June 2, 2005: One reason Iran, despite it’s attempts to create nuclear weapons, wants to make nice with the European Union, is so that the Iranian tank force can be upgraded. Currently the Iranians have about 2,000 tanks, all of them rather out of date, poorly equipped and not in the best of repair.

The Iranians have a plan. There are many excellent upgrades available for older tanks, and they want access to the European firms that do this work. The largest assortment of upgrades are available for the Russian T-72 tank. Iran has about 900 of these, of several models from the 1970s through the early 90s. The next most common tanks are nearly 600 T54/55 T-59: (a 1950s design). Upgrades are also available for this one. The rest of Iran’s tanks are an odd assortment of vehicles not present in sufficient numbers to do upgrades. These include 75 Russian T-62s (not much better than the older T-55), 100 Shir Irans. These are locally developed, from the 1970s project based on the Chieftain (1960s vintage British tank). There are also 150 American M-60A1 (1960s era tank), 168 M-47s (1950s era American tank), and 100 Zulfigar (a locally designed tank, not as good as the T-72).

The principal upgrades are improved fire control (computerized, with laser range finder), more armor (ERA, which is explosive reactive armor) and better ammo (the Chinese even sell depleted uranium shells). Improved communications gear is another useful upgrade, as well as new engines and the replacement of many other parts that have worn out after two decades of embargoes.

Iran often talks about, and acts on, efforts, to build its own tanks. Two efforts at this have been dismal failures (although Iranian media said otherwise, professionals in the Iranian, and foreign militaries know better.) Buying new tanks in any quantity is not possible, but upgrades are. With these upgrades, Iran will dominate most local forces. Only the United States, and its thousands of M-1 tanks, would remain a threat. But that’s what the nukes are for.

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTPROC.HTM

KINSHASA, 3 Jun 2005 (IRIN) - The latest brigade in the newly integrated army of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) completed training on Wednesday and is expected to deploy to the east of the country, Defence Minister Adolphe Onusumba said.

"The unit will provide security and help prepare the ground for the elections," he told IRIN on Thursday.

The brigade comprises of soldiers from various fighting forces that opposed each other during the country's civil war. Their leaders are now members of the transitional government.

Belgium and South African instructors trained the integrated brigade at a camp in the southeastern town of Kamina, Katanga Province.

The defence ministers of the DRC, Belgium and South Africa attended the brigade's passing out parade on Wednesday, handing out a certificate to each of the 3,240 soldiers.

On Thursday, the Belgium and South African defence ministers signed an agreement with the DRC in the capital, Kinshasa, to help train and integrate other army troops.

Senior officers have already been integrated into the DRC's army command structure but many rank and file soldiers remain in the same fighting groups that existed during the war.

Two other brigades have been officially integrated. They are now based in Bunia, the capital of troubled northeastern district of Ituri, conducting joint operations with UN troops.

The latest integrated brigade will be deployed to the province of South Kivu where two Rwandan Hutu rebel groups - the Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda and the Rasta - are allegedly committing atrocities against the local population.

Onusumba said two more brigades would complete their training within the next two weeks.

[ENDS]


This material comes to you via IRIN, a UN humanitarian information unit, but may not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its agencies. If you re-print, copy, archive or re-post this item, please retain this credit and disclaimer. Quotations or extracts should include attribution to the original sources. All materials copyright © UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 2005

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/200...il-050603-irin01.htm

June 4, 2005: The U.S. Navy has developed its Spartan Scout USV (unmanned surface vessel) to the point where a foreign navy (Singapore) has bought it. The Spartan Scout is a two ton, 22 foot long, radio controlled boat. It is armed with a .50 caliber machine-gun and a number of sensors (mainly day and night vidcams.) Singapore will use the Spartan Scout for harbor reconnaissance. Previously, Singapore had been using a Protector USV (four tons, 30 feet long, armed with a machine-gun). The Spartan Scout has a more powerful navigation system, and is able to operate without an operator (by using GPS to move between specified locations.) Spartan Scout is also designed to use different sets of equipment for different missions (detecting mines, Intelligence-Surveillance-Reconnaissance, Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection, destroying threats with the machine-gun, and Antisubmarine Warfare.) Spartan Scout can stay out for up to 48 hours, depending on how much high speed (it can hit up to 80 kilometers an hour) running is done. It also has a loudspeaker and microphones, so that the operator, who is usually so far away that he can't see the USV) can converse with crewmen on small ships. Spartan Scout was particularly useful when it got its first tryout in the Persian Gulf during late 2003. There are lots of small boats moving about, some of them up to no good. A Arab linguist on the mothership was able to interrogate suspicious boats the Spartan Scout ran down. The civilian sailors were somewhat taken aback when they were interrogated by this Arab speaking boat that had no one aboard. While Spartan Scout was developed primarily to work with the new LCS (Littoral Combat Ship), every ship now wants one or more of them, just for port security. Others are interested as well, including The development team includes the U.S. Army, port managers worldwide, and even France.

