Saturday, March 21, 2009

Russia’s Military Technology Is Outdated

Russia’s Military Technology Is Outdated
It is not really true that Russia’s military technology is outdated, one single incident of MiG-29 Jet fighter can not project the outcome of entire military industry. (DTN Defense-Technology News)
(NSI News Source Info) Moscow - March 21, 2009: Russian President Dmitri Medvedev this week announced a large-scale military rearmament program, which he says will require considerable resources despite difficulties associated with the current global economic crisis.
The new missile also boasts enhanced reliability and ease of repair and maintenance. In present-day conditions, this factor is as important as flight characteristics. Although the Favorit system is a multi-component weapon, target-destruction depends primarily on the air defense missile, on its reliability and capability of efficiently fulfilling guidance commands in heavy jamming, high-speed and overload environments. The Fakel Design Bureau has implemented in practice the principle of guaranteed reliability of missiles, which has added a basically new quality to them: the possibility of their test-free service in the Army for a long warranty period. This goal was achieved via the use of a set of technologies, among them the full cycle of ground missile tests on Fakel test beds. Missiles are tested in transportation, storage, alert and even target-approaching modes in climatic and anechoic chambers, on dynamic and static test beds, and on shakers. Other innovations used in the 48N6E2 missile include the use of fundamentally new guidance algorithms, more advantageous flight trajectories and new military loads. The development of the missile proceeded in several directions simultaneously and lasted several years. Fakel specialists selected the prototype which showed overwhelming advantages over others both in ground and flight tests. The combat capabilities of the new system were first tested on August 10, 1995, on the Kapustin Yar testing range in an encounter with Scud ballistic missiles. Several 48N6E2 missiles were launched to intercept Scuds. During the interception, the explosion of the air defense missiles' military load detonated the high-explosive charge of the ballistic missiles. Russian scientists and specialists were the first in the world to achieve so remarkable a result. The best achievement of Patriot missiles during Operation Desert Storm was the interception of Scud missiles after which the latter deviated from the termination point by four to five kilometers. Throughout the Gulf war, Patriots never managed to destroy a single Scud missile in the air.
There are political and economic realities that could be driving as well as hindering Mr. Medvedev’s proposal. Tanks and missiles paraded across Red Square last May for the first time since the Soviet collapse in 1991. But Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov recently said 90 percent of Russia’s military technology is outdated. This includes most of the hardware on parade. On March 17, President Dmitri Medvedev unveiled an ambitious rearmament plan to modernize Russia’s military. Mr. Medvedev says Russia’s primary task is the enhancement of troop combat readiness; not the usual enhancement, but rather qualitative enhancement - above all through the strategic nuclear forces. The Kremlin leader says Russian security is threatened by NATO expansion, local crises, and international terrorism. He adds the conflict against Georgia last August revealed flaws in Russia’s conventional forces as well. Independent Russian military analyst Viktor Litovkin says Russia lacks combat support systems rather than firing units, and notes that such systems consist of drones, precision weapons, reconnaissance, navigation, communication, and guidance systems, etc. He adds that Russia in this field is far behind what he calls the modern civilized world. President Medvedev says Russia will devote considerable resources to develop and purchase new weapons, despite a tight national budget affected by the declining price of Russian oil exports. But independent military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer notes that Russia may not only lack the money, but also the industrial capacity for large-scale rearmament. Felgenhauer says Russia most likely will need to buy technologies and components from the West, as well as entire weapons systems. He notes, however, that such purchases are impossible to do if the Kremlin continues to envision a conflict with the West. Military observers say Mr. Medvedev’s rearmament program is designed in part to offset dissatisfaction in the ranks with a Kremlin plan to downsize Russia’s armed forces. This could eliminate as many as 200,000 officers. In February, more than 1,000 officers, veterans, and civilians rallied against military reforms in a protest sponsored by the Communist Party on Defender of the Motherland Day, a Russian national holiday. Party leader Gennady Zyuganov said the reform proposal threatens the future of Russia. Zyuganov says protesters on that holiday first of all want to say no to mediocre [army] reform, which he characterizes as a betrayal of the Motherland. Analysts say the armed forces and its supporters are a political constituency that the Kremlin cannot afford to ignore. But Pavel Felgenhauer says Russia cannot afford large-scale rearmament either and that Russian authorities have not reconciled this contradiction. The analyst says there is no consensus in society or among the elites on what they really want to do. He says that everyone agrees in principle that rearmament is necessary, but he raises various questions: how and what; with the West, or against the West; should Russia buy in the West because its own industry cannot do it, or should the country somehow try to manage on its own? Felgenhauer says decisions about such matters in Russia are made behind closed doors and are not always fully thought through, which he characterizes as a feature of authoritarian regimes. President Medvedev says some military units have already been modernized and he expects large-scale army and navy rearmament to begin in 2011.

