North Korea Tests Multi-Warhead Missile, Escalating Regional Tensions

 On June 27, North Korea announced that it successfully tested a multi-warhead missile, a development that could pose significant threats to South Korea, Japan, and the United States if confirmed. This test is seen as an attempt by North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong Un, to evade missile defenses in South Korea and the US, fulfilling his long-standing ambition for a multi-warhead missile.

The announcement from North Korean state media, KCNA, contradicted South Korea’s assessment of a failed weapon test from the previous day. KCNA reported that the test on June 26 involved the separation and guidance control of individual mobile warheads, marking a significant step in advancing missile technologies.

The test aimed to secure Multiple Independently Targeted Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) capability, enabling the delivery of multiple warheads to different targets. The missile’s decoy was detected by radar, and the mobile warheads were successfully guided to three target coordinates.

Reports indicate that North Korea used a modified Hwasong-16 booster for a shortened-range test to validate the release of independent warheads. This test, the first of its kind for North Korea, is considered a preliminary step by international observers.

KCNA quoted the North Korean Missile Administration, highlighting the test as part of a full-scale effort to enhance missile capabilities and technologies. Kim Jong Un has listed a multi-warhead missile among his priorities, alongside hypersonic weapons, spy satellites, solid-fuel ICBMs, and submarine-launched nuclear missiles, all of which are in various development stages.

This development is particularly significant amid rising tensions between North Korea and NATO, especially after North Korea’s provocative actions, such as sending waste-filled balloons across the 39th parallel and issuing multiple warnings against US-South Korea cooperation.

Recently, North Korea revived defense cooperation with Russia, hosting Russian President Vladimir Putin and signaling readiness to send troops to fight in Ukraine. Amid this backdrop, the MIRV test gains critical importance, potentially elevating North Korea’s threat level, especially if the warheads are nuclear.

Despite international sanctions, North Korea is believed to have assembled 40-50 nuclear warheads. In November, Kim Jong Un urged exponential nuclear weapon production and aligning with nations opposing the US in a “New Cold War.”

North Korea’s test follows India’s recent MIRV test, which unsettled its nuclear-armed neighbors, Pakistan and China. Unlike South Korea, which lacks nuclear weapons, this development significantly heightens the threat.

MIRVs can overwhelm missile defenses by deploying multiple warheads simultaneously, making interception more difficult. This sophisticated technology requires advanced capabilities, which some US critics believe North Korea might be receiving from Russia, given their military exchanges.

While the world advocates for nuclear non-proliferation, the development of MIRV technology has faced criticism. Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists expressed concerns about the increasing number of countries acquiring MIRV capabilities, warning that it could escalate nuclear tensions.

Similar concerns apply to North Korea, which has issued several nuclear threats. The Washington-based Wilson Center noted that MIRVs would significantly undermine US defense capabilities against a North Korean nuclear strike.

White House Criticizes Shipbuilding and Defense Measures in FY25 Defense Bill

 

The White House issued a statement on Tuesday critiquing various elements of the House’s fiscal 2025 defense policy bill ahead of upcoming votes.

While the statement commended the House Armed Services Committee for its bipartisan efforts on the $884 billion bill, it highlighted concerns over provisions related to shipbuilding, the formation of an Army drone corps, missile defense, and pricing transparency for defense contractors.

The White House also pressed Congress to establish an Indo-Pacific Security Assistance Initiative, which the bill lacks despite a Pentagon request for a program similar to the one aiding Ukraine.

“The administration looks forward to continuing to work with Congress to set appropriate and responsible levels of defense and non-defense spending to support the security of the nation,” stated the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, expressing a desire to collaborate on addressing concerns.

Despite its objections, the White House did not issue a veto threat but warned that this could change if the House adopts certain socially conservative amendments proposed by the Republican right-flank during this week’s votes.

Last year, Republicans adopted a similar strategy, turning a bipartisan bill into a partisan one with amendments from the Freedom Caucus. However, these provisions were removed during Senate negotiations, resulting in a bipartisan compromise bill for FY24 in December.

The Senate Armed Services Committee is set to mark up its version of the FY25 defense policy bill later this week.

House Armed Services Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) and Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), the committee’s top Democrat, urged the Rules Committee to prioritize non-divisive amendments out of the 1,386 proposed.

“The bill we are presenting today is truly bipartisan,” said Rogers, noting that it advanced 57-1 last month. Smith added that efforts to restrict reproductive healthcare or LGBTQ rights would pose significant problems, as would any attempt to block the Department of Defense’s inclusivity efforts.

Shipbuilding Disagreements

Aside from potential social policy conflicts, the Armed Services Committee is at odds with defense appropriators over their draft spending bill, which overrides several provisions in the defense policy bill. For instance, the draft FY25 defense spending bill does not fund the policy bill’s $1 billion authorization for a second Virginia-class attack submarine, aligning with the White House and Navy’s decision to fund only one due to production delays.

“The authorization of incremental funding for a second [Virginia-class submarine] would result in a significant unplanned bill in FY26,” noted the White House statement. The Biden administration encourages Congress to support near-term submarine industrial base investments instead.