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTSURF.HTM

Storm Warning
The Rafale is poised to become Europe's premier fighter-bomber

by Michal Fiszer
Jun. 6, 2005

France's Rafale is the most capable aircraft of the three new-generation fighters developed in Europe over the last two decades. Although the Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, and Saab Gripen are all currently being developed as multirole aircraft, only in the case of the first were strike capabilities made a priority from the very beginning of the program. The remaining two were initially optimized for air-to-air missions, with attack capabilities added later. When current conflicts demand mainly air-to-ground capabilities, the Rafale (the name means "squall") better fits those requirements, being a true strike fighter by its very nature, and it is not any worse in air combat than its two European competitors. Various circumstances dictated that that Rafale would be fully multirole, while the Gripen and Typhoon are fighters with strike capabilities (for more on the Gripen and Typhoon, see "Gripen, Lion of the Sky" and "Eye of the Storm,"). Dassault goes even farther and calls its aircraft "omni-role," which means that Rafale can perform ground-attack and air-combat tasks in one sortie.

This is not to say that the Rafale's superiority as a European air-combat platform is absolute. There are many factors that weigh against the aircraft, chiefly complexity and cost. Moreover, not every nation has the same requirements for its air arm, and there are many qualities to recommend the Typhoon and Gripen, not to mention comparable candidates from Russia and the US. To date, no foreign customer for the Rafale has been found, while Saab already has three export customers for Gripen – the Czech Republic, Hungary, and South Africa – and even Eurofighter has found an export sale outside of its consortium membership – as of now, though, only to Austria. One could ask why such a capable and technically successful aircraft as the Rafale has had such a difficult road. Perhaps the Rafale is "over qualified," and potential customers, including France, do not wish to pay for capabilities that they do not need.

Nevertheless, as we shall see, a combination of good planning and good fortune has conspired to place the Rafale at the forefront of European tactical aircraft.

Early Development

Initial studies for an Avion de Combat Tactique (ACT; Tactical Combat Aircraft) started at the French Ministry of Aviation as early as in 1975. At this early stage, the aircraft was to be a prospective supplement to the Mirage 2000, which first flew in 1978. The Mirage 2000 was to be a light fighter in the F-16 class, optimized for air defense and related tasks, while the ACT was to be a heavier and more capable aircraft, optimized for ground attack, reconnaissance, and air superiority. Among the authors of these early requirements, called ACT 92 (1992 was the year of expected service entry), was LtCol Vincent Lanata, later Chief of Staff of the French Air Force.

http://www.edefenseonline.com/default.asp?func=article&aref=06_06_2005_IF_01


Algeria Eyes Indian Su-30MKIs, T-90s

by Pulkit Singh
Jun. 1, 2005

Algeria is negotiating the purchase of Russian-developed Su-30MKI aircraft being produced under license in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) (Bangalore, India). The proposed package, which reportedly includes enough aircraft to equip one or two squadrons, also includes the purchase of an unspecified number of T-90 tanks being produced under license at the Avadhi Heavy Vehicle Factory in southern India.

India is currently producing 140 Su-30MKI aircraft under license from Russia (see "Indian AF Su-30MKIs Nearly Ready"). The memorandum of understanding for license production of the 140 Su-30MKIs, intended only for Indian use, was signed in October 2000 during a visit of Russian President Vladmir Putin to New Delhi, and an agreement was inked the following January with Russia's Irkutsk Design Bureau for setting up a dedicated Su-30 production line at HAL's aircraft design center at Nasik. Russia's Irkutsk Aviation Production Association (IAPO) (Irkutsk, Russia) and HAL are the two industry partners in the program.

http://www.edefenseonline.com/default.asp?func=article&aref=06_01_2005_OM_01

June 9, 2005: The Cold War arms race is back. Sort of. The Cold War arms race reached a peak in the late 1980s, when spending (adjusted for inflation), went past $1.6 trillion a year. The Soviet Union, which started the arms race in the early 1960s, couldn’t keep it up, and disintegrated in 1991. After that, military spending declined by about half over the rest of the decade. The decline came to a halt in the late 1990s, and global spending began to rise again. Now annual global military spending is approaching a trillion dollars again. But it’s not the same. In fact, it’s very different. Back during the Cold War, there were over a hundred million people under arms, and each year, factories turned out thousands of tanks, hundreds of warplanes and dozens of warships. No more, not even close, even though current spending is about 60 percent of the Cold War peak. There are fewer than 40 million people under arms, and tank production rarely exceeds a few hundred a year, with annual warplane production of less than a hundred a year, and only a handful of warships.

When the Cold War ended, so did the era of huge conscript armies, masses of tanks (the Soviet Union had over 50,000 when the end came) and comparatively large numbers of combat aircraft and warships. Suddenly everything got smaller, and more expensive. Conscripts were replaced by a lot fewer professionals, who got paid a lot more money. This was something the British pioneered in the 1960s, followed by the United States in the 1970s. When the Cold War everyone ended, and everyone saw what pros could do in the 1991 Gulf War, everyone began to dismantle their conscript armies. Smaller armed forces, staffed by professionals and equipped with less, but more capable, gear, were the new norm. Thus defense spending changed as well. Much more of it went for payroll, and for buying far fewer, but higher quality, weapons. More money went into equipment, high tech stuff like satellite based communications and computers. Billions of dollars a year is spent on satellite communications alone.

