Tuesday, August 24, 2010

DTN News: Somalia TODAY August 24, 2010 - At Least 33 People Killed In Attack On Somali Hotel

DTN News: Somalia TODAY August 24, 2010 - At Least 33 People Killed In Attack On Somali Hotel
Source: DTN News - - This article compiled by Roger Smith from reliable sources including The New York Times By Jeffrey Gettleman & Mohamed Ibrahim contributed to this report from Galkaiyo, Somalia
(NSI News Source Info) NAIROBI, Kenya - August 24, 2010: Somali insurgents disguised in government military uniforms stormed a Mogadishu hotel on Tuesday and killed at least 30 people, including 6 lawmakers, laying bare how vulnerable the Somali government is, even in an area it claims to control.
Somali government forces walk outside the Muna Hotel in Mogadishu, Somalia, Tuesday Aug, 24, 2010. A suicide bomber and a gunman stormed the hotel in Somalia's capital on Tuesday, killing at least 15 people, including members of parliament, a military spokesman said.
Somali government forces walk outside the Muna Hotel in Mogadishu, Somalia, Tuesday Aug, 24, 2010. A suicide bomber and a gunman stormed the hotel in Somalia's capital on Tuesday, killing at least 15 people, including members of parliament, a military spokesman said.
The insurgents methodically moved room to room, killing hotel guests who tried to bolt their doors shut, Somali officials said. When government forces finally cornered the gunmen, two insurgents blew themselves up with suicide vests.
The heaviest fighting in Mogadishu since the beginning of the Holy Month of Ramadan, causes the death of at least 36 civilians and the injury of 95 others. Mogadishu, Somalia. 24/08/2010
The heaviest fighting in Mogadishu since the beginning of the Holy Month of Ramadan, causes the death of at least 36 civilians and the injury of 95 others. Mogadishu, Somalia. 24/08/2010
The attack shows that “operational momentum has shifted to the insurgents, who can go anywhere they want except where the African peacekeepers are deployed,” said J. Peter Pham, senior vice president at the National Committee on American Foreign Policy.
Somalia's Islamist Shebab fighters patrol on August 23, 2010 near a camp in northern Mogadishu�s Suqaholaha neighborhood minutes before they engaged in an offensive against the Somali government forces which left at least 12 dead on August 23, 2010. Somalia's Shebab launched an offensive against government troops and African Union forces in Mogadishu Monday, sparking clashes that left 11 civilians dead and 53 wounded, medics said. The Al Qaeda-inspired insurgent group launched an offensive against government army barracks in the neighbourhoods of Hodan, in the south, and Bondhere, in the north, witnesses said.Somalia's Islamist Shebab fighters patrol on August 23, 2010 near a camp in northern Mogadishu�s Suqaholaha neighborhood minutes before they engaged in an offensive against the Somali government forces which left at least 12 dead on August 23, 2010. Somalia's Shebab launched an offensive against government troops and African Unionforces in Mogadishu Monday, sparking clashes that left 11 civilians dead and 53 wounded, medics said. The Al Qaeda-inspired insurgent group launched an offensive against government army barracks in the neighbourhoods of Hodan, in the south, and Bondhere, in the north, witnesses said.

Several Somali politicians said the government was so thoroughly under siege that it could only work from behind fortified, sandbagged positions, and that the shrinking government enclave in Mogadishu, the capital, could soon vanish altogether.
Somalia's Islamist Shebab fighters hold a position on August 23, 2010 at a camp in northern Mogadishu�s Suqaholaha neighborhood minutes before they engaged in an offensive against the Somali government forces which left at least 12 dead. Somalia's Shebab launched an offensive against government troops and African Union forces in Mogadishu Monday, sparking clashes that left 11 civilians dead and 53 wounded, medics said.

Somalia's Islamist Shebab fighters hold a position on August 23, 2010 at a camp in northern Mogadishu�s Suqaholaha neighborhood minutes before they engaged in an offensive against the Somali government forces which left at least 12 dead. Somalia's Shebab launched an offensive against government troops and African Union forces in Mogadishu Monday, sparking clashes that left 11 civilians dead and 53 wounded, medics said.

