DTN News: Russia Has No Reason To Buy Cumbersome And Useless French Warship

DTN News: Russia Has No Reason To Buy Cumbersome And Useless French Warship *Source: DTN News / Sergey Balmasov ~ Pravda.Ru (NSI News Source Info) MOSCOW, Russia - November 27, 2009: The French helicopter-carrier Mistral (Wind) docked in St. Petersburg on November 24. The captain of the warship said that she would take part in maneuvers with the participation of Russian helicopters in the Baltic Sea on November 27. The French warship arrived in Russia on the invitation from the Russian Navy Command to strengthen the cooperation between the navies of the two countries. However, it looks like Russia intends to buy the Mistral. Russian engineers and navy officials have shown a lot of interest in the French warship recently. A group of them went on board the ship to get acquainted with its structure and equipment on November 25. The news about the opportunity for Russia to purchase the Mistral appeared in October 2008. Vladimir Vysotsky, the Commander of the Russian Navy, released a statement about it at the Euronaval-2008 show in Le Bourget. In April of the current year, the official described the plans to develop the Russian navy and mentioned the necessity to purchase five or six aircraft carriers. Vladimir Popovkin, deputy defense minister, was more specific on September 19: “We intend to buy one or two warships, but we also conduct negotiations to launch the production of such vessels in Russia. It will be the first step on the way to the creation of Russian aircraft carriers. The Mistral is a large warship with gross tonnage of 21,000 tons. The ship is 210 meters long; the cruising range is about 37,000 km. The ship carries 16 helicopters. The crew counts 390 men. In addition, the ship can take 900 commanders, 40 armored vehicles and 70 cars on board. Does Russia need the Mistral that much? If Russia buys the French vessel, will it mean that domestic ship-building enterprises are out of competition? Konstantin Sivkov, the vice president of the Academy for Geopolitical Sciences, said in an interview with Pravda.Ru that his attitude to Russia’s intention to buy the French warship was absolutely negative. “Any warship can not be purchased just like that. It must be incorporated into the system of the national armed forces in general and the navy in particular. It must have a specific destination. Therefore, there is no need to purchase the Mistral. “What is it used for? First and foremost, it is used for landing operations. Where does Russia intend to conduct landing operations with the use of such a large and vulnerable warship? Its air defense system is very weak and can only work well when destroying single airborne targets. “Everything is clear with the French. They built those ships to support their colonial activities in Africa. Why does Russia need this ship for? To bring commandoes to Latin America? We need to defend our own territories. The only area where the ship could be used is Georgia. “However, if another armed conflict with Georgia occurs, this huge and poorly armed vessel will not be good taking into consideration the geography of such a small sea as the Black Sea. Besides, Russia already has six commando vessels in the area and they can handle their goals perfectly. “Both Russian and American naval experts were negative in their estimations of the Mistral. Its combat capacity is rather low. The technological construction of the ship is quite flawed. The air fuel pipe on the ship runs near the cook-house, which means that the French designers made the ship for frequent fires on board. Russian shipyards are capable of building all types of warships. For example, we built a number of destroyers for China. If we purchase the Mistral, Russia will find itself dependent on the West. Venezuela was purchasing F-16 fighter jets from the United States, but when the relations between the countries were ruined, Washington refused to ship spare parts to Caracas, and the planes became unfit for use soon afterwards. “Iraq in 1991 is another good example. Baghdad lost Operation Desert Storm because the country had many US and French anti-aircraft systems. A command sent from a satellite put all of those systems out of operation. There are special programs which allow the manufacturing country disable its exported arms easily. “More importantly, a Mistral warship will cost Russia from 520 to 700 million euros, whereas the construction of a similar helicopter in the country will cost not more than 150 million euros.”

DTN News: Airbus A330 Tanker Refuels Two Aircraft For The First Time

DTN News: Airbus A330 Tanker Refuels Two Aircraft For The First Time *Source: DTN News / Defense Media (NSI News Source Info) PARIS, France - November 26, 2009: Airbus Military's A330-based multi-role tanker/transport (MRTT) has for the first time conducted the simultaneous in-flight refuelling of two aircraft, by hooking up with a pair of Spanish air force Boeing EF-18A fighters. Conducted using the first of five tankers on order for the Royal Australian Air Force, the milestone follows other recent firsts with "wet" and night-time contacts involving the type. The modified airliner is equipped with a tail refuelling boom and two Cobham 905E under-wing hose-and-drogue pods. Airbus Military says the tanker performed a 2h sortie from its Getafe site near Madrid, in the course of which the fighters - which were deployed from Torejon air base - made 13 contacts, including 11 simultaneously. A total of 11.4t of fuel was transferred at an altitude of around 15,000ft (4,570m) and a speed of 250kt (460km/h), it says. This represents roughly half of the total volume so far delivered during flight testing of the A330 MRTT. The RAAF will take delivery of its first KC-30 tanker by mid-2010, according to Airbus Military. The company also has orders to provide A330-based tankers to Saudi Arabia (six), the United Arab Emirates (three) and the UK (14).

