New era for air force with modern jets
The arrival of six Gripen jet fighters today will usher in a modern era for the Royal Thai Air Force, commander Itthaporn Subhawong says.
The air force will take delivery of 12 Swedish-made Gripen fighters, worth almost 40 billion baht, after the cabinet approved the purchase of the jets in 2008 when Samak Sundaravej was the prime minister and defence minister.
The Gripen 39 C/D aircraft will replace the ageing F-5A/B jets. The F-5A/B aircraft will be completely phased out by the end of this year.
The first batch of the Gripen fighters is due to arrive at Don Muang air force base after flying out of Sweden on Feb18 and will be stationed at the Wing 7 air force base in Surat Thani.
The second batch of six Gripen jet fighters is scheduled to arrive next year.
ACM Itthaporn said yesterday he was convinced the jet fighters would bring modern and significant changes to the air force.With the fighters, the air force would be transformed to a network-oriented system, he said.
'The Gripen is like a new type of computer with all the modern stuff. Most importantly, the supplier has agreed to transfer all the technology to us,'' ACM Itthaporn said, adding that software for the fighters could be constantly updated.
He said the capabilities of fighter pilots would have to change completely as the new system on the jets would provide them with flight information linked to the other fighters on a screen before them.
ACM Itthaporn said the US had allowed the Secos-link system on the Gripen fighters to link with the system of the US-made F16 fighters.
An air force source said permission was obtained after Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva raised the matter with US President Barack Obama during his visit to the US last month.
ACM Itthaporn said the air force was working closely with the navy to develop a data link system because the two forces would soon hold a joint military exercise and information on the Gripen fighters would be hooked up with navy ships.
The frigate HTMS Naresuan would be the first to be linked with the fighters, he said.
ACM Itthaporn said a Saab 340 Erieye airborne early warning aircraft that the air force also bought from the Swedish government would be connected to all the Gripen fighters.
The Saab 340 aircraft is now stationed at Wing 7 air force base.
He said the air force had also spent about 1.1 billion baht on building a hangar for the Gripen jets and the Saab 340 aircraft as well as ground stations and ground logistics support systems.
ACM Itthaporn said he would conduct test flights of the six Gripen jet fighters that would be delivered today.
The air force chief conducted test flights of Gripen fighters in Sweden in 2004 when he was chief of the directorate of RTAF operations.
The air force later decided to purchase the 12 Gripen fighters in 2007 and submitted a request to the cabinet the following year.
He said a cabinet meeting on Feb 15 also approved a budget of about 6.9billion baht to be spent on an upgrade for the air force's six F16 jet fighters that would be stationed at Wing 4, Takhli air force base in Nakhon Sawan province.
He thanked Prime Minister Abhisit for throwing his support behind the project and said the premier had a good understanding of the air force's needs.
''We are not getting any commission from the purchase of the air force jet fighters,'' ACM Itthaporn said.
Selasa, 22 Februari 2011
Senin, 21 Februari 2011
Spy Behind the Weapons Procurement of Indonesia
NIS Behind Break-In at Indonesian Delegation
Three intruders who broke into the room of Indonesian presidential envoys at Seoul's Lotte Hotel on the morning of Feb. 16 were agents from the National Intelligence Service, it has emerged. A high-ranking government official said the NIS "tried to find out the negotiation strategy of the Indonesian delegation in pursuit of the national interest. It was an unintended consequence that they were caught."
Soon after some 50 Indonesian officials including Indonesia's Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs Hatta Rajasa left for Cheong Wa Dae to meet President Lee Myung-bak, two men and a women broke into the room on the 19th floor of the Lotte Hotel, but they were surprised by one of the Indonesian officials while they were looking into laptops there and fled. It is uncertain whether the agents copied data from the laptop.
The NIS agents were apparently desperate to obtain Indonesia's negotiation strategy for the purchase of Korea's T-50 Golden Eagle supersonic trainer jet, K2 Black Panther main battle tank, and portable surface-to-air missile. Korea is in fierce competition with Russia's Yak-130 trainer jet.
The government has been working hard to win an export deal after negotiations with the United Arab Emirates and Singapore faltered. One T-50 is priced at US$25 million, and the government aims to export 1,000 by 2030.
A government official said, "It seems that NIS took way too much risk due to this obsession with the export of the T-50." An intelligence official claimed it is "an open secret" that intelligence agencies of every country are engaged in a highly sophisticated battle for intelligence. "After the intrusion was reported in the media, the NIS exerted a great deal of effort through many channels to smooth over the situation," he added.
Police said earlier that due to the low resolution of the CCTV at the Lotte Hotel, they were unable to identify the intruders.
Sources : chosun
Three intruders who broke into the room of Indonesian presidential envoys at Seoul's Lotte Hotel on the morning of Feb. 16 were agents from the National Intelligence Service, it has emerged. A high-ranking government official said the NIS "tried to find out the negotiation strategy of the Indonesian delegation in pursuit of the national interest. It was an unintended consequence that they were caught."
Soon after some 50 Indonesian officials including Indonesia's Coordinating Minister for Economic Affairs Hatta Rajasa left for Cheong Wa Dae to meet President Lee Myung-bak, two men and a women broke into the room on the 19th floor of the Lotte Hotel, but they were surprised by one of the Indonesian officials while they were looking into laptops there and fled. It is uncertain whether the agents copied data from the laptop.
The NIS agents were apparently desperate to obtain Indonesia's negotiation strategy for the purchase of Korea's T-50 Golden Eagle supersonic trainer jet, K2 Black Panther main battle tank, and portable surface-to-air missile. Korea is in fierce competition with Russia's Yak-130 trainer jet.
The government has been working hard to win an export deal after negotiations with the United Arab Emirates and Singapore faltered. One T-50 is priced at US$25 million, and the government aims to export 1,000 by 2030.
A government official said, "It seems that NIS took way too much risk due to this obsession with the export of the T-50." An intelligence official claimed it is "an open secret" that intelligence agencies of every country are engaged in a highly sophisticated battle for intelligence. "After the intrusion was reported in the media, the NIS exerted a great deal of effort through many channels to smooth over the situation," he added.
Police said earlier that due to the low resolution of the CCTV at the Lotte Hotel, they were unable to identify the intruders.
Sources : chosun
Sabtu, 19 Februari 2011
Singapore Military Procures BullsEye
TAIPEI - Singapore's Ministry of Defense will procure the next-generation Super BullsEye II Advanced Weapons Scoring System built by Singapore-based Stratech Systems Limited for $1.14 million. Stratech made the announcement on Feb. 16.
"This contract covers the supply, delivery, installation, testing and commissioning of an integrated bomb and gunnery scoring system," Stratech officials said.
The BullsEye II is an advanced weapons scoring system that fully automates the scoring, recording and management of firing results in weapons training and defense exercises. The system can be used for the army, navy or air force and is configurable for different terrains.
"Stratech has been in the forefront of advanced technologies," said David K.M. Chew, executive chairman. The company is principally engaged in the design, development, integration, implementation, maintenance and project management of information technology and advanced technology systems.
BullsEye is powered by Stratech's proprietary Intelligence Vision technologies, which is a "proven product that has been deployed and currently used by air forces and navies from several countries," according to a company press release. "The automated scoring system is capable of accurately scoring weapons impact day or night for air, sea and land forces and weapons development agencies."
In August 2009, the company sold the BullsEye II system to South Korea.
Sources : defencenews
"This contract covers the supply, delivery, installation, testing and commissioning of an integrated bomb and gunnery scoring system," Stratech officials said.
The BullsEye II is an advanced weapons scoring system that fully automates the scoring, recording and management of firing results in weapons training and defense exercises. The system can be used for the army, navy or air force and is configurable for different terrains.
"Stratech has been in the forefront of advanced technologies," said David K.M. Chew, executive chairman. The company is principally engaged in the design, development, integration, implementation, maintenance and project management of information technology and advanced technology systems.
BullsEye is powered by Stratech's proprietary Intelligence Vision technologies, which is a "proven product that has been deployed and currently used by air forces and navies from several countries," according to a company press release. "The automated scoring system is capable of accurately scoring weapons impact day or night for air, sea and land forces and weapons development agencies."
In August 2009, the company sold the BullsEye II system to South Korea.
Sources : defencenews
Jumat, 18 Februari 2011
First Australian LHD Launched in Spain
The hull of the first of the Royal Australian Navy’s two new amphibious ships has been launched in Spain, heralding a new era for Australia’s amphibious capability (all photos : Australian DoD)
LHD launch paves the way for amphibious transformation
The hull of the first of the Royal Australian Navy’s two new amphibious ships has been launched in Spain, heralding a new era for Australia’s amphibious capability.
Chief of Navy, Vice Admiral Russ Crane, led the launch and said the event was enormously significant.
“These ships are officially known as Landing Helicopter Docks or LHDs and are the largest the Australian Navy has ever owned,” Vice Admiral Crane said.
LHD01's hull launch was held at the Navantia dockyards at Ferrol in northern Spain; the event having a distinct Australian feel as children of Australian diplomats joined the official delegation waving Australian flags.
A Canberra regional sparkling wine was broken over the Canberra Class ship’s hull.
Vicki Coates, wife of the late Rear Admiral Nigel Coates who commanded the previous HMAS Canberra, was the ‘launch lady’.
Vice Admiral Crane said with a new generation in technology would come a new way of thinking in terms of how Navy would operate and crew this new capability.
“We are well progressed in our planning for the LHD arrival,” he said.
“I am confident we will have the people and the knowhow by the time the first LHD comes on line.
“Most importantly, for now, this project is on time and on budget.” Both ships will be based at Garden Island in Sydney. Crewed by all three services, the LHD will mark a significant strengthening of the ADF’s amphibious capability and tri-service culture.
First of class, HMAS Canberra (LHD01) will arrive in Victoria next year where it will be fitted out before being accepted into service in 2014 with sister ship HMAS Adelaide (LHD02) to follow the year after.
Sources : defence.gov.au
F-35 for RAAF Will Be Arrived On Time on 2014
Company officials said in Canberra yesterday the RAAF should have a squadron of 14 of the fighter bombers by 2018, as planned.
The government says it wants to buy up to 100 multi-role JSFs to replace the retired F-111 bombers and the RAAF's F/A-18 Hornet fighter-bombers.
The first two JSFs, now designated the F-35 Lightning ll, will be used to train Australian pilots and ground crew in the US.
The Lockheed Martin officials said yesterday they had won the $3.5 billion contract to supply the navy's new helicopter that will replace its ageing Seahawks.
The company has teamed up with US helicopter firm Sikorsky to offer the new MH-60R Seahawk, or Romeo, and is competing with Eurocopter's NH90 NFH, or NATO Frigate Helicopter.
The officials said they could offer the Australian government a deal whereby the American companies would take back the older helicopters to be refurbished and sold to customers who needed helicopters for less demanding roles.
Lockheed Martin also announced yesterday it has appointed retired naval officer Raydon Gates as chief executive for Lockheed Martin Australia.
Sources : theaustralia
Singapore to Raise Defence Budget by 5.4%
The government plans to spend S$12.08 billion (US$9.5 billion) on defence in the 2011 fiscal year, up from S$11.46 billion the year before.
Singapore's navy, army and air force will get S$11.53 billion to buy and maintain military equipment, for the upkeep of camps and for payment of salaries.
The city-state currently has a population of more than five million, a quarter of whom are foreigners.
Singapore's economy grew 14.5 percent in 2010, the fastest in Asia.
The defence budget is about five per cent of gross domestic product.
Sources : channelnewsasia
Kamis, 17 Februari 2011
Gates: China stealth fighter trails U.S. planes
WASHINGTON — The United States will retain a far bigger fleet of top-end fighter planes than China for years to come despite Beijing’s early test of a stealth-style jet that has stoked concern over its military buildup, the U.S. defense chief said Thursday
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told lawmakers that China faces a “long road” before deploying its J-20 stealth fighter in any numbers, and predicted a continuing “huge disparity” compared with America’s fleet of low-observable aircraft.
The chief of the Pacific Command, Adm. Robert Willard, acknowledged that China also has a “formidable” ballistic missile capability that has grown for two decades.
Willard said the United States was watching “very carefully,” and it was important for China to be open and hold a dialogue with the U.S. and other countries in the region about its intentions.
“If the two militaries are coming into contact with each other at the rate they are, then it’s important that my commanders on the high seas or my mission commanders in the air have enough familiarity with that counterpart military not to misjudge, miscommunicate or misunderstand,” he told journalists, alluding to concerns that a chance confrontation could spark conflict.
China’s military buildup has caused unease among its neighbors in the Asia-Pacific, with whom it has territorial disputes. China’s buildup also has raised questions about how long the United States can retain its military predominance in the region, which Washington views as vital for stability and policing sea lanes that keep for international trade moving.
China’s arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles, including one designed to target an aircraft carrier, and its growing surface and submarine fleet, could potentially constrain U.S. operations in waters of the western Pacific, although Willard maintained that China’s capabilities had not necessitated a rethinking of America’s military strategy for the region.
The U.S. Pacific Fleet alone includes five aircraft carrier strike groups, approximately 180 ships, 1,500 aircraft and 100,000 personnel.
China maintains that it has no offensive intentions, and sees its military capabilities as in keeping with its rising economic and diplomatic influence.
In a move seen by some as flagging the communist nation’s clout, however, China staged a test flight of its stealth jet during a visit by Gates to Beijing in January aimed at rekindling military ties.
Beijing had severed contacts earlier in response to the latest U.S. announcement of arms sales to Taiwan.
Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the test flight was between half and one year earlier than U.S. intelligence estimates. He played down its significance, saying the United States would retain far more “fifth generation” fighter jets than China for years.
“There’s still a huge disparity in terms of these aircraft,” Gates said. “This is their first low-observable aircraft and given the challenges we have had, and we have been at this for more than 20 years, they have a long road in front of them before this becomes a serious operational aircraft in any numbers.”
He said China may have 50 of the aircraft deployed by 2020, and a couple of hundred by 2025.
Despite rolling back acquisition of top-end F-35 jets for five years as part of budget cuts, Gates said the United States still will have 325 F-35 jets by the end of 2016, and in addition to its F-22 jets, would have in all about 850 fifth-generation aircraft by 2020.
He predicted the number would rise to 1,500 by 2025.
Sources : airforcetimes
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told lawmakers that China faces a “long road” before deploying its J-20 stealth fighter in any numbers, and predicted a continuing “huge disparity” compared with America’s fleet of low-observable aircraft.
The chief of the Pacific Command, Adm. Robert Willard, acknowledged that China also has a “formidable” ballistic missile capability that has grown for two decades.
