es to power up to 90 Airbus A320 family aircraft.
The order is worth up to $1.2bn to Rolls-Royce if all options are exercised.
Jetstar, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Qantas Airways, has selected the engine for a new fleet of 50 additional aircraft, with options and purchase rights on up to 40 more.
The aircraft will be distributed amongst the Jetstar Group fleet that includes investments by Qantas in low cost carriers Jetstar Asia and Valuair of Singapore and Jetstar Pacific, Vietnam’s second largest domestic carrier.
The contract includes a long-term engine service agreement for these aircraft as well as engines installed on 40 aircraft already operated by the three Jetstar Group airline brand businesses.
The V2500 is produced by the International Aero Engines consortium (IAE) in which Rolls-Royce is a senior shareholder.
IAE’s other partners are Pratt & Whitney, the Japanese Aero Engines Corporation and MTU Aero Engines.
The 22,000 - 33,000lb thrust V2500 powers the Airbus A319, A320 and A321 family of aircraft as well as the Airbus Corporate Jetliner. More than 5,500 V2500 engines are in service or on firm order worldwide.
Rolls-Royce, a world-leading provider of power systems and services for use on land, at sea and in the air, has established a strong position in global markets - civil aerospace, defence aerospace, marine and energy.
In 2008, Rolls-Royce and its partners invested £885 million on research and development, two thirds of which had the objective of further improving the environmental aspects of its products, in particular the reduction of emissions.
Annual underlying revenues were £9.1 billion in 2008, of which 52 per cent came from services revenues. The firm and announced order book stood at £57.5 billion at 30 June 2009, providing visibility of future levels of activity.
Friday, January 29, 2010
DTN News: Rolls-Royce Share Of Jetstar V2500 Order Worth Up To $1.2 Billion
DTN News: Rolls-Royce Share Of Jetstar V2500 Order Worth Up To $1.2 Billion
*Source: DTN News / Rolls-Royce
(NSI News Source Info) - January 29, 2010: Rolls-Royce, the global power systems company, has won a share of an order from Jetstar Airways for V2500 engin
es to power up to 90 Airbus A320 family aircraft.
The order is worth up to $1.2bn to Rolls-Royce if all options are exercised.
Jetstar, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Qantas Airways, has selected the engine for a new fleet of 50 additional aircraft, with options and purchase rights on up to 40 more.
The aircraft will be distributed amongst the Jetstar Group fleet that includes investments by Qantas in low cost carriers Jetstar Asia and Valuair of Singapore and Jetstar Pacific, Vietnam’s second largest domestic carrier.
The contract includes a long-term engine service agreement for these aircraft as well as engines installed on 40 aircraft already operated by the three Jetstar Group airline brand businesses.
The V2500 is produced by the International Aero Engines consortium (IAE) in which Rolls-Royce is a senior shareholder.
IAE’s other partners are Pratt & Whitney, the Japanese Aero Engines Corporation and MTU Aero Engines.
The 22,000 - 33,000lb thrust V2500 powers the Airbus A319, A320 and A321 family of aircraft as well as the Airbus Corporate Jetliner. More than 5,500 V2500 engines are in service or on firm order worldwide.
Rolls-Royce, a world-leading provider of power systems and services for use on land, at sea and in the air, has established a strong position in global markets - civil aerospace, defence aerospace, marine and energy.
In 2008, Rolls-Royce and its partners invested £885 million on research and development, two thirds of which had the objective of further improving the environmental aspects of its products, in particular the reduction of emissions.
Annual underlying revenues were £9.1 billion in 2008, of which 52 per cent came from services revenues. The firm and announced order book stood at £57.5 billion at 30 June 2009, providing visibility of future levels of activity.
es to power up to 90 Airbus A320 family aircraft.
The order is worth up to $1.2bn to Rolls-Royce if all options are exercised.
Jetstar, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Qantas Airways, has selected the engine for a new fleet of 50 additional aircraft, with options and purchase rights on up to 40 more.
The aircraft will be distributed amongst the Jetstar Group fleet that includes investments by Qantas in low cost carriers Jetstar Asia and Valuair of Singapore and Jetstar Pacific, Vietnam’s second largest domestic carrier.
The contract includes a long-term engine service agreement for these aircraft as well as engines installed on 40 aircraft already operated by the three Jetstar Group airline brand businesses.
The V2500 is produced by the International Aero Engines consortium (IAE) in which Rolls-Royce is a senior shareholder.
IAE’s other partners are Pratt & Whitney, the Japanese Aero Engines Corporation and MTU Aero Engines.
The 22,000 - 33,000lb thrust V2500 powers the Airbus A319, A320 and A321 family of aircraft as well as the Airbus Corporate Jetliner. More than 5,500 V2500 engines are in service or on firm order worldwide.
Rolls-Royce, a world-leading provider of power systems and services for use on land, at sea and in the air, has established a strong position in global markets - civil aerospace, defence aerospace, marine and energy.
In 2008, Rolls-Royce and its partners invested £885 million on research and development, two thirds of which had the objective of further improving the environmental aspects of its products, in particular the reduction of emissions.
Annual underlying revenues were £9.1 billion in 2008, of which 52 per cent came from services revenues. The firm and announced order book stood at £57.5 billion at 30 June 2009, providing visibility of future levels of activity.
DTN News: China’s Alarming, Puzzling, Missile Test
DTN News: China’s Alarming, Puzzling, Missile Test
*Source: DTN News / Int'l Media By David Axe
(NSI News Source Info) - January 29, 2010: On January 11, a large missile streaked upward from a test site in China. The missile rocketed beyond the atmosphere and struck another similar missile launched from a separate site. Later that day, the official Xinhua news agency announced a ‘test on ground-based midcourse missile interception technology.’ 
‘The test has achieved the expected objective,’ Xinhua proclaimed. ‘The test is defensive in nature and is not targeted at any country.’
It was a seemingly impressive accomplishment--and apparently a big surprise to Western governments. To date, just one nation has managed to fire one missile to intercept another outside Earth's atmosphere: the United States. And that was after some 20 years of concerted technology development. Today the United States spends around $10 billion a year developing and buying missile-defense equipment, yet has hit another missile in exo-atmospheric tests on just a handful of occasions. The Chinese test seemed to represent a huge step towards eliminating the US lead.
It's unclear, however, how realistic the Chinese test was and how advanced the Chinese missile-defense technology truly is. It's equally unclear what exactly the Chinese missile interceptor is for.
These uncertainties are not unusual. The whole field of missiles and missile defense is notorious for its political theater. Nations will fund, buy or just plan for ballistic missiles and ballistic-missile defenses--however technically troubled or operationally impractical--solely for posturing. ‘These things tend to be tools of international politics,’ says Phil Coyle, an expert in missiles and missile defenses.
By firing just a handful of ballistic missiles, Iraq was nearly able to draw Israel into the 1991 Gulf War, which could have shattered the Western-Arab alliance arrayed against Iraq. North Korea, Iran and China all field ballistic missiles to back up their rhetoric towards South Korea, Israel and Taiwan, respectively. By the same token, systems that promise to render impotent these politically-empowering ballistic missiles carry much of the same weight in the halls of diplomacy and at the bargaining table.
For that reason, missile defenses are also big business. The US arms industry earns billions of dollars a year exporting various command systems, radars, launchers and interceptors associated with missile defense. In one of the biggest recent deals, last autumn Turkey announced plans to spend $8 billion on US-made PAC-3 missile interceptors.
States ringing heavily missile-armed nations are the best customers. The United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia all have bought PAC-3 interceptors, owing to Iran's growing missile force. South Korea bought PAC-3s and sea-based SM-2s, and Japan bought PAC-3s and seaborne SM-3s, both to contend with North Korea. Taiwan is buying PAC-3s to defend against China.
Was the Chinese test for real? Is the system meant to boost Beijing's position as it jockeys for influence over Taiwan? Was the point to send a signal to some other strategic rival--the United States perhaps, or India? Is the interceptor meant for export as part of a burgeoning commercial arms catalogue?
