CV32

From Defense Aerospace Air Force Strategic Plan Released (Source: US Air Force; issued Oct. 5, 2006) WASHINGTON --- The Air Force Strategic Plan 2006 - 2008 has been released and now is available online, announced Secretary of the Air Force Michael W. Wynne and Air Force Chief of Staff General T. Michael Moseley in a joint letter. The plan articulates the Air Force mission. "The Air Force Strategic Plan embodies how we will defend the nation against current and emerging threats," the letter said. "It demonstrates scalable choices, not limited by distance or time. Our strategic choices -- what we choose to prioritize, our actions in support of our priorities and the order in which we take them -- sustain us as the world's premier air and space force." The plan focuses on the three priorities the Air Force has had over the last few years: winning the war on terrorism, developing Airmen, and recapitalizing the aging air fleet. The Air Force Strategic Plan 2006 to 2008, and other strategic planning documents, can be found on StrategyNet, a Web-based tool to help communicate the context and scope of Air Force strategic planning. Click hereto do directly to the report, on the USAF website (32 pages in PDF format).

From Defense Aerospace Small Diameter Bomb Makes Combat Debut (Source: US Air Force; issued Oct. 5, 2006) SOUTHWEST ASIA --- The Guided Bomb Unit-39/B small diameter bomb was flown into combat for the first time Oct. 5 by members of the 494th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron. The unit, deployed to the Southwest Asia area of operations, launched a two-ship formation of F-15E Strike Eagles at 1:30 a.m. EDT carrying the new air-to-ground bomb on a mission to provide close-air support for ground troops operating in Iraq. "Today, we added an extraordinary capability to our warfighter's arsenal," said Lt. Gen. Gary L. North, the Combined Forces Air Component commander. "The GBU-39/B (small diameter bomb) provides the Air Force with the ability to reduce collateral damage, while providing joint terminal attack controllers another option to prosecute targets. It is a significant milestone for our coalition forces fighting the global war on terror. "This new air-to-ground munition gives our warfighters the explosive power of a conventional bomb without the fragmentation and blast area of other weapons in our inventory," he said. The new bomb, the first of its kind in the Air Force inventory, gives aircrews the ability to destroy targets that would normally be "passed over" due to the proximity of friendly troops, civilians, structures or personal property. As the smallest guided bomb in the Air Force, munitions crews are able to load more of the 250-pound bombs onto an aircraft, compared to larger, heavier guided weapons. "Obviously, because of its size, our aircraft are able to carry more individual weapons into battle, benefiting the Soldiers on the ground with more opportunities to defend their positions, while precisely destroying targets that would threaten American, coalition and Iraqi lives," General North said. "The SDB is uniquely qualified for urban targets that call for precision accuracy and reduced collateral damage and in close-air-support missions that our aircrews find themselves in during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom," General North said. "We now have the ability to put ordnance in places where collateral damage might be a concern." The F-15E Strike Eagle squadron, and its corresponding aircraft maintenance unit, from Royal Air Force Lakenheath, England, is the first unit deployed in the war on terrorism with the capability to employ the SDB. For some of these Airmen, Operation Iraqi Freedom marks the first time they will drop live bombs on enemy targets. Aircrews began training on the academics of the bomb and in simulators in May, said Capt. Matt Hund, 494th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron chief of weapons and tactics. The SDB is an all-weather Global Positioning System-guided munition capable of standoff ranges in excess of 40 miles. Aircrews have the ability to hit single or multiple targets on one bombing pass by programming GPS coordinates into the bomb. "We can drop our entire payload of small diameter bombs at one time and each weapon will independently track to its own target," Captain Hund said. "Or, we drop one small diameter bomb at a time, depending on what the forces on the ground need and the type of target we're going to destroy." Additionally, the pilot or weapons system officer can reprogram the SDB with different fuses for different targets while the aircraft is en route to its target. The bomb, once dropped, rolls and its 5-foot diamond-back wings pop out as it glides to its target. To ensure all goes well with the first SDB deployment, members of the Air Armament Center's 681st Armament Systems Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., are on hand to provide expert advice as the bomb and aircraft are integrated for combat operations. Capt. Jim Parslow, the SDB Systems Flight commander, oversaw the loading of the small bomb as weapons loaders secured the weapons to the aircraft for their first combat sortie. "We brought a small cadre of specialists to the desert at the request of the flying unit to make sure there's a seamless transition from test activities -- the operational developmental test activities -- to combat operations," Captain Parslow said. Capt. Meghan Stanley, one of the 494th EFS aircrew members, looks forward to seeing how months of training will pay off. "Being that it is the Air Force's newest weapon, I'm proud to be a part of the team that is the first to bring it down range," said the weapons system officer. The small diameter bomb was developed and tested at several locations around the United States including, Eglin AFB; Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio; Nellis AFB, Nev.; and the White Sands Missile Range, N.M. [The GBU-39 SDB is one of my favourite "new toys" in Harpoon. It's easy to see why].

I wonder if they can now exploit Israeli radio channels enough to play that new most popular song "The Hawk of Lebanon" ?

From Jane's Defence Weekly DoD group seeks to give autonomy to armed drones By Stephen Trimble JDW Americas Bureau Chief Washington, DC A proposal, unveiled publicly in September but never before publicised, would give "armed autonomous systems" the authority to shoot to destroy hostile weapon systems but not suspected combatants. Accordingly, any people killed or injured in the attack would be considered the collateral damage of a successful strike on a legitimate target. "If you stop and think about what this is, it really is a new paradigm for conducting warfare," John S Canning, a chief engineer at the Naval Surface Warfare Center and one of the authors of the proposal, told Jane's on 3 October. However, experts on the laws of war contacted by Jane's were not persuaded that the group's proposal would pass legal review. The chance that innocent civilians or even a disproportionate number of combatants could be killed by the misjudgment of a robotic system would still be the over-riding factor. "You better have a human looking through that screen", before the unmanned system takes a shot, said Gary Solis, who recently retired as the law of war professor at the US Military Academy. The laws of armed conflict require that for any attack to be legitimate, the attacker must be able to discriminate between combatants and civilians, as well as avoid creating damage that is disproportionate to the threat. [The legal questions are interesting, but I would be just as, or more, concerned about the drones' ability to differentiate between hostile and friendly combat systems. So far, that's proven to be tough enough for human decision makers, let alone computers].

