Petraeus As Romney's VP?

     Needless, to say this would the curve ball to end all curve balls. David Petraeus has stated he has no political ambitions, but in light of what Sparky has done to the country he might just come back and run as VP if Romney asks him. That said, Jay Carney stated this morning that Sparky never said anything about Romney wanting Petraeus to be his VP, but Carney has lied before, so take it with a few kilos of salt. I must also add that Petraeus's views on domestic and foreign policy are unknown. Read the article from The Drudge Report:

President Obama whispered to a top fundraiser this week that he believes GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney wants to name Gen. David Petraeus to the VP slot!

"The president wasn't joking," the insider explains to the DRUDGE REPORT.

A Petraeus drama has been quietly building behind the scenes.

Romney is believed to have secretly met with the four-star general in New Hampshire.

The pick could be a shrewd Romney choice. A cross-party pull. The Obama administration hailed Petraeus as one of history's greatest military strategists. Petraeus was unanimously confirmed as the Director of the CIA by the US Senate 94-0.

But Petraeus has categorically asserted that he has NO political ambitions. And Team Obama stands prepared to tie one of their own to "Bush wars." A Petraeus pick could been seen as simply shuffling the decks of power in DC.

"He's a serious man, for seriously dangerous times," notes a top Republican.

A DRUDGE POLL on Tuesday morning showed readers split on if Romney should give it a go.

And the calendar is running out of days.

Developing... 

SecDHS Admits Terrorists Are Crossing The Border "From Time To Time"

     From CNS News:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told Congress last week that terrorists intending to harm the American people enter the U.S. from Mexico “from time to time."

At a July 25 hearing of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Ron Barber (D-Ariz.) asked Napolitano: “As you know, Madam Secretary, there have been anecdotal reports about material evidence of the presence of terrorists along our southern border. My question is, is there any credible evidence that these reports are accurate and that terrorists are, in fact, crossing our southern border with the intent to do harm to the American people?”

Napolitano answered: “With respect, there have been--and the Ababziar matter would be one I would refer to that's currently being adjudicated in the criminal courts--from time to time, and we are constantly working against different and evolving threats involving various terrorist groups and various ways they may seek to enter the country.”

“What I can tell you, however, is that that southern border--the U.S.-Mexico border--is heavily, heavily staffed at record amounts of manpower, materiel, infrastructure and the like, and we are constantly making sure we're doing all we can to make that border as safe as possible,” she said.

     Here is video of the hearing:

     Not surprising, in 2005 2 Iraqis were caught attempting to smuggle weapons to Al-Qaeda, and if you know where to look there are often reports of Arabs crossing the border. For the the last 50 year the U.S. southern (and northern) border have become like swiss cheese, with hundreds of thousands of illegals crossing yearly. Nothing has been done about this because most illegals tend to vote Dem, and why would a politician alienate their voters? But one of these days our lax immigration policy will come back and bite us in the butt.

Photo Credit: Dan Sorensen

Does Taiwan NEED The M1 Abrams

     From Defense News:

TAIPEI — Debate over the practicality of procuring more main battle tanks (MBTs) for Taiwan has intensified since the Ministry of National Defense confirmed last week it was negotiating with the U.S. for surplus M1A1 Abrams MBTs left over from the Iraq War.

The announcement renewed debate over the need for a heavy MBT, said a Defense Ministry source, “but they are cheap and available now.” The deal would include refurbishment, but not an upgrade, he said. In 2011, Vice Defense Minister Chao Shih-chang was quoted by the local media saying the Army needed 200 new MBTs.

Since the 1996 Taiwan Strait missile crisis, Taiwan has focused on improving air-sea battle capabilities, and the Army has watched its grip on power and influence slip since the end of the Cold War. The Army maintained a large invasion force to retake mainland China during the Cold War.

Local defense analysts argue there are other pragmatic reasons for not procuring bigger and heavier MBTs. The island is composed of rugged interior mountains notorious for landslides. The coasts are either rice paddies, fish farms or are urbanized. Coupled with narrow roadways and anemic bridges, the island seems an unlikely home for a 60-ton tank 12 feet wide.