“The problem is the government is not working hard on security; it’s the same old thing,” said Asha A. Abdalla, a member of parliament who was in Nairobi during the attack. Like many others in the 550-member Somali parliament, she often stays in Kenya because of the dangers of living in her country.
Sheik Ali Mohamud Rage, a spokesman for the al-Shabab militia,Tuesday, Aug. 24, 2010, in Mogadishu, Somalia who said that members of the group's "special forces" had carried out the attack against those "aiding the infidels." Scores of people were killed during the attack.AP

Sheik Ali Mohamud Rage, a spokesman for the al-Shabab militia,Tuesday, Aug. 24, 2010, in Mogadishu,Somalia who said that members of the group's "special forces" had carried out the attack against those "aiding the infidels." Scores of people were killed during the attack.

“But I don’t know what the A.U. is doing either,” Mrs. Asha said, referring to the more than 6,000 African Union peacekeepers in Mogadishu. “If they are not protecting MPs, who are they protecting?”
UNAMID soldiers guard a high-level meeting with Chinese, European, United Nations and African Union officials in El-Fasher, the capital of North Darfur on July 5, 2010.
UNAMID soldiers guard a high-level meeting with Chinese, European, United Nations and African Unionofficials in El-Fasher, the capital of North Darfur on July 5, 2010.
The most powerful insurgents are the Shabab, a militant Islamist group that has publicly stoned civilians to death and pledged allegiance to Al Qaeda. The Shabab seem to be constantly two steps ahead of Somalia’s transitional government, analysts say, despite the fact that the Somali government receives tens of millions of dollars in security assistance from the United States and other Western countries.
An African Union (AU) Peacekeeping Forces soldier patrols the Port of Mogadishu 09 December 2007 in Somalia. One person was killed today and three others wounded when Somali forces clashed with Islamist insurgents in a volatile area of the capital Mogadishu, witnesses said. An African Union (AU) Peacekeeping Forces soldier patrols the Port of Mogadishu 09 December 2007 inSomalia. One person was killed today and three others wounded when Somali forces clashed with Islamist insurgents in a volatile area of the capital Mogadishu, witnesses said.
American officials have said the transitional government, however weak and disorganized, is the best bulwark against a Shabab-ruled Somalia, though in reality the Shabab already rule much of Somalia.
Residents in southern Mogadishu, Somalia, look at the dead body of a man, Somali government claimed to be an Islamist militant who was killed by a roadside bomb he was planting under a pile of garbage near a street in southern Mogadishu's Afisiyoni area, on Saturday Aug. 21, 2010.
Residents in southern Mogadishu, Somalia, look at the dead body of a man, Somali government claimed to be an Islamist militant who was killed by a roadside bomb he was planting under a pile of garbage near a street in southern Mogadishu's Afisiyoni area, on Saturday Aug. 21, 2010.
The battle now seems to be turning to Mogadishu, specifically the few neighborhoods that the government still marginally controls, like the areas around the presidential palace, seaport and airport. Earlier this year, Somali government officials promised to sweep the Shabab out of the capital and expand their zone. But government forces have been plagued by defections and apathy, Somali commanders concede, and it seems that the Shabab are the ones on the offensive. The hotel raid followed intense shelling against government positions on Monday, which killed dozens of people and sent mortar bombs crashing into camps for internally displaced people. “There’s been fierce fighting and the government is getting pushed back,” said Abdirizak Farah, a shopkeeper who fled his home at 4 a.m. Tuesday to seek shelter closer to government troops. The three story hotel that was attacked, the Muna, was popular among Somali lawmakers because it was thought to be secure and is located less than a mile away from the presidential palace in a breezy seaside neighborhood. Witnesses said a group of about three to five insurgents appeared at the gate at 10:30 a.m. wearing government military uniforms, and that as soon as the hotel guards opened the way for them, the gunmen opened fire. They then rushed into the hotel corridors, shooting everyone in sight. Government forces arrived a few minutes later and battled the insurgents room-by-room, eventually pushing the gunmen to the upper floor. According to witnesses, several lawmakers tried to lock themselves in their rooms, but they were hunted down and shot at close range with assault rifles. “They killed everyone they saw inside the hotel and then blew themselves up,” said Abdirahman Omar Osman, Somalia’s information minister. Mr. Abdirahman called the attack “murder” and said it was “against Islamic religion,” especially during the holy month of Ramadan. Another Somali official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said the Shabab were “using all tactics. They don’t care about Ramadan. They are criminals. They are terrorists.” An 11-year-old shoeshine boy and a woman selling tea in front of the hotel were also killed, African Union officials said. The hotel raid seemed to have been planned well in advance, and several residents living near the hotel said that Shabab fighters had been renting rooms for weeks in their neighborhood, leading them to expect a major attack. A Shabab spokesman on Tuesday said that Shabab "special forces" were the ones who stormed the hotel. Earlier on Tuesday, the government claimed to have captured one of the attackers. The last time the government was dealt such a deadly blow was in December, when the Shabab killed four government ministers in a suicide bombing at a medical school graduation in another hotel in the government zone. Then in July, the Shabab claimed credit for killing dozens of World Cup fans in coordinated bombings in Uganda, saying it was revenge against Ugandan peacekeepers. Analysts said that Tuesday’s raid on the hotel, though, was something different, with gunmen going toe-to-toe against government forces in an area teeming with government troops, which seemed to be a sign of increasingly brazen and confident insurgents. Somalia has lurched from crisis to crisis since 1991, when the central government collapsed. Several Somali officials have conceded that if it were not for the African Union peacekeepers, the transitional government would fall, most likely in hours. *This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News, contact: dtnnews@ymail.com

