Forum

Bavo et merci.

Il me semble avoir lu ces jours-ci - et cela n a pas du manquer d attirer aussi votre attention, que le retrait des troupes americaines avec un abandon sur place et concomitant des armements americains ne pouvait se faire compte-tenu de l equipement “pratiquement tout russe” de l armee de Saddam,

D ou - pour le Pentagone -  la necessite de demander aux russes de l equiper pour permettre au nouveau gouvernement irakien de ne pas traumatiser les militaires irakiens en les equipant “made in USA”.

Est ce qu en fait le “contrat afghan” ne prefigure pas un enorme contrat d armements qui ne serait peut etre pas le “contrat du (20eme) siecle” mais la “galejade du (21eme) siecle” ?

The first war lasted 100 hours and over 200,000 people were killed. Somehow that makes your 100 deaths/day seem a little low…

A lot of the people that Saddam realeased, are the same people were are saying were unlawfully held.

Regardless, these stats would be non-existant if we had never invaded Iraq, so as far as I am concerned, any death there is somewhat due to the US invasion.

Who knows really? However, I think that this IBC website needs to be set straight, since they don’t know either.

Dire que le marché, notamment des avions de combat, a été pendant longtemps une chasse gardée des américains est vrai, mais inexacte, ou du moins, c’est une vision incomplète.
Le Brésil avait acheté des Mirage III (puis devrait acquérir en 2007 des mirages 2000), la force aérienne chilienne des Mirage 50 / Pantera, les argentins ont acquis des Delta Dagger (Certes israéliens, mais le design de base est français) et une poignée de super étendard, le Pérou est équipé de Mirage 2000, L’équateur possède en inventaire des Mirages F1…
Il y a donc un certains nombre d’éxceptions française sur ce continent, qui confirment la règle.
L’analyse que l’on peut en faire de cet état des choses est à la fois technique et opérationnelle, mais aussi “politique” et “psychologique”.
Dans le monde un certain nombre de forces aériennes et non des moindres (Inde, Egypte, Grèce…) ont fait le choix (politique) de s’équiper en double source de matériels US et Européens (et spécifiquement Français).
Cela apelle plusieurs réflexions intéressantes:
- Les Forces Aériennes équipées en double source ont eu maille à partir (Egypte) ou ont des raisons de se méfier (Inde) de s’équiper tout USA. A ce titre, on notera que la France est souvent choisit comme fournisseur d’appoint, ou comme alternative, pour le cas où... (Il faut pas oublier que c’est aussi le cas lorsque la Russie est fournisseur principal -Mig-29, Su-27/30- c’est par exemple le cas du Pérou)
- S’équiper en double source est un non sens économique (pièces détachées, maintenance, armements associés à l’avion, etc ..) c’est donc une décision politique… Le choix de la France est donc une décision politique liée à la perception que ces responsables politiques ont de notre pays (la question ici, n’est pas de savoir si c’est bien ou pas bien, mais de comprendre qu’il s’agit d’un fait)
- Les matériels français sont donc systématiquement opposables aux matériels US (Et russes). Opposables signifie aussi qu’ils sont comparables en terme de performances, de capacités, etc… et qu’ils sont perçus comme crédibles par les responsables opérationnels (les utilisateurs)
- Cet état des choses, donc des faits, est systématiquement ignoré et par les “déclinistes” français et par les américains.

Il est a noté que les derniers marchés perdus par la France l’ont été face à des matériels US de génération précédente ( F-15 ) face au meilleur de la technologie française ( Rafale ).
Ces pays en question (Corée et Singapour) ont toujours été acheteurs de matériels US. On peut donc se poser la question de comprendre pourquoi les responsables français ont décidés de se battre sur des marchés de toute façon acquis aux USA (politiquement, historiquement et opérationnellement).
La seconde réflexion est de savoir par quel mécanisme pernicieux, nous français, en sommes venus à nous auto-flageler sur la valeur technique d’un produit (le Rafale) alors qu’à la base l’erreur est commerciale… Cela en dit long sur le déclinisme français, car à aucun moment, il n’a été remis en question l’approche commerciale du fabricant (devinez pourquoi ...)

Les matériels français sont-ils mauvais ?
Si tel était le cas, serais-je tenté de dire, Aribus n’aurait jamais pu naître. C’est un fait.