Willard said the United States was watching “very carefully,” and it was important for China to be open and hold a dialogue with the U.S. and other countries in the region about its intentions.
“If the two militaries are coming into contact with each other at the rate they are, then it’s important that my commanders on the high seas or my mission commanders in the air have enough familiarity with that counterpart military not to misjudge, miscommunicate or misunderstand,” he told journalists, alluding to concerns that a chance confrontation could spark conflict.
China’s military buildup has caused unease among its neighbors in the Asia-Pacific, with whom it has territorial disputes. China’s buildup also has raised questions about how long the United States can retain its military predominance in the region, which Washington views as vital for stability and policing sea lanes that keep for international trade moving.
China’s arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles, including one designed to target an aircraft carrier, and its growing surface and submarine fleet, could potentially constrain U.S. operations in waters of the western Pacific, although Willard maintained that China’s capabilities had not necessitated a rethinking of America’s military strategy for the region.
The U.S. Pacific Fleet alone includes five aircraft carrier strike groups, approximately 180 ships, 1,500 aircraft and 100,000 personnel.
China maintains that it has no offensive intentions, and sees its military capabilities as in keeping with its rising economic and diplomatic influence.
In a move seen by some as flagging the communist nation’s clout, however, China staged a test flight of its stealth jet during a visit by Gates to Beijing in January aimed at rekindling military ties.
Beijing had severed contacts earlier in response to the latest U.S. announcement of arms sales to Taiwan.
Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the test flight was between half and one year earlier than U.S. intelligence estimates. He played down its significance, saying the United States would retain far more “fifth generation” fighter jets than China for years.
“There’s still a huge disparity in terms of these aircraft,” Gates said. “This is their first low-observable aircraft and given the challenges we have had, and we have been at this for more than 20 years, they have a long road in front of them before this becomes a serious operational aircraft in any numbers.”
He said China may have 50 of the aircraft deployed by 2020, and a couple of hundred by 2025.
Despite rolling back acquisition of top-end F-35 jets for five years as part of budget cuts, Gates said the United States still will have 325 F-35 jets by the end of 2016, and in addition to its F-22 jets, would have in all about 850 fifth-generation aircraft by 2020.
He predicted the number would rise to 1,500 by 2025.
Sources : airforcetimes
Israeli PM: Don't doubt Israel's ability
At a ceremony marking Martyrs Resistance Day in Lebanon, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah warned in a televised speech Wednesday that if a war is imposed on Lebanon his fighters will liberate the Galilee.
"I say to the fighters of the Islamic resistance -- be ready. If a new war is imposed on Lebanon we may ask you to take the Galilee, to free the Galilee," Nasrallah declared.
"Whoever hides in a bunker should stay in the bunker," Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said referring to Nasrallah, who since the Second Lebanon War rarely appears in public and broadcasts all his speeches to his followers from his bunker.
The Netanyahu response to the Hezbollah leader's threats at a Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations in Jerusalem was aired on national television networks.
"Nasrallah said he would capture the Galilee, I have news for you -- you won't," Netanyahu said. "No one should doubt Israel's strength or its ability to defend itself. "We have a strong army and we are a people of strong resolve. We seek peace with all of our neighbors, but the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] is prepared to defend Israel from any of its enemies," Netanyahu declared.
Marking the third anniversary of the death of his deputy Imad Mughniyeh, killed by a car bomb in Damascus in February 2008, the Hezbollah chief warned his blood was not spent in vain and his death will be avenged.
"I want to assure you and tell the Israelis that they should be careful because the blood of Imad Mugniyeh will not go to waste," Nasrallah said in footage broadcast on Israel's Second Channel Wednesday night.
Israel this week stepped up security at its embassies abroad amid Hezbollah's threats to target Israeli interests due to the third anniversary of Mughniyeh's death. The Israeli government temporarily shut down four embassies and advised diplomats from those missions to remain in their homes.
Sources : upi
Rabu, 16 Februari 2011
Navy: Bahrain protests not affecting U.S. base
STUTTGART, Germany — It remains business as usual for U.S. military personnel stationed in Bahrain, where thousands of demonstrators have been staging protests against their autocratic government.
Raucous demonstrations continued Wednesday on the streets of Bahrain, but Navy officials said there has been no sign that the crowds intend to direct their hostility toward the roughly 4,200 servicemembers who live and work in the country.
“The protests are not directed at the U.S. military presence,” said Jennifer Stride, a spokeswoman for U.S. Naval Support Activity Bahrain. She added that the protests are not taking place in the vicinity of the naval base.
Advertisement
Bahrain, a strategically vital nation that hosts the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, is the latest Arab nation to experience massive political upheaval and calls for democratic reform. Fifth Fleet’s area of responsibility includes the Arabian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman, parts of the Indian Ocean and several important shipping lanes.
According to NSA Bahrain, there are 2,250 military and civilians who live off base among the population. Currently, there are no plans to relocate those sailors and civilians to temporary housing on base, Stride said.
“Our Sailors, civilian personnel and family members have been advised to avoid sites where the protests are occurring,” Stride said in an e-mail to Stars and Stripes. “There is no indication that providing any refuge on base is necessary.”
Stride declined to say if additional safety measures are being taken on base, explaining that force protection postures are not discussed publicly.
“We do not have any information at this time that suggests that planned protests are likely to cause significant disruptions,” Stride said. “We will continue to monitor the situation.”
Raucous demonstrations continued Wednesday on the streets of Bahrain, but Navy officials said there has been no sign that the crowds intend to direct their hostility toward the roughly 4,200 servicemembers who live and work in the country.
“The protests are not directed at the U.S. military presence,” said Jennifer Stride, a spokeswoman for U.S. Naval Support Activity Bahrain. She added that the protests are not taking place in the vicinity of the naval base.
Advertisement
Bahrain, a strategically vital nation that hosts the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet, is the latest Arab nation to experience massive political upheaval and calls for democratic reform. Fifth Fleet’s area of responsibility includes the Arabian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman, parts of the Indian Ocean and several important shipping lanes.
According to NSA Bahrain, there are 2,250 military and civilians who live off base among the population. Currently, there are no plans to relocate those sailors and civilians to temporary housing on base, Stride said.
“Our Sailors, civilian personnel and family members have been advised to avoid sites where the protests are occurring,” Stride said in an e-mail to Stars and Stripes. “There is no indication that providing any refuge on base is necessary.”
Stride declined to say if additional safety measures are being taken on base, explaining that force protection postures are not discussed publicly.
“We do not have any information at this time that suggests that planned protests are likely to cause significant disruptions,” Stride said. “We will continue to monitor the situation.”
A Germany-Soviet Military-Economic Comparison by Arvo L. Vecamer
To win in an armed conflict, a nation must be able to optimally supply one’s own forces both in offensive and defensive situations. Germany was able to (reasonably) supply her forces with military supplies in the early years of the war, when she fought a series of small, quick action campaigns. But after 1942, Germany could no longer provide her armed forces with the needed military supplies. Quick campaigns gave way to a prolonged war. The Soviet Union however could supply her army with the needed materials and the United States was indeed the global Arsenal of Democracy.
Since Adolf Hitler and the German Nationalist Socialist party came to power in 1933, Germany was both economically and militarily preparing for war. German military officials studied the failures of the last World War, recommended corrective measures and developed new combat techniques, which would deliver a proverbial deadly knockout punch as early as possible in any future conflict. German propaganda specialists made sure that all of Germany’s future opponents also believed that Germany was militarily superior to one and all.
In reality, Germany was not prepared for war in 1939. The German economy of the 1930’s continued to satisfy both civilian and military requirements, even after September of 1939 when production should have shifted to military needs. Hitler believed that he could have it both ways, “Kanonen und Butter” - that is, satisfying the civilian population at home by not placing restrictions on their consumer product consumption, while at the same time satisfying the production needs of Germany's military forces. In fact, Germany was not geared for total war production until 1944. This indicates that German economic and military resource management efforts were not optimally configured for a nation at war previous to that time, and in 1944, the tide had already long since turned.
For example, in FY 1942, Germany produced 30 million tons of steel - but only 8 million tons of that was directed towards military production efforts (airplanes, guns, munitions, supplies, tanks, etc.). The following chart highlights German steel production allocations for the fourth quarter of 1939:
Heer - 3.060.000 tons
Marine - 1.250.000 tons
Luftwaffe - 2.220.000 tons
Military construction - 2.060.000 tons
Total military - 8.590.000 tons
Civilian sector - 7.320.000 tons
Export - 1.730.000 tons
Total civilian - 9.050.000 tons
Total steel - 17.640.000 tons
The civilian sector thus consumed 41.5% of the total German steel production in the fourth quarter of 1939. By the fourth quarter of 1940, the civilian sector “only” consumed 40.8% of the steel output. When Speer reorganized the German economy when Fritz Todt died and he replaced him, it is clear to see where the slack came from.
In terms of human resources, Germany should have increased the hours of a workday to way beyond a regular “9-5” day early in the war. Women were not considered as a serious alternative work force until late in the war either. In 1939, German industries utilized 2.62 million women. In July of 1944, German industries still only utilized 2.67 million women. This average was maintained from 1939 to 1944.
In terms of manufacturing/production related intricacies, the Germans too made a number of long-term calculation errors. For example, the Germans would begin to produce one type of a weapons system (say a Pz IV), then, for whatever reason, added to or modified the basic production model within a very short period of time (the Pz IV came in a myriad of variants as time progressed). This “upgrading” only served to slow down the total number of units which could be produced in the long run. Standardized production equals mass quantaties. The Germans should have produced the Pz IV in just one or two variants and produce them as much as possible, just like the Soviets with their T-34 production. German tanks utilized more complex gasoline engines (higher maintenance and production costs); Soviet tanks ran on very basic diesel engines (and also less flammable when hit). Here too, the Germans realized their error in 1941, but it was too late to convert the German economy over to diesel engines.
From 1939 to 1941, Germany used her now well refined Blitzkrieg tactics to conquer Poland, Denmark, Norway, the BeNeLux nations, France, the Balkan, and so on. The end goal was to obtain a German victory through the utilization of the minimum quantities of men, materials and supplies as possible, and in the shortest time. This worked quite well in the early years of WWII. If there was a chance to win the war, it was most probable during the summer and fall of 1941 provided that the existing resources were not squandered or misused.
But in 1941, the Germans came up against a proverbial brick wall - their summer and fall offensive against the Soviet Union stalled. The winter season arrived with bitterly cold temperatures. Interestingly, on 16 August 1941, General Keitel and the Wehrmachts-Waffenämter agreed that Germany reduce its military production efforts in the fall of 1941. Both were so sure that Germany had defeated the Soviet Union, and Hitler concurred. Then came November and December of 1941. In short, the Germans had not adequately prepared for an extended winter campaign. One of the negative consequences was that many Wehrmacht infantrymen and tankers suffered accordingly (of note is that the Luftwaffe and the KM had sent proper winter clothing to most of their troops in the east).
In the end, Germany’s excellent military leadership and her many technical advantages were not enough to overcome the economic advantages of her enemies. From the very beginning, Germany should have been able to exploit many of her economic and technology advantages far more optimally. Placing Herman Göring in charge of domestic economic planning was not the wisest of selections either. While Albert Speer did achieve some very impressive production increases in 1943, 1944 and 1945 (he became Armaments Minister on 18 February 1942, replacing Fritz Todt), the German efforts were essentially a day late and a dollar short.
Germany lost the Second World War not because of any single military action, she lost it primarily to a war of economic and human attrition.
The Soviet Union took a different approach to the economic situation of the pre-war era. According to I.K. Malanin, a Soviet military history writer; the following six factors determine a nation’s ability to win or lose a war:
# The economic base
# The technological competence of the nation
# The established military doctrines and existing military traditions
# The geographic environment
# The ability and the experience of her personnel
# The comparative power of the enemy
The economic base: An economic base must be sufficiently developed to survive a prolonged conflict. The Soviet Union had built up a much more effective and reliable economic infrastructure since the 1920’s when compared to the German economy. It was more optimally geared for mass production of simple, yet reliable (military) goods and products. Throughout the Second World War, Soviet military forces never really suffered from serious supply problems, Soviet production centers continued to pour out what was needed on the front lines. But the Germans often suffered from supply shortages. In addition to their own production capabilities, the Soviet Union also obtained significant quantities of U.S. and British lend-lease aid as can be seen a few paragraphs down.
The technological competence of the nation: Technical expertise must be available to run existing equipment and to develop “this generation and the next generation” of military hardware. In this field, the Soviet Union obtained the needed expertise from abroad. Many state-of-the-art military technologies were in part, provided to the Soviet Union by the Germans. One need only recall the secret German-Soviet military bases, which operated in the Soviet Union in the 1920’s. While the Germans certainly learned much from those experiences, so did the next generation of Soviet military leaders. In addition to the secret bases, both Germany and the United States provided the bulk of the industrial and technical production competencies to the Soviet Union through the myriad of “economic assistance” contracts signed by the Soviet government with such American industrialists as Armand Hammer, Henry Ford, etc. Actual combat competence in the Soviet military was obtained by fighting the Spanish, Japanese, Polish, Finnish and German armies.
How significant was the American contribution to the Soviet war effort of WW2? Let us look at the Soviet car manufacturing industry of the pre-war era as but one example. The following table might help to place some U.S. contributions into a more optimal perspective:
AMO vehicles - Moscow plant - assistance through Brandt.
GAZ vehicles - Molotov Nr. 1, Gorky plant - assistance through Austin and Ford.
GAZ vehicles - Nizhni-Novgorod plant - assistance through Austin and Ford.
YAZ vehicles - Yaroslav plant - assistance through Hercules.
ZIS vehicles - Kuznetsk plant - assistance through Autocar and Brandt.
On 31 May 1929, Henry Ford and the Ford Corporation signed a contract allowing the Soviet Union to construct GAZ-A cars and GAZ-AA trucks at the Nizhni-Novgorod plant. U.S. engineers directed the construction of the factory and Ford provided most of the tools and jigs. Soviet engineers were sent to Ford’s Rogue River plant near Detroit to study U.S. automotive engineering methodologies (Ford basically told the Soviets the economics behind mass production techniques, American style). The Austin Company, Cleveland, OH, provided the Soviets with assistance for the construction of the AMO-3 two and a half ton trucks.
The ZIS-5 and ZIS-6 trucks were copies of the U.S. Autocar trucks. Holley carburetors (Holley Carburetors Co., Detroit, MI) were built at the Samara carburetor and motor plant after 1932. The Yaroslav tire plant was patterned after the Seiberling tire plant in Akron, OH. Of interest is that 34% of all trucks manufactured by the Soviet Union during the war were made at the Molotov Nr. 1 plant in Gorky; the GAZ-M trucks produced there being a direct copy of the 1934 Ford truck.