DTN News: Israeli Settlement Limits May Help Peace Effort-US

DTN News: Israeli Settlement Limits May Help Peace Effort-US * Clinton says Israeli offer a step forward * Mitchell repeats U.S. goal of resumed peace talks * Offer could have 'positive effect' on ground - Mitchell *Source: DTN News / Reuters By David Alexander (NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON, USA - November 26, 2009: An Israeli decision on Wednesday to limit settlement construction in the West Bank fell short of the U.S. goal of a full freeze but was more than previous government have done and could advance peace efforts, U.S. officials said.Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaks during a press conference in his Jerusalem office, Wednesday, Nov. 25, 2009. Israel will halt construction in its West Bank settlements for 10 months, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Wednesday, in an effort to restart peace talks, but Palestinians rejected the freeze as insufficient because it did not include east Jerusalem. "Today's announcement by the government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a statement. U.S. Middle East peace envoy George Mitchell said Washington was still pushing for a quick resumption of stalled peace talks without any preconditions and hoped the Israeli offer could help create a more conducive atmosphere. "It falls short of a full settlement freeze, but it is more than any Israeli government has done before and can help move toward agreement between the parties," Mitchell told a State Department briefing. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu earlier on Wednesday announced a plan to limit settlement construction for 10 months in a bid to revive stalled peace negotiations, but Palestinians said the partial moratorium did not meet their terms for resuming talks. Netanyahu's proposal excludes areas of the West Bank that Israel annexed to its Jerusalem municipality after capturing the territory in a 1967 war and building projects already under way, government officials said. Nabil Abu Rdainah, a spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said any resumption of negotiations "must be on the basis of a complete settlement freeze, and in Jerusalem foremost." Mitchell said the decision could mean much less settlement construction than would have occurred without a moratorium. "We believe that steps announced by the prime minister are significant and could have substantial impact on the ground," he said. "For the first time ever, an Israeli government will stop housing approvals and all new construction of housing units and related infrastructure in West Bank settlements. That's a positive result." Mitchell underscored that the Israeli move was a unilateral decision, not an agreement with the United States or the Palestinians. U.S. policy, he said, "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." "The status of Jerusalem and all other permanent status issues must be resolved by the parties through negotiations," he said. Mitchell criticized the Israeli pattern of evicting Palestinians in Jerusalem from their homes and demolishing the structures. "The United States has not accepted and disagrees with any unilateral action by either party which could have the effect of pre-empting negotiations," he said, urging them to resume negotiations on a two-state solution.

