There’s been a lot of debate recently about the whole issue of small arms, particularly with the effectiveness of the Colt M4 carbine. The Army’s reliability study demonstrated that if well lubed, the M4 performs largely without fight-ending stoppage. But there’s continued argument over the knock-down power of the 5.56mm round, the reliability of the M4 if constant care isn’t possible and on the whole issue of whether or not there’s a better operating system out there.
The debate is just reaching a critical point, with the Army recently caving to pressure from Capitol Hill and agreeing to hold a “sandstorm test” between its M4 and a couple other carbines that fire on a different operating system many say is more reliable. With the end-strength increase in the Army and Marine Corps and the overall focus of budget attention on land forces, momentum may be building to issue a new infantry rifle as the Army and Marine Corps build new brigade combat teams and infantry battalions.
There’s no one in the DoD officially saying this yet, but a lot more people in high places are asking previously taboo questions on whether it’s time to throw the stoner design to the side.
We’ve already taken a look at three of the most popular competitors to the M4: the XM8, the H&K 416 and the FN SCAR - or Mk-17 and Mk-16. Well, a buddy passed along another interesting entrant into the “new carbine” world (that’s not to say there aren’t others out there, but this one’s the new kid on the block) which seems to meld all the best aspects of the previous three rifles into one.
Made by Longmont, Colorado-based Magpul Industries Corp., the Masada does have that “first person shooter” gamer nerd look to it. But look at the specs and it seems the Masada has some interesting aspects that would make operators give it a second look. One thing I noticed was the two interchangeable lowers – one for 5.56mm, the other for AK-47 7.62x39 ammo. So for shooters “going native” in the AO, this could be the ticket - of course, as long as you have a compatible barrel.
The rest of the specs look pretty standard, but it’d be interesting to get feedback from DT readers on some of the more deeply technical stuff. Take a look at the brochure and see what you think.
There are also a couple of cool videos of the weapon being test fired.
I dunno, has a new combat rifle entered the arena?
Two Chinese naval ships visited the Russian port city of St. Petersburg on the Gulf of Finland on August 27. This is believed to be the first time that a Chinese warship has visited the one-time Russian capital, which remains the country’s “second city” and a major port, naval center, and shipbuilding center of Russia.
The Peoples Liberation Army’s missile destroyer Guangzhou and the replenishment ship Weishanhu are on an 87-day cruise that is also taking them to ports in Britain, France, and Spain. The two ships are under the command of Vice Admiral Su Zhiqian, the deputy commander of the South Sea Fleet. (The PLA Navy is divided into three fleets -- the North, East, and South Sea Fleets.)
The two ships, expected to travel some 23,000 nautical miles on their cruise, are among China’s most modern naval units. The cruise apparently has a dual mission -- training for the officers and enlisted men, and demonstrating the increasing naval capabilities of China.
The Guangzhouwas built in China, being completed in 2004. She is a multi-purpose destroyer, with anti-air, anti-submarine, and anti-ship weapons. A helicopter is embarked in the ship, which has a full load displacement of 6,500 tons. It is significant that the Guangzhou is a Chinese-built ship and not one of the four Russian-built Sovremennyy-class missile destroyers delivered to China from 1999 to 2006.
The Weishanhu, a 22,000-ton replenishment ship completed in 2005, can transfer fuel, provisions, and munitions while underway to ships alongside or astern. She, too, has a helicopter capability.
I know it’s kind of random, and the sourcing is a bit strange coming from the American Conservative magazine, but a piece written by a UPI reporter in the magazine that posits how a potential conflict between China and the United States over Taiwan would go is worth a read.
This piece comes on a day that Chinese defense chief Cao Gangchuan told his Japanese counterparts China’s military is not a threat to security in the region and that his defense buildup and development are becoming more transparent.
But he did reiterate that the main justification for China’s accelerating defense spending and buildup is primarily due to tensions over the Taiwan issue.
Give the futuristic "The Chips are Down" piece a read and see what you think...food for thought at least.
...Beijing announced that if the newly elected government in Taiwan declared independence, China would intervene militarily. The United States responded by dispatching two carrier task forces attached to the USS Abraham Lincoln and the USS Ronald Reagan. Besides the usual high-tech armament, including ship-to-shore missiles, ship-to-air missiles, and ship-to-ship missiles, and 400-odd warplanes aboard the carriers, the combined task force also included two Battalion Landing Teams, some 4,000 Marines.
The Chinese had nowhere near as many warships, planes, or tanks, but they had 350,000 men aboard transport ships—and they had a secret weapon in orbit.
As the Chinese expeditionary force approached Taiwan, they crossed an imaginary red line drawn across a Pentagon map, breaching the point American generals estimated would be one from which the Chinese would not turn back.
From his command post aboard the USS Ronald Reagan, Adm. Anthony S. Samuelson picked up a secure telephone connecting him directly to the Pentagon and to the office of the secretary of defense. The secretary picked up on the first ring.
“Tell me it’s good news, admiral.”
“Wish I could, sir. They are now in firing range and are not about to turn around. It looks like this is it.”
The secretary of defense asked the admiral to stand by. He picked up a burgundy phone on his desk.
The president answered instantly. “Madame President,” said the secretary, “You must order the attack. If we are to proceed, it must be now.”
The president scanned the room, moving her eyes around the Oval Office where her national security advisers were gathered. Each in turn nodded his head, indicating a silent “yes.” The president of the United States put the phone to her ear and told her secretary of defense to proceed. With a heavy heart, Chelsea Clinton placed the receiver back in its cradle.
As the first Chinese soldier set foot on the beaches of Taiwan, the order was received from Adm. Samuelson’s headquarters to open fire.
Minutes before the order was given, some 300 miles up in space, a Chinese scientific satellite released a burst of electro-magnetic energy aimed at American and Taiwanese forces. Other similar satellites positioned strategically around the Earth released a number of similar bursts directed at strategic U.S. missile silos in the continental United States, Korea, and Australia.
Total confusion followed. Not one order issued electronically by U.S. command-and-control centers reached its target. Missiles fired from the ships of the Seventh Fleet went straight into space and exploded harmlessly above the earth. The Abrams M1A1 tanks started to turn around in circles like demented prehistoric dogs trying to bite their tails. The few planes that managed to take off from the carriers crashed into the South China Sea. Search-and-rescue helicopters were unable to even start their engines.
The Chinese were able to walk ashore and take Taiwan without firing a single shot.
(Gouge: NC)
-- Christian
Amazing MRAP Survival Photos
I’ve caught a lot of flak for my lack of enthusiasm with the MRAP vehicle. Some readers have maligned my intent, experience, reporting and general understanding of the issue without considering my argument carefully and reading closely to what I say.
I recognize that my stance on the MRAP debate is controversial and contrarian, but I see that as part of my job as DefenseTech editor – to seed the conversation.
