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
Tampilkan postingan dengan label united states. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label united states. Tampilkan semua postingan
Kamis, 17 Februari 2011
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.”
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
Sabtu, 12 Februari 2011
Engineer Marines begin civil development projects in Durzay
In January, Marines with 2nd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division (Forward), conducted a one-day clearing operation in order to drive out Taliban forces occupying Durzay and surrounding areas.
Immediately following the successful completion of the operation, engineers and heavy equipment operators with Combat Logistics Battalion 3, 1st Marine Logistics Group (Forward), constructed two bridges and improved several stretches of road leading into Durzay. Working continuously, approximately 25 Marines with CLB-3’s Engineer Company completed these engineering projects in less than three days.
These combat engineers have conducted several civil development projects throughout Afghanistan’s Helmand province since arriving in Afghanistan last October, but this was the first time they have operated in Durzay. Likewise, many Durzay residents had never seen any coalition forces prior to 2/1’s arrival and CLB-3’s supporting operations.
According to 1st Lt. Elizabeth Stroud, 25, platoon commander, Engineer Company, CLB-3, 1st MLG (FWD), in the nearly 10 years that coalition forces have spent operating in Afghanistan, January marked the first time Durzay residents had seen examples of a U.S. presence in Afghanistan.
“I’ve spoken with many of the residents in Durzay, and they are very thankful for our work here,” said Stroud, a native of Hutto, Texas. “In talking with them, I found that they realize [our] ultimate goal is to provide them with freedom, and that the Taliban has been driven out. We’re also thankful that [the clearing operation] has provided us this opportunity to be some of the first individuals to interact with [Durzay’s] residents.”
Due to the Marines’ interaction and the Afghan citizens’ appreciation for CLB-3’s support, the engineering operation was an overwhelmingly positive experience for both parties.
One local Durzay resident says he feels much safer now that Marines have arrived in his community to help dispel Taliban forces occupying his village. The Durzay resident is a 28-year-old farmer who had never seen any coalition forces prior to January.
“I am very happy with the Marines because they have provided a huge change in this village,” said the Durzay resident, through an interpreter. “The constant patrols and these [projects] will help Durzay. Marines first came here a couple of weeks ago, and already I can see and feel a difference.”
Sources : waronterrornews
Wounded Warrior Inspired by New Sport
When Anderson took up Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, he found things were a little different from his previous wrestling experience.
"When I first started doing Jiu Jitsu without a leg, the first thing that I noticed was I was a really good wrestler and body control is something that I was very good at," he says.
Tyler Anderson lost his leg while on patrol in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan.
Anderson lost his leg patrolling in Kandahar Province, on his second tour in Afghanistan.
“We sent a team around for security and I went to clear the road, once I thought the road was clear, I looked back to call my team forward, that took pressure off of the mine that I had been stepping on, it exploded. Initially it took off my leg below the knee, a finger, and a lot of shrapnel on the inside of my leg.”
While he was in the hospital after his injury, the decorated veteran found his calling.
“Once you get injured you come to the hospital, it’s kind of tough to be just sitting in a wheelchair and get taken out of that lifestyle," says Anderson. "For me Jiu Jitsu is really a release, it’s a form of helping me focus. I’ll admit that being active and missing a leg is a totally new world that you don’t know about. It’s a little scary to think that you might not be able to do the active things that you use to do.”
“Luis himself came to the hospital asked me if I wanted to do Jiu Jitsu and I jumped right on it, I was very excited," says Anderson. "It’s guys like him that give us the opportunity to take the time and want to get in there and show us that you know you have a disability but you can still do the things that everybody else does.”
Pantoja teaches Jiu Jitsu for the Wounded Warriors’ project at the Walter Reed Medical Facility in Washington. It's a rehabilitation center where injured American soldiers come for treatment.
“I’ve been working with Tyler for over six months, and you know he s a very dedicated student, he picks things up very fast and it’s actually satisfying to see people improve overall," says Pantoja. "I’ve seen what Jiu Jitsu has done with my life. Pretty much all my friendships come from Jiu Jitsu, so I see what it can do to people and how motivating it is."
Teaching amputees poses its own challenges and is also a learning process for the instructor.
“I have to think a little bit harder about how can I adapt my techniques for these guys. Their balance might be a little compromised due to, for example, an amputation,” says Pantoja. “To be honest with you it’s not just me teaching them, I learn a lot from them, and we kind of throw back and forth ideas. So it has actually made me grow as an instructor, as a Jiu Jitsu practitioner in general. I’ve learned a lot just working with these guys.”
Pantoja’s friendship and teaching helped speed up Anderson’s recovery. The soldier has learned how to use his new body, and continues changing with the world around him.
The Purple Heart recipient says the message is simple. “Really the biggest thing is just to get out there and do it. Don’t give up. That’s about it. That’s all you can do is just keep on.”
Sources : waronterrornews
Kamis, 10 Februari 2011
Police: Death of Kadena airman being treated as homicide
CAMP FOSTER, Okinawa — Japanese police are treating the death of a Kadena airman over the weekend as a homicide, a police spokesman said Monday evening.
Tech. Sgt. Curtis Evan Eccleston, 30, was found dead around noon Sunday in an off-base apartment he shared with his wife in the Mihama district near Camp Lester, according to Japanese police. An autopsy by Japanese authorities determined the airman bled to death from a cut on his neck, a police spokesman said.
The death is under joint investigation by Japanese authorities and the U.S. military. The Air Force issued a statement of condolence for Eccleston on Monday but said it had no new information to release.
Eccleston, who was assigned to the 733rd Air Mobility Squadron, likely died sometime around dawn on Sunday, according to estimates by investigators. Police said there were no signs of a struggle in the apartment, and the apartment door was unlocked when a fellow servicemember came to visit at noon Sunday and discovered the dead man.
The apartment is located in the Mihama area of Chatan, which is a short walk from the front gate of Camp Lester and is popular among U.S. servicemembers because of its shopping areas and public beaches.
Police would not comment on Japanese media reports that there might have been a disturbance at Eccleston’s apartment the night before he was found dead.
For most of Sunday afternoon, the apartment building where the incident occurred, which sits above a tattoo parlor and other businesses, was taped off and surrounded by Japanese and U.S. military authorities, including the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.