I agree with you, Pete, and I've heard many express the same sentiment. I have to admit that I have a weakness for the USS Ronald Reagan, but the move to name carriers after living Presidents is a step further in the wrong direction.

From Navy Times October 04, 2006 Carrier George H.W. Bush to be christened Saturday By William H. McMichael Staff writer NEWPORT NEWS, Va. — President George W. Bush will deliver the principal address at the christening of the aircraft carrier bearing the name of his father, President George H.W. Bush, during a Saturday ceremony at the Northrop Grumman Newport News shipyard. The former president, his wife Barbara and their daughter, Doro Bush Koch, will attend the event. Koch, who serves as the ship’s sponsor, will perform the time-honored tradition of breaking a bottle of wine across the bow to formally christen the ship. George H.W. Bush, the nation’s 41st president, was a World War II aviator who joined the Navy on his 18th birthday and earned his commission and wings before he turned 19. Bush flew the Avenger torpedo bomber. During an attack on enemy installations in 1944, his plane was struck by enemy fire, yet he completed a strafing run on the target before bailing out. He parachuted into the sea and was later rescued by the submarine Finback. Bush was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and three Air Medals for his Navy service. Bush went on to serve two terms as a Texas congressman, as ambassador to the United Nations, chief of the U.S. Liaison Office to China, director of the Central Intelligence Agency and two terms as vice president under President Reagan before his election in 1988 as president. The George H.W. Bush is the last of the Nimitz-class carriers and is scheduled for delivery to the Navy in late 2008, according to the shipyard. The 10 a.m. ceremony is open to the public.

From Defence Talk North Korea Nuke Test Threat Should Be Taken Seriously, Analysts say AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE October 4th, 2006, 12:34 Seoul: North Korea's threat on Tuesday to carry out a nuclear weapons test should be taken very seriously, analysts say. "I don't think we can interpret it as a negotiating tactic given that they did not get the response they wanted from the missile launches," said Peter Beck, director for Northeast Asia of the International Crisis Group. "It's a disturbing development." Two Korean analysts also said a test was a possibility, perhaps before the US mid-term elections in November. North Korea's foreign ministry announced it would carry out a nuclear weapons test in response to threats and sanctions from the United States, which it said was trying to topple its communist regime. No date or time was given. A UN Security Council resolution imposing weapons-related sanctions after the North test-fired seven missiles in July was a de facto "declaration of war," the ministry said. Beck said the announcement means the North has essentially given up on negotiating with the Bush administration, which has been trying in vain to bring Pyongyang back to six-nation talks on eliminating its nuclear program. "When they launched the missiles I thought they were playing a game of brinkmanship to get their (US's) attention... this statement, coming from the foreign ministry, you have to take it seriously," he told AFP. Beck said a nuclear test was technically easier than a missile launch and the North had had more than a decade to get ready for it. "We have to take the threat very seriously." He said the North had "tested the waters" with its missile launches and there had since been no significant curtailment of energy shipments from Beijing. "The only thing standing between them and a test is Beijing, which could cut off fuel shipments. That would get the North's attention." Beck, whose Brussels-based organisation works on global conflict resolution, said a test would gain the North nothing externally. "It will only further isolate them and move them further into pariah status." He said it might be planned for domestic purposes, possibly to keep the powerful army happy or to rally the public. "The possibility of North Korea carrying out a nuclear test is quite high as the United States has made it clear that it would not accept Pyongyang's demand for lifting the financial sanctions," said Professor Kim Yeon-Chul of Korea University. The US imposed sanctions on a Macau bank accused of laundering money for the North in September 2005, the same month that Pyongyang agreed in principle at the six-nation talks to scrap its nuclear program in exchange for economic benefits and security guarantees. "North Korea wants to gain an upper hand in future negotiations with the United States, with nuclear weapons at its hand," Kim said. Professor Lee Chul-Ki of Dongguk University said the announcement aimed to influence US public opinion before the November elections. "There is a possibility that North Korea may take the action (nuclear testing) ahead of the November mid-term election in the United States unless Washington takes clear steps toward direct negotiations." John Swenson-Wright, of the Chatham House international affairs think-tank in London, said North Korea's threat should not be underestimated but he would be surprised if it carried it out. The threat could have resulted from frustration at the lack of progress in the six-party talks but also with an eye on the mid-term elections, he added. With the fall-out from the missile launches and the White House's focus on curbing counterfeiting and access to businesses used by top leaders, Pyongyang was attempting to "get the agenda back on their own terms and raise international awareness," he said. "I would be surprised if they went ahead and tested. It exposes them to a great deal of risk, far more than the missile launch..." But he said the North was aware that Bush was committed in Iraq and facing a potential nuclear threat from Iran. "This is probably part diplomatic brinkmanship... this is an effort by Pyongyang to say, 'Take us seriously'," he said. To defuse the threat, "I think the Americans are going to have to move pretty quickly to put something on the table that looks attractive to the North Koreans."