One thing I have never argued is the protective capability of the MRAP. Its construction and design run circles around the Humvee if protecting the pax and crew is your sole priority. It’s an amazing vehicle that can really take a pounding.
DefenseTech ran across these pictures that attest to the MRAP’s survivability.
As you can see, the entire Marine convoy is comprised of MRAPs, and the Cougar which was hit by the IED gets truly banged up. But no one inside was killed and everyone escaped with only minor injuries. (Check out the engine blown 100 yards away)...
I don’t necessarily agree with the idea that all Humvees in Iraq should be replaced with MRAPs. But seeing these photos has me almost convinced.
Many a DT reader will remember the so-called “Active Denial System” – a giant millimeter-wave electromagnetic antenna mounted on a Humvee that could be directed at large, unruly crowds to disperse them without firing a shot in anger.
The ray heats the human skin to such an uncomfortable level that he has to retreat. It is the hallmark of the Pentagon’s non-lethal weapons development plan...and the most controversial.
Well, it looks like commanders in Iraq have been pleading for the device, which is pretty far along in its development. But fearing the post-Taser backlash from some groups, the Pentagon denied the technology in favor of more lethal methods.
It would be a familiar scene in Iraq's next few years: Crowds gather, insurgents mingle with civilians. Troops open fire, and innocents die.
All the while, according to internal military correspondence obtained by The Associated Press, U.S. commanders were telling Washington that many civilian casualties could be avoided by using a new non-lethal weapon developed over the past decade.
Military leaders repeatedly and urgently requested - and were denied - the device, which uses energy beams instead of bullets and lets soldiers break up unruly crowds without firing a shot.
It's a ray gun that neither kills nor maims, but the Pentagon has refused to deploy it out of concern that the weapon itself might be seen as a torture device.
Perched on a Humvee or a flatbed truck, the Active Denial System gives people hit by the invisible beam the sense that their skin is on fire. They move out of the way quickly and without injury.
On April 30, 2003, two days after the first Fallujah incident, Gene McCall, then the top scientist at Air Force Space Command in Colorado, typed out a two-sentence e-mail to Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
"I am convinced that the tragedy at Fallujah would not have occurred if an Active Denial System had been there," McCall told Myers, according to the e-mail obtained by AP. The system should become "an immediate priority," McCall said.
Myers referred McCall's message to his staff, according to the e-mail chain.
It seems this is the sort of catch-22 the military is in when it comes to non-lethals. The devices conjure up grim images of pain and discomfort when you look at what they do, so groups object to them often on human rights grounds and ethics.
But what’s the alternative? Getting U.S. troops and other personnel killed, or using deadly force. So it looks like we’ve got a little ways to go before we can collectively wrap our minds around the issue and get these tools out to where they’re needed.
Watch a video of the ADS at work HERE. (Best line: "I think we had a crowd of two for about two seconds...")
I was introduced to big bore anti-tank (anti-material) rifles back in the 80’s when I became an ardent follower of the board game Advanced Squad Leader (ASL was originally produced by the Avalon Hill Game Company, which was purchased by Hasbro, who discontinued production of the game. ASL is now published by MLB pitcher Curt Schilling and his Multi-Man Publishing company.) For those of you unfamiliar with the game, ASL was arguably the most accurate and detailed squad level tactical board game ever developed, with counters representing individual squads, leaders, tanks and support weapons.
Anyway, the one support weapon that caught my eye was the L-39 Lahti 20mm AT rifle. In game terms the Lahti was heavy (5 portage points) and it fired off of the AVF kill table under the “20L” column (the only squad portable weapon capable of doing so.) In real life terms the L-39 was heavy, (109 pounds, necessatating its transport by reindeer) and possessed such savage recoil (its cartridge, the 20 mm x 138 mm Solothurn Long, was the largest ever fired by a shoulder fired weapon in the war) that the Finns dubbed it the "Norsupyssy" ("Elephant Gun"), but it was also capable of reaching out 1,000m and penetrating 10mm of armor plate. Rendered obsolete by advanced Soviet tank designs by 1941, the incrediable accuracy of the L-39 enabled it to remain in service as a long range sniper rifle.
Seventy years later, the concept of the long range, big bore, anti-material rifle has come full circle. With .50 caliber (12.7mm) rifles a dime a dozen, my question now is, “who fields the new “Elephant Gun” of the 21st century?”
In terms of penetrating capability, the “Big Stick” designation would seem to go to the Austrian Styer IWS 2000. Firing a propriatary 15.2mm APFSDS (Armor Piercing Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot) mini tank round, the armor piercing ‘dart” will penetrate 40mm of test armor at 1,000m. Unfortunatly, the 40-pound IWS 2000 has yet to enter service with any military (it’s unique ammunition is a logistical turn-off to most nations.)
As for absolute caliber, the “biggest” rifle out there is the Barret XM-109 25mm payload rifle. Firing a low-velosity, scaled down version of the 30mm M789 HEDP (High Explosive Dual Purpose) ammunition used by the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, the XM-109 is capable of penetrating just under 40mm of armor, and, when used with the Barrett Optical Ranging System (BORS) has an effective range of 2,500m. Yet, like the IWS 2000, the 33-pound XM-109 is still in a developmental status (currently the felt recoil of the XM-109 is outside maximum Army tolerances.)
But, if you’re looking for something you can take home tonight, the gun for you is the Croatian RT20 20mm rifle. Developed to shoot the thermal sights off of Serbian M-84 (T-72) tanks, the RT20 fires the 20x110mm Hispano-Suiza HS 404 cartridge which can trace its roots back to the 1930s. Marketed as a 20mm hand cannon, the RT20 fires the largest 20mm cartridge of any currently available anti-materiel rifle (most other 20mm rifles are chambered for the Russian 20x99mm R ShVAK round or the German 20x82mm WWII-era MG151 projectile.) To compensate for the round’s enormous kick, the 42-pound single-shot RT20 is equipped with a unique gas-operated recoil compensating blast tube. Operating along the same principles as a recoilless weapon system, this blast tube redirects propellant gasses to the rear of the firer, to reduce felt recoil. Unfortunately, this recoil method also presents a blast hazard for individuals behind the weapon, so care must be taken when firing the RT20 in enclosed spaces.
Of course, the hard part is going to be finding reindeer to pull it...
As many of you already know, Stratfor has been an important resource for deep analysis of many geostrategic problems facing the United States. While their analysis is typically dry and dispassionate, they tend to examine all angles without favor and do a pretty good job of distilling the issue for general consumption.
They have not been Iraq war cheerleaders, nor have they been obsessively morose in their characterization of the challenges there. So I thought it might be a thought-provoking exercise to include an excerpt here of their most recent analysis of the options in Iraq, which is posted in full on Military.com’s Warfighter’s Forum page.
While I understand none of you want this page to turn into an “Iraq War” site, we will be including a few more Iraq items than usual as the Sept. 15 interim report deadline approaches.
