DTN News: Boeing Completes Key Tests Of Self-Protection System Aboard Australian Wedgetail AEW&C Aircraft

DTN News: Boeing Completes Key Tests Of Self-Protection System Aboard Australian Wedgetail AEW&C Aircraft *Source: DTN News / Boeing (NSI News Source Info) SEATTLE,- November 10, 2009: The Boeing Company [NYSE: BA] announced today that it has successfully completed tests of the Counter Measures Dispenser System (CMDS) for Project Wedgetail, Australia's Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system. The tests were conducted in September and October off the Washington coast and over Puget Sound, Wash.The Boeing Company announced yesterday Nov. 9, that it has successfully completed tests of the Counter Measures Dispenser System for Project Wedgetail, Australia's Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) system. In this photo, a 737 AEW&C aircraft releases flares during the tests. Completion of CMDS testing is a key step toward verification of the Wedgetail AEW&C aircraft's overall Electronic Warfare Self-Protection (EWSP) capability. EWSP is designed to warn aircrews about and protect against missiles targeting the aircraft. The CMDS responds to threats by releasing chaff and flares to decoy incoming missiles away from the aircraft. Boeing and its industry supplier, BAE Systems, developed and integrated the CMDS system. Testing included 19 flights that dispensed more than 500 units of chaff and flares. The AEW&C team collected data via five high-speed video cameras mounted on the Wedgetail aircraft and an additional video camera attached to a T-33 chase plane. "The testing program verified that the Boeing-installed self-protection system will effectively counter its intended threats reliably and safely," said Kermit Hollinger, Electronic Warfare manager for Boeing AEW&C Programs. "This milestone is the latest example of Boeing's ability to integrate military systems onto commercial aircraft and provide our customers with low-risk, cost-effective solutions to their operational requirements." Project Wedgetail includes six 737 AEW&C aircraft plus ground support segments for mission crew training, mission support and system maintenance. The 737 AEW&C aircraft, based on the Boeing Next-Generation 737-700 commercial airplane, is designed to provide airborne battle-management capability with an advanced multirole electronically scanned radar and 10 state-of-the-art mission crew consoles. Able to track airborne and maritime targets simultaneously, the mission crew can direct offensive and defensive forces while maintaining continuous surveillance of the operational area. A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is one of the world's largest space and defense businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world's largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Integrated Defense Systems is a $32 billion business with 70,000 employees worldwide.

DTN News: Saudi Arabia TODAY November 10, 2009 ~ 'Saudi Fighter Jets Using Phosphorous Bombs' Says Houthi Rebel Spokeperson

DTN News: Saudi Arabia TODAY November 10, 2009 ~ 'Saudi Fighter Jets Using Phosphorous Bombs' Says Houthi Rebel Spokeperson *Source: DTN News / Int'l Media (NSI News Source Info) - DUBAI, UAE - November 10, 2009: Houthi fighters in Yemen say Saudi fighter jets are using phosphorous bombs to back a deadly Yemeni government offensive against them. Houthi rebels are seen in the border area between Saudi Arabia and Yemen in this video grab from recent footage released by the rebels November 9, 2009. Saudi Arabia said it had regained control of territory seized by Yemeni rebels in an incursion last week, but the rebels denied the claim and said Yemeni villages were being bombed heavily. "Saudi combat fighter jets launched intense raids against border areas inside Yemeni territory on Sunday night," the fighters' spokesman Mohammad Abdessalam told AFP by telephone. "The Saudi military used phosphorus bombs during those night raids, burning mountainous regions," he said adding that "The Saudi air raids resumed this morning (Monday). " Saudi Army vehicles burn during clashes with Houthi rebels in the border area between Saudi Arabia and Yemen in this video grab from recent footage released by the rebels November 9, 2009. Saudi Arabia said it had regained control of territory seized by Yemeni rebels in an incursion last week, but the rebels denied the claim and said Yemeni villages were being bombed heavily. Abdessalam said that the raids targeted Malaheez, seven kilometers (3.8 miles) inside Yemen, as well as the border villages of Hassameh and Shida and several villages around Jebel (mountain) al-Dukhan straddling the border. The Saudi air force launched its deadly offensive against Houthis seven days ago, accusing the resistance Shia fighters of killing two Saudi soldiers on the border. While Riyadh claims that its offensive targeted Houthi positions on 'Saudi territory', the fighters say Yemeni villages are the main target of heavy bombings.Saudi soldiers on patrol in the southern province of Jizan, near the border with Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sunday, Nov. 8, 2009. Saudi Arabian forces have taken control of a mountain straddling the border with Yemen and cleared it of Shiite rebels, in five days of fighting that saw three soldiers killed and 15 wounded, the assistant defense minister said on Sunday. Prince Khaled bin Sultan said another four soldiers were missing and that Saudi troops were still dealing with rebel infiltrators in other spots along the frontier. The developments comes as Yemen's President Ali Abdullah Saleh has declared that attacks against the Houthi fighters will be intensified. The conflict between Houthi fighters and the Yemeni government began in 2004, but intensified last August when government forces stepped up the pressure against the fighters. Saudi Prince Khaled bin Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz (C), assistant minister for defence and aviation, meets with Saudi soldiers in Jizan near the border with Yemen November 8, 2009. Houthi fighters say they have been defending their people against the Yemeni government that has marginalized them economically and politically.

