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 

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

Pentagon Singling Out Queer Troops?

     From the Military Times. Read it and weep.

WASHINGTON — In the course of a year, Marine Capt. M. Matthew Phelps says he went from being a gay man “in the closet,” afraid of being discharged, to invitee at the White House gay pride reception, drinking champagne with his commander in chief.

Phelps told his story Tuesday at the Pentagon’s first-ever event to recognize the service of gay and lesbian troops. The historic event came nine months after repeal of the 18-year-old “don’t ask don’t tell” policy that had prohibited gay troops from serving openly and forced more than 13,500 service members out of the armed forces.

“Last June ... I was at a point in my career that if anyone had found out that I was gay ... I could have lost my job,” Phelps told some 400 uniformed and civilian Defense Department employees packed into a Pentagon auditorium.

“A year later ... I, Capt. Matthew Phelps, was invited to attend this pride reception at the White House,” Phelps said of the June 15 reception hosted by President Obama. “And I thought how amazing is it over the course of a year, I could go from being fired for being who I am, to having champagne with the commander in chief — on cocktail napkins with the presidential seal on it.”

Phelps appeared on a panel of current and former service members, some of whom told of their experiences before the repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell” and how life is different now. The audience filled the seats and dozens more stood along the walls, roughly 1 in 5 were in uniform and the rest civilians who had not been subject to the old policy.

“For those service members who are gay and lesbian, we lifted a real and personal burden from their shoulders,” top Pentagon lawyer Jeh Johnson said in a speech opening the event that lasted about an hour and a half. “They no longer have to live a lie in the military” or “teach a child to lie to protect her father’s career.

     Read the rest of the article here. 

     My question in all of this is why are we singling out queers? Queers only make up about 1-2% percent of America, and the 98% of us are straight. Don't get me wrong, I'm thankful for what these men and women have done for this country, but why should they get special treatment? As a soldier you have to operate as a team with your squad, and by singling out the minority because of their sexual orientation you create divisions in that team. Thereby degrading the effectiveness of that team in combat, putting lives on the line for the sake of political correctness. 

Photo Credit: MC1 Chad J. McNEELEY

Why The F-35 Can't Replace The A-10

     One of he aircraft the F-35A is slated to replace is the A-10 sometime in 2028. The main mission of the of the A-10 is close air support, which means going low and slow, making yourself a target for AA and AAA. The A-10 from the get-go was designed with the close air support mission in mind, which is why the A-10 has redundant flight control systems, a redundant primary structure, all bulletproof glass, and the titanium "bathtub" surrounding the cockpit. The F-35A is on the other hand an air superiority fighter, and has been designed as such.

     The picture above is of an A-10 that was shot up over Baghdad in 2003. You can see several dozen bullet holes, possibly from a 23mm cannon (ZSU-23-4 or ZU-23-2). Now imagine an F-35 with that kind of damage, it would be blown out of they sky. The sky over a battlefield is by it's very nature filled with ground fire. Most of it is wild, and simply shots that missed their targets. However, every so often you will come across some sort of air defense system, be it an armored vehicle like the ZSU-23, or any sort of gun-based air defense system. And the F-35, like most other 4th and 5th generation fighters cannot take a great deal of punishment and stay in the air. That is a trade-off that occurs the more advanced the fighter. 

     Aircraft have to be built specifically for the close air support mission to perform that mission consistently. The F-15 and F-16 are air-superiority fighters, but they often perform the CAS mission. However, if they were fighting against an enemy with an a real IADS they would have to "shoot and scoot" before they are targeted by local air defense systems. The A-10 on the other hand can loiter over the target longer simply because it can absorb a great deal of punishment (the A-10 can take a 23mm hit almost anywhere and stay in the air, someplaces it can absorb a 57mm hit and stay up.) and bring it's pilot home. 