...Following the Republican defeat in Congress in November, U.S. President George W. Bush surprised Iran by increasing U.S. forces in Iraq rather than beginning withdrawals. This created a window of a few months during which Tehran, weighing the risks and rewards, was sufficiently uncertain that it might have opted for an agreement thrusting the Shiites behind a coalition government. That moment has passed. As the NIE points out, the probability of forming any viable government in Baghdad is extremely low. Iran no longer is facing its worst-case scenario. It has no motivation to bail the United States out.
What, then, is the United States to do? In general, three options are available. The first is to maintain the current strategy. This is the administration's point of view. The second is to start a phased withdrawal, beginning sometime in the next few months and concluding when circumstances allow. This is the consensus among most centrist Democrats and a growing number of Republicans. The third is a rapid withdrawal of forces, a position held by a fairly small group mostly but not exclusively on the left. All three conventional options, however, suffer from fatal defects.
Bush's plan to stay the course would appear to make relatively little sense. Having pursued a strategic goal with relatively fixed means for more than four years, it is unclear what would be achieved in years five or six. As the old saw goes, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting a different outcome. Unless Bush seriously disagrees with the NIE, it is difficult to make a case for continuing the current course.
Looking at it differently, however, there are these arguments to be made for maintaining the current strategy: Whatever mistakes might have been made in the past, the current reality is that any withdrawal from Iraq would create a vacuum, which would rapidly be filled by Iran. Alternatively, Iraq could become a jihadist haven, focusing attention not only on Iraq but also on targets outside Iraq. After all, a jihadist safe-haven with abundant resources in the heart of the Arab world outweighs the strategic locale of Afghanistan. Therefore, continuing the U.S. presence in Iraq, at the cost of 1,000-2,000 American lives a year, prevents both outcomes, even if Washington no longer has any hope of achieving the original goal...
UPDATE: DefenseTech has learned that while Maj. Gen. Comer did work at AIC when the company was a subcontractor to Sikorsky during CSAR-X competition, he was acting only as a consultant to AIC at the time he wrote the note posted on DefenseTech last week - but not on the CSAR-X account.
Maj. Gen. Comer replies:
I wrote the letter because I think the H-47 is not the right helicopter for the need. I did work for AIC and AIC had a contract with Sikorsky. AIC got bought out and threw me over the side. They had no room for me after that, so I left and became a consultant. I have advised AIC a couple of times since, mostly on SOF and overseas business. I do not have an affiliation with Sikorsky, but I do have friends in that company--as I do in Boeing and Lockheed.
There will be plenty of Chinooks available for the high altitude missions which may come up. There will also be some V-22s, an aircaft I am on record for supporting in greater numbers. The AF rescue mission will need to deploy quickly, fit in lots of LZs and will benefit from not flying the largest, hottest, loudest, and most expensive helicopter. That's all I said. It's true.
We again want to thank alert readers, and Maj. Gen. Comer, for clearing the record...
-- Christian
Full Disclosure on CSAR-X
Our thanks goes out to an alert DT reader who brought to our attention a mitigating fact in the ongoing (fueled mostly by the protesting parties) debate over the CSAR-X program.
On August 21, DefenseTech posted a letter forwarded to us written by a former top general in the Air Force search and rescue community who had some pretty harsh words for the source selection officials and the ultimate decision to award Boeing with the CSAR-X contract.
He signed the letter with his name and former rank only. But what he left out is more revealing than what he put in his letter.
It turns out Maj. Gen. Richard Comer (ret.) is the executive vice president of Aerospace Integration Corporation based in Mary Esther, Fl. AICannounced with great glee in February of last year its selection as a partner with Sikorsky to do systems integration work for the company’s HH-92 CSAR-X bid. Both Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin are protesting Boeing’s win.
In Comer’s letter, he outlines his credentials in the opening paragraph, but declines to mention he’s employed by a Sikorsky subcontractor. He impugns the motives of the source selection officials in the Air Force, saying they were probably the victims of “group think” – though he caveated his remarks by saying the officers were conscientious and honest in their decision.
Our reader knows Comer and was stung by his crass assertion without ever revealing that he has a financial interest in Boeing’s demise, “selling his soul for 30 pieces of Sikorsky silver.”
And he raises a very valid point. The source selectors in the DoD are precluded by law from discussing any of their motivations beyond the stated specifications and how the selected aircraft met them. But that hasn’t stopped the protesters from pumping out info to folks like us here at DefenseTech undercutting Boeing’s win and fueling the fire of protest. The government folks can say nothing while the fur is flying.
Sober people can debate the strengths and weaknesses of the Boeing win. We’re agnostic on the issue other than to say that it seems the Air Force picked a heavy lift helicopter for a medium lift job. Hearing the Boeing folks talk about the superior range, speed and payload of the HH-47 was kind of like hearing Boeing say the C-17 is better than the Lockheed Martin C-130…of course, they’re different aircraft in separate classes.
But it’s starting to get to the point where the debate has devolved into the arcane world of defense contracting procedure and who dotted which “i” and crossed what “t” and when. At the same time, America has hundreds of thousands of troops worldwide in combat who will need this capability and it may start getting to the point where the bickering comes at the cost of our troops’ lives.
We want to extend our deep thanks to our readers for providing us important information that helps advance all the stories posted on DefenseTech. It’s difficult for us to read all the comments on each post, so if you have crucial information that can help expand on the posts, please send an email to the EDITOR.
The Japanese Navy -- officially the Maritime Self-Defense Force -- has launched an “aircraft carrier.” At least the Hyuga, launched at Yokohama on August 23, looks like an aircraft carrier -- she has a flush flight deck and a large, starboard-side island structure. But the Hyuga is a relatively small ship as carriers go, with a standard displacement of 13,500 (metric) tonnes and will displace 18,000 tonnes full load. That is about the size of the planned U.S. destroyers of the Zumwalt (DDG 1000) class.
The Hyuga is classified as a helicopter-carrying destroyer (DDH 181) by the Japanese. She will carry an Aegis-type air defense system, with the U.S.-developed AN/SPY-1 multi-function radar; her principal “weapons” armament will be 64 advanced ESSM-type Sparrow missiles. She will also be fitted with two 20-mm Phalanx “Gatling” guns for close-in defense against anti-ship missiles, and she will have six tubes for anti-submarine torpedoes.
(EDITOR: Thanks to DT reader "Camp" for links to Hyuga pics...)
More significant from an aviation viewpoint, the Hyuga will normally operate three SH-60J Blackhawk-type anti-submarine helicopters and one MH-53E Super Stallion multi-purpose helicopter. Reportedly, the ship’s hangar can accommodate 11 of the smaller aircraft.
Ironically, the U.S. Navy briefly, and mostly at congressional insistence, looked at similar aircraft-carrying destroyer designs in the 1970s. Based on the U.S. Spruance (DD 963) design, such ships could have operated Harrier VSTOL aircraft as well as helicopters on a modified destroyer hull. (Congress voted funding for two such ships, but instead the Navy simply built another conventional destroyer.)