Because of the United States and all of the economic help it (and Germany to a lesser extent) provided to the Soviet Union during the 1930’s, the Soviet Union essentially advanced technologically 50 years in only an eight to 10 year span. When the U.S. engineers and specialists were forced to leave in the late 1930’s (some were never allowed to leave the Soviet Union despite the fact they were U.S. citizens), the Soviets were really only left with one realistic economic option - continue to utilize the basic systems and the mass production methodologies the Americans had left behind. And that is what they did during the Second World War. They were understandably crude copies of their American counterparts, but never-the-less, they were effective copies.
The Germans were not able to copy the American production methodologies; though they clearly analyzed and studied them very extensively. German factories were not designed for “mass” mass production. The American and the German economies of scale were so much different. In addition, the Allied air war forced the Germans to increasingly scale down the size of all of their production facilities and disperse them to prevent them from being bombed. By 1942/1943, just when the Germans needed it most, it was no longer possible for them to produce “one item” from start to finish under one roof.
The aviation sector can serve as but one example. From the European perspective in 1939, flying 400 miles (640 km), from Frankfurt to London - that was a “long” distance flight. And thus, many European fighter a/c of the early World War Two era were built with these “long distance” flights in mind. From the American perspective, flying 400 miles (640 km), from Los Angeles to San Francisco - that was a little puddle hopper flight. Flying 2.500 miles (4.000 km) from New York to Seattle - that was “long distance” flight. And thus, U.S. a/c were built primarily with U.S. type distances in mind.
The established military doctrines and existing military traditions: This was a rather unique situation for the Soviets in 1939. A great percentage of their soldiers had been trained during the Czarist era. The Soviets melded many traditional Czarist era military traditions with new, “Soviet” ones; as the war progressed, more and more older “traditions” were re-introduced into the Soviet military. Mobile warfare was learned by reading and studying western (primarily British and German) combat philosophies and learning from actual combat situations, such as fighting the Spaniards, the Japanese, the Finns and the Germans.
The geographic environment: Not much one can say here. A nation has what it has in terms of geographic features and that’s pretty much it. But, one can use geographic advantages to help alleviate military disadvantages. If you can, draw the enemy deep into your country - extend his logistical capabilities way beyond the norm - trade land for time to rebuild you armed forces, etc. - these thoughts and more were prime Soviet methodologies of the pre-war and war era.
The ability and the experience of her personnel: While the Soviet military truly worked on reforming itself in the 1930’s, the many purges also severely weakened the aggregate experience level of her military personnel. This placed the Soviet Union at a severely disadvantageous position in June of 1941. Only by 1943 and 1944, did the Soviet soldiers reach general parity with their German counterparts; and even then, the average German soldier held many competence and experience advantages over many of opponents.
The comparative power of the enemy: Since the 1930’s, the Germany and the Soviet Union were engaged in an arms race. After first investing heavily in building up an industrial base, starting in approximately 1937, the Soviet Union’s economy switched over to the production of military goods. But the Germans had a bit of an early lead - they started the arms race in 1933 (earlier in secret). From 1939 to approximately 1941/42, the German military economy retained a distinct advantage in both quality and quantity when compared to same of her opponents. By 1943, the Soviet Union had caught up and began to surpass the German production capabilities.
Allied lend-lease aid to the Soviet Union during the Second World War was also a factor in the Soviet economic and military situation during WWII. The United States provided the Soviet Union with approximately USD 11 billion in aid. Great Britain and Canada provided the Soviet Union with an additional USD 6 billion in aid. Both figures are for USD values in 1945. Since 1945, Soviet historians have tended to downplay the significance of Allied lend-lease efforts - it is unequivocably accepted that in the end, over 20 million Soviet citizens needlessly lost their lives in the conflict, lend-lease aid or not. But Allied lend-lease aid did make a difference, even if only a small one, to the Soviet war effort, as can be seen in the below paragraphs.
As soon as the German Army crossed into the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941, Stalin asked Churchill (and Roosevelt) for military assistance. Both agreed to provide it (not only in the form of military supplies, but after December of 1941, also in the form of opening up a “second” front in the west). The first lend-lease convoys to in fact depart for the Soviet Union, did so before any formal document had been signed between the Soviets and the Western Allies. It need be noted that although the United States was not officially at war with Germany, the U.S. agreed to help supply the Soviet Union with lend-lease aid. The promised supplies were agreed to in a series of protocols. The Soviet Union would receive goods and supplies up front, and it could repay its debts at the end of the war in cash or negotiable bonds (plus a small interest charge for late or non-payments).
On 06 October 1941, Winston Churchill advised Josef Stalin that a British convoy would depart from the west every 10 days. The first official convoy, PQ 1, departed from Iceland bound for Archangel (Archanglesk). It carried 20 tanks and 193 fighter a/c. It, as well as the next few PQ’s made it safely to and from the Soviet Union with their freight. It need be noted that in February of 1942, British lend-lease aid to the Soviet Union received a higher priority level than supplying British Home-Guard units and Commonwealth forces operating in the Pacific with military goods. Thus, badly needed Hurricane fighters went to the VVS, not to the RAF in Burma.
The Allied lend-lease aid effort was truly a monumental undertaking. During the course of the Second World War, the Western Allies sent 811 ships to Soviet ports filled with lend-lease aid. The Germans sank 58 of those ships. 33 of the 811 ships returned to port (mechanical breakdowns; damaged by a German attack, but able to proceed under their own power; etc.).
Murmansk and Vladivostok were among the most utilized ports. The route over the Pacific was safer, but it also took longer. Allied convoys had to first cross the Pacific, then the lend-lease aid goods had to traverse Siberia via train. Initially, Iran was hardly used as a trans-shipment route. The existing infrastructure needed to transport lend-lease goods to the Soviet Union was not optimal. After 1943, when the Allies developed better transportation networks in Iran and the Middle East in general, the Persian route became a more critical link. Of all the lend-lease aid, approximately 50% was delivered via the Pacific, 25% via Persia and 25% via the northern route to Archangel and Murmansk.
If the Allies were not well prepared to initiate lend-lease support to the Soviet Union in 1941, so was the Soviet Union not in an optimal position to accept the aid. Interestingly, in August of 1941, the heaviest crane at Murmansk could only lift an 11-ton load. The British had to quickly supply the Soviets with a heavier crane to help speed up the lend-lease off-loading efforts. The RAF also provided aerial support to protect Murmansk from the Luftwaffe. With VVS approval, the 151st RAF Wing arrived at their new base in Vaenga (about 20 miles out of Murmansk) in August of 1941 with 24 Hurricanes (15 additional Hurricane a/c were shipped in crates to Vaenga).
The first PQ’s arrived safely in the Soviet Union with their precious freight. But the Germans reacted quickly by sending both Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe units against the new threat. The first major loss was inflicted on PQ-13 in March of 1942 (PQ-13 lost five ships). PQ-14 and PQ15 also took heavy losses. Churchill wanted to increase the spacing between the departing convoys as a measure to offset losses. The Royal Navy wanted to stop all lend-lease aid during the summer months. The sun was out nearly 24 hours a day in the far northern Arctic waters and this would make any ship easy pickings for the Germans. For political reasons, the British could not select either option. The convoy schedule had to continue. PQ-16 was given a heavier escort and was increased in size to 35 merchantmen. The Germans sunk seven merchantmen and damaged one in PQ-16. PQ-17 was delayed in departing because the RN had to first protect its convoys going to Malta - it did not have enough escort vessels to go around. The U.S.Navy also could not provide escort assistance at that time because the USN was engaged in escorting U.S. merchantmen off of U.S. waters. PQ-17 sailed in June of 1942; it was a disaster for the Allies. The Germans sank 23 of the 36 ships. PQ-18, which departed on 02 September 1942, lost 13 out of 40 ships.
Here is an example of PQ convoy. In January of 1944, an American lend-lease convoy left Seattle bound for Vladivostok. Its manifest read as follows:
46 merchantmen (all 8-10K ton ships); built by McCormack Ship Yards; Soviet flagged (to avoid being torpedoed by the Japanese who could attack U.S. flagged vessels but who could not attack Soviet flagged ones) and Soviet crewed.
Six of the 46 ships were loaded with ammunitions and small arms. Four of the 46 ships were loaded with foodstuffs. Two of the 46 ships were loaded by Dodge (presumably with trucks). One ship was loaded by Westinghouse (presumably with communications gear).
They carried:
# 22.000 tons of steel provided by U.S. Steel.
# 3.000 truck chassis, by Ford (the Soviets also assembled U.S. trucks from parts).
# 3.000 truck differentials from Thornton Tandem Co.
# 2.000 tractors by Allis Chalmers Co. (agricultural and military use)
# 1.500 automotive batteries from the Price Battery Corp.
# 1.000 aircraft provided by the North American Aviation Co.
# 612 airplanes from the Douglas Aircraft Co.
# 600 trucks from Mack.
# 500 Allison aircraft engines.
# 500 half-tracks from Minneapolis Moline Co.
# 400 airplanes from Bell Aircraft
# 400 electric motors from Wagner Electric Co.
# 400 truck chassis by GM (see Ford above)
# 310 tons of ball bearings from the Fafnir Company.
# 200 aircraft provided by the U.S. Navy
# 200 aircraft engines by Aeromarine
# 100 tractor-trailer units by GM (trucks)
# 70 aircraft engines by Pratt & Whitney
In the end, Ultra and more dedicated Allied naval efforts helped to secure the northern lend-lease routes from German attacks. The Kriegsmarine lost a number of heavy ships for their efforts as well.
The following table, not an inclusive one by any means, shows the extent of lend-lease aid the Western Allies provided to the Soviet Union from 01 October 1941 to 31 March 1946 (not a typo, aid went on well after WWII ended). CW - Commonwealth contribution; US - American contribution:
Aircraft - 7.411 (CW) + 14.795 (US) = 22.206
Automotive:
--- 1.5 ton trucks 151.053 (US)
--- 2.5 ton trucks 200.662 (US)
--- Willys Jeeps 77.972 (US)
Bren Gun Carriers - 2.560 (CW)
Boots - 15 million pairs (US)
Communications equipment:
--- Field phones - 380.135 (US)
--- Radios - 40.000 (US)
--- Telephone cable - 1.25 million miles (US)
Cotton cloth - 107 million square yards (US)
Foodstuffs - 4.5 million tons (US)
Leather - 49.000 tons (US)
Motorcycles - 35.170 (US)
Locomotives - 1.981 units (US)
Rolling stock - 11.155 units (US)
Tanks - 5.218 (CW) + 7.537 (US) = 12.755
Tractors - 8.701 (US)
Trucks - 4.020 (CW) + 357.883 (US) = 361.903
In the early 1930’s the U.S. helped lay the foundations for a formidable Soviet truck production capability. During the war, Soviet production efforts were augmented through lend-lease aid. In terms of truck usage, U.S. lend-lease trucks generally went directly to front line combat units. Soviet built trucks were generally used in rear areas. Chevrolet, Dodge, Ford, Studebaker, etc., all could be found on the eastern front. The Soviet Union ended the Second World War by having over 650.000 trucks available for use. Of those, 58% were Soviet in origin, 33% British or U.S. and the remaining percentage captured from the Germans.
U.S. lend-lease food supplies were sufficient to supply 6 million Soviet soldiers with one pound of (quality) consumables for each day of the war. Also, U.S. food supplies, such as canned Spam, had a seemingly indefinite shelf-life and could be stored anywhere without spoilage when compared to one of the standard Soviet military staple diets, dried fish (consuming dried fish causes one to drink more - this in turn increases the number of "breaks" one has to take - and that is not a desirable condition if one is close proximity to enemy lines).
Lend-lease aid amounted to approximately 10-12% of the total Soviet war production effort. While this does not seem like a significant amount, having 10% more key supplies available could make the difference between holding the line to going on the offensive.
From the Soviet geo-political perspective, Germany was enemy number one; especially after 1933. In order to defeat Germany, the Soviet Union would first have to establish the economic and the military infrastructures that would lead to the primary goal (the defeat of Germany). The Soviets searched high and low for the best of everything the west could offer; Christie tank designs from the U.S.; U.S. industrial production know-how; Czechoslovakian and German military hardware; etc. The Soviets also made a “top to bottom” review of their military supply system to seek the most efficient solutions. Western armies of the World War Two era were still modeled on the old Napoleonic way of thinking - provide each combat division with ample service and supply capabilities so they can draw upon rear area stocks as needed. The Soviets reversed that order - army depots and army transportation units would (more efficiently) deliver supplies to the troops; more combat troops could then be placed at the front lines. Of note is that the Soviets military transportation system was far more mechanized than the German one (though no one in WW2 beat the nearly 100% mark of the U.S. transportation system). The German military transportation system still relied on horses in May of 1945.
Mention is often made of the fact that Soviet weapons were crude or simple in design and manufacture. While many were clearly so in appearance, they nearly always worked. German weapon systems, for the most part, became more complex as the war progressed and they did not always work as expected (such as the new Pz V’s at Kursk). There were never enough German service technicians on hand to keep all of the German military hardware operating at peak strength. Building complex military technologies often requires having a larger pool of technicians available to fix the inevitable breakdowns.
The bottom line - the ultimate question is one of simple economics and opportunity costs. How does a nation allocate its existing economic resources? What could one do instead if one changed one’s econimic priorities? One could produce a mighty slick looking and most effective Jagdpanther V with all the bells and whistles or one could opt to produce five shoddy looking, but most functional and reliable T-34’s instead. And so the equation goes. The Soviets opted for the latter scenario and they essentially defeated Germany in May of 1945. The Soviet Union produced great quantities of very basic weapons systems to counter the exceptional skills of the German military command. The Germans elected to go for the Jagdpanther V type scenario - they thus lost the economic battle of the war, and thus the war itself.
Sources : feldgrau
DOD Releases Fiscal 2012 Budget Proposal
President Barack Obama today sent to Congress a proposed defense budget of $671 billion for fiscal 2012. The request for the Department of Defense (DoD) includes $553 billion in discretionary budget authority to fund base defense programs and $118 billion to support overseas contingency operations (OCO), primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The fiscal 2012 budget continues the DoD reform agenda, seeking additional efficiencies across the entire defense enterprise, while also strengthening our national security capability.
“This budget represents a reasonable, responsible and sustainable level of funding, the minimum level of defense spending that is necessary, given the security challenges we are facing around the globe,” said Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
The $553 billion for the base budget provides funding to take care of our people, which is our highest priority, and also provides substantial funding to build capability for possible future conflicts. The OCO portion totals $117.8 billion, $41.5 billion below the fiscal 2011 request of $159.3 billion. The proposal reflects the planned withdrawal of troops from Iraq by the end of the first quarter of fiscal 2012 and a modest decline in funding for Afghanistan operations.