The Armed Services Committee argues that dropping a second Virginia-class vessel in FY25 will set back companies further down the submarine supply chain. The defense policy bill also cuts $1.17 billion in procurement of a frigate for FY25, drawing further White House objections.

Additionally, the White House opposed a provision blocking the retirement of guided-missile cruisers, arguing that ships like the USS Shiloh and USS Lake Erie are too costly to modernize and restore.

Army and Missile Defense

The White House strongly opposes the bill’s provision to create a drone corps within the Army, citing concerns over specialization and flexibility. It also opposes establishing a third continental missile interceptor site on the east coast by 2030, arguing there is no operational need for such a site, with 20 Next-Generation Interceptors to be fielded in Alaska by 2028.

Defense Contractor Pricing Data

The White House also objects to a provision raising the cap for obtaining certified cost or pricing data from subcontractors to $5 million, up from $2 million. This change would reduce the incentive for prime contractors to negotiate fair contracts with subcontractors, creating unnecessary taxpayer risks.

The Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, also opposes this provision, arguing it would allow prime contractors to provide outdated historical data to justify price hikes, complicating the contracting officers’ ability to determine fair pricing.

NATO Russia Missile Defence Confidence deteriorating -----Defense News

BRUSSELS — NATO has made little progress on missile defense cooperation with Russia, possibly jeopardizing a planned summit in May, said NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

“Maybe we won’t clarify the situation until a few weeks before the [Chicago] summit,” Rasmussen said Jan. 26 at his monthly press conference.

A summit with Russia is scheduled to take place just before the NATO summit May 20-21.

“If there is no deal, there will probably be no [NATO-Russia] summit,” Rasmussen added.

Asked what he expected to come out of the NATO summit in terms of smart defense, Rasmussen said he hoped NATO would “adopt a political declaration” containing “a political commitment to a number of specific projects.”

It was “premature” to talk about them today, he said, adding that missile defense was “an excellent example of smart defense” with a number of allies providing input, such as hosting radar facilities.

He cited air policing as another example.

“At some stage, we’ll have to decide on a long-term arrangement for air policing in the Baltic countries,” he said. He cited it as a good example “because a number of allies do it on behalf of the Baltic countries so that the Baltic countries can focus on deployable armed forces for international operations.”

In summary, he described smart defense as “a combination of a number of concrete multinational projects and a long-term political vision of how to do business in the future.”

Looking ahead to the Chicago summit, he said, “We must renew our commitment to the vital trans-Atlantic bond” as it is “the best security investment we ever made.”

Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities are an area that NATO is looking into in terms of its smart defense project. According to a NATO official, it is “no coincidence” that NATO officials have been invited to the U.S.’s Schriever space and cyber defense war games in the last week of April, before the Chicago summit.

As to the growing concerns over the Strait of Hormuz, Rasmussen said individual allies are involved in the Iran question but that “NATO as an organization is not.” He urged Iran’s leadership “to live up to its international commitments, including stopping its [uranium] enrichment program and ensuring free navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.”

Referring to his 2011 annual report, Rasmussen said NATO had weakened the insurgency, strengthened Afghan forces and brought enemy attacks down by 9 percent; had conducted a “highly effective operation protecting the civilian population” in Libya; and captured 24 pirate ships off Somalia (half the figure for 2010).

Asked about Libya, he said, “NATO is not present in Libya and has no intention to return.”

NATO warns Russia on Military build up

VILNIUS — NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen urged Russia on Jan. 19 to refrain from building up its military near the alliance’s borders, saying it was a concern.

Rasmussen questioned Russian moves to bolster its forces in its Kaliningrad territory, which borders NATO members Lithuania and Poland, part of Moscow’s Cold War-era stamping ground.

“These Russian statements are, of course, a matter of concern for NATO allies,” Rasmussen said. “It is a complete waste of Russian financial resources because it is a buildup of offensive military capacities directed against an artificial enemy, an enemy that doesn’t exist.

“NATO has no intention whatsoever to attack Russia,” he added, speaking alongside Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite.

Moscow has warned that it plans to deploy Iskander missiles in Kaliningrad, and earlier this month, Russian media reported that an S-400 Triumph anti-aircraft missile system would go into service there in April.

Russia repeatedly has said it will be forced to take additional measures if it fails to agree with NATO on a missile defense shield.

The U.S. insists a shield is needed against potential threats from Iran, but Russia counters that anti-missile facilities planned in Poland would undermine its own security.

Rasmussen said it was time for a reality check.

“It doesn’t make sense to build up offensive military capacities in the Kaliningrad region,” he said. “I would encourage the Russians to face a new reality. We are not enemies. We are not adversaries. We should be partners, and it would be of mutual benefit if we develop peaceful cooperation.”

Lithuania and fellow Baltic states Estonia and Latvia are nervous about Russian military moves. They won independence in 1991 after five decades of Soviet rule, joined NATO and the EU in 2004, and have strained relations with Moscow.

“Russian actions do not increase trust between NATO and Russia,” Grybauskaite said. “We invite Russia to be open for dialogue, to see new threats and realities, and to seek smart defense.”