The Hyuga, the largest warship constructed in Japan since World War II, is considered by some observers to be the first step toward the development of a large aircraft carrier. Japan’s constitution, imposed by the United States after World War II, permits Japanese to have only “self-defense” forces. Many Japanese, recalling the effectiveness of Japanese aircraft carriers in China in the 1930s and against U.S. forces in the Pacific in the early stages of World War II, consider carriers to be offensive weapons.
Japan was a leader in carrier development in the 1930s and early 1940 with their short-lived carrier Shinano, which was converted during construction from a battleship. It was the world’s largest carrier to be built prior to the USS Forrestal (CVA 59), completed in 1955.
The overwhelming dependence of Japan on oil from the Middle East, with tankers having to transit long ocean distances, and the increasing Japanese political-economic involvement in the Middle East and Africa, has led many Japanese leaders to look at the utility of naval forces in a new light.
In this context, the innovative design of the Hyuga raises the question: What’s next?
We at DefenseTech recognize that the conflict in Iraq is, to say the least, a controversial subject for our readers and we're not endorsing the following view other than to say that it comes from a very reliable source and is at least a small window into the current situation from someone other than a Pentagon appointed spokesman.
No matter how skeptical you are on America’s struggle in Iraq, it’s at least worth a read to see an under-reported aspect of the ongoing “surge” and its effect on the insurgency (no matter who’s doing the shooting)...
I must apologize for the tardiness of my update. As you may know I have been kept pretty busy since my return from R&R. I was one of the early birds so now most of the team is on R&R along with some who are away on TDY; so the few of us back here have to cover down on multiple areas.
Over the past month we have seen and experienced a lot. As military professionals we are seeing the benefits of the President's surge, our tactical and operational progress over the month has been really impressive. Between U.S. ground forces and the Iraqi Security Forces (Army and National Police) we have been uncovering hundreds of insurgent (Al Qaeda and Jaish al Mahdi -- aka JAM) caches and detecting far more IEDs before they explode. Caches so far this year are over 3,800. I think that is triple last year's.
Al Qaeda has totally lost the support of Iraq's Sunni Arabs. The fanatics over-played their hand when they started murdering popular sheiks, kidnapping tribal women for forced marriages, and even tried outlawing smoking. The locals in Al Anbar Province are taking their communities back and going after the terrorists themselves. Attacks on Coalition Forces out in what once used to be the Wild Wild West are down dramatically; we used to see 50 to 60 attacks a day but now they're down to less than one a day. To the point that the Marine commander out west has asked for permission to lighten his soldiers' and Marines' load by having them only wear the flack jacket/vest without the side plates and upper arm Kevlar.
Up in Diyala the provincial capital is completely different than it was over a month ago. The soldiers of the two Brigade Combat Teams (1st CAV and 2nd ID) have secured the city. The insurgents are now wandering around the countryside -- easier to pick up with infrared/heat sensors on our UAVs and air weapons teams (attack helos). They try to plant IEDs at night thinking they are safe and sound, then out of nowhere they are taken out by a Hellfire missile and it's all caught on tape too. It's our own reality TV show call "IED Planters;" its a great show when one has night duty; dial in the UAV lead, cook some popcorn, grab a soda, sit back, relax and watch the fun -- all live!
The insurgents are still out there, but they are finding it harder and harder to find support. We are no longer playing "whack-a-mole." Since we have a larger number of troops over here we are now able to clear out the insurgents and then hold on to our gains; then turn it over to the Iraqi Security Forces, Army, National Police and local Police.
That is what we did in Baqubah (an Al Qaeda and JAM infested town). Once it was cleared we put a tank, Bradley or Striker on just about every corner and told the people to stay inside after dark. If they were out and about at night -- where they shouldn't be -- they were 'lit up.' The people appreciated it because the insurgent rats' nest was cleared out.
As if that is not enough to demonstrate that we are making serious inroads and a turn for the better, winning the counterinsurgency (COIN) war, we are taking out the insurgents' leaders faster than they can replace them. All over Iraq our Special Forces and Iraqi Special Operation Forces are taking out insurgent cell leaders in surgical strikes and raids (most effective), as are the conventional American and Iraqi units - killing or capturing ringleaders. How are we doing it? We're doing it the old fashion way, through human intelligence (HUMINT). The Iraqi people are turning them in to us and not allowing them any sanctuary -- they are denying them the ability to "swim through the sea of the people." (Mao's old Communist saying). And because our soldiers are out there interacting with the local populace. The people are not afraid to come up to our troops and tell them what is going on in their neighborhood. It's still bad out there, but it is definitely improving.
The first few weeks of July we saw a heavy increase in rocket and mortar attacks. They were up to their same old tricks of firing off a few rounds then scooting -- running off. They also fire from built up housing areas, next to schools and mosques too, because they know that we will not shoot counter battery fire against them for the sake of injuring innocent civilians and causing undue collateral damage. All the while they could care less.
They have been lucky at times and we have suffered some casualties.
Fortunately the Iraqi people are getting tired of them and turning on them. We had an Iraqi man show up at one of our local neighborhood security outposts saying that he knew where some 'terrorists' were planning to launch some rockets at the 'CF and IZ' (Coalition Forces and the International Zone). He volunteered to show our troops where they were located. He took a platoon of infantry over to a school yard where six Katyusha rockets were rigged and ready for firing. By the way, the insurgents were still there guarding the site resulting in a pretty good snatch. We tried to give the man reward money for turning the insurgents in, but he refused to take anything. He told our troops "it is my responsibility, you come here to free us and protect us; it is the least thing I can do." Incidentally, most of the rockets and mortar rounds that are being shot at us, or that we are capturing, are made in the good ole Peoples Republic of China. Déjà vu, remind you of another foreign insurgent war in Southeast Asia a few years back? This begs the Question -- Are the Chinese really our friends? They claim they don't sell arms and equipment to any country that passes them on.
Unfortunately we know they are coming in from Iran and Iran is also training insurgents in their country to use the rockets and mortars. One more reason Joe Lieberman is right on Iran. By the way, old 'Mookie' (Muqtada al-Sadr) has fled back to Iran with his tail between his legs (again) trailed by his senior cronies. Things are just getting too hot for them over here.
The Iraqi forces are increasingly carrying the fight to the insurgent militias. A National Police unit down in An Nasiriyah came under attack by Jaish al Mahdi (JAM) Army elements who are accustomed to moving about freely and intimidating the police. However, the NP unit there supported by a small U.S. advisory team fought off the insurgents. Instead of a cakewalk, the goons hit a wall and were in turn hammered with some heavy air strikes -- Specter (C130 Gunship) laid them to waste. The Iraqi police counter-attacked along with a couple of Iraqi Army battalions and cleared the town of insurgents.