DTN News: Sanctions And Strategy

DTN News: Sanctions And Strategy *Source: By George Friedman STRATFOR (NSI News Source Info) HONG KONG - November 24, 2009: The Iranian government has rejected, at least for the moment, a proposal from the P-5+1 to ship the majority of its low-enriched uranium abroad for further enrichment. The group is now considering the next step in the roadmap that it laid out last April. The next step was a new round of sanctions, this time meant to be crippling. The only crippling sanction available is to cut off the supply of gasoline, since Iran imports 35 percent of its refined gasoline products. That would theoretically cripple the Iranian economy and compel the Iranians to comply with U.S. demands over the nuclear issue. We have written extensively on the ability of sanctions to work in Iran. There is, however, a broader question, which is the general utility of sanctions in international affairs. The Iranian government said last week that sanctions don’t concern it because, historically, sanctions have not succeeded. This partly explains Iranian intransigence: The Iranians don’t feel they have anything to fear from sanctions. The question is whether the Iranian view is correct and why they would believe it — and if they are correct, why the P-5+1 would even consider imposing sanctions. The Assumptions of Sanctions We need to begin with a definition of sanctions. In general, sanctions are some sort of penalty imposed on a country designed to cause it sufficient pain to elicit a change in its behavior. Sanctions are intended as an alternative to war and therefore exclude violence. Thus, the entire point of sanctions, as opposed to war, is to compel changes of behavior in countries without resorting to force. Normal sanctions are economic and come in three basic forms. First, there is seizing or freezing the assets of a country or its citizens located in another country. Second, sanctions can block the shipment of goods (or movement of people) out of the target country. Third, sanctions can block the movement of goods into a country. Minor sanctions are possible, such as placing tariffs on products imported from the target country, but those sorts of acts are focused primarily on rectifying economic imbalances and are not always driven by political interests. Thus, the United States placed tariffs on Chinese tires coming into the United States. The purpose was to get China to change its economic policies. On the other hand, placing sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s or on Sudan today are designed to achieve political and military outcomes. It is important to consider the underlying assumptions of the decision to impose sanctions. First, there is the assumption that the target country is economically dependent in some way on the country or countries issuing the sanctions. Second, it assumes that the target country has no alternative sources for the economic activity while under sanctions. Third, it assumes that the pain caused will be sufficient to compel change. The first is relatively easy to determine and act on. The next two are far more complex. Obviously, sanctions are an option of stronger powers toward weaker ones. It assumes that the imposition of sanctions will cause more pain to the target country than it will to the country or countries issuing sanctions, and that the target country cannot or will not use military action to counter economic sanctions. For example, the United States placed sanctions on the sale of grain to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. It discovered that while the sanctions were hurting the Soviets, they were hurting American farmers as well. The pain was reciprocal and there was an undertone of danger if the Soviets had chosen to counter the sanctions with military force. An example of that concerned Japan in 1941. The United States halted the shipment of oil and scrap metal to Japan in an attempt to force it to reshape its policies in China and Indochina. The sanctions were crippling, as the Americans expected. However, the Japanese response was not capitulation, but Pearl Harbor. To understand the difficulties of determining and acting on the assumptions of imposing sanctions, consider Cuba. The United States has imposed extensive economic sanctions on Cuba for years. During the first decades of the sanctions, they were relatively effective, in the sense that third countries tended to comply rather than face possible sanctions themselves from the United States. As time went on, the fear of sanctions declined. A European country might have been inclined to comply with U.S. sanctions in the 1960s or 1970s, for both political reasons and for concern over potential retaliatory sanctions from the United States. However, as the pattern of international economic activity shifted, and the perception of both Cuba and the United States changed within these countries, the political implication to comply with U.S. wishes declined, while the danger of U.S. sanctions diminished. Placing sanctions on the European Union would be mutually disastrous and the United States would not do it over Cuba, or virtually any other issue. As a result, the sanctions the United States placed on Cuba have dramatically diminished in importance. Cuba can trade with most of the world, and other countries can invest in Cuba if they wish. The flow of American tourists is blocked, but European, Canadian and Latin American tourists who wish to go to Cuba can go. Cuba has profound economic problems, but those problems are only marginally traceable to sanctions. Indeed, the U.S. embargo has provided the Castro regime with a useful domestic explanation for its economic failures. Limitations This points to an interesting characteristic of sanctions. One of the potential goals of placing sanctions on a country is to generate unrest and internal opposition , forcing regime change or at least policy change. This rarely happens. Instead, the imposition of sanctions creates a sense of embattlement within the country. Two things follow from this. First, there is frequently a boost in support for the regime that might otherwise not be there. The idea that economic pain takes precedence over patriotism or concern for maintaining national sovereignty is not a theory with a great deal of empirical support. Second, the sanctions allow a regime to legitimize declaring a state of emergency — which is what sanctions intend to create — and then use that state of emergency to increase repression and decrease the opportunity for an opposition to emerge. Consider an extreme example of sanctions during World War II, when both the Axis and Allies tried to use airpower as a means of imposing massive economic hardship on the population, thereby attempting to generate unrest and opposition to the regime. Obviously, strategic bombing is not sanctions, but it is instructive to consider them in this sense. When we look at the Battle of Britain and the strategic bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan, we find that countereconomic warfare did not produce internal opposition that the regime could not handle. Indeed, it could reasonably be argued that it increased support for the regime. It is assumed that economic hardship can generate regime change, yet even in some of the most extreme cases of economic hardship, that didn’t happen. Imposing an effective sanctions regime on a country is difficult for two reasons. First, economic pain does not translate into political pressure. Second, creating effective economic pain normally requires a coalition. The United States is not in a position to unilaterally impose effective sanctions. In order to do that, it must act in concert with other countries that are prepared not only to announce sanctions but — and this is far more important and difficult — also to enforce them. This means that it must be in the political interest of all countries that deal with the target to impose the sanctions. It is rarely possible to create such a coalition. Nations’ interests diverge too much. Sometimes they converge, as in South Africa prior to the end of apartheid. South Africa proved that sanctions can work if there is a coalition that does not benefit extensively from economic and political ties with the target country, and where the regime is composed of a minority within a very large sea of hostility. South Africa was a special case. The same attempt at a sanctions regime in Sudan over Darfur has failed because many countries have political or economic interests there. It is also difficult to police the sanctions. By definition, as the sanctions are imposed, the financial returns for violating them increase. Think of U.S. drug laws as a form of sanctions. They raise the price of drugs in the United States and increase the incentives for smugglers. When a broad sanctions regime was placed on Iraq, vast amounts of money were made from legitimate and illegitimate trading with Iraq. Regardless of what a national government might say (and it may well say one thing and do another) individuals and corporations will find ways around the sanctions. Indeed, Obama’s proposed sanctions on corporations are intended precisely for this reason. As always, the issue is one of intelligence and enforcement. People can be very good at deception for large amounts of money. The difficulty of creating effective sanctions raises the question of why they are used. The primary answer is that they allow a nation to appear to be acting effectively without enduring significant risks. Invading a country, as the United States found in Iraq, poses substantial risks. The imposition of sanctions on relatively weaker countries without the ability to counter the sanctions is much less risky. The fact that it is also far less effective is compensated for by the lowered risk. In truth, many sanction regimes are enforced as political gestures, either for domestic political reasons, or to demonstrate serious intent on the international scene. In some cases, sanctions are a way of appearing to act so that military action can be deferred. No one expects the sanctions to change the regime or its policies, but the fact that sanctions are in place can be used as an argument against actions by other nations. This is very much the case with Iran. No one expects Russia or China (or even many of the European states) to fully comply with a sanctions regime on gasoline. Even if they did, no one expects the flow of gasoline to be decisively cut off. There will be too many people prepared to take the risk of smuggling gasoline to Iran for that to happen. Even if the U.S. blockaded Iranian ports, the Caucasus and Central Asia are far too disorderly and the monetary rewards of smuggling are too great of an incentive to make the gasoline sanctions effective. Additionally, the imposition of sanctions will both rally the population to the regime as well as provide justification for an intense crackdown. The probability of sanctions forcing policy changes or regime change in Iran is slim. Balancing Acquiescence and War But sanctions have one virtue: They delay or block military action. So long as sanctions are being considered or being imposed, the argument can be made to those who want military action that it is necessary to give the sanctions time to work. Therefore, in this case, sanctions allow the United States to block any potential military actions by Israel against Iran while appearing domestically to be taking action. Should the United States wish to act, the sanctions route gives the Europeans the option of arguing that military action is premature. Furthermore, if military action took place without Russian approval while Russia was cooperating in a sanctions regime, it would have increased room to maneuver against U.S. interests in the Middle East, portraying the United States as trigger-happy. The ultimate virtue of sanctions is that they provide a platform between acquiescence and war. The effectiveness of that platform is not nearly as important as the fact that it provides a buffer against charges of inaction and demands for further action. In Sudan, for example, no one expects sanctions to work, but their presence allows business to go on as usual while deflecting demands for more significant action. The P-5+1 is now shaping its response to Iran. They are not even committed to the idea of sanctions. But they will move to sanctions if it appears that Israel or the United States is prepared to move aggressively. Sanctions satisfy the need to appear to be acting while avoiding the risks of action. 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: Dubai Airshow Ends On Sharply Lower Sales Note