‘The bottom line is that people don't know for sure what's motivating this,’ says Michael Swaine, an analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. And considering how the Americans have been working on their own missile defenses, good answers regarding the Chinese system could be years in coming. Just one thing is certain: whatever their operational reality, whatever the rationale behind their development, missile defenses represent an important and growing concern for the whole world and in particular, Asia.
Taiwan Theater
‘The test has achieved the expected objective,’ Xinhua proclaimed. ‘The test is defensive in nature and is not targeted at any country.’
It was a seemingly impressive accomplishment--and apparently a big surprise to Western governments. To date, just one nation has managed to fire one missile to intercept another outside Earth's atmosphere: the United States. And that was after some 20 years of concerted technology development. Today the United States spends around $10 billion a year developing and buying missile-defense equipment, yet has hit another missile in exo-atmospheric tests on just a handful of occasions. The Chinese test seemed to represent a huge step towards eliminating the US lead.
It's unclear, however, how realistic the Chinese test was and how advanced the Chinese missile-defense technology truly is. It's equally unclear what exactly the Chinese missile interceptor is for.
These uncertainties are not unusual. The whole field of missiles and missile defense is notorious for its political theater. Nations will fund, buy or just plan for ballistic missiles and ballistic-missile defenses--however technically troubled or operationally impractical--solely for posturing. ‘These things tend to be tools of international politics,’ says Phil Coyle, an expert in missiles and missile defenses.
By firing just a handful of ballistic missiles, Iraq was nearly able to draw Israel into the 1991 Gulf War, which could have shattered the Western-Arab alliance arrayed against Iraq. North Korea, Iran and China all field ballistic missiles to back up their rhetoric towards South Korea, Israel and Taiwan, respectively. By the same token, systems that promise to render impotent these politically-empowering ballistic missiles carry much of the same weight in the halls of diplomacy and at the bargaining table.
For that reason, missile defenses are also big business. The US arms industry earns billions of dollars a year exporting various command systems, radars, launchers and interceptors associated with missile defense. In one of the biggest recent deals, last autumn Turkey announced plans to spend $8 billion on US-made PAC-3 missile interceptors.
States ringing heavily missile-armed nations are the best customers. The United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia all have bought PAC-3 interceptors, owing to Iran's growing missile force. South Korea bought PAC-3s and sea-based SM-2s, and Japan bought PAC-3s and seaborne SM-3s, both to contend with North Korea. Taiwan is buying PAC-3s to defend against China.
Was the Chinese test for real? Is the system meant to boost Beijing's position as it jockeys for influence over Taiwan? Was the point to send a signal to some other strategic rival--the United States perhaps, or India? Is the interceptor meant for export as part of a burgeoning commercial arms catalogue?
‘The bottom line is that people don't know for sure what's motivating this,’ says Michael Swaine, an analyst with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. And considering how the Americans have been working on their own missile defenses, good answers regarding the Chinese system could be years in coming. Just one thing is certain: whatever their operational reality, whatever the rationale behind their development, missile defenses represent an important and growing concern for the whole world and in particular, Asia.
Taiwan Theater
Every move by the Chinese defense establishment must be understood in the context of Taiwan. ‘The Taiwan question, bearing upon China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, has always been the most important and sensitive issue in China-US relations,’ Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu said in January.
Observers were quick to point out that the Chinese missile test came just days after Washington announced a $1-billion PAC-3 sale to Taiwan. One theory is that China simply insists on having all the same military capabilities as Taiwan, if not better. Since PAC-3 is a point defense against only smaller ballistic missiles flying in the atmosphere, the Chinese demonstration of a heavy, exo-atmospheric interceptor could be the trump card in a game of military one-upmanship.
Swaine is skeptical. The Chinese interceptor test ‘doesn't seem tied to the Taiwanese PAC-3,’ Swaine says. That both rivals made big missile moves at the same time is coincidence, he insists. ‘This test has been in making for some time. It's pretty silly to think they pulled it out of their pocket ... right after the sale of PAC-3 to the Taiwanese.’
Besides, China doesn't really need a missile-interceptor in order to contend with the Taiwanese military. Taiwan doesn't possess ballistic missiles for land bombardment. In the cross-strait balance, it's China that has all the land-attack missiles--hundreds of them, arrayed along the southern Chinese coast, all within range of Taiwanese bases. Taiwan's posture is defensive, not offensive. For Taipei, buying PAC-3 makes sense: the island nation needs missile interceptors to protect its airfields and garrisons. But Beijing doesn't need systems to defend against Taiwan, for Taiwan has no way of striking the Chinese mainland.
Still, there could be a connection to the cross-strait standoff. Taiwan's defense always has hinged, and still does, on the presence of US forces in the Pacific. Despite the United States’ increasingly close relationship with China, the Pentagon is committed to an independent Taiwan. In 1996, two US Navy aircraft carriers steamed into the Taiwan Strait amid increasing tensions between China and Taiwan.
At present, the US does not operate non-nuclear ballistic missiles. But such a missile is in development. The so-called Conventional Strike Missile emerged in the early 2000s as a potential complement to US long-range bombers. Development got sidelined by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the change in presidential administrations in early 2009. But last year the Barack Obama administration revived the idea of putting conventional explosive warheads on long-range ballistic missiles. Such a system would be useful for striking Chinese targets in any shooting war over Taiwan.
The United States famously deployed heavy, exo-atmospheric missile interceptors in Alaska beginning in 2004, in order to deter and defend against missiles fired by North Korea. In the same way, maybe Beijing is trying to head off the US Conventional Strike Missile deployment with its own missile defenses.
India Deterrent or Sat Killer?
It's also possible China is developing missile defenses to tweak the balance of power between it and neighboring India. Both nations have nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. While not outwardly hostile, Beijing and New Delhi eye each other cautiously as they both grow into global powers.
But again, Swaine has his doubts. ‘If the Chinese system is designed against a strategic threat such as India, it’s a pretty poor investment on the part of the Chinese.’ After all, India has as many as 80 nukes and could fire them all at the same time, easily overwhelming any defense. Missile defenses ‘are not a very cost-effective way of dealing with a strategic threat from a potential adversary,’ Swaine says. ‘It's better to deal with the Indian threat through a retaliatory capability.’ Which, it should be noted, Beijing already possesses.
On the other hand, defenses could be useful against a rival with just a handful of nuclear weapons--say, one of the so-called rogue states. ‘The Chinese may feel the situation in North Korea could get so out of control that the North Koreans might use ballistic missiles against the Chinese,’ Swaine suggests. ‘I hasten to add that I don't share this view.’
Coyle says he was ‘impressed’ when he read details of the Chinese test. Military analyst John Pike, from the think tank Globalsecurity.org in Alexandria, Virginia, was not. He says the tests were all about ‘bragging rights.’ ‘Anything the Americans can do,the “Chicoms” can do better,’ Pike imagined Chinese officials thinking.
Swaine appears to concur. ‘The test as I understand it was extremely scripted, even more than US anti-ballistic-missile tests. Apparently the target time and location was communicated to the interceptor. You may excuse that as early-phase testing, but some people have concluded that this system in its current form isn’t really suited to the anti-ballistic-missile mission.’
The Chinese system could, however, be used against slow, predictable targets--say, US satellites. In 2007, the Chinese military launched a missile to destroy a derelict satellite in a highly scripted test of a rudimentary anti-satellite capability. This year's test could represent a continuation of those efforts, Swaine says. Beijing has long sought what the Pentagon calls ‘asymmetric’ military capabilities meant to strike at key American vulnerabilities in its communications and surveillance infrastructure.