DTN News: Soviet Union ~ Twenty Years After The Fall

DTN News: Soviet Union ~ Twenty Years After The Fall *Source: By George Friedman STRATFOR (NSI News Source Info) KOTTAKKAL, Kerala, India - November 5, 2009: We are now at the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the beginning of the collapse of the Soviet empire in Eastern Europe. We are also nearing the 18th anniversary of the fall of the Soviet Union itself. This is more than simply a moment for reflection -- it is a moment to consider the current state of the region and of Russia versus that whose passing we are now commemorating. To do that, we must re-examine why the Soviet empire collapsed, and the current status of the same forces that caused that collapse. Russia's Two-Part Foundation The Russian empire -- both the Czarist and Communist versions -- was a vast, multinational entity. At its greatest extent, it stretched into the heart of Central Europe; at other times, it was smaller. But it was always an empire whose constituent parts were diverse, hostile to each other and restless. Two things tied the empire together. One was economic backwardness. Economic backwardness gave the constituent parts a single common characteristic and interest. None of them could effectively compete with the more dynamic economies of Western Europe and the rest of the world, but each could find a niche within the empire. Economic interests thus bound each part to the rest: They needed a wall to protect themselves from Western interests, and an arena in which their own economic interests, however stunted, could be protected. The empire provided that space and that opportunity. The second thing tying the empire together was the power of the security apparatus. Where economic interest was insufficient to hold the constituent parts together, the apparatus held the structure together. In a vast empire with poor transportation and communication, the security apparatus -- from Czarist times to the Soviet period -- was the single unifying institution. It unified in the sense that it could compel what economic interest couldn't motivate. The most sophisticated part of the Russian state was the security services. They were provided with the resources they needed to control the empire, report status to the center and impose the center's decisions through terror, or more frequently, through the mere knowledge that terror would be the consequence of disobedience. It was therefore no surprise that it was the security apparatus of the Soviet Union -- the KGB under Yuri Andropov -- which first recognized in the early 1980s that the Soviet Union's economy not only was slipping further and further behind the West, but that its internal cohesion was threatened because the economy was performing so poorly that the minimal needs of the constituent parts were no longer being fulfilled. In Andropov's mind, the imposition of even greater terror, like Josef Stalin had applied, would not solve the underlying problem. Thus, the two elements holding the Soviet Union together were no longer working. The self-enclosed economy was failing and the security apparatus could not hold the system together. It is vital to remember that in Russia, domestic economic health and national power do not go hand in hand. Russia historically has had a dysfunctional economy. By contrast, its military power has always been disproportionately strong. During World War II, the Soviets crushed the Wehrmacht in spite of their extraordinary economic weakness. Later, during the Cold War, they challenged and sometimes even beat the United States despite an incomparably weaker economy. The Russian security apparatus made this possible. Russia could devote far more of its economy to military power than other countries could because Moscow could control its population successfully. It could impose far greater austerities than other countries could. Therefore, Russia was a major power in spite of its economic weakness. And this gave it room to maneuver in an unexpected way. Andropov's Gamble Andropov proposed a strategy he knew was risky, but which he saw as unavoidable. One element involved a dramatic restructuring of the Soviet economy and society to enhance efficiency. The second involved increased openness, not just domestically to facilitate innovation, but also in foreign affairs. Enclosure was no longer working: The Soviet Union needed foreign capital and investment to make restructuring work. Andropov knew that the West, and particularly the United States, would not provide help so long as the Soviet Union threatened its geopolitical interests even if doing so would be economically profitable. For this opening to the West to work, the Soviet Union needed to reduce Cold War tensions dramatically. In effect, the Soviets needed to trade geopolitical interests to secure their economic interests. Since securing economic interests was essential for Communist Party survival, Andropov was proposing to follow the lead of Vladimir Lenin, another leader who sacrificed space for time. In the Brest-Litovsk Treaty that ended Russian participation in World War I, Lenin had conceded vast amounts of territory to Germany to buy time for the regime to consolidate itself. Andropov was suggesting the same thing. It is essential to understand that Andropov was a Party man and a Chekist -- a Communist and KGBer -- through and through. He was not proposing the dismantling of the Party; rather, he sought to preserve the Party by executing a strategic retreat on the geopolitical front while the Soviet Union regained its economic balance. Undoubtedly he understood the risk that restructuring and openness would create enormous pressures at a time of economic hardship, possibly causing regime collapse under the strain. Andropov clearly thought the risk was worth running. After Leonid Brezhnev died, Andropov took his place. He became ill almost immediately and died. He was replaced by Konstantin Chernenko, who died within a year. Then came Mikhail Gorbachev -- the true heir to Andropov's thinking -- who implemented Andropov's two principles. He pursued openness, or glasnost. He also pursued restructuring, or perestroika. He traded geopolitical interests, hard-won by the Red Army, for economic benefits. Contrary to his reputation in the West, Gorbachev was no liberal. He actually sought to preserve the Communist Party, and was prepared to restructure and open the system to do so. As the security apparatus loosened its grip to facilitate openness and restructuring, the empire's underlying tensions quickly went on display. When unrest in East Germany threatened to undermine Soviet control, Gorbachev had to make a strategic decision. If he used military force to suppress the uprising, probably restructuring and certainly openness would be dead, and the crisis Andropov foresaw would be upon him. Following Lenin's principle, Gorbachev decided to trade space for time, and he accepted retreat from East Germany to maintain and strengthen his economic relations with the West. After Gorbachev made that decision, the rest followed. If Germany were not to be defended, what would be defended? Applying his strategy rigorously, Gorbachev allowed the unwinding of the Eastern European empire without intervention. The decision he had made about Germany amounted to relinquishing most of Moscow's World War II gains. But if regime survival required it, the price had to be paid. The Crisis The crisis came very simply. The degree of restructuring required to prevent the Soviet Union's constituent republics from having an overarching interest in economic relations with the West rather than with Russia was enormous. There was no way to achieve it quickly. Given that the