Le Rafale (puisque c’est de cet appareil qu’il s’agit) est-il mauvais ?
Le problème du Rafale est avant tout une mauvaise décision industrielle : celle pour un petit pays comme la France de développer, produire et utiliser deux avions de combat modernes (Famille Mirage 2000 et Rafale) quasiment en même temps.
(Quels autres pays peuvent-il se permettre une telle chose ? Il en existe que deux, voire un et demi si on considère la position de la Russie)
Financièrement, cette position est intenable. La conséquence directe est un retard de 10 ans du programme Rafale. La stratégie du constructeur: arriver sur le marché des avions de nouvelle génération avant les américains tombe à l’eau.
Cette vision était-elle mauvaise ? On serait tenté de dire non, eu égard au succès du Gripen (arrivé à l’heure lui) sur les marché centre-européens et en Afrique du sud.
Il y a aussi les choix technico-opérationnels. La philosophie de conception du constructeur (Dassault) est assez particulière et différente de tous les autres appareils (Typhoon, F22, F35, Su30 etc ..) sauf peut etre le F18E et le JAS-39 gripen. Le Rafale est conçu comme un appareil multirole, et dans cette catégorie, il reste le meilleur produit jamais mis sur le marché. Tous reconnaissent l’excellence du savoir faire du constructeur (y compris les américains, même si jamais, il n’en parleront de façon ouverte, c’est à dire public).
L’appareil est donc, conçu comme un élément d’un système plus vaste (communications, renseignements, awacs etc ..) auquel il s’intègre. Il faut comprendre en disant cela que l’on peut tirer pleinement parti des qualités de l’appareil dans un environement intégré, comme une partie d’un tout,à la pointe de l’épée. Et c’est le cas de tres peu de forces aériennes dans le monde.
Il est intéressant de noter que cet environement intégré est né d’une impulsion US (network centric warfare). Or les acheteurs historiques de Dassault ont toujours eut une prédilection pour un maériel, avant tout, robuste et fiable et moins sophistiqué dans certains aspects. Un Mirage 2000 est plus court sur pattes (il va moins loin) qu’un F16 ou un F18, et pourtant, il s’est tres bien vendu de part le monde…
En autonome (c’est à dire que l’appareil n’évolue pas dans un environement intégré) le Rafale montre des insuffisances : vitesse trop faible (Mach 1.8) radar RBE2 insuffisant en portée, Missile MICA trop court (face au R-77 de Vympel)... Cela ne vaut pas dire qu’il n’est pas bon, mais comme les exercices l’ont montré (Face aux F-18E/F US et Su-30MKI Indiens) le Rafale est limite dans des situations de combat ou l’appareil opère seul (exception faite peut-être du combat tournoyant).
Face au F18E et Su 30MKI, le Rafale a été mis plusieurs fois en position d’échec par manque d’allonge, ce que certains acquéreurs peuvent juger inacceptable de la part d’un engin d’un tel prix… On les comprendra.
Il est a noté, à ce stade, qu’un radar de type AESA, que le missile METEOR et une évolution des moteurs, devraient lui permettre de se mettre à niveau ... vers 2012-2014 .. soit lors de l’entrée en lice du F-35. Cela nous promet probablement de franches empoignades franco-US sur un marché de plus en plus tendu (raréfaction et fractionnement des commandes) dans un contexte ou la décision d’achat sur étagère d’un avion de combat sera plus que jamais, politique….
Voilà donc, pour mettre ceraines choses en relief et compléter votre analyse.

Tocqueville ne suffit pas.
Pour avoir une idée de comment dépasser Tocqueville, je propose de lire “le grain tombé entre les meules. Existerons ecnore comme Russie au XXIème siècle” de Soljenitsyne, cet affreux réactionnaire intégriste, “qui était “OK” quand il dénonçait l’ennemi. Mais s’il est indépendant, alors, c’est un “galeux”.”
Et voilà : nous assistons à l’effondrement d’un système de pensée.

Notez que c’est exactement ce qui se passe en France, ou l’“Américain” Sarkozy rencontre l’opposition de l’Eglise sur cette question des migrants !

L’Eglise en a vu d’autres. Elle fera tomber tous les Empires. C’est une de ses vocations.“Et les portes de l’Enfer ne prévaudront pas contre Elle”. Promesse du Seigneur à Saint Pierre.

Sans la foi, le monde est incompréhensible. Ce n’est pas une pétition de principe, c’est un constat.

, son dernier livre, (Who are we ?) et le catéchisme de l’Eglise catholique pour remettre tout cela en perspective et comprendre ce qui se passe.
Les USA sont confrontés à une grave difficulté, que nous dirons “congénitale”. Ils sont une “hyperstructure” sur le territoire qu’ils occupent. Cela paraît fou ? Et pourtant ! Cinq cents ans après les Conquistadors, Evo Morales ... Comprenne qui voudra

Votre ananlyse est intéressante quand elle relève que, plus encore que la vente d’un ou deux avions de combat, ce qui est en cause dans une telle vente, c’est le poids des alliances. La Russie en vend, c’st qu’elle se relève du choc de la chute du soviétisme. Bien. Chavez en achète, c’est que l’Amérique latine essaie d’être elle-même. Bien. Quoi de plus normal !

Reste la France. Avec votre honneteté coutûmière, et votre lucidité, qui, disons-le sans vous offenser, revient simplement à dire ce qui est évident, mais ceci est une position toujours très originale, car les gens cherchent partout des théories, des trucs embrouillés pour ne pas voir la réalité, avec cette lucidiét donc, vous reconnaissez qu’il ya quelque chose que vous ne comprenez pas dans la position française : vous parlez de doute.
Et pourtant, mais cela nécessite une autre grille de lecture que celle que vous utilisez couramment ( bien qu’elle reste meilleure que toutes les autres, jusqu’à la situation actuelle qui va en montrer les limites ultimes), la situation actuelle est plus que compréhensible. Elle est même assez belle. Et, les informations que vous rassemblez, la font apparaître avec la clarté de l’aurore naissante.