As a legitimate missile defense, or a sat-killer, the Chinese interceptor could make for a valuable export item, Coyle says. Ironically, customers could include US allies worried about Iranian or North Korean missiles, which allegedly have Chinese components. Not that it’s unheard of for a nation to sell weapons to all sides in an international rivalry. Several years ago, Washington offered F-35 stealth fighters to Israel. In January, Lockheed Martin, the company that makes the F-35, said the Israeli sale would probably force Israel's Arab neighbors to buy F-35s, too.
‘I don't know what China's purpose or motives were for the test,’ Coyle says, an uncertainty that places him in good company.
Swaine, for his part, says even the Chinese might have only the vaguest notion of what their new missile defense is for. ‘Absent any proof, one could say it's a prudent effort to develop technology that could be applied in several different areas,’ he says. ‘Maybe it's part of a longer-term project to develop technology, the uses for which ... no clear decision has been made about.’
David Axe is a US-based defence analyst and author of the 'War is Boring' blog
DTN News: Russian 5th-Generation Fighter To Perform Maiden Flight Jan 29.
DTN News: Russian 5th-Generation Fighter To Perform Maiden Flight Jan 29.
*Source: DTN News / RIA Novosti
(NSI News Source Info) - January 29, 2010: Russia is expected to hold the first test of its fifth-generation fighter on Friday, a source at Russia's largest aircraft building enterprise said on Thursday. 
"The [test] flight was initially scheduled for Thursday, but has been postponed," the source at the Gagarin KNAAPO company, a subsidiary of Russia's major aircraft holding Sukhoi, said.
Russia's only known fifth-generation project is Sukhoi's PAK FA and the current prototype is the T-50. It is designed to compete with the U.S. F-22 Raptor (so far the world's only fifth-generation fighter aircraft) and the F-35 Lightning II, but has yet to take to the skies.
The PAK FA is believed to possess advanced avionics, stealth capability, a ferry range of 4,000 to 5,500 km, and endurance of 3.3 hrs; it is armed with next-generation air-to-air, air-to-surface, and air-to-ship missiles, and has two 30-mm cannons.
Russia has been developing its newest fighter since the 1990s. Russian Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin earlier said the combat aircraft would enter service with the Air Force in 2015.
"The [test] flight was initially scheduled for Thursday, but has been postponed," the source at the Gagarin KNAAPO company, a subsidiary of Russia's major aircraft holding Sukhoi, said.
Russia's only known fifth-generation project is Sukhoi's PAK FA and the current prototype is the T-50. It is designed to compete with the U.S. F-22 Raptor (so far the world's only fifth-generation fighter aircraft) and the F-35 Lightning II, but has yet to take to the skies.
The PAK FA is believed to possess advanced avionics, stealth capability, a ferry range of 4,000 to 5,500 km, and endurance of 3.3 hrs; it is armed with next-generation air-to-air, air-to-surface, and air-to-ship missiles, and has two 30-mm cannons.
Russia has been developing its newest fighter since the 1990s. Russian Deputy Defense Minister Vladimir Popovkin earlier said the combat aircraft would enter service with the Air Force in 2015.
DTN News: Russia Free To Sell Weapons To Iran - State Arms Exporter
DTN News: Russia Free To Sell Weapons To Iran - State Arms Exporter
*Source: DTN News / RIA Novosti
(NSI News Source Info) MOSCOW, Russia - January 29, 2010: There is nothing to stop Russia from selling military equipment to Iran, the head of Russia's state-run arms exporter said 
on Thursday.
'Nothing prevents the continuation of military cooperation in those directions of interest to Russia and Iran," Rosoboronexport's Anatoly Isaikin told a RIA Novosti news conference.
"Iran has never violated a single commitment it has undertaken with regard to military contracts," he said.
Russia signed a contract with Iran on the supply of S-300 air defense systems to Tehran in December 2005. However, there have been no official reports on the start of the contract's implementation.
Western powers are angered by Iran's failure to give a constructive response to proposals made by a group of international mediators on its controversial nuclear program. Washington and Tel Aviv have refused to rule out military action over the issue, and on Wednesday U.S. President Barack Obama warned the Islamic Republic's leaders that they would face "growing consequences" over their refusal to fulfill their "obligations".
Both the U.S. and Israel have expressed concern over the possibility of S-300 deliveries to Iran, which would significantly strengthen the country's air defenses.
Although Russia has traditionally had close ties to Iran, including in nuclear energy through the construction of the Bushehr power plant, it is seen as having moved closer to the U.S. position on imposing new sanctions.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned Iran on Wednesday that "it is impossible to wait forever" and that Russia's partners "are already talking about the need to discuss further steps at the UN Security Council."
on Thursday.
'Nothing prevents the continuation of military cooperation in those directions of interest to Russia and Iran," Rosoboronexport's Anatoly Isaikin told a RIA Novosti news conference.
"Iran has never violated a single commitment it has undertaken with regard to military contracts," he said.
Russia signed a contract with Iran on the supply of S-300 air defense systems to Tehran in December 2005. However, there have been no official reports on the start of the contract's implementation.
Western powers are angered by Iran's failure to give a constructive response to proposals made by a group of international mediators on its controversial nuclear program. Washington and Tel Aviv have refused to rule out military action over the issue, and on Wednesday U.S. President Barack Obama warned the Islamic Republic's leaders that they would face "growing consequences" over their refusal to fulfill their "obligations".
Both the U.S. and Israel have expressed concern over the possibility of S-300 deliveries to Iran, which would significantly strengthen the country's air defenses.
Although Russia has traditionally had close ties to Iran, including in nuclear energy through the construction of the Bushehr power plant, it is seen as having moved closer to the U.S. position on imposing new sanctions.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned Iran on Wednesday that "it is impossible to wait forever" and that Russia's partners "are already talking about the need to discuss further steps at the UN Security Council."
DTN News: Russia Expects To Sell No Less Than $7.4 Bln Of Arms In 2010 / India, Russia Close To $1.2 Bln Deal For 29 Navy Fighters
DTN News: Russia Expects To Sell No Less Than $7.4 Bln Of Arms In 2010 / India, Russia Close To $1.2 Bln Deal For 29 Navy Fighters
*Source: DTN News / RIA Novosti
(NSI News Source Info) - January 29, 2010: Russia exported $7.4 billion worth of military products last year, and expects to sell at least a similar amount in 2010, the head of the 
country's state-run arms exporter Rosoboronexport said on Thursday.
Russia exported a record $8.35 billion worth of weapons in 2008.
"We do not expect arms deliveries abroad in 2010 to be lower than in 2009," Anatoly Isaikin said.
He said arms and hardware supplies for the Air Force accounted for half of all exports in 2009.
According to Isaikin, arms exports saw a steady growth in the past nine years, and increased more than 140% in the period from 2001 to 2009.
Russia's main customers for arms were India, Algeria, China, Venezuela, Malaysia and Syria, Isaikin said.
He hinted that Russia could also sell its arms to Iraq and Afghanistan if the United States gives its approval.
"It's too early to say if any [arms] supplies will be made to Afghanistan and what arms could be supplied there... Military officials from Iraq and Afghanistan do approach us for various arms supplies. We are ready to deliver, provided there is a corresponding decision [on the part of the U.S. administration] and if funds are allocated," Isaikin said.
He said Rosoboronexport's contract portfolio for the next few years currently exceeded $34 billion.
country's state-run arms exporter Rosoboronexport said on Thursday.
Russia exported a record $8.35 billion worth of weapons in 2008.
"We do not expect arms deliveries abroad in 2010 to be lower than in 2009," Anatoly Isaikin said.
He said arms and hardware supplies for the Air Force accounted for half of all exports in 2009.
According to Isaikin, arms exports saw a steady growth in the past nine years, and increased more than 140% in the period from 2001 to 2009.
Russia's main customers for arms were India, Algeria, China, Venezuela, Malaysia and Syria, Isaikin said.
He hinted that Russia could also sell its arms to Iraq and Afghanistan if the United States gives its approval.