Soviet Union now had an official policy of ending its self-imposed enclosure, the apparent advantages to the constituent parts of protecting their economies from Western competition declined -- and with them, the rationale for the Soviet Union. The security apparatus, the KGB, had been the engine driving glasnost and perestroika from the beginning; the advocates of the plan were not going to shift into reverse and suppress glasnost. But glasnost overwhelmed the system. The Soviet Union, unable to buy the time it needed to protect the Party, imploded. It broke apart into its constituent republics, and even parts of the Russian Federation seemed likely to break away. What followed was liberalization only in the eyes of Westerners. It is easy to confuse liberalism with collapse, since both provide openness. But the former Soviet Union (FSU) wasn't liberalizing, it was collapsing in every sense. What remained administratively was the KGB, now without a mission. The KGB was the most sophisticated part of the Soviet apparatus, and its members were the best and brightest. As privatization went into action, absent clear rules or principles, KGB members had the knowledge and sophistication to take advantage of it. As individuals and in factions, they built structures and relationships to take advantage of privatization, forming the factions that dominated the FSU throughout the 1990s until today. It is not reasonable to refer to organized crime in Russia, because Russia was lawless. In fact, the law enforcement apparatus was at the forefront of exploiting the chaos. Organized crime, business and the KGB became interconnected, and frequently identical. The 1990s were a catastrophic period for most Russians. The economy collapsed. Property was appropriated in a systematic looting of all of the former Russian republics, with Western interests also rushing in to do quick deals on tremendously favorable terms. The new economic interests crossed the new national borders. (It is important to bear in mind that the boundaries that had separated Soviet republics were very real.) The financial cartels, named for the oligarchs who putatively controlled them (control was much more complex; many oligarchs were front men for more powerful and discreet figures), spread beyond the borders of the countries in which they originated, although the Russian cartels spread the most effectively. Had the West -- more specifically the United States -- wanted to finish Russia off, this was the time. Russia had no effective government, poverty was extraordinary, the army was broken and the KGB was in a civil war over property. Very little pressure could well have finished off the Russian Federation. The Bush and Clinton administrations made a strategic decision to treat Russia as the successor regime of the FSU, however, and refused to destabilize it further. Washington played an aggressive role in expanding NATO, but it did not try to break up the Russian Federation for several reasons. First, it feared nuclear weapons would fall into the hands of dangerous factions. Second, it did not imagine that Russia could ever be a viable country again. And third, it believed that if Russia did become viable, it would be a liberal democracy. (The idea that liberal democracies never threaten other liberal democracies was implanted in American minds.) What later became known as a neoconservative doctrine actually lay at the heart of the Clinton administration's thinking. Russia Regroups -- and Faces the Same Crisis Russia's heart was the security apparatus. Whether holding it together or tearing it apart, the KGB -- renamed the FSB after the Soviet collapse -- remained the single viable part of the Russian state. It was therefore logical that when it became essential to end the chaos, the FSB would be the one to end it. Vladimir Putin, whom the KGB trained during Andropov's tenure and who participated in the privatization frenzy in St. Petersburg, emerged as the force to recentralize Russia. The FSB realized that the Russian Federation itself faced collapse, and that excessive power had fallen out of its hands as FSB operatives had fought one another during the period of