representatives from the Bollinger shipyard have been in Marinette “to learn those lessons so we don’t learn them again.” • Vendor issues. Quigley noted that mistakes by General Electric in manufacturing the ship’s reduction gears slowed the schedule. It was also tough to get the right kind of steel, which was also being ordered by the Army to up-armoring vehicles in Iraq. • The Navy’s new Naval Vessel Rules (NVR), changed in 2004 to to standardize and strengthen ship construction requirements. Quigley said, “The tightened NVRs will make a tougher ship. But there is an impact on cost. It is particularly relevant when you’re adapting a commercial design to a naval warship.” Lockheed’s hull form is based on a large, commercial, Italian-designed yacht. • A fast-track acquisition program that puts ships into production while design work still is going on. “The Navy and Lockheed Martin always knew this was going to be an element of moving a ship along this fast,” Quigley said.

Beauty !

From DefenseNews Posted 01/11/07 21:45 LCS hits ‘considerable cost overruns’ By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), advertised by the U.S. Navy as a $220 million bargain, is going to come in at considerably more than that, according to a senior Navy official. “It appears that we’re having considerable cost overruns on it,” Delores Etter, the Navy’s top acquisition official, told reporters Jan. 11. “We’ve been doing our cost-performance review on the Lockheed Martin ship,” Etter said, noting that as the first of a class, “you’ve got some surprises you didn’t expect. But we’re trying to understand the exact cost increases and we’re working with Lockheed Martin so you’ve got the right numbers.” Etter vigorously declined to provide any specific cost figures. “We don’t have numbers at this point. So one of the things I hope you will help us with is not using numbers right now, because we don’t know the numbers. So that has to mean your numbers aren’t accurate if you’ve got numbers.” Nevertheless, a Navy official said the cost of the ship was “closer to the mid-threes,” or around $350 million. Other, unofficial, figures approach and break the $400 million barrier. One problem with providing accurate figures is that it appears cost estimates prepared by different groups are being analyzed by the Navy, although officials could not confirm that is the case. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Mullen, and Secretary of the Navy Donald Winter were briefed late Jan. 10 on the LCS cost situation, and Etter noted the Navy has “shared this with Congress.” “At this point you know everything that we feel we can share at this point on LCS,” she told reporters gathered at the Surface Navy Association symposium in Washington. Navy officials stressed that the cost figures applied only to the USS Freedom, the first LCS, and not to the class a whole, nor to a competing LCS design being built by General Dynamics. But the price of GD’s first ship also is rising, although one source claimed the price for their first ship remains well under $300 million, and that “the estimate for the second GD ship will be around $240 million to $250 million.” Construction of the Freedom began in February 2005 at Marinette Marine in Marinette, Wisc. The ship was launched in September and is expected to be delivered to the Navy this summer. A second Lockheed ship is being built at Bollinger Shipyards in Lockport, La. Lockheed plans to alternate construction of its LCS ships between the two builder yards. General Dynamics is building its ships at Austal USA in Mobile, Ala. Construction of the first GD ship, the Independence, began in November 2005, with delivery scheduled for 2008. GD plans to build all its ships at the Mobile shipyard. One reason the cumulative cost growth is so apparent on Lockheed’s ship, Navy and industry officials pointed out, is that progress on the Freedom is further along than on other ships. Freedom is about 73 percent complete, Lockheed said, while the Independence is about 50 percent. Craig Quigley, spokesman for Lockheed Martin, noted a number of reasons for cost growth on the Freedom. “Keep in mind that this entire process from concept to ship in the water is happening about 60 percent faster than traditional ship processes,” he said. “This is indeed a warship, not a commercial ship. That defines different requirements.” Quigley said four principle reasons are behind the cost increases: • First-of-class issues. The first ship in a new class historically experiences cost increases as shipbuilders learn the best ways to build the ships, Quigley pointed out, adding that numerous representatives from the Bollinger shipyard have been in Marinette “to learn those lessons so we don’t learn them again.” • Vendor issues. Quigley noted that mistakes by General Electric in manufacturing the ship’s reduction gears — critical elements in a ship’s propulsion system — resulted in schedule changes as the builders struggled to keep construction on track while waiting for new gears. Supply issues also arose in getting the right kind of steel for the ship because it was the same high-priority material used by the Army in up-armoring its High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV or Humvee) being used in Iraq. “Both these issues caused a resequencing of production to maintain schedule. And that increased cost,” he said. • The impact of new Naval Vessel Rules (NVR), regulations being created by the Navy to standardize and strengthen ship construction requirements. “Shortly after the contract was awarded in 2004 the Navy directed a change to the Naval Vessel Rules,” Quigley said. “The tightened NVRs will make a tougher ship. But there is an impact on cost. It is particularly relevant when you’re adapting a commercial design to a naval warship.” Lockheed’s hull form is based on a large, commercial, Italian-designed yacht. • The impact of a fast-track acquisition program where ships are being put into production while design work still is being carried out. “The Navy and Lockheed Martin always knew this was going to be an element of moving a ship along this fast,” Quigley said. “You’re not going to get a ship in the water in four years unless you do this. But this was exacerbated when the Navy imposed the use of NVR, which introduced more concurrency, more redesign and reconstruction.” “We will continue to work very closely with the Navy,” Quigley added, “to understand these cost increases and put the best and most affordable warship we can to sea.” Navy and General Dynamics officials said it was too early to assess the cumulative impact of cost growth on the Independence. “It is premature to draw any conclusions about the General Dynamics ship as it is only about 50 percent complete,” said GD spokesman Kendell Pease.