"It's too early to say if any [arms] supplies will be made to Afghanistan and what arms could be supplied there... Military officials from Iraq and Afghanistan do approach us for various arms supplies. We are ready to deliver, provided there is a corresponding decision [on the part of the U.S. administration] and if funds are allocated," Isaikin said.
He said Rosoboronexport's contract portfolio for the next few years currently exceeded $34 billion.
India, Russia Close To $1.2 Bln Deal For 29 Navy Fighters ~ Russia and India are poised to sign a $1.2 billion
contract for another 29 MiG-29K fighter jets for the Indian Navy, an Indian daily reported on Monday.
According to The Times of India, a Russian team is expected in New Delhi later this week to "fine-tune the contract" now that it has received the go-ahead from the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The 29 new MiG-29Ks will be in addition to 16 jets already to be delivered under a 2004 contract.
Russia's MiG aircraft maker said in early December it had delivered the first four MiG-29 Fulcrum-D carrier-based fighter jets to India.
Russia and India signed a contract in January 2004 for the delivery of 12 single-seat MiG-29Ks and four two-seat MiG-29KUBs as part of a $1.5 billion deal for the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier, currently being retrofitted in Russia for the Indian navy.
The contract for the jets also stipulates the procurement of equipment for pilot training and aircraft maintenance, including flight simulators and interactive ground and sea-based training systems.
contract for another 29 MiG-29K fighter jets for the Indian Navy, an Indian daily reported on Monday.
According to The Times of India, a Russian team is expected in New Delhi later this week to "fine-tune the contract" now that it has received the go-ahead from the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.
The 29 new MiG-29Ks will be in addition to 16 jets already to be delivered under a 2004 contract.
Russia's MiG aircraft maker said in early December it had delivered the first four MiG-29 Fulcrum-D carrier-based fighter jets to India.
Russia and India signed a contract in January 2004 for the delivery of 12 single-seat MiG-29Ks and four two-seat MiG-29KUBs as part of a $1.5 billion deal for the Admiral Gorshkov aircraft carrier, currently being retrofitted in Russia for the Indian navy.
The contract for the jets also stipulates the procurement of equipment for pilot training and aircraft maintenance, including flight simulators and interactive ground and sea-based training systems.DTN News: Technology News TODAY January 29, 2010 ~ Nippon Steel Joins Japanese Rivals In Indian Auto Steel Push
DTN News: Technology News TODAY January 29, 2010 ~ Nippon Steel Joins Japanese Rivals In Indian Auto Steel Push
*Source: DTN News / Bloomberg By Debarati Roy and Abhishek Shanker
(NSI News Source Info) MUMBAI, India - January 29, 2010: Nippon Steel Corp. foll
owed its two largest Japanese rivals in forging Indian automobile steel ventures to tap surging demand in Asia’s third-biggest car market as domestic sales decline.
Nippon Steel, the world’s second-largest steelmaker, agreed yesterday to invest as much as 35 billion yen ($388 million) with Tata Steel Ltd. to make auto-grade steel in India by March 2013. JFE Holdings Inc., Japan’s No. 2 steelmaker, said in November it will cooperate with Mumbai-based JSW Steel Ltd., while Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd. said last month it may buy a stake in Bhushan Steel Ltd.’s proposed mill in eastern India.
Car sales in India grew at the fastest pace in three years in 2009, as Japan’s auto market contracted to a 32-year low. Having Indian partners allows the steelmakers to skirt government delays, said Bharath S., an analyst in Chennai at Sundaram BNP Paribas Mutual Fund.
“This is the easy way out for all companies who want to be in India and are aware of the practical problems here,” he said. “You will hear of more global companies wanting to pick up stakes in the India growth story.” Sundaram BNP holds 1.31 million Tata Steel shares, according to Bloomberg data.
Tata Steel, Steel Authority of India Ltd., and JSW Steel raised prices this month on higher demand. Higher material costs prompted Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and the Indian unit of Hyundai Motor Co. to increase prices of some of their cars.
Ford Motor Co. and Volkswagen AG have also expanded factories and introduced new models.
‘On a Roll’
“India’s automobile industry is on a roll,” Tata Steel Managing Director H.M. Nerurkar said in an interview yesterday in Mumbai.
India’s $1.2 trillion economy may expand 6.9 percent in the year ending March 31, according to the median estimate of a survey conducted in December of forecasters such as the New Delhi-based National Council of Applied Economic Research.
ArcelorMittal, the world’s largest steelmaker, and South Korea’s Posco, Asia’s most profitable mill, have failed for the past four years to buy land to build plants in the eastern states of Jharkhand and Orissa that would have more than doubled India’s production.
Luxembourg-based ArcelorMittal bought a 5.6 percent stake in Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. in September, after failing to secure land for two $10 billion factories in the country.
ArcelorMittal said in October 2005 it plans to set up a factory with a capacity of 12 million metric tons in Jharkhand and the following year it announced another plant of the same size in neighboring Orissa state.
JFE-JSW
Tokyo-based JFE Steel will also collaborate with JSW Steel, India’s third-largest producer, on a planned factory in West Bengal, JSW Managing Director Sajjan Jindal said on Nov. 19.
The companies will consider buying stakes in each other later, JFE said in a statement on its Web site that day, without giving more details.
“Indian automotive industry has done distinctively well compared with the rest of the world and so has the two-wheeler industry,” Nerurkar said.
Bhushan, a maker of automotive steel, offered Sumitomo as much as a 40 percent share in a factory it plans to build in West Bengal. Sumitomo is in talks with Bhushan about the venture and will decide on a stake purchase by the middle of next year, Sumitomo President Hiroshi Tomono said last month.
India’s steel demand is beating a global slump as federal stimulus packages and declining interest rates boost consumer spending. Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co., Volkswagen AG and other carmakers will add at least six more minicars and hatchbacks in the next two years as automakers invest $6 billion in India.
At least 10 models were unveiled at the Delhi Auto Show on Jan. 7 as global carmakers rush to India to boost sales and counter a slump in the U.S., Europe and Japan. Companies including Nissan Motor Co. and General Motors Co. plan to use the nation as a hub for small-car exports.
“We need technology to produce high strength cold-rolled steel,” Nerurkar said. “This value-added automotive steel has a premium of $20-odd per ton.”
--Editors: Indranil Ghosh, Aaron Sheldrick.
To contact the reporters on this story: Debarati Roy in Mumbai at +91-22-6633-9025 or droy5@bloomberg.net; Abhishek Shanker in Mumbai at +91-22-6633-9030 or ashanker1@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Andrew Hobbs at +61-2-9777-8642 or ahobbs4@bloomberg.net.
owed its two largest Japanese rivals in forging Indian automobile steel ventures to tap surging demand in Asia’s third-biggest car market as domestic sales decline.
Nippon Steel, the world’s second-largest steelmaker, agreed yesterday to invest as much as 35 billion yen ($388 million) with Tata Steel Ltd. to make auto-grade steel in India by March 2013. JFE Holdings Inc., Japan’s No. 2 steelmaker, said in November it will cooperate with Mumbai-based JSW Steel Ltd., while Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd. said last month it may buy a stake in Bhushan Steel Ltd.’s proposed mill in eastern India.
Car sales in India grew at the fastest pace in three years in 2009, as Japan’s auto market contracted to a 32-year low. Having Indian partners allows the steelmakers to skirt government delays, said Bharath S., an analyst in Chennai at Sundaram BNP Paribas Mutual Fund.
“This is the easy way out for all companies who want to be in India and are aware of the practical problems here,” he said. “You will hear of more global companies wanting to pick up stakes in the India growth story.” Sundaram BNP holds 1.31 million Tata Steel shares, according to Bloomberg data.
Tata Steel, Steel Authority of India Ltd., and JSW Steel raised prices this month on higher demand. Higher material costs prompted Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and the Indian unit of Hyundai Motor Co. to increase prices of some of their cars.
Ford Motor Co. and Volkswagen AG have also expanded factories and introduced new models.
‘On a Roll’
“India’s automobile industry is on a roll,” Tata Steel Managing Director H.M. Nerurkar said in an interview yesterday in Mumbai.