From Defence Talk NKorea sparks international alarm with plans for nuclear test AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE October 4th, 2006, 12:31 North Korea announced it would carry out its first nuclear test in response to what it called a United States "threat of nuclear war and sanctions", raising tensions worldwide. No date was given for the test, but the shock announcement drew immediate and strongly worded condemnation from Japan, which warned that the reclusive communist state may make good on its threat. Washington said a test "would pose an unacceptable threat to peace and stability in Asia and the world." "A provocative action of this nature would only further isolate the North Korean regime and deny the people of the North the benefits they so rightly deserve," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Cairo. "The US will continue to work with its allies and partners to discourage such a reckless action and will respond appropriately." The White House said a nuclear test would be reckless, and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said it would be a "very provocative act." "This is not just an issue for the US, but an issue for the entire neighborhood, and I think a quite serious issue for the entire neighborhood," she said. The US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said he planned to raise the threat in the Security Council. South Korea expressed "deep regret and concern", Russia urged restraint and Britain said any test would risk "serious consequences". Australia said a test would damage regional security. The North's foreign ministry said its atomic programme was essential in deterring Washington and that, after developing nuclear weapons, it had to test them. "The US extreme threat of a nuclear war and sanctions and pressure compel the DPRK (North Korea) to conduct a nuclear test, an essential process for bolstering nuclear deterrent, as a corresponding measure," it said. The test would be conducted under conditions where "safety is firmly guaranteed," it added in the statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency, vowing no first use of a nuclear weapon. "The Korean nation stands at the crossroads of life and death," it said. "A people without a reliable war deterrent are bound to meet a tragic death, and the sovereignty of their country is bound to be wantonly infringed upon." The North said the administration of US President George W. Bush was intent on toppling its socialist system. It said US sanctions and a UN Security Council resolution imposing other sanctions on the North, passed after it test-launched seven missiles in July, meant that security was at risk. Calling the UN resolution a de facto "declaration of war", it said it would do its utmost to de-nuclearise the Korean peninsula but without disarming unilaterally. The North's statement lashed out at the Bush government's "foolish attempt to isolate and stifle it economically and bring down the socialist system chosen by its people themselves," and reiterated its February 2005 claim that it had developed the atom bomb. "The already declared possession of nuclear weapons pre-supposes the nuclear test," it said, adding: "The DPRK will never use nuclear weapons first." Japan's Foreign Minister Taro Aso called the idea unforgivable. "It would be a threat to peace. We would never be able to forgive such a move," Aso said. "It would gravely affect Northeast Asia, including Japan." Aso said he did not doubt North Korea's resolve in testing a nuclear device. "In the past, the country has done what it had said earlier. So I think it would be wrong automatically to think the country will not do this." Officials in Seoul said the South would step up surveillance to detect any sign of a test. "This poses a grave threat to peace on the Korean peninsula and it will have a decisively negative impact on inter-Korean relations," said Unification Ministry spokesman Yang Chang-Seok. "We express deep regret and concern." An emergency session of the Security Policy Coordination Meeting was set to be held at 7:00 am on Wednesday (2200 GMT Tuesday). The Seoul government has for years adopted a "sunshine policy" of engagement with the North but suspended its regular aid shipments after the missile tests. Peter Beck, director for Northeast Asia of the International Crisis Group, said the threat to stage a nuclear test should be taken seriously. The announcement meant the North had given up negotiating with the Bush administration and only its sole major ally China could restrain it, he said. The current stand-off over North Korea's nuclear programmes erupted in 2002 when the United States accused it of running a secret uranium enrichment programme in violation of a 1994 de-nuclearisation agreement. North Korea responded by withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in January 2003 before announcing eight months later that it had produced enough weapons-grade plutonium to make half a dozen atomic bombs. It declared in February 2005 that it had built nuclear weapons and the US Central Intelligence Agency has stated that it believes Pyongyang has created several crude atomic bombs. The United States, the two Koreas, China, Russia and Japan signed a joint statement in September last year under which the North would abandon its nuclear program in return for energy and economic aid, eventual diplomatic benefits and security guarantees. But two months later, North Korea boycotted the forum in protest at US sanctions on a Macau bank which allegedly helped it pass counterfeit US dollars and launder funds.

Pete, I don't have any official H4/4.1 data for the F/A-18A+, but essentially it is an F/A-18A airframe with upgraded avionics to make it compatible with the F/A-18C, including the APG-73 radar and AIM-120 AMRAAM. It was found mostly among the Reserve Marine fighter attack squadrons, and IIRC, a couple of the Navy squadrons. In fact, I think one of the Navy squadrons may have traded its C models for the F/A-18A+ because the latter had fewer lifetime traps.

I think generally speaking, Pete, you will see two F/A-18 squadrons (12 a/c each) added in substitution for two squadrons of F-14s, or in some cases, a squadron of F-14s and a squadron of F/A-18s. For example, around the time that the transition to the Super Hornet began, the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) had CVW-11 embarked, comprised of (as of December 31, 2003): VFA-41 (12 x F/A-18F) “Black Aces” VFA-14 (12 x F/A-18E) “Tophatters” VFA-94 (12 x F/A-18C) “Mighty Shrikes” VFA-97 (12 x F/A-18A) “War Hawks” VAW-117 (4 x E-2C) “Wallbangers” VAQ-135 (4 x EA-6B) “Black Ravens” VS-29 (8 x S-3B) “Screaming Dragonfires” (which was due to disestablished Apr 2004) VRC-30 (Det 3) (4 x C-2A) “Providers” HS-6 (2 x HH-60F/4 SH-60F) “Indians” Afaik, they're still looking for funding to replace the older F/A-18s with E/F models, so you might see F/A-18A+ for awhile yet. I think there was a website that showed the current organization and composition of US Navy carrier air wings, but I can't recall offhand what it was.