With a population of 6.3 million and professional forces of 20,500, the Baltic states lack enough fighter planes to police their skies. Other NATO members therefore take turns doing so, from a base in Lithuania.

Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia want to extend the air patrol accord, which expires in 2014. Rasmussen said he was hopeful NATO’s upcoming summit in Chicago would approve a “long-term arrangement.”

Europe need financial backing for Missile Shield

PARIS — Europe has technological capabilities it could contribute to NATO’s planned missile shield to protect European territory but a financial commitment is needed, François Auque, the chief executive of EADS’s Astrium space division, said Jan. 19.

The NATO summit in Chicago in May will be of strategic importance to Astrium as decisions are due to be made on contributions intended to extend the Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missile Defense system to a territorial coverage, he said. The system was designed to protect NATO deployed troops.

“In technological terms, Europe has a certain number of competences it can contribute,” Auque told journalists. “It could contribute to the architecture for the system. The knowledge of the missile threat allows one to organize the defense architecture.”

France could contribute by making available its Spirale launch early warning satellite, a demonstrator project, he said. Spirale has a limited life and needs a program launch, he said.

“Europe could also contribute an interceptor vehicle, which would require a certain amount of development,” he said.

“There are technological bricks,” he said. “The only real subject is the financial thing.”

Astrium is prime contractor for the French M51 submarine-launched ballistic missile, which was delivered on time and on budget, Auque said. There is no better qualification to design a defense architecture than the knowledge gained from building a ballistic missile, he said.

The M51 missile entered service in 2010 after an extremely limited test-fire program, due to budgetary constraints, he said. There were five test fires and five successes, Auque said.

“That takes risk-taking to the limit,” he said. “Really.”

Astrium’s experience in building ballistic missiles helped the company win from Kazakhstan a contract for two Earth-observation satellites, when it emerged that the Kazakh minister who agreed to meet Auque for a brief presentation had been a senior rocketry officer in the former Soviet Union, Auque said.

This year, Astrium is expecting the second phase of a feasibility study on future architecture for the ballistic missile early warning system and a formal NATO staff requirement for the architecture for a territorial ballistic missile defense.

The Direction Générale de l’Armement (DGA) procurement office recently launched work on maintaining a capability for a future nuclear deterrence, he said.

Astrium had 2011 sales of 5 billion euros ($6.4 billion), which is expected to increase to around 5.5 billion to 5.6 billion euros with the integration of the U.S. military telecommunications satellite company Vizada.

Regional 'Tensions' Delay U.S.-Israel Drill

JERU.S.ALEM - Israel and the United States opted to delay a major joint military exercise because of regional tensions and instability, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said on Jan. 16.

"The entire world understands that we had to postpone this exercise because of political and regional uncertainties, as well as the tensions and instability prevailing in the region," Lieberman told public radio.

"It's only a delay, the exercise will take place by the end of the year," he added, speaking from Warsaw where he was on an official visit.

Speaking in Jerusalem at an Independence faction meeting, Defence Minister Ehud Barak noted later that talks with the U.S. on postponing the exercise had began a month ago.

"In recent days, we reached the conclusion that it would be right to postpone it, this will enable us to better prepare for it," he said in comments relayed by his office.

He added that the drill will probably take place in the second half of2012, and constitutes "another layer of our deep and important security ties with the U.S."

On Jan. 15, a senior Israeli security official confirmed that the exercise, codenamed "Austere Challenge 12," which had been scheduled for spring, was now being put back to late 2012.

The joint maneuver was to have been the biggest yet between the two allies and was seen as an opportunity to display their joint military strength at a time of growing concern about Tehran's nuclear ambitions. But it was to come at a time of rising tensions over Iran's nuclear program, which Israel, Washington and much of the international community believe masks a weapons drive.

The United States is seeking tough new sanctions against Tehran, including its oil exports and financial institutions, and Iran has responded by threatening to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz.

On Jan. 15, two Israeli officials questioned whether the international community, and the United States in particular, were pushing hard enough for new sanctions.

Lieberman on Jan. 16 also called for speedier action, saying now "is the time for the international community to move from words to actions."

And Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that the current regime of EU and U.S. sanctions are not enough to force Tehran to halt its nuclear program.

"As long as there won't be real and effective sanctions against Iran's petroleum industry and central bank, there will be no real effect on Iran's nuclear program," Netanyahu told MPs at a parliamentary committee on Jan. 16, with his remarks transmitted by a spokesman.

But Barak warned against publicly criticizing the U.S. on its course of action against Iran.

"On sanctions and the preparations for other options that could become relevant, this administration is definitely acting much more than in the past," he told his faction members.

"Alongside the mutual respect in the (U.S.-Israel) discourse, and alongside respecting each other's freedom of decision, I think we need to speak clearly in closed chambers, and publicly be careful about respecting the other, and refrain from public criticism of a government that at the end of the day sees things similarly to us, and is acting to stop Iran from becoming nuclear," he said.

Asked about the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, Lieberman said it was not for Israel "to take on a mission that is one for the international community, but it must keep all options on the table."

"Iran is not a threat to Israel alone. For the Gulf countries, Iran is also problem number one," he said. "Iran has taken control of Iraq and wants to do the same in Saudi Arabia to be able to dictate energy policy in the whole world."