Up north in Mosul, Iraqi Army and National Police units have been sticking it to the enemy through a series of tough combat engagements, and netting som e massive arms caches seized from the insurgents. In Kirkuk a gruesome car bomb went off in town and the Iraqi police reacted quickly and stopped several other car bombs on the outskirts of town from reaching their intended targets.
These recent successes are beginning to show gains on the military aspect of this war. Unfortunately all the military successes are offset by the inaction of the Iraqi Parliament. This is what the press and members of congress who want us out (now) focus on. Creating a stable, functioning and democratic government takes time. Less we forget, it took us eleven years before we had agreed upon and signed the Constitution of the United States. And we had a head start on freedom.
July was a great month for the Iraqi National Soccer team. They played a spectacular game against South Korea in the Semi-finals and defeated them in a penalty kick shoot out. That evening many Iraqis went out and celebrated. Many of the restaurants and shops were open in the market areas. Unfortunately, Al Qaeda terrorists set off two big car bombs near an area where the people were celebrating their team's victory. Everyone knew that it had to be a non-Iraqi insurgent. No Iraqi would conduct such a heinous act in a time of National pride. Fortunately the players were determined to give there best in the final game against none other than Saudi Arabia -- where some of the foreign fighters come from. I watched the final Asian Cup game with the Iraqi officers in their Operations Center and with the interpreters. The Iraqis played their hearts out and dominated the second half, running circles around the Saudis. It was not only clear that they were the better team; they wanted it more than the Saudis. I think winning the Asian Cup gave all Iraqis hope that one day they will all be united and live in peace.
Earlier in the month we lost two more IGFC soldiers to assassinations. One was an intelligence officer, Staff Colonel Jawad, who was one of the original group of officers when the IGFC was established back in 2005. He was killed on his way to work. COL Jawad was very well liked by both the officers and the enlisted. Our nickname for him was Mr. Happy. He spoke pretty good English and always greeted you with a genuine friendly smile and was always in a good mood. The other soldier was a medic with the support battalion, whom I did not know. The reality of their passing was a reminder of the brutality of insurgent warfare and that we all are targets of the insurgents.
This press release issued August 22 may not look like much, but it announces a new project that -- and I'll word this carefully to avoid drifting into hyperbole -- could forever change the world as we know it.
I'll explain: Gallium Nitride is a semiconductor material that can transform that cell phone in your pocket into a high powered microwave transmitter. It could render the iPhone about as sophisticated as my first digital wristwatch.
The only reason it's not in the mass market today is because manufacturing the material is so expensive that it would cost you as much to buy a cell phone as a new car (although, with the iPhone, clearly that gap is already narrowing).
But this press release announces that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is seeking to seed the development of a low-cost manufacturing technique that will soon make Gallium Nitride far more affordable to produce. Assuming the method works, this will certainly benefit electronics consumers like you and me, but also, not least, the US military.
Military electronics already operate in the highest bands of the spectrum, but are usually powered by very large travelling wave tubes to generate the necessary voltage. Cheaper Gallium Nitride chips are the military's ticket to the next wave of advances in radar, electronic warfare, communications and surveillance technology. It's also fair to wonder if perhaps Gallium Nitride is the key to finally making directed energy weapons as operationally feasible as bullets, bombs and missiles.
Those with long memories may recall this has all happened once before. In the mid-1980s, DARPA seeded the development of a new manufacturing technique to lower the cost of producing Gallium Arsenide semiconductors to replace silicon. The arrival of this material made it possible to pack a transmitter powerful enough to make cellular phones possible in the first place.
We have a story over at Military.com this morning about the much-touted (by its own government, though) Iranian “smart bomb” the mullahs vow to “use against our enemies when the time comes...”
Iran vowed Sunday to use a new 2,000-pound "smart" bomb against its enemies and unveiled mass production of the new weapon, state television reported.
The government first announced development of the long-range guided bomb Thursday, saying it could be deployed by the country's aging U.S.-made F-4 and F-5 fighter jets.
"We will use these (bombs) against our enemies when the time comes," Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar said on state television Sunday.
Iran often announces new weapons for its arsenal, but the United States maintains that while the Islamic Republic has made some strides, many of these statements are exaggerations.
The broadcast included a brief clip of a fighter jet apparently dropping one of the bombs, which destroyed a target on the ground.
The defense minister continued his threats as state television showed him unveiling a mass production line for the weapon in Tehran.
"We will use this weapon where we want to ... hit enemy's strategic and defense targets," Najjar said. "This will be used against our enemies, against those who violate our land and air space..."
Ooooo...scare me. For some reason I don’t think the Pentagon is losing a lot of sleep over the specter of Iranian F-5 Tiger and F-4 Phantom fighters lumbering their way across the mountainous border into Iraq with these “smart bombs.”
My question is: why make this ridiculous claim? Probably for the consumption of the Gulf states which recently received tens of billions in Defense equipment from the U.S. But in the end, the PR blitz could backfire on Tehran, reminding critics why U.S. support is so important in the Gulf region.
Catherine writes, "When the Department of Homeland Security was formed from the merger of 22 government agencies in March 2003, many in Washington at the time, including me, worried it would become more of a bloated, slow-moving government blob than a fast-moving, finely-sharped terrorism-fighting machine. A 24-year old student at the California Institute of Technology has provided some startling evidence that DHS employees may be very bored at work.
"According to Virgil Griffith's Wikiscanner software, DHS is among the top 5 government agencies whose computers have been used to anonymously edit Wikipedia entries. Perhaps most disturbing though is that DHS employees are spending most of their Wiki time editing pages about television shows, movies and books (Is this why we still don't have the ability to scan shoes at the airport so people don't have to go barefoot?)
"Griffith says he wrote the software after reading that members of Congress have been editing their Wikipedia entries. DHS had 4,018 Wiki edits, placing the agency fourth among .gov addresses and behind NASA (6,846), the Department of Veteran's Affairs (4,210), and California state government (4,148).
"As much time as DHS employees are spending editing Wikipedia entries, their work is nothing compared to the folks at the Department of Defense, whose .mil account holders have been very busy on Wikipedia. The defense agency with the most edits originating from its .mil address is Army's Network Information Center, with 43,823 edits. The U.S. Air Forces comes in second with 21,478 edits, while the Naval Surface Warfare Center has 18, 591. The numbers drop dramatically from there with fourth and fifth place going to the Pentagon overall and the Office of the Secretary of Defense at 3,355 and 2,685 edits, respectively."
Of course, employees with private industry NEVER fart around on their computers at work. And it's also good to see the folks at DHS and DoD are concerned about inaccuracy wherever they find it. You can't pay for that kind of ethos.
The U.S. Special Operations Command was created in the wake of the the failed hostage rescue attempt in Iran in 1980, commonly known as "Desert One." Analysis after the fact revealed that the services were unable to effectively interact to fight low intesity conflicts.