From Defense Aerospace Submarine Force Announces Operational Stand Down (Source: US Navy; issued Jan. 11, 2007) NORFOLK, Va. --- The U.S. Submarine Force announced Jan. 11, that it will conduct an Operational Stand Down in the wake of recent submarine incidents. In a message to the submarine force, Vice Adm. Chuck Munns, U.S. Submarine Force commander, directed the immediate “stand down” to focus energy and intellect on the basics of submarine operations. Submarines provide continued excellence in the accomplishment of national and theater tasking, but recent problems in routine operations need attention. “It is clear that a common thread through recent problems has been errors [when] conducting normal routine operations,” stated Vice Adm. Munns. “We are going back to basics, back to practice.” Munns directed that, effective immediately, all submarine commanding officers review recently completed operations and future planned evolutions, and evaluate areas of risk and risk mitigation. Normal operations will continue while the review is conducted. The review will be completed by Jan. 19. Additionally, during the month of February, submarine squadron and group commanders will review inputs from the force’s submarines and implement actions to improve routine efficiency. The submarine force will also take additional actions to incorporate findings from the stand down and better prepare commanding officers with tools and techniques that foster good judgment, technical, and mariner skills. “I am fortunate to have assigned the best people America can produce-they are well trained, they have the best equipment in the world,” stated Vice Adm. Munns. “This operational focus, ‘stand down’, will continue our success in national tasking and also improve our daily operations.”

From Navy Times January 11, 2007 Boone lost rudder at sea By William H. McMichael The rudder fell off a Mayport, Fla.-based frigate while it was on deployment in the western Mediterranean Sea in late November, the Atlantic Fleet Naval Surface Force confirmed Thursday. The Nov. 30 mishap forced the ship to send out a call for help, said Paul Taylor, a SurfLant spokesman. The Canadian destroyer HMCS Iroquois responded, providing divers who inspected the ship’s underside. Within 24 hours, the Boone was being towed to Rota, Spain, for repairs by a German replenishment oiler, FGS Spessart, Taylor said. The ship was not adrift or totally dead in the water because its two 350-horsepower auxiliary propulsion units provided a “limited amount of maneuverability,” Taylor said. The lost rudder was replaced Dec. 27 and, after a day of operational testing, Boone got underway again Dec. 28, Taylor said. The problem was the loss of the securing nut at the end of the ship’s rudder post, Taylor said. The nut, which holds the rudder on the post, is supposed to be tightened with roughly 3,000 pounds of torque. For reasons unknown, he said, the nut failed or somehow came loose, and the rudder fell off. The rudder assembly on Boone, which went into service in 1982, was last inspected during a 2000 dry-dock period at a Jacksonville, Fla., commercial repair facility, Taylor said. He said the such inspections are typically conducted only when ships are placed in dry dock. Boone left Mayport on Aug. 2 as a solo deployer with orders to operate with Standing NATO Maritime Group 1, formerly Standing Naval Force Atlantic. The group is a squadron of eight to 10 destroyers and frigates that exercise primarily in the eastern Atlantic, generally taking part in warfare training exercises, according to NATO. As a result of the mishap, Naval Sea Systems Command and Naval Surface Forces have ordered that all Navy frigates be outfitted with a securing pin at the end of their rudder posts, below the securing nut, “so in case this happens again, it’ll hold in place,” Taylor said. Boone received the modification during its stay in Rota, Taylor said. The replacement rudder is a story in itself. According to Taylor, the Pearl Harbor, Hawaii-based frigate Crommelin was in dry dock at its home port. Maintenance personnel removed Crommelin’s rudder and sent it to Rota. Other workers recovered a rudder from an inactive frigate at Bremerton, Wash., to replace Crommelin’s. The rudder nut threads on Boone were undamaged, Taylor said, making the repair fairly simple. Taylor noted that the repair process employed for Boone reflected business practices that the Navy’s coming Class Squadrons will employ and refine. Class Squadrons will be functional commands focused on the training and readiness of specific classes of ships, such as frigates, and will oversee teams of dedicated maintainers for those ships. Implementation teams for the squadrons were launched Oct. 1. [i guess people who made fun of the Charles de Gaulle when it suffered a similar foible, oughta feel pretty sheepish now ... ]