Japanese authorities draped a large blue tarp over balconies at the building to obscure views of the scene.
Sources : stripes
Tech. Sgt. Curtis Evan Eccleston, 30, was found dead around noon Sunday in an off-base apartment he shared with his wife in the Mihama district near Camp Lester, according to Japanese police. An autopsy by Japanese authorities determined the airman bled to death from a cut on his neck, a police spokesman said.
The death is under joint investigation by Japanese authorities and the U.S. military. The Air Force issued a statement of condolence for Eccleston on Monday but said it had no new information to release.
Eccleston, who was assigned to the 733rd Air Mobility Squadron, likely died sometime around dawn on Sunday, according to estimates by investigators. Police said there were no signs of a struggle in the apartment, and the apartment door was unlocked when a fellow servicemember came to visit at noon Sunday and discovered the dead man.
The apartment is located in the Mihama area of Chatan, which is a short walk from the front gate of Camp Lester and is popular among U.S. servicemembers because of its shopping areas and public beaches.
Police would not comment on Japanese media reports that there might have been a disturbance at Eccleston’s apartment the night before he was found dead.
For most of Sunday afternoon, the apartment building where the incident occurred, which sits above a tattoo parlor and other businesses, was taped off and surrounded by Japanese and U.S. military authorities, including the Air Force Office of Special Investigations.
Japanese authorities draped a large blue tarp over balconies at the building to obscure views of the scene.
Sources : stripes
Marine Corps watching Army carbine search
As the Army prepares for a two-year, $30 million competition to identify a possible new carbine, the Marine Corps is watching closely and evaluating what its own future weapons should look like.
Marine officials still plan the service’s infantry weapons around the 5.56mm M16A4 service rifle, but “that doesn’t mean we can’t be getting smart” about other options, said Lt. Col. Mark Brinkman, head of the infantry weapons program at Quantico, Va.-based Marine Corps Systems Command.
“The thought process for us is very similar to what’s going on in the Army,” he said Feb. 1 at the Soldier Technology U.S. conference in Arlington, Va.
The Army released a draft request for proposals for its carbine competition Jan. 31. The desired weapon must “support future system enhancements for accuracy, lethality, reliability, signature suppression, ammunition improvements, maintenance and other weapon/accessory technologies,” the RFP said. No caliber restrictions were set in the document.
The Army intends to issue up to three indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts in a three-phase competition, said Army Col. Douglas Tamilio, project manager for soldier weapons. The Army will assess whether submissions can be mass-produced in the U.S. in the first phase. The second phase calls for the firing of at least 700,000 rounds, with the Army whittling competitors down to three rifles or fewer for a final third phase.
Soldiers will fire 850,000 rounds in phase three, compiling reams of data for the Army. The weapons will be tested to their destruction point to determine whether they maintain accuracy through their entire life cycle — something the military has not tested before.
To win a mass-production contract, the winning company also must exceed the ability of the M4A1 currently fielded in Afghanistan. Army officials have launched an aggressive campaign to enhance the M4A1, with a heavier, more durable barrel; strengthened sight rails; a piston-charged operating system and the ability to fire in full-automatic mode.
“We’re going to say, ‘Here’s weapon X that won the competition,’” Tamilio said, speaking at the same conference. “Is it worth buying it instead of using the M4A1?”
The competition leaves Marine officials playing the waiting game. With its massive size and budget, the Army can afford to test options the Corps cannot. If they like what they see, Marine officials could adopt the solution the Army identifies, at least to replace the Corps’ existing arsenal of M4s.
Nearly all infantry soldiers use M4s, but in the Corps, they are fielded primarily to vehicle operators and other Marines whose jobs render the M16A4 too cumbersome. The trade-off is accuracy and stopping power, of which the M16A4’s longer 20-inch barrel offers more. The M4 has a 14.5-inch barrel, making it difficult for service members to take down targets beyond 200 yards.
Brinkman said the Corps eventually has tough choices to face about its rifles, like whether fielding a new weapon, or a family of new weapons, makes more sense.
Advancements in the weapons industry also may allow the Corps to explore debates it had put aside, like whether it should replace its arsenal of rifles with more powerful 7.62mm rifles. Fielding weapons chambered for larger ammunition has been debated for years, but the Corps hasn’t swapped because the weapon’s larger recoil affects accuracy, Brinkman said. Industry may eventually develop a convincing way to mitigate the recoil and get the Corps’ attention, he said.
Marine officials still plan the service’s infantry weapons around the 5.56mm M16A4 service rifle, but “that doesn’t mean we can’t be getting smart” about other options, said Lt. Col. Mark Brinkman, head of the infantry weapons program at Quantico, Va.-based Marine Corps Systems Command.
“The thought process for us is very similar to what’s going on in the Army,” he said Feb. 1 at the Soldier Technology U.S. conference in Arlington, Va.
The Army released a draft request for proposals for its carbine competition Jan. 31. The desired weapon must “support future system enhancements for accuracy, lethality, reliability, signature suppression, ammunition improvements, maintenance and other weapon/accessory technologies,” the RFP said. No caliber restrictions were set in the document.
The Army intends to issue up to three indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contracts in a three-phase competition, said Army Col. Douglas Tamilio, project manager for soldier weapons. The Army will assess whether submissions can be mass-produced in the U.S. in the first phase. The second phase calls for the firing of at least 700,000 rounds, with the Army whittling competitors down to three rifles or fewer for a final third phase.
Soldiers will fire 850,000 rounds in phase three, compiling reams of data for the Army. The weapons will be tested to their destruction point to determine whether they maintain accuracy through their entire life cycle — something the military has not tested before.
To win a mass-production contract, the winning company also must exceed the ability of the M4A1 currently fielded in Afghanistan. Army officials have launched an aggressive campaign to enhance the M4A1, with a heavier, more durable barrel; strengthened sight rails; a piston-charged operating system and the ability to fire in full-automatic mode.
“We’re going to say, ‘Here’s weapon X that won the competition,’” Tamilio said, speaking at the same conference. “Is it worth buying it instead of using the M4A1?”
The competition leaves Marine officials playing the waiting game. With its massive size and budget, the Army can afford to test options the Corps cannot. If they like what they see, Marine officials could adopt the solution the Army identifies, at least to replace the Corps’ existing arsenal of M4s.