    If you want an aircraft to perform the CAS mission and be able to loiter above the battlefield, it has to be built for the mission. It has to be armored like a tank, have backup mechanical flight controls, the cockpit has to have extra armor, the canopy has to be made of bulletproof glass, it has to be able to take scores of high-caliber hits and stay in the air. The F-35, while an excellent air superiority fighter, will make a poor CAS aircraft simply because it can't take the punishment that comes with the mission.

Stealth: Too Much Of A Good Thing?

     Stealth. Since the development of Northrop's Have Blue prototype in the 70s the Air Force has fallen in love with the concept, and has bought 4 types of stealth bomers and fighters since. But at what cost to capabilities? Stealth is an extremely valuable resource, but today and for the next 10 years we will be fighting an asymmetric war against third world terrorists, rather than large conventional wars on the plains of central Europe. The question I ask, has stealth destroyed the Air Force and naval aviation?

     Exhibit 1: The A-12. The A-12 Avenger II was supposed to be a stealth bomber successor to the tried and true A-6 Intruder. The A-12 was canceled in 1991 due to cost and weight overruns, and problems with the radar system. Because the A-12 was supposed to replace the A-6 , the Navy canceled the A-6F Intruder II which would have had new engines, electronics, and 2 extra hardpoints for carrying ordnance. However, since the A-12 was supposed to replace the A-6, the Navy turned Grumman's proposal down. Then when the A-12 was canceled in 1991 the Navy was left without a tanker aircraft and bomb truck.  And because the Navy placed all it's bets on the A-12, it was forced to use the F-14 as an attack aircraft, and purchase the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The Super Hornet, while an excellent fighter, is acceptable in the attack role, but is not meant for it. Conclusion: Because the Navy relied too much on new technologies (read A-12) that had kinks to be worked out, lost their deep strike and tanker capability. 

    Exhibit 2: The F-22 Raptor. The F-22 Raptor has become darling of the Air Force, as it  can enter a dogfight with any type of aircraft and come out on top. However, in recent months the F-22 has had problems with it's oxygen system resulting in one pilot killed and a six month grounding for all F-22s. That does not include it extreme cost at 350 million dollars each, which has only been surpassed by that of the B-2 Spirit at 2.1 billion dollars. The damage to the Air Force done by the F-22 is not as obvious. And rather than manifest itself in loss of capability, it shows itself in quantity. With only 187 combat aircraft produced, the Air Force is forced to rely on a small number of extremely capable platforms. Not only that, but the Air force will be reluctant to risk a 350 million dollar piece of equipment in hostile airspace, simply because of it's cost and the technical secrets which the enemy would obtain. Conclusion: Because the Air Force was set on buying the newest, coolest airplane, they lost several good legacy fighters for each F-22, rather than buy better, new build fighter fighter like the F-16E of F-15SE.

     Exhibit 3: The F-35 Lightning II. The F-35 is the latest and greatest of Air Force programs, and is the planned replacement of the F-16, F/A-18, and A-10. The problem here is the number of F-35s to be purchased. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps are planning to to buy ~2400 F-35s of all types. I agree with many that the F-35 is a good fighter, but we simply cannot afford to buy enough to cover all the services. The Air Force has stated that they alone need 2200 fighters of all types, subtracting the 187 F-22s that leaves 2013 fighters that the Air Force needs. Subtracting the 680 F-35Bs and Cs the Marine Corps and Navy are buying, the Air Force is only buying 1233 F-35As, leaving a shortfall of 800 fighters. And the idea that the F-35 will replace the A-10 in the CAS role is a pipe dream (see example here, point made?), simply because the F-35 cannot absorb the punishment or carry the ordnance an A-10 can. Conclusion: The F-35 is a good bird, but at the moment it is not what we need, as it is too expensive, and it's mission can be performed by new legacy fighters. However, that does not mean it should be canceled, rather it should shelved for the moment until a need arises.