With the Soviet Union gone, no one else out there wants to try and match the United States spending levels. The war on terror also has American spending going up again. Currently, the United States spends about $440 billion a year, all of Europe, about $200 billion, all of Asia, about $180 billion, the Middle East, about $80 billion. Africa and the rest of the Americas add another $20 billion or so. While nearly half the spending is by the United States. most of that money is not buying weapons, but payroll, benefits and materials needed for training and operations (food, fuel, spare parts, services.)

Not many new tanks, warplanes or combat ships are being built, as everyone continues to live off the Cold War surplus. Many countries want to build new stuff, but everything has gotten so much more expensive. That’s because computers and powerful sensors and all manner of nifty technology provide most of the lethality in new weapons. Build the old style weapons, and you’re just providing expensive targets for those with the most modern weapons. Even your basic $500 assault rifle becomes far more lethal when you add several thousand dollars worth computerized accessories.

Countries are spending more on defense, but they aren’t buying the same kind of stuff they were two decades ago.

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htworld.htm

Vietnam looks to build ties with U.S. army
Wed Jun 8, 2005 01:49 AM ET

HANOI (Reuters) - Communist Vietnam said a visit by a senior U.S. defense official will firm up ties between the former Vietnam War enemies and boost understanding between their armies, state-run media reported on Wednesday.
U.S. Assistant Defense Secretary Peter Rodman held talks with Vietnam's Defense Minister Pham Van Tra and his deputy Nguyen Huy Hieu on Tuesday at the start of the two-day visit, the defense ministry-run Quan Doi Nhan Dan daily said.

A front-page article in the newspaper quoted Tra as telling Rodman that he believed the visit "would contribute to enhancing friendship and mutual understanding between the two armies."

The United States is seeking to build closer military ties with Vietnam, but will let them evolve in the long term instead of pushing hard, officials said before Rodman arrived.

State media said Rodman visited a military facility in Hanoi which specializes in bomb and land mine disposal techniques.

He was also due to meet officials from the Police Ministry, the National Defense Academy where Vietnamese military officers are trained, and the Foreign Relations Institute.

Rodman's visit to Hanoi comes ahead a planned June 21 meeting between Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai and President Bush in Washington. Khai will be the most high-ranking Vietnamese to visit the United States since the Vietnam War.

Vietnam and the United States mark the 10th anniversary of their normalisation of relations in July.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=8726837

June 17, 2005: Norway and Britain are getting nervous about the shabby state of Russian nuclear submarines rotting away in northern Russian ports. The Barents Sea, an arctic body of water, is the location of Russians largest submarine bases, and right next door is the North Sea, shared by Norway, Britain and several other northern European nations. In the Barents Sea region are 118 decommissioned Russian nuclear submarines. In the last 47 years, Russia built 450 nuclear reactors for its ships, and, mostly, its submarines. Some two thirds of those nuclear reactors are up north, and about half of those are basically abandoned. Russia pleads poverty, when asked why it has not removed all those reactors and safely dispose of the radioactive components. In addition to the crewless subs, there is lots of radioactive material stored up there, for want of any other place to put it. Norway and Britain are afraid that some of that radioactive mess will get into the Barents Sea, which could eventually poison the arctic waters, as well as the North Sea. Corrupt Russian officials have long looked the other way when it came to the Barents Sea and its nuclear mess. But now more attention is being focused on it, and even venal bureaucrats are waking up to the fact that you either clean it up, or suffer along with everyone else.

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTCHEM.HTM

June 18, 2005: Encouraged by the UN and wealthy Western nations, another African peacekeeping force is being set up. Ethiopia, Djibouti, Kenya, Rwanda, the Somali Transitional Federal Government, and Sudan have agreed to establish an "East African Standing Brigade." This unit would be part of the African Union's "African Standing Force," a division size peacekeeping force for dealing with the numerous civil wars raging across the continent. Each nation will contribute troops, in rotation, for the "East African Standing Brigade," which will be stationed in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa. The strength of the brigade is expected to fluctuate between 3,500-5,500 troops, and will be available for immediate dispatch to a crises area. Western nations are expected to provide assistance in training and equipping the troops. This brigade is expected to be ready for service in 2006.

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTUN.HTM

June 19, 2005: When one talks about Russian aircraft, one of the first arguments is that they are underrated. This is often due to the fact that in most of the well-known wars over the past 25 years, Russian aircraft, including modern ones like the MiG-29, have often been on the wrong end of some very lopsided kill ratios (like the 40 to 0 ratio in Desert Storm, and the 82 to 0 ratio in the aptly named Bekaa Valley Turkey Shoot). The losers in those engagements were the air forces of Iraq and Syria, respectively. This happened despite the Russian aircraft being quite impressive, at least on paper.

Now, the pilots of the Iraqi and Syrian air forces were admittedly not top-quality. Nor were they given some of the advantages that their American and Israeli adversaries had (like airborne radar aircraft). It certainly raises the question of how much of the poor performance can be laid on the Russian-built aircraft. This is doubly true given the results of COPE INDIA, in which Indian Su-30s (a different model of the Su-27) were able to defeat U.S. Air Force F-15s. India’s doctrine is closer to the U.S. Air Force’s in terms of the flight hours Indian Air Force pilots get for training.