Nearly all infantry soldiers use M4s, but in the Corps, they are fielded primarily to vehicle operators and other Marines whose jobs render the M16A4 too cumbersome. The trade-off is accuracy and stopping power, of which the M16A4’s longer 20-inch barrel offers more. The M4 has a 14.5-inch barrel, making it difficult for service members to take down targets beyond 200 yards.
Brinkman said the Corps eventually has tough choices to face about its rifles, like whether fielding a new weapon, or a family of new weapons, makes more sense.
Advancements in the weapons industry also may allow the Corps to explore debates it had put aside, like whether it should replace its arsenal of rifles with more powerful 7.62mm rifles. Fielding weapons chambered for larger ammunition has been debated for years, but the Corps hasn’t swapped because the weapon’s larger recoil affects accuracy, Brinkman said. Industry may eventually develop a convincing way to mitigate the recoil and get the Corps’ attention, he said.
Military priorities are distorting aid budgets
International aid is being diverted from the most needy to fulfil short-term military objectives, charity warns
Western military interests driven by the “war on terror” are endangering aid workers, distorting budgets, and depriving the most needy of help, according to Oxfam.
In a report reflecting increasing concern among humanitarian agencies, the charity warns that Britain is under pressure to repeat mistakes committed by other international donors, notably the US.
The association of civil “quick impact” projects with foreign military forces have made aid workers in Afghanistan more vulnerable to attacks from Taliban-led insurgents, human rights and development agencies say.
Aid workers’ neutrality is compromised if local people see aid as a tool of the military, Oxfam warns. It says 225 aid workers were killed, kidnapped or injured in attacks worldwide during 2010, compared with 85 in 2002.
More than 40% of the total $ 17.8bn (£11bn) increase in development aid from major industrialised countries since 2001 has gone to two countries – Afghanistan and Iraq – with the rest shared between about 150 others, says the report, titled Whose Aid is it Anyway?
Billions of pounds of international aid that could have transformed the lives of people in the poorest countries in the world has been spent on unsustainable, expensive and sometimes dangerous aid projects, as donor governments including the US, Canada, and France have used aid to support short-term foreign policy and security objectives, it says.
Humanitarian aid per head given annually to the Democratic Republic of Congo has been a 12th of that spent in Iraq, though per capita income in the DRC is more than 10 times lower than in Iraq.
Aid money used for short-term projects by US military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan – amounting to more than $ 1.5bn in 2010 – is now almost equivalent to America’s worldwide poverty-focused development assistance budget, Oxfam says.
In Yemen, it notes, US attempts to combat al-Qaida’s influence has resulted in its $ 121m aid package ignoring the country’s poorest districts in favour of sparsely populated and less poor areas associated with Islamist groups.
Though the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan increased the amount of aid the UK devoted to the two countries, overall Britain has followed better practice than other major donors, the report says. However, the coalition government has brought aid for priority countries under the scrutiny of the new National Security Council and the department for international development, (DfID) is now required to show that UK aid overall is making the “maximum possible contribution to national security”, today’s report notes.
Kirsty Hughes, Oxfam head of policy, said: “British aid to fragile states is at a crossroads. Ministers have a choice between making every penny of British aid count for poor people or prioritising short-term security goals that risk leading to over-expensive, ineffective and often dangerous aid, while making little impact on security and stability.”
The recently retired surgeon-general of the British armed forces, Lt Gen Louis Lillywhite, has also warned of the dangers of what he calls the blurring between “neutral humanitarian aid” directed solely at the relief of suffering and ‘”development aid” intended to give legitimacy to a government.
“The increasing use of military resources in providing development … has further contributed to the perception that humanitarian activity is partisan,” he says in an article in the latest issue of The World Today, the magazine of the Chatham House thinktank.
Matt Waldman, former head of Oxfam’s office in Kabul and now an Afghanistan analyst, said: “Foreign aid can contribute to stability over the long term, but its effectiveness can easily be undermined by military involvement or political manipulation. The evidence from Afghanistan suggests that assistance intended to promote development, but distorted for a military purpose, rarely achieves either.”
Western military interests driven by the “war on terror” are endangering aid workers, distorting budgets, and depriving the most needy of help, according to Oxfam.
In a report reflecting increasing concern among humanitarian agencies, the charity warns that Britain is under pressure to repeat mistakes committed by other international donors, notably the US.
The association of civil “quick impact” projects with foreign military forces have made aid workers in Afghanistan more vulnerable to attacks from Taliban-led insurgents, human rights and development agencies say.
Aid workers’ neutrality is compromised if local people see aid as a tool of the military, Oxfam warns. It says 225 aid workers were killed, kidnapped or injured in attacks worldwide during 2010, compared with 85 in 2002.
More than 40% of the total $ 17.8bn (£11bn) increase in development aid from major industrialised countries since 2001 has gone to two countries – Afghanistan and Iraq – with the rest shared between about 150 others, says the report, titled Whose Aid is it Anyway?
Billions of pounds of international aid that could have transformed the lives of people in the poorest countries in the world has been spent on unsustainable, expensive and sometimes dangerous aid projects, as donor governments including the US, Canada, and France have used aid to support short-term foreign policy and security objectives, it says.
Humanitarian aid per head given annually to the Democratic Republic of Congo has been a 12th of that spent in Iraq, though per capita income in the DRC is more than 10 times lower than in Iraq.
Aid money used for short-term projects by US military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan – amounting to more than $ 1.5bn in 2010 – is now almost equivalent to America’s worldwide poverty-focused development assistance budget, Oxfam says.
In Yemen, it notes, US attempts to combat al-Qaida’s influence has resulted in its $ 121m aid package ignoring the country’s poorest districts in favour of sparsely populated and less poor areas associated with Islamist groups.
Though the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan increased the amount of aid the UK devoted to the two countries, overall Britain has followed better practice than other major donors, the report says. However, the coalition government has brought aid for priority countries under the scrutiny of the new National Security Council and the department for international development, (DfID) is now required to show that UK aid overall is making the “maximum possible contribution to national security”, today’s report notes.
Kirsty Hughes, Oxfam head of policy, said: “British aid to fragile states is at a crossroads. Ministers have a choice between making every penny of British aid count for poor people or prioritising short-term security goals that risk leading to over-expensive, ineffective and often dangerous aid, while making little impact on security and stability.”
