Philippines Agrees to Greater American Presence

MANILA, Philippines — The Philippines on Jan. 27 announced plans to allow a greater U.S. military presence on its territory, in a move analysts said was directly aimed at trying to contain a rising China.

Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario said the Philippines was looking for more joint military exercises with its former colonial ruler, as well as having a greater number of U.S. troops rotating through the country.

“It is to our definite advantage to be exploring how to maximize our treaty alliance with the United States in ways that would be mutually acceptable and beneficial,” del Rosario said in a statement.

Del Rosario did not specifically name China as driving the Philippines’ push for a greater U.S. military presence, but highlighted “territorial disputes.” The most pressing territorial dispute for the Philippines is with China over claims to parts of the South China Sea, home to some of the world’s most important shipping lanes and believed to hold vast deposits of fossil fuels.

The Philippines and Vietnam, who also claims parts of the South China Sea, complained repeatedly last year of what they said were increasingly aggressive acts by China in the decades-long rift.

The accusations, which included a Chinese naval ship firing warning shots at Filipino fishermen, fueled fears among some nations in the region about China as its military and political strength grows.

In his statement, del Rosario said a greater U.S. military presence in the Philippines would help bolster regional security.

“Such cooperative efforts would as well result in achieving a balance of influence to ensure peace, stability, and economic development in the region,” he said.

Nevertheless, del Rosario and other officials emphasized there were no plans to allow a return of the large-scale U.S. military bases that existed in the Philippines until 1992, when Filipino senators voted to close them down.

Del Rosario said the increased U.S. military presence could include “planning more joint exercises to promote interoperability, and a rotating and more frequent presence by them.”

Aside from regular military exercises, the most notable U.S. presence in the Philippines in recent times has been a rotating force of about 600 troops that has been stationed in the southern Philippines for the past decade.

The U.S. special operations forces train local troops in how to combat Islamic militants but are not allowed to have a fighting role.

Del Rosario’s statement expanded on comments by U.S. State Department officials on Jan. 26, who said the two countries were involved in talks this week on increasing military cooperation.

Philippine officials said more talks would be held in March to determine specifics of the plans.

Political analysts in Manila said the Philippines’ decision to allow a larger U.S. military presence was a direct reaction to China’s perceived increased aggressiveness, particularly regarding the South China Sea.

“The Philippines is now playing the U.S. card to get more leverage against China,” said Rommel Banlaoi, head of the Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence and Terrorism Research.

Rene de Castro, a lecturer in international studies at De la Salle University said: “We are playing the balance of power game because we have no means to deal with an emergent and very assertive China.”

In a strategic shift that has angered China, the United States has been looking to increase its military presence across the Asia Pacific.

U.S. President Barack Obama said in November the United States would deploy up to 2,500 Marines to northern Australia. The next month a U.S. admiral wrote that the U.S. expected to station several combat ships in Singapore.

German Parliament Agrees to Reduce Afghan Troops-----------Defense News

BERLIN — German lawmakers voted Jan. 26 to extend the mandate for German forces in Afghanistan by one year but for the first time cut the number of troops to be deployed there.

The maximum number of troops will be set at 4,900 from Feb. 1, down from 5,350 now, while another 500 will be withdrawn by 2013.

“It is clear that the work there is not yet done,” German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said in a statement. “The path to peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan is still long.”

Germany, which has the third biggest NATO-led force in Afghanistan behind the United States and Britain, said at the start of the year that it aimed to begin pulling out its forces, eyeing 2014 for a complete withdrawal.

Opinion polls have shown the mission, the first major Bundeswehr deployment outside of Europe since World War II, has been consistently unpopular in the country.

The NATO-led forces are all due to be withdrawn in 2014.

Sweden to consider Gripen Upgrade-------------Defense News

HELSINKI — Sweden’s government is expected to examine in the spring an Armed Forces Command (AFC) proposal covering a possible $5 billion upgrade for the Air Force’s 100 JAS Gripen multirole fighters.

The Ministry of Defense (MoD) has sought a cost appraisal from Saab, although the company says that it has not yet submitted a formal costing to the government.

The Gripen upgrade proposal was contained in the AFC’s proposition to the government in March 2011. This outlined how Sweden’s Air Force and air defenses could best be developed after 2020. The AFC’s submission noted that a decision on the Gripens was needed in order to plan for either upgrading or replacing the aging aircraft, adding that funding for a new project should begin to be incorporated into the annual defense budget no later than 2015.

The AFC is proposing to upgrade and develop an E/F version of the Gripen to ensure the fighter maintains its technological development capability and continues to operate up to 2040, and possibly beyond.

Avionics, sensors and radar will form a key part of any upgrade, as will improving the aircraft’s weapons-carrying capability and fuel tank capacity. Some 20 possible new configurations for a Gripen E/F version are being examined by Saab, the AFC and FMV, Sweden’s defense materials central procurement agency.

The upgrade proposal is regarded as a more cost-efficient option than funding a new fighter replacement program. The AFC advocates that the Air Force’s stock of C/D version Gripens be upgraded on a phased basis to spread the total cost over a five- to 10-year budgetary period.

The AFC views the impending government decision, which it anticipates will be made in March, as the most critical funding issue facing Swedish defense. A significant factor will be the AFC’s improved working relationship with government. This was underlined in 2011 when the MoD approved $900 million in new funding to strengthen the attack and tactical helicopter capability of the Air Force and Army by acquiring 15 Sikorsky Black Hawks.

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.”

USAF to Retire Block 30 Global Hawk

The U.S. Air Force is likely to retire its fleet of Block 30 Northrop Grumman RQ-4 Global Hawk high-altitude unmanned surveillance aircraft, an industry source confirms, breathing new life into the five-decade-old U-2 program.

On Jan. 24, analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va., said the Pentagon is planning to mothball its recently acquired Block 30 Global Hawks, which are designed to collect imagery and signals intelligence. Not only would the Air Force stop building the aircraft, but existing planes in the current inventory would be retired.

The Air Force had been planning to buy 42 Block 30 aircraft. According to 2011 budget documents, the cost of each aircraft was around $215 million. It was not immediately clear how many Global Hawks the Air Force has.

The aircraft is being terminated mainly due to its high cost to buy and maintain, but it has also failed to live up to the promises that the program had originally offered, sources said.A knowledgeable industry source confirmed that the Air Force is killing the program.

“Yes, this is accurate — been a lot of discussion on the possibility of this a long while,” said the source, who was not authorized to speak to the media. “There is a high probability it will come to pass now unless Congress takes a major exception.”

But the industry source said that’s not likely to happen due to budget constraints.

“I don’t think that’s likely in the economic environment of this year’s DoD budget, and there are no real ‘hawks’ in Congress from California,” he said. The aircraft is built is both built and based in California.

A senior Air Force official would neither confirm nor deny that the Pentagon had deleted the Global Hawk from its proposed budget. But “clearly, FY13 is going to be a particularly tough budget year for the DoD,” he said. The official is not authorized to speak to the media.

Northrop Grumman officials could not immediately comment.

The Air Force declined to provide an official comment, other than to say that no budget details will be made available before the budget is released.

If the program is killed, Thompson said the cost of the U.S. Navy’s Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) variant of the Global Hawk could go up, which could render that aircraft unaffordable. There is a proposal to equip the Air Force with the naval variant, he said, but that is unlikely to happen.

The Navy wants to use the BAMS aircraft as a communications relay and maritime surveillance tool with its 360-degree sensors that include radar, an electro-optical/infrared camera, Automatic Identification System receiver and electronic support measures.

One source close to the Air Force said the sensors, data links and other equipment on the Global Hawk are less accurate, and provide less resolution, less range and less collection capability than other intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms, particularly the U-2.

“As for the Global Hawk system’s capabilities, it is good at long-endurance flight with its so-so sensors,” the source said. “They are currently and will continue to be well below par.”

The Global Hawk has never lived up to the Air Force’s original expectations, critics have said.

Even if additional resources were added to the program, “it will never live up to the hype the Military Channel, Aviation Week, etc., have been leading the public to believe,” the source said. “The technology advertised as currently on-board many UAVs is nothing short of science fiction, not mature and won’t be until billions are spent to make it happen.”

Additionally, the Global Hawk doesn’t have the U-2 Optical Bar Camera, which creates 6-foot-long wet-film images of the ground. Congress had barred the Air Force from retiring the U-2 until all of that aircraft’s capabilities are replaced.

The Global Hawk is also far less reliable than the Air Force had hoped, he said. The aircraft “spends most of its time hiding in its hangar broke.”

The fate of the Block 40 Global Hawk, which is equipped with the Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP) radar, is not clear. The MP-RTIP is a powerful ground surveillance radar designed to create photo-quality imagery of the Earth’s surface and overlay moving ground targets over those.

Nor is it clear if NATO’s proposed buy of five modified MP-RTIP-equipped Global Hawks for its Alliance Ground Surveillance program or if Germany’s EuroHawk program will be affected.

The demise of the Global Hawk means that the U-2 has a new lease on life. Thompson said the venerable aircraft will now remain in service till at least 2023.

Pakistan Responds Harsh to NATO strike

ISLAMABAD — While the Pakistani military is in no mood to quietly return to full cooperation with NATO/ISAF forces in the aftermath of the Nov. 25-26 attacks on Pakistani border posts, a “restart” in the Pak-U.S relationship is still possible, experts said.

Brian Cloughley, former Australian defense attaché to Islamabad, said the Pakistani military — specifically the Army — does not want to settle for a low-key response from the U.S.

“The Army doesn’t want a ‘quiet’ acknowledgement. What it wants is a proper apology — publicly,” he said.

The Army is united in this opinion, and if a public apology is not forthcoming the considerable ill-will directed toward the U.S. will continue, “and there will be continuing lack of cooperation.”

The Pakistani response to the Jan. 23 NATO/ISAF report into the attacks, which killed 24 Pakistani troops, was predictable, he said.

The accompanying Inter Services Press Release (ISPR) statement says Pakistan disagrees with “several portions and findings” of the NATO/ISAF report, which are deemed to be “factually not correct.”

The basis of the NATO/ISAF report, “self defense” and “proportional use of force,” is rejected as “contrary to facts.”

The ISPR statement reiterates Pakistan contacted NATO/ISAF forces “within minutes of initiation of US/NATO fire,” and rejects attributing partial responsibility for the attacks to Pakistani forces as “unjustified and unacceptable.”

It also states, “The fundamental cause of the incident of 26th November 2011 was the failure of US/ISAF to share its near-border operation with Pakistan at any level.”

In addition, it lists “the complicated chain of command, complex command and control structure and unimaginative/intricate Rules of Engagement, as well as lack of unified military command in Afghanistan,” as further causes of the attacks.

It ends by stating NATO/ISAF forces “violated all mutually agreed procedures with Pakistan for near-border operations put in place to avert such uncalled for actions,” and reiterates the attacks were an “unprovoked engagement” that took place inside Pakistan and were therefore a violation of NATO/ISAF’s mandate.

Zafar Nawaz Jaspal, associate professor at the school of Politics and International Relations at Islamabad’s Quaid-e-Azam University, said Pakistan’s response to the NATO/ISAF report has tried to prove what has already been stated by the Pakistani side, and that there “doesn’t seem to be a desire to let this go.”

It details that NATO/ISAF forces had carried out previous operations in the vicinity and were fully aware of the course of the border and location of Pakistani positions. It also says that some operations on the Afghan side of the border were undertaken by NATO/ISAF forces in support of Pakistani anti-Taliban operations on its side of the border.

Using photographs and aerial images to reinforce its assertions, the Pakistan statement also rejects claims NATO/ISAF forces were fired upon by the Pakistani posts. It specifically criticizes the NATO/ISAF report’s mandate, which did not include affixing direct responsibility for the attacks, and that it implied “Pakistan was considered in an adversarial role.”

Lt. Col. Jimmie Cummings, ISAF spokesman, was unable to comment on the Pakistani response and referred questions to CENTCOM as the investigative report into the attacks was carried out by CENTCOM, not ISAF.

He said ISAF was only able to comment on “the recommendations that CENTCOM made in the original report.”

“The recommendations in the CENTCOM report are designed to work toward building a positive relationship and constructive cross-border coordination measures to ensure this type of incident does not ever occur again. US and ISAF are taking these recommendations and are moving forward toward full implementation,” he said.

No response was forthcoming from CENTCOM, however, or from the defense section at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad.

Jaspal is optimistic there is a chance for the Pak-U.S. relationship to be “restarted,” but “not as it was previously” “There won’t be a ‘blank check’ as there was previously; there will restrictions,” he said.

The main factor is the ongoing block on NATO supplies transiting Pakistani territory.

“The Pakistan supply route will probably remain closed, and the northern routes will continue to be used and expanded, if possible,” said Cloughley. “There is already a mammoth increase in air supply. The costs are horrific.”

Poland spent Around half a Billion on Afghan Missions

WARSAW — Poland spent 2.02 billion zloty ($606 million) on arms for its military mission in Afghanistan from 2007 to 2011, Jacek Sonta, the spokesman for the Ministry of Defense, said in a statement.

Poland spent the most in 2010 at 925.6 million zloty for new gear, and the least in 2008, at 125.5 million zloty, the spokesman said.

Since April 2007, when the country increased its military presence in Afghanistan from 150 to 1,200 troops, the Polish Ministry of Defense has launched a series of arms procurement programs, dubbed “the Afghan package.”

The purchases include 8,400 assault rifles, radio communication systems, 10 Israeli-made UAVs, C4ISR systems, five Russian-built Mi-17 transport helicopters and a wide range of munitions.

A significant portion of Poland’s 380 Rosomak armored modular vehicles was also deployed to Afghanistan. The eight-wheel-drive Rosomak is made by Polish state-owned manufacturer Wojskowe Zaklady Mechaniczne Siemianowice under a license from Finland’s Patria.

In 2009, Poland’s military took over responsibility for the troubled Afghan province of Ghazni. A year later, the Polish force in Afghanistan was increased to 2,600 soldiers, making it the fifth-largest among NATO states present in the country.

Poland plans to withdraw all combat troops from Afghan soil by the end of 2014 along with the remaining NATO forces. Over the past five years, 37 Polish soldiers were killed while on duty in Afghanistan.