Merci de ce petit tour d’horizon, qui est très éclairant.

Vous avez oublie l’Iran qui entretient des liens avec le Venezuela (nucleaire) a long terme et la CIA qui essaie de militariser l’autre partie du Venezuela a cour terme.

Je vous parie 100 dollars ou 150 euros que si l’Iran est attaquee, alors Chavez coupe l’exportation de petrole aux USA et que les puits de petrole dans le Moyen-Orient et au Canada eclateront facilement.

Iran tests second new radar avoiding missile
  (AP)

  4 April 2006

  TEHERAN - A top Iranian military official said Tuesday the country can now defend against any invasion originating from outside the region - a clear reference to the United States - as it tested a second new radar-avoiding missile.

  Iran CraftThe new surface-to-sea missile is equipped with remote-control and searching systems, state-run television reported. It said the new missile, called Kowsar after the name of a river in paradise, was a medium-range weapon that Iran had the capability to mass-produce.

  It also asserted that the Kowsar’s guidance system could not be scrambled, and that it had been designed to sink ships.

  Shortly after the test, the chief of the elite Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, warned that Iran was now able to “confront any extra-regional invasion,” referring to the United States without mentioning it by name.

  “The missile command of the Guards’ naval force ... via positioning various types of surface-to-sea missiles, is able, while defending the coastlines and islands, to confront any extra-territorial invasion,” the official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Safavi as saying.

  Safavi also called for foreign forces to leave the region. The US 5th fleet is based in Bahrain, from where it patrols the Gulf.

  “Iran wants durable peace in the Persian Gulf and it can’t be achieved without foreign forces and those which invaded Iraq leaving (the region),” IRNA quoted Safavi as saying.

  On Friday, the country tested the Fajr-3, a missile that it said can avoid radars and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads. Since the war games began, the country also has tested what it calls two new torpedoes.

  The second torpedo, unveiled Monday, was tested in the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow entrance to the Gulf that is a vital corridor for oil supplies. That seemed designed to be a clear warning to the United States that Iran believes it has the capability to disable oil tankers moving through the Gulf, if it should so choose.

  ‘Technology appears Russian-made’

  But military analysts in Moscow said the high-speed torpedoes tested by Iran this week were likely Russian-built weapons and may have been acquired from China or the ex-Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan. Judging by the fuzzy television pictures showing the tests, the missiles appeared very similar to the Russian-made VA-111 Shkval, the world’s fastest known underwater missile, they said.

  Ruslan Pukhov, an expert with the Center for Strategic Analysis and Technologies, said that he believed the Shkval technology was too sophisticated for the Iranians to produce themselves.

  Pukhov noted that the former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan once had a Soviet top-secret torpedo and naval testing center located on the remote mountain lake, Issyk Kul. He said in the mid-1990s, in the turmoil that followed the Soviet breakup, Kyrgyz authorities had sold Shkvals to the Chinese, a major importer of Iranian oil.

  Others experts said it would be easy to gather up sunken torpedoes used in tests in Issyk Kul and develop the technology with the help of Russian scientists who had gone to Iran in search of well-paying jobs.

  Others have questioned just how radar-evading the missiles are. Iran’s radars are not as advanced as those of Israel, for example - meaning that perhaps the new weapons can avoid the radar that Iran has access to, but not more advanced types.

  The United States said Monday - after the second torpedo test - that while Iran may have made “some strides” in its military, it is likely to be exaggerating its capabilities.

  Nevertheless, the country has made clear it aims to send a message of strength to the United States amid heightened tensions over Iran’s nuclear program.

  On Tuesday, state-run television also said the elite Revolutionary Guards had tested what it called a “super modern flying boat” capable of evading radar. TV showed a brief clip of the boat’s launch.

  “Due to its advanced design, no radar at sea or in the air can detect it. It can lift out of the water,” the television said. It said the boat was “all Iranian-made and can launch missiles with precise targeting while moving.”

  The television showed the boat, looking like an aircraft, taking off from the sea and flying low over the surface of the water. It said the craft could fly with a speed of 100 nautical miles per hour.

  Iran said the torpedo tests were conducted on Sunday and Monday. The torpedo - called a “Hoot,” or “whale” - is able to move at up to 223 mph, too fast for any enemy ship to elude.

  Iran has routinely held war games over the past two decades to improve its combat readiness and test locally made equipment such as missiles, tanks and armored personnel carriers.

  Iran launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a US weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane.

VA-111 Shkval underwater rocket

a revolutionary secret-weapons technology that could turn battles

  In 1995 it was revealed that Russia had developed an exceptionally high-speed underwater missile which has no equivalent in the West. Code-named the Shkval (Squall), the new weapon travels at a velocity that would give a targeted vessel very little or no chance to perform evasive action. The missile has been characterized as a “revenge” weapon, which would be fired along the bearing of an incoming enemy torpedo. The Shkval may be considered a follow-on to the Russian BGT class of evasion torpedoes, which are fired in the direction of an incoming torpedo to try to force an attacking to evade (and hopefully snap the torpedo’s guidance wires). The weapon was deployed in the early 1990s, and had been in service for years when the fact of its existence was disclosed.

