Saturday, August 07, 2010

DTN News: 'Combat Mission Shock Force: NATO' - 11 New Screens (Games)

DTN News: 'Combat Mission Shock Force: NATO' - 11 New Screens (Games)
Source: DTN News / WorthPlaying.com
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - August 7, 2010: Combat Mission Shock Force - NATO focusses on modern warfare in a fictional conflict in Syria, introducing forces from three additional NATO countries: Germany, Canada and the Netherlands, as well as some new, much requested, units and vehicles for the Syrian side.
All three countries in the module share similar armaments, such the powerful Leopard 2 MBT, but also field vehicles, weapons and variants that make them unique. Germany: Marder IFV, Wiesel and G36 rifle. Canada: LAV3, Bison, Nyala, Leopard C2, unique variants of the Leopard 2 MBT such as Leopard 2A4+ and Leopard 2A6M. Netherlands: CV90-35, the iconic YPR-765 and the mighty Gil(Spike-MR) missile system. Add to this their own unique organization and formations, realistically depicted in the module. Play with them on their own or as part of a multi-national joint task force using any of CMSF's other units. Included in the package are a number of new scenarios and three (!) new campaigns for exciting play right out of the box. You can also use the powerful editor to create your own scenarios and share them with other S hock Force players. New voices, sound effects, and game features round out the game experience.

Preliminary equipment list

German Small Arms and Support Weapons

  • G22 Sniper Rifle
  • G36 Rifle
  • G36 Rifle w/AG36
  • G36C Rifle
  • G36K Carbine
  • MG3
  • MG4
  • Panzerfaust 3
  • DM 51 grenade

German Vehicles

  • Leopard 2A4
  • Leopard 2A6
  • Marder 1A3
  • Marder 1A5
  • Fennek
  • Wiesel 1 20mm
  • Wiesel 1 TOW
  • Wiesel 2 Pioneer
  • Wolf
  • Wolf MG

German Artillery Support

  • PzH 2000 (155 mm self-propelled howitzer)
  • Mortar TAMPELLA (120 mm)
  • Mortar "R" (120 mm)

German Air Support

  • Bölkow Bo 105

Canadian Small Arms and Support Weapons

  • C3A1 Sniper Rifle
  • C7A2 Rifle
  • C7A2 w/ M203
  • C8A2 Carbine
  • C8A2 w/ M203
  • C9 LMG
  • C14 Sniper Rifle
  • C6 MG
  • M2HB
  • M72A7 LAW
  • Carl Gustav
  • Eryx
  • C13 grenade

Canadian Vehicles

  • Leopard C2
  • Leopard 2A4+
  • Leopard 2A6 M
  • LAV I BISON
  • LAV III ISC
  • LAV III CP
  • LAV III TOW
  • LAV III FOO
  • Nyala HMG
  • Nyala RWS
  • G Wagon
  • G Wagon Turreted

Canadian Artillery Support

  • C3 81mm same as a UK L16 81mm
  • LG Mark 2 105mm
  • M777 155mm

Canadian Air Support

  • CF 188 (F-18)
  • CH 146 Griffon Helicopter

Dutch Small Arms and Support Weapons

  • C7A1 Rifle
  • C7A1 w/ AG36
  • C8A1
  • C8A1 w/ AG36
  • MINIMI
  • FN-MAG
  • M2HB
  • AWSMF Sniper Rifle
  • NR17 frag grenade
  • NR13 smoke grenade
  • Panzerfaust 3
  • Gil (Spike-MR) missile

Dutch Vehicles

  • Leopard 2A6
  • Fennek CP
  • Fennek RECCE
  • Fennek MRAT
  • CV9035
  • YPR 765 PRI
  • YPR 765 PRI ERA
  • YPR 765 PRAT
  • YPR 765 PRCO C
  • G-Wagen
  • G-Wagen MG

Dutch Artillery Support

  • PzH 2000 (155 mm self-propelled howitzer)
  • Mortar (120 mm)