privatization. Putin sought to restore the center in two ways. First, he worked to restore the central apparatus of the state. Second, he worked to strip power from oligarchs unaligned with the apparatus. It was a slow process, requiring infinite care so that the FSB not start tearing itself apart again, but Putin is a patient and careful man. Putin realized that Andropov's gamble had failed catastrophically. He also knew that the process could not simply be reversed; there was no going back to the Soviet Union. At the same time, it was possible to go back to the basic principles of the Soviet Union. First, there could be a union of the region, bound together by both economic weakness and the advantage of natural resource collaboration. Second, there was the reality of a transnational intelligence apparatus that could both stabilize the region and create the infrastructure for military power. And third, there was the reversal of the policy of trading geopolitical interests for financial benefits from the West. Putin's view -- and the average Russian's view -- was that the financial benefits of the West were more harmful than beneficial. By 2008, when Russia defeated America's ally, Georgia, in a war, the process of reassertion was well under way. Then, the financial crisis struck along with fluctuations in energy prices. The disparity between Russia's politico-military aspirations, its military capability and its economic structure re-emerged. The Russians once again faced their classic situation: If they abandoned geopolitical interests, they would be physically at risk. But if they pursued their geopolitical interests, they would need a military force capable of assuming the task. Expanding the military would make the public unhappy as it would see resources diverted from public consumption to military production, and this could only be managed by increasing the power of the state and the security apparatus to manage the unhappiness. But this still left the risk of a massive divergence between military and economic power that could not be bridged by repression. This risk re-created the situation that emerged in the 1970s, had to be dealt with in the 1980s and turned into chaos in the 1990s. The current decisions the Russians face can only be understood in the context of events that transpired 20 years ago. The same issues are being played out, and the generation that now governs Russia was forged in that crucible. The Russian leadership is trying to balance the possible outcomes to find a solution. They cannot trade national security for promised economic benefits that may not materialize or may not be usable. And they cannot simply use the security apparatus to manage increased military spending -- there are limits to that. As a generation ago, Russia is caught between the things that it must do to survive in the short run and the things it cannot do if they are to survive in the long run. There is no permanent solution for Russia, and that is what makes it such an unpredictable player in the international system. The closest Russia has come to a stable solution to its strategic problem was under Ivan the Terrible and Stalin, and even those could not hold for more than a generation. The West must understand that Russia is never at peace with itself internally, and is therefore constantly shifting its external relationships in an endless, spasmodic cycle. Things go along for awhile, and then suddenly change. We saw a massive change 20 years ago, but the forces that generated that change had built up quietly in the generation before. The generation since has been trying to pull the pieces back together. But in Russia, every solution is merely the preface to the next problem -- something built into the Russian reality. This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to http://www.stratfor.com/ Disclaimer statement Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied herein, DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Unless otherwise indicated, opinions expressed herein are those of the author of the page and do not necessarily represent the corporate views of DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News.