Lieberman also accused Tehran of aiding Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's crackdown on pro-democracy activists, saying his regime "wouldn't last a week without Tehran's help."

Israel has made no secret of its desire to see crippling sanctions imposed on Iran in a bid to halt its nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for civilian energy and medical purposes alone. But it has also kept open the possibility of military action to prevent Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Israel has been linked in media reports to both a computer worm that setback the nuclear program and a string of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.

U.S. Navy Shipbuilding Given Budget Priority

The general state of the U.S. Navy's shipbuilding programs is good, two senior service officials claimed, and construction programs apparently will not be slashed to meet an expected Pentagon-wide $263 billion reduction in spending.

THE U.S. NAVY'S top acquisition official said Jan. 12 that shipbuilding remains a “priority.” The new littoral combat ship Coronado (LCS 4) is shown Jan. 9 just before being launched. (U.S. Navy photo via Austal USA)

"We've placed a priority on shipbuilding," Sean Stackley, the Navy's top acquisition official, told reporters Jan. 12. "You can see a lot of alignment between the defense strategy and what the Navy does."

The Obama administration's fiscal 2013 budget request, scheduled to be sent Feb. 6 to Congress, will show "various impacts," Stackley said, "but we've been careful to hold to the core capabilities we need in our shipbuilding program. It's not just platforms, it's the capability we need in terms of weapon systems to be able to meet the defense strategy."

Speaking at the Surface Navy Association's symposium in Washington, Stackley commented on the progress of the Air Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), a program to develop a primary sensor to go with the Aegis weapon system. Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are competing under-development contracts for the radar, which will be installed on Arleigh Burke-class destroyers beginning with those bought in 2016.

A downselect on the AMDR is expected to take place later this year.

"The AMDR program is going great. And I'm not blowing smoke," Stackley adamantly declared.

"I spent a very concerted couple-week period this past fall, because I've got to see for myself. So I went up to Raytheon, I went to Lockheed Martin, I went to Northrop Grumman.

"I spent a day at each going through not just the data, but looking at the hardware, sitting down and talking with the engineers individually. Getting as much information as I could to corroborate what I'm seeing inside the Navy.

"That program is going very well."

He noted that the AMDR effort is building on existing technology.

"The maturity of the technology is far beyond where folks in the building believed it could be. And the costs that we are seeing are much better than we had estimated just a couple of years ago," he said.

"And the performance - we're at the upper end of the estimated performance range. I'm bullish on AMDR."

With the AMDR installed, the new destroyers will become Flight III of the Arleigh Burke class, supplanting current Flight IIA ships.

Stackley reminded a lunch audience that the Navy would seek a multiyear procurement (MYP) in the new budget for destroyers from 2013 through 2017. Congressional MYP authorization, however, is normally based on design maturity and consistency.

Navy Undersecretary Bob Work, speaking with reporters at the symposium, explained that, for a brief time, the service plans to order both Flight IIAs and IIIs.

"There's an overlap date between the IIAs and the Flight IIIs," he said, with another block buy planned separately for the AMDR ships.

Details will arrive on Jan. 26, when DoD officials preview the 2013 budget request.

7 CRUISERS TO BE CUT?

Earlier, Work, speaking to a symposium audience, laid out the capabilities of the fleet being built through 2022 - and might have inadvertently let slip one of the secret numbers about future ship cuts.

"We're going to wind up with 72 Burkes, and 15 - uh excuse me, I'm not going to tell you any numbers. Rewind the tape," he said, to sympathetic laughter from the professional audience.

The Burke number would reflect the total number of Flight I, II and IIA ships, but the Navy currently operates 22 Ticonderoga-class Aegis cruisers. Speculation has been rampant that some of the cruisers, which range in age from 25 years old to 17, might be decommissioned in line with budget reductions. No officials have commented for the record, but most guesses range between six and nine ships.

Work may have let slip that seven Ticos will be put down early.

But he also exuberantly extolled the virtues of the forces the Navy will have in the future.

"Everyone focuses in on: it's going to be 313 ships, 310," he said. "What the hell do we care? I have BAMS," the Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance aircraft based on the Global Hawk unmanned aircraft.

"Those numbers don't care," Work said. "How many ships would it take to provide the same maritime domain awareness as those BAMS? It's a lot bigger than a [Reagan-era] 600-ship Navy, I guarantee you that."

With the new fleet, "we span the globe. We can concentrate because we can get there in a hurry on 35 knots on the JHSV [Joint High Speed Vessel], 40-plus knots on the LCS [Littoral Combat Ship]. Yeah, it burns a lot of fuel," he said, referring to the LCS. "Yeah, we have refuelers. We get there quickly. We can configure for what we need. We have enormous payload capacity in our big boys.

"This is a different fleet. This is a more powerful fleet. I will take this fleet over a 600-ship Navy … in a heartbeat," Work said, his voice booming.

"One thing I would regret, quite frankly, is I would rather have 100 SSNs [nuclear-propelled attack submarines]. But in almost every other case, I'll take this," he said."