Dutch Air Support

  • Apache
  • F 16

'Combat Mission Shock Force: NATO' - 11 New Screens

by Rainier on Aug. 7, 2010 @ 2:36 a.m. PDT | Filed under News

'Combat Mission Shock Force: NATO' - 20 New Screens

by Rainier on July 5, 2010 @ 12:00 a.m. PDT | Filed under News

'Combat Mission Shock Force: NATO' Announced - Screens

by Rainier on May 14, 2010 @ 1:29 p.m. PDT | Filed under News

*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News, contact: dtnnews@ymail.com

DTN News: Dubai Leasing Firm Slashes Airbus Order By $3 Billion

DTN News: Dubai Leasing Firm Slashes Airbus Order By $3 Billion
* Lessor cuts Airbus order volume by 25 pct, data shows * Move follows apparent cancellation of 25 Boeing planes * Boeing leads 2010 order race, Airbus ahead in production
Source: DTN News / Reuters By Tim Hepher
(NSI News Source Info) PARIS, France - August 7, 2010: Europe's Airbus said on Friday it had more than doubled its tally of 2010 orders due to a bumper Farnborough Airshow, however the pick-up was marred by $3 billion in cancelled orders from Dubai Aerospace Enterprise (DAE). The Dubai-based lessor slashed an order for 100 Airbus passenger jets by 25 percent in volume terms, shedding 18 orders for narrow-body A320 planes and seven orders for A350-900 mid-sized jets, July figures released by the European planemaker showed. The move brings to more than $8 billion the catalogue value of DAE cancellations, totalling 50 aircraft, revealed in Airbus and Boeing (BA.N) data published in the past 24 hours. "I have no comment on that," Mohammed Al Zarooni, recently appointed chairman of state-owned DAE, said when contacted by telephone. Airbus and Boeing declined to comment on the cancellations. Leasing companies were hard hit during the financial crisis though some returned with bulk orders for narrow-body planes at last months' Farnborough trade show, which delivered unexpectedly robust evidence of an economic turnaround. Excluding the effect of cancellations, Airbus said its cumulative 2010 orders jumped to 286 planes by the end of July from 131 planes in the first half of the year. Deliveries reached 298 aircraft. The EADS (EAD.PA) unit targets over 400 orders and a record 500 deliveries this year. There have been several specialist industry reports that part of DAE's order portfolio would be transferred to Dubai's Emirates airline, which ordered 30 more 777s at Farnborough. Al Zarooni's predecessor as DAE chairman was Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed Al Maktoum, chairman of The Emirates Group. On Thursday, Boeing data revealed cancellations for 25 jets worth over a total of $5 billion at catalogue prices. Comparisons with previously published data indicated the cuts came from DAE. DAE had ordered the 15 787-8 Dreamliners and 10 777-300ER aircraft in 2007, at the peak of a global order boom. Boeing's latest backlog did not include any such wide-body passenger jets for the leasing and repair firm. It did, however, have 91 unfilled DAE orders for narrow-body jets and freighters. DAE also still has 52 Airbus A320 planes and 23 A350-900s, designed to compete with the Boeing Dreamliner, on order with a total list value of $10 billion at current prices. The Director General of Dubai's Department of Finance, Abdelrahman al Saleh, said recently DAE was in negotiations with Boeing and Airbus on its total of some 220 plane orders. Airbus Sales Chief John Leahy said at Farnborough that it was "no secret" that DAE was facing disruption over its orders. After adjusting for total cancellations in the past month, Airbus reported a net total of 245 new orders in the first seven months of the year, up from 117 by the end of June. The data leaves Boeing ahead of its rival in the race for 2010 orders as the industry exits recession, though it still ranks in second place behind Airbus in terms of production. Boeing said it had received total orders for 319 planes between January and July, and a net total of 255 planes after adjusting for cancellations. The net orders include 229 narrow-body Boeing 737 short-haul and medium-haul planes.
(Reporting by Tim Hepher, Erika Solomon; Editing by Jon Loades-Carter, Sharon Lindores)