After Action Report: The Battle of El Arish A HC scenario by Mark Gellis To watch for signs of an imminent Soviet/Egyptian attack, the IDF/AF immediately launched one of two Boeing 707 aircraft equipped with the new and still experimental Phalcon AEW&C radar systems. It would hopefully provide a better picture of the battlespace than the E-2 Daya systems. Immediately, two surface action groups (SAGs) - presumably the enemy - were detected just north of Port Said, and moving west. One of the SAGs was soon evaluated as comprising Soviet ships, namely a Kresta II cruiser, Udaloy destroyer, and a Krivak I frigate. They would prove a formidable foe for the Israeli Navy. The lead SAG is found to contain a single Egyptian Navy Descubierta class frigate. In the same breath, numerous Egyptian Air Force (EAF) aircraft were spotted taking off from El Arish AB near the Egypt-Israel border. A large number of these attackers, comprised largely of Mirages, Phantoms and Falcons, were splashed by F-16s out of Hatzerim, and assisted by a small number of F-15 Akef and F-15 Baz fighters out of Tel Nof and Tel Aviv, respectively. Heavy enemy jamming occurred soon afterward, affecting even the Phalcon AEW&C now orbiting just west of Tel Aviv. Perhaps sensing the urgency evident in the beating that the Egyptians were taking, a pair of Russian Flankers were soon detected. These were engaged by Israeli F-15s, unfortunately to poor effect initially. Two of each of the F-15 Baz and F-15 Akef types were claimed by the long range AA-10 Alamo C, before the two Su-27s were downed. No doubt the culprit of the heavy jamming, a flight of four Soviet Fencer F electronic warfare aircraft were detected operating north of the enemy SAGs. F-15 Akef fighters moved in and collected all of them. (A batch of brand new AIM-120A AMRAAM secretly delivered to the IDF/AF proved invaluable). The jamming ceased with the downing of the Fencer F flight. Shortly afterward, Nevatim came under Armat anti-radar attack. These were stopped, but only at the last moment by local air defence networks. Six Mirage 2000s found lurking near Hatzerim - probably the enemy SEAD flight - were destroyed by a mixture of defensive SAMs and Python AAMs from F-15 Akef fighters. (At this point, minimum victory was achieved !) In a remarkable display of piloting skills, a pair of F-4 Kurnass managed to shoot down two Su-27s. But four more Flankers were detected sweeping toward Tel Aviv. They clash with a flight of F-15 Akef, and all four Su-27s are killed in exchange for a pair of Akef. Meanwhile, at sea, the Gal class SSK Tanin moved to engage the Egyptian Navy Descubierta FF at a range of 26 nm, launching four Sub Harpoons. Unfortunately, they are all shot down by the enemy ship's Sea Sparrow system. At the same, and more fortunately, two Harpoons fired by the Descubierta at the Saar II missile corvette Haifa to the northeast, are also knocked down. The respite was short lived, as soon thereafter, two more RGM-84 Harpoons arrived, both hitting and destroying the Haifa. Four Soviet Su-24 Fencer D are spotted nearby, no doubt having been dispatched to seek out and engage the Israeli Navy at sea. They are surprised and splashed by Israeli F-15s conducting CAP near Tel Aviv. (Major victory achieved !) The losses inflicted on the combined Egyptian and Soviet forces must have been a little too painful for them to continue their attack. The Battle of El Arish was over. Thanks to Mark for a quick and enjoyable scenario !