India’s $1.2 trillion economy may expand 6.9 percent in the year ending March 31, according to the median estimate of a survey conducted in December of forecasters such as the New Delhi-based National Council of Applied Economic Research.
ArcelorMittal, the world’s largest steelmaker, and South Korea’s Posco, Asia’s most profitable mill, have failed for the past four years to buy land to build plants in the eastern states of Jharkhand and Orissa that would have more than doubled India’s production.
Luxembourg-based ArcelorMittal bought a 5.6 percent stake in Uttam Galva Steels Ltd. in September, after failing to secure land for two $10 billion factories in the country.
ArcelorMittal said in October 2005 it plans to set up a factory with a capacity of 12 million metric tons in Jharkhand and the following year it announced another plant of the same size in neighboring Orissa state.
JFE-JSW
Tokyo-based JFE Steel will also collaborate with JSW Steel, India’s third-largest producer, on a planned factory in West Bengal, JSW Managing Director Sajjan Jindal said on Nov. 19.
The companies will consider buying stakes in each other later, JFE said in a statement on its Web site that day, without giving more details.
“Indian automotive industry has done distinctively well compared with the rest of the world and so has the two-wheeler industry,” Nerurkar said.
Bhushan, a maker of automotive steel, offered Sumitomo as much as a 40 percent share in a factory it plans to build in West Bengal. Sumitomo is in talks with Bhushan about the venture and will decide on a stake purchase by the middle of next year, Sumitomo President Hiroshi Tomono said last month.
India’s steel demand is beating a global slump as federal stimulus packages and declining interest rates boost consumer spending. Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co., Volkswagen AG and other carmakers will add at least six more minicars and hatchbacks in the next two years as automakers invest $6 billion in India.
At least 10 models were unveiled at the Delhi Auto Show on Jan. 7 as global carmakers rush to India to boost sales and counter a slump in the U.S., Europe and Japan. Companies including Nissan Motor Co. and General Motors Co. plan to use the nation as a hub for small-car exports.
“We need technology to produce high strength cold-rolled steel,” Nerurkar said. “This value-added automotive steel has a premium of $20-odd per ton.”
--Editors: Indranil Ghosh, Aaron Sheldrick.
To contact the reporters on this story: Debarati Roy in Mumbai at +91-22-6633-9025 or droy5@bloomberg.net; Abhishek Shanker in Mumbai at +91-22-6633-9030 or ashanker1@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Andrew Hobbs at +61-2-9777-8642 or ahobbs4@bloomberg.net.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
DTN News: South Korea In Pictures Of The Day January 28, 2010
DTN News: South Korea In Pictures Of The Day January 28, 2010
*Source: DTN News / Int'l Media
(NSI News Source Info) SEOUL, South Korea - January 28, 2010: South Korean military are on high alter due to North Korea on Tuesday declared a no-sail zone in the waters off its west coast, according to media reports in the South.
South Korean sailors arrive at a port by ferry from the west islands for their vacation in Incheon, west of Seoul, January 27, 2010. South Korea has returned fire after North Korea shot several artillery rounds into waters near a disputed sea border with the South on Wednesday, Yonhap news agency reported an unnamed military source as saying. North Korea on Tuesday declared a no-sail zone in the waters off its west coast, according to media reports in the South.
Members of local reserve forces participate in a drill in Ansan, south of Seoul January 27, 2010. South Korea has returned fire after North Korea shot several artillery rounds into waters near a disputed sea border with the South on Wednesday.
South Korean soldiers conduct a military drill in Yanggu near the demilitarised zone separating the two Koreas, northeast of Seoul January 27, 2010.
South Korean soldiers conduct a military drill in Yanggu near the demilitarised zone separating the two Koreas, northeast of Seoul January 27, 2010. South Korea has returned fire after North Korea shot several artillery rounds into waters near a disputed sea border with the South on Wednesday, Yonhap news agency reported an unnamed military source as saying. North Korea on Tuesday declared a no-sail zone in the waters off its west coast, according to media reports in the South.
South Korean sailors arrive at a port by ferry from the west islands for their vacation in Incheon, west of Seoul, January 27, 2010. South Korea has returned fire after North Korea shot several artillery rounds into waters near a disputed sea border with the South on Wednesday, Yonhap news agency reported an unnamed military source as saying. North Korea on Tuesday declared a no-sail zone in the waters off its west coast, according to media reports in the South.Members of local reserve forces participate in a drill in Ansan, south of Seoul January 27, 2010. South Korea has returned fire after North Korea shot several artillery rounds into waters near a disputed sea border with the South on Wednesday.South Korean soldiers conduct a military drill in Yanggu near the demilitarised zone separating the two Koreas, northeast of Seoul January 27, 2010.South Korean soldiers conduct a military drill in Yanggu near the demilitarised zone separating the two Koreas, northeast of Seoul January 27, 2010. South Korea has returned fire after North Korea shot several artillery rounds into waters near a disputed sea border with the South on Wednesday, Yonhap news agency reported an unnamed military source as saying. North Korea on Tuesday declared a no-sail zone in the waters off its west coast, according to media reports in the South.
DTN News: Joint Task Force Organizes Haitian Airport
DTN News: Joint Task Force Organizes Haitian Airport
*Source: U.S. DoD issued January 28, 2010 By Jim Garamone American Forces Press Service
(NSI News Source Info) PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti, - January 28, 2010: When a disaster strikes, people assume it should be easy to get relief supplies in. 
A C-130 Hercules transport lands as Air Force aerial porters move cargo at the airport in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. U.S. Air Force photo by Capt. Dustin Doyle (Click photo for screen-resolution image); high-resolution image available.
A C-130 Hercules transport lands as Air Force aerial porters move cargo at the airport in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. U.S. Air Force photo by Capt. Dustin Doyle (Click photo for screen-resolution image); high-resolution image available.
But it’s not always a simple proposition. Can the airport’s runway support the weight of cargo aircraft? What is the security situation like? What equipment does the airport have for unloading and loading? How many people and the means to support and supply them will be needed?
All of these questions and more are in the realm of Joint Task Force Port Opening at Toussaint L’Overture International Airport here. The unit, operating under U.S. Transportation Command, opened the airport after the magnitude 7 earthquake that hit Haiti Jan. 12 and has been responsible for operations on the airport’s ramp since then.
The task force contains the Air Force’s 621st Contingency Response Group, from Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J., and the Army’s 688th Transportation Detachment for rapid port opening from Fort Eustis, Va.
The disaster in Haiti marks the first time “the whole enchilada” has been used in an operation, said Air Force Col. Patrick Hollrah, the task force commander.
“Something of this magnitude takes the whole team to make it happen,” he said during a recent interview. “This is, unfortunately, what we were made to do. It is our job to respond to these.” The unit was the second one on the ground after the Air Force Special Operations Command team. “[The special operations team] brought a special tactics team with them that was restoring order and starting to control the airflow in,” Hollrah said. “There were literally airplanes parked everywhere.”
The terminal building, while still standing, has cracks all through it and cannot be used.
Aircraft parked where they could and crews improvised the unloading process. That caused confusion beyond belief, the colonel said. Relief supplies got intermixed and trucks drove straight down the ramp to load supplies.
“We started working in tandem [with the Air Force special operations team] to get airplanes unloaded so they could get off the ramp to clear off parking spaces so more airplanes could come in,” Hollrah said. It was a short time from order to execution, so the team surveyed the area on the flight down to Haiti and had an idea of how they wanted to set up the unit.
“The biggest challenge was the volume of air traffic, volume of vehicles and the volume of people on an airport ramp,” he said. “Anywhere else, a ramp is a restricted area. Not here.”
The unit is trying to get control of the safety and distribution parts of the equation, but it is slow going. “Eventually, we’ll get back to a point that improves safety and allows the traffic to flow where it needs to when it needs to,” Hollrah said. “It will also make the unloading and distribution process faster.”