DTN News: U.S. Military Strike Against Iran Unlikely

DTN News: U.S. Military Strike Against Iran Unlikely
Source: DTN News / Xinhua
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - August 7, 2010: U.S. President Barack Obama has indicated sanctions on Iran should remain in place but he has hope for a "pathway" to a peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue with Tehran. Obama told reporters at the White House Thursday he is still open to talks with Iran if Tehran takes "confidence-building measures" to prove it is not pursuing nuclear weapons, the Washington Post reported. The remarks appeared to conflict with those by U.S. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, who said Washington had a plan to use military measures to deny Iran nuclear weapons. Many analysts believe the current U.S. administration still prefers sanctions when it comes to the Iranian nuclear issue and a military strike would be its last resort. MILITARY STRIKE UNLIKELY Mullen said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday that a military option against Iran had not been ruled out. "It's one of the options that the president has. Again, I hope we don't get to that, but it's an important option and it's one that's well understood." The prospects of an attack and of a nuclear-armed Iran were both very worrisome, he said, adding that he believed multilateral diplomacy and international economic sanctions remained the best means to force the Iranian government to abandon its nuclear program. Michael O'Hanlon, director of research of foreign policy at the Washington-based Brookings Institution, said the United States was unlikely to launch a military strike against Iran. "To say that an option is on the table is not the same thing as to say there is a detailed plan. Detailed plan implies real preparation and readiness to carry this out. It implies the almost potential imminence, whereas keeping this as an option is just that," he said. O'Hanlon cited Obama's policy against preemptive strikes. "Because, in the end, this will in many ways be a form of preemption. President Obama campaigned against the idea of preemption." The United States will more likely seek cooperation with other world powers -- China, France, Britain and Russia -- and try to put Iran under economic pressure, he said. Since June, the United Nations, the United States and the European Union have tightened sanctions on Iran over its refusal to return to international talks on its nuclear program, which the West fears is a cover to build an atomic bomb. Tehran denies the allegation, saying it is for the generation of electricity. The other reason a military strike was unlikely, O'Hanlon said, was that it would not be very effective. "It (a military strike) will probably set Iran back a couple of years. But Iran could relocate and build new facilities," he said, adding that Tehran would have much more determination and domestic support to carry out its nuclear program. Besides, "a lot of countries around the world, in the aftermath of the strike, may decide not to continue to apply sanctions, so we might lose ground on sanctions. On all the political and economic fronts, a military attack will set us back," he said. "If you add up the pros and cons, the equation looks fairly unfavorable for using force," the expert said.