     The other issue that hasn't been mentioned, is that are we willing to deploy stealth fighters into hostile airspace? The F-22, and F-35 are cutting edge fighters with some of the newest technologies in the West on board, and if lost would hand a technical goldmine over to enemy forces. Back in 1999 an F-117 was shot down, and it is almost certain those stealth materials fell into enemy hands. While obsolete by our standards, the F-117 is cutting edge for the rest of the world. Frankly, the Air Force or Navy would probably not risk stealth aircraft in hostile airspace like Iran, simply because of the rick of valuable technical secrets being lost.

     Stealth is here to stay, that is a fact. However, in our current fiscal condition we cannot afford the number of stealth fighters or bombers we need to maintain our commitments worldwide. We also must be willing to risk our stealth aircraft in hostile airspace, even if that risks technical secrets falling into enemy hands. Even if we are willing to risk stealth aircraft in enemy airspace, we still don't have the money to afford enough stealth fighters. To answer the question posed at the beginning of this post, yes, stealth has destroyed the Air force and naval aviation.

     The solution? The F-16E/F and F-15SE. The F-16E/F is the latest version of the venerable F-16, and is already in production. The F-15SE is a stealthier version of the F-15E, with conformal weapons bays (CWBs) rather than the conformal fuel tanks (CFTs). Both types are cheaper than the F-35 at around 80 and 100 million each. They are not the most advanced fighters in the sky today, but have two advantages. 

We can afford them in the numbers we need, and they are proven in CAS and air-to-air combat. As to the Navy and Marines, the Marines would have to keep flying AV-8 Harriers off of helicopter carriers, and use F/A-18E/F Super Hornets for land-based aircraft. The Navy is another story, the A-6F needs to be resurrected, and a new cheap naval based fighter developed.

    The problem for so many years has been that aviators across the board (with the possible exception of the Marine Corps) have become fixated on buying new aircraft. The "if its new, if its high-tech, we need it" mantra has killed the Air Force and Navy at a time when tried and true beats new and unproven. That is what has gotten us into this mess.

    

     

Photo Credit: U.S. Navy and USAF

Flashback Friday 6/22: USS United States (CVA-58)

    This week's Flashback Friday looks at the USS United States, what could have been the world's first supercarrier. The USS United States was primarily envisioned as a carrier that rather than support amphibious operations or sea control, would perform nuclear bombardment as it's main mission. Later on during the design period, the United States was redesigned to carry more fighters, but her main mission overall was for nuclear bombardment.  The United States would have had a flight deck that could handle 45,500kg aircraft because of the heavy weight of early nuclear weapons (some early nuclear weapons could weigh as much as 6000kg).
      One of the unique aspects of the United States was that she was designed without an island on the flight deck. Most carriers that have been built have been constructed with an island amidships of varying sizes. The main problem with the lack of an island it that the functions performed in an island (air traffic control, combat information center, steering, among others) have to be moved belowdecks. And while this provides greater armor, it denies the captain, air boss, and others a view of their surroundings. The other problem with the lack of an island is that  there is no place to locate radar and communications antennas.
     However, what was probably the most interesting feature of the United States was the fact that she had 4 catapults on the bow and amidships, and yet was designed to be able to recover aircraft at the same time she was launching them. This was a capability not available for the U.S. Navy until 1955 on the USS Shangri-La with the SCB-125 upgrade for WWII-era Essex-class carriers. And even then modified carriers could only use 2 of 4 catapults when recovering aircraft.

     What sank the United States however, was inter-service rivalry. At the same time the United States was being designed, the Air Force had begun pushing for a fleet of B-36 Peacemakers to use in lieu of carriers for nuclear deterrence. The SecDef at the time, Louis A. Johnson, canceled the construction of the United States 5 days after her keel was laid (see picture above). This led to the famous "Revolt of the Admirals" which cost the then CNO Admiral Louis Denfield his job. However, the "revolt" saved carrier aviation, as the then-new thinking was that strategic bombing with nuclear weapons would win any future war. This was proved wrong in the Korean War a year after the United States was canceled.