Aerial port airmen unload the aircraft and move the goods off the ramp. Army vehicles take the goods and move them to a forward distribution node, about a mile away. “This opens up the ramp space and stops having trucks drive right on the ramp to pick up supplies,” said Army Maj. Vicky Snow, the 688th commander.
The soldiers stack the goods and, using rough-terrain forklifts, load trucks from governmental and nongovernmental agencies. By far, the most goods in the supply yard belong to the U.S. Agency for International Development, which is responsible for picking up the relief supplies and distributing them. That process is moving smoothly.
Nongovernmental agencies also pick up their goods at the yard, and this can be more of a problem. In one case, someone donated a plane to airlift supplies to the effort, and several organizations placed goods aboard it without tracking numbers, or even labels.
“Separating these out and ensuring they go to who they belong to can cause problems,” Snow said. “In other cases, they don’t have the right trucks to load with a forklift, so we have to break down the palettes and load [the vehicles] by hand. This takes time.”
These are small units. “We have all our people cross-trained, and everybody pitches in to ensure the mission gets done,” Hollrah said. “We’re a bridging force that can come in quickly to get the process started. Then we turn the responsibility over to government or non-governmental agencies.”
The unit not only handles supplies coming in, but also helps the State Department with refugees getting out.
“We have a high-volume evacuation of American citizens,” said Air Force Maj. Matt Jones, the task force’s operations officer. “We’ve been averaging 1,200 American citizens per day that have been getting on U.S. military and commercial aircraft and getting back home.”
Before the earthquake, the airport saw 30 flights on a busy day, and those were mostly during daylight. At its peak, since the disaster, the airport received 120 flights per day 24 hours a day. The most recent statistics show the airport has handled at least 12 million pounds of relief supplies, and this does not count critical supplies that medical and relief personnel brought with them.
The joint task force will continue until its services are no longer needed, Hollrah said, or until the mission is taken over by other organizations.
DTN News: Taking Credit For Failure
DTN News: Taking Credit For Failure
*Source: By Scott Stewart STRATFOR
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - January 28, 2010: On Jan. 24, a voice purported to be that of Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the botched attempt to bring 
down Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day. The short one-minute and two-second audio statement, which was broadcast on Al Jazeera television, called the 23-year-old Nigerian suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab a hero and threatened more attacks. The voice on the recording said the bombing attempt was in response to the situation in Gaza and that the United States can never dream of living in peace until Muslims have peace in the Palestinian territories. The speaker also said that attacks against the United States would continue as long as the United States continued to support Israel.
While the U.S. government has yet to confirm that the voice is that of bin Laden, Al Jazeera claims that the voice is indeed that of the al Qaeda leader. Bin Laden’s health and welfare have been the topic of a lot of discussion and debate over the past several years, and many intelligence officials believe he is dead. Because of this, any time an audio recording purporting to be from bin Laden is released it receives heavy forensic scrutiny. Some technical experts believe that recent statements supposedly made by bin Laden have been cobbled together by manipulating portions of longer bin Laden messages that were previously recorded. It has been STRATFOR’s position for several years that, whether bin Laden is dead or alive, the al Qaeda core has been marginalized by the efforts of the United States and its allies to the point where the group no longer poses a strategic threat.
Now, questions of bin Laden’s status aside, the recording was most likely released through channels that helped assure Al Jazeera that the recording was authentic. This means that we can be somewhat confident that the message was released by the al Qaeda core. The fact that the al Qaeda core would attempt to take credit for a failed attack in a recording is quite interesting. But perhaps even more interesting is the core group’s claim that the attack was conducted because of U.S support for Israel and the treatment of the Palestinians living in Gaza.
Smoke and Mirrors
During the early years of al Qaeda’s existence, the group did not take credit for attacks it conducted. In fact, it explicitly denied involvement. In interviews with the press, bin Laden often praised the attackers while, with a bit of a wink and a nod, he denied any connection to the attacks. Bin Laden issued public statements after the August 1998 East Africa embassy bombings and the 9/11 attacks flatly denying any involvement. In fact, bin Laden and al Qaeda continued to publicly deny any connection to the 9/11 attacks until after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. These denials of the 9/11 attacks have taken on a life of their own and have become the basis of conspiracy theories that the United States or Israel was behind the attacks (despite later statements by bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, that contradicted earlier statements and claimed credit for 9/11).
In the years following 9/11, the al Qaeda core has continued to bask in the glory of that spectacularly successful attack, but it has not been able to produce the long-awaited encore. This is not for lack of effort; the al Qaeda core has been involved in several attempted attacks against the United States, such as the attempted shoe-bomb attack in December 2001, dispatching Jose Padilla to the United States in May of 2002 to purportedly try to conduct a dirty-bomb attack, and the August 2006 thwarted plot to attack trans-Atlantic airliners using liquid explosives. Interestingly, while each of these failed attempts has been tied to the al Qaeda core by intelligence and investigative efforts, the group did not publicly claim credit for any of them. While the group’s leadership has made repeated threats that they were going to launch an attack that would dwarf 9/11, they simply have been unable to do so. Indeed, the only plot that could have come anywhere near the destruction of the 9/11 attacks was the liquid explosives plot, and that was foiled early on in the operational planning process — before the explosive devices were even fabricated.
Now, back to the failed bombing attempt on Christmas Day. First, the Yemeni franchise of al Qaeda, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), has already claimed responsibility for the attack, and evidence strongly suggests that AQAP is the organization with which Abdulmutallab had direct contact. Indeed, while some members of AQAP have had prior contact with bin Laden, there is little to suggest that bin Laden himself or what remains of al Qaeda’s core leadership has any direct role in planning any of the operations conducted by AQAP. The core group does not exercise that type of control over the activities of any of its regional groups. These groups are more like independent franchises that operate under the same brand name rather than parts of a single hierarchical organization. Each franchise has local leadership and is self-funding, and the franchises frequently diverge from global al Qaeda “corporate policies” in areas like target selection.
Furthermore, in an environment where the jihadists know that U.S. signals-intelligence efforts are keenly focused on the al Qaeda core and the regional franchise groups, discussing any type of operational information via telephone or e-mail from Yemen to Pakistan would be very dangerous — and terrible operational security. Using couriers would be more secure, but the al Qaeda core leadership is very cautious in its communications with the outside world (Hellfire missiles can have that effect on people), and any such communications will be very slow and deliberate. For the al Qaeda core leadership, the price of physical security has been the loss of operational control over the larger movement.
Taking things one step further, not only is the core of al Qaeda attempting to take credit for something it did not do, but it is claiming credit for an attack that did little more than severely burn the attacker in a very sensitive anatomical area. Some have argued that the attack was successful because it has instilled fear and caused the U.S. government to react, but clearly the attack would have had a far greater impact had the device detonated. The failed attack was certainly not what the operational planners had in mind when they dispatched Abdulmutallab on his mission.
This attempt by the al Qaeda core to pander for publicity, even though it means claiming credit for a botched attack, clearly demonstrates how far the core group has fallen since the days when bin Laden blithely denied responsibility for 9/11.
The Palestinian Focus
Since the beginning of bin Laden’s public discourse, the Palestinian cause has been a consistent feature. His 1996 declaration of war and the 1998 fatwa declaring jihad against the West and Israel are prime examples. However, the reality of al Qaeda’s activities has shown that, to bin Laden, the plight of the Palestinians has been less an area of genuine concern and more of a rhetorical device to exploit sympathy for the jihadist cause and draw Muslims to al Qaeda’s banner.
Over the years, al Qaeda has worked very closely with a number of militant groups in a variety of places, including the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat in Algeria, Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia and the East Turkestan Islamic Movement in China. However, while one of bin Laden’s mentors, Abdullah Azzam, was a Palestinian, and there have been several Palestinians affiliated with al Qaeda over the years, the group has done little to support Palestinian resistance groups such as Hamas, even though Hamas (as the Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood) sprang from the same radical Egyptian Islamist milieu that produced al-Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), which al-Zawahiri later folded into al Qaeda.