"And if you aren't excited" about the new fleet, he concluded, "you don't have a pulse."

U.S., Israel Postpone Joint Missile Exercises

JERUSALEM - Israel and the United States have agreed to postpone a major military defence exercise scheduled for spring, a senior security official Jan. 15 Sunday, amid rising regional tension over Iran's nuclear programme.

"Israel and the United States have agreed to postpone the maneuver planned for spring," the official said on condition of anonymity.

"The exercises will take place between now and the end of 2012," the official added, without elaborating.

Earlier, public radio said the "Austere Challenge 12" exercise would be pushed back to the end of 2012 over unspecified budgetary concerns, citing military sources.

Israeli Army radio, citing a defense official, said it was being postponed to avoid "unnecessary headlines in such a tense period."

The joint maneuver was to have been the biggest yet between the two allies and was seen as an opportunity to display their joint military strength at a time of growing concern about Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Israel, the United States and much of the international community accuse Iran of using its nuclear program to mask a weapons drive, a charge Tehran denies.

The postponement appeared to suggest fears the exercise could dangerously ramp up regional tensions, at a time when Iran has already threatened to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz - a chokepoint for one fifth of the world's traded oil - in the event of a military strike or severe tightening of international sanctions over its nuclear program.

Meanwhile, the United States sent Iran a letter over its threatened closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman said Jan. 15, without revealing the letter's contents.

"The U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, sent a letter to Mohammad Khazaie, Iran's U.N. representative, which was conveyed by the Swiss ambassador, and finally Iraqi President Jalal Talabani delivered its contents to officials" in Iran, the official IRNA news agency quoted Ramin Mehmanparast as saying.

"We are in the process of studying the letter and if necessary we will respond."

Last month, the Israelis insisted the joint maneuvers were planned in advance and denied they were related to Iran.

"The exercise scenario involves notional, simulated events as well as some field training and is not in response to any real-world event," the military said.

The postponement was not expected to affect a visit to Israel by top U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, who is scheduled to arrive this week and meet with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz.

But the delay was announced as reports suggested unease in U.S.-Israeli relations over the best response to Iran's nuclear program, and after an Israeli official voiced "disappointment" at Washington's approach.

Washington has spearheaded a push for international sanctions against Iran, including on its oil exports and financial institutions.

But Israel's Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon told public radio he thought U.S. President Barack Obama's administration should be tougher.

"France and Britain understand that the sanctions must be strengthened, in particular against the Iranian Central Bank," Yaalon said. "The U.S. Senate is also in favor, but the U.S. government is hesitating, fearing higher oil prices in an election year. It's disappointing."

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, speaking Jan. 15 ahead of a trip to Britain, also accused the international community of dragging its feet.

"It is regrettable that the international community has not yet used all the means at its disposal to stop the Iranian nuclear program," he told public radio.

Israel has made no secret of its desire to see crippling sanctions imposed on Iran in a bid to slow its nuclear development, and reports suggest it has also taken other actions to delay the program.

The Jewish state is suspected of involvement both in a computer worm that reportedly set back Iran's nuclear efforts, as well as a campaign of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists.

Media reports have pointed the finger at Israel's intelligence agency Mossad.

Foreign Policy magazine reported that Israel's actions had created friction with Washington, and The Wall Street Journal reported Jan. 13 that U.S. officials had warned Israel against unilateral military action against Iran.

Yaalon said Jan. 15 that a military strike remained a last resort for Israel.

"Israel must defend itself. I hope that we will not arrive at that point," he said.

India Casts Wider Net for Short-Range Missiles

NEW DELHI - The Indian Army has entered the global market to buy short-range surface-to-air missile (SRSAM) systems for $1.5 billion, a move that could further undercut a four-year effort to develop a system with MBDA of France.

The Army convinced the Indian Defence Ministry there is an urgent requirement for SRSAM, said Army sources, and did not want to wait for the Maitri project conceived four years ago. India and France have not been able to agree on details of the Maitri project, including funding arrangements, the source added.

The Army last month sent global tenders to defense companies in Europe, the United States and Russia including Raytheon of the U.S., Israel's Rafael, MBDA and Thales of France, Diehl Defence of Germany, KBP Tula and Rosoboronexport of Russia, Ukraineexport of Ukraine and LIG NEX1 of South Korea.

The requirements of the SRSAM are similar to those of the proposed Indo-French Maitri project, the Army source said.

The current tender is for two regiments (36 systems, 1,000 missiles) estimated to cost about $800 million each. The total Indian Army requirement is likely to be about eight regiments in the next five to seven years.

The Maitri project was proposed to be jointly developed by India's Defence Research and Development Laboratory and MBDA.

The selected vendor will have to transfer technology of the systems, as well.

The supply will be made in two batches and completed within five years of the signing of the tender, including the launchers, sensors, vehicles for transportation and the missiles. The system must have a service life of at least 20 years and the missiles of not less than eight years.

The SRSAM system should be able to engage multiple targets, including those flying up to 500 meters per second, and have a maximum range of not less than 15 kilometers.