     The USS United States was a revolutionary design, and could have altered the design of U.S. Navy carriers for many years afterward. However, at the same time, it might have been a good thing that she was canceled, as she was designed with nuclear deterrence in mind, rather than air support and sea control which have always been the traditional missions of an aircraft carrier. 

   

A Forgotten Relic Of The Cold War

Video Credit: jaglavaksoldier

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

HAVE DOUGHNUT Footage Of A USAF MiG-21

     This video is a mish mash of footage taken during HAVE DOUGHNUT back in the late '60s when the USAF evaluated a MiG-21 Fishbed. The MiG-21 was obtained from the Israeli Air Force when an Christain Iraqi pilot defected.

Video Credit: flynbrick

Air Force Fire Suppression Systems Go Off Prematurely,

David Cenciotti over at The Aviationist has a couple of photos (here and here) of some Air Force fire suppression system going off prematurely. In one instance the foam was up to the cockpit of an F-15. Needless to say, there are some officers who have bad fit reps in their near future.

Photo Credit: David Cenciotti

A Strategy For The 21st Century, Part 8: The Air Force

     The Air Force. Airpower has in the last 100 year, determined America's success on the battlefield, and is the key to winning a war. That is why the Air Force is so important. However, the Air Force is among all the services, is the service with the most problems, here they are, and some ideas on how to fix them.

     1. Stand By The F-35A to the end. Have a contingency ready if the F-35 is canceled. The Air Force has hung it's hat on the F-35A, and must not back down. In recent months, writers like Carlo Kopp of Air Power Australia, and Bill Sweetman of Aviation Week has stepped up attacks on the F-35 (I tend to agree with them on the fact that the F-35 is a piece of crap, but at the same time a piece of crap is better than no piece of crap). The Air Force must move forward and defend the F-35A, they have done an excellent job of this, but must keep it up. Also, the Air Focre must have a Plan B in case something does happen to the F-35A, something along the lines of the F-15SE, F-16E/F, or a watered down F-22. 

     2. Develop a new ICBM and nuclear weapons. The U.S. has not developed a new ICBM since 1986, and a new nuclear weapon since 1988 (as a interesting side not, the U.S. has not conducted a nuclear test since Operation Julin in 1992). The Air Force has begun looking into developing a new ICBM to replace the Minuteman III. However, as I outlined in "Air Force Looking Into Producing A New ICBM"  there will be many problems with developing a new ICBM, especially since the the skills honed during the Cold War have been all but lost. 

     3. Develop a replacement for the B-52. The B-52 was developed in 1945, but was not actually fielded until mid-1955. The B-52 was originally a long range nuclear bomber, but is now used as a low cost bomb truck. The B-52 can carry 32,000kg (70000lbs) worth of ordnance, and with it's long range it was optimal for staying over an area and providing air support as needed. The Air Force plans to operate the B-52 through 2040, 85 years since it was first fielded in 1955. The problem here is that the Air Force has no plan for after 2040. The Air Force needs to have a replacement for the B-52 ready before 2040, as they would lose an extremely valuble capability with the retirement of the B-52.

    4. Develop a replacement for the A-10. As of 2012, the Air Force plans to field the A-10 through 2028, when it will be replaced by the F-35A. This is NOT  a smart move by the Air Force, the A-10 is designed to go low and slow and take a lot of punishment, and still get the pilot home (see example here, point made?). The F-35 simply cannot absorb several dozen 23mm hits and stay airborne.

     Once again, these are just a series of ideas, that if implemented would go aoong way towards bringing the Air Force back on track.

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.