While this budget request seeks continued efficiencies in 2012 and beyond, the absence of an appropriation for fiscal 2011 threatens to cause serious inefficiencies and problems this year. The current continuing resolution, if it remains in effect for the rest of the year, will lead to delays and inefficient, start-and-stop management. It will rob the DoD of the flexibility needed to manage effectively, especially in time of war, and it will not provide the Department with enough resources to maintain training and support while also paying bills for military pay, benefits, and inflation. In short the continuing resolution represents a crisis at our doorstep, and the DoD strongly urges the Congress to pass a defense appropriation bill as part of the overall legislation to fund government activities in fiscal 2011.
Sources : defence aerospace
Selasa, 15 Februari 2011
Foreign agencies test security of U.S. networks
WASHINGTON — More than 100 foreign intelligence agencies have tried to breach U.S. defense computer networks, largely to steal military plans and weapons systems designs, a top Pentagon official said Tuesday.
Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn said that while foreign governments and rogue states may try to launch more destructive attacks against military networks, most may stick to theft and spying because they are worried about a U.S. counterattack.
The greater threat, he said, are terror groups such as al-Qaida, who are more difficult to deter. Terrorists have vowed to unleash cyberattacks, and over time may be able to either develop their own malicious computer threats or buy them on the black market.
Lynn’s remarks, made at a cybersecurity conference in San Francisco and released in Washington, come as the U.S. government is struggling to ramp up its abilities to block cyberintrusions and to lay out policies for launching the high-tech attacks when needed. U.S. government sites are scanned and attacked millions of times a day, and there have been a number of serious breaches in recent years, including into the electric grid and Pentagon weapons contractors.
In a meeting with reporters after his speech, Lynn declined to specify how many of the 100 foreign intelligence agencies that he says have tried attacks on the U.S. were successful in breaching government defenses, saying that would include classified information. He said the attacks involved espionage, such as seeking weapons design or diplomatic information, and didn’t appear to be aimed at causing destruction of physical infrastructure.
The biggest challenge faced by the U.S. as it looks to better gird against attacks, Lynn said, is finding ways to share threat information with private industry — which owns or operates as much as 85 percent of the networks. Those include much of the nation’s critical infrastructure, ranging from the electric grid, banking and other financial systems and nuclear power plants.
The idea raises privacy concerns with the prospect of U.S. military or government eyes or ears on private networks.
Lynn said the government’s intelligence capabilities give it broad knowledge of cyberthreats, and the U.S. already has shared unclassified information on a limited basis with defense companies that have sensitive data on their networks. The challenge, he said, is developing the policies and legal structure so that classified information about threats can also be shared.
Lynn also unveiled two new programs that will allow the government and industry to exchange cybersecurity experts and make better use of National Guard and Reserve members who have technological expertise.
Sources : airforcetimes
Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn said that while foreign governments and rogue states may try to launch more destructive attacks against military networks, most may stick to theft and spying because they are worried about a U.S. counterattack.
The greater threat, he said, are terror groups such as al-Qaida, who are more difficult to deter. Terrorists have vowed to unleash cyberattacks, and over time may be able to either develop their own malicious computer threats or buy them on the black market.
Lynn’s remarks, made at a cybersecurity conference in San Francisco and released in Washington, come as the U.S. government is struggling to ramp up its abilities to block cyberintrusions and to lay out policies for launching the high-tech attacks when needed. U.S. government sites are scanned and attacked millions of times a day, and there have been a number of serious breaches in recent years, including into the electric grid and Pentagon weapons contractors.
In a meeting with reporters after his speech, Lynn declined to specify how many of the 100 foreign intelligence agencies that he says have tried attacks on the U.S. were successful in breaching government defenses, saying that would include classified information. He said the attacks involved espionage, such as seeking weapons design or diplomatic information, and didn’t appear to be aimed at causing destruction of physical infrastructure.
The biggest challenge faced by the U.S. as it looks to better gird against attacks, Lynn said, is finding ways to share threat information with private industry — which owns or operates as much as 85 percent of the networks. Those include much of the nation’s critical infrastructure, ranging from the electric grid, banking and other financial systems and nuclear power plants.
The idea raises privacy concerns with the prospect of U.S. military or government eyes or ears on private networks.
Lynn said the government’s intelligence capabilities give it broad knowledge of cyberthreats, and the U.S. already has shared unclassified information on a limited basis with defense companies that have sensitive data on their networks. The challenge, he said, is developing the policies and legal structure so that classified information about threats can also be shared.
Lynn also unveiled two new programs that will allow the government and industry to exchange cybersecurity experts and make better use of National Guard and Reserve members who have technological expertise.
Sources : airforcetimes
B-17 vet back in air aboard a WWII-era bomber
CLEARWATER, Fla. — A day before his final mission aboard a B-17 bomber in World War II, Norbert Swierz sat down on his bunk and jotted down a poem for his mother back in Michigan.
“I go so gladly to my fate, whatever it may be. That I would have you shed no tears for me,” wrote the 23-year-old gunner, who had already survived the ditching of his first B-17 in the North Sea that summer of 1943. “Some men must die, that others must be free. And only God can say whom these shall be.”
The next day, Sept. 6, 1943, “Skeets” Swierz and the rest of the crew of the B-17 nicknamed “Bomb Boogie” took off from their base in England, but didn’t make it back. Shot down and taken prisoner, Swierz would spend the rest of his war days in a POW camp and not fly in another B-17 for close to 70 years.
The opportunity came again last Friday, and Swierz didn’t hesitate. He strapped himself into a restored Flying Fortress and held on as the four droning engines lifted the vintage bomber off a central Florida airstrip into heavy cloud cover.
“Wonderful,” the grinning 90-year-old man kept saying during the 45-minute flight. “Wonderful.”
Strapped into the radio operator’s chair halfway back, Swierz looked around and reeled off the name of the man on his crew who occupied the same seat on his old plane, and the name of the gunner who had squeezed into the ball turret underneath. That’s what he was thinking about most, the other guys.
“They’re all gone now, but I still have the memories,” he said. “They were all kids then, just like myself.”
Swierz’s flight came courtesy of the Collings Foundation, which tours the country with several planes restored to their World War II condition. More than 12,000 B-17s were manufactured for the war effort, and the Massachusetts-based charity owns one of a handful around the world that can still get off the ground. Foundation spokesman Hunter Chaney said it’s important to put the old veterans together with the vintage aircraft while that’s still possible.
“We’re in the last throes of this generation,” he said from Stow, Mass. “It’s an increasing rarity that we’re able to share this with our World War II veterans. It adds a sense of urgency to living history programs like this.”
A top-turret gunner in those days — which means he poked his head up into a plastic bubble above the cockpit and blazed away on twin .50-caliber machine guns — Swierz was one of the lucky ones.
Participation in those daylight, precision bombing raids on industrial targets in Germany and occupied France was dangerous and terrifying duty, dramatically recounted in movies such as “Twelve O’Clock High” and “Memphis Belle.” Two out of three young men — their average age was 20 — who flew on those missions did not survive the war. Swierz recalls returning from one especially bad mission and going to bed in an empty barracks.
“Let me tell you, that was a spooky night,” he said.
Swierz grew up in Chicago and Michigan — his mother lived in Dowagiac — and was 21 when he went to Canada to join the British Civilian Technical Corps, a mercenary outfit for those who wanted to help out the British before the United States was pulled into World War II. After Pearl Harbor, he enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Corps and volunteered for B-17 duty.
He flew his first mission on March 18, 1943. His luck held out until June 22 when his plane — nicknamed “Old Ironsides” — was shot up so badly it had to be ditched in the North Sea after a bombing run on a German factory. He was plucked from the sea by a British rescue boat and spent weeks in the hospital recovering from a shrapnel wound to his leg.
His 14th mission — the bombing of a ball-bearing factory in Stuttgart, Germany — would be his last. B-17 crews needed 25 successful missions to rotate home, and most didn’t make it. The crew of the famous “Memphis Belle” — they shared a central England base with Swierz and his mates — was the first to do it in May 1943.
“Somehow or another, the Germans always knew we were coming and where we were going to bomb,” Swierz said. “The German fighters were something else. They were fearless. They would come right down through the middle of our formations, scattering B-17s all over hell.”
The attack on Stuttgart was a fiasco. German fighters and flak batteries battered the planes as they flew around looking for a break in the clouds so they could drop their bombs. Of the 338 B-17s on the mission, 45 were lost. Many ran out of gas.
“Bomb Boogie” was pounded by flak and enemy fighters soon after releasing its bombs, and the 10 young men bailed out over Stuttgart, their parachutes blooming in the gray sky. Swierz was captured immediately and spent the rest of the war in a prison camp in Austria.
Swierz and his fellow prisoners were liberated by Gen. George Patton’s Third Army in May 1945. He made it home and has done a lot of living since then. Wife, kids, grandkids, great-grandkids, a long military career, a long retirement. But his recollections of wartime duty in the B-17 have survived in fairly sharp focus.
Swierz’s oldest son, Greg, said his father didn’t start talking about those war experiences in depth until about 10 years ago. His family finally persuaded him to write down the memories.
“I think it was a pretty horrific adventure, and it was just a part of their lives that they just got through,” said Greg Swierz, a retired commercial pilot. “I think they realize now that they are living history, and we’ve got to get it out of them. They are real heroes.”
Sources : airforcetimes
“I go so gladly to my fate, whatever it may be. That I would have you shed no tears for me,” wrote the 23-year-old gunner, who had already survived the ditching of his first B-17 in the North Sea that summer of 1943. “Some men must die, that others must be free. And only God can say whom these shall be.”
The next day, Sept. 6, 1943, “Skeets” Swierz and the rest of the crew of the B-17 nicknamed “Bomb Boogie” took off from their base in England, but didn’t make it back. Shot down and taken prisoner, Swierz would spend the rest of his war days in a POW camp and not fly in another B-17 for close to 70 years.
The opportunity came again last Friday, and Swierz didn’t hesitate. He strapped himself into a restored Flying Fortress and held on as the four droning engines lifted the vintage bomber off a central Florida airstrip into heavy cloud cover.
“Wonderful,” the grinning 90-year-old man kept saying during the 45-minute flight. “Wonderful.”
Strapped into the radio operator’s chair halfway back, Swierz looked around and reeled off the name of the man on his crew who occupied the same seat on his old plane, and the name of the gunner who had squeezed into the ball turret underneath. That’s what he was thinking about most, the other guys.
“They’re all gone now, but I still have the memories,” he said. “They were all kids then, just like myself.”
Swierz’s flight came courtesy of the Collings Foundation, which tours the country with several planes restored to their World War II condition. More than 12,000 B-17s were manufactured for the war effort, and the Massachusetts-based charity owns one of a handful around the world that can still get off the ground. Foundation spokesman Hunter Chaney said it’s important to put the old veterans together with the vintage aircraft while that’s still possible.
“We’re in the last throes of this generation,” he said from Stow, Mass. “It’s an increasing rarity that we’re able to share this with our World War II veterans. It adds a sense of urgency to living history programs like this.”
A top-turret gunner in those days — which means he poked his head up into a plastic bubble above the cockpit and blazed away on twin .50-caliber machine guns — Swierz was one of the lucky ones.
Participation in those daylight, precision bombing raids on industrial targets in Germany and occupied France was dangerous and terrifying duty, dramatically recounted in movies such as “Twelve O’Clock High” and “Memphis Belle.” Two out of three young men — their average age was 20 — who flew on those missions did not survive the war. Swierz recalls returning from one especially bad mission and going to bed in an empty barracks.
“Let me tell you, that was a spooky night,” he said.
Swierz grew up in Chicago and Michigan — his mother lived in Dowagiac — and was 21 when he went to Canada to join the British Civilian Technical Corps, a mercenary outfit for those who wanted to help out the British before the United States was pulled into World War II. After Pearl Harbor, he enlisted in the U.S. Army Air Corps and volunteered for B-17 duty.
He flew his first mission on March 18, 1943. His luck held out until June 22 when his plane — nicknamed “Old Ironsides” — was shot up so badly it had to be ditched in the North Sea after a bombing run on a German factory. He was plucked from the sea by a British rescue boat and spent weeks in the hospital recovering from a shrapnel wound to his leg.
His 14th mission — the bombing of a ball-bearing factory in Stuttgart, Germany — would be his last. B-17 crews needed 25 successful missions to rotate home, and most didn’t make it. The crew of the famous “Memphis Belle” — they shared a central England base with Swierz and his mates — was the first to do it in May 1943.
“Somehow or another, the Germans always knew we were coming and where we were going to bomb,” Swierz said. “The German fighters were something else. They were fearless. They would come right down through the middle of our formations, scattering B-17s all over hell.”
The attack on Stuttgart was a fiasco. German fighters and flak batteries battered the planes as they flew around looking for a break in the clouds so they could drop their bombs. Of the 338 B-17s on the mission, 45 were lost. Many ran out of gas.
“Bomb Boogie” was pounded by flak and enemy fighters soon after releasing its bombs, and the 10 young men bailed out over Stuttgart, their parachutes blooming in the gray sky. Swierz was captured immediately and spent the rest of the war in a prison camp in Austria.
Swierz and his fellow prisoners were liberated by Gen. George Patton’s Third Army in May 1945. He made it home and has done a lot of living since then. Wife, kids, grandkids, great-grandkids, a long military career, a long retirement. But his recollections of wartime duty in the B-17 have survived in fairly sharp focus.
Swierz’s oldest son, Greg, said his father didn’t start talking about those war experiences in depth until about 10 years ago. His family finally persuaded him to write down the memories.
“I think it was a pretty horrific adventure, and it was just a part of their lives that they just got through,” said Greg Swierz, a retired commercial pilot. “I think they realize now that they are living history, and we’ve got to get it out of them. They are real heroes.”
Sources : airforcetimes
Muslim Brotherhood to form party; Egypt's generals reach out to protest leaders
CAIRO - The once-banned Muslim Brotherhood said Tuesday that it would form a political party and assist in rewriting Egypt's constitution, positioning itself to play a key role in the country's political future.
The Brotherhood, an archenemy of former president Hosni Mubarak, said it would move quickly to organize a political wing - something it was prohibited from doing under the old regime.
"The Muslim Brotherhood group believes in the freedom of the formation of political parties," a leader of the movement, Mohammed al-Mursi, said in a statement.
Egypt's military rulers, who like Mubarak have traditionally seen the fundamentalist Brotherhood as a threat to the country's secular establishment, indicated that they are coming to terms with the idea of the movement becoming active in politics.