DTN News: Pakistan TODAY November 10, 2009 ~ Militant Attacks Leave Six Pakistan Troops Dead

DTN News: Pakistan TODAY November 10, 2009 ~ Militant Attacks Leave Six Pakistan Troops Dead *Analysis: Pakistan has for too many years indulged in unproductive activities by supporting, harbouring, financing Islamic militants in FATA region to destabilize its neighbours in the north, east as well providing elements for 9/11, Bali blasts and other incidents. Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf told CNN in an interview telecast Sunday November 8, 2009.,admitted that there is an ingress of the Pakistani spy agency Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) in every group, but denied reports and statements by US leaders that ISI still supports the Taliban terrorists. "They (ISI) will not support it (terrorists). That was not the government policy. That was not the military policy. However, there was ingress," he said. "Always, in every group, there is an ingress of the ISI. And that is the efficiency, the effectiveness of the ISI. You must have ingress, so that you can influence all organisations. "And it is this ingress of theirs, which doesn't mean that they are supporting them, but they have ingress. They have some contacts, which can be used for their own advantage," Musharraf said. Since last year, Pakistan has being pressurized by Obama administration to contain Islamic militants on account of economy and military aid in billions of dollars, the same elements are now rebelling against their mentor the ISI (Pakistani Army Intelligence Wing.) That is the bottomline and simple story. There is a saying "as you sow, so shall you reap". By Gulam Rasul Shah *Source: DTN News / AFP (NSI News Source Info) PESHAWAR, Pakistan - November 10, 2009: Militant attacks killed six troops in Pakistan's tribal belt, where soldiers backed by warplanes and helicopter gunships are pressing a major anti-Taliban offensive, officials said Monday.The military says around 480 militants and 46 soldiers have been killed since the offensive began The first attack, late Sunday, left four soldiers dead in Makin, one of the battlefields where ground troops are pressing an operation against the homegrown Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) network into a fourth week. Military officials said initially that the soldiers died in an improvised explosive device (IED) attack -- of the type deployed by the Taliban to such deadly effect against US and NATO troops across the border in Afghanistan. But the army press office later issued a statement saying militants fired rockets at a security checkpost, killing the four soldiers and wounding one other. Eight militants were killed, the statement said. Further to the north in the lawless tribal belt, where US officials say Al-Qaeda are plotting attacks on the West, a roadside bomb killed two paramilitary soldiers in Bajaur district, officials said. The soldiers were travelling at the time in a vehicle to take up duty at the strategic Mullahsaid Top checkpoint, 40 kilometres (25 miles) northeast of Khar, the main town of Bajaur. "Two soldiers were killed and one injured in an IED attack," tribal administration official Abdul Hameed Khan told AFP. Paramilitary and intelligence officials confirmed Monday's incident and toll. Officials say the Taliban have stepped up attacks in Bajaur to deflect attention away from South Waziristan, where around 30,000 Pakistani troops are pressing their most ambitious offensive to date against the TTP. Makin is one of the most notorious Taliban-held towns in South Waziristan and close to where former TTP chief Baitullah Mehsud had a house, which the military said Friday had been demolished. A US missile attack killed Mehsud on August 5 in South Waziristan, part of the border area with Afghanistan that Washington calls the most dangerous place in the world because of an abundance of Al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters. The military says around 480 militants and 46 soldiers have been killed since the offensive began, but security officials and analysts say that many Islamist rebels have simply fled rather than staying to fight. The military provides the only regular information coming from the frontlines. None of the details can be verified because communication lines are down and journalists and aid workers barred from the area. Disclaimer statement Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied herein, DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Unless otherwise indicated, opinions expressed herein are those of the author of the page and do not necessarily represent the corporate views of DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News.

DTN News: Russian Fighter Jets Worse Than Those Of USA And Europe?