Jihadist militant groups such as Jund Ansar Allah have attempted to establish themselves in Gaza, but these groups were seen as problematic competition, rather than allies, and Hamas quickly stamped them out.
With little help coming from fellow Sunnis, Hamas has come to rely on Iran and Iran’s Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, as sources of funding, weapons and training. Even though this support is flowing across the Shiite-Sunni divide, actions speak louder than words, and Iran and Hezbollah have shown that they can deliver. In many ways, the political philosophy of Hamas (which has been sharply criticized by al-Zawahiri and other al Qaeda leaders) is far closer to that of Iran than to that of the jihadists. With Iran’s help, Hamas has progressed from throwing rocks and firing homemade Qassam rockets to launching the longer range Grad and Fajr rockets and conducting increasingly effective irregular-warfare operations against the Israeli army.
Hezbollah’s ability to eject Israel from southern Lebanon and its strong stand against the Israeli armed forces in the 2006 war made a strong impression in the Middle East. Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas are seen as very real threats to Israel, while al Qaeda has shown that it can produce a lot of anti-Israeli rhetoric but few results. Because of this, Iran and its proxies have become the vanguard of the fight against Israel, while al Qaeda is simply trying to keep its name in the press. Claiming credit for failed attacks orchestrated by others and trying to latch on to the fight against Israel are just the latest signs that al Qaeda is trying almost too hard to remain relevant.
down Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day. The short one-minute and two-second audio statement, which was broadcast on Al Jazeera television, called the 23-year-old Nigerian suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab a hero and threatened more attacks. The voice on the recording said the bombing attempt was in response to the situation in Gaza and that the United States can never dream of living in peace until Muslims have peace in the Palestinian territories. The speaker also said that attacks against the United States would continue as long as the United States continued to support Israel.
While the U.S. government has yet to confirm that the voice is that of bin Laden, Al Jazeera claims that the voice is indeed that of the al Qaeda leader. Bin Laden’s health and welfare have been the topic of a lot of discussion and debate over the past several years, and many intelligence officials believe he is dead. Because of this, any time an audio recording purporting to be from bin Laden is released it receives heavy forensic scrutiny. Some technical experts believe that recent statements supposedly made by bin Laden have been cobbled together by manipulating portions of longer bin Laden messages that were previously recorded. It has been STRATFOR’s position for several years that, whether bin Laden is dead or alive, the al Qaeda core has been marginalized by the efforts of the United States and its allies to the point where the group no longer poses a strategic threat.
Now, questions of bin Laden’s status aside, the recording was most likely released through channels that helped assure Al Jazeera that the recording was authentic. This means that we can be somewhat confident that the message was released by the al Qaeda core. The fact that the al Qaeda core would attempt to take credit for a failed attack in a recording is quite interesting. But perhaps even more interesting is the core group’s claim that the attack was conducted because of U.S support for Israel and the treatment of the Palestinians living in Gaza.
Smoke and Mirrors
During the early years of al Qaeda’s existence, the group did not take credit for attacks it conducted. In fact, it explicitly denied involvement. In interviews with the press, bin Laden often praised the attackers while, with a bit of a wink and a nod, he denied any connection to the attacks. Bin Laden issued public statements after the August 1998 East Africa embassy bombings and the 9/11 attacks flatly denying any involvement. In fact, bin Laden and al Qaeda continued to publicly deny any connection to the 9/11 attacks until after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. These denials of the 9/11 attacks have taken on a life of their own and have become the basis of conspiracy theories that the United States or Israel was behind the attacks (despite later statements by bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, that contradicted earlier statements and claimed credit for 9/11).
In the years following 9/11, the al Qaeda core has continued to bask in the glory of that spectacularly successful attack, but it has not been able to produce the long-awaited encore. This is not for lack of effort; the al Qaeda core has been involved in several attempted attacks against the United States, such as the attempted shoe-bomb attack in December 2001, dispatching Jose Padilla to the United States in May of 2002 to purportedly try to conduct a dirty-bomb attack, and the August 2006 thwarted plot to attack trans-Atlantic airliners using liquid explosives. Interestingly, while each of these failed attempts has been tied to the al Qaeda core by intelligence and investigative efforts, the group did not publicly claim credit for any of them. While the group’s leadership has made repeated threats that they were going to launch an attack that would dwarf 9/11, they simply have been unable to do so. Indeed, the only plot that could have come anywhere near the destruction of the 9/11 attacks was the liquid explosives plot, and that was foiled early on in the operational planning process — before the explosive devices were even fabricated.
Now, back to the failed bombing attempt on Christmas Day. First, the Yemeni franchise of al Qaeda, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), has already claimed responsibility for the attack, and evidence strongly suggests that AQAP is the organization with which Abdulmutallab had direct contact. Indeed, while some members of AQAP have had prior contact with bin Laden, there is little to suggest that bin Laden himself or what remains of al Qaeda’s core leadership has any direct role in planning any of the operations conducted by AQAP. The core group does not exercise that type of control over the activities of any of its regional groups. These groups are more like independent franchises that operate under the same brand name rather than parts of a single hierarchical organization. Each franchise has local leadership and is self-funding, and the franchises frequently diverge from global al Qaeda “corporate policies” in areas like target selection.
Furthermore, in an environment where the jihadists know that U.S. signals-intelligence efforts are keenly focused on the al Qaeda core and the regional franchise groups, discussing any type of operational information via telephone or e-mail from Yemen to Pakistan would be very dangerous — and terrible operational security. Using couriers would be more secure, but the al Qaeda core leadership is very cautious in its communications with the outside world (Hellfire missiles can have that effect on people), and any such communications will be very slow and deliberate. For the al Qaeda core leadership, the price of physical security has been the loss of operational control over the larger movement.
Taking things one step further, not only is the core of al Qaeda attempting to take credit for something it did not do, but it is claiming credit for an attack that did little more than severely burn the attacker in a very sensitive anatomical area. Some have argued that the attack was successful because it has instilled fear and caused the U.S. government to react, but clearly the attack would have had a far greater impact had the device detonated. The failed attack was certainly not what the operational planners had in mind when they dispatched Abdulmutallab on his mission.
This attempt by the al Qaeda core to pander for publicity, even though it means claiming credit for a botched attack, clearly demonstrates how far the core group has fallen since the days when bin Laden blithely denied responsibility for 9/11.
The Palestinian Focus
Since the beginning of bin Laden’s public discourse, the Palestinian cause has been a consistent feature. His 1996 declaration of war and the 1998 fatwa declaring jihad against the West and Israel are prime examples. However, the reality of al Qaeda’s activities has shown that, to bin Laden, the plight of the Palestinians has been less an area of genuine concern and more of a rhetorical device to exploit sympathy for the jihadist cause and draw Muslims to al Qaeda’s banner.
Over the years, al Qaeda has worked very closely with a number of militant groups in a variety of places, including the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat in Algeria, Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia and the East Turkestan Islamic Movement in China. However, while one of bin Laden’s mentors, Abdullah Azzam, was a Palestinian, and there have been several Palestinians affiliated with al Qaeda over the years, the group has done little to support Palestinian resistance groups such as Hamas, even though Hamas (as the Palestinian offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood) sprang from the same radical Egyptian Islamist milieu that produced al-Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), which al-Zawahiri later folded into al Qaeda.
Jihadist militant groups such as Jund Ansar Allah have attempted to establish themselves in Gaza, but these groups were seen as problematic competition, rather than allies, and Hamas quickly stamped them out.
With little help coming from fellow Sunnis, Hamas has come to rely on Iran and Iran’s Lebanese proxy, Hezbollah, as sources of funding, weapons and training. Even though this support is flowing across the Shiite-Sunni divide, actions speak louder than words, and Iran and Hezbollah have shown that they can deliver. In many ways, the political philosophy of Hamas (which has been sharply criticized by al-Zawahiri and other al Qaeda leaders) is far closer to that of Iran than to that of the jihadists. With Iran’s help, Hamas has progressed from throwing rocks and firing homemade Qassam rockets to launching the longer range Grad and Fajr rockets and conducting increasingly effective irregular-warfare operations against the Israeli army.
Hezbollah’s ability to eject Israel from southern Lebanon and its strong stand against the Israeli armed forces in the 2006 war made a strong impression in the Middle East. Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas are seen as very real threats to Israel, while al Qaeda has shown that it can produce a lot of anti-Israeli rhetoric but few results. Because of this, Iran and its proxies have become the vanguard of the fight against Israel, while al Qaeda is simply trying to keep its name in the press. Claiming credit for failed attacks orchestrated by others and trying to latch on to the fight against Israel are just the latest signs that al Qaeda is trying almost too hard to remain relevant.
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: U.S. Department of Defense Contracts Dated January 28, 2010
DTN News: U.S. Department of Defense Contracts Dated January 28, 2010 
*Source: DoD issued January 28, 2010
(NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON - January 28, 2010: U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) Contracts issued January 28, 2010 are undermentioned;
CONTRACTS
NAVY
~Austal USA, Mobile Ala., is being awarded a $204,238,728 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-08-C-2217) to exercise options for Ships 2 and 3 of the Joint High Speed Vessel (JHSV) program. The JHSV will provide high speed, shallow draft transportation capability to support the intra-theater maneuver of personnel, supplies, and equipment for the Navy, Marine Corps and Army. Work will be performed in Mobile, Ala., and is expected to be completed by July 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.
~Maritime Helicopter Support Co., Woodbridge, Va., is being awarded an $84,337,927 ceiling price firm-fixed-priced performance based logistics contract for repair of various line items of the H-60 helicopter systems and components. This contract contains options which, if exercised, will bring the not-to-exceed ceiling price of the contract to $306,683,371. Work will be performed by Sikorsky Aircraft Co., Stratford, Conn. (70 percent), and by Lockheed Martin Systems Integration, Owego N.Y. (30 percent). Work is expected to be completed by Jan. 30, 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured. The Naval Inventory Control Point, Philadelphia, Pa., is the contracting activity (N00383-09-D-010F).
~United Technologies, East Hartford, Conn., is being awarded a $24,674,404 delivery order #0003 under a previously awarded basic ordering agreement contract (N00383-07-G-003M) for repair of line items used on the J-52 engine in support of the EA-6B aircraft. Work will be performed in Jacksonville, Fla., and is expected to be completed by July 2012. Contract funds will not expire before the end of the fiscal year. This contract was not competitively awarded. One company was solicited and one offer was received. The Naval Inventory Control Point, Philadelphia, Pa., is the contracting activity.
~Electric Boat Corp., Groton, Conn., is being awarded a $23,661,596 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-03-C-2101) for the planning and execution of the USS New Hampshire (SSN 778) post shakedown availability (PSA). Specific efforts include planning efforts, including long lead time material procurement, in preparation to accomplish the maintenance, repair, alterations, testing and other work on USS New Hampshire (SSN 778) during its scheduled PSA. Work will be performed in Groton, Conn., and is expected to be completed by September 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The supervisor of shipbuilding conversion and repair, Groton, Conn., is the contracting activity.
~Dck pacific construction, LLC, Honolulu, Hawaii, is being awarded a $12,687,000 firm-fixed price contract for construction of box magazines and supporting facilities at Navy Munitions Command, East Asia Division, Detachment Pearl Harbor. The work to be performed provides for the construction of five standard type “C” earth covered box magazines and supporting facilities, which include: access roads; concrete apron; interior lighting and power; exterior security lighting; grounding; building lightning protection; building electrical service; site secondary electrical distribution; and fire hydrants. Special foundation features include excavation of existing subgrade to the coral formation and concrete fill below the invert of the magazine foundation to the coral formation. Work will be performed in West Loch, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and is expected to be completed by December 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the Navy Electronic Commerce Online Web site with 12 proposals received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Hawaii, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, is the contracting activity (N62478-10-C-1482).
~Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors, Moorestown, N.J., is being awarded a $9,800,000 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-03-C-5115) for engineering services for DDG 51 class and CG 47 class Aegis combat system installation, integration, test and fleet life cycle engineering support. The required services include program management; operation support; quality assurance; configuration management; ship design integration; firmware maintenance; combat system test and evaluation; Navy furnished material support; special studies; and future-ship integration studies. Work will be performed in Moorestown, N.J. (45 percent); Baltimore, Md. (20 percent); Bath, Maine (12 percent); Pascagoula, Miss. (8 percent); Washington, D.C. (5 percent); Norfolk, Va. (5 percent); Mayport, Fla. (3 percent), Oxnard, Calif. (1 percent); and San Diego, Calif. (1 percent). Work is expected to be completed by September 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington Navy Yard, D.C., is the contracting activity.
~BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair, Inc., San Diego, Calif., is being awarded an $8,919,673 modification to previously awarded contract (N00024-08-C-2300) to exercise an option for the accomplishment of the post shakedown availability (PSA) for the DDG 51 class AEGIS destroyer USS Dewey (DDG 105). Specific efforts include engineering and management in support of the PSA; labor and procurement of material to correct government responsible deficiencies and accomplish system upgrades; perform specified PSA work items inclusive of tests and post repair sea trials; and task additional manhours and material in order to complete emergent repairs. Work will be performed in San Diego, Calif., and is expected to be completed by December 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity.
~L3 Services, Inc., Mount Laurel, N.J., is being awarded a $7,454,671 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00421-05-C-0009) to exercise an option for engineering and technical services and supplies to design, develop, procure, prototype, modify, integrate, install, test and evaluate, and provide logistics support for telecommunication and related communication-electronic systems. These services are in support of the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Special Communications Requirements Division. The estimated level of effort for this modification is 72,368 man-hours. Work will be performed in Lexington Park, Md. (80 percent), and Saint Inigoes, Md. (20 percent), and is expected to be completed in April 2010. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity.
~Dyncorp International, LLC, Fort Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $6,745,095 firm-fixed-price contract for continued contractor logistics support for 12 U.S. Navy UC-35C/D aircraft. Work will be performed at Andrews Air Force Base, Clinton, Md. (25 percent); Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS), Futenma, Japan (25 percent); Naval Air Station, New Orleans, La. (17 percent); MCAS Miramar, Calif. (17 percent); and MCAS Cherry Point, N.C. (16 percent). Work is expected to be completed in November 2010. Contract funds in the amount of $5,415,627 will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to FAR 6.302-1. The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Md., is the contracting activity (N00019-10-C-0027).
AIR FORCE
~Northrop Grumman Information Technology, McLean, Va., was awarded a $46,422,033 contract which will provide for reliability and maintainability information system sustainment and modification which will include all activities associated with planning, controlling, documenting, maintaining and operating the system. At this time, $2,500,000 has been obligated. 554 ELSG/PK, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8770-10-D-0001).
~Boeing Co., Wichita, Kan., was awarded a $35,403,359 contract which will provide contractor logistics support for the VC-25A aircraft. At this time, $8,220,600 has been obligated. 727 ACSG/PKB, Tinker Air Force Base, Okla.,is the contracting activity (FA8106-09-C-0005/P00005).
~Northrop Grumman System Corp., San Diego, Calif., was awarded a $22,549,365 contract which will develop and deliver a new synthetic aperture radar mode for the Block 20/30 Enhanced Integrated Sensor Suite. At this time, $2,068,897 has been obligated. 303 AESG/SYK, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (F33657-01-C-4600, P00331).
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
~CORRECTION: The announcement dated Jan. 26, 2010, for Metals USA, (DBA) 1-Solutions Group, Fort Washington, Pa., should have stated that the contract is for customer direct metals deliveries (SPM8EG-09-D-0013).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