Here's how Paulette Risher describes SOCOM in the 1st Quarter 2006 issue of JFQ:
"Established by Congress in 1987, USSOCOM was envisioned as a unified command with service-like responsibilities to oversee all Special Operations Forces. Designated responsibilities outlined in Title 10 of the United States Code included resource allocation and budget management, ostensibly to bolster special operations capabilities in such areas as joint doctrine and training, personnel management, and mission planning. The law also mandated that, should the President or Secretary of Defense direct, the commander of USSOCOM would exercise command of a selected special operations mission. Thus, although most of the command’s effort would support the other combatant commands, under certain circumstances it could become a supported command."
The GWOT has given SOCOM myriad opportunities to be the supported command. Special operators traditionally complained that regular forces were too "heavy handed" when dealing with the locals in a counter insurgency environment, but in the supported command role over the years has the distinction between special operations and the regular forces eroded? And further, has what made each service's special ops capability unique gone away in the face of counter insurgency warfare? Is mission tasking simply plug and play with little concern regarding the difference between, say, SEALs and Green Berets? Is there a difference? Does it matter anymore?
(Note: The DT staff is flying back from San Francisco, so we'll be post light for the balance of today. We'll hit it hard once we get through security and find an overhead bin for our carry-ons and finish fighting rush hour on the Beltway, etc., etc.)
-- Ward
MiG Combat Drone Revealed
MiG revealed a full-scale engineering mock-up of its unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) design August 23, nicknamed Skat (Skate). Work on the low-observable design began over two years ago, and MiG will produce a flight worthy prototype within 24-months.
The MiG program is one of two competing designs that will be presented to the Russian Defense Ministry as a strike UCAV. Sukhoi is also understood to be working on a UCAV.
MiG unveiled the program during the Moscow air show, though only a few journalists were taken off the show site to a MiG facility at the Gromov flight test research institute.
Skat has two internal weapons bays, capable of carrying air-to-surface missiles as large as the Kh-31 (AS-17 Krytpon). Possible roles include the suppression and attack of enemy air defenses.
MiG is working with a number of Russian companies and state institutes -- including the 2nd Central Scientific Research Institute -- on Skat. The institute is known to be closely involved in low-observable research and development...
The Navy has recently awarded a $6.8 million contract to Northrop Grumman to upgrade another three EA-6B Prowler electronic attack aircraft, with a $2 million option for a fourth. The firm has already upgraded 12 Prowlers with the Improved Capability III kits that provide a new crew workstation display and new radar threat detection receiver, among other hardware and software improvements.
These modifications are expected to extend the aircrafts’ usefulness to 2018. By that time the Navy will be flying the Prowler’s replacement, the Boeing/McDonnell Douglas EA-18G Growler, developed from the F/A-18F Super Hornet strike fighter. Significantly, the Marine Corps will continue to fly the EA-6B in the electronic attack role after the Navy has shifted completely to the EA-18G. Rather, the Marines appear to be waiting for an electronic attack variant of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), recently named the Lightning II.
Today the EA-6B is the only electronic attack aircraft flown by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. Navy and Marine Prowler squadrons provide Electronic Warfare(EW) support for the Air Force, with Air Force crewmen flying in those aircraft alongside naval aviators.
(The Air Force is believed to be resurrecting a proposed standoff jammer/EW program centered on the venerable B-52 Stratofortress. The last specialized, electronic attack/countermeasures aircraft flown by the Air Force was the EF-111A Raven, which was phased out of service in May 1998. While their EW threat and countermeasures capabilities were similar, the EA-6B was a slower aircraft, but carried three systems operators compared to one in the EF-111A, and could launch anti-radar missiles, which the EF-111A could not.)
The EA-6B Prowler was derived from the Grumman A-6 Intruder all-weather attack aircraft, flown by the Navy and Marine Corps from 1963 to 1996. The specialized, enlarged EA-6B entered Navy-Marine Corps service in 1971. Although the attack and tanker (KA-6D) variants of the Intruder have long been retired, the services continue to operate, support, and upgrade the EA-6B variant, which is flown from all 11 Navy aircraft carriers as well as from land bases. (Marine EA-6Bs have periodically flown from carriers.)
While there could be an electric attack variant of the F-35 JSF, some military officers as well as aviation industry specialists predict that the next-generation electronic countermeasures/attack aircraft will be unmanned -- an EUAV unmanned aerial vehicle that could penetrate and attack enemy air defenses.
Fifty miles south of the Chinese border lies the rural town of Chongju. Like many North Korean towns, it is a small, impoverished place where people scratch a bare existence from government-controlled farms. What photographs exist of Chongju reveal a brown landscape of depleted-looking fields and shanty-style houses. It is hard to believe anything of value grows here.
But, according to intelligence reports, something precious to the North Korean regime may be under cultivation in Chongju. Beyond the shacks stands an installation suspected of being a component in North Korea's bioweapons (BW) research and development program. The effort is steeped in a level of secrecy possible only in a totalitarian state, but it is thought to encompass at least 20 facilities throughout the country. Another 12 plants churn out chemical weapons.
In late November, delegates of the signatory countries to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) met at the United Nations office in Geneva for the sixth review of the treaty since its inception in 1972. The meeting took place just weeks after North Korea publicly added the third prong to its capacity for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by testing a nuclear device.
(Note: You may have noticed we're posting more and more stuff from Popular Mechanics these days, which is because that magazine's great staff has agreed to let us feature their best defense-related content. Look for it here and at Military.com.)
Our friend Harold Hutchison posted another update to his F-35 coverage over at Strategy Page blog...We've cross posted here.
While the F-35 compares favorably to some of the latest European fighters, the natural question emerges: How does it fare against some of Russia's best, particularly the Su-27/30/33/35 and later versions of the MiG-29?
The Su-27 is roughly equivalent to the F-15. Like the F-15, it started out as an air-superiority fighter. However, as the years went on, it also proved to be very capable at ground attack. There have been very few combat tests of the Su-27 family to date. The only one known of is the Ethiopia/Eritrea conflict in 1999-2000, in which it scored at least five kills. The Su-27 family usually has ten weapons pylons, a 30-millimeter cannon, and a combat radius of 1,500 kilometers. The Su-30 is comparable to the F-15E, and has 12 weapons pylons. The Su-30 has been exported to a number of countries, including Venezuela, India, China, and Malaysia. It is arguably the best fighter that the Russians have been exporting, and one of the best in the world. Algeria is acquiring 28 of these planes.
The MiG-29 is a shorter-range fighter, with six weapons pylons, a 30-millimeter cannon, and a combat radius of 700 kilometers. Like the Su-27 family, it started as an air-superiority fighter/interceptor, but it also proved capable of carrying a lot of air-to-ground ordnance. The MiG-29 is flown by a number of countries, including Poland, Russia, India, North Korea, Cuba, and Iran.