DTN News: Russian Fighter Jets Worse Than Those Of USA And Europe? *Source: Bigness.ru By Sergey Malinin (NSI News Source Info) MOSCOW, Russia - November 10, 2009: The failure of the deal to sell Russian IL-78 fuel tankers to India once again raised the issue of the competitive ability decrease of Russian arms and military technique on the world market. Russia’s "Оboronka" (the defense industry) is facing yet harder problems in handling export contracts and servicing clients of earlier transactions. “It is impossible to improve the situation”, our expert concludes. IL-78 tanker aircraft. ~ The IAF says the A330-200 is its choice for the projected Multi Role Tanker Transport requirement, not the IL-78 Midas tanker. Air Chief Marshal Fali Homi Major told HT in an interview, “We have finished all evaluations and selected the A330 MRTT. The deal will come up for final approval by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) very soon. The Russian platform did not meet certain requirements.” The Air Chief appeared to be piqued at the poor vendor support for equipment procured from Russia. "After the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Russia has changed the whole pattern of doing defense business. Now we are faced with issues concerning spares, vendor support and built-in delays in the structure of their centralized military corporations.” India's MOD issued a request for proposals (RFP) for delivery of six Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) in 2007. The RFP stipulates deliveries of the new tankers to begin three years after contract signature. EADS subsidiary Airbus has offered the A330-200-in a three-hose configuration and Russia's United Aircraft (UAC) has offered a more advanced version of the Ilyushin Il-78 Midas tanker, 12 of which are in service with the IAF. According to Russian and foreign media sources, India refused to buy Russian Il-78 fuel tanker aircraft. Indian officials motivated this decision with the non-conformity of planes to the customer’s requisitions. The spare parts supply and the after-sales service were also mentioned. “After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia alternated its approach to the handling of the defense business. Nowadays we are facing problems with spare parts, the support of manufacturers and the delays conditioned by the centralized structure of their defense corporations”, Fali Homi Major, the Commander-in-Chief of Indian Air Force told RIA Novosti. Instead of Russian planes India is likely to buy Airbus A330 MRTT manufactured by the European company EADS. This is not the first juicy scandal connected with Russia’s defense exports. “The most well-known case is the scandal with Algeria when they refused to take the already procured MiG aircraft and sent them back to us. There are plenty of scandals with India in relation to various types of arms. It concerns naval weapons in the first place”, said Mr. Alexander Khramchihin of the Institute of Political and Defense Analysis in an interview to Bigness.ru. Recollecting the year 2007 with the outbreak of scandal with 15 MiG-29CMT fighters shipped to Algeria . It appeared that the jet fighters, which were sold as brand new, contained “second-hand” parts. According to some information, the units from the planes with several hundreds of flight hours were used when assembling those aircraft. One can recollect habitual claims from India which is one of our key partners in the field of defense cooperation. We remind the endless complaints with The Gorshkov aircraft carrier which was designed for India. The budget for its refurbishment was mounting endlessly which enormously irritated our client. Perplexity was also connected with the problems in the modernization of the ship. Technical problems haunted Russia in the transfer of frigates, which India ordered from Russia . Air defense missile systems stubbornly failed to hit air targets. In many scandal situations (e.g. in the case of airplanes returned by Algeria) some observers incriminate the international backroom deal. However, politically motivated relations with India could only take place in times of the Cold War, but definitely not today. “Earlier India oriented itself to Russia during the Cold War, and there were truly political factors there”, says A.Khramchihin. “Today India can buy weapons from whoever it wants to. The market also became more abundant than before. In his words everything in this sphere is explained by the quality including India’s denial. This is the signal to us that we produce low-quality weapons”, he affirms. Formerly, competitive advantage of the Soviet military technique was in its low price (sometimes even dumping), its simplicity and reliability. However, the Russian military hardware, still being simple, started losing its former reliability. Nevertheless, the prices on it were growing against all odds. The answer is in the high inflation rise of the defense sphere surpassing the average price growth in the industry as well as the degradation of the military-industrial complex. Whereas the amount of the state defense contracts and foreign contracts is growing, the national defense industry still fails to regain its capability to tackle the large-scale production of military equipment. “Old factories which produced hardware in sufficient quantities and quality in the course of many years are not coping with the assignment of today”, said Mr. Ruslan Pukhov, of the Center of Strategy and Technology Analysis told Bigness.ru. The staff deficit still persists – “money is there but people are not”. ”The situation is impossible to amend”, grumbles A.Kramchihin.