DTN News: Boeing To Build Additional Military Hosted Payload For Intelsat Satellite Series

DTN News: Boeing To Build Additional Military Hosted Payload For Intelsat Satellite Series
Source: DTN News / Boeing
(NSI News Source Info) EL SEGUNDO, Calif., - August 24, 2010: Boeing [NYSE: BA] today announced it has received a contract from Intelsat S.A. to provide a second ultra-high frequency (UHF) hosted payload on another of the four commercial communications satellites that Intelsat ordered from Boeing last year. Financial details were not disclosed. The second UHF hosted payload will be installed on the IS-27 satellite. The payload will offer 20 25-KHz UHF channels capable of serving the U.S. government and other Intelsat General clients around the world. The second payload will be identical to the UHF payload for the Australian Defence Force that will be hosted on the IS-22 satellite and launched in 2012. "Providing a second military hosted payload for Intelsat demonstrates our ability to rapidly respond to provide capability to augment government customers' needs," said Craig Cooning, vice president and general manager of Boeing Space & Intelligence Systems. "Boeing has been a leading government payload provider for more than 40 years, and we are well qualified to equip commercial satellites with operationally responsive space solutions for military customers around the world." The modular design of the Boeing 702MP satellites in the Intelsat series allows the UHF and other hosted payloads to be accommodated easily, with no impact to the assembly or delivery schedules. Boeing is a long-time provider of UHF payloads to the U.S. Navy. The company built 11 satellites for the Navy’s UHF Follow-On system, which provides secure global communications for the U.S. military worldwide. Boeing also is under contract to deliver three UHF payloads to prime contractor Lockheed Martin for the Navy’s Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) communications system. Boeing is building the four Intelsat satellites and the two hosted payloads at its satellite factory in El Segundo. IS-27 is planned to operate over the Atlantic Ocean region at 55 degrees west longitude and will provide simultaneous operation of 39 C- and Ku-band transponders that deliver optimized video, network and voice services to the Americas and Europe. A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security 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 Defense, Space & Security is a $34 billion business with 68,000 employees worldwide.
Contact: Angie Yoshimura
Boeing Space & Intelligence Systems
Office: 310-364-6708
Mobile: 310-227-6568
Boeing Space & Intelligence Systems
Office: 310-364-6125
Mobile: 310-343-1211
Boeing Press Releases
*Aug. 24, 2010 Boeing CFO Bell to Speak at Morgan Stanley Conference on August 31 *Aug. 24, 2010 Boeing to Build Additional Military Hosted Payload for Intelsat Satellite Series *Aug. 23, 2010 Boeing Joins ProActive Technologies Team in Bid for B-52 Aircrew Training System *Aug. 23, 2010 Boeing Awarded Follow-on Contract for US Air Force Wideband Global SATCOM Program

DTN News: United Kingdom Awards Lockheed Martin $5 Million Order For Desert Hawk III Unmanned Aircraft Systems