The family of Su-27 aircraft is one that has been accorded a great deal of respect by the Air Force. The likely use of Su-27s by a potential adversary (China), has the Air Force wanting the F-22. The Su-27 has proven to be capable of some amazing maneuvers (like the Pugachev Cobra, where it reaches a 120-degree angle of attack). Also, the Su-27 is armed with the AA-10/R-27 Alamo, the AA-11/R-73 Archer, and the AA-12/R-77 Adder (or “AMRAAMski”), which gives it a superb collection of air-to-air weapons.

Su-27s scored at least five and as many as seven kills in the 1998-2000 war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. In that same war, Eritrean MiG-29s scored four kills of their own (albeit none against the Su-27). This is a glimmer of hope for Russian aircraft. India, having operated both Su-27s and MiG-29s, is going to fly MiG-29Ks from the Vikramaditya (the carrier formerly known as the Admiral Gorshkov).

But India’s experience with Russian aircraft has shown some problems. The intensive training schedule has pushed India’s MiG-21 fleet beyond endurance (the planes will be retired by 2015). From 1996 through 2000, 81 MiGs were lost to various accidents. This was an average of 16 a year. In Fiscal Year 2000, the United States Air Force lost 14. India, it should be noted, has about 700 combat aircraft on inventory in 2000. The United States Air Force has 1,343 F-15C/D/E and F-16A/B/C/D in its combat-ready inventory (with numerous others in test/development, reserve, or maintenance).

When it comes down to it, the most important factor in a fighter’s performance is the pilot. Good pilots can get the most out of their aircraft – at least two of the Ethiopian kills were achieved by Russian mercenaries, who probably are better than most African pilots. In 1977, Israeli mercenaries achieved at least seven kills flying Ethiopian F-5As against Somali MiG-21s. American pilots train hard, and 1991, often commented that flying in Desert Storm was like the Red Flag exercises, only the Iraqis were not as good. The training pilots receive will be what determines how well a Russian-built airplane (or any airplane) does in combat. – Harold C. Hutchison

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTAIRFO.HTM

Swedish Submarine Expected To Enhance Navy’s Antisubmarine Warfare Primacy

Navy NewsStand

Story Number: NNS050620-01
Release Date: 6/20/2005 11:08:00 AM

By Journalist Seaman S. C. Irwin, Fleet Public Affairs Center, Pacific

SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- The Swedish attack submarine HMS Gotland arrives in San Diego June 23 and will begin a one-year bilateral training effort with the U.S. Navy’s antisubmarine warfare (ASW) forces.

The diesel-powered Gotland will play a key role in enhancing the U.S. Navy’s ASW capabilities by operating as an opposing force (OPFOR) during a series of exercises against carrier and expeditionary strike groups, naval air patrols and other forces. Likewise, Gotland will gain training experience and enhance interoperability, while participating in exercises with U.S. forces.

“The arrival of Gotland is just one of the many innovations we are implementing to enhance our ability to provide realistic and effective ASW training in the fleet,” said Capt. John Ferrer, head of the assessment branch at Fleet Antisubmarine Warfare Command in San Diego.

Gotland’s training with the U.S. fleet will focus on integrated ASW exercises that will enable all components of the Navy’s ASW forces – air, surface and subsurface – to test and assess their tactics, doctrine and ASW education.

“We are well-trained, highly motivated and ready to go to sea,” said Capt. Jan Westas, commanding officer of Gotland. “We are up against big ships and deeper water that needs special navigation. This is definitely a different environment for us.”

According to Ferrer, Gotland, like many other diesel submarines, is quiet; however, unlike U.S. nuclear submarines, which often serve duty as OPFOR during fleet training exercises, Gotland is physically smaller, giving them less of an active sonar cross section.

“Gotland will therefore provide very realistic active sonar training for our strike groups and maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft as they hone their skills in preparation for deployment,” Ferrer explained.

A Los Angeles-class attack submarine is 360-feet long and can displace approximately 6,900 tons when submerged. In comparison, the 200-foot Gotland displaces 1,490 tons.

Gotland’s advanced technology includes its Air Independent Propulsion units, which enable it to submerge for up to three weeks without snorkeling air from the surface.

“The learning curve is going to be very steep for the whole force out here,” said Senior Chief Sonar Technician (Submarines) (SS) Dale Schonauer, from Submarine Squadron 11 in San Diego. “[Because of this training], we’re going to be more effective against any adversary who is using diesel submarines.”

“Our ASW training should make it clear to any nation that’s watching the U.S. Navy...that you don’t want to buy submarines in order to deny us access to any area of the world," said Ferrer.

Gotland will embark a small number of U.S. Navy personnel as riders and observers but will be manned by two all-Swedish teams of 31 to 33 Sailors.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/200...mil-050620-nns02.htm

Senior Georgian politicians, including President Mikheil Saakashvili, Prime Minister Zurab Noghaideli, and Foreign Minister Salome Zourabichvili, hailed the agreement reached in Moscow on 30 May on the terms and time frame for the closure of the two remaining Russian military bases in Georgia as heralding a new era in bilateral relations. So too did international organizations, including NATO and the EU.
But within days, Georgian and Russian officials were arguing over the ownership of equipment at one ancillary facility in Tbilisi, while the Azerbaijani government formally protested to Moscow plans to move part of the materiel currently deployed in Georgia to the Russian military base in Armenia. Moreover, several crucial issues remained to be addressed in subsequent agreements.