DTN News: Dubai Airshow Ends On Sharply Lower Sales Note *Source: DTN News / Int'l Media (NSI News Source Info) - November 20, 2009: The biennial Dubai Airshow ended on Thursday, fulfilling pessimistic analyst forecasts, as sales of only a bit more than 14 billion dollars dimmed against 155.5 billion dollars in 2007.Emirati officials and visitors attend the opening ceremony of the Dubai Airshow "The declared on-site order book for Dubai Airshow 2009 is now over 14 billion dollars (9.3 billion euros)," the organisers' website said, with final figures expected to be released in the coming days. European aircraft manufacturer Airbus walked away with the highest share, with orders and letters of intent to buy planes worth 5.3 billion dollars. The Airbus orders were for 15 aircraft worth more than 3.6 billion dollars, in addition to memorandums of understanding on another 18 valued at around 1.7 billion dollars. "We had a good airshow, better than many expected," said Airbus chief operating officer John Leahy on Wednesday. But this year's figure paled against the 2007 show, when Airbus received its largest-ever single order valued at 20 billion dollars from Dubai's Emirates. Airbus's US arch-rival Boeing lagged behind, making only two announcements worth not more than 800 million dollars. Boeing received orders from the Algerian national carrier Air Algerie for seven Boeing B737-800s. The price was not disclosed, but it should range between 493 million dollars and 553 million dollars according to catalogue prices. Boeing also confirmed an order for four B737s by the Algerian domestic carrier Tassili Airlines, valued at 228.4 million dollars. The armed forces of the United Arab Emirates placed two orders worth 700 million dollars for Swiss basic-training planes and Swedish early warning jets. Airbus and Boeing took orders for some 458 new aircraft worth around 75 billion dollars in the previous show. That was mostly from Gulf carriers, who kept a low profile this year. Even so, some of these carriers continue to be major clients on the order books of Airbus and Boeing as they await delivery of aircraft ordered over the past few years. Dubai's Emirates, the largest Middle East carrier, has placed orders for 156 planes from both manufacturers, according to its website. Emirates remains the largest single client of Airbus's superjumbo A380 with 58 planes, of which it received four. Abu Dhabi's Etihad, established only in 2003, ordered 55 aircraft from Airbus last time, while Qatar Airways, says on its website that its firm orders and options amount to 93 planes from Airbus and 89 from Boeing. "We see tremendous growth for the Middle East region," Randy Tinseth, vice president of marketing at Boeing Commercial Airplanes, said on the sidelines of the show. Airbus chief Tom Enders also acknowledged that the Middle East is weathering the turbulence in the global aviation market well. "I think this show is encouraging ... to see that there is growth, particularly in the Middle East, (and) Africa," he said. Ahead of the show's opening on Sunday, Morgan Stanley Rupinder Vig had predicted that it would be "much more low key than the last few years." Another analyst, requesting anonymity, said "the small contracts that will be made public during the show will not have an impact on stock exchanges."