Can Afghanistan Support A Beefed Up Military?

Can Afghanistan Support A Beefed Up Military?
(NSI News Source Info) March 21, 2009: Unlike some of his predecessors, Defense Secretary Robert Gates declines to bluff when he doesn't know the answer. When he was asked on Wednesday about the best strategy for the war in Afghanistan, he shrugged. "Unlike Iraq and some of the other problems, this is an area where I've been somewhat uncertain in my own mind what the right path forward is," he said with weapons-grade candor rarely heard from the Pentagon podium.
Members of the U.S. Army 1-6 Field Artillery division patrol in a small herding community in Nuristan Province, Afghanistan.*
Gates did say he's sure of one thing: He doesn't want to keep boosting U.S. and allied troop numbers there. "I've been very concerned about an open-ended commitment of increasing numbers of troops for a variety of reasons," he said, "including the size of our footprint in Afghanistan and my worry that the Afghans come to see us as not their partners and allies but as part of their problem." That's the reason the Obama Administration is considering doubling the size of Afghanistan's military and national police forces, to roughly 400,000. That's more than triple what U.S. officials had estimated would be needed to defend the country shortly after the U.S. invaded in late 2001. But the beefed up force is needed to battle surging enemies led by the Taliban — scattered by the U.S. in 2001, but who have since returned with a vengeance — and al-Qaeda. The current Afghan military comprises about 90,000 troops, slated to rise to 134,000, while there are 80,000 men in the national police. On Tuesday, Afghan Foreign Minister Rangeen Dadfar Spanta called on the international community to give the country the tools and training it needs to prevail. "Afghanistan is determined to take more responsibilities in the fight on terrorism," Spanta said in Kabul. "We hope that the international community does more to strengthen our police and army. We want them to send more police trainers, more army trainers and send us more equipment." But there's a problem with the option of doubling the size of the Afghan security forces: Officials inside and out of the Pentagon warn that the bill for setting up such a large force, estimated at $2 billion to $3 billion annually for several years, could prove daunting — more than double the budget of the Afghan government, and way more than could be sustained by Afghanistan's own economy for the foreseeable future. Even U.S. trainers for these new forces are in short supply: the Government Accountability Office, in a report issued earlier this month, said the Pentagon is 1,500 personnel short of the number it needs to train Afghan national police. So, while Gates may want to limit the U.S. footprint in Afghanistan, the math is working against him, at least in the short term. The additional 17,000 American troops slated to arrive there this year will boost the U.S. force there to about 55,000 troops, even as contingents from Canada and the Netherlands withdraw, giving Washington an even bigger stake in the fighting.
U.S. Marine Sgt. Jason St. Germain listens as an Afghan opium farmer speaks through a military translator on March 19, 2009 at the remote village of Baqwa in Farah province of southwest Afghanistan. The Marines of 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment based there are battling a Taliban insurgency funded in large part from the multi-billion dollar drug export trade thriving in the south of the country. "Funding [an Afghan] force this size will be a major challenge — especially if it succeeds," says Stephen Biddle, a military expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. While the West will pump in the billions needed to fund the force during wartime, they'll turn that spigot off as soon an uneasy peace emerges.
"Yet, the Afghan government is very unlikely to be able to pay these costs itself even if we make optimistic assumptions about economic growth and government revenue extraction potential," Biddle says. "The result could easily be a postwar Afghan security force too large to pay and also too large to demobilize safely." Historically, he warns, that leads to trouble. "Situations like this can easily produce a coup d'etat or civil warfare," Biddle says. "Unless we're very careful about this, too large an increase in Afghan national-security forces could be successful in the mid-term, but become a self-defeating prophecy in the longer term."