In 2009, India bought two regiments of Spyder quick-reaction surface-to-air missile systems from Rafael. Another Indo-Israeli joint project is the $2.5 billion long-range surface-to-air missile project signed in 2009 and expected to be inducted in 2013, Indian Defence Ministry sources said.

Meanwhile, the Indian Army has begun inducting the homemade medium-range Akash, which has a range of up to 30 kilometers. In 2011, the Indian Army ordered the induction of two Akash regiments at a cost of about $3 billion.

The Army also has been negotiating the purchase of David Sling and Iron Dome missile interceptor systems.

Russia Open to NATO Defense Cooperation: Official

BRUSSELS - Russia's outgoing permanent representative to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, has pointed to the country's openness to defense cooperation with NATO partners at a press conference at NATO headquarters on Jan. 13.

"We should abandon any political confrontation [between NATO and Russia]," he said. "Russia is interested in enhancing its defense potential. ... Only partners trade arms."

He said Russia was very interested in cooperation with other countries on innovation, research and creating joint ventures. For example, he noted the country's interest in NATO projects such as Standex, or stand-off detection of suicide bombers.

He added that Russia will do all it can to have a modern military industrial complex and is also interested in cooperation with NATO partners in buying new types of armaments.

"In the 21st century, we believe that Russia should go back to fully fledged participation in Europe," he said.

Rogozin will be returning to Russia as vice prime minister in charge of defense industry policy. His tasks will include potential threats to Russia's security, including, the development of the country's navy.

Rogozin, who will be in charge of negotiations with the U.S. and NATO on the thorny issue of missile defense capacity, stressed that the system cannot contain "offensive elements" and must include a Russian role.

"If we believe the missile defense system is designed to give more security to Europe, then it can only be done with Russian participation" Rogozin said.

"If it is antagonistic to Russian interests ... this will lead to an exacerbation of relations with the West. It is up to our U.S. partners to come up with a system concentrated on deploying additional sites that does not infringe the interests of neighbors but engages neighbors in its work."

Would the US be defeated in the Persian Gulf in a War with Iran?

mi

Soldiers attend Iranian massive naval maneuvers dubbed Velayat 90 on the Sea of Oman, Iran, Dec. 28, 2011. The naval drills cover an area of 2,000 km stretching from the east of the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Aden.

(Xinhua/Stringer/Ali Mohammadi)

After years of U.S. threats, Iran has started to take very public steps to demonstrate that it is willing and capable of closing the Strait of Hormuz. On December 24, 2011 Iran started its Velayat-90 naval drills in and around the Strait of Hormuz and extending from the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman (Oman Sea) to the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea in the Indian Ocean. Since these drills took place there has been a growing war of words between Washington and Tehran. Nothing the Obama Administration or the Pentagon had done or said deterred Tehran from continuing the naval drills.

The Geo-Political Nature of the Strait of Hormuz

Besides the fact that it is a vital transit point for global energy resources and a strategic chokepoint, two additional things should be noted in regards to the Strait of Hormuz’s relationship to Iran. The first point is about the geography of the Strait of Hormuz. The second point is about the role of Iran in co-managing the strategic strait on the basis of international law and its sovereign rights.

Source : http://www.marketoracle.co.uk

The maritime traffic that goes through the Strait of Hormuz has always been in contact with Iranian naval forces, which are predominately composed of the Iranian Regular Force Navy and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Navy. In fact, Iranian naval forces monitor and police the Strait of Hormuz along with the Sultanate of Oman via the Omani enclave of Musandam. More importantly, to go through the Strait of Hormuz all maritime traffic, including the U.S. Navy, sails through Iranian territory. No country can enter the Persian Gulf and transit the Strait of Hormuz without sailing through Iranian waters and territory. Almost all entrances into the Persian Gulf are made through Iranian waters and most exits are through Omani waters.

Iran allows foreign ships to use its territorial waters in good faith and on the basis of Part III of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea’s maritime transit passage provisions that stipulate that vessels are free to sail through the Strait of Hormuz and similar bodies of water on the basis of speedy and continuous navigation between an open port and the high seas. Although Tehran in custom follows the navigation practices of the Law of the Sea, Tehran is not legally bound by them. Like Washington, Tehran signed this international treaty, but never ratified it.

American-Iranian Tensions in the Persian Gulf

Now the Iranian Majlis (Parliament) is re-evaluating the use of Iranian waters at the Strait of Hormuz. Legislation is being proposed by Iranian parliamentarians to block any foreign warships from being able to use Iranian territorial waters to navigate through the Strait of Hormuz without Iranian permission; the Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Committee is currently studying legislating this as an official Iranian posture on the basis of Iranian strategic interests and national security. [1]

On December 30, 2011, the U.S.S. John C. Stennispassed through the area where Iran was conducting its naval drills. The Commander of the Iranian Regular Forces, Major-General Ataollah Salehi, advised the U.S.S.John C. Stennis and other U.S. Navy vessels not to return to the Persian Gulf while Iran was doing its drills, saying that Iran is not in the habit of repeating a warning twice. [2] Shortly after the stern Iranian warning to Washington, the Pentagon’s press secretary responded by making a statement saying: “No one in this government seeks confrontation [with Iran] over the Strait of Hormuz. It’s important to lower the temperature.” [3]

In an actual scenario of military conflict with Iran it is very likely that U.S. aircraft carriers would actually operate from outside of the Persian Gulf and from the southern Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. Unless the missile systems that Washington is erecting in the petro-sheikhdoms of the southern Persian Gulf are fully capable and active, the deployment of large U.S. warships may be unlikely in the Persian Gulf. The reasons for this are tied to geographic realities and the defensive capabilities of Iran.