  Development begain in the 1960s, when the Research Institute NII-24 (Chief Designer Mikhail Merkulov) involved in the artillery ammunition research was instructed to develop an underwater high-speed missile to fight nuclear-powered submarines. On 14 May 1969, pursuant to a government resolution, NII-24 and GSKB-47 merged into the Research Institute of Applied Hydromechanics (NII PGM), which formed the basis of the present day ‘Region’ Scientific Production Association. Advances in the development of jet engines and fuel technologies, as well as outstanding results in the research of body motion under cavitation made it possible to design a unique missile with a dived speed much greater than that of conventional torpedoes.

  When the suction on the low-pressure side of the propeller blade dips below ambient pressure [atmospheric plus hydrostatic head] the propeller blade cavitates—a vacuum cavity forms. There is water vapor in the cavity, and the pressure is not a true vacuum, but equal to the vapor pressure of the water. High-speed propellers are often designed to operate in a fully-cavitating (supercavitating) mode. A high speed supercavitating projectile, while moving in the forward direction, rotates inside the cavity. This rotation leads to a series of impacts between the projectile tail and the cavity wall. The impacts affect the trajectory as well as the stability of motion of the projectile. The present paper discusses the in-flight dynamics of such a projectile. Despite the impacts with the cavity wall, the projectile nearly follows a straight line path. The frequency of the impacts between the projectile tail and cavity boundary increases initially, reaches a maximum, and then decreases gradually. The frequency of impacts decreases with the projectile’s moment of inertia.

  Apparently fired from standard 533mm torpedo tubes, Shkval has a range of about 7,500 yards. The weapon clears the tube at fifty knots, upon which its rocket fires, propelling the missile through the water at 360 kph - some reports say in excess of 300 mph (483 kmh) - four times as fast as conventional torpedoes. The solid-rocket propelled “torpedo” achieves high speeds by producing a high-pressure stream of bubbles from its nose and skin, which coats the torpedo in a thin layer of gas and forms a local “envelope” of supercavitating bubbles. Carrying a tactical nuclear warhead initiated by a timer, it would destroy the hostile submarine and the torpedo it fired. The Shkval high-speed underwater missile is guided by an auto-pilot rather than by a homing head as on most torpedoes.

  There are no evident countermeasures to such a weapon, its employment could put adversary naval forces as a considerable disadvantage. One such scenario is a rapid attack situation wherein a sudden detection of a threat submarine is made, perhaps at relatively short range, requiring an immediate response to achieve weapon on target and to ensure survival. Apparently guidance is a problem, and the initial version of the Shkval was unguided However, the Russians have been advertising a homing version, which runs out at very high speed, then slows to search.

  A prototype of the modernised “Shkval”, which was exhibited at the 1995 international armaments show in Abu Dhabi, was discarded. An improved model was designed with a conventional (non-nuclear) warhead and a guided targeting system, which substantially enhances its combat effectiveness. The first tests of the modernised Shkval torpedo were held by the Russian Pacific Fleet in the spring of 1998.

  The ‘Region’ Scientific Production Association has developed an export modification of the missile, ‘Shkval-E’. Russia began marketing this conventionally armed version of the Shkval high-speed underwater rocket at the IDEX 99 exhibition in Abu Dhabi in early 1999. The concept of operations for this missile requires the crew of a submarine, ship or the coast guard define the target’s parameters—speed, distance and vector—and feeds the data to the missile’s automatic pilot. The missile is fired, achieves its optimum depth and switches on its engines. The missile does not have a homing warhead and follows a computer-generated program.

  On 05 April 2000 the Russian Federal Security Service [FSB] in Moscow arrested an American businessman, Edmond Pope, and a Russian accomplice, on charges of stealing scientific secrets. Pope is a retired US Navy captain who spent much of his career working in naval intelligence. He had founded the navy’s Foreign Science and Technologies Program, which promoted the exchange of scientific information between former Soviet nations and the U.S. When he retired from military service, Pope started two companies that specialized in bringing foreign maritime technology to the West. Observers believe that Pope was actually an American intelligence officer posing as a businessman.

    Pope was caught red-handed trying to buy the design details of the Shkval from a Russian scientist who had helped develop it. The FSB charged Pope with paying $30,000 to Anatoliy Babkin, head of the rocket engineering department at the Bauman Moscow State Technical University, for information on the Shkval. According to Russian media reports, Babkin was in fact a double agent who set Pope up, a belief supported by Babkin’s rapid release by the FSB.

  The arrest of Daniel Howard Kiely, deputy head of the Applied Research Laboratory at Pennsylvania State University, came almost simultaneously. The laboratory led by Mr. Kiely has for many years been developing torpedoes for US warships and submarines. Professor Kiely had joined Pope in Moscow to offer technical advice and determine the tasks for Pope’s further activity. Kiely was interrogated as a witness. His testimony and objects confiscated during the search proved his involvement in Pope’s activities. Pope spent eight months in the Lefortovo prison awaiting trial. He was convicted of espionage and sentenced to 20 years. On Dec. 14, 2000, Russian President Vladimir Putin pardoned Pope on humanitarian grounds; the American has been suffering from bone cancer.

Russia reportedly sold China 40 conventionally armed Shkval-E in the mid-1990s.