DTN News: United Kingdom Awards Lockheed Martin $5 Million Order For Desert Hawk III Unmanned Aircraft Systems
Source: DTN News / Lockheed Martin
(NSI News Source Info) DENVER,- August 24, 2010: The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence awarded Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] a $5.1 million contract for additional Desert Hawk III unmanned aircraft vehicles. Desert Hawk III’s improved payloads maximize target detection and recognition by providing 360-degree -- daytime and nighttime -- coverage in a common turret package. These latest generation payloads also include a Lockheed Martin-developed navigation system that delivers more refined target position information and superior image stability to the troops. Awarded by the MoD’s Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) organization, the latest contract calls for Lockheed Martin to deliver the Desert Hawk III air vehicles -- which as a result of ongoing obsolescence management and technology advancements in this area feature enhanced 360-degree infrared and 360-degree, 10-times zoom electro optics -- by Fall 2010. “We are extremely pleased with the enhanced capability that these new payloads bring to Desert Hawk III and the British Army,” said Duncan Robbins, program manager for mini-UAV systems, UK MOD DE&S. “Desert Hawk’s latest enhancements allow it to operate more effectively in difficult conditions and provide our soldiers with greater situational awareness in a very timely manner.” “The battle-proven Desert Hawk III can operate in high winds, extended altitude and extreme temperatures, making it very effective in areas such as Afghanistan,” said Mark Swymeler, a vice president for Lockheed Martin’s Ship and Aviation Systems line of business. “Unlike some other UAVs, it is extremely quiet and virtually undetectable beyond 150 meters.” Equipped with steerable, plug-and-play imaging payloads, the Desert Hawk has provided the British Army with greater situational awareness capabilities in Afghanistan since 2006. The eight-pound Desert Hawk III features an open architecture environment and consists of a light weight, hand-launched, ruggedized air vehicle with snap-on Plug and PlayloadsTM, a portable ground station and a remote video terminal. The snap-on payload capability allows a single operator to swap sensors on the air vehicle in less than one minute to meet immediate and rapidly changing mission requirements. Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 136,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation’s 2009 sales from continuing operations were $44.5 billion. Media contact:
Jim Gring, 410-682-0156,
e-mail: james.gring@lmco.com Related Desert Hawk III News Desert Hawk III Press Releases Desert Hawk III Program Page Lockheed Martin MS2 Lockhead Martin Press Releases

DTN News: US Coast Guard Orders Three Additional Airbus Military CN235 Maritime Patrol Aircraft

DTN News: US Coast Guard Orders Three Additional Airbus Military CN235 Maritime Patrol Aircraft * The US Coast Guard has ordered three additional Airbus Military CN235s through EADS-North America, which is the prime contractor for EADS military and defence products sold into the United States Source: DTN News / EADS-CASA (NSI News Source Info) MADRID, Spain - August 24, 2010: The US Coast Guard, which holds options for up to six more aircraft over the next four years, is using the CN235s as Maritime Patrol Aircraft, under the designation HC-144A Ocean Sentry. The contract
for the three HC-144As is valued at US $117 million. The HC-144 is based on the CN235 of which more than 250 are in operation in 26 countries. It plays a crucial role in Coast Guard aviation missions that include maritime patrol, ntelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance, cargo and personnel transport, as well as disaster relief.The aircraft achieved initial operational capability last year, and has since distinguished itself with exceptional performance in a variety of situations, including the Coast Guard's responses to the Haiti earthquake and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. HC-144s have even been used to transport rehabilitated wildlife affected by the spill. “The men and women of the Coast Guard have an incredibly wide-ranging and challenging mission, and we are proud to provide them with an aircraft that matches their flexibility and readiness,” said Sean O'Keefe, EADS North America CEO. “This year we've seen the Ocean Sentry tested in some very high-profile missions, and it has delivered every time.” Adds Airbus Military Managing Director Domingo Ureña: “This repeat order by the US Coast Guard is a great honour for us. It demonstrates that the CN235 is delivering on its promises and that they are very confident in the value of their „Ocean Sentry' aircraft for their future needs. This is really a great success for our product.” The Coast Guard currently operates ten Ocean Sentries and will receive another later this year. The newly ordered aircraft are to be delivered from 2011. Plans call for the Coast Guard to acquire a total fleet of 36 Ocean Sentries. The HC-144A is replacing the Coast Guard's aging fleet of HU-25 Guardian Falcon jets. Based on the Airbus Military CN235 platform, the HC-144A will be fitted with a search radar, electro-optical and infrared cameras, an Automatic Identification System for data collection from vessels at sea, and a communications suite. A rear ramp allows for easy cargo operations, and also accommodates a roll-on-roll-off mission systems pallet that the Coast Guard is acquiring separately for the Ocean Sentry. The HC-144 offers superior range and loiter time, allowing it to stay on station longer during search and rescue, patrol or persistent surveillance operations. About the CN235
Able to carry up to six tonnes of payload and a maximum cruise speed of 240 kt (450 km/h), the CN235 is able to take off from and land on short, semi-prepared runways with soft surfaces thanks to its Short Take Off and Landing (STOL) characteristics and the strong landing gear with tandem low-pressure tyre. Its excellent handling qualities, high manoeuvrability and fast engine (two General Electric GE CT7-9CE-3,1750 shp) response allow safe critical operations at a very low altitude. Outstanding reliability and supportability result in high aircraft availability and the lowest life cycle cost (LCC) in its class. The CN235 MPA is in operation with the USCG, the Irish Air Corps and the Civil Guard in Spain, among others. About Airbus Military
Airbus Military is the only military and civic transport aircraft manufacturer to develop, produce, sell and support a comprehensive family of airlifters ranging from three to 45 tonnes of payload. Within Airbus, Airbus Military is responsible for the A400M programme, as well as the Multi Role Tanker Transport (MRTT) A330 and for further military derivatives based on Airbus civil aircraft. Together with the smaller C295, CN235 and C212, Airbus Military is the global leader in the market segments for light and medium-sized military transport aircraft. Altogether Airbus Military has sold more than 1,000 aircraft with over 650 flying with more than 100 operators worldwide. Contacts for the media Jaime Perez-Guerra Head of Communications Airbus Military Airbus Military Tel.: +34 91.5 85 77 89 Fax: +34 91.5 85 72 64 Barbara Kracht Media Relations Airbus Military Airbus Military Tel.: +34 91.5 85 77 88 Fax: +34 91.5 85 72 64
Related EADS - CASA Press Releases
*Special Notice ~ During this article being posted EADS website was under construction, may be working when you view and read this verbiage, Link;
http://www.eads.com/eads/int/en/our-company.html