“The bridge piece of it is a real key, since you only have one shot to get a 60-ton tank across a 35-ton bridge, and then you have no bridge,” a U.S. defense analyst said. The M1A1 limits the choice of routes, but so does the “speed aspect,” he said.

“It is different than planning a route march by M60 [tanks], since the M113 [infantry carriers] cannot keep up with the M1A1s if going 40 mph,” he said. “It is one of those items that causes a revolution in military thought in planning, because you get a capability that is a generation above what you have.”

Also, Taiwan’s MBTs use a locally manufactured 105mm round, not the 120mm round used by the M1A1. Having a standard round for all MBTs is cost-efficient, said a former U.S. military officer who served at the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), the de facto U.S. Embassy here.

     These so-called "local defense analysts" make good points about Taiwan's terrain, infrastucture and the M1's main gun. However, terrain while a concern, is not a major factor as the sheer presence of a few M1A1s will give the Chinese a little something extra to think about. As to small bridges, build new bridges. And the idea that the M1 should not be purchased because of it's main gun, is ludicrous. The M1 Abrams was originally designed to shoot the 105mm round, and could be modified to do so again. 
      In other words, yes Taiwan needs the M1 Abrams

iPhone Sized Handgun

     Obviously a last line of defense, but it might be a good weapon for a woman looking to conceal carry due to it's size.

Heizer Defense - Double Tap

• Titanium Frame with a MIL-STD finish that resists corrosion

• Two rounds in the chamber and integral grips house an additional two spare rounds
• Ported barrel reduces muzzle flip and recoil
• Slim, no-snag hammerless design for easy pocket carry
• Thumb latch auto ejects spent rounds
• 7 Patents pending including double-action trigger system
• 1911 Ergonomics and loaded rounds are visible
• Quick change - interchangable barrels

DoubleTap™ Specifications*: Caliber: Weight: Width: Length: Height: Barrel: Frame: .45 ACP, 9MM 14 oz Titanium (empty) 12 oz Aluminum (empty) .665 inches 5.5 inches 3.9 inches 3.0 inches Titanium or Aluminum Hat tip to Doug Ross @ Journal for spotting this.

The Air Force's New Bunker Buster Is Operational

    From Defense News:

The Air Force’s 30,000-pound behemoth bunker buster is ready to be used if needed, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley said Wednesday.

The Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, is designed to destroy deeply buried bunkers that protect chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, but Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told the Wall Street Journal earlier this year that the bomb needed more development to be able to take out Iranian bunkers.

Since then, Syria has disintegrated into full civil war, making the U.S. government worried about the Syrian regime’s stockpile of chemical weapons.

“The Syrian regime needs to protect these weapons,” Defense Department spokesman George Little said Tuesday. “And I think I’ve been very clear, as have others in the U.S. government, that it would be unacceptable not to secure them.”

After speaking at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington on Wednesday, Donley was asked if the MOP was available to be used. He was not asked where it might be used.

“If it needed to go today, we would be ready to do that,” he said. “We continue to do testing on the bomb to refine its capabilities, and that is ongoing. We also have the capability to go with existing configuration today.”

    This is not about Syria, or their chemical weapons. This is a message to the Iranians that their nuclear facilities are within our reach. Now, watch as Iran digs deeper bunkers for the nuclear facilities.

Photo Credit: USAF 

Kuwait Buys 60 Patriot PAC-3 ABM Missiles

     From Defense News:

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon said Wednesday it planned to sell 60 Patriot missiles to Kuwait in a deal worth an estimated $4.2 billion, as the emirate tries to bolster its defenses against the threat from Iran.

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), which is in charge of U.S. weapon sales to foreign countries, notified the Congress of the intended sale on July 20, the agency said in a statement on its website.

Congress has 30 days to raise any objections it may have. If nothing is said, the contract is deemed valid after that waiting period.

The deal involves the sale of 60 Patriot advanced capability (PAC-3) missiles, 20 launching stations, four radar systems and control stations, personnel training and training equipment, and spare parts, the DSCA said.

“Kuwait will use the PAC-3 missiles and equipment to improve its missile defense capability, strengthen its homeland defense, and deter regional threats,” the agency said.