From BBC News 25 September 1950: Seoul in UN hands United Nations forces have taken control of the South Korean capital Seoul, three months after it fell to North Korea, the US Army has announced. The US 7th Infantry Division and South Korean 17th Regiment have crossed the Han river and captured the North Korean stronghold on South Mountain, the spokesman said. US Marines have also reached Duk Soo palace in the centre of the city and are within 600m (1,969ft) of the main railway station. North Koreans strongly resisted the UN advance near the station and American and South Korean units suffered many casualties, but opposition in other areas is reported to have been light. Forced retreat US Air Force planes from the American aircraft carrier Sicily supported the ground attacks all day, targeting North Korean defences with jellied petrol bombs and rockets. Major General Edward Almond, commander of the X Army Corps, told reporters the combined assault had been key to the UN's success. The general said: "Co-ordination of air, tank and artillery, and infantry fire-power made possible the seizure of the enemy's defences with minimum losses." He added that the UN advance from the west after the landings at Inchon on 15 September had cut off important North Korean supply routes and forced them to retreat. North Korea's defences were crucially breached when tanks from the American 1st Cavalry Division, which had entered Seoul from the west, linked up with US infantry who had fought their way from the east. The troops joined forces at the 274m (900ft) South Mountain after it was captured in a surprise attack. The North Korean Peoples' Army have been in control of Seoul since 26 June, just 24 hours after they invaded South Korea. The UN condemned the offensive and US troops arrived to bolster South Korean resistance just days later. In Context Korea was divided after the Japanese withdrawal at the end of World War II - which left the USSR occupying the north of the country and the US the south. The border was the 38th parallel. The invasion of South Korea took the international community largely by surprise - despite years of increasingly bloody frontier incidents. The re-capture of Seoul from the North Koreans did not signal the end of the conflict and in November 1950 troops from Communist China entered a war which would eventually cost two million lives. Fighting in Korea did not stop until the signing of an armistice on 27 July 1953. But a peace deal has never been reached and American troops remain stationed in the de-militarized zone between North and South Korea.

Guys, I couldn't agree more with your sentiment that the Tomcat is an awesome fighter and a symbol of firepower, but I'm afraid its time for the Turkey to go ... progress marches on.

From DefenseNews China Tried To Blind U.S. Sats With Laser By VAGO MURADIAN China has fired high-power lasers at U.S. spy satellites flying over its territory in what experts see as a test of Chinese ability to blind the spacecraft, according to sources. It remains unclear how many times a ground-based laser was tested against U.S. spacecraft or whether it was successful. But the combination of China’s efforts and advances in Russian satellite-jamming capabilities that illustrate vulnerabilities to the U.S. space network are driving U.S. Air Force plans to develop new space architectures and highly classified systems, according to sources. The hardware on the spacecraft can’t be changed after they are launched, but software changes can help them weather attacks Lasers of sufficient power could blind electro-optical satellites like the giant Keyhole spacecraft or even interfere with radar satellites like the Lacrosse, experts said. Blinding, one source said, is different than disabling. It requires enormous power to shoot a laser through the dense lower atmosphere and reach a fast-moving satellite in orbit. Russian jamming systems are publicly known. In 2003, the Air Force destroyed such a system deployed to Iraq to keep American Global Positioning System (GPS)-guided bombs from finding their targets. The site was destroyed by GPS-guided bombs. Pentagon officials, however, have kept quiet about China’s efforts as part of a Bush administration policy to not anger Beijing, which is a leading U.S. trading partner and seen as key to dealing with North Korea and Iran. Even the Pentagon’s recent China report failed to mention Beijing’s tests. Rather, after a contentious debate, the White House directed the Pentagon to limit its concern to one line. In that one line that acknowledges China has the ability to blind U.S. satellites, thanks to a powerful ground-based laser capable of firing a beam of light at an optical reconnaissance satellite to keep it from taking pictures as it passes overhead. According to top U.S. officials, however, China not only has the capability, but has exercised it. It is not clear when China first used lasers to attack American satellites. Sources would only say that there have been several tests over the past several years. “The Chinese are very strategically minded and are extremely active in this arena,” said one former senior Pentagon official. “They really believe all the stuff written in the 1980s about the high frontier and are looking at symmetrical and asymmetrical means to offset American dominance in space.” China’s burgeoning anti-satellite capabilities are further evidence of Beijing’s focused military strategy that aims to engage the United States asymetrically, not directly, said to Andrew Krepinevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington. Krepinevich points out that China has outlined a set of capabilities it refers to as “Assassin’s Mace” to keep U.S. forces in the region at risk and away from China’s borders, and tailored to undermine U.S. advantages. Jamming Predictable U.S. service officials are not expressing alarm at efforts to counter the U.S. space advantage. They say such moves are predictable and understandable. But they are taking it seriously enough to test ground-based lasers against their own spacecraft to determine their efficacy and plan space architectures that resist such attacks. The problem, according to sources, is that satellites are large, have predictable orbits that are easy to track and have scant defenses against lasers. The United States operates three large optical reconnaissance satellites of the three-decade-old Keyhole-series by Lockheed Martin. The loss of any would hurt U.S. space capabilities, sources said, which is why they will be replaced by a large constellation of spacecraft under the Future Imagery Architecture program being executed by Boeing and Lockheed. Top U.S. officials, among them Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne, declined to comment on whether China has attempted to blind U.S. satellites. Chinese officials could not be reached for comment by press time. Wynne acknowledged that the Air Force’s space plans are shaped against potential foes who seek asymmetric means to harm a U.S. space network. The goal, Wynne said, is to minimize the impact that real-life attacks would have on U.S. space capabilities through a networked architecture that can lose nodes but keep functioning. Wynne stressed that more is at stake than U.S. military superiority. Signals from Air Force GPS satellites are critical to everything from airline and maritime commerce to car navigation systems. And unlike the 1980’s threat from Soviet anti-satellite plans, future space attacks will be limited in scope, Wynne said. “At the time, the Soviets were always talking about a bald-faced assault,” he said. Future “asymmetric attacks are going to be local to try to mask out our capabilities in one region. The trick to winning asymmetrical warfare is to make it irrelevant.” He said a new generation of GPS 3 satellites “will make further assaults and jamming efforts irrelevant.” Doing “space and ISR through very different means … means asking good questions,” he said. “Do 22,200-mile-high orbits make sense? Does an orbital periodicity that is well known to any adversary have any relevance today? What you really want is assured situational awareness, position location and communications capabilities.” Skeptics: Budget Limitations But analysts, executives and even officials in the Pentagon have criticized the Air Force, arguing that the service is talking a good game but falling short on execution — largely for lack of budget. One veteran space industry executive expressed shock at how limited the debate has been about the need to better secure U.S. spacecraft. The reason, executives and analysts said, is that such safeguards are complicated and expensive, and become targets when programs go over budget or fall behind schedule. One source said the Pentagon is so thirsty for more bandwidth to handle burgeoning communications demands that it has been short-changing security, which consumes bandwidth. “It’s a tradeoff,” said one industry source. “And so far, the pressure has been for capacity over security.” Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, said the Air Force is making poor investment choices not only in space, but also in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance programs. “The U.S. Air Force’s ambitious plan for fielding orbital and airborne reconnaissance systems has begun to come unhinged in the budget process from Space Radar, to missile warning to future radar planes, the whole mission area seems to be melting down,” Thompson said. Wynne contends that space programs are being restructured to rein in cost increases and schedule slips. Wynne also argues that the F-22 fighter’s powerful radar and electronic capabilities allow it to perform the roles of larger existing aircraft like the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System, the Airborne Warning and Control System and the Rivet Joint, allowing the service to forgo investment in aircraft that are vulnerable to a new generation of powerful surface-to-air missiles. “I’m probably the biggest supporter of the F-22 outside the Air Force, and while it’s the best fighter ever and can do these jobs, but not as well as dedicated assets that have the ability to stay on station far longer,” Thompson said. “Osama bin Laden is still at large and there are known vulnerabilities to our space systems. In this environment, it’s odd that the Air Force is cutting its orbital, manned and unmanned reconnaissance assets while presenting the F-22 as a reconnaissance platform. The point is, where are we deficient, firepower or finding the enemy?” As for China specifically, Thompson said the country has a right to defend itself. “If you keep looking over the fence at you neighbor’s back yard, you’re going to get poked in the eye, so it’s not surprising that China might be worried about U.S. forces stationed on their doorstep,” Thompson said. “They don’t like it and are figuring out how to poke us in the eye. Now I’m no great admirer of the Chinese leadership, but how would we feel if the Chinese had their aircraft carriers off Long Island. That’s why we have to do a better job of protecting ourselves and I’m afraid that’s not what we’re doing.” The former Pentagon official put it more bluntly. “The Air Force is trying to put a happy face on this,” he said. “It’s not that they don’t know what do. It’s that they don’t have the money in their space budget. It’s that simple.” Another factor is requirements growth. For example, the Air Force originally envisioned the National Polar Orbiting Environmental Observation Satellite as a powerful new climate spacecraft. But departments across the government added their unique payloads, causing integration challenges and cost growth. The same happens on classified spacecraft as intelligence agencies pile on payloads. Then there is the challenge of ensuring that the technology on the spacecraft is the best possible given it will be in orbit for a decade or more. “Unlike an airplane, once you launch something into space you can’t upgrade it again, so when it comes to technology, you are often reworking your system to get the best available in there because you know that it’s going to be around for a long time once it’s in orbit,” the former official said. “So when people talk about cost, that’s a piece of it. It’s even harder when you’re trying to protect yourself against threats over the next 50 years.”