DTN News: Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks, Again

DTN News: Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks, Again
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - August 24, 2010: The Israeli government and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) have agreed to engage in direct peace talks Sept. 2 in Washington. Neither side has expressed any enthusiasm about the talks. In part, this comes from the fact that entering any negotiations with enthusiasm weakens your bargaining position. But the deeper reason is simply that there have been so many peace talks between the two sides and so many failures that it is difficult for a rational person to see much hope in them. Moreover, the failures have not occurred for trivial reasons. They have occurred because of profound divergences in the interests and outlooks of each side. These particular talks are further flawed because of their origin. Neither side was eager for the talks. They are taking place because the United States wanted them. Indeed, in a certain sense, both sides are talking because they do not want to alienate the United States and because it is easier to talk and fail than it is to refuse to talk. The United States has wanted Israeli-Palestinian talks since the Palestinians organized themselves into a distinct national movement in the 1970s. Particularly after the successful negotiations between Egypt and Israel and Israel’s implicit long-term understanding with Jordan, an agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis appeared to be next on the agenda. With the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of its support for Fatah and other Palestinian groups, a peace process seemed logical and reasonable. Over time, peace talks became an end in themselves for the United States. The United States has interests throughout the Islamic world. While U.S.-Israeli relations are not the sole point of friction between the Islamic world and the United States, they are certainly one point of friction, particularly on the level of public diplomacy. Indeed, though most Muslim governments may not regard Israel as critical to their national interests, their publics do regard it that way for ideological and religious reasons. Many Muslim governments therefore engage in a two-level diplomacy: first, publicly condemning Israel and granting public support for the Palestinians as if it were a major issue and, second, quietly ignoring the issue and focusing on other matters of greater direct interest, which often actually involves collaborating with the Israelis. This accounts for the massive difference between the public stance of many governments and their private actions, which can range from indifference to hostility toward Palestinian interests. Countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are all prepared to cooperate deeply with the United States but face hostility from their populations over the matter. The public pressure on governments is real, and the United States needs to deal with it. The last thing the United States wants to see is relatively cooperative Muslim governments in the region fall due to anti-Israeli or anti-American public sentiment. The issue of Israel and the United States also creates stickiness in the smooth functioning of relations with these countries. The United States wants to minimize this problem. It should be understood that many Muslim governments would be appalled if the United States broke with Israel and Israel fell. For example, Egypt and Jordan, facing demographic and security issues of their own, are deeply hostile to at least some Palestinian factions. The vast majority of Jordan’s population is actually Palestinian. Egypt struggles with an Islamist movement called the Muslim Brotherhood, which has collaborated with like-minded Islamists among the Palestinians for decades. The countries of the Arabian Peninsula are infinitely more interested in the threat from Iran than in the existence of Israel and, indeed, see Israel as one of the buttresses against Iran. Even Iran is less interested in the destruction of Israel than it is in using the issue as a tool in building its own credibility and influence in the region. In the Islamic world, public opinion, government rhetoric and government policy have long had a distant kinship. If the United States were actually to do what these countries publicly demand, the private response would be deep concern both about the reliability of the United States and about the consequences of a Palestinian state. A wave of euphoric radicalism could threaten all of these regimes. They quite like the status quo, including the part where they get to condemn the United States for maintaining it. The United States does not see its relationship with Israel as inhibiting functional state-to-state relationships in the Islamic world, because it hasn’t. Washington paradoxically sees a break with Israel as destabilizing to the region. At the same time, the American government understands the political problems Muslim governments face in working with the United States, in particular the friction