Fie ld Marshal Mohammed Tantawi, the head of the Supreme Military Council that has imposed martial law, met Tuesday with eight legal experts whom the military has asked to draft changes to the constitution. One of the scholars is Sobhi Saleh, a member of the Brotherhood.
In Washington, President Obama said Tuesday, "Obviously there's still a lot of work to be done in Egypt . . . but what we've seen so far is positive." He noted that Egypt's Supreme Military Council has met with the opposition and reaffirmed its commitment to treaties, including a peace treaty with Israel.
"Egypt is going to require help in building democratic institutions and strengthening the economy ," Obama told a White House news conference. "So far at least, we're seeing the right signals coming out of Egypt."
The Supreme Military Council has said it wants the legal experts to recommend a constitutional overhaul within 10 days, so that the proposals can be submitted to a popular vote in a referendum in two months.
Changing the constitution is a crucial first step in Egypt's efforts to transform itself into a full-fledged democracy. The old constitution, which has been suspended by the military chiefs, essentially prohibited the formation of new political parties and prevented any candidates from running against Mubarak.
The military chiefs tried to contain growing labor unrest Monday and to reach out to youthful revolutionaries as the formidable task of governing the politically unstable and impoverished country became apparent.
Police officers, ambulance drivers, bankers, journalists and archaeologists marched through the streets of Cairo in separate protests Monday. Emboldened by a sudden burst of freedom that has flowered since Mubarak's departure Friday, the demonstrators demanded higher wages and other benefits.
"This is our ideal chance to make our voices heard," said Ahmed Mahmoud, a manager at a state-owned bank. "You would never see these kind of protests before, not when we had a dictator."
The military council responded with a communique in which it urged Egyptians to go back to work, saying the stoppages were harming the country's security and economy. The council imposed martial law Sunday, and officials hinted that they would ban strikes if things did not improve.
"Honorable Egyptians regard these demonstrations, which are taking place at a critical moment, as leading to negative consequences," read the communique, the fifth handed down by the military council since last week.
Meanwhile, leaders of the pro-democracy demonstrations that ended Mubarak's nearly three-decade rule said Monday that they had begun direct talks with the military chiefs for the first time.
The negotiations, described as exploratory, were held Sunday at military intelligence headquarters in Cairo, said Khaled al-Sayed, a protest organizer who attended. Another round is scheduled for Wednesday.
Representing the Supreme Military Council at the meeting were Maj. Gen. Mohammed Hegazy, an army commander, and Maj. Gen. Mohammed Abdel Fattah, head of military intelligence, according to the protesters.
At the Sunday meeting, according to the protest leaders, the generals said an early priority for the military council is to quickly overhaul Egypt's constitution, which was designed to stifle political opposition to Mubarak.
In an interview, Sayed said the generals expressed sympathy toward the demonstrators' cause and their desire to return to civilian rule as soon as possible. But he said they gave few other specifics. They also refused, he said, demands to release political prisoners and overturn Egypt's state-of-emergency law, a legal measure Mubarak relied on for three decades to arrest dissidents.
"They told us that they agree with us, but they were reserved when we raised our specific issues," Sayed said. He said he also was skeptical of the generals' assertion that they would hand over power to a civilian government in less than six months. "That's also just talk," he said.
Wael Ghonim, a Google marketing executive who was one of eight protest organizers at the meeting, said in a Facebook posting that he was more optimistic.
"I felt like we were all one and that we all want what's best for Egypt," wrote Ghonim, who had been detained by Mubarak's security forces for 12 days and was released last week. "As an individual I feel that Egypt is in honest hands and that we are truly on the right path to achieve democracy."
For now, Egypt's head of state is Tantawi, leader of the Supreme Military Council and the defense minister under Mubarak. He has made no public statements since taking over from Mubarak on Friday. Instead, the military council has been communicating to the public solely via the communiques. They have been read on state television by Maj. Gen. Mohsen el-Fangari, a member of the council and a deputy to Tantawi.
The Obama administration has been in regular contact with Tantawi since the protests erupted Jan. 25 and has praised him for ordering the armed forces to assume a neutral role and not crack down on the demonstrators.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates spoke by telephone with Tantawi the day after Mubarak's resignation. It was the sixth conversation between the two men since the protests began, said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary.
The Supreme Military Council has said that it will remain in control of Egypt for six months, or until new elections can be held. It has not specified when the elections might occur, leaving the door open to indefinite military rule.
Analysts and diplomats in Cairo, however, said it appears that Tantawi is eager to make changes quickly rather than have the armed forces assume long-term responsibility for running Egypt - and addressing its many social and economic problems.
"My own sense of the field marshal is that he's not really comfortable being the governor of Egypt," said a Western diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing the military chiefs. Meanwhile, rumors continued to swirl about the fate of Mubarak, who departed Cairo on Friday on a plane with his wife and has not been seen since.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Monday that the European Union will discuss a request from Egypt's military rulers to freeze assets held by members of Mubarak's regime, the Associated Press reported. Hague did not specify whether Mubarak's assets would be targeted, the AP said.
Sameh Shoukry, Egypt's ambassador to the United States, said Monday that he had heard through personal, unofficial channels that Mubarak was "possibly in somewhat of bad health." Shoukry, who was interviewed on NBC's "Today" show, said he did not have specifics.
Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq has said that Mubarak is in Sharm el-Sheikh, a Red Sea resort where he maintains a villa. A senior U.S. administration official said the White House also thinks that Mubarak is staying in Sharm el-Sheikh.
His vice president, Omar Suleiman, also has disappeared from view since going on state television Friday to announce Mubarak's resignation.
Some Egyptian military officials have told diplomats that Suleiman has formally retired, while others said his position was abolished when Mubarak handed over power to the armed forces.
On Sunday, Shafiq said it was possible that the military council would ask Suleiman, Egypt's longtime spy chief, to assume another position.
Hosam Sowilan, a retired major general who knows Suleiman, said his future remained up in the air."Right now, he's no longer in authority," Sowilan said. "But he's very honest, and he could play a very active role if the Supreme Military Council asks him to do that."
Sources : washingtonpost
The Brotherhood, an archenemy of former president Hosni Mubarak, said it would move quickly to organize a political wing - something it was prohibited from doing under the old regime.
"The Muslim Brotherhood group believes in the freedom of the formation of political parties," a leader of the movement, Mohammed al-Mursi, said in a statement.
Egypt's military rulers, who like Mubarak have traditionally seen the fundamentalist Brotherhood as a threat to the country's secular establishment, indicated that they are coming to terms with the idea of the movement becoming active in politics.
Fie ld Marshal Mohammed Tantawi, the head of the Supreme Military Council that has imposed martial law, met Tuesday with eight legal experts whom the military has asked to draft changes to the constitution. One of the scholars is Sobhi Saleh, a member of the Brotherhood.
In Washington, President Obama said Tuesday, "Obviously there's still a lot of work to be done in Egypt . . . but what we've seen so far is positive." He noted that Egypt's Supreme Military Council has met with the opposition and reaffirmed its commitment to treaties, including a peace treaty with Israel.
"Egypt is going to require help in building democratic institutions and strengthening the economy ," Obama told a White House news conference. "So far at least, we're seeing the right signals coming out of Egypt."
The Supreme Military Council has said it wants the legal experts to recommend a constitutional overhaul within 10 days, so that the proposals can be submitted to a popular vote in a referendum in two months.
Changing the constitution is a crucial first step in Egypt's efforts to transform itself into a full-fledged democracy. The old constitution, which has been suspended by the military chiefs, essentially prohibited the formation of new political parties and prevented any candidates from running against Mubarak.
The military chiefs tried to contain growing labor unrest Monday and to reach out to youthful revolutionaries as the formidable task of governing the politically unstable and impoverished country became apparent.
Police officers, ambulance drivers, bankers, journalists and archaeologists marched through the streets of Cairo in separate protests Monday. Emboldened by a sudden burst of freedom that has flowered since Mubarak's departure Friday, the demonstrators demanded higher wages and other benefits.
"This is our ideal chance to make our voices heard," said Ahmed Mahmoud, a manager at a state-owned bank. "You would never see these kind of protests before, not when we had a dictator."
The military council responded with a communique in which it urged Egyptians to go back to work, saying the stoppages were harming the country's security and economy. The council imposed martial law Sunday, and officials hinted that they would ban strikes if things did not improve.
"Honorable Egyptians regard these demonstrations, which are taking place at a critical moment, as leading to negative consequences," read the communique, the fifth handed down by the military council since last week.
Meanwhile, leaders of the pro-democracy demonstrations that ended Mubarak's nearly three-decade rule said Monday that they had begun direct talks with the military chiefs for the first time.
The negotiations, described as exploratory, were held Sunday at military intelligence headquarters in Cairo, said Khaled al-Sayed, a protest organizer who attended. Another round is scheduled for Wednesday.
Representing the Supreme Military Council at the meeting were Maj. Gen. Mohammed Hegazy, an army commander, and Maj. Gen. Mohammed Abdel Fattah, head of military intelligence, according to the protesters.
At the Sunday meeting, according to the protest leaders, the generals said an early priority for the military council is to quickly overhaul Egypt's constitution, which was designed to stifle political opposition to Mubarak.
In an interview, Sayed said the generals expressed sympathy toward the demonstrators' cause and their desire to return to civilian rule as soon as possible. But he said they gave few other specifics. They also refused, he said, demands to release political prisoners and overturn Egypt's state-of-emergency law, a legal measure Mubarak relied on for three decades to arrest dissidents.
"They told us that they agree with us, but they were reserved when we raised our specific issues," Sayed said. He said he also was skeptical of the generals' assertion that they would hand over power to a civilian government in less than six months. "That's also just talk," he said.
Wael Ghonim, a Google marketing executive who was one of eight protest organizers at the meeting, said in a Facebook posting that he was more optimistic.
"I felt like we were all one and that we all want what's best for Egypt," wrote Ghonim, who had been detained by Mubarak's security forces for 12 days and was released last week. "As an individual I feel that Egypt is in honest hands and that we are truly on the right path to achieve democracy."
For now, Egypt's head of state is Tantawi, leader of the Supreme Military Council and the defense minister under Mubarak. He has made no public statements since taking over from Mubarak on Friday. Instead, the military council has been communicating to the public solely via the communiques. They have been read on state television by Maj. Gen. Mohsen el-Fangari, a member of the council and a deputy to Tantawi.
The Obama administration has been in regular contact with Tantawi since the protests erupted Jan. 25 and has praised him for ordering the armed forces to assume a neutral role and not crack down on the demonstrators.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates spoke by telephone with Tantawi the day after Mubarak's resignation. It was the sixth conversation between the two men since the protests began, said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary.
The Supreme Military Council has said that it will remain in control of Egypt for six months, or until new elections can be held. It has not specified when the elections might occur, leaving the door open to indefinite military rule.
Analysts and diplomats in Cairo, however, said it appears that Tantawi is eager to make changes quickly rather than have the armed forces assume long-term responsibility for running Egypt - and addressing its many social and economic problems.
"My own sense of the field marshal is that he's not really comfortable being the governor of Egypt," said a Western diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing the military chiefs. Meanwhile, rumors continued to swirl about the fate of Mubarak, who departed Cairo on Friday on a plane with his wife and has not been seen since.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Monday that the European Union will discuss a request from Egypt's military rulers to freeze assets held by members of Mubarak's regime, the Associated Press reported. Hague did not specify whether Mubarak's assets would be targeted, the AP said.
Sameh Shoukry, Egypt's ambassador to the United States, said Monday that he had heard through personal, unofficial channels that Mubarak was "possibly in somewhat of bad health." Shoukry, who was interviewed on NBC's "Today" show, said he did not have specifics.
Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq has said that Mubarak is in Sharm el-Sheikh, a Red Sea resort where he maintains a villa. A senior U.S. administration official said the White House also thinks that Mubarak is staying in Sharm el-Sheikh.
His vice president, Omar Suleiman, also has disappeared from view since going on state television Friday to announce Mubarak's resignation.
Some Egyptian military officials have told diplomats that Suleiman has formally retired, while others said his position was abolished when Mubarak handed over power to the armed forces.
On Sunday, Shafiq said it was possible that the military council would ask Suleiman, Egypt's longtime spy chief, to assume another position.
Hosam Sowilan, a retired major general who knows Suleiman, said his future remained up in the air."Right now, he's no longer in authority," Sowilan said. "But he's very honest, and he could play a very active role if the Supreme Military Council asks him to do that."
Sources : washingtonpost
What does the Defense Department want from Congress?
Well the Pentagon has sent its wish list up to Capitol Hill and there the battles will continue. There are many fights going on and some of the most pitched are around programs to modernize our forces, DefenseTech take a quick look at the funding requests for those.
"Let’s start of the with F-35 program. It’s getting a total of $9.4 billion under the request with more cash put into R&D funding for the jet while reducing the total buy of F-35s in 2012 to 32 jets and locking the troubled F-35B Short Take Off and Vertical Landing version into a two year probationary program.
Next, let’s talk long range nuclear strike. The Pentagon is asking for $2 billion to fund the Air Force’s new long range bomber and sustaining its Minuteman III ICBMs along with modernizing the Navy’s Trident III submarine launched ballistic missiles.
Another $1 billion is being requested to fund research into the SSBN(X) ballistic missile submarine replacement program.
The request also extends Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet buys through 2014 with $2.4 billion to buy 28 Super Hornets in FY-12. (These are being bought to offset delays in the F-35 program.) Another $1.1 billion is being requested to buy 12 EA-18G Growler electronic attack jets in FY-12."
There is more info on other programs at the link. The upcoming budget process ought to be even more interesting than usual with new Tea Party members looking to get our spending in line with our revenues. Crazy talk I know, but President Obama's proposed budget goes another 10 years without balancing the budget. Who does he think is going to keep lending to us if we never stop spending.
The problem we have is that our national security needs and the dangerous world we live in don't take time off because we have spent all the money we could find. Entitlements are the real budget killers and any real cuts will have to come out of those. The effects to our readiness and ability to deter others from causining trouble can start as soon as we are seen as weakening. We need to hold firm on the mainstays of our ability to project strength, and if we need to cut some federal spending I would prefer a few bureaucrats and regulators get the can, rather than the folks building the weapons that will protect us all.
We are betting our future security on the F-35 as our main plane. The program has had some trouble and as noted the vertical takeoff version is on double secret probation, but they other two variants are doing well.
"Military and civilian test pilots in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program said they are making good progress in testing the stealth aircraft's ability to fly at various speeds and altitudes, take off and land vertically, and operate its avionics.