Mullen's remarks elicited a furious response from Iran, whose media has carried criticism and vows of retaliation against Washington almost daily since. Commander of the Iranian Army's Ground Force, Brigadier General Ahmad-Reza Pourdastan, said on Wednesday the United States had no capability to start a war with the "powerful" Islamic Republic of Iran, the official IRNA news agency reported. Iranian forces were in full readiness to confront the enemy on the ground, in the air and on the sea, Pourdastan said, noting that any attack against the country would be faced with a crushing response. On Tuesday, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said the attack threat against Tehran made by Mullen was "imprudent remarks" that were linked to the United States' anger and frustration following its repeated failures in the Middle East. Political deputy of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)Yadollah Javani said Monday "the U.S. and the Zionist regime (Israel) will not dare to make a military attack against Iran," adding that Mullen's remarks were just "psychological tactics." They had made similar statements before and such threats were aimed at "exerting pressure on Iran in the nuclear talks and for winning concessions," Javani said. Analysts said that, for Iranians, who had been feeling years of pain from economic sanctions and hearing repeated reports about U.S. attack against their country, the nuclear issue is remote from everyday concerns. They did not pay much attention to the fresh U.S. threat, but people and media outside Iran were taking it more seriously, they said. IMPACT OF A POSSIBLE STRIKE Iran has consistently warned it would respond to any attack by targeting U.S. interests in the region and Israel, as well as closing the Strait of Hormuz, which separates Oman from Iran and is the gateway to the oil-rich Gulf. The IRGC's Javani warned Monday that any mistake by Washington. would endanger security in the entire region. "And as it was said before, the Persian Gulf would be safe either for all or for none ... The Persian Gulf is a strategic region. If its security is in danger, this will jeopardize their (Americans') interests too, and our response would be tough," the IRNA quoted him as saying. Amid rising tensions between Iran and the West, the Revolutionary Guards staged large scale war games in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz in late April in a bid to show its ability to control the crucial energy and economic waterway. With about 40 percent of the world's traded oil leaving the Gulf region through it, the Strait of Hormuz is particularly vulnerable because it is only 50 km wide at its widest point. The analysts warned that, once America launched an attack, security in the entire Gulf region would deteriorate, which would have an unthinkable impact on oil prices and the global economy. Meanwhile, an abrupt U.S.-Iran war would bear on the politics in Iran and the Middle East as well, they said. The U.S. State Department said in its annual "Country Reports on Terrorism" report that Iran remained the "most active" state sponsor of terrorism, providing financial, material and logistic support for terrorist and militant groups in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories, as well as the Taliban in Afghanistan. Its actions had a "direct impact" on international efforts to promote peace, threatened economic stability in the Gulf, and undermined the growth of democracy, said the report, released Thursday. If the U.S. went to war with Iran, the political pattern in the Middle East would change, as countries with interests there would adjust their policies in the region, the experts predicted. O'Hanlon said a military strike would complicate the U.S. ability to maintain a strong coalition because it might make the U.S. look like a unilateral power, raising concerns about a return to the Bush administration's policy.
*This article "U.S. Military Strike Against Iran Unlikely - Xinhua" & link to read in originality
*This article is being posted from Toronto, Canada By DTN News ~ Defense-Technology News, contact: dtnnews@ymail.com

DTN News: Plugging The WikiLeak: What Can US government Do?

DTN News: Plugging The WikiLeak: What Can US government Do?
(NSI News Source Info) TORONTO, Canada - August 7, 2010: An online whistle-blower's threat to release more classified Pentagon and State Department documents is raising hard questions of what the U.S. government can or would do, legally, technically or even militarily to stop it. Constrained by the massive reach of the Internet, sophisticated encryption software and the domestic legal system, the answer seems to be: Not much. If the U.S. government believes that the classified documents that WikiLeaks is preparing to disclose will threaten national security or put lives at risk, however, cyber and legal experts say the options could expand to include cyber strikes to take down the WikiLeaks web site and destroy its files or covert operations to steal or disable the files.
It all sounds, at times, like a spy movie, where the possibilities extend as far as the imagination can reach. But, most outsiders agree that reality is likely to be far less dramatic. At the center of the drama is the posting last week of a massive 1.4 gigabyte mystery file named "Insurance" on the WikiLeaks web site. The "Insurance" file is encrypted, nearly impossible to open until WikiLeaks provides the passwords. But experts suggest that if anyone can crack it, it would be the secretive National Security Agency. That file, coupled with WikiLeaks' release of more than 77,000 secret military documents last month, prompted the Pentagon to "demand" that the web site's editor-in-chief, Julian Assange, cancel any new document dumps and pull back the Afghan war data he already posted. WikiLeaks slammed the demand as an obnoxious threat, and Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell declined to detail what, if any, actions the Defense Department may be ready to take. Few people involved in the case, for the Pentagon and other agencies, would talk openly about what the Pentagon or America's clandestine NSA could or would do to stop the expected document dump. It is not even clear whether U.S. officials know what WikiLeaks has. State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley answered it this way: "Do we believe that WikiLeaks has additional cables? We do. Do we believe that those cables are classified? We do. And are they State Department cables? Yes." Officials say the data may also include up to 15,000 military documents related to the Afghan war that were not made public in the initial release. Assuming the documents contain highly sensitive information that, if made public, might threaten national security, the United States must weigh a number of options, experts say. First, from a legal standpoint, there probably is little the U.S. government can do to stop WikiLeaks from posting the files. It is against federal law knowingly and willfully to disclose or transmit classified information. Assange, an Australian who has no permanent address and travels frequently, is not a U.S. citizen. Since Assange is a foreign national living in a foreign country, it is not clear that U.S. law would apply, said Marc Zwillinger, a Washington, D.C., lawyer and former federal cyber crimes prosecutor. He said prosecutors would have to figure out what crime to charge Assange with, and then face the daunting task of trying to indict him or persuade other authorities to extradite him. It would be equally difficult, Zwillinger said, to use an injunction effectively to prevent users from getting access to the data. "Could the U.S. get an injunction to force U.S. Internet providers to block traffic to and from WikiLeaks such that people couldn't access the website?" Zwillinger said. "It's an irrelevant question. There would be thousands of paths to get to it. So it wouldn't really stop people from getting to the site. They would be pushing the legal envelope without any real benefit." Legal questions aside, the encrypted file conjures visions of secret codebreakers hunched over their laptops, tearing open secret, protected files in seconds with a few keystrokes. Reality is not that simple, particularly if, as the file name suggests, the documents are encrypted. It appears WikiLeaks used state-of-the-art software requiring a sophisticated electronic sequence of numbers, called a 256 bit key, to open them. The main way to break such an encrypted file is by what is called a "brute force attack", which means trying every possible key, or password, said Herbert Lin, a senior computer science and cryptology expert at the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. Unlike a regular six or eight character password that most people use every day, a 256 bit key would equal a 40-50 character password, he said. If, said Lin, it takes 0.1 nanosecond to test one possible key, and you used 100 billion computers to test the possible number variations, "it would take this massive array of computers 10 to the 56 power seconds _ the number 1, followed by 56 zeros" to plow through all the possibilities. How long is that? "The age of the universe is 10 to the 17th power seconds," said Lin. "We will wait a long time for the U.S. government or anyone else to decrypt that file by brute force." Could the NSA, which is known for its supercomputing and massive electronic eavesdropping abilities abroad, crack such an impregnable code? It depends on how much time and effort they want to put into it, said James Bamford, who has written two books on the NSA. The NSA has the largest collection of supercomputers in the world. And officials have known for some time that WikiLeaks has classified files in its possession. The agency, he speculated, has probably been looking for a vulnerability or gap in the code, or a back door into the commercial encryption program protecting the file. At the more extreme end, the NSA, the Pentagon and other U.S. government agencies, to include the newly created Cyber Command, probably have reviewed options for using a cyber attack against the website, which could disrupt networks, files, electricity and so on. "This is the kind of thing that they are geared for," said Bamford, "since this is the type of thing a terrorist organization might have _ a website that has damaging information on it. They would want to break into it, see what's there and then try to destroy it." The vast nature of the Internet, however, makes it essentially impossible to stop something, or take it down, once it has gone out over multiple servers. In the end, U.S. officials will have to weigh whether a more aggressive response is worth the public outrage it probably would bring. Most experts predict that, despite the uproar, the government probably will do little other than bluster, and the documents will come out anyway. "Once you start messing with Internet, taking things down, and going to the maximum extent to hide everything from coming out, it doesn't necessarily serve your purpose," said Bamford. "It makes the story bigger than it would have been had the documents been released in the first place." He and others pointed to the Pentagon Papers saga in 1971, when The New York Times published a top-secret Pentagon study of the history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. "It wasn't Pentagon papers that took down Richard Nixon," said Bamford. "It was his attempt to stop the papers that brought him down." ___ AP National Security Writer Robert Burns contributed to this story. ___