created by the American relationship with Israel. While not representing a fundamental challenge to American interests, this friction does represent an issue that must be taken into account and managed. Peace talks are the American solution. Peace talks give the United States the appearance of seeking to settle the Israeli-Palestinian problem. The comings and goings of American diplomats, treating Palestinians as equals in negotiations and as being equally important to the United States, and the occasional photo op if some agreement is actually reached, all give the United States and pro-American Muslim governments a tool — even if it is not a very effective one — for managing Muslim public opinion. Peace talks also give the United States the ability, on occasion, to criticize Israel publicly, without changing the basic framework of the U.S.-Israeli relationship. Most important, they cost the United States nothing. The United States has many diplomats available for multiple-track discussions and working groups for drawing up position papers. Talks do not solve the political problem in the region, but they do reshape perceptions a bit at very little cost. And they give the added benefit that, at some point in the talks, the United States will be able to ask the Europeans to support any solution — or tentative agreement — financially. Therefore, the Obama administration has been pressuring the Israelis and the PNA, dominated by Fatah, to renew the peace process. Both have been reluctant because, unlike the United States, these talks pose political challenges to the two sides. Peace talks have the nasty habit of triggering internal political crises. Since neither side expects real success, neither government wants to bear the internal political costs that such talks entail. But since the United States is both a major funder of the PNA and Israel’s most significant ally, neither group is in a position to resist the call to talk. And so, after suitable resistance that both sides used for their own ends, the talks begin. The Israeli problem with the talks is that they force the government to deal with an extraordinarily divided Israeli public. Israel has had weak governments for a generation. These governments are weak because they are formed by coalitions made up of diverse and sometimes opposed parties. In part, this is due to Israel’s electoral system, which increases the likelihood that parties that would never enter the parliament of other countries do sit in the Knesset with a handful of members. There are enough of these that the major parties never come close to a ruling majority and the coalition government that has to be created is crippled from the beginning. An Israeli prime minister spends most of his time avoiding dealing with important issues, since his Cabinet would fall apart if he did. But the major issue is that the Israeli public is deeply divided ethnically and ideologically, with ideology frequently tracking ethnicity. The original European Jews are often still steeped in the original Zionist vision. But Russian Jews who now comprise roughly one-sixth of the population see the original Zionist plan as alien to them. Then there are the American Jews who moved to Israel for ideological reasons. All these splits and others create an Israel that reminds us of the Fourth French Republic between World War II and the rise of Charles de Gaulle. The term applied to it was “immobilism,” the inability to decide on anything, so it continued to do whatever it was already doing, however ineffective and harmful that course may have been. Incidentally, Israel wasn’t always this way. After its formation in 1948, Israel’s leaders were all part of the leadership that achieved statehood. That cadre is all gone now, and Israel has yet to transition away from its dependence on its “founding fathers.” Between less trusted leadership and a maddeningly complex political demography, it is no surprise that Israeli politics can be so caustic and churning. From the point of view of any Israeli foreign minister, the danger of peace talks is that the United States might actually engineer a solution. Any such solution would by definition involve Israeli concessions that would be opposed by a substantial Israeli bloc — and nearly any Israeli faction could derail any agreement. Israeli prime ministers go to the peace talks terrified that the Palestinians might actually get their house in order and be reasonable — leaving it to Israel to stand against an American solution. Had Ariel Sharon not had his stroke, there might have been a strong leader who could wrestle the Israeli political system to the ground and impose a settlement. But at this point, there has not been an Israeli leader since Menachem Begin who could negotiate with confidence in his position. Benjamin Netanyahu finds himself caught between the United States and his severely fractured Cabinet by peace talks. Fortunately for Netanyahu, the PNA is even more troubled by talks. The Palestinians are deeply divided between two ideological enemies, Fatah and Hamas. Fatah is generally secular and derives from the Soviet-backed Palestinian