Testers said the new single-engine warplane has been reliably tested up to Mach 1.2 in maneuvers up to 1 G. They are testing its ability to handle maneuvers of up to 5 Gs -- five times the force of gravity -- and angles of attack up to 20 degrees."
There is just something completely awesome about afterburner.
"Let’s start of the with F-35 program. It’s getting a total of $9.4 billion under the request with more cash put into R&D funding for the jet while reducing the total buy of F-35s in 2012 to 32 jets and locking the troubled F-35B Short Take Off and Vertical Landing version into a two year probationary program.
Next, let’s talk long range nuclear strike. The Pentagon is asking for $2 billion to fund the Air Force’s new long range bomber and sustaining its Minuteman III ICBMs along with modernizing the Navy’s Trident III submarine launched ballistic missiles.
Another $1 billion is being requested to fund research into the SSBN(X) ballistic missile submarine replacement program.
The request also extends Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet buys through 2014 with $2.4 billion to buy 28 Super Hornets in FY-12. (These are being bought to offset delays in the F-35 program.) Another $1.1 billion is being requested to buy 12 EA-18G Growler electronic attack jets in FY-12."
There is more info on other programs at the link. The upcoming budget process ought to be even more interesting than usual with new Tea Party members looking to get our spending in line with our revenues. Crazy talk I know, but President Obama's proposed budget goes another 10 years without balancing the budget. Who does he think is going to keep lending to us if we never stop spending.
The problem we have is that our national security needs and the dangerous world we live in don't take time off because we have spent all the money we could find. Entitlements are the real budget killers and any real cuts will have to come out of those. The effects to our readiness and ability to deter others from causining trouble can start as soon as we are seen as weakening. We need to hold firm on the mainstays of our ability to project strength, and if we need to cut some federal spending I would prefer a few bureaucrats and regulators get the can, rather than the folks building the weapons that will protect us all.
We are betting our future security on the F-35 as our main plane. The program has had some trouble and as noted the vertical takeoff version is on double secret probation, but they other two variants are doing well.
"Military and civilian test pilots in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program said they are making good progress in testing the stealth aircraft's ability to fly at various speeds and altitudes, take off and land vertically, and operate its avionics.
Testers said the new single-engine warplane has been reliably tested up to Mach 1.2 in maneuvers up to 1 G. They are testing its ability to handle maneuvers of up to 5 Gs -- five times the force of gravity -- and angles of attack up to 20 degrees."
There is just something completely awesome about afterburner.
Missile Agency Seeks Funds for Defensive Systems
WASHINGTON, Feb. 15, 2011 – A ground-based system for homeland defense and interceptors for regional defense highlight the Missile Defense Agency’s portion of the Defense Department’s fiscal 2012 budget request.
The agency requested more than $8.6 billion for fiscal 2012, compared to last year’s requested $8.4 billion, Navy Rear Adm. Randall M. Hendrickson, the agency’s deputy director, told Pentagon reporters yesterday via video teleconference from Colorado Springs, Colo.
“The 2012 budget is predicated on and assumes the eventual approval of [fiscal] 2011's requested levels of $8.41 billion," he said.
If approved, the $8.6 billion budget would be used to pay for completing the initial fielding of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System for homeland defense, in addition to enhancing regional defenses with at least two interceptor systems against short-, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, Hendrickson said.
Homeland security projects include completing the purchase of six ground-based interceptors and the purchase of five more, as well as finishing 14 missile-launching silos at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and starting work on a new East Coast communications terminal, the admiral said.
Regional defense plans include purchasing 68 Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense interceptors, six launchers and a tactical station group. The plan calls for purchasing 46 standard sea-based interceptors, among other projects.
The third phase, Robust Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile Defense, is expected to be completed in 2018. System improvements would include expanded shooter coordination and improved radar, Hendrickson said.
The fourth phase, Early Intercept and Regional Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Defense, is scheduled to be completed in 2020.
The projects to complete the third and fourth phases include completing the preliminary design for the Precision Tracking Space System satellite, and finishing the final designs and engineering models for its spacecraft bus, optical payload and communication payload components.
Sources : militaryavenue
The agency requested more than $8.6 billion for fiscal 2012, compared to last year’s requested $8.4 billion, Navy Rear Adm. Randall M. Hendrickson, the agency’s deputy director, told Pentagon reporters yesterday via video teleconference from Colorado Springs, Colo.
“The 2012 budget is predicated on and assumes the eventual approval of [fiscal] 2011's requested levels of $8.41 billion," he said.
If approved, the $8.6 billion budget would be used to pay for completing the initial fielding of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System for homeland defense, in addition to enhancing regional defenses with at least two interceptor systems against short-, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, Hendrickson said.
Homeland security projects include completing the purchase of six ground-based interceptors and the purchase of five more, as well as finishing 14 missile-launching silos at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and starting work on a new East Coast communications terminal, the admiral said.
Regional defense plans include purchasing 68 Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense interceptors, six launchers and a tactical station group. The plan calls for purchasing 46 standard sea-based interceptors, among other projects.
The third phase, Robust Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile Defense, is expected to be completed in 2018. System improvements would include expanded shooter coordination and improved radar, Hendrickson said.
The fourth phase, Early Intercept and Regional Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Defense, is scheduled to be completed in 2020.
The projects to complete the third and fourth phases include completing the preliminary design for the Precision Tracking Space System satellite, and finishing the final designs and engineering models for its spacecraft bus, optical payload and communication payload components.
Sources : militaryavenue
Senin, 14 Februari 2011
Iranian security forces in place ahead of opposition rallies
Tehran, Iran (CNN) -- The Iranian government kept a heavy security presence across central portions of the capital Monday, and blocked the homes of opposition leaders after they called for rallies in support of the uprising in Egypt.
Last week, the Iranian government rounded up activists after opposition leaders Mehdi Karrubi and Mir Hossein Moussavi called for supporters to gather at Tehran's Azadi Square -- the site of mass protests by Iran's opposition movement after the disputed 2009 presidential elections.
Security forces on Monday blocked roads leading to Moussavi's home, his opposition website Kaleme reported. The website also said phone lines and cell phone service to the area have been cut off.
Plain-clothes security forces blocked Moussavi's wife, Zahra Rahnavard, from leaving their home Monday, said Kaleme and another opposition website, Saham News.
"This is what we've been told do," security forces said when Rahnavard asked why she couldn't leave, Sahan reported. "We're sorry."
Surveillance cameras, installed outside Karrubi's home have been stolen and destroyed, Kalame reported.
About 50 riot police on motorcycles were seen heading toward Azadi Square, while 100 more were stationed at Ferdowsi Square in the city center.
Iranian authorities had warned against holding the rally, according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency.
"We definitely see them as enemies of the revolution and spies, and we will confront them with force," Revolutionary Guard Cmdr. Hossein Hamedani told IRNA.
The government's stance on the rally was in stark contrast to its position in the days following the fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
The head of Iran's National Security Council and other Iranian authorities had lauded this development, comparing "the Egyptian Revolution with the victory of Iran's Islamic Revolution," according to Iran's state-run media.
The White House says such threats to stifle dissent and mass communication suggest that Iran's government is not willing to let its people voice their views and embrace freedom.
"They are scared," then-press secretary Robert Gibbs said Friday, hours after Mubarak stepped down.
"That's why they threatened to kill anybody that tries to do this," Gibbs of the Iranian government. "That's why they have shut off all measure of communication."
Over the weekend, Iranian authorities blocked the word "Bahman" -- the 11th month of the Persian calendar -- from Internet searches within the country, according to an opposition website.
The measure appears to be an effort by Iranian authorities to obstruct access to several websites that are promoting the rally -- the 25th day of Bahman, Saham News reported Saturday.
Sources : cnn
Last week, the Iranian government rounded up activists after opposition leaders Mehdi Karrubi and Mir Hossein Moussavi called for supporters to gather at Tehran's Azadi Square -- the site of mass protests by Iran's opposition movement after the disputed 2009 presidential elections.
Security forces on Monday blocked roads leading to Moussavi's home, his opposition website Kaleme reported. The website also said phone lines and cell phone service to the area have been cut off.
Plain-clothes security forces blocked Moussavi's wife, Zahra Rahnavard, from leaving their home Monday, said Kaleme and another opposition website, Saham News.
"This is what we've been told do," security forces said when Rahnavard asked why she couldn't leave, Sahan reported. "We're sorry."
Surveillance cameras, installed outside Karrubi's home have been stolen and destroyed, Kalame reported.
About 50 riot police on motorcycles were seen heading toward Azadi Square, while 100 more were stationed at Ferdowsi Square in the city center.
Iranian authorities had warned against holding the rally, according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency.
"We definitely see them as enemies of the revolution and spies, and we will confront them with force," Revolutionary Guard Cmdr. Hossein Hamedani told IRNA.
The government's stance on the rally was in stark contrast to its position in the days following the fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
The head of Iran's National Security Council and other Iranian authorities had lauded this development, comparing "the Egyptian Revolution with the victory of Iran's Islamic Revolution," according to Iran's state-run media.
The White House says such threats to stifle dissent and mass communication suggest that Iran's government is not willing to let its people voice their views and embrace freedom.
"They are scared," then-press secretary Robert Gibbs said Friday, hours after Mubarak stepped down.
"That's why they threatened to kill anybody that tries to do this," Gibbs of the Iranian government. "That's why they have shut off all measure of communication."
Over the weekend, Iranian authorities blocked the word "Bahman" -- the 11th month of the Persian calendar -- from Internet searches within the country, according to an opposition website.
The measure appears to be an effort by Iranian authorities to obstruct access to several websites that are promoting the rally -- the 25th day of Bahman, Saham News reported Saturday.
Sources : cnn
Soviet Military Power 1987 - Strategic Defense and Space Programs
As early as 1965, the Soviets were writing about an anti-space defense mission, which they described as a component of their strategic defense program. To the Soviets, the main purpose of an anti-space defense would be to destroy space systems in orbits that were being used by the enemy for military purposes. The principal means of destruction would be special aircraft and vehicles controlled either from the ground or by crews onboard a space vehicle.
During the past decade allocated resources equivalent $400 billion to both strategic defensive programs in almost equal amounts - about $20 billion per year for each program. During the same time, the cost of Soviet military space programs approached $80 billion.
Soviet writings on the nature of future war suggest that strategic defenses will be expanding to include defense against cruise missiles and precision-guided conventional munitions that could be targeted against Soviet strategic forces in any protracted conventional war. As a result of this view of global conventional war fought under the constant threat of escalation to the use of nuclear weapons, the Soviets are likely to continue to enlarge their strategic defense and space operations beyond the extensive structure and investment existing today.
In addition to its ABM system, the USSR has a multifaceted operational strategic air defense network that dwarfs that of the US, as well as a wide-ranging research and development program in both traditional and advanced defenses. This active program employs various weapon systems to protect territory, military forces, and other key assets throughout the USSR. Moreover, the Soviets' passive program includes civil defense and structural hardening to protect important political, economic, and military leaders and facilities.
Recent activities in the Soviet strategic defense program are as follows:
- upgrading and modernizing the operational ABM defense, which is around Moscow;
-continued construction of a large phased array radar (LPAR) at Krasnoyarsk for ballistic missile early warning and tracking, in violation of the ABM Treaty;
-construction of three additional LPARs, bringing the number to nine;
-further modernization of strategic air defense forces;
-construction of a new over-the-horizon radar in the Soviet Far East for detecting long-range aircraft operating over the Pacific Ocean;
- continued extensive research into and development of advanced technologies for ballistic missile, ASAT, and air defense, including laser, particle beam, and kinetic energy weapons; and
- improving passive defenses by constructing and maintaining deep underground bunkers and blast shelters for key personnel and enhancing the survivability of some offensive systems through mobility and hardening.
Since the beginning of the nuclear age, the Soviets have placed great importance on limiting the amount of damage the USSR would suffer to key targets in a global war. They have organized and structured their strategic defense forces accordingly. For example, the National Air Defense Forces, which include missile and space defense, became an independent service in the late 1950s and have generally ranked third in prominence within the military, following the Strategic Rocket Forces and the Ground Forces. During the 1960s, the Soviets established the strategic defense missions for ASAT operations and ABM defense.
Soviet strategic defense forces play a role equal to that of offensive forces. In the event of war, nuclear or conventional, Soviet offensive forces are to:
- destroy or neutralize as much of the enemy's air and nuclear assets as possible on the ground or at sea before they are launched; and
- destroy or disrupt enemy air and nuclear associated command, control, and communications.
Soviet defensive efforts, designed to enhance the credibility of offensive forces, are to:
- intercept and destroy surviving retaliatory weapons aircraft and missiles before they reach their targets; and
- protect the Party, state, military forces, industrial infrastructure, and essential working population with active and passive defense measures.
As in a conventional conflict, if a war escalates to the use of strategic nuclear weapons, Soviet military doctrine calls for their forces to seize the initiative. Passive and active defensive systems would try to negate much of the US and allied capability for retaliation. The Soviet military holds defense from nuclear attack as a key, integrated component of their military strategy. From this Soviet perspective, any measures the West would take to defend itself are seen as potentially denying the achievement of key objectives within Soviet war-fighting strategy. For these reasons, the Soviets strenuously oppose the US Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). At the same time, with consistency and vigor, the Soviets maintain their balanced offensive-defensive strategy in order to fulfill their strategic objectives.
Ballistic Missile Defense
Since 1978, the Soviets have been expanding and modernizing the ABM defenses at Moscow. The single-layer system includes 16 (originally 64) reloadable above-ground GALOSH launchers and the DOG HOUSE and CAT HOUSE battle management radars south of Moscow. The four firing complexes consist of TRY ADD tracking and guidance radars and four exoatmospheric interceptors (nuclear-armed, ground-based missiles designed to intercept reentry vehicles in space shortly before they reenter the Earth's atmosphere).
The new Moscow ABM system will be a two layer defense composed of silo-based, long-range, modified GALOSH interceptors; silo-based, probably nuclear-armed GAZELLE high-acceleration endoatmospheric interceptors (designed to engage reentry vehicles within the atmosphere); and associated engagement, guidance, and battle management radar systems, including the new PILL BOX large, four sided, phased-array radar at Pushkino north of Moscow. This modernization will bring Moscow's ABM defenses up to 100 operational ABM launchers, the limit permitted by the 1972 ABM Treaty. The new system could become fully operational in the late 1980s.
The current Soviet ICBM launch-detection satellite network can provide as much as 30 minutes' tactical warning and can determine the general origin of the missile. Additionally, two over-the-horizon radars that are directed at US ICBM fields could give about 30 minutes warning.
The next layer of ballistic missile detection consists of 11 large HEN HOUSE ballistic missile early warning radars at 6 locations on the periphery of the USSR. These radars can confirm the warning from the satellite and over the-horizon radar systems, characterize the size of an attack, and provide target-tracking data in support of antiballistic missile forces. The Soviets have improved the capabilities of the HEN HOUSE radars since the signing of the ABM Treaty.
Although the Soviet Union continues to maintain and upgrade its older network of ballistic missile detection and tracking systems, including launch-detection satellites andover-the-horizon radars, it is deploying a new series of LPARs.
The addition of three radars in the western USSR will form almost a complete circle of LPAR coverage around the USSR. These radars provide significantly improved target-tracking and -handling capabilities and add a redundancy in coverage over the existing HEN HOUSE network. In conjunction with the HEN HOUSE radars, the LPAR near Krasnoyarsk in Siberia, when fully operational, will close the final gap in the Soviet ballistic missile early warning radar coverage. The entire network could become fully operational in the mid-199Os.
The US and USSR, in signing the ABM Treaty, recognized the need for ballistic missile early warning radars while seeking to prevent their use for a nationwide antiballistic missile system. The ABM Treaty restricts the placement of ballistic missile early warning radars to the periphery of national territory and oriented outward. In that way, the desirable and legitimate goal of early warning could be advanced while minimizing the danger that the radar's target-tracking and impact-prediction capabilities could be used for effective nationwide ABM battle management.
The Krasnoyarsk radar, essentially identical to the other large phased-array radars that the Soviets have acknowledged to be for ballistic missile detection and tracking, violates the 1972 ABM Treaty. The radar is not located on the periphery of the USSR and pointed outward, as required for early warning radars. It is some 750 kilometers from the nearest border Mongolia and it is oriented not toward that border, but across approximately 4,000 kilometers of Soviet territory to the northeast.
The Soviet Union claims that the Krasnoyarsk radar is designed for space tracking rather than for ballistic missile early warning, and therefore does not violate the ABM Treaty. Its design and orientation make clear that this radar is intended for ballistic missile detection and target tracking in the LPAR network.
The growing network of large phased-array radars, of which the Krasnoyarsk radar is apart, is of particular concern when linked with other Soviet ABM efforts. These radars take years to construct and their existence could allow the Soviet Union to move quickly to deploy a nationwide ABM defense. The degree of redundancy being built into their LPAR network is not necessary for early warning. It is highly desirable, however, for ballistic missile defense.
During the 1970s, the Soviets developed components that could be integrated into an ABM system that would allow them to construct individual ABM sites in months rather than the years required for more traditional ABM systems. The development and testing of the components represent a potential violation of the ABM Treaty's prohibition against the development of a mobile land-based ABM system or components. By using such components along with the LPARs, the Soviets could strengthen the defenses of Moscow and defend targets in the western USSR and east of the Urals.
The Soviet Union has conducted tests that have involved air defense radars in ABM related activities. The large number, and consistency over time, of incidents of concurrent operation of ABM and SAM components plus Soviet failure to accommodate fully US concerns, indicate the USSR probably has violated the Treaty's prohibition on testing SAM components in an ABM mode. Additionally, the SA-10 and SA-X-12B/GIANT systems may have the potential to intercept some types of strategic ballistic missiles. Both systems are expected to have widespread deployment. The technical capabilities of these systems highlight the problem that improving technology is blurring the distinction between air defense and ABM systems. This problem will be further complicated as newer, more complex air defense missile systems are developed.
Taken together, all of their ABM and ABM related activities indicate a significant commitment to enhancing the strategic defenses of the USSR and suggest that the Soviets may be preparing an ABM defense of their nation.
Advanced ABM Technologies
In the late 1960s, the USSR initiated a substantial research program into advanced technologies applicable to ballistic missile defense systems. This effort covers many of the same technologies currently being explored for the US SDI but involves a much greater investment of plant space, capital, and manpower. The USSR will undoubtedly increase its efforts to acquire Western technologies associated with space and the SDI program.
Laser Weapons
The USSR's laser program is considerably larger than US efforts and involves over 10,000 scientists and engineers as well as more than a half-dozen major research and development facilities and test ranges. Much of this research takes place at the Sary-Shagan Missile Test Center, where ABM testing also is conducted. At Sary-Shagan alone, the Soviets are estimated to have several lasers for air defense and two lasers probably capable of damaging some components of satellites in orbit, one of which could be used in feasibility testing for ballistic missile defense applications. The Soviet laser weapons program would cost roughly $1 billion a year in the US.
Scientists in the USSR have been exploring three types of lasers that may prove useful for weapons applications the gas-dynamic, the electric discharge, and the chemical. They have achieved impressive output power levels with these lasers. The Soviets are possibly exploring the potential of visible and very-short-wave-length lasers. They are investigating the excimer, free-electron, and x-ray lasers, and they have been developing argonion lasers.
The Soviets appear generally capable of supplying the prime power, energy storage, and auxiliary components for their laser and other directed-energy weapons programs. They have probably been developing optical systems necessary for laser weapons to track and attack their targets. They produced a 1.2-meter segmented mirror for an astrophysical telescope in 1978 and claimed that this reflector was a prototype for a 25-meter mirror. A large mirror is considered necessary for a long-range space-based laser weapon system.
The USSR has progressed in some cases beyond technology research. It has ground-based lasers that have some capability to attack US satellites and could have a prototype space based antisatellite laser weapon by the end of the decade. Additionally, the Soviets could have prototypes for ground-based lasers for defense against ballistic missiles by the late 1980s and could begin testing components for a large scale deployment system in the early 1990s.
The remaining difficulties in fielding an operational laser system will require more development time. An operational ground-based laser for defense against ballistic missiles probably could not be deployed until the late l990s or after the year 2000. If technological developments prove successful, the Soviets might be able to deploy a space-based laser system for defense against ballistic missiles after the year 2000. The Soviets' efforts to develop high energy air defense laser weapons are likely to lead to ground-based deployments in the early l990s and to naval deployments in the early 1990s and to naval deployments in the mid-1990s.
Particle Beam Weapons
Since the late 1960s, the Soviets have been exploring the feasibility of using particle beams for a space-based weapon system. They maybe able to test a prototype space-based particle beam weapon intended to disrupt the electronics of satellites in the l990s. An operational system designed to destroy satellites could follow later, and application of a particle beam weapon capable of destroying missile boosters or warheads would require several additional years of research and development.
Soviet efforts in particle beams, particularly ion sources and radio-frequency accelerators for particle beams, are impressive. In fact, much of the US understanding of how particle beams could be made into practical weapons is based on Published Soviet research conducted in the late 1960s and 1970s.
Radio-Frequency Weapons
The USSR has conducted research in the use of strong radio-frequency (high-power microwave) signals that have the potential to interfere with or destroy critical electronic components of ballistic missile warheads or satellites. The Soviets could test a ground-based radio-frequency weapon capable of damaging satellites in the 1990s.
The Soviets also have research programs underway on kinetic energy weapons, which use the high-speed collision of a small object with the target as the kill mechanism. In the 1960s, the USSR developed an experimental "gun" that could shoot streams of particles of a heavy metal, such as tungsten or molybdenum, at speeds of nearly 25 kilometers per second in air and more than 60 kilometers per second in a vacuum.
Long-range, space-based kinetic energy weapons for defense against ballistic missiles probably could not be developed until at least the mid-199Os. However, the Soviets could deploy in the near term a short-range, space based system for space station defense or for close-in attack by a maneuvering satellite. Current Soviet guidance and control systems are probably adequate for effective kinetic energy weapons use against some objects in space,
Computer and Sensor Technology
Advanced technology weapons programs including potential advanced defenses against ballistic missiles and ASATs are dependent on remote sensor and computer technologies, areas in which the West currently leads the Soviet Union. The Soviets are devoting considerable resources to acquiring Western know-how and to improving their abilities and expertise in these technologies. An important part of that effort involves the increasing exploitation of open and clandestine access to Western technology. For example, the Soviets operate a well-funded program through third parties for the illegal purchase of US high-technology computers, test and calibration equipment, and sensors.
Passive Defenses
A key element of Soviet military doctrine calls for passive and active defense to act together to ensure wartime operations and survival. The Soviets have undertaken a major program to harden military assets to make them more resistant to attack. Included in this program are their ICBM silos, launch facilities, and some command-and-control centers.
The Soviets provide their Party and government leaders with hardened alternate command posts located well away from urban centers in addition to many deep underground bunkers and blast shelters in Soviet cities. This comprehensive and redundant network, patterned after a network designed for the Soviet Armed Forces, provides more than 1,500 hardened alternate facilities for more than 175,000 key Party and government personnel throughout the USSR. In contrast, the US passive defense effort is far smaller and more limited. It is in no way comparable to the comprehensive Soviet program.
Elaborate plans also have been made for the full mobilization of the national economy in support of a war effort. Reserves of vital materiel are maintained, many in hardened underground structures. Redundant industrial facilities are in active production. Industrial and other economic facilities are equipped with blast shelters for the work force, and detailed procedures have been developed for the relocation of selected production facilities. By planning for the survival of the essential workforce, the Soviets hope to reconstitute vital production programs using those industrial components that could be redirected or salvaged after an attack.
Additionally, the USSR has greatly emphasized mobility as a means of enhancing the survivability of military assets. The SS-20 and SS-25 missiles, for example, are mobile. The deployment of the rail-mobile SS-X-24 is expected soon. The Soviets are also developing an extensive network of mobile command, control,and communications facilities.
Antisatellite Operations
The Soviets continue to field the world's only operational ASAT system. It is launched into an orbit similar to that of the target satellite and, when it gets close enough, destroys the satellite by exploding a conventional warhead. The Soviet co-orbital antisatellite interceptor is reasonably capable of performing its missions, and thus it is a distinct threat to US low-altitude satellites.
Other Soviet systems have ASAT capabilities. The nuclear-armed GALOSH ABM interceptor deployed around Moscow has an inherent ASAT capability against low altitude satellites. The Sary-Shagan lasers maybe capable of damaging sensitive components onboard satellites. Although weather and atmospheric beam dispersion may limit the use of ground-based laser ASATs, such systems would quite likely have the major advantage of being able to refire and therefore to disable several targets.
During the next 10 years, the Soviets are likely to retain their current ASAT-capable systems while moving aggressively ahead in developing and deploying new ASAT systems. Their large-scale ballistic missile defense research and development efforts in laser, particle beam, radio-frequency, and kinetic energy technologies may also soon provide them with significant ASAT capabilities.
The development of a space-based laser ASAT that can disable several satellites is probably a high-priority Soviet objective. The Soviets may deploy space-based lasers for antisatellite purposes in the 1990s, if their technological developments prove successful. Space-based laser ASATs could be launched on demand, or maintained in orbit, or both. By storing a laser ASAT in orbit, the Soviets could reduce the time required to attack a target. This option would decrease the warning time available to the target needed to attempt countermeasures. The Soviets are also developing an airborne laser whose missions could include ASAT, and limited deployment could begin in the early 1990s.
Space Operations
The Soviets operate about 50 types of space systems for military and civilian uses. These systems include manned and man-associated spacecraft; space stations; reconnaissance vehicles; launch-detection satellites; and navigational, meteorological, and communications systems.
The USSR conducts approximately 100 space launches annually. Some launches have put as many as eight satellites in orbit from one launch vehicle. The number of active, usable satellites the Soviets maintain in orbit has increased from about 120 in 1982 to about 150 in 1986. At least 90 percent of the launches and satellites are military related and support both offensive and defensive operations. The USSR tries to mask the true nature of most of its space missions by declaring them as scientific. Because the 1967 Outer Space Treaty requires nations to register space launches with an agency of the United Nations, the Soviets acknowledge most of their space launch activity. Few details, however, are provided. The results and data of these missions are rarely published or disclosed except for some aspects of the manned program. Throughout, the Soviets steadfastly maintain they have no military space program.
The military emphasis is expected to continue in the years ahead. Of the approximately 200 operational Soviet satellites projected to be in orbit by the mid-199Os, about 150 will most likely have purely military missions, such as ocean reconnaissance, electronic intelligence, imagery reconnaissance, and special communications. Another 40 could support joint military-civilian functions, such as providing communications, navigation, and weather data. The manned program will fulfill both military and civilian missions. The approximately 10 remaining satellites could include interplanetary probes and other scientific missions.
The lifetimes and survivability of Soviet satellites are expected to increase in the next 10 years because of the incorporation of more sophisticated technology and the placement of satellites at higher altitudes. These moves would increase the satellites' fields of view and would make them less vulnerable to an ASAT attack.
Military Support From Space
Under cover of their COSMOS designator, the Soviets continue to develop and deploy space systems designed to support military operations on Earth. They now operate several types of space-based reconnaissance systems. Two of these, the radar ocean reconnaissance satellite and the electronic-intelligence ocean reconnaissance satellite, are used to locate naval forces that could be targeted for destruction by antiship weapons launched from Soviet platforms. The US has no comparable capability. Moreover, the Soviets actively practice their detection and targeting techniques, routinely launching these satellites to monitor both Soviet and NATO naval exercises.
The Soviets continue to expand an already mature satellite reconnaissance program. Several enhancements, such as incorporation of a data-relay satellite system, could improve the timeliness of their satellite reconnaissance data. Demonstrations of flexibility and versatility in launching and deploying their surveillance systems have continued, and the Soviets are capable of redirecting them for worldwide missions as situations dictate. Meanwhile, the satellite imagery reconnaissance capability has been refined, and space-based electronic intelligence assets are being upgraded.
Deployment continues of the Soviet space based global navigation satellite system known as GLONASS. This system will probably be capable of providing highly accurate positioning data to Soviet military and civilian users by the end of this decade. GLONASS is the Soviet version of the US NAVSTAR global positioning system (GPS). In fact, the Soviets acquired data on digital signal processing from GPS documents for inclusion in GLONASS. The GLONASS is being placed in a GPS-like orbit. Based on the 9 to 12 satellites announced for the system, GLONASS would have a worldwide, two-dimensional capability. If the Soviets want GLONASS to provide worldwide, three dimensional navigation updates, they would need to orbit 18 to 24 satellites.
The Soviets are increasing the number and variety of their communications satellites. They have filed their intent with the International Frequency Registration Board to place almost 100 individual communication payloads in more than 25 positions in the geostationary orbit belt. Some of the satellites are expected to be used to relay data between two ground sites, including ships, or between a satellite and ground sites. The Soviets demonstrated this capability by using a data-relay satellite to transmit television reports from the MIR(Peace) space station to the ground. By using such satellites, the Soviets would be able to communicate between ships, other satellites, and ground stations that are not within line of sight of each other. This technique increases the timeliness of these communications.
The Soviets will continue deploying their current launch-detection satellite network. They are probably working on a system for space-based detection of US submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), as well as European and Chinese missile launches. Although the USSR's land-based ballistic missile defense radar network permits detection of SLBM launches, a space-based geosynchronous launch-detection satellite system could significantly increase warning time. The Soviets probably have the technical capability to deploy an operational satellite system by the end of the decade.
New Space Launch Systems
The success of the Soviet space program is due largely to its versatile and reliable inventory of space launch vehicles (SLVs) and to its space launch and support facilities. About every third day, the Soviets launch a satellite, using one of eight types of operational SLVs. The USSR's impressive ability to launch various boosters and to orbit payloads quickly would give the Soviets a distinct operational military advantage in any crisis. Most malfunctioning satellites could be rapidly replaced, and additional satellites could be launched to cover new or expanding crisis areas. Nonetheless, the use of vehicles and satellites in surge launches could have a negative short-term effect by reducing rapidly their total number of available launchers and satellites. The Soviets are already expanding their extensive family of SLVs with new expendable launch vehicles and reusable manned spacecraft. The expected deployment of the medium-lift Titan IIIC-Class SL-X-16, the heavy-lift Saturn V-Class SL-W, a shuttle orbiter, and a space plane will increase the number and payload weight of satellites the Soviets will be capable of orbiting.
The SL-W heavy-lift vehicle will be used to launch the Soviet space shuttle orbiter. Launch pad compatibility testing of an orbiter attached to the SL-W vehicle may already have taken place, and a launch could come in 1987 or 1988. Soviet orbiter development has been heavily dependent on US orbiter propulsion, computer, materials, and airframe design technology. By using US technology and designs, the Soviets were able to produce an orbiter years earlier, and at far less cost, than if they had depended solely on their own technology. Money and scientific expertise could thus be diverted to other areas.
The location of the main engines at the base of the SL-W rather than on the orbiter gives the SL-W added versatility as a heavy-lift vehicle because it can launch heavy payloads other than the orbiter. The SL-W will be able to place payloads of over 100,000 kilograms into low Earth orbit, a figure comparable to the discontinued Saturn V. Potential payloads include modules for a large space station, components for a manned or unmanned interplanetary mission, and perhaps directed-energy ASAT antiballistic missile defense weapons.
The SL-X-16 booster is capable of placing a payload of more than 15,000 kilograms into low Earth orbit. This capability fills a gap in the current SLV inventory for an economical means of launching medium-weight payloads. A payload candidate for the SL-X-16 is the space plane, a different program than the space shuttle. A subscale version of this vehicle has been flight-tested in orbit and a full-scale version could be in production. This small, manned spacecraft could be used for quick-reaction, real-time reconnaissance missions, satellite repairs and maintenance, crew transport, space station defense, satellite inspection and, if necessary, negation. The SL X-16 has been flight-tested, placing at least three payloads into orbit, and will soon be fully operational. The Soviets are not expected to launch the space plane until they have had sufficient experience with the SL-X-16. Testing of a full-scale space plane could begin in the late 1980s.
When these two systems become operational, the Soviets will have 10 types of expendable launch vehicles, 4 of which will be man associated, and 3 different manned space vehicles - SOYUZ-TM (an improved SOYUZ-T crew ferry vehicle), the shuttle, and the space plane. The combination of these systems will give the Soviets even greater versatility and redundancy to conduct and to augment military operations in space.
Manned Operations
Despite a minor setback in late 1985, the Soviets made considerable progress toward achieving a permanent, militarily significant, manned presence in near-Earth orbit during 1986. Although forced to curtail a manned mission on their SALYUT-7/COSMOS-1686 space station complex in November 1985 when one of their cosmonauts became ill, the Soviets still launched the core vehicle of a modular space station in February 1986. MIR, as designated by the Soviets, is an impressive advancement over SALYUT-7, having enhanced solar energy and electrical power systems, greater computer capabilities, and individual "cabins" for crew members. Most significant, while SALYUT-7 had only two docking ports, MIR has six - one rear axial docking port, one forward axial port, and four forward lateral ports.
The MIR core vehicle is essentially a habitation and flight control center. Most of the cosmonauts' military and scientific work will take place in specially outfitted space station modules. These modules will provide the Soviets with greater flexibility in performing missions such as reconnaissance, targeting, and military-related R&D, as well as research in fields such as astrophysics, biology, and materials processing.
With the launch of MIR, the space station module, and SOYUZ-TM, the Soviets are well on their way to fulfilling their goal of establishing a permanent manned presence in space. The modular space station will probably house 3 to 12 cosmonauts. In the early-to-mid 1990s, the Soviets should be able to construct a very large modular space station. They have discussed ultimately housing up to 100 cosmonauts in this large space complex.
In March 1986, SOYUZ T-15 carried the first crew to MIR - mission commander Colonel Leonid Kizim and civilian flight engineer Vladimir Solovyov. These cosmonauts were in orbit for only 125 days, a short mission by Soviet standards, and they returned to Earth in July. Nonetheless, it was the most widely publicized Soviet manned space flight in 1986. Key events were often announced in advance and some events were televised live. These unprecedented developments were, in part, an effort to publicize Soviet accomplishments.
The mission was significant in an operational sense, however, because Kizim and Solovyov conducted the first manning and checkout of MIR, the initial use of a data-relay satellite to communicate with them, and the first station-to-station crew transfers. In early may, Kizim and Solovyov departed MIR aboard SOYUZ T-15 and docked with the SALYUT-7/COSMOS-1686 complex. After conducting numerous experiments and two sessions of extravehicular activity, the cosmonauts returned to MIR in late June and to Earth in mid-July.
In other significant developments, the USSR announced that international crew visits to the MIR complex will start in the fall of 1987, beginning with a Syrian cosmonaut. A Frenchman and a Bulgarian are scheduled to visit MIR on separate flights during 1988, and the Soviets are evidently discussing similar missions with other countries. At least one such mission a year can be expected during MIR's lifetime.
The Soviet manned space program occupies a unique position in the USSR's space efforts. It is heavily publicized to demonstrate the peaceful nature and technological superiority of the USSR's space efforts. Visits to the Soviet space station by foreign cosmonauts and the long missions by Soviet cosmonauts have been reported with great fanfare in the nation's news media. Nonetheless, the Soviets have made a strong commitment to using the manned space program to accelerate their drive to achieve space superiority.
Soviet literature reports that the military applications of remote sensing, oceanography, meteorology, and geodesy have been the focus of repeated cosmonaut investigations. Even subjects such as astronomical observations also performed by cosmonauts, have military uses. Such investigations, for example, can provide data useful for maintaining the orientation of certain equipment to an accuracy of a few arc-seconds, a capability needed to aim directed-energy weapons.
The ability to rendezvous and manually dock with uncooperative spacecraft, which Soviet cosmonauts demonstrated in 1985 and 1986 also has military applications. Cosmonauts use a laser rangefinder, a night vision device, and an optical sight while performing this operation. The Soviets state that this procedure will allow the rescue of cosmonauts stranded in orbit, but it could also be useful for repairing friendly satellites and for inspecting and disabling enemy satellites.
Conducting materials-processing experiments is an important cosmonaut function that has both civilian and military applications. Soviet efforts in this field, however, have concentrated on the production of substances with militarily significant applications regarding the development of semiconductor devices, infrared and optical detectors, and electro-optical systems.
Another crucial cosmonaut activity is Earth observation, which has implications for reconnaissance and targeting applications. The Soviets report that their cosmonauts have used visual observations, cameras, radars, spectrometers, and multispectral electro-optical sensors in their observations from SALYUT space stations. These experiments suggest the Soviets are evaluating their ability to locate, identify, and track targets from outer space as the first step toward designing a space weapons platform for use against targets in space and on Earth. Such a platform may eventually be used for ASAT and ballistic missile defense and operations as well as for space station defense.
The most ambitious space goal the Soviets have set is a cosmonaut mission to Mars. To undertake such a mission, the Soviets would need to lift very heavy components into low Earth orbit and to assemble them there. The SL-W will give them that capability. They would have to sustain cosmonauts in orbit for at least a year. A manned mission to Mars is a major reason for the long stays Soviet cosmonauts have undertaken on SALYUT stations. The cost of such a mission would be tremendous, but the Soviets would most likely expend the funds. Although very challenging, the Soviets could launch a manned mission to Mars in the first decade of the 21st century and probably could conduct a non-stop fly-by mission to Mars before the end of this century.
Space Program Costs
The high priority the Soviets are giving to their space program is reflected in the rapid overall growth of the program - a program that is absorbing a large share of the nation's most advanced and productive technology. Since 1980, the estimated dollar costs of the Soviet space effort have more than doubled, owing largely to programs for the manned space stations, new launch vehicles, supporting facilities, and the shuttle orbiter. The projected rate of growth in the space program, driven by the ambitious space-based manned program and future communications satellites, is expected to outpace overall trends in both military spending and GNP well into the future.
Air Defense
The USSR continues to modernize and expand what is already the most extensive strategic air defense network in the world. The mission is to be carried out by a strong pre-positioned national air defense force established in peacetime according to a unified concept and plan. The leadership appears to be in constant search for the optimum organizational structure of the air defense assets.
Major organizational changes instituted in 1980 transferred control of air defense aircraft, SAMs, and radars from national air defense authorities to local military district commanders. This change was probably implemented to provide battlefield commanders with greater flexibility. Even after reorganizing, the Soviets appeared to be dissatisfied with their air defense structure.
More recent shifts are apparently resubordinating surface-to-air missiles and aircraft back to the national air defense forces. The rationale may involve a desire for greater centralized control over weapons rather than the flexibility of the local commander in making certain decisions.
The Soviets have deployed a large number of strategic air defense systems with capabilities against aircraft flying at medium and high altitudes. They are now in the midst of a major effort to improve their capabilities against aircraft and cruise missiles that operate at low altitudes.
This effort includes upgrading their early warning and surveillance systems; deployment of more efficient data-transmission systems; as well as development and initial deployment of new aircraft, associated air-to-air missiles, SAMs, and airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft.
Currently, the Soviets have more than 9,000 strategic SAM launchers, nearly 5,000 tactical SAM launchers (excluding handheld), and some 10,000 air defense radars. Approximately 2,250 air defense forces interceptor aircraft are dedicated to strategic defense. An additional 2,100 interceptors assigned to Soviet air Forces could be drawn upon for strategic defense missions. Collectively, these assets present a formidable defense barrier.
Aircraft
The most capable Soviet air defense interceptor aircraft, the FOXHOUND, has a look-down/shoot-down and multiple-target engagement capability. Over 150 FOXHOUNDs are now operationally deployed at several locations from the Arkhangelsk area in the northwestern USSR to the Soviet Far East. Thus far, the FOXHOUND has been dedicated to homeland air defense. Two new fighters, the FLANKER and the FULCRUM, also have look-down/shoot-down capabilities and are designed to be highly maneuverable in air-to-air combat. The Soviets have deployed approximatively 300 FULCRUMs to operational regiments in theater forces and are expected to introduce this aircraft into the homeland defense interceptor role in the future. They also have begun deploying the longer range FLANKER, both to strategic aviation and into air defense interceptor units in the USSR.
These three aircraft are equipped with three new air-to-air missiles. The FOXHOUND carries the long-range AA-9, and the FULCRUM and the FLANKER carry the medium-range AA-10 and the short-range AA-11. All can be used against low-flying targets.
The USSR also is deploying the MAINSTAY AWACS aircraft, which will substantially improve Soviet capabilities for airborne early warning and air battle management, especially against low-flying aircraft. The MIDAS, a tanker variant of the CANDID, is being introduced into the Soviet aircraft inventory and will be used in support of the strategic bombers and various air defense elements, including the new MAINSTAY.
Radars
The Soviets maintain the world's most extensive early warning system for air defense. It comprises a network of ground-based radars linked operationally with those of their Pact allies. As previously noted, more than 10,000 air surveillance radars provide virtually complete coverage at medium-to-high altitudes over the USSR and, in some areas, well beyond its borders. Three operational over-the-horizon radars for ballistic missile detection could provide additional long-range warning of the approach of high-flying aircraft. A new over-the-horizon radar under construction in the Far East will provide long-range detection of aircraft from the Pacific Ocean.
The USSR also has an active research and development program designed to improve its air surveillance network. In 1983, the Soviets began to deploy two types of air surveillance radars that will enhance Soviet capabilities for air defense, electronic warfare, and early warning of cruise missile and bomber attacks. The Soviet's are also continuing to deploy improved air surveillance data systems that can rapidly pass data from outlying radars through the air surveillance network to ground-controlled intercept sites and SAM command posts.
Surface-to-Air Missiles
Soviet strategic surface-to-air missiles provide low-to-high altitude barrier, area, and terminal defenses under all weather conditions. Five systems are now operational: the SA-1, SA-2, and SA-3, and the more capable SA-5 and SA-10. Over the years, the Soviets have continued to deploy the long-range SA-5 and have repeatedly modified this system. Further deployments and upgrades are probable in order to enhance the SA-5's capability to work with the newer SA-10. The even more capable all-altitude SA-X-12B/GIANT will soon become operational, thus further enhancing soviet strategic defenses.
The SA-10 offers significant advantages over older strategic surface-to-air missile systems, including multitarget handling and engagement characteristics, a capability against low altitude targets with small radar cross-sections such as cruise missiles, a capability against tactical ballistic missiles, and possibly a potential to intercept some types of strategic ballistic missiles.
The first SA-10 site became operational in 1980. Over 80 sites are now operational and work is progressing on at least another 20 sites. Nearly half of these sites are located near Moscow. This emphasis on Moscow as well as the deployment patterns noted for the other SA-10 sites suggest a first priority on terminal defense of command-and-control, military, and key industrial complexes.
In keeping with their drive toward mobility as a means of weapons survival, the Soviets have deployed a number of mobile SA-10 systems. This version, designated SA-10b, could be used to support Soviet theater forces and to permit periodic changes in the location of SA-10 sites within the USSR to counter the various kinds of US retaliatory forces more effectively.
The Soviets also have begun deploying another important mobile SAM system, the tactical SA-12A/GLADIATOR, and are flight-testing an even more capable, longer range, higher altitude complement, the SA-X-12B/GIANT. The SA-12 missile system is capable of intercepting aircraft at all altitudes as well as cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles.
As previously noted, the SA-X-12B may have the potential to intercept some types of strategic ballistic missiles. This SA-X-12B capability is a serious development because this system is expected to be deployed widely throughout the USSR. It could, if properly supported, add a measure of point-target defense coverage for a nationwide ABM deployment.
Sources : dia
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)