     Nothing like the threat of ballistic missiles from Iran to light a fire under a country's leadership. Though, I think THAAD would be a better choice from missile defense.

China Wants Okinawa

From the Washington Post:

BEIJING — For many observers, rising friction between China and Japan over a group of remote and uninhabited islands in the East China Sea is worrying enough.

But if some influential Chinese nationalist commentators have their way, the spat over the Japanese-controlled Senkaku islands — which Beijing calls the Diaoyu — could widen into a dispute over a much more important archipelago.

In a fiery editorial this month, the Global Times newspaper urged Beijing to consider challenging Japan’s control over its southern prefecture of Okinawa, an island chain with a population of 1.4 million people that bristles with U.S. military bases.

“China should not be afraid of engaging with Japan in a mutual undermining of territorial integrity,” the Communist Party-run paper declared.

Maj. Gen. Jin Yinan, head of the strategy research institute at China’s National Defense University, went even further. He told state-run radio that limiting discussion to the Diaoyu was “too narrow,” saying Beijing should question ownership of the whole Ryukyu archipelago, which by some definitions extends beyond Okinawa.

     Not. Gonna. Happen. The Japanese consider Okinawa as one of the Home Islands, which is one reason why they fought so viciously there in 1945. China has already ticked the Japanese off with their dispute over the Senkaku Islands, and this will just make things worse. However, China is unlikely to ever do anything about Okinawa militarily, as that would start a war with Japan, and eventually the U.S.. Right now this appears to be just a bit of political posturing for the people on the Chinese part. Not to mention that the movement to get U.S. soldiers off of Okinawa will probably fade because of this.

Photo Credit: Wikipedia

Taiwan Wants Used M1 Abrams

     From Defense News:

TAIPEI — Taiwan is considering purchasing tanks used by the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan to update its aging fleet, the defense ministry and media said July 23.

Taiwan remains wary of China despite a recent improvement in relations, and military experts say the self-ruled island would deploy tanks in the event of a land invasion by its powerful neighbor.

The M1 Abrams, which entered U.S. service in 1980 and replaced M60s, are a third-generation main battle tank and would bolster Taiwan’s fleet of about 1,200 tanks, mostly M60s and M48s.

Read the rest here.

This is interesting because it comes soon after Red China announced plans to establish a garrison in the Paracel Islands in the South China Sea. And this is an extension of the ongoing arms race in the region as most countries with coasts on the South China Sea are gearing up for a war with China over the natural resources in the region. However, Taiwan will probably not get the tanks as the current administration is extremely hostile to them.


Photo Credit: USMC

LockMart & Taiwan Ink Deal To Update Taiwan's F-16s

     From Aviation Week:

Taiwan’s state-owned aerospace company and Lockheed Martin on July 12 said they had signed a memorandum of understanding to cooperate on upgrades of Taiwan’s 145 F-16 A/B fighter jets once Washington and Taipei finalize the deal.

Today a source familiar with the matter confirmed that the U.S. government and Taiwan signed a letter of acceptance on a $3.7 billion deal to upgrade 145 F-16 fighter jets.

Lockheed officials also confirmed the news, which was announced in Taipei by Taiwan’s Aerospace Industrial Development Corp., a state-owned aerospace company, although the memorandum was signed at the Farnborough International Airshow on Wednesday.

The memorandum confirmed the AIDC’s “determination to work with Lockheed Martin” to meet the requirements of Taiwan’s Air Force on upgrading its aging F-16A/B fleet.

Under the memorandum, Lockheed will work with the Taiwanese company “on F-16 retrofit modifications, F-16 component parts manufacture and other potential offset projects.”

The memorandum comes when Taiwan and the United States are close to finalizing a deal to upgrade Taiwan’s 145 F-16A/B jet fighters at a cost of up to $5.3 billion.

A letter of acceptance on the larger weapons deal could be signed within weeks, said a source familiar with the matter.

The Obama administration approved the F-16 upgrades for Taiwan last September, upsetting China, but details of the actual government-to-government weapons sale are still being finalized.

Obama administration officials say the upgrade would give the planes essentially the same capabilities as new late-model F-16 C/Ds that Taiwan had sought to deter any attack.

China opposes U.S. arms sales to Taiwan on the grounds that they sabotage Beijing’s plans for reunification. China deems Taiwan a renegade province and has never renounced the use of force to bring the island under its control.

U.S. lawmakers sympathetic to Taiwan are pushing for Washington sell 66 new F-16s to Taiwan, in addition to the upgrades.

     About time. Though, I do wish Sen. Cornyn would increase the pressure on the Dear Leader to sell those new F-16s to Taiwan.

Photo Credit: USAF  

Happy Independence Day Y'all

     Today 236 years ago, 57 delegates signed the Declaration of Independence which gave the 13 states independence from Britain, and gave future generations a chance at something great.

Have a good Independence Day y'all.

China Starting "Combat ready" Patrols In South China Sea

    From Aviation Week:

China has begun combat-ready patrols in the waters around a disputed group of islands in the South China Sea, the Defence Ministry said on Thursday, the latest escalation in tensions over the potentially resource-rich area.

Asked about what China would do in response to Vietnamese air patrols over the Spratly Islands, the ministry’s spokesman Geng Yansheng said Beijing would “resolutely oppose any militarily provocative behavior”.

“In order to protect national sovereignty and our security and development interests, the Chinese military has already set up a normal, combat-ready patrol system in seas under our control,” he said.

“The Chinese military’s resolve and will to defend territorial sovereignty and protect our maritime rights and interests is firm and unshakeable,” Geng added, according to a transcript posted on the ministry’s website (www.mod.gov.cn).

     I've posted before about the situation in the South China Sea, but this is the first that has come out about China beginning "combat ready" patrols in the area. One question I have is what does "combat ready" mean?

China has had warships in the South China Sea regularly for decades, so does "combat ready" imply that they will be arming commercial vessels to protect their claims in the area? 

Photo Credit: NavWeaps

Not News: Norks HATE Americans

    From the Military Times:

PYONGYANG, North Korea — A framed poster on the wall of a kindergarten classroom shows bright-eyed children brandishing rifles and bayonets as they attack a hapless American soldier, his face bandaged and blood spurting from his mouth.

“We love playing military games knocking down the American bastards,” reads the slogan printed across the top. Another poster depicts an American with a noose around his neck. “Let’s wipe out the U.S. imperialists,” it instructs.

For North Koreans, the systematic indoctrination of anti-Americanism starts as early as kindergarten and is as much a part of the curriculum as learning to count.

Toy pistols, rifles and tanks sit lined up in neat rows on shelves. The school principal pulls out a dummy of an American soldier with a beaked nose and straw-colored hair and explains that the students beat him with batons or pelt him with stones — a favorite schoolyard game, she says.

For a moment, she is sheepish as she takes three journalists from The Associated Press, including an American, past the anti-U.S. posters. But Yun Song Sil is not shy about the message.

“Our children learn from an early age about the American bastards,” she says, tossing off a phrase so common here that it is considered an acceptable way to refer to Americans.

North Korean students learn that their country has had two main enemies: the Japanese, who colonized Korea from 1910 to 1945, and the U.S., which fought against North Korea during the 1950-53 Korean War.

They are told that North Korea’s defense against outside forces — particularly the U.S., which has more than 28,000 soldiers stationed in South Korea — remains the backbone of the country’s foreign policy.

And they are bred to seek revenge, even as their government professes to want peace with the United States.

“They tell their people there can be no reconciliation with the United States,” says American scholar Brian Myers, who dissected North Korean propaganda in his 2010 book “The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters.” “They make it very clear to the masses that this hate will last forever.”

      "War is the remedy our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want."

       - General William T. Sherman

     Enough said.

Photo Credit: Associated Press 

Philippines To Purchase 12 Fighters From S. Korea

     From ABS-CBN News:

MANILA, Philippines – The Philippine Air Force (PAF) said they will be acquiring fighter jets in the next two years.

Twelve surface attack aircraft lead-in fighters or TA-50s from South Korea are expected to be delivered by 2013.