Le Moskit et son petit frère le Yakhont sont les meilleurs missiles navals au monde. L’article suivant remet l’église au milieux du village…

Protection from russian antiship missile does not exist.

It apears that the multi-billion-dollar anti-missile Aegis system intended to protect America against a nuclear missile strike is vulnerable to attack from Russian-made supersonic cruise missiles.

“The Aegis ABM interceptor is not designed to deal with the supersonic cruise missile threat,” explains Baker Spring, a defense analyst for the Heritage Foundation.

“The supersonic cruise missile threat is also a Navy big problem,” stated Spring. “The Navy will have to deal with the cruise missile threat no matter what the mission—whether it’s ABM defense or sea control.” The U.S. Navy Aegis system is reported to be unable to defend against the latest Russian supersonic cruise missiles: the “Moskit” made by Raduga and the new “Yakhont” made by Mashinostroyenya.

the Moskit

These Russian cruise missiles are huge, weighing nearly five tons each, and both can fly a few feet over the sea surface at almost three time the speed of sound. In July 1999, Richard Fisher, a senior fellow at the Jamestown Foundation, wrote an evaluation of the Raduga Moskit missile that was recently sold to China. Fisher says the U.S. Navy cannot stop the Moskit. “The Raduga Moskit anti-ship missile is certainly the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world,” wrote Fisher in a review of the Chinese navy.

“The Moskit combines an almost Mach 3 speed with a very low-level flight pattern that uses violent end maneuvers to throw off defenses. After detecting the Moskit, the U.S. Navy Phalanx defense system may have only 2.5 seconds to calculate a fire solution—not enough time before the devastating impact of a 750-lb. warhead.”

The Moskit missile has been sold to China for use on a Russian-built Sovremenny-class destroyer serving in the People’s Liberation Navy. The Chinese Moskit missiles are reported to carry a 200-kiloton nuclear warhead—packing a punch 10 times more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

There is evidence from the U.S. Navy itself that the warships are totaly vulnerable to the Moskit. The Navy’s Aegis system failed to defend itself in live-fire tests even against a little U.S supersonic target missile called the Vandal. Vandal target drones, flying 10 feet over the ground at speeds of over 1,500 miles per hour, defeated the Aegis defenses and scored direct hits on simulated Navy targets.

Logicon Corp. is the U.S. Navy contractor responsible for testing the Aegis warship air defenses. According to an internal Logicon Corp. memo, the Navy had to make a deal with Russian missile maker Zvezda for a new target drone. Russia is now providing the U.S. Navy its only supersonic target missile—the Zvezda MA-31. The U.S. Navy bought the Russian Zvezda MA-31 supersonic target missile and now depends on Russia for all its future Aegis targets and testings. According to Logicon, the Navy “plans to procure 37 additional (Russian Zvezda) MA-31 targets in the future.”

But Official U.S. Navy sources noted the 1,100-pound MA-31 does not replicate the massive 9,920-pound Moskit threat, and the little target missile does not carry any Russian electronics. In response to allegations that the MA-31 could not replicate the Moskit threat, the U.S. Navy announced a program to acquire Moskit anti-ship missiles from Russia to be able to test them. The U.S. Navy purchase of Russian-made missiles, including the no. 1 threat against the Aegis warships, moved Congress to pass a special legislation in order to allow it. But the Russian did not agree. Sen. Rohrabacher recently introduced a bill that would permit debt re-scheduling with Russia if the Russian military discontinues sales of the Moskit to China.

“THe U.S. tested an older supersonic anti-ship missile that has none of the “goodies” the Moskit have, and the U.S. Navy was “shocked” at the result. Defending against a supersonic missile is very hard and in the case of the Moskit, I would say impossible. The Taiwanese, in response to China’s acqusistion of these missile developed a strategy to counter it. The strategy is to “try not get into the range of a Sovremenny”, said Fisher.

the Yakhont

Russian missile makers are now offering China the very latest in supersonic killing technology, the NPO Mashinostroyenya “Yakhont”. “The Yakhont is fast, compact, and is considerably better than the lethal Moskit. As the Moskit, it is designed to evade countermeasures and is impossible to stop.What is freightening is you can place a large number of them on a very small platform.” stated Fisher.

The Yakhont is powered by an air-breathing ramjet engine giving it a top speed of Mach 2.8 at 45,000 feet. The Yahont is reported to deliver a 440-pound warhead at an impact velocity of 2,500 feet per second - much faster than a rifle bullet!

According to defense intelligence sources, Russia is offering to sell China up to eight more Sovremenny destroyers armed with eight nuclear-tipped Moskit missiles each. In addition, the Sovremenny will also be armed with Yakhont missiles and a naval version of the SA-10C “Grumble” advanced surface-to-air defense missile.

U.S. defense analysis indicates that Yakhont comes in a nuclear-tipped land attack version, enabling it to strike ground targets such as the land-based missile site in Alaska or U.S. cities. Each Yakhont is produced in a launch canister, enabling the missile to be fired from simple and low cost platforms such as a diesel submarine or even a common truck.