The 30 May agreement did, nonetheless, clarify the central issue of the time frame for withdrawal, stating clearly that the process should be completed by 1 October 2007 or, if that proves impossible (for example, due to adverse weather conditions), by 31 December 2007. Russia further pledges not to deploy any further equipment or ammunition to the two bases. The two sides agree to set in motion preparations for a formal inspection by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and Germany of the Gudauta military base that Russia claims to have vacated in July 2001. They also agreed to seek additional sources of funding to cover the expenses of transporting equipment from the two Georgian bases.

The 30 May agreement also provided for an unspecified quantity of equipment and personnel to be transferred from the two existing bases to a new Georgian-Russian antiterrorism center. Further details on the creation, staffing, and operations of that facility are to be addressed in a separate agreement, which has yet to be signed. Georgian Foreign Minister Zourabichvili told RFE/RL on 7 June that the creation of that center, which has been under discussion for over a year, was a Georgian initiative, the rationale for it being that "we did not want Russia to think it was being thrown out of Georgia."

It is, however, difficult to reconcile the formal agreement on the transfer of unspecified Russian equipment to that base with Georgian National Security Council press secretary Davit Gunashvili's statement that it will be purely an "analytical center." Other Georgian officials have suggested that other countries, including possibly the United States, could be invited to provide experts to work at the center.

Real Agreement?

Almost immediately, however, the sincerity of both Tbilisi and Moscow was called into question. The Georgian authorities denied a visa to the new commander of the Group of Russian Forces in the Transcaucasus, Major General Aleksandr Bespalov, thus forcing him to coordinate the withdrawal from Yerevan, Interfax reported on 7 June. At the same time, the Georgian military raised objections to the removal from the Russian Tank-Repair Workshop in Tbilisi, which was to be handed over to Georgia by 15 June, of equipment deployed there, including trucks, spare parts, armored vehicles, and eight diesel-fuelled generators. Those Georgian objections temporarily halted the planned removal of Russian equipment from the base, ITAR-TASS reported on 14 June. Georgia subsequently dropped its opposition to the Russian military taking portable equipment from that facility, and a written agreement formalizing the handover was duly signed on 16 June.

Meanwhile Gennadii Gudkov, chairman of the Russian State Duma's Defense and Security Committee, paid a private visit in early June to the two Russian bases, after which he concluded that the Defense and Foreign ministries will not be able to meet the agreed deadline of late 2007 for closing them. Caucasus Press on 7 June quoted Gudkov as saying that five years was a more realistic estimate, given that it would, he claimed, take two years just to de-mine the two bases -- a procedure on which Georgia insists.

Gudkov added that the withdrawal process could be expedited if the United States agreed to provide additional funding to finance the construction of alternative bases in Russia to house the personnel and equipment withdrawn from Georgia. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov similarly appealed on 16 June to the Russian government to earmark additional funding to cover the cost of the Russian withdrawal from Georgia. Nino Burdjanadze -- speaker of the Georgian parliament, which has consistently adopted a more hard-line and less flexible position on the Russian military presence in Georgia than has the Georgian Foreign Ministry -- refused to meet with Gudkov while he was in Tbilisi, "Nezavisimaya gazeta" reported on 10 June.

Local Hurdles

In her 7 June comments to RFE/RL, Zourabichvili acknowledged that there is a risk Russia will not comply with the December 2007 deadline. She added that while Tbilisi considers it encouraging that at the very highest level, both Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian Foreign Ministry have admitted that the two bases do not serve any strategic purpose and are thus no longer needed, there is no guarantee that local Russian commanders, acting on their own initiative, might not seek to delay the withdrawal for their own ends.

Despite those misgivings, Russian and Georgian delegations succeeded in two subsequent rounds of talks, in Tbilisi on 8-10 June and in Moscow on 16-17 June, in ironing out the remaining, mostly logistical issues connected with the Russian withdrawal. The text of the relevant agreement has been coordinated, and it should be signed "as soon as possible," Interfax reported on 20 June, quoting an unnamed Russian Foreign Ministry official.

While the bases-closure agreement has removed one major bone of contention between Moscow and Tbilisi, it has not demolished the coldness and mutual suspicion that have dogged bilateral relations for many years. Indeed, Russian moves since the signing of the withdrawal agreement seem calculated to fuel that suspicion.

First, Russian Defense Minister Ivanov announced on 6 June that within the next 3 1/2 years, Russia will establish two military bases near its border with Georgia to prevent "terrorists" entering Russia from Georgian territory. One of the new bases will be located in Karachaevo-Cherkessia and the second in Daghestan's Botlikh Raion close to the border with Azerbaijan and Georgia. Ivanov said three mountain brigades will be stationed at those bases, together with helicopters, but no tanks or heavy armor.

Then on 10 June, newly appointed North Ossetian President Taymuraz Mamsurov said in an interview with "Novaya gazeta" that he sees no alternative to the "reunification" of his republic and Georgia's unrecognized Republic of South Ossetia, most of the Ossetian population of which already have Russian citizenship. That statement suggests that Moscow may have come to the conclusion that deliberately sabotaging President Mikheiil Saakashvili's proclaimed vow to restore Georgia's territorial integrity may constitute more sophisticated, and more effective leverage in relations with Tbilisi than the Russian military presence ever did.