Geography is against the Pentagon: U.S. Naval Strength has limits in the Persian Gulf

U.S. naval strength, which predominately includes the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard, essentially has primacy over all the other navies and maritime forces in the world. Its deep sea or oceanic capabilities are unparalleled or unmatched by any other naval power. Nevertheless, primacy does not mean invincibility. U.S. naval forces in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf are very vulnerable to Iran.

Despite its might and shear strength, geography literally works against U.S. naval power in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. The relative narrowness of the Persian Gulf makes it like a channel, at least in a strategic and military context. Figuratively speaking, the aircraft carriers and warships of the U.S. are confined to narrow waters or are closed in within the coastal waters of the Persian Gulf.

This is where the Iranian military’s advanced missile capabilities come into play. The Iranian missile and torpedo arsenal would make short work of U.S. naval assets in the waters of the Persian Gulf where U.S. vessels are constricted. This is why the U.S. has been busily erecting a missile shield system in the Persian Gulf amongst the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries in the last few years.

Even the small Iranian patrol boats in the Persian Gulf, which appear pitiable and insignificant against a U.S. aircraft carrier or destroyer, threaten U.S. warships. Looks can be deceiving; these Iranian patrol boats can easily launch a barrage of missiles that could significantly damage and effectively sink large U.S. warships. Iranian small patrol boats are also hardly detectable and hard to target.

Iranian forces could also attack U.S. naval capabilities merely by launching missile attacks from the Iranian mainland on the northern shores of the Persian Gulf. Even in 2008 the Washington Institute for Near East Policy acknowledged the threat from Iran’s mobile coastal missile batteries, anti-ship missiles, and missile-armed small ships. [4] Other Iranian naval assets like aerial drones, hovercraft, mines, diver teams, and mini-submarines could also be used in asymmetrical naval warfare against the U.S. Fifth Fleet.

Even the Pentagon’s own war simulations have shown that a war in the Persian Gulf with Iran would spell disaster for the United States and its military. One key example is the Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) war game in the Persian Gulf, which was conducted from July 24, 2002 to August 15, 2002 and took almost two years to prepare. This mammoth drill was amongst the largest and most expensive war games ever held by the Pentagon. Millennium Challenge 2002 was held shortly after the Pentagon had decided that it would continue the momentum of the war in Afghanistan by targeting Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, and finishing off with the big prize of Iran in a broad military campaign to ensure U.S. primacy in the new millennium.

After Millennium Challenge 2002 was finished, the war game was presented as a simulation of a war against Iraq under the rule of President Saddam Hussein, but this cannot be true. [5] The U.S. had already made assessments for the upcoming Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Moreover, Iraq had no naval capabilities that would merit such large-scale use of the U.S. Navy.

Millennium Challenge 2002 was conducted to simulate a war with Iran, which was codenamed “Red” and referred to as an unknown Middle Eastern rogue enemy state in the Persian Gulf. Other than Iran, no other country could meet the perimeters and characteristics of “Red” and its military forces, from the patrol boats to the motorcycle units. The war simulation took place because Washington was planning on attacking Iran soon after invading Iraq in 2003.

The scenario in the 2002 war game started with the U.S., codenamed “Blue,” giving Iran a one-day ultimatum to surrender in the year 2007. The war game’s date of 2007 would chronologically correspond to U.S. plans to attack Iran after the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006, which was suppose to expand into a broader war against Syria too. The war against Lebanon, however, did not go as planned and the U.S. and Israel realized that if Hezbollah could challenge them in Lebanon then an expanded war with Syria and Iran would be a disaster.

In Millennium Challenge 2002’s war scenario, Iran would react to U.S. aggression by launching a massive barrage of missiles that would overwhelm the U.S. and destroy sixteen U.S. naval vessels – an aircraft carrier, ten cruisers, and five amphibious ships. It is estimated that if this happened in reality, more than 20,000 U.S. servicemen would have been dead after the attack within a single day. [6] Next, Iran would send its small patrol boats – the ones that look insignificant in comparison to theU.S.S. John C. Stennis and other large U.S. warships – to overwhelm the remainder of the Pentagon’s naval forces in the Persian Gulf, which would result in the damaging and sinking of most of the U.S. Fifth Fleet and the defeat of the United States. After the U.S. defeat, the war games were started over again, but “Red” had to operate under handicapping restraints so that U.S. forces would be allowed to emerge victorious from the drill. [7] This would hide the reality of the fact that the U.S. would be overwhelmed as an outcome of a conventional war with Iran in the Persian Gulf.