The recently retired surgeon-general of the British armed forces, Lt Gen Louis Lillywhite, has also warned of the dangers of what he calls the blurring between “neutral humanitarian aid” directed solely at the relief of suffering and ‘”development aid” intended to give legitimacy to a government.
“The increasing use of military resources in providing development … has further contributed to the perception that humanitarian activity is partisan,” he says in an article in the latest issue of The World Today, the magazine of the Chatham House thinktank.
Matt Waldman, former head of Oxfam’s office in Kabul and now an Afghanistan analyst, said: “Foreign aid can contribute to stability over the long term, but its effectiveness can easily be undermined by military involvement or political manipulation. The evidence from Afghanistan suggests that assistance intended to promote development, but distorted for a military purpose, rarely achieves either.”
Selasa, 08 Februari 2011
Major general arrested in Taiwan is accused of spying for Beijing
Taiwan has arrested a major general for allegedly leaking top military secrets to the mainland, including a super-sensitive warfare planning communications network built with the help of the United States.
In a late-night news conference yesterday, the Taiwanese defence ministry said Major General Lo Hsieh-che, head of the army's electronic communications and information department, had been placed under custody by the military prosecutor's office.
"After investigation, the military prosecutor's office suspected he was absorbed by the mainland intelligence agency while he was stationed abroad between 2002 and 2005," said ministry spokesman Yu Sy-tue.
Lo, 51, who had been stationed as a military officer in the US, is the highest ranking officer arrested for allegedly spying for Beijing. Military officials said the security authorities searched Lo's office and house on January 27 and found classified documents related to the latest military electronic warfare and strategies.
The most sensitive document was the "Po Sheng Operation", a multibillion New Taiwanese dollar island-wide electronic warfare communications network set up with the help of the United States for more than a decade. Through the network, the top military Hengshan commanding base is able to direct the army, navy and air force in joint war operations and hook up with the US Pacific Command.
The leak has triggered grave concern from the US, according to cable news channel ETTV. Military officials said the system was built section by section by different contractors to avoid the entire system being exposed.
Meanwhile, Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou asked all government agencies to stop using the name China instead of "the mainland" or "mainland China" in order to "revert to the stipulation of the constitution".
Sources : scmp
In a late-night news conference yesterday, the Taiwanese defence ministry said Major General Lo Hsieh-che, head of the army's electronic communications and information department, had been placed under custody by the military prosecutor's office.
"After investigation, the military prosecutor's office suspected he was absorbed by the mainland intelligence agency while he was stationed abroad between 2002 and 2005," said ministry spokesman Yu Sy-tue.
Lo, 51, who had been stationed as a military officer in the US, is the highest ranking officer arrested for allegedly spying for Beijing. Military officials said the security authorities searched Lo's office and house on January 27 and found classified documents related to the latest military electronic warfare and strategies.
The most sensitive document was the "Po Sheng Operation", a multibillion New Taiwanese dollar island-wide electronic warfare communications network set up with the help of the United States for more than a decade. Through the network, the top military Hengshan commanding base is able to direct the army, navy and air force in joint war operations and hook up with the US Pacific Command.
The leak has triggered grave concern from the US, according to cable news channel ETTV. Military officials said the system was built section by section by different contractors to avoid the entire system being exposed.
Meanwhile, Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou asked all government agencies to stop using the name China instead of "the mainland" or "mainland China" in order to "revert to the stipulation of the constitution".
Sources : scmp
The Battle for Manila (February-March, 1945)
Before the Second World War, Manila was considered one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Overlooking a tranquil bay, the so-called "Pearl of the Orient" was home to a unique culture drawn from four continents. No stranger to conflict, the city had been seized by the Spanish in the 16th century, attacked by the Chinese in the 17th, occupied by the British in the 18th, and taken by the Americans at the end of the 19th. But even this tumultuous history could not have prepared the Filipinos for what happened in 1945, when Manila was utterly destroyed in a single month.
Manila was only one of the great cities of Southeast Asia overrun by the Japanese war machine between July, 1941 and April, 1942. But unlike Saigon, Hong Kong, Singapore, Djakarta and Rangoon -- which late in the war the Japanese surrendered to British forces without a fight -- Manila was the only city in which Japanese and Allied forces collided. The results were unspeakable: an estimated 100,000 of its citizens died. In the entire war, only the battles of Berlin and Stalingrad resulted in more casualties. Few were more horrified at this than Douglas MacArthur, for whom Manila had become both a physical and spiritual home. Yet many have questioned whether MacArthur's obsessive quest to liberate the Philippines -- and Manila above all -- also helped to destroy it.
MacArthur probably never gave serious thought to bypassing either Manila or the island of Luzon itself, as some of his subordinates thought he should do. Even General Krueger, one of MacArthur's commanders on Luzon, had advocated bypassing the Japanese garrison in Manila, letting it "wither on the vine" while they focused on the main body of Japanese troops far outside the city. But as MacArthur's own intelligence chief, General Charles Willoughby, observed after the war, "From the day of his confident parting message to the Filipinos, 'I shall return,' no deviation from MacArthur's single-minded plan is discernible. Every battle action in New Guinea, every air raid on Rabaul or PT-boat attack on Japanese barges in the Bismark Sea, was a mere preliminary for the reconquest of the Philippines." And if to MacArthur the Philippines was the key to the whole Pacific campaign, Luzon was the key to the Philippines, and Manila the key to Luzon. "Go to Manila," he ordered his 1st Cavalry commander. "Go around the Nips, bounce off the Nips, but go to Manila." Its attraction was so great that it may well have clouded his military judgment.
In his defense, MacArthur was also motivated by an understandable concern for the fate of thousands of Filipino and American prisoners of war being held on Luzon, as well as the Filipino population as a whole. Having first-hand experience with Japanese fanatacism and atrocities over the past several years, MacArthur quite rightly expected the worst, and his insistence on immediate rescue missions to the camps at Bilibid and Santo Tomás bear out his fear that the prisoners were about to be slaughtered.