A Strategy For The 21st Century Part 4: Africa

     Africa. In that last few months Africa has undergone series of radical events (not all good): Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, the overthrow of Hosni Mubarack in Egypt, the creation of South Sudan, a Kenyan military campaign against the Somalian pirates, and even deployment of 200 U.S. special forces troops to the Central African Republic. Overall the African continent has no major threats or concerns for the U.S.. However, there are a few things which are cause for minor concern, and which must be dealt with.
     1. Somalia's pirates and terrorists. In the last few years Somalia has spawned many small bands of pirates on the sea, and Al-Shabab on land. The pirates Somalia has produced have attacked thousands of ships in the Gulf of Aden and the Western Indian Ocean, not all successfully though. Some ships which were attacked and taken are the Maersk Alabama (cargo ship), MV Faina (carrying arms, including T-72 tanks), and numerous other cargo and fishing vessels. Along with Al-Shabab they pose a threat to American shipping, including oil tankers coming from the Persian Gulf. In this situation it would be best to carry out a series of cruise missile strikes on the bases, and also hit their "stock exchange" in Haradheere. But, overall the long term solution would be to have every U.S. flagged ship have a squad or two of private security agents (e.g. mercenaries) onboard while moving through the Gulf of Aden or the Western Indian Ocean.
     2. Egypt's new government. The new government in Egypt which is now controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood, has control of one the most valuable assets in the world: the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal is a the link by which many U.S. warships get to the Indian Ocean, and 15,648 oil tankers, bulk carriers, LNG tankers, and many types passed through the Suez Canal in 2010. If the Suez Canal is shut down by Egypt's new muslim government, it would be enormous blow to the world economy, and to U.S. economic interests in the Indian Ocean region. This would also force U.S. warships to either double the Cape of Good Hope, or sail from the West Coast, both of which would vastly reduce time on station, and increase the time needed to get to the Indian Ocean if a crisis arose. In this instance there really is no military solution as the "Dear Leader" (Obama) has backed the new muslim government instead of our former ally Hosni Mubarack, who generally did things that were good for the U.S.. Since there is no real military solution, and negotiating with the Muslim Brotherhoo  would be like talking to brick wall, it would be best to: 1. Wean the U.S. off Arab oil, and drill in the U.S. 2. Do not attempt to reenter the Indian Ocean and the Middle East until we have realized the our enemy here is Islam.
     Overall, there is not much to say about Africa with the exception of keep out! Africa is at the moment a big pit filled with quicksand, if you step in it you are basically screwed. The best strategy would be to stay out of Africa (this includes pulling out all 200 U.S. soldiers from the C.A.R.), and only do anything if attacked. 



Photo Credit: Chris Lofting

A Strategy For The 21st Century, Part 2: Asia

     Asia. Since the Communist Chinese took over China in 1949 there has been a secret war waged along the west side of the Pacific Rim. After that was the Soviet naval buildup under Admiral Gorshkov, that turned the Soviet Navy into a true blue-water navy. However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union (and it's navy) there is only one real Communist nation that poses a threat in the Pacific, the People's Republic of China. Just in the last few weeks China's president Hu Jintao urged the PLAN to prepare for combat. This comes as tensions continue to rise over the Spratley Islands in the South China Sea, and the PLAN stopped an Indian Navy ship just outside Vietnamese territorial waters. As China continues to buildup their military, the United States must respond. Here is what I believe the U.S. must do to stop China.
     1. Build new bases, and reopen old ones. Since the U.S. took over the Philippines from Spain in 1896, we operated Naval Base Subic Bay, and Clark Air Base a few miles away. However, after the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, Clark AB was covered in ash. The year after in 1992 the treaty leasing NB Subic Bay expired. Thus, the U.S. lost 2 very valuable bases located only 1100km from China. With the U.S. backing the Philippines in the Spratly Islands dispute, it would be in the Pilippines' and the U.S.'s best interests to reopen NB Subic Bay, and if possible Clark Air Base, as the former Clark Air Base is now Diosdada Macapagal International Airport. Also, the Marine Corps is in the process of stationing 2500 Marines near Darwin, this should be augmented with a full-fledged Air Force base and Naval Station in Australia, if the Australians are willing. Bases should also be established in Taiwan, and Singapore, existing bases on Guam, Hawaii, and Okinawa should be expanded.
     2. Cease the construction of "Supercarriers", and design and build a new class of aircraft carriers about the size of the USS Midway-class. In that last few years the Chinese have begun developing the DF-21D, as a means of denying most of the Western Pacific to U.S. aircraft carriers. This coupled with the proliferation of supersonic cruise missiles, and Kilo-class submarines poses a grave threat to U.S. naval air power throughout the Pacific. Furthermore, in this case quantity is better than quality, because at the moment if one carrier is lost there is a gaping hole the Navy's capabilities until the next carrier is completed. Thus, it is necessary that the Navy instead of building very few "Supercarriers", build a smaller class of carriers with a displacement not to exceed 65,000 tons, a max speed of 40 knots, and a complement of  50 aircraft. This is feasible as the USS Midway had a displacement of 62,000 and could carry 65 aircraft as of it's decommissioning in 1992. 
     3. Resurrect the Navy's ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare) capability. During the Cold War the U.S. Navy was the best in the world at ASW. However, since the USSR collapsed in 1991 the Navy's ASW capability has gone down hill. This can be rectified by, 1. Extending the life of Perry-class frigates 2. Investing in more SOSUS systems and towed array sonars. 3. Developing a new class of frigates specifically for the ASW role.
     There is more that I will lay out in future posts, but the ideas I have laid out in this post, I believe are a good start to beating China and maintaining the U.S.'s national security.





