U.S. Air Force Needs Long-Range Strike

The U.S. government should be lamenting the fact that despite numerous warnings and sufficient international stimulus, it has failed to attend to the desperate need for robust, rapid, long-range strike capability.
As the military service charged exclusively with arming, training and equipping forces for air and space operations, with the exception of its airlift fleet, the U.S. Air Force has chosen to build a short-range, limited payload combat force. Its fleet of very effective F-22 and F-35 fighters are about to take center stage in the global arms arena. As capable as they are, with a combat range of 400 or so miles, they just don't fit the bill. Let's review:

The Opposition

We are still heavily committed to major combat operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan while ramping down our efforts in Iraq. Relations with China, the largest and second most militarily powerful nation on Earth, can only be conservatively described as "testy." It is rapidly building a military structure that its leaders hope will be able to keep American sea and air forces at bay during a not inconceivable conflict, including a ballistic missile designed to attack aircraft carriers well out to sea.
A paranoid, bipolar North Korean government is increasingly belligerent, having recently killed 50 South Koreans in military attacks. And in addition to its huge advanced conventional force, it is known to have nuclear weapons as well as a burgeoning missile fleet with which to deliver them.
Iran is genetically hostile to anybody in the Western world and reportedly on the cusp of nuclear capability, never mind its substantial band of conventionally armed fanatics.
Then there are a bunch of Mexican drug lords with more money with which to buy weapons than the Mexican government has. They are committing murder and mayhem right up to, and occasionally across, our border.
Have I missed anybody? And we are looking to our military forces - already to a large extent pinned down in Iraq and Afghanistan - to also keep a lid on this global menagerie of hostility.

The Home Team

The U.S. government has been building a military force that is exceptionally good at placing ground forces directly in harm's way to fight terrorists and insurgents. That's all well and good if the enemy is an insurgent with no sophisticated weapons, which many are. But some of our opponents are technologically savvy with powerful conventional and nuclear force structures that demand something substantially different than a boots-on-the-ground, infantry-heavy structure.
Critics have maligned even the latest generation of advanced but short-range combat aircraft for the wrong reasons. They are referred to as relics of the Cold War and the faceoff with the Soviet Union, too complex and expensive for what they say we face today: terrorists and insurgents.
The fact is, they are indeed effective against just about all our opponents, if they have sufficient range to get to where they can have some effect.
These same "experts" also often seriously question the need for a force component with the capability to fly farther than from Topeka to Chicago. But range is absolutely vital to a defense structure like ours designed to conduct expeditionary operations from long distances. We got that one wrong.
So, here's the big rub. This nation is just about broke. With a $14 trillion debt (ironically, mostly owed to our friendly neighborhood banker, the People's Republic of China), unemployment close to 10 percent, and overdue projects from dilapidated bridges to a foundering health care system, we are not likely to begin a crash weapon-building program to protect ourselves.
Those long-range strike aircraft we so desperately need to reach out and touch adversaries around the world are just not coming, unless we re-arrange some priorities. Even the fleets of fifth-generation fighters the Air Force has ordered are being drastically reduced.

Bitter Medicine

The only way to reverse a situation that has been a generation in the making is a change of strategy, requiring bitter medicine for the folks in blue who are managing what we may eventually see as a flying circus - good for air shows and moving ground forces and supplies around, but not much else.
Rather than relying on short-range aircraft that must be brought into close proximity to the adversary, making them and their bases vulnerable, we need to be able to cover global distances to carry our message to diverse adversaries from secure bases. That is the domain of the long-range combat aircraft: the bomber.
But they cannot be so expensive that we can afford only 20 of them. We've been there, done that. And note I have not said they all must be manned.
Yes, it would be very useful to have a massive fleet of both advanced fighters and bombers. That would truly put a lid on at least the aviation portion of many contingencies, but it is just not going to happen. The alternative is not to lock ourselves out of high-threat theaters by not having sufficient range and payload. It is to adapt range and payload to mission needs.
There are rumors of Air Force plans to build a new long-range strike aircraft over the next decade. We have heard that before. I question the service's commitment to this and the cuts in other plans that would be an inevitable result. And would Congress be willing to fund it if USAF leaders showed they would compromise on some fighter fleet plans?
It would signal a major shift in defense strategy. I just wonder if it's too late to switch horses

India Considers 'Pain Gun' Buy From Raytheon

BANGALORE, India - U.S. defense group Raytheon says it wants to sell India a controversial "pain gun" it claims would be safer than rubber bullets in quelling unrest in the insurgency-racked country.
The Silent Guardian Protection System is billed by its makers as the 21st-century equivalent of tear gas or water cannons - a way to subdue rioters while inflicting minimal harm.

The U.S. military withdrew the weapon last year from war-torn Afghanistan amid opposition from human rights activists worried about its safety. The U.S. Army has not commented on why it withdrew the system.
"We are meeting various elements of the Indian government, who are seeking information" on the weapon, senior Raytheon executive George Svitak said Feb. 11 while attending Aero India.
Raytheon says the weapon, which causes agonizing pain but no lasting damage, would be less likely to cause injury than water cannons, tear gas or rubber bullets frequently used by Indian troops to break up unruly crowds.
Raytheon has already sold the system, variously dubbed the "pain gun" or "ray gun," to unnamed government clients, Svitak said.
India has been searching for better ways to control crowds after 114 people were killed last summer during anti-India street protests in restive India-controlled Kashmir, mainly by police bullets.
The weapon sends out beams of radiation that stimulate human nerve endings from a transmitter the size of a large TV screen mounted on the back of a truck.
The beam barely penetrates the skin, meaning it cannot cause visible or permanent injury, Svitak said. However, anyone in its path will feel an extremely painful sensation across their body.
It can also be used to pinpoint individuals.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently told state police chiefs to deal with protesters humanely.
"We need to revisit crowd control measures to deal with public agitations with non-lethal, yet effective and more focused measures," Singh said, referring to use of excess force in Kashmir.

Arjun tank to get more Indian muscl

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) will roll out a more potent and indigenised variant of the Arjun tank in three years. DRDO chief VK Saraswat said the German engine on the current version of the tank would be replaced by an Indian power plant and the new variant (Arjun

Mk-II) would have 90% indigenous component. The existing tank may be hailed as an indigenous project but imported items such as power pack, gunner's main sight and track account for 58% of the cost per tank. Saraswat, also the scientific adviser to the defence minister, told HT at Aero India-2011, "The new variant will have high indigenous quotient, except for some hydraulic and electronic systems. The tank should be ready in early 2014. It will feature several modifications including superior missile firing capabilities. "
The army raised its maiden armoured regiment equipped with Arjun tanks in May 2009, more than 35 years after the project was conceived. The army has so far placed an order for 248 tanks, each costing R16.8 crore. The Arjun was earlier plagued with problems concerning its fire control system, suspension and poor mobility due to its weight.
The army accepted the Arjun tank only after a third-party audit by an international tank maker roped in by the DRDO to endorse the battle-worthiness of the tank after extensive evaluations. The tank has been designed and developed by the DRDO and the Combat Vehicles Research and Development Establishment, Avadi.
Saraswat said the DRDO was laying the groundwork to develop future main battle tank. The tank would be lighter than the 60-tonne Arjun, he said. Currently, Russian T-90s and T-72s are the mainstay of India’s tank fleet.

India has technology to defend satellites: Saraswat

India did not believe in space wars but had all the technology required to integrate systems to defend its satellites, V K Saraswat, Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister, said today.

"Our country does not have a policy to attack anybody in space. We don't believe in it. But as part of the Ballistic Missile Defence Programme, we have all the technology elements which are required to integrate a system through which we can defend our satellites or take care of future requirements."

As a country, "we do not believe in space wars", he said in response to a query whether India had anti-satellite weapon capabilities.

India did not have a formal anti-satellite weapon policy of attacking satellites in space, but was well geared in case of any eventuality, he told reporters here.

India to have satellite navigation system by 2015

Bangalore, Feb 11 (PTI) India will launch seven satellites in the next four to six years to develop its own version of the Global Positioning System (GPS) for enhancing surveillance capabilities and improving accuracy of its weapon systems.

The Indian Navigation System (INS) satellites would provide coverage over India's areas of interest for military purposes along with its civilian uses, IAF sources told PTI here.

Till now, India is dependent on the American GPS and has signed a deal with Russia for using their GLONAS system but having an indigenous system would guarantee the availability of system during crisis or conflicts.

Asked about similar developments in the neighbourhood, they said China was developing its own version of the GPS which will cover the whole globe.

"But we don't want to cover the whole world and want to focus on the region important for us," the sources said.

India's Boeing P-8I Moving Forward

BANGALORE, India - Boeing announced a number of milestones in India's P-8I program during the 2011 Aero India air show being held in Bangalore, India, from Feb. 9-13.
In 2010 Boeing completed the final design for the P-8I and began fabrication in December, said Leland Wright, Boeing's P-8I program manager. The first flight of the new aircraft is scheduled for the end of this year.