In their analysis, a trio of British historians have likened the Battle for Manila to "a Greek tragedy, with the main actors drawn inexorably toward a bloody climax by forces largely outside their control." Indeed, neither MacArthur nor General Tomoyuki Yamashita, the Japanese commander in the Philippines, wanted to fight there. But each made decisions which made the battle inevitable: MacArthur by racing madly toward Manila without leaving the Japanese a way out, Yamashita by failing to force the commander of his Naval Defense Force to evacuate the city when he had the chance. Although greatly outnumbered, the Japanese improvised effective defenses which forced the Americans to reluctantly use major artillery to dislodge them. In fact, the American bombardment may have killed more people than the Japanese did, and certainly caused more physical damage. But whatever the factors which conspired to cause it, the destruction of Manila stands as one of the great tragedies of the Second World War.
Manila was only one of the great cities of Southeast Asia overrun by the Japanese war machine between July, 1941 and April, 1942. But unlike Saigon, Hong Kong, Singapore, Djakarta and Rangoon -- which late in the war the Japanese surrendered to British forces without a fight -- Manila was the only city in which Japanese and Allied forces collided. The results were unspeakable: an estimated 100,000 of its citizens died. In the entire war, only the battles of Berlin and Stalingrad resulted in more casualties. Few were more horrified at this than Douglas MacArthur, for whom Manila had become both a physical and spiritual home. Yet many have questioned whether MacArthur's obsessive quest to liberate the Philippines -- and Manila above all -- also helped to destroy it.
MacArthur probably never gave serious thought to bypassing either Manila or the island of Luzon itself, as some of his subordinates thought he should do. Even General Krueger, one of MacArthur's commanders on Luzon, had advocated bypassing the Japanese garrison in Manila, letting it "wither on the vine" while they focused on the main body of Japanese troops far outside the city. But as MacArthur's own intelligence chief, General Charles Willoughby, observed after the war, "From the day of his confident parting message to the Filipinos, 'I shall return,' no deviation from MacArthur's single-minded plan is discernible. Every battle action in New Guinea, every air raid on Rabaul or PT-boat attack on Japanese barges in the Bismark Sea, was a mere preliminary for the reconquest of the Philippines." And if to MacArthur the Philippines was the key to the whole Pacific campaign, Luzon was the key to the Philippines, and Manila the key to Luzon. "Go to Manila," he ordered his 1st Cavalry commander. "Go around the Nips, bounce off the Nips, but go to Manila." Its attraction was so great that it may well have clouded his military judgment.
In his defense, MacArthur was also motivated by an understandable concern for the fate of thousands of Filipino and American prisoners of war being held on Luzon, as well as the Filipino population as a whole. Having first-hand experience with Japanese fanatacism and atrocities over the past several years, MacArthur quite rightly expected the worst, and his insistence on immediate rescue missions to the camps at Bilibid and Santo Tomás bear out his fear that the prisoners were about to be slaughtered.
In their analysis, a trio of British historians have likened the Battle for Manila to "a Greek tragedy, with the main actors drawn inexorably toward a bloody climax by forces largely outside their control." Indeed, neither MacArthur nor General Tomoyuki Yamashita, the Japanese commander in the Philippines, wanted to fight there. But each made decisions which made the battle inevitable: MacArthur by racing madly toward Manila without leaving the Japanese a way out, Yamashita by failing to force the commander of his Naval Defense Force to evacuate the city when he had the chance. Although greatly outnumbered, the Japanese improvised effective defenses which forced the Americans to reluctantly use major artillery to dislodge them. In fact, the American bombardment may have killed more people than the Japanese did, and certainly caused more physical damage. But whatever the factors which conspired to cause it, the destruction of Manila stands as one of the great tragedies of the Second World War.
Global Military Domination by Ralph Zuljan
Since the US-led intervention in Iraq, a lot has been written about American intentions to make use of its massive military superiority, resulting from the end of the Cold War, to somehow dominate the world. Anyone can see that American military spending exceeds that of other countries right now, in absolute dollar terms; the United States spends as much on military related expenditures as the rest of the top ten spenders combined. This is only one comparative measure of military power of course. But by any meaningful measure, American military power today stands as second to none.
Compared to most of the other big spenders, the United States devotes a relatively large percentage of its GDP to the armed forces. About four percent of American GDP is devoted to military expenditures, or about twice the average worldwide. If all countries were to start spending on their militaries at the scale of the US, American military spending would only equal that of the next two highest ranked powers, China and Japan. It would be dwarfed by the rest of the top ten. In a world where countries actually felt threatened, that is what would be expected. However, it is worth being mindful of the fact that several of those countries are actually American allies and their military power would weigh in on America's side.
Americans have a lot of allies in the world. Most of them were on board for the ride to Afghanistan, but the ride to Iraq produced a fissure that still needs time to heal. The US administration is making an effort to repair the damage but it should be noted that the fissure was hardly great enough to break the bonds of alliance. Those bonds are about a lot more than American military power and the allies do not appear to feel threatened by American military power.
In recent years concerns over American intentions have been reinforced by talk of a long war on terrorism. That talk is really just a euphemism for the engagement in Iraq. While some like to speak of a global engagement, with American forces deployed worldwide, there is really only one engagement that is soaking up most of the land forces and quite a bit of the air power the United States has available and that is in Iraq. Add US armed forces in and around Afghanistan and that accounts for most of the US armed forces engaged in the war on terror. Most of the other deployments are nothing more than a couple of advisors and support teams for a variety of missions.
The utility of all that power is marginal. If the idea of asserting US power worldwide is reduced to controlling a sandbox and a pile of rocks, perhaps a case can be made. American international influence right now is on a relatively low ebb. What military dominance does the America have over Russia, which still has a lot of functioning ICBMs? Or China, which is rapidly building up a serious nuclear capability and clearly planning on a power projection capability? Or India, which is effectively engaged in an arms race with China? There are signicant parts of the world in which claims of the United States asserting its military dominance are meaningless.
Furthermore, discussion of restructuring the US armed forces appears aimed at fighting small wars against minor countries. This effectively renounces American willingness to directly confront countries like China, India and Russia and will likely leave United States armed forces, particularly the US Army, incapable of fighting a major war. There are no ground forces in Taiwan, American forces in Pakistan are definitely not there to support it against India and the Cold War deployments in Europe have been drawn down and no longer constitute a credible defense against Russia. If America intended to dominate the world militarily, any restructuring of its armed forces would expected to give some consideration to war fighting with those countries where American military power is presently incapable of projection.