Copyright (c) 2005. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036. http://www.rferl.org

NATO Striking Fleet Atlantic to Deactivate

Navy NewsStand

Story Number: NNS050623-03
Release Date: 6/23/2005 11:08:00 AM

From Commander, U.S. 2nd Fleet Public Affairs

NORFOLK, Va. (NNS) -- NATO Striking Fleet Atlantic will deactivate in a ceremony to be held on USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) June 24.

For more than 53 years, NATO Striking Fleet Atlantic (CSFL) has called Norfolk, Va., home. As the only sea-based multinational combatant commander, CSFL has resided within the staff of Commander, U.S. 2nd Fleet and has reported directly to the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic, now known as Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, and Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe since 2003.

“The deactivation of NATO Striking Fleet Atlantic closes one important chapter on how the alliance has made a very real and successful difference in the security and stability of its members," said Vice Adm. Mark Fitzgerald, the last Commander of Striking Fleet Atlantic, who also serves as commander, U.S. 2nd Fleet. "It also serves as a new beginning, with the establishment of a Combined Joint Operations from the Sea Center of Excellence here at 2nd Fleet."

Because NATO has transformed and simplified its command structure, it has transitioned its sea-based multinational combatant commander duties to a newly-established headquarters in Lisbon, Portugal. The move allows for a more streamlined NATO Response Force (NRF) of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Special Forces to address today’s security environment and meet threats to security from wherever they may come.

“The many contributions NATO Striking Fleet Atlantic has made in building relationships and redefining interoperability has ultimately provided stability around the globe and are truly most impressive, as NATO continues to transform the vital mission of preparing forces to respond to threats that face our member nations remains paramount," said Marine Gen. James Jones, Supreme Allied Commander and Commander, U.S. European Command. "While we look back at the satisfaction of the peace you’ve earned, we must continue to secure our collective peace in the future."

Since its inception in 1952, CSFL supported and developed a synergistic approach to supporting the multinational expeditionary maritime operations that offer stability throughout the world through its participation in dozens of major combined and joint maritime training and exercise events. In addition, CSFL has worked with multinational and national entities over the last half-century, to provide NATO with expertise and experience to support its maritime strategy resting on the triple pillars of sea control, power projection and oceanic reinforcement around the rim of Europe.

“From the strategic conflict of the Cold War to the global war on terror, Striking Fleet Atlantic has been the starting point for training our forces to defend freedom whenever and wherever it was threatened,” said Adm. Vern Clark, Chief of Naval Operations. “This special command has been critical to ensuring stability and security on the high seas.”

“Striking Fleet Atlantic has played a key role in the success of our Navy. It has been the main force of peace and security and forging maritime ties with our allies," echoed Adm. Edmund Giambastiani, Commander U.S. Joint Forces Command and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Transformation. "By working in a multinational environment, Striking Fleet Atlantic provided NATO with unparalleled expertise and was central to keeping open sea-lanes of communication from the Cold War to the global war on terrorism."

The June 24 ceremony celebrates the accomplishments of CSFL and helps say goodbye to a headquarters command that trained and provided steady leadership over decades of global change. The ceremony is a culmination of service highlighting Striking Fleet Atlantic’s efforts from the Cold War to the global war on terrorism. Guest of honor for the ceremony will be retired Royal Navy Admiral, Sir Ian Garnett, KCB. Garnett is the former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic and former chief of staff for Supreme Allied Command Headquarters, Europe.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/200...mil-050623-nns02.htm

June 25, 2005: Recently, a Royal Thai Navy P-3T arrived in the U.S. for what is likely to be the first radar upgrade of the small Thai P-3 fleet. The US Navy is managing the upgrade. The refit includes replacing the APS-80 radar system – the original P-3A/B radar in use since the 1960s -- with the Sea Vue radar. The Thai Navy is particularly concerned with the considerable advantage the new radar will afford in monitoring small surface targets in and around Thailand’s waters. The P-3T performs maritime surveillance, counter-drug operations, anti-piracy operations, and ferrying of senior personnel.

Sea Vue Radar is based on commercial radars. It provides night vision, as well as weather detection and features a 100-target track-while-scan (TWS) function. It provides far superior performance to the APS-80 with the employment of high-resolution pulse compression, scan-to-scan video integration, and a fast-scanning antenna – all optimized for enhanced detection of small targets in high sea states. The refit was to have been completed in June.

In 1994, Thailand got five P-3As bought from the US – up from three initially ordered in 1989. Four remain flying, with the fifth used for parts. The 1989 date slipped because of financial problems and governmental changes in Thailand. The P-3T is essentially the same as the US Navy’s Tactical Navigation Modification (TACNAVMOD), which was performed on US Navy P-3Bs in the 1980s to upgrade that model to P-3C Update 1 standards with the addition of the ASA-66 tactical display, LTN-72 inertial navigator, Omega Navigation Receiver, and other improvements. Before purchasing P-3s, the RTN had been using the Grumman S-2A/G Tracker. Once they return to Thailand, the P-3Ts will serve along side the Fokker F-27 Maritime Enforcers.

After this first aircraft is upgraded, there is a likelihood that in late CY05 PMA-290 will receive a Letter of Request to have a second RTN aircraft modified. Details about the third aircraft are unknown at this time. It has not yet been determined at what location the second and third aircraft are likely to be modified. The dollar value of the work has not yet been made public. However, a 2002 sale of five Sea Vue radar sets to another ally carried a price tag of $5.7 million.