The low maintenance cost and compact size associated with the Yahont appeal greatly to third-world militaries. North Korea, Iran, Syria, Algeria, Vietnam, Malaysia, and India are all considering supersonic cruise missile purchases from Russia.

The missile’s designers assume, that enemy would detect the launch of the missile and take measures to destroy it. However, being resistant to jamming, having a very high flight velocity and making complex maneuvers during flight, the Yakhont shall anyway reach the target. It’s far not only his high speed or jamming protection that makes Yakhont an advanced weapon system. It’s major advantage, not too much advertised by NPO Mashinostroyeniya representatives, is the guidance system which has accumulated all the NPO experience in developing electronic systems of AI (Artificial Intelligence) enabling to fight against single warships (one missile - one ship) or against a group of warships (a flock of missiles against a group of warships).

Due to the Yakhont’s short flying time and the long effective range of its seeker head, the targeting of the missile need not be very accurate. The ability to observe the entire target area from a high altitude (45’000 feet), augmented by the enhanced capabilities of the control system, make it possible to cue missiles to hostile ships in a group and discriminate false targets.

It is salvo launching that shows all unsurpassed tactical capabilities of this weapon. The missiles most perfect guidance system allocate and range targets by their importance and choose the attack implementation plan itself. The independent control system keeps in memory not only of the ECM (Electronic Countermeasures) and ECCM (Electronic Counter-Countermeasures) data, but also the methods of evading the fire of the enemy’s air defense systems such as the US’ Phalanx. Having destroyed the main target in a carrier group, the next missiles attack other ships of the group. So even just a single salvo launch can destoy a full navy battle group.

The missiles’s designer says: “The missiles’s compactness and maintainability on board is due to it’s unique construction unrivaled in terms of the degree of integration of components. Basically, the entire missile - from the nose air intake to the exit section - is a propulsion plant arranged in an airframe. The missile size provides a two or three time increase in the number of missiles carried on board a platform. The missile is dispatched from the manufacturing plant, shipped and delivered to the user in its launch-container ready for use at all times. The missile’s systems check-out is made without removing the weapon from its launch-container.

The launch-container, with the missile in it, is very simple to operate and maintain. It requires neither any liquid or gas for maintenance nor specific microclimate for storage on board. All this simplifies operation and maintenance procedures and enhances the weapon’s reliability”.

As the missile’s basic features include a wide range of launch angles and an advanced firing method which does not require flame deflectors, the missile can easily be blended into the architecture of various platforms. It should be noted that launchers of different designs can be used: from very simple rack launchers intended for installation on low-tonnage vessels, to vertical-launch modular systems designed for installation on large surface ships, like frigates, destroyers and cruisers.

According to the tactical-technical characteristics the “Yakhont” considerably exceeds rockets like the “Harpoon” (USA), “Otomat” (Italy), “Exocet” (France): The Yakhont flying range - is more than 300 km at the speed almost three times the speed of sound. The weight of the warhead of the rocket - 200 kg. The American military arsenal has no weapon to match the Yahont or the Moskit since the closest American counterparts, the Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles, fly at low subsonic speeds. The best French antiship missile, the Exocet, has a range of only 45 miles and is subsonic too.

The U.S. Air Force ALCM, and the U.S. Navy Tomahawk have been both shot down by conventional anti-aircraft fire in Iraq as well as in Serbia. In the opinion of experts, “Yakhont” will not have competitors on the world market into nearest 30 years.

Taking into account current trends in the development of the navies in the world, this fact is of paramount importance. Owing to the unique characteristics of the Yakhont missile, even light warships armed with it will be able to perform missions that before could only be handled by large combatants ships.

“There isn’t even defence for the Moskit and the Yakhont is smaller, faster and more advanced. It will smoke an aircraft-carrier before the battle group even detect it. The new Sovremenny can carry 24 of those missiles. They are more than enough to take out a carrier battle group. As the Moskit, the Yakhont is designed to counter the AEGIS system which the U.S. Navy relies very heavily on and is the best availble in US military forces. In fact, Russia is at least one generation ahead of the U.S. in missile and supersonic torpedos (yes, supersonic. The Kursk was testing it when it went down.) Besides being fast, and having violent end game maneuvers, jamming is impossible because of Moskit and Yakhont’s 100% fire-and-forget system making countering it absolutely impossible. The chinese government is currently buying some Yakhont and may incorporate the technology into their own missiles. This is a clear warning. If the U.S. send carrier battle groups to Taiwan, then the U.S. navy can consider them as lost” sated Fisher.

Moreover, newly developed Russian air defense missiles such as the SA-10C “Grumble” are capable of easily defeating Tomahawk and ALCM attacks. The Russian maker of the SA-10C states that it has a kill ratio ranging from 85 to 98% against Tomahawk-class cruise missiles. Russia is exporting large numbers of the new air defense missile. Russia has exported the SA-10C Grumble to China where it is produced under license and has made offers to India, Syria and Cyprus.