DTN News: China Humbly Launches Serial Production Of Stolen Russian Fighter Jets

DTN News: China Humbly Launches Serial Production Of Stolen Russian Fighter Jets *Source: DTN News / Pravda.ru (NSI News Source Info) MOSCOW, Russia - November 20, 2009: China has launched the serial production of J-10, J-11 and FC-1 fighter jets, which are rip-offs of Russia’s Su-27/30 and MiG-29 aircraft. The nation intends to build and sell not less than 1,200 planes at the prices which will be much lower than those of the Russian planes. The report is not the news for the Russian defense industry. In 2003, China refused to prolong the license for the production of Su-27CK planes and started working on the construction of its own jet – a copy of the Russian analogue. China will put competitive pressure on Russia on the market of spare parts too. Beijing plans to challenge Russia on its traditional defense industry markets and become the maker of inexpensive and efficient air materiel. Malaysian military officials have already expressed their readiness to cooperate with China at this point. A senior official of Malaysia’s Air Force said that his nation was going to purchase a batch of spare parts to Russian fighter jets from China. Malaysia ’s Royal Air Force has 18 Russian-made Su-30MKM aircraft. Their technical servicing is the corner stone of Russia’s entire arms export. There were a number of serious incidents when Russian manufacturers could not execute their contracts with delivering spare parts to Malaysia. Malaysia had to refuse from the exploitation of MiG-29 planes. The promised technical center in India was never materialized either. Russia has delivered 76 Su-27 fighter jets to China since 1992. In 1995 Moscow granted a license to Beijing to assemble 200 more of those planes. As a result, Russia’s renowned Su-27 fighter jet was “cloned” in China as J-11. Russia was originally delivering spare parts to China, but Beijing refused to prolong the license in 2003. By 2008, China had designed its only analogues of the Russian engine, radar and other equipment. Chain started the licensed and non-licensed production of analogues of Soviet planes a long time ago. The nation’s J-6 and J-7 fighters were created on the base of MiG-10 and MiG-21. H-6 bombers were copied from Tu-16; Y-5, Y-7 and Y-8 are rip-offs of Russia’s An-2, An-24 and An-12. The military cooperation between Russia and China has had a 62-percent reduction since 2007. There are practically no new contracts between the two countries. The Pentagon traditionally evaluated China’s defense technologies in its recent report about the level of the nation’s defense power. US officials believe that China’s level of technological development in the defense industry was much lower than that of the United States. Nevertheless, the Pentagon acknowledged that China’s defense budget was growing faster than the nation’s economy. China is going to start the production of large vessels and develop a new generation of arms and military hardware for its navy. Priority will be paid to the construction of superships, a new type of submarines, supersonic jets, missiles and other arms. After 2020, Beijing plans to build two nuclear-powered aircraft-carriers in addition to two other conventional vessels which are going to be launched in 2015. When it happens, China will establish control over the entire western part of the Pacific Ocean.