From Navy Times September 22, 2006 Goodbye to the F-14 By Tom Vanden Brook USA Today VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — The Navy today is holstering the F-14 Tomcat, the top gun in its Cold War arsenal and one of the most recognizable warplanes in history. Maintenance costs for the F-14 have soared, and a more versatile, cheaper-to-keep replacement, the F/A-18 Super Hornet, has taken its place. Yet the Super Hornet is unlikely to surpass the F-14’s following. Furiously fast, deafeningly loud and lethal to enemy aircraft, the Tomcat had already attained legendary status by the 1980s. The 1986 film “Top Gun,” in which Tom Cruise portrayed an F-14 pilot in training, cemented the supersonic warplane’s reputation in the popular culture. “There’s something about the way an F-14 looks, something about the way it carries itself,” says Adm. Michael Mullen, chief of naval operations. “It screams toughness. Look down on a carrier flight deck and see one of them sitting there, and you just know, there’s a fighter plane. I really believe the Tomcat will be remembered in much the same way as other legendary aircraft, like the Corsair, the Mustang and the Spitfire.” The Tomcat was designed in the late 1960s with one enemy in mind: the Soviet Union. Typically launched from an aircraft carrier, the Tomcat’s twin engines propelled it at twice the speed of sound. Its armaments deterred Soviet bombers designed to fire missiles at Navy ships. “It was intended to do one thing really well,” says John Pike, a military analyst at GlobalSecurity.org, a think tank based in Alexandria, Va. “The Soviets evidently respected it. Their answer was to build bigger and faster bombers. Fortunately, those attacks never came.” After the Soviet Union crumbled in 1991, the F-14 was something of a stray cat. It had no real enemy in a world with one superpower. Eventually, the Navy armed it with precision bombs and targeting systems and added attack missions to its resume. Tomcats, with their two-member crews of a pilot and a backseat radar officer, flew missions in Desert Storm, in the Balkans and, until February, in Iraq. After today’s ceremony, the Navy will mothball some F-14s in the Arizona desert and ship others to aviation museums. A monument at Oceana Naval Air Station will be dedicated to the 69 Tomcat aviators who were killed while flying the plane, says retired rear admiral Fred Lewis, chairman of the Tomcat Sunset Committee, a non-profit group established to organize farewell ceremonies for the F-14. “That’s the risk we all accepted when we flew the plane,” Lewis says. The only other country still flying F-14s after today will be Iran, Pike says. Starved for spare parts, the Iranians struggle to keep them in flight. Smuggled parts will be even harder to come by after the Navy retires the Tomcat. “Nobody will be sorrier to see them go than the ayatollahs,” Pike says. The Navy’s last F-14s made their final cats and traps from the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in July.