Hence, the formidable naval power of Washington is handicapped by geography coupled with Iranian military capabilities when it comes to fighting Tehran in the Persian Gulf or even in much of the Gulf of Oman. Without open waters, like in the Indian Ocean or the Pacific Ocean, the U.S. will have to fight under significantly reduced response times and, more importantly, will not be able to fight from a stand-off (militarily safe) distance. Thus, entire tool boxes of U.S. naval defensive systems, which were designed for combat in open waters using stand-off ranges, are rendered unpractical in the Persian Gulf.

Making the Strait of Hormuz Redundant to Weaken Iran?

The entire world knows the importance of the Strait of Hormuz and Washington and its allies are very well aware that the Iranians can militarily close it for a significant period of time. This is why the U.S. has been working with the GCC countries – Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and the U.A.E. – to re-route their oil through pipelines bypassing the Strait of Hormuz and channelling GCC oil directly to the Indian Ocean, Red Sea, or Mediterranean Sea. Washington has also been pushing Iraq to seek alternative routes in talks with Turkey, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

Both Israel and Turkey have also been very interested in this strategic project. Ankara has had discussions with Qatar about setting up an oil terminal that would reach Turkey via Iraq. The Turkish government has attempted to get Iraq to link its southern oil fields, like Iraq’s northern oil fields, to the transit routes running through Turkey. This is all tied to Turkey’s visions of being an energy corridor and important lynchpin of transit.

The aims of re-routing oil away from the Persian Gulf would remove an important element of strategic leverage Iran has against Washington and its allies. It would effectively reduce the importance of the Strait of Hormuz. It could very well be a prerequisite to war preparations and a war led by the United States against Tehran and its allies.

It is within this framework that the Abu Dhabi Crude Oil Pipeline or the Hashan-Fujairah Oil Pipeline is being fostered by the United Arab Emirates to bypass the maritime route in the Persian Gulf going through the Strait of Hormuz. The project design was put together in 2006, the contract was issued in 2007, and construction was started in 2008. [8] This pipeline goes straight from Abdu Dhabi to the port of Fujairah on the shore of the Arabian Sea. In other words it will give oil exports from the U.A.E. direct access to the Indian Ocean. It has openly been presented as a means to ensure energy security by bypassing Hormuz and attempting to avoid the Iranian military. Along with the construction of this pipeline, the erection of a strategic oil reservoir at Fujairah was also envisaged to also maintain the flow of oil to the international market should the Persian Gulf be closed off. [9]

Aside from the Petroline (East-West Saudi Pipeline), Saudi Arabia has also been looking at alternative transit routes and examining the ports of it southern neighbours in the Arabian Peninsula, Oman and Yemen. The Yemenite port of Mukalla on the shores of the Gulf of Aden has been of particular interest to Riyadh. In 2007, Israeli sources reported with some fanfare that a pipeline project was in the works that would connect the Saudi oil fields with Fujairah in the U.A.E., Muscat in Oman, and finally to Mukalla in Yemen. The reopening of the Iraq-Saudi Arabia Pipeline (IPSA), which was ironically built by Saddam Hussein to avoid the Strait of Hormuz and Iran, has also been a subject of discussion for the Saudis with the Iraqi government in Baghdad.

If Syria and Lebanon were converted into Washington’s clients, then the defunct Trans-Arabian Pipeline (Tapline) could also be reactivated, along with other alternative routes going from the Arabian Peninsula to the coast of the Mediterranean Sea via the Levant. Chronologically, this would also fit into Washington’s efforts to overrun Lebanon and Syria in an attempt to isolate Iran before any possible showdown with Tehran.

The Iranian Velayat-90 naval drills, which extended in close proximity to the entrance of the Red Sea in the Gulf of Aden off the territorial waters of Yemen, also took place in the Gulf of Oman facing the coast of Oman and the eastern shores of the United Arab Emirates. Amongst other things, Velayat-90 should be understood as a signal that Tehran is ready to operate outside of the Persian Gulf and can even strike or block the pipelines trying to bypass the Strait of Hormuz.

The first Trans-Arabia pipeline designed to keep tankers out of Iran’s range.

Geography again is on Iran’s side in this case too. Bypassing the Strait of Hormuz still does not change the fact that most of the oil fields belonging to GCC countries are located in the Persian Gulf or near its shores, which means they are all situated within close proximity to Iran and therefore close Iranian striking distance. Like in the case of the Hashan-Fujairah Pipeline, the Iranians could easily disable the flow of oil from the point of origin. Tehran could launch missile and aerial attacks or deploy its ground, sea, air, and amphibious forces into these areas as well. It does not necessarily need to block the Strait of Hormuz; after all preventing the flow of energy is the main purpose of the Iranian threats.

The American-Iranian Cold War

Washington has been on the offensive against Iran using any means at its disposal. The tensions over the Strait of Hormuz and in the Persian Gulf are just one front in a dangerous multi-front regional cold war between Tehran and Washington in the broader Middle East. Since 2001, the Pentagon has also been restructuring its military to wage unconventional wars with enemies like Iran. [10] Nonetheless, geography has always worked against the Pentagon and the U.S. has not found a solution for its naval dilemma in the Persian Gulf. Instead of a conventional war, Washington has had to resort to waging a covert, economic, and diplomatic war against Iran.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya