DTN News: Pratt & Whitney Stands Behind Cost Commitment On F135 Engine For F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

DTN News: Pratt & Whitney Stands Behind Cost Commitment On F135 Engine For F-35 Joint Strike Fighter *Source: DTN News / Defense News (Click here for link)

(NSI News Source Info) EAST HARTFORD, Conn., USA - September 16, 2009: Pratt & Whitney's F135 engine powering the F-35 Lightning II aircraft continues to realize production cost reduction benefits, and Pratt & Whitney has offered to provide the F-35 Joint Program Office with a firm fixed price proposal for the F135 engine if requested. Pratt & Whitney is a United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX - News) company. The F-35 is the result of the Defense Department's Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, which sought to build a multirole fighter optimized for the air-to-ground role with secondary air-to-air capability. The JSF requirement was to meet the needs of the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and allies, with improved survivability, precision engagement capability, and reduced life cycle costs. By using many of the same technologies developed for the F-22, the F-35 has the opportunity to capitalize on commonality and modularity to maximize affordability. "The F135 program has reached a level of maturity where we've been able to work aggressively to reduce costs through more efficient manufacturing processes and improved supplier performance," said Warren Boley, vice president, Pratt & Whitney F135 programs. "Working closely with the Joint Program Office, we have made significant progress over the last several months in reducing costs. The company's F135 engine Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 4 contract proposal reflects confidence in the aggressive cost reductions actions underway by providing the Joint Program Office special protections against cost growth and incentives for significant cost reduction. In fact, Pratt & Whitney stands ready to offer a firm fixed price to the JPO at their request," Boley said. Pratt & Whitney's LRIP 4 contract proposal covers production, sustainment, spare parts and engineering support for 37 F135 engines, consisting of 20 conventional take-off and landing (CTOL)/carrier variant (CV) and 17 short-takeoff/vertical-landing (STOVL) engines for F-35 aircraft. The same methodology that Pratt & Whitney and the U.S. Government used to achieve a 30 percent cost reduction on the F119 engine is being employed on the F135 engine. This aggressive approach was successfully used in the early days of the F119 engine program and provides confidence that similar results can be achieved on the F135. "We continue to work in close cooperation with the Joint Program Office to reach our cost goals. Our LRIP 4 offer demonstrates our confidence in our cost reduction plan," Boley said. "This will also give our customer confidence in our processes and progress in reducing the future unit recurring flyaway costs for the F135 engine." Pratt & Whitney has designed, developed and tested the F135 to deliver the most advanced fifth generation fighter engine for the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, as well as eight international partner countries. The F135, which has logged 12,000 test hours, is derived from proven technology of the only operational fifth generation fighter engine, the Pratt & Whitney F119, which has more than 100,000 operational flight hours. It has been further enhanced with technologies developed in several Air Force and Navy technology programs. The F135 is the only engine powering the F-35 Lightning II flight test program. The F135 propulsion system has proven it can meet diverse aircraft requirements, and the ground-and-flight-test experience demonstrates the maturity and the associated reliability of the F135 engine for armed forces around the world. Pratt & Whitney is a world leader in the design, manufacture and service of aircraft engines, space propulsion systems and industrial gas turbines. United Technologies, based in Hartford, Conn., is a diversified company providing high technology products and services to the global aerospace and building industries. This press release contains forward-looking statements concerning future business opportunities. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to changes in funding related to the F-35 aircraft and F135 engines, changes in government procurement priorities and practices or in the number of aircraft to be built; challenges in the design, development, production and support of technologies; as well as other risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to those detailed from time to time in United Technologies Corp.'s Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

DTN News: Bombardier Celebrates Groundbreaking For New CSeries Aircraft Manufacturing Site

DTN News: Bombardier Celebrates Groundbreaking For New CSeries Aircraft Manufacturing Site *Source: DTN News / Defense News (Click here for link)

(NSI News Source Info) MONTREAL, QUEBEC, Canada - September 16, 2009: Yesterday Sept 15, marked a major achievement for the CSeries aircraft program as Bombardier Aerospace celebrated the groundbreaking of the first CSeries aircraft building in Quebec, Canada. Located at Mirabel, 45 minutes north of Montreal, the Complete Integrated Aircraft Systems Test Area (CIASTA) is a testing and systems-proving facility that will house a virtual CSeries test aircraft. The CIASTA will test aircraft systems for reliability and functionality one year before the first prototype aircraft flies. Attended by Bombardier's employees, suppliers, partners, customers and the media, the groundbreaking lays the path for the new aircraft's entry into service in 2013. "It's a red-letter day for the program and an important day for Bombardier Aerospace," noted Guy Hachey, President and Chief Operating Officer, Bombardier Aerospace in his remarks to the assembled guests. "Today we begin work on the facilities that will be the site of the first CSeries test aircraft. Eventually we will erect a complex of buildings here that will total 860,000 square feet - that's the size of 15 football fields - to produce the CSeries family of aircraft." The CIASTA will be constructed as a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building, the first such building for Bombardier Aerospace in the world. LEED is a third-party certification program and an internationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction and operation of high-performance green buildings. The design and construction of the CIASTA is on track and is expected to be ready for test rig assembly next year. Wieland-Dafco Quebec Inc. and Ghafari Associates LLC have been contracted to construct the building. As part of Bombardier's mandate to contribute to a more sustainable future for aviation, the company's priority is to design and manufacture the most fuel-efficient aircraft with the lowest gas and noise emissions in their category. The mandate also extends to Bombardier's manufacturing processes and facilities. Making effective use of existing resources where possible, the CIASTA will be reconstructed from an existing fuel-flow building. "We seek consistency and uniformity when it comes to being greener whether it's our aircraft or the facilities in which they are tested and built," said Mr. Hachey. The CIASTA will house, among other things, the CSeries aircraft Integrated Systems Test and Certification Rig (ISTCR) or Iron Bird as it is usually called. This will be the first complete test vehicle enabling earlier product maturity. Flight control systems, avionics, electrical and environmental controls will be tested one year ahead of the actual flight test program. Other test articles will include an Interiors Rig, a Systems Integration Test Stand (SITS), an Engineering Simulator (ESIM) and Flight Controls Integration Lab (FCIL). Bombardier achieved another milestone for the CSeries aircraft program recently when the first test article - a fuselage test barrel - arrived ahead of schedule at its Saint-Laurent, Quebec site from China on August 19, 2009. The test barrel is now being prepared for fatigue testing including pressure cycle testing representative of the life of the aircraft. The test barrel will be used to demonstrate manufacturing and engineering structural concepts before the CSeries aircraft's final design phase begins in 2010. Earlier this year, the CSeries aircraft program officially transitioned from the Joint Conceptual Definition Phase (JCDP) to the Joint Definition Phase (JDP). The latter phase will bring with it greater product definition and is expected to close with the preliminary design freeze. Since launching the CSeries family of aircraft at the Farnborough Air Show in July 2008, Bombardier has recorded firm orders for 50 CS100 and CS300 aircraft from Deutsche Lufthansa AG and Lease Corporation International Group. The CSeries aircraft which are optimized for the longer range, single-aisle 100- to 145-seat market will deliver the lowest operating costs in their class, exceptional operational flexibility, widebody comfort and an unmatched environmental scorecard. About Bombardier A world-leading manufacturer of innovative transportation solutions, from commercial aircraft and business jets to rail transportation equipment, systems and services, Bombardier Inc. is a global corporation headquartered in Canada. Its revenues for the fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2009, were $19.7 billion US, and its shares are traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange (BBD). Bombardier is listed as an index component to the Dow Jones Sustainability World and North America indexes. News and information are available at www.bombardier.com.

DTN News: Hunt For Sea Minerals Drives Indian Navy

DTN News: Hunt For Sea Minerals Drives Indian Navy

*Source: DTN News / Int'l Media (NSI News Source Info) NEW DELHI, India - September 16, 2009: India's ambitious plans to modernise its navy are being driven by a scramble for mineral wealth on the floor of the sea leagues away from the mainland, according to the country's military strategists. The Indian Navy is the naval branch of the armed forces of India. It currently has approximately 55,000 personnel on active duty, including 5,000 members of the naval aviation branch and 2,000 marine commandos, making it the world's fifth largest navy. The Indian Navy currently operates more than 155 vessels, including the aircraft carrier INS Viraat, along with operational jet fighters. Though the primary objective of the navy is to secure national maritime borders, India also uses its navy to enhance its international relations through joint exercises, port visits and humanitarian missions, including disaster relief. In recent years, the Indian Navy has undergone extensive modernization and expansion with an intention to increase its capabilities as a recognized blue-water navy. India has one of the world's fastest-growing navies, with 120 vessels. It plans to add almost 100 warships to its fleet over the next decade. Strategists foresee Indian firepower protecting commercial drilling sites in the southern Indian Ocean. Senior Indian officers, such as Admiral Sureesh Mehta, retired head of the navy, have spoken publicly about the inevitability of scouring the seabed for oil and gas and other minerals as land-based re-sources are depleted. According to the Goa-based National Institute of Oceanography, India has surveyed an area of nearly 4m sq km in the central Indian Ocean basin that has led to findings of "significant commercial grades" of copper, nickel, iron and cobalt deposits. The assessment of India's strategic needs comes as China likewise extends its naval might into the Indian Ocean. Beijing is seeking to protect the supply of oil to its fast-growing economy and shipments of minerals from its mines in Africa.

DTN News: Piracy Off The Horn Of Africa

DTN News: Piracy Off The Horn Of Africa

*The following is an editorial reflecting the views of the US Government

*Source: DTN News / Int'l Media (NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON, USA - September 16, 2009: The Gulf of Aden, off the Horn of Africa, through which some 33,000 commercial ships pass each year, is one of the world's busiest seaways – and one of the most dangerous. Since the beginning of this year, there have been 138 reported pirate attacks on commercial vessels, of which 33 were successful. (Image: This Saudi Arabian supertanker was hijacked off the Kenyan coast)

The United States government, in concert with the U.S. maritime industry and other concerned nations and international organizations, continues to work to prevent pirates operating in the waters of the Horn of Africa from interfering with maritime commerce, endangering mariners, hindering the provision of humanitarian aid to East Africa, and further destabilizing the troubled region.

The U.S. believes that all commercial vessels should take self protection measures to reduce the risk of piracy. In order to successfully deter these criminal assaults on the high seas the commercial shipping industry should continue to provide input to, and follow, internationally recognized best management practices to avoid, deter, or delay acts of piracy. Pirates near Somalia's shore.

The U.S. Navy and Coast Guard have contributed ships and aircraft to NATO's counter-piracy operations and Combined Task Force 151, a multinational coalition whose mission is to protect against piracy in the Gulf of Aden and off the eastern coast of Somalia. (Image: Pirates near Somalia's shore) The command rotates among partner navies regularly. The U.S. Navy and its task force partners actively coordinate with and support the anti-piracy operations of NATO's Operation Ocean Shield naval forces in the region, as well as those of the European Union's naval Operation Atalanta.

Despite the fact that over 1 million square miles of ocean are vulnerable to Somali piracy, the U.S. and other navies have succeeded so far in seizing or destroying 40 pirate vessels since August 2008, turning over 235 suspected pirates for prosecution in various countries, and confiscating numerous small arms and light weapons, including rocket-propelled grenades. Following the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1851 the U.S. helped to create the Contact Group on Piracy off the Coast of Somalia to coordinate an effective response to piracy in that region. The U.S. is supporting international efforts to help build regional judicial, legislative, regulatory, and coastal defense forces to deal with the piracy problem.

The U.S. believes that pirates should be brought to justice and that the first option for prosecution should go to the state most concerned – be it the flag state or the state of the vessel's owner or crew.The United States is committed to work with its international partners to making the waters off the coast of Somalia safe for international commerce.

DTN News: Airlines News TODAY September 16, 2009 ~ Airlines May Lose $11 Billion, More Than Forecast

DTN News: Airlines News TODAY September 16, 2009 ~ Airlines May Lose $11 Billion, More Than Forecast

*Source: DTN News / Bloomberg By John Hughes (NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON, USA - September 16, 2009: Airlines worldwide may lose a combined $11 billion in 2009, $2 billion wider than a previous forecast in June, as fuel costs rise and carriers earn less on fares and cargo, the industry’s main trade group said. Airline losses will be $3.8 billion next year, with “limited revival of growth in traffic volumes,” the International Air Transport Association said today in Washington. The estimate was the first by the group for 2010. The forecasts suggest that signs of improvement in many economies may be slow to trickle through to airlines, which are paring jobs and shrinking capacity in response to a drop in first- and business-class travel. The Montreal-based IATA said passenger yields, or average fare per mile, will fall 12 percent this year, compared with the 7 percent drop estimated in June. “The global economic storm may be abating, but airlines have not yet found safe harbor,” Giovanni Bisignani, IATA’s director general, said in a statement. “The crisis continues.” Revenue for the year is expected to fall 15 percent from 2008 to $455 billion, the IATA said in a statement. Oil prices are expected to average $5 a barrel more than in the group’s June forecast, adding $9 billion in costs for the industry, IATA said. The number of premium passengers paying higher-priced business fares will fall 20 percent, according to the IATA. Bisignani called the revenue drop “shocking” at a news conference, and said such a dramatic drop in yields would be the worst in IATA’s 65-year history. “We are in intensive care,” he said. Regional Forecasts European carriers will post the largest losses in 2009 at $3.8 billion, more than double the previous forecast, IATA said. A world-trade collapse hurt long-haul markets in Europe, and carriers were unable to cut capacity fast enough, the IATA said. North American carriers will lose $2.6 billion this year, also more than double the earlier forecast, the group said. In July, Continental Airlines Inc. said it plans to eliminate 1,700 jobs and Southwest Airlines Co. said 1,400 employees took voluntary buyouts, while United Airlines will shrink international capacity by an additional 7 percent. Delta Air Lines Inc. and the other big U.S. carriers are poised to make more cuts in available seats with the end of the summer travel season, capping the industry’s deepest retrenchment since World War II. Asia-Pacific carriers will post losses of $3.6 billion, in 2009, similar to the previous forecast, IATA said. Latin American carriers are expected to break even, and Middle East and African carriers will lose $500 million each, according to the group. Building ‘War Chests’ IATA revised its estimate of world airline losses in 2008 to $16.8 billion from $10.4 billion. The change was due to accounting differences, IATA said. Revenue isn’t likely to return to 2008 levels until at least 2012. Bisignani said. To sustain themselves for the coming winter, when traffic traditionally falls, airlines have raised $15 billion in cash as “a war chest, to fight the crisis,” he said. Airlines will see additional “casualties,” or bankruptcies, though Bisignani didn’t predict how many, or which airlines, may fail. Government should ease taxation on airlines and “consolidation is a must” in the industry, he said. The Bloomberg U.S. Airlines Index, made up of 12 carriers, has declined 16 percent this year, compared with a 16 percent gain for the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. Investors may be starting to look past this year to gradual improvement in 2010. The airlines index rose 4.6 percent at 12:40 p.m. New York time, and has gained 9 straight days. To contact the reporter on this story: John Hughes in Washington at jhughes5@bloomberg.net.

DTN News: Misreading The Iranian Situation

DTN News: Misreading The Iranian Situation

*STRATFOR ~ Related Special Topic Page The Iranian Nuclear Game (Click here for link)

*Source: By George Friedman STRATFOR (NSI News Source Info) - September 16, 2009: The Iranians have now agreed to talks with the P-5+1, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China) plus Germany. These six countries decided in late April to enter into negotiations with Iran over the suspected Iranian nuclear weapons program by Sept. 24, the date of the next U.N. General Assembly meeting. If Iran refused to engage in negotiations by that date, the Western powers in the P-5+1 made clear that they would seriously consider imposing much tougher sanctions on Iran than those that were currently in place. The term “crippling” was mentioned several times. Obviously, negotiations are not to begin prior to the U.N. General Assembly meeting as previously had been stipulated. The talks are now expected to begin Oct. 1, a week later. This gives the Iranians their first (symbolic) victory: They have defied the P-5+1 on the demand that talks be under way by the time the General Assembly meets. Inevitably, the Iranians would delay, and the P-5+1 would not make a big deal of it. Talks About Talks and the Sanctions Challenge Now, we get down to the heart of the matter: The Iranians have officially indicated that they are prepared to discuss a range of strategic and economic issues but are not prepared to discuss the nuclear program — which, of course, is the reason for the talks in the first place. On Sept. 14, they hinted that they might consider talking about the nuclear program if progress were made on other issues, but made no guarantees. So far, the Iranians are playing their traditional hand. They are making the question of whether there would be talks about nuclear weapons the center of diplomacy. Where the West wanted a commitment to end uranium enrichment, the Iranians are trying to shift the discussions to whether they will talk at all. After spending many rounds of discussions on this subject, they expect everyone to go away exhausted. If pressure is coming down on them, they will agree to discussions, acting as if the mere act of talking represents a massive concession. The members of the P-5+1 that don’t want a confrontation with Iran will use Tehran’s agreement merely to talk (absent any guarantees of an outcome) to get themselves off the hook on which they found themselves back in April — namely, of having to impose sanctions if the Iranians don’t change their position on their nuclear program. Russia, one of the main members of the P-5+1, already has made clear it opposes sanctions under any circumstances. The Russians have no intention of helping solve the American problem with Iran while the United States maintains its stance on NATO expansion and bilateral relations with Ukraine and Georgia. Russia regards the latter two countries as falling within the Russian sphere of influence, a place where the United States has no business meddling. To this end, Russia is pleased to do anything that keeps the United States bogged down in the Middle East, since this prevents Washington from deploying forces in Poland, the Czech Republic, the Baltics, Georgia or Ukraine. A conflict with Iran not only would bog down the United States even further, it would divide Europe and drive the former Soviet Union and Central Europe into viewing Russia as a source of aid and stability. The Russians thus see Iran as a major thorn in Washington’s side. Obtaining Moscow’s cooperation on removing the thorn would require major U.S. concessions — beyond merely bringing a plastic “reset” button to Moscow. At this point, the Russians have no intention of helping remove the thorn. They like it right where it is. In discussing crippling sanctions, the sole obvious move would be blocking gasoline exports to Iran. Iran must import 40 percent of its gasoline needs. The United States and others have discussed a plan for preventing major energy companies, shippers and insurers from supplying that gasoline. The subject, of course, becomes moot if Russia (and China) refuses to participate or blocks sanctions. Moscow and Beijing can deliver all the gasoline Tehran wants. The Russians could even deliver gasoline by rail in the event that Iranian ports are blocked. Therefore, if the Russians aren’t participating, the impact of gasoline sanctions is severely diminished, something the Iranians know well. Tehran and Moscow therefore are of the opinion that this round of threats will end where other rounds ended. The United States, the United Kingdom and France will be on one side; Russia and China will be on the other; and Germany will vacillate, not wanting to be caught on the wrong side of the Russians. In either case, whatever sanctions are announced would lose their punch, and life would go on as before. There is, however, a dimension that indicates that this crisis might take a different course. The Israeli Dimension After the last round of meetings between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, the Israelis announced that the United States had agreed that in the event of a failure in negotiations, the United States would demand — and get — crippling sanctions against Iran, code for a gasoline cutoff. In return, the Israelis indicated that any plans for a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be put off. The Israelis specifically said that the Americans had agreed on the September U.N. talks as the hard deadline for a decision on — and implementation of — sanctions. Our view always has been that the Iranians are far from acquiring nuclear weapons. This is, we believe, the Israeli point of view. But the Israeli point of view also is that, however distant, the Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons represents a mortal danger to Israel — and that, therefore, Israel would have to use military force if diplomacy and sanctions don’t work. For Israel, the Obama guarantee on sanctions represented the best chance at a nonmilitary settlement. If it fails, it is not clear what could possibly work. Given that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has gotten his regime back in line, that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad apparently has emerged from the recent Iranian election crisis with expanded clout over Iran’s foreign policy, and that the Iranian nuclear program appears to be popular among Iranian nationalists (of whom there are many), there seems no internal impediment to the program. And given the current state of U.S.-Russian relations and that Washington is unlikely to yield Moscow hegemony in the former Soviet Union in return for help on Iran, a crippling sanctions regime is unlikely. Obama’s assurances notwithstanding, there accordingly is no evidence of any force or process that would cause the Iranians to change their minds about their nuclear program. With that, the advantage to Israel of delaying a military strike evaporates. And the question of the quality of intelligence must always be taken into account: The Iranians may be closer to a weapon than is believed. The value of risking delays disappears if nothing is likely to happen in the intervening period that would make a strike unnecessary. Moreover, the Israelis have Obama in a box. Obama promised them that if Israel did not take a military route, he would deliver them crippling sanctions against Iran. Why Obama made this promise — and he has never denied the Israeli claim that he did — is not fully clear. It did buy him some time, and perhaps he felt he could manage the Russians better than he has. Whatever Obama’s motivations, having failed to deliver, the Israelis can say that they have cooperated with the United States fully, so now they are free by the terms of their understanding with Washington to carry out strikes — something that would necessarily involve the United States. The calm assumptions in major capitals that this is merely another round in interminable talks with Iran on its weapons revolves around the belief that the Israelis are locked into place by the Americans. From where we sit, the Israelis have more room to maneuver now than they had in the past, or than they might have in the future. If that’s true, then the current crisis is more dangerous than it appears. Netanyahu appears to have made a secret trip to Moscow (though it didn’t stay secret very long) to meet with the Russian leadership. Based on our own intelligence and this analysis, it is reasonable to assume that Netanyahu was trying to drive home to the Russians the seriousness of the situation and Israel’s intent. Russian-Israeli relations have deteriorated on a number of issues, particularly over Israeli military and intelligence aid to Ukraine and Georgia. Undoubtedly, the Russians demanded that Israel abandon this aid. As mentioned, the chances of the Russians imposing effective sanctions on Iran are nil. This would get them nothing. And if not cooperating on sanctions triggers an Israeli airstrike, so much the better. This would degrade and potentially even effectively eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability, which in the final analysis is not in Russia’s interest. It would further enrage the Islamic world at Israel. It would put the United States in the even more difficult position of having to support Israel in the face of this hostility. And from the Russian point of view, it would all come for free. (That said, in such a scenario the Russians would lose much of the leverage the Iran card offers Moscow in negotiations with the United States.) Ramifications of an Israeli Strike An Israeli airstrike would involve the United States in two ways. First, it would have to pass through Iraqi airspace controlled by the United States, at which point no one would believe that the Americans weren’t complicit. Second, the likely Iranian response to an Israeli airstrike would be to mine the Strait of Hormuz and other key points in the Persian Gulf — something the Iranians have said they would do, and something they have the ability to do. Some have pointed out that the Iranians would be hurting themselves as much as the West, as this would cripple their energy exports. And it must be remembered that 40 percent of globally traded oil exports pass through Hormuz. The effect of mining the Persian Gulf would be devastating to oil prices and to the global economy at a time when the global economy doesn’t need more grief. But the economic pain Iran would experience from such a move could prove tolerable relative to the pain that would be experienced by the world’s major energy importers. Meanwhile, the Russians would be free to export oil at extraordinarily high prices. Given the foregoing, the United States would immediately get involved in such a conflict by engaging the Iranian navy, which in this case would consist of small boats with outboard motors dumping mines overboard. Such a conflict would be asymmetric warfare, naval style. Indeed, given that the Iranians would rapidly respond — and that the best way to stop them would be to destroy their vessels no matter how small before they have deployed — the only rational military process would be to strike Iranian boats and ships prior to an Israeli airstrike. Since Israel doesn’t have the ability to do that, the United States would be involved in any such conflict from the beginning. Given that, the United States might as well do the attacking. This would increase the probability of success dramatically, and paradoxically would dampen the regional reaction compared to a unilateral Israeli strike. When we speak to people in Tehran, Washington and Moscow, we get the sense that they are unaware that the current situation might spin out of control. In Moscow, the scenario is dismissed because the general view is that Obama is weak and inexperienced and is frightened of military confrontation; the assumption is that he will find a way to bring the Israelis under control. It isn’t clear that Obama can do that, however. The Israelis don’t trust him, and Iran is a core issue for them. The more Obama presses them on settlements the more they are convinced that Washington no longer cares about Israeli interests. And that means they are on their own, but free to act. It should also be remembered that Obama reads intelligence reports from Moscow, Tehran and Berlin. He knows the consensus about him among foreign leaders, who don’t hold him in high regard. That consensus causes foreign leaders to take risks; it also causes Obama to have an interest in demonstrating that they have misread him. We are reminded of the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis only in this sense: We get the sense that everyone is misreading everyone else. In the run-up to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Americans didn’t believe the Soviets would take the risks they did and the Soviets didn’t believe the Americans would react as they did. In this case, the Iranians believe the United States will play its old game and control the Israelis. Washington doesn’t really understand that Netanyahu may see this as the decisive moment. And the Russians believe Netanyahu will be controlled by an Obama afraid of an even broader conflict than he already has on his hands. The current situation is not as dangerous as the Cuban Missile Crisis was, but it has this in common: Everyone thinks we are on a known roadmap, when in reality, one of the players — Israel — has the ability and interest to redraw the roadmap. Netanyahu has been signaling in many ways that he intends to do just this. Everyone seems to believe he won’t. We aren’t so sure.

Tell STRATFOR What You Think This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to http://www.stratfor.com/ Please feel free to distribute this Intelligence Report to friends or repost to your Web site linking to http://www.stratfor.com/.

DTN News: Pyongyang Hackers Suspected In Fresh Wave Attacks Target U.S., South Korean Websites

DTN News: Pyongyang Hackers Suspected In Fresh Wave Attacks Target U.S., South Korean Websites *Source: DTN News / Int'l Media

(NSI News Source Info) SEOUL, South Korea - September 16, 2009: A fresh wave of cyber attacks that slowed U.S. and South Korean websites this week hit more targets Thursday, a Web security firm said, while the South’s spy agency has said the hacking may be linked to North Korea. The impact of the attacks, aimed so far at dozens of sites including the White House and the South’s presidential office, was seen as negligible, experts said, but served as a reminder that Pyongyang has been planning for cyber warfare. “The anticipated attack did take place, but considerable countermeasures were taken and it did act as a defense to some degree,” an official at the online security firm Ahnlab said. Some South Korean government websites, including the Defence Ministry and the National Intelligence Service, were affected. Access to some U.S. government sites, including the State and Defense Department, from South Korea appeared to be disabled. In Washington, U.S. government officials said all federal websites were up and running and there was no impact from any new attacks on Thursday. The Pentagon said it had experienced an increase in cyber activity for about 24 to 48 hours after the July 4 holiday but the upswing had no significant effect on operations. The Internet sites of some South Korean banks experienced a surge in access requests but a bank official said programs were run to disperse traffic and bring service back within an hour. If the North was responsible, it would mark an escalation in tension already high from Pyongyang’s nuclear test in May, a barrage of ballistic missiles in July and repeated taunts of long-time foes Seoul and Washington in its official media. But some analysts questioned the North’s involvement, saying it may be the work of industrial spies or pranksters. One online expert was quoted as telling a South Korean daily that tracking the spread of the malicious software showed it had originated from an IP address based in United States. The attacks will likely be regarded by the North’s leadership as a victory for Kim Jong-il — even if Pyongyang was not behind them — because they hurt the country’s traditional foes, adding a new dimension to the threat level posed by the reclusive state. The attacks saturated target websites with access requests generated by malicious software planted on personal computers. This has overwhelmed some targeted sites and slowed server response to legitimate traffic. The attacks did not lead to a breach of sensitive government material or damage online infrastructure in South Korea, the world’s most wired country, government officials said. But the National Intelligence Service said in a statement it was stepping up alert to monitor potential attacks against the network of energy and communications facilities. South Korean media quoted parliament members saying after an intelligence briefing on Wednesday that the spy agency believed “North Korea or pro-North elements” were behind the attacks. The defense ministry is allocating 26 billion won (US$20.33-million) to beef up security for its computer system, according to a budget request it released on Thursday. U.S. officials would not speculate on who might be behind the attacks but noted that U.S. government websites face attacks or scams “millions of times” a day. An expert on North Korea at the Heritage Foundation, Bruce Klingner, said the North had in operation a military unit with up to 1,000 skilled computer hackers created 10 years ago. “Pyongyang has an extensive and capable cyber terrorism effort to provide asymmetric attack capabilities,” he said. Internet access is denied to almost everyone in hermit North Korea, but intelligence sources said Pyongyang had placed a high priority on developing cyber attack skills. Last month, the North warned of “high-tech war” against the South for spreading what it said was false information about its involvement in cyber attacks.

DTN News: Israel TODAY September 16, 2009 ~ We'll Be Ready For Any Turmoil On Lebanon Border Says IDF Chief

DTN News: Israel TODAY September 16, 2009 ~ We'll Be Ready For Any Turmoil On Lebanon Border Says IDF Chief

*Source: DTN News / By Eli Ashkenazi, Haaretz Correspondent (NSI News Source Info) TEL AVIV, Israel - September 16, 2009: Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi said during a tour of northern Israel on Tuesday that the military would be ready in the event that war breaks out along the Lebanese border. (Image: F16I Soufa fighter jet)

"All the sides are interested in quiet, which has prevailed here since the Second Lebanon War (in 2006). If there is no quiet, they will find us ready," Ashkenazi said, while referring to a Hezbollah rocket cache that exploded in southern Lebanon in July. "The explosions showed that Hezbollah is arming and getting stronger, but the IDF is organized and ready for everything." Ashkenazi added that he planned to spend the upcoming Jewish holiday of Rosh Hashanah in the north, to "celebrate, have a good time and enjoy the views that the Galilee offers."