What this all boils down to is that if there were an American agenda to assert military power worldwide, it would be destined to fail. The rest-of-the-world is a bit much to dominate in any meaningful sense. Trying to do it would be foolish. While it is easy enough to criticize US administrations for particular policies and actions it does not appear that American governments are foolish enough to believe in such a fantasy. Rather, in the post-9/11 world, Americans have come to value come to put more value in securing their country and they have prioritized their expenditures accordingly. Given some time, United States will again come to see that although the US is readily the biggest fish in the pond for the time being, it also has a network of allies that make it even stronger. America is relatively secure. That is about as much as can be expected.
Compared to most of the other big spenders, the United States devotes a relatively large percentage of its GDP to the armed forces. About four percent of American GDP is devoted to military expenditures, or about twice the average worldwide. If all countries were to start spending on their militaries at the scale of the US, American military spending would only equal that of the next two highest ranked powers, China and Japan. It would be dwarfed by the rest of the top ten. In a world where countries actually felt threatened, that is what would be expected. However, it is worth being mindful of the fact that several of those countries are actually American allies and their military power would weigh in on America's side.
Americans have a lot of allies in the world. Most of them were on board for the ride to Afghanistan, but the ride to Iraq produced a fissure that still needs time to heal. The US administration is making an effort to repair the damage but it should be noted that the fissure was hardly great enough to break the bonds of alliance. Those bonds are about a lot more than American military power and the allies do not appear to feel threatened by American military power.
In recent years concerns over American intentions have been reinforced by talk of a long war on terrorism. That talk is really just a euphemism for the engagement in Iraq. While some like to speak of a global engagement, with American forces deployed worldwide, there is really only one engagement that is soaking up most of the land forces and quite a bit of the air power the United States has available and that is in Iraq. Add US armed forces in and around Afghanistan and that accounts for most of the US armed forces engaged in the war on terror. Most of the other deployments are nothing more than a couple of advisors and support teams for a variety of missions.
The utility of all that power is marginal. If the idea of asserting US power worldwide is reduced to controlling a sandbox and a pile of rocks, perhaps a case can be made. American international influence right now is on a relatively low ebb. What military dominance does the America have over Russia, which still has a lot of functioning ICBMs? Or China, which is rapidly building up a serious nuclear capability and clearly planning on a power projection capability? Or India, which is effectively engaged in an arms race with China? There are signicant parts of the world in which claims of the United States asserting its military dominance are meaningless.
Furthermore, discussion of restructuring the US armed forces appears aimed at fighting small wars against minor countries. This effectively renounces American willingness to directly confront countries like China, India and Russia and will likely leave United States armed forces, particularly the US Army, incapable of fighting a major war. There are no ground forces in Taiwan, American forces in Pakistan are definitely not there to support it against India and the Cold War deployments in Europe have been drawn down and no longer constitute a credible defense against Russia. If America intended to dominate the world militarily, any restructuring of its armed forces would expected to give some consideration to war fighting with those countries where American military power is presently incapable of projection.
What this all boils down to is that if there were an American agenda to assert military power worldwide, it would be destined to fail. The rest-of-the-world is a bit much to dominate in any meaningful sense. Trying to do it would be foolish. While it is easy enough to criticize US administrations for particular policies and actions it does not appear that American governments are foolish enough to believe in such a fantasy. Rather, in the post-9/11 world, Americans have come to value come to put more value in securing their country and they have prioritized their expenditures accordingly. Given some time, United States will again come to see that although the US is readily the biggest fish in the pond for the time being, it also has a network of allies that make it even stronger. America is relatively secure. That is about as much as can be expected.
Malaysia to Join in Cobra Gold
Cobra Gold 2011, the 30th of its kind, will be carried out between Feb 7-18 in northern Thailand under the jurisdiction of the 3rd Army Region.
The ceremony to launch the exercise will be held in Chiang Mai and co-chaired by Gen Pirun Phaewpolsong, the deputy supreme commander, and Judith Cefkin, deputy chief of mission at the United States embassy in Thailand.
A total of 9,536 soldiers of six countries will take part in the wargames -- 2,996 troops from Thailand, 5,900 from the US, 38 from Singapore, 54 from Japan, 304 from South Korea, and 13 from Malaysia.
Ten other countries will also take part in the multinational planning augmentation team (MPAT) training. They are Australia, France, Italy, Britain, China, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Nepal, India and the Philippines.
The exercise will be observed by military teams from China, India, Sri Lanka, Laos, Brunei, Russia, Mongolia, South Africa, United Arab Emirates and New Zealand.
According to the source, this year's Cobra Gold exercise has been moved forward from April-May to February to avoid summer heat , during which some US troops always suffer heatstroke. Moreover, the US wants Thai soldiers to be free to enjoy the Songkran celebrations in April.
In the last part of Cobra Gold 2011 there will be a landing exercise under live fire at Sattahip in Chon Buri province by Thai and US marines. The exercise is codenamed PHIBTRAEX.
There will also be a training exercise codenamed UNDERSEAL involving Thai and US sea-air-land-underwater demolition teams.
A major exercise using live ammunition will be held at Dan Lan Hoi district of Sukhothai province in the North.
Part of the exercise will also be held in the eastern provinces of Chon Buri and Rayong as well as in the Gulf of Thailand.
Sources : bangkoknews
Minggu, 06 Februari 2011
Uncertain Fate For Egypt's U.S.-Supplied Weapons Systems by Thalif Deen
Besieged Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a former air force officer whose 30-year old authoritarian regime is under attack, presides over a country described as one of the major military powers in the region, ranking next to Israel and Turkey.
Since it signed the U.S.-brokered Camp David Peace Treaty with Israel back in September 1978, Egypt has been the recipient of billions of dollars in U.S. military equipment, including state-of-the art fighter planes, warships, missiles, battle tanks and electronic equipment.
If the Mubarak regime collapses, will all this U.S. equipment fall into the 'wrong hands'?
Stephen Zunes, professor of politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco, told IPS the pro-democracy protests are primarily led by young people who are not only alienated from the ruling regime, but also from the traditional Islamist opposition and the aging Muslim Brotherhood leadership as well.
As a result, he said, the United States probably shouldn't worry about a radical Islamist regime coming to power.