Each jet costs P1.25 billion for a total of P25 billion for the dozen jets.

The TA-50 is a supersonic aircraft that requires more experienced pilots.

Authorities said bulk of the P70 billion allocated for the modernization of the Armed Forces under the Aquino administration will go to the Air Force.

“Dati hindi natin pinapansin ang territorial defense dahil wala nga tayong capability gaya ngayon. ‘Yung  bangka ‘yung atin, ‘yung kalaban natin napakalaking platform. Ngayon, tumaas ang rating ng problema natin sa territorial defense. Hindi pala natin pwedeng isantabi,” said Defense Sec. Voltaire Gazmin.

    (Here is a translation from Google Translator, it's not the best but it gets the point across.)

The Air Force currently has two trainer jets, which are now nearly 25 years old.

The S-211s were originally meant for training purposes but the military was forced to use them in actual operations.

The PAF admits that this is the current image of the air power of the Philippines, which has been left behind by its neighbors.

The country's lone fighter jet, an F-5, was sidelined in 2005 and has yet to be replaced.

     The President of the Philippines discussed this on a radio show in May, but at the time I derided it as political posturing. Looks like he was serious about that. What I don't understand is why they chose the TA-50, as it is the attack model of the T-50 trainer. And as such doesn't have an good air-to-air combat capability like the F-16s they wanted. Still, it is better than nothing. 

Hat tip to Pacific Sentinel for spotting this.

Photo Credit: Sergey Ryabtsev

Russian Ship Allegedly carrying Mi-25s To Syria Turns Back

     From The Telegraph:

The British marine insurer Standard Club said it had withdrawn cover from all the ships owned by Femco, a Russian cargo line, including the MV Alaed.

"We were made aware of the allegations that the Alaed was carrying munitions destined for Syria," the company said in a statement. "We have already informed the ship owner that their insurance cover ceased automatically in view of the nature of the voyage."

British security officials confirmed they had told Standard Club that providing insurance to the shipment was likely to be a breach of European Union sanctions against the Syrian regime.

They said they were continuing to monitor the ship, which has been the subject of a fierce international row since US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week revealed it was adding to the arsenal of weaponry available for Mr Assad to use against rebellious Syrian towns.

"We have various ways of keeping track of this ship and that is what we are doing," a source told The Daily Telegraph.

The MV Alaed picked up its cargo of Mi25 helicopters – known as "flying tanks" – from the Russian port of Kaliningrad, where they had been sent to the state-owned manufacturer Mil's "Factory 150" for servicing and repairs.

They were originally sold to the Syrian government by Moscow, its major arms supplier, at the end of the Soviet era.

The ship headed south through the North Sea towards the English Channel on its way to the Mediterranean and, most likely, the Syrian port of Tartous, also home to a Russian naval base.

But under sanctions announced last year, the EU has banned not only exporting arms to Syria but also providing related services such as insurance.

As first revealed by The Sunday Telegraph at the weekend, the US notified the UK government that the insurance was British last week.

As it neared the Dutch coast, the authorities there also hailed the ship, the security sources said, and it made an abrupt turn, heading towards Scotland. It was last night now off the coast of the Hebrides but with no insurance covering the ship security sources say it may now have to return to port.

In their attempts to bombard rebel towns into submission, Assad regime forces have increasingly brought up helicopters, strafing the towns of Haffa and Rastan last week.


     This coming after the announcement of 2 amphibs being sent to Syria would indicate Russia is taking a more active role in supporting Assad. Robert Beckhusen over at the Danger Room theorizes that this could be a sign of increasing U.S.-Russian cooperation over Syria. 
     However, it's my belief that the MV Alaed turned back because Russia does not want to risk international humiliation when it is found they are actively supporting Syria. Back in March there was a rumor, that Russia had sent a unit of "anti-terrorist marines" to Syria. While this was nothing more than a rumor, if true could indicate that Russia is actively fighting on behalf of Assad. I mentioned yesterday that Syria owes Russia 6 billion dollars for arms purchased, and Putin will not allow Assad to fall until Russia is paid. 
    Either way this is a developing situation that we should watch closely, as if the United States enters the civil war, the crap will hit the fan in the Mid-East.

Giving Back Diego Garcia: Are You Out Of Your Bloody Mind?

     Aol Defense reports that the U.S. is in negoitations with the U.K. and Mauritius concerning returning Diego Garcia to the natives. Diego Garcia is home to a naval support facility, which includes 9 pre-positioned supply ships, along with numerous satellite monitoring and communication facilities. Read the article here:

During an era when the Pentagon has declared a pivot from Europe and the Atlantic to Asia and the Pacific, the prospect of handing over so many installations located in such a strategic spot -- or having them more accessible to a foreign government such as Mauritius -- must worry Pentagon officials.


So we asked a senior Pentagon official. Here's what he said: "Without commenting on discussions between other countries, the US military is the most flexible and agile in the world. We're nimble enough to deal with any scenario, especially as we move toward a rotational posture in much of the Asia-Pacific region. Of course, it's always preferable to have more options than fewer."

So one gets the impression the risk isn't considered very great, at least not yet.

But a change in status must have some implications, especially for operational security.

Under its current status as a British possession ceded to the United States, operational security is excellent for the simple reason that almost no one lives on the island unless they work for the U.S., Britain or an allied government. And the island is distant from almost anywhere else. Mauritius, at least publicly, says it wants the people who lived on the island to be able to return, something the British government has argued would not be feasible for security reasons, and because there really isn't much of an economy. A coconut plantation that was the island's mainstay has fallen largely to ruin.

Here's what the British Guardian newspaper, which has covered Diego Garcia much more closely and critically than most publications, said today about the talks:

"After meeting David Cameron in Downing Street, the Mauritian prime minister, Navinchandra Ramgoolam, told the Guardian that the aim of talks with the UK and US was to reassert Mauritian sovereignty over the islands."

"If Mauritius achieves its longstanding aim – supported, it says, in international law – it will mean the end of the British Indian Ocean territory. The territory was established in 1965 when Britain expelled the islanders and allowed the US to set up a large base in a deal that included cutting the cost of Polaris missiles for the UK's nuclear submarines."

It is not clear that the bases would have to be ceded to Mauritius or be closed. In fact, the Guardian said that Ramgoolam is coming here soon and is "likely to reassure the US that its base would remain on the island under Mauritian sovereignty." Whether the U.S. and its allies would have the same unfettered access and, perhaps most important, control of the island remains unanswered.

     The problem with giving Diego Garcia back to the natives is th fact that there are no real natives, or rather "islanders". The only islanders to inhabit Diego Garcia outside of stranded mariners, were marooned lepers, and the slaves (and their descendants) of a coconut plantation formerly located on the island. From 1968 to 1973 the "natives", were relocated to Mauritius, the Seychelles so as to make way for the U.S. Navy. Another problem is the fact that the U.K. purchased Diego Garcia and the rest of the Chagos archipelago for 3 million pounds from Mauritius.

     That only covers the political/social issues with giving back Diego Garcia. If the U.S. were to give up it's military facilities on Diego Garcia, we would lose an invaluable base with access to the Indian Ocean, and the Arabian Gulf, through which 17% of the U.S.'s, and most Asia's oil flows. Currently, the Navy has 9 pre-positioned ships in the anchorage at Diego Garcia, with enough supplies to supply a marine air-ground task force for 30 days, and also a base from which all types of U.S. fighters and bombers can operate from. In fact aircraft operating from Diego Garcia have provided air support for Operations Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, and Enduring Freedom.    

     To give up Diego Garcia because of a bunch of political rhetoric, would be a military disaster as we would lose the ability to deploy aircraft from the island, and an anchorage capable of handling anything in the U.S. Navy. Unfortunately, with the current president, it just might happen. God help us if it does.

Photo Credit: USAF

Bill Whittle Nails It

Video Credit: Bill Whittle

Manila Wants Fighters, Just Not U.S. Fighters

     Defense News reports that Manila, due to high maintenance costs, may forgo procuring surplus U.S. F-16s and purchase from another country. This comes as tensions continue to escalate with China over the Spratley Islands and the South China Sea.

     Currently, the Philippines have no air-superiority fighters that can go up against China and win. Manila retired their last F-5 in 2005, effectively leaving the country without an air defense capability. With China rapidly modernizing their Navy and Air Force, Manila has asked the U.S. for 1 to 2 squadrons of surplus F-16s. However, President Benigno Aquino stated May 16th, "We might end up spending $400 million to $800 million per squadron, and we were thinking of getting two squadrons.... We do have an alternative, and - this is a surprise - it seems we have the capacity to buy brand new, but not from America.... These are manufactured by another progressive country that I won't name at this point." This "progressive" country President Aquino mentions, would probably be South Korea, as the Philippines have  looked into purchasing 6 TA-50s to replace several of their retired F-5s. 

      However, if you reread the quote from President Aquino it seems to be making angry noises for the press rather than actually considering a purchase of non-U.S. fighters. The Philippines will get their F-16s one way or another, because the F-16 is the only fighter that they can afford that can win against the Chinese. The TA-50 on other hand is a trainer with a small attack capability, and is not purpose built for air-to-air combat.

      Still, stranger things have happened if the Philippines purchased fighters from a country besides the U.S.. As the summer approaches it will interesting to see how things play out in South China Sea, and the Philippines.

Israeli "Jedi Rides" Monitoring Iran's Nuclear Program

     Business Insider has an interesting op-ed claiming that Israel is operating stealth Black Hawks  out of Kurdistan to monitor Iran's nuke program. The op-ed was written by Michael Maloof, a former analyst for the SecDef.
      Among the many claims, the statement that Israel has stealth Black Hawks (also known as "Jedi Rides") stands out. In 2010 when SEAL 6 killed Osama Bin Laden, they used modified Black Hawks for insertion and extraction. The modified Black Hawks, among other changes, had a fuselage modified for a lower radar signature. To date only the U.S. is known to have any sort of stealth chopper, and with the Israelis reported to have them, it would open up all sorts of targets that were previously too well defended.
       The one other claim that stood out, was the claim that the Israelis are deploying 12-man teams into Northern Iran to investigate Iran's nuclear program. It is a widely known fact that the Israelis are extremely interested in Iran's nuclear program, and have probably had a hand in the assassinations of several of Iran's top nuclear scientists. However, this is the first claim that the Israelis are actively deploying spec ops people in Iran. The article claims that they are gathering intel to take before the U.N. to convince them that the Iranians are developing nuclear weapons. However, when you put boots on the ground in  hostile country, there are a number of other missions that could be undertaken, such as guiding a laser-guided bomb to it's target, assassinating high-level government officials, or even actively sabotaging military activities.
         As the summer rolls on, it will a good possibility that Israel will strike Iran, as they now a coalition government, which covers Netanyahu's political flank. If the Israelis do strike Iran, keep your powder dry because the crap will hit the fan.

Photo Credit: DefenseTech

A Strategy For The 21st Century, Part 7: The Navy

     The Navy. This service among all 5 is probably the most important not only from a war fighting point of view, but in terms of foreign policy. However, the Navy has made a number of grave errors in recent history which must be fixed.

     1. Cancel the Littoral Combat Ship. Between 2004 and 2011, the Navy ran a contest between General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin for a contract to develop the Littoral Combat Ship. Basically, the LCS is meant to get in the shallows and chase down pirates and other hostiles, hunt mines, and hunt subs. In 2011 the Navy asked Congress purchase both designs, this has since been approved. The price for a single LCS is about 450 million dollars. The LCS also uses "modules" for specialized tasks like ASW, whcih can switched out for other modules to handle other tasks. However, as of 2011 not one of the "modules" supposed to be used in the LCS has become operational. At the same time the missile meant to be used by the LCS, the XM501 has been canceled, which takes away a good deal of the LCS's firepower. At the same time Huntington Ingalls has produced a frigate design based of the Coast Guard's National Security Cutter, called  "Patrol Frigate 4921". This design offers several advantages over the LCS, better handling in heavy seas, longer range, slightly heavier armor (armor does matter in the littorals), greater firepower. All that is required is upgrading the radar and electronics to Naval standards, upgunning the 57mm cannon to a 76.2mm or a 127mm gun, adding several 25mm chain guns for close in fighting, and the addition of a towed sonar array.                                       