If the situation does not change (according to military experts it will be next to impossible to reverse it) Russia will be losing its share in the market of arms and military equipment. These tendencies have already started to take shape. Thus. according to studies of Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and Bonn International Converse Center (BICC) Russia is reducing its share on the world arms market. The turnover on the world arms market in 2004-2008 has increased by 21 percent as compared to previous five-year period (1999-2003). At that time the increase in sales of Russian arms was only 14 percent. The figures testify that our share in the arms market started to curtail. Disclaimer statement Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information supplied herein, DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Unless otherwise indicated, opinions expressed herein are those of the author of the page and do not necessarily represent the corporate views of DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News.

DTN News: USS New York Receives Official Commission

DTN News: USS New York Receives Official Commission *Source: DTN News / American Forces Press Service By Gerry J. Gilmore (NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON, USA - November 9, 2009: A new Navy ship named in honor of the courage displayed by New York City’s residents during and after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks received its official commission on November 6. The USS New York is commissioned in New York, Nov. 7, 2009. The Navy ship was named in honor of the courage displayed by New York City's residents during and after 9/11. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Dan Meaney The USS New York recalls “the searing memories of Sept. 11” as well as “the bravery of the rescuers, the resolve of the survivors, the compassion of this city and the patriotism of this great country,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said during the ship’s commissioning ceremony at New York City harbor. Clinton was a member of the U.S. Senate representing New York state during 9/11. Part of the bow, or front, of the new ship, Clinton said, is constructed of 7.5 tons of melted-down steel taken from the wreckage of the World Trade Center’s twin towers that were destroyed during the terrorist attacks. The motto of the USS New York, Clinton said, is “Strength Forged through Sacrifice: Never Forget.” No one “will ever forget the image of twisted girders and shattered beams looming above the smoldering pile” of wreckage, Clinton said. The USS New York is a San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ship. It was christened March 1 in a New Orleans’ shipyard by Dotty England, the ship’s sponsor and wife of former Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. The USS New York and its crew, Clinton said, will join in the fight against terrorism and extremism and also perform humanitarian missions worldwide. The new ship’s first commander is Navy Cmdr. F. Curtis Jones, a native of Binghamton, N.Y. The vessel has a crew of more than 350 sailors and can transport a landing force of 800 Marines and their equipment. Clinton was accompanied at the ceremony by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus; Navy Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations; Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James T. Conway; and other senior officials. Mabus hailed the USS New York as “a visible testament to our resilience, to the character of this city, to the strength of this country.” The 9/11 attacks, Mabus said, failed to destroy neither America’s spirit nor its resolve to defeat worldwide extremism. “And, that’s what this ship represents,” he said. Mabus saluted the men and women who comprise the New York’s crew. “The nation and our Navy are incredibly proud of you and all that you have done to prepare the New York for her operational life,” Mabus said of the ship’s crew. “You have begun to shape the spirit and the soul of this ship, just as surely as the builders laid the keel, placed the engines, [and] installed the weapons.” The New York and her sailors and Marines are now “ready to sail in harm’s way, on any point on any of the world’s oceans, to prevent conflict, when possible, and to win decisively, when necessary,” Roughead said. The U.S. flag that waves above the New York’s decks, Roughead said, serves “as a symbol and a message of freedom, of commitment and of resolve.” As the New York embarks on her maiden voyage, Conway said, the warship “will carry the spirit, the determination, and the defiance that has always been America.” And, though terrorists attacked the American homeland eight years ago, they “will not change who we are or what we believe,” Conway vowed.

DTN News: ISI Has 'An Ingress' In Every Terrorist Group Says Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf

DTN News: ISI Has 'An Ingress' In Every Terrorist Group Says Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf *Source: DTN News / Int'l Media (NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON, USA - November 9, 2009: Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf has alleged that Afghanistan is under influence of Indian intelligence agencies even as he admitted that there is "an ingress of the (Pakistani spy agency) ISI in every terrorist group". The question that arises post this revelation is if ISI has stake in terrorist groups and how much is the stake, if any. "Afghan intelligence, Afghan President, Afghan Government. Don't talk of them. I know what they do. They are, by design, they mislead the world," Musharraf told CNN in an interview telecast Sunday. "They talk against Pakistan, because they are under the influence of Indian intelligence, all of them," he retorted when told that "American intelligence, the Afghan government, Afghan intelligence all say" Taliban leader Mullah Omar is in Pakistan. "The Afghan intelligence (is) entirely under the influence of Indian intelligence. We know that," added Musharraf who is currently in London. Asked if Pakistan was not willing to really help Afghanistan succeed because it viewed Afghanistan as a client state of India, Musharraf said: "No, not at all. That is not the case." "Whatever I am saying, I am not saying it here. I have given documentary evidence of all this to everyone. There is the documentary evidence. And we know the involvement of Indian intelligence, in India, with their intelligence," he claimed. "I have given documentary evidence to everyone from top to bottom. Everyone knows it. And we have the documentary evidence," the former Pakistan Army chief said. At the same time Musharraf admitted that there is an ingress of the Pakistani spy agency Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) in every group, but denied reports and statements by US leaders that ISI still supports the Taliban terrorists. "They (ISI) will not support it (terrorists). That was not the government policy. That was not the military policy. However, there was ingress," he said. "Always, in every group, there is an ingress of the ISI. And that is the efficiency, the effectiveness of the ISI. You must have ingress, so that you can influence all organisations. "And it is this ingress of theirs, which doesn't mean that they are supporting them, but they have ingress. They have some contacts, which can be used for their own advantage," Musharraf said. The former president said American and other foreign forces were not welcome in Afghanistan, but now since they are there, they should not quit before defeating the Al Qaeda and the Taliban. "Yes, they are not welcome. Foreign troops are not welcome there (in Afghanistan)," he said when asked how the situation was any different in Afghanistan when he had opposed US forces going into Pakistani territory to deal with the terrorists. "But now that they are there, we have to win. And quitting is not an option at all. I don't think quitting is an option at all," Musharraf said. "Anyone who is talking of quitting doesn't understand the ramifications of quitting. He must sit down and analyse what will happen if he were to quit there without a solution. We have to defeat the Al Qaeda, we have to dominate the Taliban, and we have to introduce a credible, legitimate government in Afghanistan. But we cannot leave before that," he said.

DTN News: Airlines News TODAY November 9, 2009 ~ Turkish Airlines Signs Firm Order For Three More A330-300s

DTN News: Airlines News TODAY November 9, 2009 ~ Turkish Airlines Signs Firm Order For Three More A330-300s *Source: DTN News / Airbus (NSI News Source Info) PARIS, France - November 9, 2009: Turkish Airlines has signed a contract for the purchase of three additional Airbus A330-300 aircraft, bringing the total number of A330-300s ordered by the company to ten. The carrier will operate the aircraft in a two-class configuration and with a capacity of 319 seats on its high capacity medium haul network. The aircraft, due for delivery from September 2010, will be powered by Rolls-Royce engines. With the signature of a Memorandum of Understanding, Turkish Airlines also plans to acquire two Freighter versions of the A330-200, the A330-200F, in order to prepare future expansion and renew its current fleet composed of four A310s. "Turkish Airlines stays in the course of growing by providing the best service for its passengers and customers while optimising operating costs. By choosing the A330s Family aircraft that offer best-in-class comfort for passengers and extended cargo capacity for customers we are aiming to ensure the success of our business model," said Dr Candan Karlitekin, Chairman of Turkish Airlines. "The unbeatable economic efficiency of the A330 Family and its superior operational performance will be strategic assets for Turkish Airlines. We are proud to be a partner of one of the fastest growing European airlines, Turkish Airlines, as they expand into new markets," said John Leahy, Airbus Chief Operating Officer, Customers. Turkish Airlines has operated Airbus aircraft since 1985, and currently has a fleet of 67 Airbus aircraft, including four A310s, 47 A320 family aircraft, seven A330s and nine A340s. Airbus has more than 1,000 orders for the aircraft and more than 600 A330s are in operation worldwide with more than 80 customers and operators. The combined fleet has achieved almost 14 million flight hours and serves around 300 destinations worldwide. The A330-200F offers two operational configurations depending on the planned mission. The aircraft can carry more than 64 metric tonnes over 4,000 nautical miles, or more than 69 metric tonnes up to 3,200 nautical miles - non-stop. These range and payload capabilities enable operators to grow their business by opening up or extending cargo routes they currently operate. An optimized fuselage cross-section has the interior flexibility to carry a wide variety of pallet and container sizes for maximum interlining capability, offering 30 per cent more volume than any freighter in its class. Total orders for the aircraft stand at 67 from nine customers.