From Jane's Defence Weekly Ukraine sells Kolchuga to Iran By Robert Karniol JDW Asia-Pacific Bureau Chief Bangkok The Kolchuga is intended to detect the take-off and formation of aircraft groups at ranges beyond those of existing radar, as well as determine the course and speed of targets while designating them for air-defence systems. It can identify aerial targets through their emissions and identify the mode of aircraft weapon control systems. Three Kolchuga stations would normally operate along with a command vehicle to provide accurate triangulation on a target. The system is claimed to have a range of 600 km (narrow beam) or 200 km (wide beam) along a front of 1,000 km. It is not known how many Kolchuga stations Iran has acquired. However, sources told Jane's that each costs about USD25 million, with deliveries either recent or imminent.

From Jane's Thai prime minister deposed in name of monarchy amid political uncertainty By Christian LeMiere, Jane’s Country Risk Asia Editor EVENT A military coup took place in Thailand at midnight (1700 GMT) on 19 September to depose caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was in New York at the time. The coup is a sign of military disaffection with governmental intervention and royalist fears of Thaksin's autocracy. In the immediate term, the lack of an interim prime minister poses the greatest risk. However, should a prime minister be forthcoming, the most likely short-term outcome will be democratic elections in November and a possible increase in political stability. The coup, led by Royal Thai Army (RTA) commander-in-chief Sonthi Boonyaratglin, occurred during a period of political uncertainty following nullified elections held in April 2006. Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin came under increasing pressure to resign in late 2005 and early 2006 amid popular demonstrations in Bangkok. The demonstrations were a reflection of growing dissatisfaction with the prime minister's seeming creeping autocracy, and were galvanised (although not inspired) by the sale of the his family's telecommunications company, Shin Corp, for USD1.9 billion to a Singaporean holding company, avoiding a 30 per cent tax bill. In response, Thaksin dissolved parliament in February and called elections in April. However, the parliamentary opposition boycotted the elections owing to an awareness that Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai party remained likely to win, owing to support among the rural population. The boycott subsequently led to the elections being declared void in May 2006 by the electoral commission, and fresh elections being called for 15 October. Problems caused by the lack of a constitutionally acceptable parliament were exacerbated by the uncertainty over Thaksin's position. He resigned immediately after the April elections, only to return as caretaker prime minister after one month. Nonetheless, the military ostensibly remained detached from the political process, in contrast to the cycle of military interventions that occurred during the Cold War period. This military objectivity became increasingly untenable in mid-2006. Concerns within the military that Thaksin was promoting his allies, in particular fellow classmates of class 10 from the Armed Forces Academies Preparatory School (Thaksin attended the school in 1967 and is currently a police lieutenant-colonel) to ranks beyond their experience in order to secure the military before the October elections created greater resentment within the armed forces already concerned about the country's political situation. For instance, the proposed promotion of First Royal Guard commander and class 10 classmate Major General Prin Suwannathat to First Army Corps commander in an annual reshuffle, despite Sonthi's demand that he only become deputy commander, appeared to be a direct attempt by Thaksin to increase his influence over the military region of Bangkok before elections. An assassination attempt on the prime minister in late August reflected the level of resentment within the military. The current coup appears to be motivated not only by this military dissatisfaction, but also a desire by royalists within the political elite to secure the monarchy in the face of Thaksin's increasing power. With implicit fears over the longevity of the 79-year old King Bhumibol's reign, and with Thaksin commanding an unprecedented simple majority in parliament, royalists fear that the strongest elected executive in Thai history could undermine the monarchy's remaining constitutional power and influence. There is as yet no indication of the King's involvement in the coup, and it seems more likely that royalists are acting in his name, rather than under his command. Indeed, Jane's sources have suggested that the Administrative Reform Council's (ARC's) proposed prime ministerial candidate, former RTA commander-in-chief and current Privy Council member General Surayudh Chulanont, was not accepted by the palace. FORECAST It is this lack of an interim prime minister that poses the greatest risk to the current situation in the immediate term. With no prime minister there is a lack of direction within the ARC, and an opportunity for Thaksin loyalists to capitalise on the interim government's weakness. Although an organised counter-coup by class 10 classmates and Thaksin loyalists in the military may prove impossible, given the speed and efficiency with which the coup occurred, localised mutinies are conceivable. Such military instability will be exacerbated by the lack of prime minister. However, should a suitable candidate be found then the ARC will likely attempt to hold elections by November 2006, prior to the King's birthday in December. Thaksin will no doubt be excluded from these polls, and a new government formed. [all kinds of good scenario fodder here, folks ... ]

From Jane's Defence Weekly UK shortlists sniper rifle candidates By Andrew White Jane's Land Reporter London The UK's Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) has shortlisted companies to supply its new sniper rifle, which is expected to replace Accuracy International's (AI's) L96 sniper rifle. AI, Blaser Jagdwaffen (represented by Beechwood Equipment of the UK) and PGW Defence Technologies Inc Timberwolf (backed by Colt Canada Sales and Service) made the final shortlist to supply the weapon. The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has expressed an interest in replacing the 7.62 mm L96 weapon with a .338-cal rifle. The DPA is also looking for a sniper rifle night sight to accompany the new weapon. Decisions on both systems are expected by the end of the first quarter of 2007. [mmmmm .... Timberwolf .... anyone have $10k laying around that they want to contribute to my Christmas list ? ]

Short answer, yes. But Tony would be able to tell more about these files and their functions. You can't create battlesets as such. HCCE is (or will be) issued with a limited number of battlesets (GIUK, Mediterranean, etc), but any of the units in the DB can be used in any of the battlesets. Btw, what the heck is a Bundy ?

Your post wasn't deleted, BK, it just hadn't been approved yet. All posts are moderated prior to approval, but now that one of the Admins has got around to it, you should see it.