     2. Cancel the Zumwalts. Another Navy boondoggle is the Zumwalt-class of destroyers. The Zumwalt-class have an emphasis on land attack, while at the same time handling the duties of a regular destroyer. Originally, there were supposed to be 32 Zumwalts, as of 2012 there will only be 3 Zumwalts built. On top of this the Navy has stated that they no longer want the Zumwalts, and they would rather have more Arleigh Burkes. Also, in this instance quantity over quality should be the mantra, because destroyers are exponentially more valuable. Thus, the loss of one not as capable destroyer of which there are many, would not be felt as much as the loss of an extremely capable destroyer of which there are few. The cost of a single Zumwalt is 3 billion dollars, at the same time 5 Arleigh Burkes can be purchased for the same amount. There are also concerns that even though the Zumwalt is equipped for the land attack role, it will be unable to fufill it's duties as it pertains to naval fire support. In this instance the solution would be simply to purchase more Arleigh Burkes rather than the Zumwalt-class.

     4. During the Cold War the U.S. was the best in the world at anti-submarine warfare (ASW), and had the best sub force in the world. However, since the  so-called "Peace Dividend"  sub force hgas dropped from 93 SSNs and 33 SSBNs, to 53 SSNs, and 14 SSBNs in 2011 (this does not include 4 SSBNs converted to SSGNs.). Some of these cuts are understandable, as the collapse of the Soviet Union there was not as great a need for a large sub fleet. However, with the rise of the PRC there is need for more subs, as carriers and surface warships might not be able to get close to Asia because of ASBM and cruise missile threats. Same goes for the Navy's ASW capability, at the end of the Cold War, American ASW crews were the best, however the skills which were honed by hunting Soviet subs in the North Atlantic have deteriorated with a lack of emphasis on the sub threat. 

     This is just a beginning on the road to rebuilding the Navy, there need to changes in the way the Navy selects it flag officers and makes promotions, naval aviation, women on subs and carriers, and the SEALs. But what is stated above, is an excellent start to rebuilding the Navy.

  

A Strategy For The 21st Century, Part 6: North America

     Now, we come to home, in the years since the Cold War America has become more and more at risk for attacks on our shores by other countries and by terrorist organisations. Here is a good start for securing America.
     1. Secure the borders. In the last few years our borders have become increasingly porous with millions of illigal aliens pouring across the border. Recent estimates have put the number of illegals in the U.S. at arounf 11,000,000. There are several threat which arise from this. 1. Not every illegal alien wants to pick produce or wash dishes. Many work for drug cartels, are criminals, or could be even terrorists who want the southwest U.S. to be given back to Mexico. 2. It is extremely easy for muslims to cross the border and commit acts of terror in the U.S.. 3. It becomes easy for the drug cartels and human trafficker to ships people and/or drugs across the border. The solution to this is not to build a wall in a conventional sense but, rather to build a electronic wall using drones, and soldiers brought home from Afghanistan, Iraq, and Europe (see Part 1 and Part 3). There also needs to be tightening of the border with Canada, as the situation is many times worse with fewer border agents, and laziness based on the idea that all Canadians are our friends (most are, but not all).
     2. Establish a working land based missile defense shield covering all of the U.S.. The U.S. has been working on missile defense systems for the last 20 years, examples of this are Aegis, THAAD, and the Patriot PAC-3.  At the moment all three system have been deployed, however there is no missile shild covering the entire U.S..
     3. Stop closing bases. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union  many bases have been shut down, NS Ingleside here in Texas was just shut down a few months ago, and now there is talk of closing NS Mayport, among others. This must stop with fewer bases means fewer targets to hit and a larger amount of America's military is concentrated in a smaller number of locations.Now, it is understandable if some bases become redundant and are closed. However, this rash of bases closures since 1991 seriously undermines America's security.
     These among other things, must be down to secure America, from outside threats. Because like it or not we have been and will be attacked from abroad.