What makes both of these planes interesting is their use of an infra-red tracking system. This is often used with the R-73/AA-11 air-to-air missile. The Archer has a range of 20-40 kilometers, depending on the version, and a 16-pound warhead. Another feature of the missile is the ability to work with a helmet-mounted sight (the missile goes for whatever the pilot is looking at). These are impressive systems, enabling a MiG-29 or Su-27 to get in a shot without having to use radar. Still, will they be enough to get a better chance against the F-35 in a fight?
The F-35 has one big advantage over these fighter families from Russia. Its visability, particularly with regards to its vulnerability to being picked up on radar, is very low. While the infra-red systems are an advantage, these fighters still need to be cued in via an airborne radar plane or a ground station, and they will still have trouble picking up the F-35.
The MiG-29 and Su-27, on the other hand, are much more visible on radar. In essence, the F-35 still retains the advantage it holds over the Eurofighter, Rafale, and Gripen: It will see its targets long before its targets see it. And that will enable it to get in the first shots. With missiles like the AMRAAM and AIM-9X, the F-35 will be very likely to kill its targets before they even know an F-35 is in the area. In essence, the F-35 will have the best Russian planes outperformed, and it gets worse when one realizes that the United States Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps will combine for more F-35s than there are Flankers and Fulcrums in service.
From Defense Tech friend Bob Cox over at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's Sky Talk blog...
(Photo: Sikorsky)
Vought Aircraft said it has delivered the first cabin for the Army's new generation UH-60M Blackhawk helicopter to Sikorsky Aircraft. The M-model, featuring souped up cockpit avionics, new engines and rotor blade design will be the Army's workhorse troop transport, utility and medical evacuation helicopter for the next 20 or 30 years.
The Army expects to buy some 1,200 of the M-model Blackhawk as it phases out its older A and L models. Sikorsky began Blackhawk production in 1978 with more than 3,000 of the aircraft in use worldwide.
Vought won a contract from Sikorsky and began production of Blackhawk cabins at its Dallas plant in 2005. To date the company has built 55 cabins, 39 Army L-models and 16 Navy S-models. More than 300 people work on the Blackhawk program at the west Dallas plant.
Vought would like to have the Blackhawk cabin work on a long term basis, but Sikorsky will re-bid the program later this year before going to a multi-year production contracts. Chief Executive Elmer Doty, seeking to improve Vought's financial performance, has been trying to negotiate more attractive contracts with its customers.
-- Bob Cox
Take a Look at the Army's New Sniper Rifle
By now it is well known that the U.S. Army established a need to standardize a sniper rifle in 7.62x51mm NATO caliber. This was necessary in order to field one such rifle for precision sniping and to replace the literal myriad of sniper rifles currently in the system. For the record, these sniper rifles include the venerable M14 semi-automatic rifle and the M24 Remington bolt action rifle, the Mk 11 and others, which have been purchased by individual SOCOM units.
In the wake of 9/11 and America's entry into the Global War On Terrorism (G-WOT), most of the remaining 40,000 M14 rifles in the U.S. military's inventory (mostly the U.S. Navy) have been taken out of storage in order to be re-built as precision semi-automatic rifles for sniping use. Many of these rifles that weren't destroyed during the Clinton Era were given to "friendly" countries and there has also begun a move to "buy" some of them back.
The M14's popularity as a sniper rifle dates back to its development as a National Match competition rifle during the 1960's, its evolution into the M21 Sniper Rifle used in the Vietnam War, and its evolution into the XM25 Sniper Rifle by the U.S. Army and Navy in the years that followed. Properly fitted, the M14 is capable of extremely good accuracy and is highly reliable, but it has had less than optimum results from being used with a sound suppressor. Still, the M14 has made the transition into a 21st Century Sniper Rifle as the DMR (Designated Marksman Rifle) by the United States Marine Corps and its more recent transformation by the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM).
Being a highly modified Model 700 Remington bolt-action repeating rifle, the M24 is capable of great precision accuracy. However, lessons were relearned in Somalia and in target-rich environments encountered in the G-WOT that a self-loading rifle can be fired in succession 4 to 5 times faster than a bolt action rifle. Thus, the Army was determined to standardize a semi-automatic sniper rifle.
The third rifle mentioned is the Mk 11, a refined version of the SR- 25 (Stoner Rifle-25) rifle, which is made by Knight's Armament Company, of Titusville, Florida. Like the others, the Mk 11 is chambered for the 7.6x51mm NATO cartridge, but it contains modifications dictated by the U.S. Navy SEALS, which is a member of the SOCOM. However, using the Mk 11 identified issues that the Army found desirable in an AR10-style sniper rifle...
The CSAR-X debate is heating back up again, with two powerful Senators on the Armed Services Committee telling Pentagon chief Gates they would withhold funds from the new rescue helicopter program until the DoD’s investigation into the procurement process for the controversial aircraft is concluded.
Here’s an excerpt...
“...Complaints by Lockheed Martin Corporation and Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, validated in part by the Government Accountability Office, call into question whether the Air Force has used a capabilities-based approach for this acquisition that is traceable, repeatable and feasible.”
“...We intend to offer an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act that would prohibit expenditure of any funds for the CSAR-X program during fiscal year 2008 until the later of the 60 legislative days after DoD approves the Air Force decision or the DoD provides the congressional defense committees with written notice in accordance with established procedures.”
Read the entire letter obtained by Defense Tech HERE.
Additionally, the Project on Government Oversight’s top investigator on this case – Nick Schwellenbach - posted an interesting analysis on their site the other day...
This March, Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne told Lt. General John L. "Jack" Hudson in an email that "I would like to stay with our selection" of Boeing's HH-47 Chinook helicopter for the combat search and rescue helicopter replacement (CSAR-X), according to a protest filing by rival defense contractor Sikorsky.
Lt. General Hudson is in charge of selecting the company that receives the contract for the CSAR-X. Wynne's statement came after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sustained procurement protests by rivals Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin, and Congress began to scrutinize the CSAR-X program's selection of the Chinook last
November.
In February, the GAO ruled that the Air Force's evaluation of each proposal's costs was not made according to the evaluation criteria made in the contract solicitation. GAO recommended that the Air Force clarify its basis for evaluations and request revised proposals from the competing contractors. The Air Force released an amendment to its CSAR-X request for proposals in May, but has been met with additional protests by Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky for not
addressing the problems found by GAO. The March 3, 2007, email appears to affirm the view of some insiders that the Air Force's response to the GAO is simply a face-saving measure.
Sikorsky quoted Secretary Wynne's email in its July 2, 2007, protest of the Air Force's amended solicitation, which the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) has obtained. Sikorsky obtained the email and other documents from the Air Force, which was responding to Sikorsky's legal actions, according to the protest filing. POGO does not have a copy of the email itself, so it is possible that necessary context has been left out. On its face, however, the partial quote does raise questions about the Air Force's commitment to a fair
and transparent evaluation.