movement. Having lost its sponsor, it has drifted toward the United States and Europe by default. Its old antagonist, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, is still there and still suspicious. Fatah tried to overthrow the kingdom in 1970, and memories are long. For its part, Hamas is a religious movement, with roots in Egypt and support from Saudi Arabia. Unlike Fatah, Hamas says it is unwilling to recognize the existence of Israel as a legitimate state, and it appears to be quite serious about this. While there seem to be some elements in Hamas that could consider a shift, this is not the consensus view. Iran also provides support, but the Sunni-Shiite split is real and Iran is mostly fishing in troubled waters. Hamas will take help where it can get it, but Hamas is, to a significant degree, funded by the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, so getting too close to Iran would create political problems for Hamas’ leadership. In addition, though Cairo has to deal with Hamas because of the Egypt-Gaza border, Cairo is at best deeply suspicions of the group. Egypt sees Hamas as deriving from the same bedrock of forces that gave birth to the Muslim Brotherhood and those who killed Anwar Sadat, forces which pose the greatest future challenge to Egyptian stability. As a result, Egypt continues to be Israel’s silent partner in the blockade of Gaza. Therefore, the PNA dominated by Fatah in no way speaks for all Palestinians. While Fatah dominates the West Bank, Hamas controls Gaza. Were Fatah to make the kinds of concessions that might make a peace agreement possible, Hamas would not only oppose them but would have the means of scuttling anything that involved Gaza. Making matters worse for Fatah, Hamas does enjoy considerable — if precisely unknown — levels of support in the West Bank, and Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of Fatah and the PNA, is not eager to find out how much in the current super-heated atmosphere. The most striking agreement between Arabs and Israelis was the Camp David Accords negotiated by U.S. President Jimmy Carter. Those accords were rooted in the 1973 war in which the Israelis were stunned by their own intelligence failures and the extraordinary capabilities shown by the Egyptian army so soon after its crushing defeat in 1967. All of Israel’s comfortable assumptions went out the window. At the same time, Egypt was ultimately defeated, with Israeli troops on the east shore of the Suez Canal. The Israelis came away with greater respect for Egyptian military power and a decreased confidence in their own. The Egyptians came away with the recognition that however much they had improved, they were defeated in the end. The Israelis weren’t certain they would beat Egypt the next time. The Egyptians were doubtful they could ever beat Israel. For both, a negotiated settlement made sense. The mix of severely shaken confidence and morbid admittance to reality was what permitted Carter to negotiate a settlement that both sides wanted — and could sell to their respective publics. There has been no similar defining moment in Israeli-Palestinian relations. There is no consensus on either side, nor does either side have a government that can speak authoritatively for the people it represents. On both sides, the rejectionists not only are in a blocking position but are actually in governing roles, and no coalition exists to sweep them aside. The Palestinians are divided by ideology and geography, while the Israelis are “merely” divided by ideology and a political system designed for paralysis. But the United States wants a peace process, preferably a long one designed to put off the day when it fails. This will allow the United States to appear to be deeply committed to peace and to publicly pressure the Israelis, which will be of some minor use in U.S. efforts to manipulate the rest of the region. But it will not solve anything. Nor is it intended to. The problem is that neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are sufficiently unsettled to make peace. Both Egypt and Israel were shocked and afraid after the 1973 war. Mutual fear is the foundation of peace among enemies. The uncertainty of the future sobers both sides. But the fact right now is that all of the players prefer the status quo to the risks of the future. Hamas doesn’t want to risk its support by negotiating and implicitly recognizing Israel. The PNA doesn’t want to risk a Hamas uprising in the West Bank by making significant concessions. The Israelis don’t want to gamble with unreliable negotiating partners on a settlement that wouldn’t enjoy broad public support in a domestic political environment where even simple programs can get snarled in a morass of ideology. Until reality or some as-yet-uncommitted force shifts the game, it is easier for them — all of them — to do nothing. But the Americans want talks, and so the talks will begin.
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News, contact: dtnnews@ymail.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: Indian Su-30 Second-Tier Airports In China Can Be Difficult To Attack By Interception