DTN News: BAE Challenges Safety Of Lockheed Turret In Warrior Bid

DTN News: BAE Challenges Safety Of Lockheed Turret In Warrior Bid *Source: DTN News / Int'l Media (NSI News Source Info) DUBAI, UAE - November 19, 2009: BAE Systems has questioned the safety of a rival turret design being bid by Lockheed Martin UK in a 1 billion pound ($1.7 billion) competition to upgrade the British Army's Warrior infantry fighting vehicle. BAE Systems attacked the Lockheed design for Warrior just hours after bids had been submitted for the update. (LOCKHEED MARTIN) The British armored vehicle maker is offering a new turret based on its MTIP2 development for the Warrior Capability Sustainment program (WSCP), while arch rival Lockheed is bidding an adaptation of the existing turret. The attack on the Lockheed design was made just hours after bids had been submitted for the Warrior update. "As the manufacturer of Warrior, we took the view that modifying the existing turret was not a satisfactory solution as it could raise safety issues. Instead, we have developed a completely new design which fully meets the U.K. MoD protection requirements," BAE said in a statement. A spokesman for BAE said a modified turret posed safety questions in areas such as "structural integrity, protection and crew exit, as well as workload and fightability." One industry executive said he was "stunned by the decision to go public with accusations of this kind against a rival bidder. It's unprecedented in my experience and takes bidding to a new low. If I was the customer I would be pretty angry." The BAE statement took a further swing at its rival, implying that troops would not be able to evacuate the Warrior quickly in an emergency because hatches in existing turrets are becoming too small for the modern soldier. "Large hatches [of the BAE design] are designed to accommodate today's and tomorrow's soldier wearing full Osprey body armour," the statement said. "Soldiers are getting bigger and crew positions in many existing vehicles are becoming too cramped to accommodate them or allow easy exit from the vehicle in an emergency," it said. The accusation that the Lockheed design would put British soldiers' lives at risk threatens to spark a major row. Wrapping your bid in the national flag or raising the emotive issue of job losses if an overseas bidder wins a competition has been a regular part of the procurement lobbying process for years. Attacking a rival bid on the grounds that it is unsafe is probably unheard of. A second industry executive described BAE's move an "act of desperation, it shows how important the bid is to the survival prospects of the land systems business in the U.K." Lockheed strongly refuted the allegation in a statement released Nov. 18. "LMUK and its Warrior Transformation Team partners are committed to putting the soldier first. We have created a solution that increases the soldier's safety and increases mission effectiveness. "We have conducted finite element analysis, which proves the structural integrity of our solution. We have upgraded the turret to include mine blast seats with five point harnesses," the statement said. "We have worked with the Defence Science & Technology Laboratory and Cranfield on our integrated protection solution, which is fully compliant with the highest requirements in the [MoD's] Systems Requirement Document. We have worked with small and medium size companies throughout the development process to ensure that our solution significantly increases soldier safety," said Lockheed. Both companies submitted their bids to the MoD by today's deadline for the WCSP. The program covers a new turret, electronic architecture, a modular protection system and other improvements. Assuming the program doesn't fall foul of upcoming cuts in defense spending, a decision is expected early next year with an in-service date possibly as early as 2013. Warrior, and a battle with General Dynamics to supply the platform for the special vehicles element of the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES), have assumed critical importance to BAE as their other work in the sector dwindles. The company has announced the closure of three land vehicles facilities along with several hundred job losses in the United Kingdom in the last few months. Even if BAE wins one, or possibly both competitions, the future of its main armor manufacturing site in Newcastle will remain uncertain. Much of the work on the Warrior upgrade likely will go to the U.K. government-owned Defence Support Group regardless of whether BAE or Lockheed win the Warrior work. CTA International's CT 40mm cannon has been mandated by the MoD for the Warrior and FRES scout element of the special vehicles purchase. For the FRES requirement BAE is bidding the CV-90 machine built by its Swedish operation. General Dynamics recently signed up Lockheed as its turret design partner for the FRES special vehicles requirement. This time, though, Lockheed has designed a new turret. Bids for FRES were submitted at the end of October.

DTN News: Slovakia To Add 250 NATO Troops To Afghan Mission

DTN News: Slovakia To Add 250 NATO Troops To Afghan Mission *Source: DTN News / Int'l News (NSI News Source Info) LONDON, UK- November 19, 2009: Slovakia pledged about 250 extra soldiers Tuesday to the NATO-led force in Afghanistan, the first of what British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said would be a series of international reinforcements. The central European country will double the size of its 246-strong contingent in Afghanistan, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico said in a joint statement with Brown following talks in the British capital. Brown, who has said he is lobbying allies in Europe and elsewhere for as many as 5,000 extra soldiers, said more such announcements were on their way. "We will be approaching other countries and I believe that, including Britain, maybe 10 countries will be prepared to give extra support in Afghanistan," he said. NATO's Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, in the Scottish city of Edinburgh on Tuesday for an address to the group's parliamentary assembly, has so far steered clear of saying how many extra reinforcements the trans-Atlantic alliance was willing to send to Afghanistan. He told delegates Tuesday that NATO was leaning toward adopting a new counterinsurgency strategy that would include a substantial number of extra troops — but he did not elaborate. David Miliband, Britain's foreign minister, told the same meeting that military action must be accompanied by a political surge to restore Afghans' faith in their corruption-scarred government — something he said would include appointing senior Taliban commanders to the government in Kabul. Miliband acknowledged that persuading top Taliban fighters to lay down their arms and join government would be "far from straightforward" but said it would have to happen sooner or later. "The historical lessons are clear," he said. Blood enemies from the Soviet period and the civil war now work together in government. Former Talibs already sit in the parliament. It is essential that, when the time is right, members of the current insurgency are encouraged to follow suit." Miliband's comments are stronger than those of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who said last week that talking to the Taliban is "not our strategy," although he acknowledged that members of the Taliban prepared to renounce violence will be part of the reconciliation process. Britain has 9,000 troops in Afghanistan, the largest international contingent after America's 68,000 troops, but public support for the conflict has fallen as casualties have risen. Slovakia's modest new commitment was welcomed by Brown, who has been appealing to the 43 other nations involved in Afghanistan's International Security Assistance Force to help share the burden of the fighting. Still, neither he nor the Slovak leader said when or where the Slovaks might be deployed. They currently serve in the Afghan province of Kandahar and in Uruzgan alongside Dutch soldiers, but the statement said they could be relocated to "other territorial parts of Afghanistan." Britain's NATO allies have been under pressure to move their troops away from relatively safe parts of Afghanistan to more dangerous areas where U.S. and U.K. forces are grappling with Taliban insurgents. Calls seeking clarification from the NATO alliance in Brussels and Slovakia's defense ministry were not immediately returned. Slovakia's pledge also comes as President Barack Obama's administration nears a decision on whether or by how much to boost the number of American troops there. In all, the international force in Afghanistan is currently about 100,000 strong. Fico was in London for a meeting with Brown on Tuesday — the 20th anniversary of the Velvet Revolution in what was then known as Czechoslovakia. Associated Press Writer Karel Janicek in Prague contributed to this report.