Great news ! A new scenario from Mark Gellis for the EC2003 MEDC battleset. The Battle of El Arish Shortly after the Six Day War, Soviet forces joined briefly with Egyptian forces against Israel in a "War of Attrition." Although this failed to seriously damage Israel, it laid the foundation for future joint Soviet-Egypt military action. By 1990, the progress towards peace made by Sadat and Begin fifteen years earlier has mostly fallen by the wayside. Soviet forces have returned to Egypt. Intelligence suggests that they may again initiate joint attacks against Israel. Grab it at the HarpGamer scenario download page

Haha, good point, Tony. (God forbid there ever be any bugs in software).

I believe Carrier Air Wing 7 (CVW-7) is deployed with the Eisenhower CSG, and this has the VF-143 Pukin' Dogs. This squadron in turn is equipped with Super Hornets, and therefore, I'd say they are probably using the SHARP reconnaissance pod. IIRC, Djibouti (where the AC-130 gunships flew from recently) has also operated Predator UAVs in the past, and I would not be surprised if they are being used as well. (Slightly off topic, but it seems the attack sub USS Newport News, which had been assigned to the Eisenhower group as well, stayed behind when the carrier and her escorts moved to the Horn of Africa. As evidenced by her unfortunate collision with the supertanker).

From Defence Talk Japan Launches First Defense Ministry Since WWII Agence France-Presse | Jan 10, 2007 Tokyo (AFP): Japan launched its first full-fledged defense ministry since World War II on Tuesday as part of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's efforts to build a more assertive nation. Abe, Japan's first premier to be born after the war, made the creation of a defense ministry one of his top priorities. He aims eventually to rewrite the US-imposed 1947 constitution that declared Japan a pacifist country. "Since the Cold War ended, the national security situation facing Japan has changed dramatically," Abe said at a ceremony to mark the creation of a cabinet-level defense ministry to replace the previous defense agency. He said the move "shows the maturity of Japan's democracy". "This is a significant step for us to get out of the post-war regime and lay the foundations for our efforts to build the nation," he added. Abe, a passionate advocate of a more assertive Japan, has faced slipping poll ratings since taking office in September with a vow to build "a beautiful nation" and calls for a hard line against North Korea's nuclear program. He has sought to repair frayed ties with China, which was angered by former prime minister Junichiro Koizumi's repeated visits to a Tokyo war shrine seen by critics as a symbol of Japan's past military aggression. China urged Japan to continue its peaceful post-war policies after the creation of the ministry. "We feel that if Japan maintains its direction of peaceful development, it is in line with Japan's own basic interests," Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told a regular press briefing. "We also hope that whatever structural changes Japan makes it can continue on the path of peaceful diplomacy." Japan's parliament enacted laws in December to create the full defense ministry and to instill patriotism at schools, breaking two taboos lingering since defeat in World War II. The change is partly symbolic but the ministry will also have more power than the previous defense agency because it can submit its own budget requests. Fumio Kyuma, until now the director-general of the defense agency, takes the title of defense minister. Japanese troops are still to be called the "Self-Defense Forces". "The security situation surrounding Japan remains severe," said Kyuma, referring to North Korea's test missile launches in July and its first nuclear test in October. The bill enjoyed wide support, with the largest opposition party joining the ruling coalition. But the leader of the smaller Social Democratic Party, Mizuho Fukushima, criticized the move, saying it would enable Japan to send troops abroad to support the US military as soon as the post-war constitution is revised. Previous attempts to create a defense ministry stalled over political sensitivities in light of Japan's past aggression and fears of upsetting neighboring countries. Despite its official pacifism, Japan has one of the world's biggest military budgets at 4.81 trillion yen (41.6 billion dollars) a year. Japan has steadily been assuming a more visible military presence to counter its post-war image as solely an economic power. In a groundbreaking move, Japan sent troops on a reconstruction mission to Iraq, the first time since 1945 that it had deployed to a country where fighting was underway. Japan also provides offshore refueling services for the alliance in its mission in Afghanistan. In an interview with the BBC, Abe said other nations had nothing to fear from a more assertive Japan. "I believe we will be able to gain the understanding as well as the confidence of the world regarding Japan's assertiveness," he said. Abe left Tuesday on his first trip to Europe where he will seek to strengthen ties with NATO and galvanize support for a hard line against North Korea.