Photo Credit: U.S. Navy

A Strategy For The 21st Century Part 1: Europe

     Europe. Since 1991 and the "Peace Dividend" almost every country in NATO has been drastically cutting back on it's military. Examples are the U.K., Germany, Denmark, Belgium, France, Italy, and the list goes on. The more NATO members slash their military, the more the burden falls to the U.S. defend NATO. Thus, it is in our interests, and NATO's for the U.S. to pull out of NATO and Europe. And here's why:
     1. We are for all intents and purposes defending NATO instead of NATO members defending themselves. As of 2011 there are roughly 54,000 U.S. soldiers in Germany, 9,000 in the U.K., and a further 9,000 in Italy. In last year's SDSR the U.K. canceled the Nimrod MRA4,  personnel numbers in the Air Force, Navy and Army were reduced by a combined total of 17,000 troops. The number of Challenger 2 tanks was cut by 40%, the number of AS-90 self-propelled artillery was cut by 35%, and list goes on. The same thing that is taking place in Britain is also taking place in Germany, with the Germans cutting their military drastically from it's Cold War strength of 360,000 to just 76,000 men. Why? Because the U.S. has become the sugar-daddy in terms of defense for NATO members, and this is putting strain on the U.S. military and the defense budget as the troops and equipment based in Europe are needed elsewhere, and we cannot afford to defend Europe any longer.
     2. The USSR is gone, and the Russian Federation is not much of a conventional threat. Since the collapse of the USSR, the Russian military has been in decline, and has lost most of conventional military power. For example, the Russian Navy has 61 submarines of all types (cruise missile, ballistic missile, attack, diesel-electric, and rescue) as of 2011, down from a high of 373 submarines of all types in 1985. The Russian Army has a strength of 321,000 men, this is down from a strength of 1,995,000 men in 1985. The Russian Air Force is down to 769 fighters from 1620 fighters in 1985.  However, Russia is still a nuclear threat, as Russia's nuclear forces are for the most part still intact, with at least one new missile in development, and the fact that with the decline of Russia's conventional forces they forced to rely heavily on their nuclear deterrent.
     However, there are some bases in Europe that are actually needed for our (the U.S.'s) national security. Namely, RAF Lakenheath, RAF Fylingdales, Naval Station Rota, and Lajes Field. RAF Fylingdales because it is the base of one of two early warning radars meant to detect Russian or Chinese ballistic missiles launches. RAF Lakenheath because it is the base of the 48th Fighter Wing, and it would be good to maintain a small force in Europe for any unforeseen events. Naval Station Rota because it is located strategically at the mouth of the Mediterranean, and also will provide a base for operating against the Russians who have become more active in the Med'. Lajes Field because it provides a landing strip for transports heading east, and would provide a rest stop for transports in the event of another Operation Nickel Grass.  Also, as Air Force units based in Germany and throughout Europe are being withdrawn, the 100th Air Refueling Wing from RAF Mildenhall, and the 52nd Fighter Wing from Spangdahlem Air Base, would be moved to RAF Lakenheath.
     If the the U.S. can get itself out of Europe there would no savings for a few years as the bases are shut down and the troops brought home, but over the long term you are looking at savings in the billions of dollars a year. These saving could be used in other areas of Defense or in paying off the debt, and pulling out of Europe will force NATO members to actually defend themselves.
   