DTN News: A Terrorist Trial In New York City

DTN News: A Terrorist Trial In New York City *Source: By Ben West and Fred Burton STRATFOR (NSI News Source Info) NEW DELHI, India - November 19, 2009: U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced Nov. 13 that the U.S. Justice Department had decided to try five suspected terrorists currently being held at Guantanamo Bay in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, located in lower Manhattan. The five suspects — Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek bin Attash, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Ali Abdul-Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi — are all accused of being involved in the 9/11 plot, with Mohammed describing himself as the mastermind in a 2003 confession. The announcement follows from U.S. President Barack Obama’s first executive order, which he signed on Jan. 22, to close the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and another executive order to suspend the military tribunals set up under the Bush administration to try suspected terrorists. Holder’s decision has generated much debate and highlighted the legal murkiness concerning the status of Guantanamo detainees and how best to bring them to justice. Beyond this murkiness is the perceived security threat of bringing five suspected terrorists accused of plotting the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to trial in New York City. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that he thought holding the trial in New York would put residents at risk. And Andrew McCarthy, former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, wrote in The New Republic that the trial will “create a public-safely nightmare for New York City.” Numerous other observers and media outlets around the world have voiced similar security concerns about the New York trial. Although there has been much criticism of the decision to hold the trial in New York City, when it comes to prosecuting terror suspects, the Southern District of New York knows what it’s doing. The staff of the U.S. attorney’s office for the Southern District of New York has gained considerable knowledge and expertise prosecuting terror cases over the years, just as the U.S. Marshal Special Operations Group (SOG) has gained much experience providing security for those trials. It was in the Southern District of New York in 1995 that Omar Abdel Rahman, aka the Blind Sheikh, was tried for the so-called Landmarks Plot of 1993 and received a life sentence. In 1996, Abdel Basit (aka Ramzi Yousef) and two co-conspirators were also tried in the Southern District and sentenced to life in prison for their roles in the Bojinka Plot, which also included an indictment for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the staff of the Southern District has been familiar with Mohammed for some time now). The attackers behind the 1998 attacks against the U.S. embassies were also prosecuted in the Southern District of New York and sentenced to life imprisonment. Few other courts have so much experience handling and prosecuting high-profile terrorism cases, so it should have come as no surprise that Holder named the district as the venue for the upcoming trial. On top of all this, the World Trade Center towers were also in the Southern District of New York, putting the deadliest site of the 9/11 attacks under the Southern District’s jurisdiction. The case will be prosecuted jointly by the offices of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, led by Preet Bharara, and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, led by Neil H. MacBride. The Eastern District of Virginia has also successfully prosecuted several terrorism cases, including those of John Walker Lindh in 2002, the Virginia Jihad Network in 2005 and Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006. While some believe that trying the so-called “Gitmo Five” in New York City will result in more terrorist attacks in the city, STRATFOR does not anticipate a marked increase in the number of plots or attacks. New York City has long been a popular target for radical Islamists — there have been nine known plots involving targets in New York uncovered since the 9/11 attacks, including two in the past six months. In May 2009, four men were arrested for attempting to detonate explosives outside a synagogue in the Bronx, and in September, Najibullah Zazi was arrested for plotting to detonate backpack explosives on trains in New York City. Other plots have included a 2007 plan to detonate fuel tanks at John F. Kennedy International Airport, a 2006 plot to detonate explosives in the Holland Tunnel and a 2004 plot to attack a subway station near Madison Square Garden. New York City remains an alluring target for jihadists because of its symbolism. Home to more than 8 million people, it is the largest city in the United States and a global financial and media center. Whatever happens there gets more exposure and publicity than virtually anywhere else in the world. It is also a perceived center of Jewish wealth and culture (New York has the second-largest Jewish population behind Tel Aviv), compounding the threat from Islamist radicals. New York City will remain a terrorist target for many reasons other than the Gitmo Five trial. It is also interesting to note that none of the city’s other high-profile terrorism trials has ever resulted in a retaliatory attack against the city. In addition to the federal prosecutors who will be involved in the trial having experience dealing with terrorism cases, the New York Police Department has the training, manpower and focus to provide effective physical security. Federal agents, including those of the U.S. Marshal SOG, will be primarily responsible for handling the five suspects and providing security inside the federal courthouse. The building is one of the most secure federal courthouses in the country, equipped with anti-vehicle borne explosive device barricades, 24-hour guard posts and high-resolution video cameras. The U.S. marshals will be augmented by NYPD “Hercules” teams (designed to provide a surge of police presence in an area to prevent or disrupt criminal and terrorist operations) and will likely place sniper teams on nearby rooftops for added security. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic around the courthouse will be severely limited, with nearby streets closed to traffic and nearby subway entrances closed to riders. During the trial, the five defendants will be held at the Metropolitan Correctional Complex, which is connected to the courthouse via a third-of-a-mile-long underground tunnel. This significantly reduces the threat of terrorist attack or a disruption of the proceedings by allowing security forces to control the geography of the trial venue and spot unusual activity. Another geographic benefit is the fact that Manhattan is an island with limited access points (bridges and tunnels), which makes it easier to seal off the area and control who or what gets in or out. These factors do not necessarily preclude an attack, especially a suicide attack in which the perpetrator is undeterred by the risk of death, but do decrease the options of an attacker and increase the options of law enforcement personnel in dealing with the potential risks. Because the courthouse will be under such tight security, any attacker able to penetrate the island cordon and slip into the area would likely go after softer targets surrounding the building. The NYPD will be responsible for protecting areas outside the courthouse and will probably create a secure buffer around the complex, the depth of which will depend on the severity of any given threat. Police would have the wherewithal to put whole sections of the city under heavy lockdown and provide a level of physical security designed to thwart terrorist activities that have reached the latter stages (deployment, attack and escape). This buffer would both protect softer targets nearby and make it that much harder for would-be attackers to infiltrate the courthouse. The NYPD also has the intelligence-collecting capabilities (informants, undercover officers, surveillants, analysts, etc.) to keep a close eye on any potential threat in the area leading up to and during the trial. The NYPD developed these capabilities with a vengeance following the 9/11 attacks, and in the years since it has become quite adept at conducting preventative counterterrorism investigations rather than just reactive ones. In addition to the NYPD, other first-responders in New York — the fire department, emergency medical services and transportation agencies — are experienced and well-trained in dealing with terrorist attacks and can support security efforts surrounding the trial. Given the 9/11 experience, Manhattan residents and workers are also well-versed in emergency action plans and preparations. Certainly, the fact that such a high-profile trial will be held in New York City will temporarily add to the workload of federal and municipal security and emergency personnel, but in some ways it will be little more than a routine effort. The city is used to high-profile events, regularly hosting such events as the U.N. General Assembly, with its attendant flow of international VIPs. New York City has been and will remain a prime terrorist target, and the people responsible for maintaining security in the city are very good at what they do. Indeed, Manhattan — given its recent history of civic trauma and intense focus on counterterrorism — may very well possess the safest civilian court in the country. 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: Lockheed Martin Poised To Sell F-16 In Middle East, Besides Egypt