Pakistan has also been seeking to upgrade its maritime patrol aircraft capabilities. Last fall, Portuguese aircraft refitter OGMA was chosen by Lockheed Martin to refit for service Pakistan’s two P-3C Update II.5 “Orions” (one was lost in an accident), purchased between 1991 and 1996. Last fall, Pakistan was reported ready to buy eight P-3B aircraft from the US through the Foreign Military Sales Program.

In May, 2005, Pakistan placed, instead, an order for eight US Navy surplus P-3C aircraft, six Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems, and at least 60 Harpoon Missiles, worth a total of $1.3 billion. The Pentagon reported the sale of the aircraft and equipment to Congress which was expected to approve it quickly.

Pakistan publicly noted that the new Orions will be used not only for maritime air patrol but for their command-and-control capabilities in controlling its littorals and coasts. While the aircraft will be from the US’ P-3C inventory, as part of the deal, they will be upgraded to US AIP and BMUP standards. The P-3C Update III Anti SUrface Warfare Improvement Program (AIP) provides the following: the IR Maverick Missile; AN/AAS-36A Infrared Detecting Set [IRDS]; AN/AVX-1 Electro-Optical Sensor System [EOSS]; AN/APS-137B(V)5 SAR/ISAR Radar; EP-2060 Pulse Analyzer/ AN/ALR-66C(V)3 set; Color High Resolution Displays [CHRD]; Over-the-Horizon Airborne Sensor Information System [OASIS] III; OZ-72(V) Multi-Mission Advanced Tactical Terminal [MATT] system; AN/USC-42(V)3 Miniaturized Demand Assigned Multiple Access [Mini-DAMA]; AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning System [MWS]; AN/ALE-47 Countermeasures Dispensing System [CMDS]; and AN/ALR-66C(V)3 Electronic Support Measures Set. The BMUP mod includes a data processing subsystem based on the CP-2451/ASQ-227 digital computer and an acoustic subsystem based on the USQ-78B display and control unit, plus the capability to carry the Standoff Land Attack Missile - Expanded Response.

While Pakistan’s reason for buying the P-3C vs. the P-3B was not made public, the fact that Pakistan already has several P-3Cs that will be upgraded to the same standard makes the decision understandable. The aircraft will be drawn from excess US Navy assets. Approximately 140 P-3Cs have been prematurely retired by the US in the past two years as the result of both wear-and-tear and in an attempt to save money while the P-8A Multimission Maritime Aircraft is developed for introduction to the US fleet in 2012-2014. The new P-3C aircraft will be paid for in part through US military assistance for Pakistan as part of the war on international terrorism and the total cost for the eight airplanes plus upgrades is initially estimated to be $970 million. The upgrades will be done through depot level maintenance overhaul and mission systems upgrades in the US and Pakistan, although the locations have yet to be determined. The contract is expected to be signed by the end of 2005 and the aircraft will be completed and delivered to Pakistan between 2006 and 2009. As previously noted, Pakistan’s two existing P-3Cs will also be upgraded to the same standards. Dollar value for their upgrade was previously estimated at $9.8 million, not including unspecified spare parts. – K.B. Sherman

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTNAVAI.HTM

June 27, 2005: The United Kingdom is one of the primary military powers in the world, and the oldest by a significant margin. Since the 16th century reign of Queen Elizabeth I, the United Kingdom (of which England, which Elizabeth ruled, is a part), has been a major player in the world. This is a longer run than any of the other major powers in the world today. This is a country with a long tradition of being a player on the world stage, and it will probably remain that way for the foreseeable future.

The major component of the United Kingdom’s claim to being a world power is the Royal Navy. This is arguably the best navy sailor-for-sailor in the world. Currently, the Royal Navy has three small carriers (the Invincible-class) that carry Harriers and helicopters. These will be replaced by two large (50,000-ton) carriers (Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales) that will carry the V/STOL version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Royal Navy’s surface warships are also solid vessels. The Royal Navy currently has nine of the Type 42 destroyers in active service, with three in reserve. Two of these vessels (Sheffield and Coventry) were lost in the Falklands War. The Royal Navy also has twenty frigates in service, the four Type 22 Batch 3 frigates (the Cornwall subclass) and sixteen Type 23s (the Norfolk-class). The Royal Navy is also bringing a new type of destroyer online, the Type 45 (Daring-class). The plan is to acquire eight of these ships (down from twelve), which will be equipped with the ASTER 30 area-defense missile. The Royal Navy’s submarine force consists of four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines, each with 16 Trident missiles, five Swiftsure-class submarines (the class leader, Swiftsure, was decommissioned), and seven Trafalgar-class submarines. The Swiftsure-class submarines are to be replaced by the Astute-class submarines.

The Royal Air Force is one of the most powerful in the world, with very good pilots and a large force of combat aircraft. Among these are about 80 Harrier GR.7 (which will be upgraded to GR.9 standard), 142 Tornado GR.4, about 130 Tornado F.3, and about 70 Jaguars. The Jaguars and Tornado F.3s are slated to be replaced by the Eurofighter Typhoon. The RAF is also going to buy the V/STOL version of the Joint Strike Fighter. This air force also has a large variety of support aircraft, most notably the Sentry AEW.1, the Airbus A400M tanker, and the Nimrod MR.4.