From Aviation Week U.S., Israel Ponder How to Slow Iranian Nuclear Weapons Development By David A. Fulghum and Douglas Barrie 09/10/2006 04:47:58 PM BUSTING THE BOMB The fighting in southern Lebanon revealed Iran's willingness to supply sophisticated weaponry to Hezbollah, and one of its ships was intercepted trying to do just that for Hamas in the Palestinian territories. A continuing series of tests has demonstrated Iran's growing arsenal of ballistic, tactical and sea-based weapons, and Western intelligence officials anticipate its fielding of locally built versions of fighter-launched, long-range, air-to-surface missiles. But the real fear is Iran's development of nuclear weapons. Once built, they would be easy to hide and export. Analysts contend the centrifuges and heavy water production will be in operation soon to follow a dual-track development scheme. Those that feel most threatened--the U.S. and Israel--say they will have to move soon to put the brakes on fabrication and testing. They now think the date to act would be by the end of 2007. Tehran has spurned a call for full suspension of uranium enrichment, which could mean international economic sanctions following passage of a United Nations Security Council resolution. Those sanctions are likely to toughen if Iran continues to reject controls. Both the U.S. and Israel are planning other ways, after economic sanctions, to slow down Tehran's push for nuclear weapons. "Once they have a weapon, it can be stored anywhere and it becomes impossible to find. That's why the program has to be delayed soon." These comments by a senior U.S. Air Force official resonate in many Western capitals, as well as in Israel. The dissonance comes in trying to determine just how to "delay" Iran's nuclear weapons program. "All of us are [alarmed] about Iran and their desire to have a nuclear capability," says Sen. John Warner (R.-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "Certainly, the Israelis should be front and center on that issue because they have concerns, too--deep concerns." Israel, the state directly threatened by Iran's nuclear ambitions, faces stark choices of exercising military restraint and relying on Western diplomacy, gambling on U.S. military action, or of acting unilaterally, with all the inherent risk. "Diplomacy is still the best option," says Dan Meridor, a Likud Party member of the Israeli parliament. Meridor has recently been closely involved in a classified review of Israel's strategic defense policy."Iran's development [of nuclear weapons] can be delayed for a considerable time, if the world is in unison. We now need a [u.N. Security Council] resolution and we need Russia not to use its veto. I believe we can reach an agreement where Russia goes along. Iran would hear a clear voice." Should diplomatic efforts fail, Meridor says, "It will be another world with an arms race, because Iran's neighbors don't want to be dominated." The fighting in Lebanon, with its revelations of the extent of Iranian arms proliferation, has already altered the perceptions in the region. Israel has named its air force chief, Maj. Gen. Elyezer Shkedy, commander of its new Iran front and director of any war plans that might materialize. Of course, the region already has a nuclear weapons state--though it remains undeclared. Israel covertly gained a nuclear capability in the mid-1960s, as a strategic deterrent. Iran maintains its nuclear program is for civil purposes only--a claim met with considerable skepticism. "It appears weapons-oriented. Otherwise, why bury so much of it underground?" points out Lee Willett, head of the military capabilities program at the London-based Royal United Services Institute. The U.N. also remains dubious about Iran's publicly stated objectives. The latest Security Council resolution--which Iran's government has publicly spurned--ordered Iran to halt uranium enrichment or face sanctions. Assuming Iran's intent to make nuclear weapons, the fundamental question becomes exactly how close the country is to the manufacture of bomb-grade material, the ability to manufacture a nuclear device and turn it into a deliverable weapon. The answers will set the timeline for diplomatic and military options. Iran certainly has a number of ballistic--and potentially air-breathing--missile programs in development which represent credible delivery systems. The U.S. now appears more cautious in estimating how soon Iran could be in a position to produce sufficient nuclear weapons-grade material. In the mid-1990s, it was suggested Tehran could be in that position in five years. The 2005 National Intelligence Assessment reportedly suggested Iran would achieve the capability by "early-to-mid-next decade." If the U.S. and Israel become convinced that Tehran is determined to pursue a nuclear weapons program, then military action--at some point--at least to slow the program significantly becomes a possibility. Israel has successfully pursued this path before, with the 1981 air strike on an Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. Late last month, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, responding to a question about military options for dealing with Iran, said that it would be unfortunate if other countries thought "that we're not capable of defending our country, of doing anything that we might need to do." Israel's military has two primary concerns regarding Iranian nuclear capability: the threat posed to the civilian population by a nuclear attack and the risk of disabling effects of a high-altitude air-burst and the resulting electro-magnetic pulse (EMP). Tel Aviv and Washington also fear the regional impact of a nuclear-armed Iran. Iran remains one of the few states in the region that does not recognize Israel's right to exist. In tandem with trying to reshape Israeli forces to deal with non-state actors, such as Hezbollah, defense planners are also rethinking the organization, makeup and strategic reach of the nation's military forces as a reaction to the perceived Iranian threat. The insidious effects of nuclear detonations at a high altitude threaten Israel. The EMP can produce a huge spike of electricity, threatening to cripple network-dependent air defenses, intelligence-gathering capability and operational military forces. The Iranians purposefully have not followed Iraq's 1981 model of concentrating their nuclear development in a single area. They have distributed their nuclear development over numerous sites, including Bushehr, where a nuclear power plant is being built. Natanz is the site of a pilot fuel enrichment plant, and where a full-scale facility is under construction. Arak is the site of a research reactor and a heavy water production plant inaugurated in August. While the multiplicity of sites makes drawing up a comprehensive target list more challenging, U.S. and Israel officials also suggest there are positive aspects to this. Not every nuclear-related site need be struck to hobble any nascent nuclear weapons program. The goal would be to select a few choke points. "There are lots of links in the chain you can attack," says a former senior Israeli diplomat. "So how you define the mission is important. There may be 40 facilities [the total may be considerably higher], but you select only four. You don't have to attack all of them. For example, some targets are vulnerable to movement, like centrifuges. They need stability, so if you create enough [vibration or Earth tremors], their alignment can be distorted." As the system expands or changes over