DTN News: Lockheed Martin Poised To Sell F-16 In Middle East, Besides Egypt *Source: DTN News / Defense Media (NSI News Source Info) DUBAI - November 19, 2009: Lockheed Martin has strong hopes of clinching a sale of the F-16 fighter with an undisclosed Arab country in the near future, said Rick Groesch, regional vice president for the Middle East. “We have very, very good prospects of selling more in the region,” Groesch told journalists Nov.17 at the air show here. The deal, which could be sealed by the end of the year, would be for the block 50 version of the F-16 aircraft, he said. The mystery buyer is not Egypt, where Lockheed is in detailed negotiations for a sale. Iraq, Oman and Jordan are seen as potential buyers, a French aerospace executive said. A Lockheed team is currently in Egypt for “final discussions” for a prospective purchase of 24 F-16s, Groesch said. The U.S. Congress has cleared the way for a sale with a notification and the present talks were aimed at finalizing contract details. Lockheed sees potential sales of 100 to 200 F-16s around the world until the F-35 becomes available for export. That market estimate excludes the Indian competition for 126 fighters. As part of the Indian tender process, Indian officials will be invited to the U.S. to see live weapons firing by the F-16 at a number of sites in the last week of January and first week of February. A production backlog of 76 F-16s is expected is expected to the line busy until 2012. Countries which have bought the aircraft in the past couple of years include Greece with 30 units, Pakistan (18), Morocco (24) and Turkey (30). A number of countries are upgrading their F-16s to the more capable block 50/52 version, a modernization program expected to keep the aircraft in service to 2040, Groesch said. In the Indian tender, the contenders are Boeing’s F/A-18 E/F, Dassault Aviation’s Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, F-16, MiG 35 and Saab Gripen NG.