Myanmar Mobilises Troops Along Border: Dhaka Keeps Mum On Barbed-Wire Fencing / Border Fencing By Myanmar Upsets Bangladesh

Myanmar Mobilises Troops Along Border: Dhaka Keeps Mum On Barbed-Wire Fencing / Border Fencing By Myanmar Upsets Bangladesh
(NSI News Source Info) March 21, 2009: The government of Myanmar is learnt to have mobilized troops along the Mongdoo - Teknaf border before its move for barbed-fencing in the border belt, according to sources in the border.
The border security guards of Myanmar - Nasaka - has already started accumulating construction materials in the border line reportedly with the view to restrict trespassing and smuggling in the border by intensifying security patrol and barbed-fencing.
A Bangladesh boy, left, watches Border Security Force soldiers prepare for a patrol near the Bay of Bengal in Taknaf, a popular launching point for dangerous journeys by illegal immigrants, about 246 kilometers (154 miles), southwest of capital Dhaka, Bangladesh. Thousands of impoverished Bangladeshis and Rohingyas, members of a stateless, Muslim ethnic group that fled Myanmar to escape persecution, leave Bangladesh aboard rickety boats each year in hopes of finding work elsewhere. The well-traveled route to Thailand through Malaysia has recently sparked international inquiries after Thai authorities allegedly detained and beat hundreds of the migrants before abandoning them in the Indian Ocean in boats with no engines and only a few bags of rice.
The barbed-fencing move from Akiyab to Ghumdhum was taken by the Myanmar government against the backdrop of the security situation in Teknaf border after a mutiny at Bangladesh Riles (BDR) headquarters in Dhaka.
Acting Commander of the 42- Rifles Battalion in Teknaf admitted that the Nasaka took up the border fencing project keeping them in the dark. The BDR official also claimed that the authorities concerned had duly been notified about the fencing move of the Myanmar government and the subsequent troop mobilisation.
It is also learnt that troop mobilisation was in progress at the Myanmar side zero points of Teknaf, Ukhiya and Naikhangchari. On the other hand, the BDR also strengthened patrol in the border belt and was keenly watching the events taking place in the area. The fencing move and sudden mobilisation of troops in the border belt have reportedly sparked tense among the residents of the border areas in Myanmar and Bangladesh.
Local traders said that the move would certainly put negative impact on the trade and commerce that had been in progress over the last couple of years. Movement of freight through Teknaf land port has declined over the last couple of days. Myanmar nationals entered Bangladesh complying with the provisions of the immigration also confirmed about the troop mobilisation in the border areas.
UNB adds: Foreign Minister Dipu Moni preferred to keep mum on the reported barbed-wire fencing along Bangladesh border by Myanmar with the backing of its troops.
"I don't like to give any opinion…We'll firm up our stance considering the situation," she told reporters yesterday at the Foreign Ministry when her comments were sought on the reported border fencing and mobilisation of troops by Myanmar.
Asked whether the Government is concerned over the situation along the Bangladesh-Myanmar border, she said if any situation of concern takes place along the country's frontier, "we will be concerned".

North Korea Reopens Hotline With South Korea

North Korea Reopens Hotline With South Korea
(NSI News Source Info) March 21, 2009: North Korea reopened a military hotline with the South today, a day after Washington and Seoul ended annual defence drills Pyongyang had called preparations for an invasion. The North also confirmed it had detained two Americans on Tuesday for "illegally" crossing its border from China and said they were being investigated. Photo taken on August 10, 2005 shows South Korean Lieutenant Choi Don-Rim (L) communicating with a North Korean officer during a phone call at a military office near the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) separating North and South Korea in Paju, about 55 kms (31 miles) north of Seoul. North Korea has told South Korea it will reconnect cross-border military phone lines, a government official said on March 20, 2009. The lines were cut on March 9 in protest at a US-South Korean military exercise and would be reconnected March 21. Washington said on yesterday that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was trying to resolve the issue over the two female journalists, who were detained while filming a story for an online news company. Pyongyang cut the military hotline, the only telephone link between the two Koreas, at the start of the annual US-South Korean drills on March 9. A spokesman for Seoul's unification ministry said it was restored earlier today. But the move did not signal the North was ready to tone down its rhetoric ahead of a planned rocket launch early next month. North Korean media called the drills the "biggest maneuvers for a nuclear war against the DPRK (North Korea) in history in terms of the aggressor forces involved and their duration". Tension on the peninsula are already running with the North's announcement it would launch a satellite between April 4 and 8. The North issued a notice to aviators saying it will close two routes in its airspace from April 4 to 8 between the hours 2am and 7am for a satellite launch, an official at Japan's transport ministry said. Officials in Seoul and Washington say the launch is really a disguised test of its long-range Taepodong-2 missile. The detention of the journalists comes at an awkward time for Washington, which has condemned the planned rocket launch. "Two Americans were detained on March 17 while illegally intruding into the territory of the DPRK by crossing the DPRK-China border. A competent organ is now investigating the case," the North's official news agency KCNA said without giving more details. South Korean media and diplomatic sources said this week North Korean security officials detained the two as they filmed across the Tumen River from the Chinese side of the border. A media source has said the two women were working for Current TV, a US-based online news company. A diplomatic source said earlier the reporters were on the frozen Tumen when taken by North Korean security guards. The Tumen runs along the eastern section of the border with China. "What I can tell you is that we are working diplomatically to try to resolve this issue. Secretary Clinton is engaged on this matter right now," Robert Wood, a US State Department spokesman, told reporters yesterday.