time, additional small-scale attacks could further delay the effort, whenever it approaches a critical stage of development. While Israeli officials do not believe an Iranian nuclear weapons program can be stopped, they are convinced it could be slowed by years with the idea that time, negotiations, sanctions and perhaps changes in government could alter the desire to arm. "Iran is potentially a short-term problem, if you look at the demographic issues," Willett suggests. The country's young people may be less inclined to follow hard-line Islamist ideology and may be less hostile to the West in general, so simply delaying any nuclear weapons program could have the desired effect. A senior U.S. Air Force officer describes the problem of finding those choke points as an involved process that includes distinguishing commercial nuclear facilities from those with military applications. "There are a lot of sites and you have to segregate them." Nonetheless, "it's not that difficult," he says. The USAF official contends Israel could be forced to launch attacks by the end of 2007--"the sooner the better." With the aid of U.S. intelligence (and information garnered from Russian sources and Iran's neighbors), he contends that evidence of plutonium, centrifuge use, cooling and power generation/transmission will provide the proper targeting signatures for "a couple of handfuls of attacks--less than a dozen" to shut down Iranian nuclear progress for years. "Where does the electrical power go in and out, and how do those people communicate with the outside world?" U.S. officials have estimated there are as many as 70 Iranian nuclear sites, of which a minimum of 15 would have to be attacked. Moreover, underground construction and camouflage efforts in Iran, done in conjunction with North Korea, were to have been completed this summer. U.S. analysts further estimated fewer than two dozen strike sorties could inflict significant damage on three major Iranian facilities, but there would be little impact on Iran's technology base or team of scientists. The fact that many of the Iranian targets are underground presents another problem. Analysts at the U.S. CIA have noted since shortly after the 1991 Iraq war, that the sale of earth-boring equipment skyrocketed in the Middle East as countries started putting key facilities underground to protect against U.S. air strikes. U.S. weapons like the GBU-28 can penetrate perhaps 30 ft. of hardened materials or 100 ft. of earth. But Iranian facilities are reportedly buried 100-200 ft. below the surface with alternating layers of earth and cement to absorb the impact of penetrating bombs. There are satellite pictures of the Natanz nuclear facility in north central Iran that show two large centrifuge buildings being buried under several yards of reinforced concrete and at least 75 ft. of earth. The Israeli missile specialist agrees that "dozens of meters" of alternating layers of sand and cement create a sandwich that is impossible for conventional weapons to penetrate. "You have to go after the entrances and develop new penetrators," a retired Israeli air force (IAF) general says. "But even then, conventional weapons can't penetrate to 200 ft., and the U.S. won't use nuclear weapons." Even without uncertainties about the targets, a former Israeli diplomat who was involved in planning the 1981 raid on an Iraqi nuclear reactor warned that officials should never promise unrealistic results from a military action. "You can only postpone Iran's nuclear development," he says. "The goal [must be] to slow it down with no expectation of eliminating it completely." Israeli officials say there is no resemblance to what they or the U.S. might face in trying to decelerate Iran's current nuclear program compared to 25 years ago. But there is danger in waiting too long, says the retired general. "Now there is only research and development [in Iran] and no operational capability," he says. "R&D can be delayed. Once they do have a [weapon], you no longer have the delay option. What can be done now, can't be done a few years from now. [The bomb] is still coming. One day, the Iranians will have their first nuclear experiment." The general, a veteran IAF pilot, worries that the U.S. may not be up to delaying the program, despite its several years of continuous combat operations. "I'm not sure if the U.S. is in the position politically to [attack Iran] after three years in Iraq." "How do you win?" asks the retired general. "You can't, in the traditional sense. Winning now is to continue the fight against terrorism while maintaining a normal civilian life. Victory is pushing operational [nuclear weapons] capability off for another 3-4-5 years. There's no magic. The [short-term, delaying] solution is a day of intensive strikes." The red line for both Israel and the U.S. is Iran having a weapon that can be tested. "No one will join an [allied] coalition if Iran has a nuclear weapon," the former Israeli diplomat says. "Most nations are hostage to terrorist attacks. With a bomb in hand, Iran can then support more challenging terrorist attacks by Hezbollah or Hamas or Islamic Jihad. Any response by the West will become more risky. "We are approaching quite fast the point where we have to postpone [iran's nuclear development]," he says. "So the U.S. has to have the backing of the majority of [the international community]. Completing those steps now is important. Even though Egypt and Saudi Arabia will publicly condemn any attack, they are praying that the U.S. will do it." There are some basics derived from the attack on Iraq's nuclear facility in 1981 that appear to remain applicable, most of those interviewed agree. The attacker, be it the U.S. or Israel, can't afford to be condemned internationally for spreading contamination. They also must avoid collateral and environmental damage and loss of life. The attackers must be able to say they had tried all the political and diplomatic options.

I can't imagine how low morale must be among Russian submariners. Here's yet another blow to the service: Missile Test from Russian Sub Fails

Yes, the version currently found in the HCDB is the updated aircraft. (Sorry for the delayed reply). Would you like to see the original variant in the DB ?

Very sorry for your loss, Pete. It's like losing a family member, I know. (Tony, I would have said Golden Retrievers were the hardest to lose, but none are easy).

I'll certainly look at the new Israeli subs. They may merit a new entry, and I'd really like to add a nuclear capability, but it would still be purely conjecture without further information. As you know, the Israelis are extremely tight lipped about their nuclear capabilities. Afaik, they don't even have the bomb. Right ? This might be good fodder for Tony's Fictional DB. Not that I would want to add to Tony's workload.

With summer holidays, other commitments and such, I don't expect a new release until late September. I'll take a look. I've been watching this development for a while, and collecting info, but there are still several parameters missing. Otherwise I'd have to guess ... As discussed with you on IRC, I have no plans to change the existing policy of not including "off map" nations like those you mentioned. There simply isn't enough room in the HCDB annexes to do justice to both the existing nations and their entries, and any new ones. We can dream about AGSI permitting the continued development of HCCE so that these limitations might be removed, but at this point that seems extremely unlikely. Sorry.