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday that Israel holds the Lebanese government accountable for last week''s rocket attacks on northern Israel. Two rockets launched from Lebanon hit open areas in the Western Galilee on Friday.

An Israel Defense Forces artillery unit shot back at the launch area, firing some 12 artillery shells. No casualties or damage were reported on either side.

Related articles: *Netanyahu: Lebanon accountable for rocket on Israel *Lebanon PM-designate quits after Hezbollah refuses cabinet offers *Hezbollah rejects offer to take one-third of Lebanon cabinet

DTN News: Business TODAY September 16, 2009 ~ Kraft CEO Plans Further Deal Talk With Cadbury

DTN News: Business TODAY September 16, 2009 ~ Kraft CEO Plans Further Deal Talk With Cadbury

* Related Info ~ DTN News: Business TODAY September 8, 2009 ~ Kraft Foods Makes Pound 10.2 Billion Bid For Cadbury dated Sept 8, 2009....(Click here for link)

*Source: DTN News / Reuters

(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - September 16, 2009: Kraft Foods (KFT.N), North America's biggest food group, plans to hold talks in coming weeks with British bid target Cadbury (CBRY.L) that may lead to a new bid offer for the global No.2 candy and chocolate maker. Cadbury's chocolate bars are seen in a shop in London in this June 23, 2006 file photograph. "In the weeks ahead we look forward to engaging in constructive dialogue with the board and management of Cadbury as we continue to assess the opportunity and consider progressing to a final offer," Kraft's Chief Executive Irene Rosenfeld said in a speech to business students in Toronto. Kraft wants to buy the British company as it targets growth after revamping its operations in recent years. (Reporting by Pav Jordan)

DTN News: China J-10 Fighter Planes To Play Around With Japanese Reconnaissance Aircraft In The China East Sea

DTN News: China J-10 Fighter Planes To Play Around With Japanese Reconnaissance Aircraft In The China East Sea *Source: DTN News / China Tour (Click here for link)

(NSI News Source Info) BEIJING, China - September 16, 2009: On 16th, two China J-10 fighter planes intercepted the Japanese 5th Air Group P3C anti-submarine reconnaissance aircraft in the East China Sea. The two sides flied parallel from the southeast towards the northwest, the Chinese planes "flying with" the Japanese reconnaissance plane for 20 minutes and after a full shift of 290 degree they returned. (Image: China J-10 fighter planes)

As this is the first time a Chinese fighter monitor the Japanese plane with an approach of "flying with" for the last few years. So an increasingly active intercept movement by the People's Liberation Army on the high seas has caused the concern of the United States, Japan and South Korea. Taiwan media reported quoted from military officials in Taiwan said that the Chinese fighter planes fly with to monitor the Japanese reconnaissance aircraft, military aircrafts from the two sides have remained at around 3000 meters, and has also taken a non-provocative action on the route to intercept.

It is clear that after the many years ago after China J-8 fighters collided with the U.S. military EP3 aircraft in the airspace over Hainan Island, the People's Liberation Army to intercept the aircraft from other countries had been "more mature." Taiwan military officials said the two Chinese J-10 fighters are planned to intercept, the People's Liberation Army sent its most advanced fighters to the high seas, and china’s attention on the defense is obvious.

Two J-10 warplanes maintained cruising speed the moment took off direct to the point of intercept. The Japanese reconnaissance aircraft is also in accordance with the well-established flight route, so it is relatively easy to calculate the intercept points. Taiwan military officials said that as this is the first time a Chinese fighter monitor the Japanese plane with an approach of "flying with" for the last few years. And an increasingly active intercept movement by the People's Liberation Army on the high seas has caused the concern of the United States, Japan and South Korea. However, Japan did not have any change so far. It is said that last week three Japanese Self-Defense Force aircraft, take turns to trace a Chinese ISR intelligence surveillance ship to, started from the East China Sea to the Yellow Sea, finally almost 80 nautical miles away from China's territorial waters scope and leave. But China did not send planes to intercept, and even did not open anti-aircraft missile guided radar; obviously China do not want Japan to get the frequency of guidance.