Taliban Utilizing Internet-Cum-Cyberwar For Its Advantage Over Afghan Administration And NATO Forces Media

Taliban Utilizing Internet-Cum-Cyberwar For Its Advantage Over Afghan Administration And NATO Forces Media
(NSI News Source Info) KABUL, Afghanistan - March 21, 2009: A major component of Taliban success has been their ability to manipulate the local and international media. Much of this media work is done by, or with the help of, Moslems living in the West, via the Internet. While the old Soviet Union terrorist training schools gave good advice on how to provide the media with what they are looking for (bad, and preferably bizarrely bad, news) to get the attention you desire, a lot of Moslems moving to the West quickly pick up on how the media works.
Canadian soldiers of the NATO-led coalition rest during a mission in the Taliban stronghold of Zhari district in Kandahar province, southern Afghanistan, March 20, 2009.
Basically, truth is optional, sensationalism is essential. The more outrageous your claim, the more likely it is to become a news story. There are a few other rules to follow. Like denying any enemy success, or failure by your own forces. Play down your losses, and exaggerate those of the enemy. Claim "innocent civilians" being killed at every opportunity. You can lie a lot here, such is the power of dead civilians (real or imagined.) A key component of a good media campaign is crippling the efforts of foreign troops to communicate with the locals. This means going after Afghans who work for the foreign troops. Unlike Iraq, Afghans have proven more dependable and loyal, and provide most of the civilian workers on military bases.
Hundreds of Afghans also serve as translators and "fixers" (arranging meetings with local leaders, or even Taliban personnel), and they have always received death threats, or been pressured to become Taliban or drug gang spies. But increasingly, the translators and fixers have become more actively anti-Taliban and hostile to the drug lords.
This has resulted in growing terrorist activity against anyone who works for foreigners (including foreign aid agencies.) The Taliban increasingly pressure translators and fixers working for foreign journalists, seeking to get these Afghans to become part of the Taliban propaganda effort. There are two types of "controlled substances" in Afghanistan; opium (and its refined product, heroin) and alcohol.
The latter is prohibited by Islam, but wine has been a popular beverage in Central Asia for thousands of years before Islam appeared. Wine continues to be sought after, with major production taking place in the Central Asian nations to the north. Bribes get truck loads of wine across the border, but the anti-drug police tend to seize more wine than heroin. That's because the drug gangs pay bigger bribes, and are more inclined (and able) to kill any police who interfere with the drug trade. The main difference is that heroin can be exported, and generate far greater profits, than you can get by peddling bottles of local wine. The growing use of roadside bombs, largely in a small part of southern Afghanistan, has resulted in many more civilians getting killed by these devices. Although the main target of the bombs are foreign troops, there are far more civilians wandering by, and civilians are most frequently the victims.
Currently, the Taliban, and other terrorist groups, are deploying over a hundred of these bombs a day, and most never get used against foreign troops (who don't come by). The bombs are often just left there, despite the danger of civilians, especially kids, coming by and messing with it, and setting it off. The government and foreign aid agencies are running an education campaign to warn civilians of the danger, and how to deal with it (stay away, and contact the police so a bomb clearing team can take care of it.) Because of the continued inability of the Taliban to handle foreign troops in combat, the fighting follows a familiar pattern. The Taliban use roadside bombs to attack foreign troops (who are increasing riding in vehicles designed to defeat the effects of the bombs). For each foreign soldier killed, 10-15 Taliban are killed by foreign troops, who are constantly on patrol looking for Taliban bases and safe houses.
Bringing in more foreign troops will increase the number of casualties among the Taliban and the drug gangs. This, it is believed, will persuade the tribal leadership to back off on their support of the Taliban and drug gangs. The tribes that support the Taliban and drug gangs comprise only a small fraction (about five million people) of the Afghan population, and all are in the south. There are a few big tribes, and dozens of powerful clans, involved here.
A few hundred tribal leaders have to be persuaded that their greed is causing irreparable harm to their clans. And it's well known in Afghanistan that clans, and even tribes, are not immortal. Tales are still told of armed struggles in the past that led to the passing of once notable clans and tribes. No one wants to be in charge when that happens again. While many Afghans refuse to fight for the Taliban any more, many are less reluctant to sign on with the drug gangs. Both groups are at war with the Afghan police and army. The foreign troops are constantly increasing the size and quality of the Afghan police and soldiers. Most of the British SAS commandos are being switched from Iraq to Afghanistan. The SAS specialized in hunting down terrorist leaders in Iraq, and had a lot of success doing that. There have been SAS contingents in Afghanistan since 2002, but this shift will put a lot more into action against the Taliban. March 15, 2009: Dozens of Taliban attacked a truck depot in Pakistan, where cargo for NATO troops is assembled for movement into Afghanistan via the two main roads. Twenty trucks were destroyed. NATO and the U.S. are now moving more cargo into Afghanistan via railroads in Russia, Central Asia and the Caucasus.
These routes could replace all the truck traffic from Pakistan, which would cost the trucking companies, and the truck drivers, millions of dollars a year. A lot of the violence is a combination of Taliban and tribal conflict over who should get the largest share of bribes and extortion payments from the trucking companies. Such payments have always been customary, but have gone up with the volume of shipments for foreigners (who have more money to be extorted.)