The aircraft is designed specifically for the Indian Navy for long-range maritime patrol and reconnaissance, he said. The aircraft is "designed specifically to integrate indigenous India equipment."
It is a military derivative of the Boeing 737-800 and a variant of the U.S. Navy's P-8A Poseidon. India is the first international customer for the P-8 and Leland expects other countries to express an interest in the platform in the future. Boeing projects the market for maritime patrol aircraft to be around 100 P-8s.
The contract with the Indian Navy is for eight aircraft, including an option for four additional platforms. Delivery of the first aircraft is expected in 2013, he said.
Leland did confirm that the Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response (SLAM-ER) system was not part of the deal, but Boeing has a license to export the cruise missile system to India should it opt for it in the future. Instead, the P-8I will carry four Harpoon anti-ship missiles.
Boeing is still identifying offset partners in India. So far Boeing has arranged offset supply agreements with Bharat Electronics, TATA Advanced Materials, Dynamatic Technologies Limited, Avantel and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. Four additional offset contracts are being defined and the P-8I offset contract performance is on schedule, Leland said.

Seoul To Deploy New Shipboard Cruise Missile

SEOUL - South Korea's Navy will equip some of its Aegis destroyers with 500-kilometer cruise missiles by year's end, part of an effort to aim more precision-strike weapons at North Korea, a government source and the missile's manufacturer here said Feb. 8.
"We're considering equipping the KDX-II/III destroyers with the newly developed Cheonryong, as the missile could effectively strike key targets in the North, such as ground-to-ship missile bases," the source said.

A modified variant of the surface-to-surface Hyunmoo III-A ballistic missile, a ship-launched Cheonryong could hit North Korea's ground-to-ship missile bases and coastal artillery batteries should the North launch an attack again, a source said.
The missile was developed by the state-run Agency for Defense Development and LIG Nex1, a precision electronic weapons maker.
South Korea's Ministry of National Defense and Defense Acquisition Program Administration neither confirmed nor denied the missile's development or deployment.
An official at LIG Nex1 confirmed, however, that the production of the Hyunmoo III-A missile has begun.
The North has occasionally fired short-range surface-to-ship missiles, including ones believed to have been modified either from Silkworm or KN01 missiles, into the seas east and west of the Korean peninsula.
"Ship-to-ground missiles have a wider and more flexible range than ground-launched ones," the source said.
He said the Cheonryong could also be fitted to a 3,000-ton heavy attack submarine to be locally developed beginning in 2018. Three 3,000-ton submarines are scheduled to be built under the 2.5 trillion won ($2.2 billion) KSS-III project.
The South Korean Navy operates six 4,500-ton KDX-II and two 7,600-ton KDX-III Aegis-equipped destroyers. One more KDX-III is to be commissioned.
YTN, a local cable TV news channel, reported that the Cheonryong missile had already been modified to be installed on the Navy's 1,800-ton Type-214 submarines. The Navy has three and aims to launch six more Type-214s before 2020.
Last year, defense officials here revealed the development of the Hyunmoo III-C surface-to-surface ballistic missile with a maximum range of 1,500 kilometers, following the deployment of the 1,000-kilometer-range Hyunmoo III-B.
While the Hyunmoo I ballistic missile has a range of 180 kilometers and the Hyunmoo II a range of 300 kilometers, the Hynmoo III can reach China and parts of eastern Russia with a margin of error of 5 meters, aided by a Terrain Contour Matching system, according to the LIG Nex1 official.
The development of long-range cruise missiles doesn't violate international guidelines restricting Seoul's missile technology.
Under a 2001 agreement with the United States, South Korea restricts its missile capability to a range of 300 kilometers and a 500-kilogram payload to comply with the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR).
The regime only applies to high-velocity, free-flight ballistic missiles, so the South Korean military has instead deployed slower, surface-skimming cruise missile with ranges of 1,000 to 1,500 kilometers.
Against that backdrop, South Korea and the United States began consultations late last year on revising the decade-old guidelines.
Seoul wants to extend the missile range up to 1,000 kilometers to bring all of North Korean missile sites and key facilities within reach.
However, U.S. officials are cautious about the issue because Seoul's increased missile capability could cause a backlash from China and Japan, as well as North Korea, according to sources.
North Korea is believed to have more than 600 Scud missiles with a range of 320 to 500 kilometers, and 200 Rodongs with a range of 1,300 kilometers. It also is developing a 6,700-kilometer intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that could reach part of the U.S. mainland.
In recent years, North Korea is reported to have established an Army division to take control of its 3,000-kilometer-range intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs), which could hit U.S. military installations in Japan and Guam.
The North deployed IRBMs in 2007 after it started developing a midrange ballistic missile in the late 1990s, according to Seoul's 2008 defense white paper.