'It should also be noted, however, that a truly democratic government in Egypt would not likely be as willing as Mubarak to do the bidding of Washington or the International Monetary Fund (IMF),' said Zunes, who has written extensively on Middle Eastern politics.
The weapons in the Egyptian military arsenal include F-16 fighter planes, attack helicopters, frigates, advanced Sidewinder and Hellfire missiles and Abrams battle tanks - purchased mostly with U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF).
The billions of dollars in U.S. aid to Egypt via FMF has remained gratis, says Dan Darling, Europe & Middle East Military Markets Analyst at Forecast International Inc., a U.S.-based defence market research firm.
Egypt was designated a major non-NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) ally by the United States in 1989 under the administration of President George H.W. Bush.
Among other things, Darling told IPS, this status allows Cairo access to more sophisticated U.S. weaponry and opens the door for entry into cooperative research and development projects alongside the United States.
Since then, there have been attempts by the U.S. Congress to curtail levels of military aid to Egypt for reasons of emphasising democratic reforms or stifling the flow of weapons-smuggling by Hamas via tunnels between Egypt and Gaza, he pointed out.
'These attempts have largely come to nothing,' said Darling. Instead, the tap has been maintained as Egypt has stuck to the parametres of the Camp David Accords.
From 2004 through 2010, the level of annual FMF has remained consistent at 1.3 billion dollars or just slightly below, and the Pentagon request for 2011 maintains this level.
This figure is likely to remain intact through the medium- term future - barring extreme political shocks, such as a Muslim Brotherhood/Islamist takeover in Cairo or an abrogation of the Camp David Accords by Egypt, he added.
Zunes told IPS there has never been a legitimate defence rationale for U.S. military aid to Egypt.
'This security assistance is largely designed for internal repression to prevent democratic change and to keep the Mubarak dictatorship in power,' he declared.
Prior to the Camp David peace treaty, Egypt was a longtime recipient of Soviet weaponry under a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with Moscow. The Aswan Dam, a major economic showpiece, was built with financial assistance from the then Soviet Union.
But with the Camp David accord, Egypt switched its political and military loyalties from the Soviet Union to the United States.
Still, Egypt remains in the process of steadily weaning itself off former Soviet legacy hardware; prior to 1978 the Egyptian Army was largely equipped with Soviet weaponry.
Darling said the Egyptian military still has healthy amounts of Soviet-/Russian-designed hardware, but its last orders came during the 2001-05 period when it agreed to purchase 400 million dollars in Russian arms.
Currently, the United States is the overwhelming arms supplier to Egypt, providing it with 85 percent of its weaponry between 2001 and 2008, and 86 percent from 2002 to 2009, he added.
In terms of conventional size and capabilities, said Darling, Egypt has one of the strongest militaries in the Middle East, behind Israel and Turkey and ahead of Iran in terms of advanced firepower - air and sea power, armoured/mechanised capabilities.
However, it remains a relatively static heavy military force focused on defence of the Sinai and matching the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), rather reforming itself into the type of flexible, quick reaction forces being emphasised by NATO militaries - the type which can undertake multiple tasks and combat multiple threats, be they non-state actors (Hamas), sub-state actors (Hezbollah), transnational terrorist groups, crisis relief efforts, or combating piracy on the high seas or littoral areas, declared Darling.
Sources : globalissues
Since it signed the U.S.-brokered Camp David Peace Treaty with Israel back in September 1978, Egypt has been the recipient of billions of dollars in U.S. military equipment, including state-of-the art fighter planes, warships, missiles, battle tanks and electronic equipment.
If the Mubarak regime collapses, will all this U.S. equipment fall into the 'wrong hands'?
Stephen Zunes, professor of politics and chair of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco, told IPS the pro-democracy protests are primarily led by young people who are not only alienated from the ruling regime, but also from the traditional Islamist opposition and the aging Muslim Brotherhood leadership as well.
As a result, he said, the United States probably shouldn't worry about a radical Islamist regime coming to power.
'It should also be noted, however, that a truly democratic government in Egypt would not likely be as willing as Mubarak to do the bidding of Washington or the International Monetary Fund (IMF),' said Zunes, who has written extensively on Middle Eastern politics.
The weapons in the Egyptian military arsenal include F-16 fighter planes, attack helicopters, frigates, advanced Sidewinder and Hellfire missiles and Abrams battle tanks - purchased mostly with U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF).
The billions of dollars in U.S. aid to Egypt via FMF has remained gratis, says Dan Darling, Europe & Middle East Military Markets Analyst at Forecast International Inc., a U.S.-based defence market research firm.
Egypt was designated a major non-NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) ally by the United States in 1989 under the administration of President George H.W. Bush.
Among other things, Darling told IPS, this status allows Cairo access to more sophisticated U.S. weaponry and opens the door for entry into cooperative research and development projects alongside the United States.
Since then, there have been attempts by the U.S. Congress to curtail levels of military aid to Egypt for reasons of emphasising democratic reforms or stifling the flow of weapons-smuggling by Hamas via tunnels between Egypt and Gaza, he pointed out.
'These attempts have largely come to nothing,' said Darling. Instead, the tap has been maintained as Egypt has stuck to the parametres of the Camp David Accords.
From 2004 through 2010, the level of annual FMF has remained consistent at 1.3 billion dollars or just slightly below, and the Pentagon request for 2011 maintains this level.
This figure is likely to remain intact through the medium- term future - barring extreme political shocks, such as a Muslim Brotherhood/Islamist takeover in Cairo or an abrogation of the Camp David Accords by Egypt, he added.
Zunes told IPS there has never been a legitimate defence rationale for U.S. military aid to Egypt.
'This security assistance is largely designed for internal repression to prevent democratic change and to keep the Mubarak dictatorship in power,' he declared.
Prior to the Camp David peace treaty, Egypt was a longtime recipient of Soviet weaponry under a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation with Moscow. The Aswan Dam, a major economic showpiece, was built with financial assistance from the then Soviet Union.
But with the Camp David accord, Egypt switched its political and military loyalties from the Soviet Union to the United States.
Still, Egypt remains in the process of steadily weaning itself off former Soviet legacy hardware; prior to 1978 the Egyptian Army was largely equipped with Soviet weaponry.
Darling said the Egyptian military still has healthy amounts of Soviet-/Russian-designed hardware, but its last orders came during the 2001-05 period when it agreed to purchase 400 million dollars in Russian arms.
Currently, the United States is the overwhelming arms supplier to Egypt, providing it with 85 percent of its weaponry between 2001 and 2008, and 86 percent from 2002 to 2009, he added.
In terms of conventional size and capabilities, said Darling, Egypt has one of the strongest militaries in the Middle East, behind Israel and Turkey and ahead of Iran in terms of advanced firepower - air and sea power, armoured/mechanised capabilities.
However, it remains a relatively static heavy military force focused on defence of the Sinai and matching the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), rather reforming itself into the type of flexible, quick reaction forces being emphasised by NATO militaries - the type which can undertake multiple tasks and combat multiple threats, be they non-state actors (Hamas), sub-state actors (Hezbollah), transnational terrorist groups, crisis relief efforts, or combating piracy on the high seas or littoral areas, declared Darling.
Sources : globalissues
Sabtu, 05 Februari 2011
Navy pilot gets 1st chance to fly F-35B
After hours in the simulator and performing ground tests, Lt. Cmdr. Eric “Magic” Buus took off in the fighter’s jump-jet variant, intended for the Marine Corps’ use, on Thursday from Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.
The Navy will fly the F-35C variant, intended for carrier landings.
“It’s a testament to the designers and engineers that this airplane flies so well,” Buus said in the news release. “I’m looking forward to getting a few more hours, helping the team knock out test points, and delivering this airplane to the war fighters. I think the fleet is going to love this airplane.”
Vice Adm. David Architzel, commander of Naval Air Systems Command, called the flight a milestone for naval aviation.
“Technology has come a long way, and our test pilots today are doing a great job getting the technology and capability out to the front lines,” Architzel said.
The program is in the design and development phase that aims to produce three variants of the fighter for the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force.
The Navy is putting its JSF test pilots through extensive simulator training before they get in the cockpit, which will allow them to take their first F-35 flights solo — a break with the traditional approach. This will be the model for training aviators in the fleet, according to the announcement.
Sources : navytimes
Handbook to guide GIs on social media usage
The handbook, which comes nearly a year after the Pentagon authorized the military’s use of social media, encourages commanders to communicate with soldiers about safeguarding operational security online.
“Our adversaries are trolling social networks, blogs and forums, trying to find sensitive information that they can use about our military goals and objectives,” Sergeant Major of the Army Kenneth O. Preston says in the handbook. “Therefore, it is imperative that all soldiers and family members understand the importance of practicing good operations security measures.”
One common-sense suggestion is that troops and their families avoid posting information about the precise times and locations of troop deployments. For example, the handbook recommends “My Soldier will be home this summer,” as opposed to a “dangerous” status update like, “My Soldier is coming back at XYZ time on XYZ day.”
“Just like you wouldn’t put a sign in your front yard that says, ‘going on vacation’ because that says ‘rob me,’ you wouldn’t want to put out there that your soldier’s deployed because it says you’re home alone,” said Maj. Juanita Chang, director of the Online and Social Media Division of the Army’s Office of the Chief of Public Affairs. Chang’s division created the handbook as a practical “how-to” guide.
In December, the Army warned troops to be careful using the geo-tagging features of Facebook or popular photo-sharing sites, because they may give away troop locations to enemies. Soldiers were warned to disable GPS functions on cameras and smart phones, and to disable geo-tagging when uploading photos online. If enabled, they can add a 10-digit grid coordinate to photos, video or text messages.
“Let's say Joe takes a picture of his tent and says, mom and dad, here’s where I sleep at night,” Chang said. “He thinks it’s as innocent as can be, but now the enemy has 10-digit grid coordinates of his exact location, which could be dangerous.”
Soldiers are also cautioned to watch that what they say doesn’t violate the Uniform Code of Military Justice. While social media encourages soldiers to speak freely, soldiers may not speak negatively about commanders or release sensitive information.
“On a personal page, if you’re just Joe, you can be opinionated, and you could probably say your boss is stupid; it’s just dumb,” Chang said. “But for us to say something like that is actually illegal, according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So we can be held accountable for our actions on social media, as if we published them anywhere else.”
Soldiers are also discouraged from using social media to promote themselves for financial gain, write blog posts for money or make political statements
The 37-page handbook was created to answer questions frequently asked of the Online and Social Media Division. It’s targeted at soldiers, family members or the average public affairs officer spearheading his unit’s social media efforts.
“We get phone calls and e-mails, so many, of people just saying we need your help, we want to do a page, we don’t know how to do it,” Chang said. “We just wanted a one-stop shop to help people.”
Agencies such as Family Readiness Groups are encouraged to create an online presence with a strategy for managing it. The handbook tells how to register such sites with the Defense Department and the Army’s social media directory.
The handbook also provides leaders with tips about how to best use social media, warning them to conduct relationships with their subordinates as they would offline.
“By using social media, leaders are essentially providing a permanent record of what they say, so if you wouldn’t say it in front of a formation, don’t say it online,” the handbook reads.
Chang said it’s up to commanders to decide whether to “friend” a subordinate on Facebook. She said she wasn’t familiar with any fraternization charges that stemmed from simply “friending” a subordinate.
“There’s probably going to be the same pitfall there as there is in life, but it’s just as likely to happen in a motor pool as it would on a Facebook page,” she said.
Chang recommends commanders create a “fan page” as their official Facebook presence that users can follow, or “like” rather than “friend.” The information flows from the page out, to everyone equally.
The Army has also put social media to use in emergencies, supplanting the old-fashioned phone tree as a means of direct communication.
In the wake of a recent tornado at Fort Leonard Wood, Mo., it connected donors to victims through USO on Facebook. Fort Bragg, N.C., routinely uses Facebook to put out boil-water orders in the wake of water system problems.
The social media division has studied its use in the wake of the 2009 shootings at Fort Hood, Texas. Chang recalled that CNN used Army Facebook page feeds to report news.
“When something like that happens on base and the media can’t get on base to cover it, then the only things coming out of the base are from people who are there, posting it to their Facebook or Twitter account,” Chang said. “I think in crisis communications, it’s going to be used more. Fortunately, we don’t have that many crises.”
Sources : armytimes
Langganan:
Komentar (Atom)