JSF Partners Italy, Norway Reaffirm Support
By TOM KINGTON, ROME And GERARD O’DWYER, HELSINKI

After several months of work-share complaints that cast doubt on their continued participation in the development of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), officials in Italy and Norway are reaffirming their commitment to the U.S.-led program.
Italian Air Force chief Gen. Leonardo Tricarico said April 27 that leaving the JSF program was “not in the interest of the Italian Air Force, and would also damage the national interest.”
Rome’s military procurement chief amplified the sentiment.
“Italy chose from the start to have two complementary aircraft types: the Eurofighter [Typhoon] for air defense and the JSF for an expeditionary role,” said Gen. Gianni Botondi. “Even if the Eurofighter takes on more air-to-ground capabilities, the fact they were born with different roles remains crucial.”
The generals were responding to comments from Giovanni Urbani, an aerospace spokesman with the Democratic Left, the largest party in the center-left coalition that won last month’s general election, who said the country should abandon its role as a JSF partner and buy more strike-role Eurofighters instead.
Marco Minniti, a member of parliament for the Democratic Left party, was similarly positive about the JSF, suggesting the new government has yet to find a complete consensus on defense programs.
“The JSF is a strategic program in which we have already invested a large amount. I cannot imagine we would pull out,” said Minniti, who served as Italian undersecretary for defense, with responsibility for procurement, from 2000 to 2001, and as an undersecretary to the government Cabinet from 1998 to 2000.
Supporters also spoke in the wake of a U.S. decision to allow a Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO) line either at Alenia Aeronautica’s Caselle facility in Turin or at the Italian Air Force’s Cameri air base in northern Italy.
“The green light from the U.S. government on a Final Assembly and Check Out line is an example that the U.S. government is leaning forward to address Italy’s aspirations for technology transfer,” said one official from JSF prime contractor Lockheed Martin. “If Italy decides to proceed with the FACO, the first Italian aircraft will come from this line.”
With JSF production expected to take around two years, Italy may need to have its line ready by 2012 if it chooses to have aircraft in service by 2014, as it has previously said.
Italy has committed to spending $1 billion on the development phase of the aircraft, and will decide this year whether to confirm its entry into the Production, Sustainment and Follow-on Development phase of the program, possibly buying 131 aircraft.
Lockheed Martin hopes to sell thousands of the fighters to the U.S. military and other countries.
Concerns Remain in Rome
Minniti did voice concerns over JSF work share.
“We will expect the right work share, technology transfer and an assembly line. I am also concerned about the talk in the U.K. of pulling out of the program.”
Italian industry has received design-phase contracts and has been assigned low-rate initial production work as well: mostly, wing work by Alenia Aeronautica, a unit of the state-owned Finmeccanica group.
Procurement chief Botondi also was concerned.
“We are not yet satisfied with work share,” he said. “As for technology transfer, I imagine there will always be a degree of dissatisfaction. Where I would put the pressure is in increasing our work on logistics and production work share over the coming decades, given that logistics costs can equal acquisition costs.”
Lockheed officials were in Italy on May 9 to show off a JSF simulator to the Italian Air Force. The simulator will subsequently tour Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. If Italy buys the JSF, its first 15 to 20 planes would be Block 3 aircraft, an Italian defense source said.
A Lockheed presentation here on May 9 showed plans to equip Block 4 JSFs to fire European missiles such as the IRIS-T and the Meteor.
Norway Still On Board
Work-share promises from Lockheed were also key to securing Norway’s pledge to continue participating in the JSF program.
“The improved package on offer from Lockheed Martin was pivotal,” said Ministry of Defense spokesman Kaare Helland-Olsen. “There had been a feeling in Norway … for some time that Norwegian industry would not benefit as we intended from our part in the JSF program. The new package is more extensive and offers more. It is more like the package that we had hoped for initially.”
Lockheed’s new package has so far identified up to $3.1 billion in potential contracts, Defense Minister Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen said in a May 8 statement.
The decision means that Norway, which already has spent $67 million on JSF development, will deliver a further payment of $21 million in June, said Strøm-Erichsen. The country’s financial commitment totals $150 million over 10 years.
Yet the defense minister also said the F-35 would not become the automatic choice to replace the Norwegian Air Force’s F-16 fighter jets. Norway plans to spend about $8 billion to replace the F-16s, which will begin to retire in 2020.
“I want to emphasize that our decision to continue in the JSF program does not mean that we have decided which aircraft Norway will procure,” Strøm-Erichsen said. “I am satisfied, however, that our efforts to enhance the opportunities for Norwegian industry have been rewarded, should we decide to choose JSF.”
She said the ministries of Defense and Trade and Industry will work together to appraise Lockheed’s new offer, and to compare it with those offered by other contenders for Norway’s next fighter purchase: the Eurofighter Typhoon, Sweden’s JAS 39 Gripen and France’s Rafale.
“In coming months, we will examine the other three candidates to the F-35 in more detail with regards to industrial and operational matters,” Strøm-Erichsen said. “By doing this, we will have the best possible basis for comparison when we decide on the future aircraft needs for the Norwegian armed forces.”
Airing Dissatisfaction
In March, Norwegian officials told Lockheed they wanted more than minor and low-technology work, an MoD source said. The discussion took place after representatives of the JSF-development partner nations met March 7 in Noordwijk, the Netherlands.
“Norwegian officials in Noordwijk made their criticism of how little was on offer to Norwegian industry from the JSF program known,” the MoD source said. “Norway remains keen on the JSF, perhaps more keen that it wants to admit. It also sees the JSF program as being of long-term value to its industry over the expected 40-year lifetime of the JSF program. The bottom line is what Norwegian industry wants, Norwegian industry should get.”
The Noordwijk meeting was called to discuss the course of action at year’s end, when the nations are to decide whether to participate in JSF production, sustainment and follow-on development. Besides U.S. and Norwegian officials, representatives from Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Turkey attended the gathering.
Representatives at the Noordwijk meeting called for the development of a shared European vision of the assembly and sustainment processes, and technology transfer and support by U.S. authorities and aircraft and engine producers. The partner nations intend to develop a plan that will be discussed in detail with U.S. authorities and industrialists by July.
This plan would influence a memorandum of understanding for JSF production and sustainment, which would be slated to be signed by the partners by year’s end.
Norway joined the JSF program as a Level 4 member in 2002, along with other Level 4 participants Canada, Denmark, Australia, Turkey and Israel. •