Wynne's email seems consistent with his answers to reporters after his February 28, 2007, congressional testimony before the House Armed Services Committee that he would "like to stay with what we got [referring to the Boeing HH-47] and get this product going as soon as possible." He also stated that the Air Force is considering whether it can take corrective action "more narrowly" than what GAO had recommended, according to a Reuters article (Andrea Shalal-Esa, "US Air Force wants no long delay on new helicopter," February 28, 2007).
"Either the Air Force is serious about fairly and transparently re-evaluating a bungled competition, or they're wasting everyone's time," said POGO Defense Investigator Nick Schwellenbach, who had been investigating the CSAR-X program. "When coupled with the evaluation inconsistencies pointed out by Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin, this email seems to indicate the latter."
And pro-Lockheed/Sikorsky DT fans sent along a copy of a letter addressed to House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee chair John Murtha from former AFSOC bubba, Maj. Gen. Richard Comer, who says:
“I know a couple of the guys who were on the selection board for the CSAR-X and I have talked with them about their thought process. I believe they did their jobs honestly and with a great deal of conscientiousness. I also believe they talked themselves into what they think is the right decision. Still, I disagree, and I believe they got into a ‘group think’ situation and reached the wrong conclusion on what helicopter the Air Force should require…”
Read his post below, but stick around for some perspective from a Defense Tech reader who goes by “Ruger” and follows this issue closely. Ruger sent us his analysis of the exercise a few days before Norman’s post, and we thought it appropriate to include it now for conversation’s sake.
Norman first…
A historic military exercise with China and Russia as well as four other nations participating has come to an end. Known as “Peace Mission 2007,” the exercise was sponsored by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which consists of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
“Peace Mission 2007” began on August 9, and was conducted in Urumqi, the capital of China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, and subsequently in Chelyabinsk. The emphasis of the maneuvers was to defeat an international terrorist organization that was attempting to overturn a friendly government. Some 4,000 troops and 80 aircraft from the participating nations took part in the exercise.
The historic exercise, which involved forces from all six SCO nations, was considered an important step in exchanges between those nations as well as enhancing the capabilities of their armed forces to counter terrorists and to promote regional security and stability.
The exercise was particularly significant for China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) with the Chinese troops being transported to the operational area by rail and by air. It was the first time that PLA forces carried out a large-scale and long-distance movement. The rail distance, through Chinese and Russian territory, was some 6,400 miles wile the air distances was 1,700 miles.
China had 1,600 PLA troops participating in the exercise with fighter and bomber aviation units, airborne units, transport units, special purpose units, armored units, and Army aviation units taking part. The rail transportation effort for the PLA included more than 120 vehicles and 500 tons of munitions and equipment for the exercise.
Now Ruger’s follow…
Dubbed as Peace Mission 2007 and is developing into a counter-balance to the US, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has been responding to the geopolitical situation in Europe, Asia and the rest of the world. Former Soviet republic made repeated attempts to streamline integration by setting up different associations, but they were not destined to live for many reasons. Experts are unanimous that the SCO is a success. source: Moscow, Russia (RIA Novosti) Aug 16, 2007...
The Peace Mission 2007 is taking place in western Russia and is aimed at four key operations, according to PLA Senior Col. Lu Chuangang, chief of the command group of the Chinese exercise directorate.
These areas include long-distance mobility of forces by rail and aircraft, joint operations with six nations; precision engagement using high-technology attack capabilities; and long-distance integrated military support operations.
“This is the first time that the PLA conducts a large scale and long-distance transnational force delivery involving different branches of the armed forces in a systematic way,” Lu told Xinhua. “The one-way distance of railway transportation is 10,300 kilometers and air flight distance is about 2,700 kilometers.” source: Peoples Daily online July 31, 2007
So, success is measured by how long a train ride one takes (do the math)? It was reported that Azerbijan wouldn't allow the China troops to traverse its country.
The Chinese, Russians and the anti-US crowd are touting the SCO Peace Mission 2007 as a success. If you look at the measurement of success from the Chinese General (Col), it sounds (to me) like he is trying to polish a turd. They did not purposely try to exercise long distance logistics (Chinese troops were not permitted to travel through neighboring country, so they had to go around).
Secondly, the PLA Air force flew a third of the distance the PLA had to move its troops. Success in long distance logistics by western standards (which is really their standard now) would have been realized by moving the 5000+ PLA troops by air. Hence the phrase: “putting lipstick on pig.”
Alright folks, I honestly don’t follow this that closely, so what do you think – big deal, or no big deal?
-- Christian
The F-35 is Worth the Cash
Defense Tech friend and Strategy Page contributor Harold Hutchison sent this quick piece over to us on the Joint Strike Fighter. I’ll post it here as food for thought, and we look forward to Harold’s next post on aviation and other defense-related subjects.
My two cents on the issue is that I tend to agree with his thesis that the JSF is a good buy given its performance and stealth. What he does not address, however, is the likelihood the cost will climb even further if the program’s buy is reduced. Then the cost/performance ratio won’t be as compelling as Harold’s analysis today.
There's rumbling in both Congress and the Pentagon that the STOVL version may get dumped, the Navy won't buy in the numbers they'd previously thought, the Brits may bail...all these events are possible and could throw the value argument out the window. We'll see. But on the face of it, Harold's got a pretty good point. Read on...
Is the F-35 overhyped? That is one question that is being asked in light of both American refusal to release the source code for software, as well as the climbing price (up to $63 million per-plane). The real answer depends on what competing aircraft have to offer.
How does the F-35 compare in the air-to-air mission against likely competitors like the French Rafale, the Swedish Gripen, and the multi-national Eurofighter? All of European planes boast some of the best electronics suites that have ever provided for a combat aircraft. All are capable of high speed (over 2,000 kilometers an hour). All three aircraft carry excellent beyond-visual-range missiles (like the Mica, AMRAAM, and Meteor). All are highly maneuverable. But will they be better than the F-35 in a fight?
The answer, surprisingly, is probably not. The F-35 has one big advantage over these three fighters from Europe. Its radar signature, its vulnerability to being picked up on radar, is very low – as is the case with the F-117 and F-22. Given that its speed is pretty comparable to the European jets, and its AESA radar is at least as good as the European systems, this is a decisive advantage. The best weapons in the world are useless if they cannot see their targets.
The F-35 will be able to see the Rafale, Gripen, and Eurofighter long before it can be seen itself. The first rule of air combat may be "speed is life", but the second rule is "lose the sight, lose the fight". In the 21st century, sight includes radar. It is very likely that the only warning the F-35 may give of its presence will be when its radar has locked on to one of the European fighters. By that point, the F-35 is already close to launching its AMRAAMs.
The cost differential is not as big as one might think, either. The F-35 runs at $63 million (for the most expensive variant), but the Gripen is $50 million per plane, the Rafale runs about $65 million each, and the Typhoon is $58 million. That is not much difference in terms of cost.
In essence, the F-35's small additional cost gains a huge edge in a fight.
Ultimately, the F-35 does cost a little more than most of its European competition. That said, in a fight, an F-35 is pr