Why The F-22 Remains Vital And Important Factor To Be Maintained

Why The F-22 Remains Vital And Important Factor To Be Maintained
(NSI News Source Info) Arlington, Va. - March 21, 2009: What type of military forces will be most in demand to fight the wars of the 21st century? Telling signs are already evident. -- In 2007 Russian Tupolev Tu-95 Bear bombers and Ilyushin Il-78 tankers resumed patrols in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and near the Arctic Circle after a 15-year absence. -- China's active space program has tested satellite destruction and manned orbital capabilities. -- Russia may have had a hand in cyberattacks on Estonia in 2007 and Georgia in 2008. -- China has been admonished by Germany, Britain and the United States for attempted penetrations of government networks. -- Russia conducted a combined-arms incursion into the former Soviet republic of Georgia in the Caucasus in August 2008, complete with mechanized vehicles, airstrikes and mobile missile forces. In this environment, conventional deterrence will rely heavily on superior air, space and cyberspace capabilities. The United States' big advantage comes from the ability to threaten a successful and persistent airstrike against key targets. Calibrating the flexible deterrent options requires real-time information on threats and options. Job one is to survey and assess the situation. One of the most important aspects of deterrence -- both conventional and nuclear -- is correctly characterizing crises and the actions and posture of adversary military forces. Real-time intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance is in high demand by the international community as it takes its first steps in considering action during a crisis. Decision-makers want to know what friendly and adversary forces are really doing, where key units are positioned, and how the situation is changing. Reflecting this, U.S. joint doctrine explicitly lists positioning of ISR assets as part of flexible deterrent operations. In the Balkans in the early 1990s, the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization set up surveillance and no-fly zones long before committing to further action. Operations against terrorism consume ISR. With current forces, it is easy to picture force options such as a deployment of the Global Hawk unmanned aerial system and other ISR assets, along with fighter forces, to signal resolve and shape a crisis. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States and its partners have grown accustomed to a level of ISR unprecedented in warfare. It began with the early use of unmanned aerial systems Predator and Global Hawk in Afghanistan, and has spiraled to the point where a combination of systems can track terrorist movements visually and electronically. ISR is not perfect, but it provides an addictive level of information. Space platforms play a role, but the most sophisticated, sensitive ISR depends on near-complete control of the airspace so that aircraft of all types may operate with impunity.

Sikorsky S-92A Helicopters To Be Grounded, Studs Should Be Replaced

Sikorsky S-92A Helicopters To Be Grounded, Studs Should Be Replaced
(NSI News Source Info) March 21, 2009: The Transportation Safety Board (TSB) of Canada says the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration intends to order all operators of the Sikorsky S-92A helicopter to ground their aircraft so that steel replacements can be installed for the main gearbox filter bowl assembly mounting stud, according to a March 20 TSB press release. The S-92 is a twin turbine engined utility helicopter with aluminium airframe with some composite components. The four-bladed fully articulated composite main rotor blade is wider and has a longer radius than the S-70 Blackhawk. The tapered blade tip sweeps back and angles downward to reduce noise and increase lift. Tethered hover flight has recorded 31,000 lb of lift generated, both in and out of ground effect. A number of safety features such as flaw tolerance, bird strike capability, and engine burst containment have been incorporated into the design. Adherence to FAA FAR part 29 has led the FAA certification board to call the S-92 the "safest helicopter in the world". An active vibration system using structurally mounted force generators ensures comfortable flight and acoustic levels which are well below certification requirements. These systems also prolong the life of the airframe by reducing fatigue loads on the aircraft. But FAA spokesman Les Dorr said that was not necessarily the case. Dorr said the U.S. agency was only considering "issuing an airworthiness directive that would cover an issue uncovered in the investigation." TSB officials recently began examining the wreckage of an S-92 that went down off the coast of Newfoundland on March 12. On Jan. 28, Sikorsky issued a bulletin to S-92 operators indicating that the titanium studs should be replaced with steel ones. This one-time modification was to be accomplished within one year or 1,250 flight hours, whichever occurred first.

Raytheon Awarded $106 Million For Joint Standoff Weapon C-1 Production

Raytheon Awarded $106 Million For Joint Standoff Weapon C-1 Production
(NSI News Source Info) TUCSON, Ariz. - March 21, 2009: The U.S. Navy awarded Raytheon Company a $106 million contract for production of the Joint Standoff Weapon C-1. "With this contract award, the first network-enabled weapons in the world will be produced to meet warfighter requirements," said Cmdr. Andrew Kessler, JSOW deputy program manager in the U.S. Navy's Precision Strike Weapons program office. "The JSOW C-1 will maintain all the capabilities of the proven JSOW C configuration while bringing the flexibility to engage time-sensitive maritime targets." JSOW is a family of low-cost air-to-ground weapons that employs an integrated GPS/Inertial Navigation System that guides the weapon to the target. JSOW C-1 adds moving maritime target capability and a two-way data link to the combat-proven JSOW. "The C-1 gives the warfighter tremendous employment flexibility," said Phyllis McEnroe, Raytheon's JSOW program director. "The JSOW family of weapons is currently integrated on a variety of platforms including the F/A-18 and several blocks of the F-16. JSOW is also scheduled for integration on the Joint Strike Fighter." The contract includes funding for fixed-price production of more than 350 weapons, container cables and test units. The award also includes $17.2 million to transition the factory from producing the JSOW C to the JSOW C-1. Production will begin in October, and all-up round delivery to the U.S. Navy and select coalition partners is expected to begin in March 2010. Raytheon Company, with 2008 sales of $23.2 billion, is a technology and innovation leader specializing in defense, homeland security and other government markets throughout the world. With a history of innovation spanning 87 years, Raytheon provides state-of-the-art electronics, mission systems integration and other capabilities in the areas of sensing; effects; and command, control, communications and intelligence systems, as well as a broad range of mission support services. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 73,000 people worldwide. Note to Editors: This contract award was originally announced by the Department of Defense March 13, 2009. Raytheon's JSOW program provides more than 280 jobs in Tucson, Ariz. Scores of Raytheon suppliers associated with the JSOW program provide employment to hundreds of people across the U.S. Major suppliers include: Carleton Technologies, Inc., Orchard Park, N.Y.; Computer Optical Products, Inc., Chatsworth, Calif.; Enser, Pinellas Park, Fla.; GE Aviation Systems, LLC, Bohemia, N.Y.; Goodrich Corporation, Vergennes, Vt.; Herley Industries, Lancaster, Penn.; Honeywell International Inc., Minneapolis, Minn.; Klune Industries, Inc., Spanish Fork, Utah; L-3 Communications, Menlo Park, Calif.; L-3 Communications Telemetry West, San Diego; LaBarge, Inc., Saint Louis; Primus Technologies, Corp., Williamsport, Penn.; Rockwell Collins, Inc., Cedar Rapid, Iowa

What Obama's Message To Iran Means / Obama Offers New Start, Iran Wants Action Not Talk

What Obama's Message To Iran Means / Obama Offers New Start, Iran Wants Action Not Talk
(NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON - March 21, 2009: Iran on Friday welcomed US President Barack Obama's strongest offer yet of a ‘new beginning’ in relations, but called for action, not talk, from Washington. ‘The Iranian nation has shown that it can forget hasty behaviour but we are awaiting practical steps by the United States,’ Aliakbar Javanfekr, an aide to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, told Reuters. ‘The Obama administation so far has just talked,’ he added, calling for Obama to make ‘fundamental changes in his policy towards Iran’. President Barack Obama's video message to Iran offering a "new beginning" is an imaginative start to his attempt to improve relations - but huge obstacles remain. In diplomacy such efforts at overcoming major differences sometimes end simply in defining those differences more sharply. These issues were not directly mentioned by Mr Obama but this is what he is referring to: *Iran to give up uranium enrichment and accept international offers to provide fuel for nuclear power *Iran to stop arming Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza *Iran to help in achieving peace in Afghanistan and Iraq *Iran to stop threatening Israel. Iran will want the following: *Acceptance of its right to enrich uranium *An end to UN sanctions *An end to US sanctions *An end to America's "colonialist attitudes". What Obama really means It is worth deconstructing the president's speech to try to read between the lines. Flattery is often a good way to start - he talks about the "great" Iranian civilisation and conjures up warm images with references to common family feelings on public holidays. All this, on the Iranian spring holiday of Nowruz, is an effort to overcome Iranian suspicions that it is held in low esteem by the US. Perhaps the diplomatically key phase is this: "My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us."
He adds: "This process will not be advanced by threats." This means an end, for the moment at least, to the implied threats of military action. The president is offering a period of calm in which to allow this diplomacy time to work. He does not however say how long this period will last. But note how carefully the phrase about threats was written. It does not in fact rule out threats in the future. The absence of threats applies only to the process of diplomacy. If diplomacy fails, threats might return. Mr Obama also means that stopping threats also applies to Iranian threats, especially against Israel. Incidentally, the US position now diverges quite strongly from the Israeli. The Israelis have recently been making increasingly worried statements about Iran's potential nuclear weapons capacity, suggesting that while diplomacy might come first, military action might come second. Update: Israeli President Shimon Peres has also broadcast to Iran, on the Farsi service of Israel radio. His tome was much sharper, appealing to the Iranian people but dismissing the leadership as "religious fanatics." He commented: "You can't feed your children enriched uranium." His statement was in effect an appeal for the current Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be voted out in the June election. The US president also offers carrots, among them "constructive ties between the United States, Iran and the international community" in an "engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect". The ties refer to the potential for diplomatic relations to be restored between the US and Iran, but he does not commit himself openly to that outcome at this stage. "Honest" engagement means that there will be tough talking. "Mutual respect" means that the US will listen. Close to the bone Another key phrase: "You, too, have a choice." This is not a threat but it is a warning. Mr Obama gets close to the bone. Iran, he says, must recognise that rights come with "responsibilities". This means that Iran might have the right to enrich uranium but should not do so because it is creating concerns about its ambitions. Nor should it stir up trouble in the region, is another subliminal message. Mr Obama offers another carrot. He accepts that Iran should take its "rightful place in the community of nations", but adds significantly: "That place cannot be reached through terror or arms." The measure of Iran's greatness is not "the capacity to destroy". "Terror or arms" means Hezbollah and Hamas and maybe its own military build-up. The "capacity to destroy" is a reference to nuclear weapons, even though Iran says that it will not build them, and to Iranian missile development. Importantly, the president implicitly offers an end to sanctions by saying that he wants a future with "greater opportunities for partnership and commerce". At this stage he is offering only "greater" opportunities, not the full opening, but the deal is in prospect. He also looks to a future "where you and all your neighbours and the wider world can live in greater security...". "All" the neighbours include Israel, of course. There is a very ambitious agenda here. The process suggests direct talks if that is what Iran wants.