Depuis les affaires de Jamestown et les tentatives de conciliation de Pocahontas, les europeens qui ont occupe le continent americain n ont jamais ete a l abri de se lancer dans des operations de liquidation ethniques d importance variables bien sur et sans faire une enumeration historique et peut etre longue et vfastidieuse on pourrait commencer par exemple l “evacuation” de plus d un million (certains disent 1 million 400 000) de mexicains dans les annees trente - dont pres de 400 000 etaient citoyens americains) dans des circonstances identiques a ce qui se passe actuellement.
C est USA Today qui y a fait allusion il y a plus d un mois mais l analyse n a ete reprise par aucun journal a l epoque. Il faut se rappeler que les 300 ou 400 000 “mexicains” nes aux Etats-unis et ejectes avec leurs parents et grands parents ont eu bien du mal a prouver leur lieu de naissance devant l impossibilite d obtenir copie de leurs actes de naissance.

Mais ceci est bien sur une autre histoire et personne n a encore ose appeler ca un “nettoyage ethnique”.

Reste que sur les 12 ou 14 millions de mexicains illegaux (enore qu on peut se demander si ce sont tous des mexicains) il y a encore certainement un tas de grands peres ou arriere grands peres des annees trente qui n ont pas encore pu obtenir leurs actes de naissance.

Le nettoyage ethnique des annees trente a part on aurait pu penser que l accord NAFTA deboucherait - a temps - sur une integration aavec les Canada a la mode europeenne.

Mais ce q

Il ne faut pas oublier que la specialite de Cheney n est pas la politique etrangere mais la geopolitique de l enerrgie et le petrole en particulier.

Depuis quelques annees des idees flottent sur un lien entre le gaz et le petrole siberien entre Vladivostock et l Alaska par le detroit de Bering.

On a parle aussi d un pipeline d eau !!

Tout cela allait bon train - meme la banque mondiale lancait des etudes .... jusqu au moment ou les oligarches ont ete viodes.

Alors a partir de ce moment la rien n allait plus.

Et comme la Russie est le deuxieme reservoir mondial apres l Arabie Saoudite, ilo n y avait aucune raison pour Cheney de laisser ces rejetons du communisme profiter de la manne petroliere et gazeifer qui gisait sous leurs pieds.

Car en plus la Russie pourrait tres bien “nourir” les appetits gloutonnants de la Chine et peut etre de l Inde et ce “nouveau bloc” risquerait d etre un sacre morceau a digerer.

Le potentiel energetique et ses implications macro-economiques, voila le tabou qui a ete brise .... discretement.

Pour qui se souvient du rejet par Q West de la demande de la NSA la “decouverte” par USA Today des ecoutes illegales n a rien de surprenant.

Il n etait certainement pas necessaire du quotient intellectuel d un babouin pour s interroger ce que ce rejert impliquait.

Mais voila, comme les membres du Congres - et surtout les senateurs - ne semblent obtenir leurs informations que par la presse et comme la presse americaine est aux ordres - comme le demontre regulierement Xymphora - il n y a rien d etonnant a ce que tout journaliste moyennement doue mais surtout ayant un redacteur en chef courageux - denonce de temps en temps ce que certains caracterisent comme “malfaisance” (ce qui permet a chacun d extrapoler ensuite soit vers la notion de crime, soit vers celle de securite nationale).

D ailleurs si on analyse - avec les moyens du bord - ce qui a transpire de cette affaire, on peut se demander qui n etait pas au courant( compte tenu de ce qu il a bien fallu parttager avec les “allies” de l infrastructure d Echelon ).

Donc rien de nouveau sous le soleil ..../

sauf que peut etre (les El Qaeda et les autres farfelus du meme type qui sont - a ce que l on dit - au fin des technologies de l informatique et de la manipulation) que copnnaissant la propension aux technocrates et nanocrates de Washington a faire du gigantisme dans tous les domaines, lesdits techno-terroristes ont peut etre tout simplement appelle eux aussi des millions d americains(il suffit de faire des numeros au hasard et sur une grande echelle) histoire “d aider” les autorites securitaires a identifier les “correspondants”.

Certains ont timidement demande si cela etait possible.

Il parait que oui et bonne chance pour faire expurger la liste des “suspects”.

Volkoff est battu !!