DTN News: Indian Su-30 Second-Tier Airports In China Can Be Difficult To Attack By Interception
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - August 24, 2010: Indian Su-30 second-tier airports in China can be difficult to attack by interceptionCore Tip: The Indian Air Force has bases near the border with India deployed a squadron of Su-30MKI fighters. Indian Air Force officials said the aircraft can carry nuclear weapons into the Chinese hinterland. In addition to Russia and India jointly developed "BrahMos" missile, India is actively developing a range of 1,000 km of "Fearless" long-range cruise missiles onboard, hoping to become a strategic strike Su -30 platform.
Indian Air Force Su-30MKI during formation training
Beijing Evening News reported on August 23 as the arms are mine expansion in India growing, the Indian military tone of some people more and more hard. According to the United States, "Defense News" reported on August 11, Indian Air Force has bases near the border with India to deploy a SU-30MKI fighter squadrons utility. Indian Air Force officials said the fighters can carry nuclear weapons, aerial refueling, it can into the Chinese hinterland. However, compared to China and India's integrated military strength, "Su -30 into the Chinese hinterland," such tactics actually very difficult for China to succeed.
Su -30 deployed against China
United States, "Defense News" reports that Su -30 fighter squadrons will be deployed in India's northeastern Assam's Tezpur Air Force Base. Indian Air Force said a senior official further said that close to another base in the border area - chabua Air Force Base is also being upgraded to accommodate the Sukhoi fighter jets, transport aircraft and even medium-sized multi-purpose fighter. He said that medium-sized multi-purpose fighter would be in close proximity to China's northeast and northwest Pakistan near the patrol.
Reported that India's move to strengthen defense capabilities against China. To further show that Su -30 deterrent capability, the Indian Air Force officials also deliberately, in support of the air tanker, carrying nuclear weapons, Soviet -30 fully into the Chinese hinterland.
Substantial funding in support of the Indian Air Force advanced fighter force is expanding. According to "Defense News" reports, the Government of India in June this year approved a 3.3 billion U.S. dollars worth of procurement contracts, from Russia to buy 42 Su -30 fighter, which will enable the Indian Air Force Su -30 fighter aircraft number 2018 reached 272, Su -30 will become the largest number of Indian Air Force's main fighter. The Indian claim to rely on Soviet -30 nuclear deterrence against China is not all boast. Indian Air Force Su -30 on its own equipment to bring the fuel can fly nearly 4.5 hours, a maximum range of 5,000 kilometers. If there is accompanying tanker protection can be further expanded its range to 8,000 kilometers. In addition, double cabin design with Su -30, two long-haul flight, the pilot can turn to drive, keeping physically. Just from the technical point of view, the Indian Air Force Su -30 fleet does have the ability to launch long-range nuclear attack.
Rising long-range strike capability
Measure of the strength of Air Force long-range strike capability, the number of aerial refueling and airborne cruise missiles are two important indicators of performance. At present, the Indian Air Force has been equipped with six Russian-made Il -78 type of air refueling, which can effectively extend the range of fighter combat.
Indian Air Force has recently frequently with the United States, France and veteran Air Force held joint exercises power, aerial tankers Il -78 accompany many Western air force Su -30 fighter competing against. These preliminary exercises with the Indian Air Force in aerial refueling capabilities unfamiliar airspace.
Indian Air Force fighter aircraft be equipped with special attention for the advanced cruise missiles to boost its long-range precision strike capability. Indian military sources had "Han and Defense Review," said the Indian Air Force plans to Tezpur, chabua Air Force Base in the deployment of a squadron of Su -30 fighter.
"Han and defense review" analysis said that if the Indian Air Force Su -30 fighter with a "Brahmos" cruise missile from the air near the Sino-Indian border bases, its range can cover Kunming, Chengdu, Chongqing, Nanning, Guilin, Lanzhou, to attack the Chinese in Yunnan, Qinghai and second-line airport. "BrahMos" missile strike distance of more than 290 kilometers, 10 meters in height to a maximum speed of Mach 2.8 targets on the ground to combat, is extremely difficult to intercept.
In addition to joint development with Russia, "BrahMos" missile, India is actively developing a service called "fearless" long-range cruise missiles onboard.
According to the U.S., "Aviation Week" had revealed that Indian officials said the "fearless" The missiles will reach 800 to 1000 km, a range of "BrahMos" of three. Article pointed out sharply, "mount the missile will be a long-range Sukhoi fighter combat platforms, and have strategies to combat potential."
Clearly, India is working to build its own space-based strategic combat force, which is an important part of its existing fleet of Su-30MKI multi-purpose fighter aircraft equipped with advanced long-range cruise missiles.
***Link to this article "Indian Su-30 Second-Tier Airports In China Can Be Difficult To Attack By Interception - Chinese Military China's military " *This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News, contact: dtnnews@ymail.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.