U.S. Air Force To Replace ALCM

     Defense News reports that the USAF is planning to replace the aging AGM-86 Air Launched Cruise Missile with a new stealth cruise missiles.
     The AGM-86 was selected to be the Air Force's air launched cruise missile back in the 1980s. Since then the ALCM has seen service in Operation Desert Storm, and in several other operations over Iraq. As of 2011 all ALCMs are AGM-86Bs which are equipped with a single W-80 nuclear warhead which has yeild of between 5 and 150 kilotons. As of 2011 the AGM-86B and AGM-129 are the only nuclear weapons the B-52 is capable of carrying, and due to reliability issues and cost the AGM-129 is being phased out of service. The AGM-86B is also going phased out of service due to it's age and the New START treaty.
     With the retiring of the AGM-86B and the AGM129 this will leave the B-52 without a nuclear mission, that is why the Air Force is planning to start a new nuclear cruise missile program. This proposed missile will be stealthy, have a long range, and "be able to penetrate the most challenging of enemy air defense systems" in the words of Maj. General William Chambers the Air Force's strategic deterrence and nuclear integration officer.
     However, this program may never get off the ground as Congress has yet to come to a compromise over budget cuts, and if they do not, a large amount (1+ trillion dollars) of the defense budget will be cut. But, if this program actually survives then it will be fascinating to see how the program progresses and what capabilities the cruise missile will have.


Photo Credit: USAF

Small Diameter Bomb Test

Video Credit: USAF

Photo: J-11B In Hangar

China Defense Blog showing the photo showing a J-11B inside a hangar.

Photo Credit: China Defense Blog

Obscure Stealth Aircraft Part 2: South Korea's KAI KF-X

     I have written previously on South Korea's KF-X program, but I did not discuss the KAI KF-X program in much detail at the time. The KAI KF-X differs from the original KF-X program in that the KAI KF-X it is supposed to be an indigenous stealth fighter. The original KF-X program is meant to purchase fighter aircraft from other countries, the aircraft purchased under the KF-X program is the F-15K Slam Eagle, the F-15K was purchased in both first and second phases of the KF-X program.

     The KAI KF-X is supposed to be equipped with a AESA radar built in South Korea, along with a IRST system. At the moment there are two designs competing in the KAI KF-X program, one design is similar to the F-35 in that it has only one engine. The second differs from the first in that the design uses two engines versus one, this would give the pilot a degree of insurance if one engine went out. Besides this there is not much else known about the KAI KF-X, but it is probably safe to say that the KAI KF-X will carry American missiles and bombs.

     If the cost stays down there could be a market for around 300-500 KAI KF-Xs being sold to various countries. South Korea has partnered with Indonesia in development of the KAI-KF-X, and Turkey has been discussed as a third partner, but as of yet Turkey has joined the KAI KF-X program.

     As the KAI KF-X program progresses it will be interesting to see which design is picked, how the program fares, and if North Korea attempts to purchase stealth fighters.

Photo Credit: TR Defense

Photo Of the J-20's Cockpit And HUD

     Alert 5 posted this photo showing the J-20's cockpit. Notice the design of the HUD (Head Up Display) and the cockpit displays.

Photo Credit: Alert 5