The British Army is a small force, when compared to the United States Army. However, they are well-trained. The Army has two deployable divisions (the 1st and 3rd) with six brigades total. The British Army has 380 Challenger 2 main battle tanks, 575 Warrior infantry fighting vehicles, and a number of other vehicles as well, most notably the Combat Reconnaissance Vehicle (Tracked) family, which includes the Scorpion light tank, the Scimitar (which is armed with a 30mm Rarden cannon) and the Striker and anti-tank missile carrier.

The United Kingdom also has some of the best special operations forces in the world. The Special Air Service has pulled off a number of successful ops, one of the most famous being the successful recapturing of the Iranian embassy in 1980. Other famous operations including missions against Iraqi Scuds in Desert Storm. While some things are known about the SAS, the British government makes every effort to maintain secrecy – those who are killed are often listed with their parent units as opposed to the SAS.

The United Kingdom is a force to be reckoned with. Perhaps the only power assured of beating it in a straight-up war is the United States, and those two countries happen to be allies. The United Kingdom has pulled off a number of impressive operations (the best-known, and most impressive being the liberation of the Falkland Islands in 1982). They also keep small units in Belize and Brunei, who have had territorial disputes with larger neighbors – who have wisely decided to avoid a potential confrontation with the United Kingdom. – Harold C. Hutchison (hchutch@ix.netcom.com)

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htworld.htm

Cubsrock,

Your 'Russian Military Meltdown' is most interesting, could you direct me to a source please?

Also, do you have a similar analysis of the Chinese (PRC) Armed forces?

John39

John,

The Russian military article was from strategypage.com, I'll try to find the link to it but it may take me a few days. If your interested in learning about China's military, sinodefence.com, globalsecurity.org, & strategypage.com are all good sources as is the China Military Updates thread in the U.S.-China forum.

John,

The article about Russia's military is in one of these two topic areas at strategypage.com, I'm not really sure what article you were referring to.

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/qndguide/default.asp?target=RUSSIA.HTM

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=htworld.htm

June 29, 2005: The most significant damage done to the U.S. Navy since World War II, occurred during the 1980s, when Soviet intelligence efforts developed two well placed agents in the U.S. Navy (John Walker and Jerry Whitworth). This spy operation revealed to the Russians how noisy (and easy to detect) their subs were, and what needed to be done to make them quieter. In two decades of effort, the Russians have made their subs so quiet that they can only be detected a few kilometers away by American sensors. In the 1980s, American subs could usually spot their Russian counterparts hundreds of kilometers away. Russia is now selling this “quieting” technology to China.

In the last decade, the U.S. Navy has had ample examples of how vulnerable American ships are to modern diesel-electric subs. In that time, French Daphné class, German Type 209, and British Collins class (used by South Africa, Chile and Australia, respectively) have all gotten close enough to American carriers to hit them with simulated torpedo attacks. Russian and Chinese subs now have the technology to build subs just as quiet. During the 1982 Falklands war, a German built Type 209 Argentinean sub evaded a month of British efforts to find and sink it.

There are some 40 countries that have a combined force of over 300 diesel-electric subs. Most of these countries are either American allies, or are using older, noisier, type subs. But countries like North Korea, China and Iran are all benefiting from the Russian quieting breakthroughs of the last two decades. The U.S. navy got complacent about subs over the last half century. Russian subs were not only noisy, they were also manned by poorly trained crews. Russian nuclear subs were particularly noisy and easy to find. American ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) efforts were rarely challenged.

The U.S. Navy has not developed an effective ASW force since World War II. Lots of attempts since then, but nothing that really worked. This does not count the cooperative Russians, who built noisy boats that we could track. But all through that period we knew that the quieter diesel-electric boats of our allies were very difficult to track. Fortunately, the Cold War ended just as the Russians figured out how to make quiet subs. The Russians still have problems with poorly trained crews, but the Chinese are trying to solve that one. The Chinese sub force could thus be an ugly “surprise” in any future war. Quiet Chinese boats (like the new Russian Foxtrots they are receiving), and well trained crews, can easily be the end of American carrier aviation.

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTSUB.HTM

(note: I think that strategypage has confused the Foxtrot & Kilo diesel-electric classes, to my knowledge China hasn't purchased any Foxtrots)

"In that time, French Daphné class, German Type 209, and British Collins class (used by South Africa, Chile and Australia, respectively) have all gotten close enough to American carriers to hit them with simulated torpedo attacks."


Your correspondednt at StrategyPage is on the wrong tram.

The 'Collins' is an Australian sub, based on a Swedish design greatly enlarged and improved. The word 'improved" is misleading in that they have had MANY problems only just now being rectified at GREAT cost.
Nevertheless HMAS 'Collins' did manage to repeat an old RAN 'Oberon' class subs feat in getting within torpedo range of a USN Carrier.

No other country operates the 'Collins', though serious suggestions have been made that the USN would buy 8 of them and pass them on to Taiwan.

Canada has been suggested also as a replacement for their British rust-buckets.

Your posts are most informative, and your links appreciated.


John39

There are also rumors in the Submariners forum that the U.S. is looking to buy a few diesel-electrics or AIP subs for its own fleet.