More info on the F22

A Yahoo News article outlines that there is a significant delay on the readiness of the "darling" f35. Hat tip to a friend on the story.

An internal Pentagon oversight board has reported that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is two years behind schedule, according to multiple congressional aides familiar with the findings...

The White House and some lawmakers who favor halting the production of any new F-22 warplanes say the F-35 will fill the gap and meet the nation's combat aircraft needs.

Senators and aides now lament that the Pentagon oversight panel's more pessimistic view on the F-35 program was not publicly released during the F-22 debate. They are calling for more open disclosure of the problems with the development of the F-35.

The Pentagon's Joint Estimate Team (JET), which was established to independently evaluate the F-35 program, is at odds with the Joint Program Office, which runs the F-35 program, the aides said. The oversight panel's calculations determined that the fighter won't be able to move out of the development phase and into full production until 2016, rather than 2014, as the program office has said.

That's assuming there are no further problems with the program, which has already faced cost overruns and schedule delays. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the delay could cost as much as $7.4 billion. The discrepancy between the Joint Estimate Team and the Joint Program Office was noted in a March report by the GAO, but it received little attention at the time.

So we are axing the F22 without a clear outlook on when the replacement will be done? Oh, I think our opponents won't lament the delay until 2016. The f22 is available NOW, and is significantly more capable than the F35.

This from Aviation Week.

Regardless of the vote in the Senate, “ The F-22 funding termination this week doesn't change a thing [about the tactical advantages offered by the stealth fighter’s advanced systems] and I think history will bear out the F-22 advocates' position when all the dust settles,” a senior U.S. Air Force intelligence officer tells Aviation Week. “ The F-35 [Joint Strike Fighter] is not an F-22 by a long shot,” he says. “There's no way it's going to penetrate Chinese Air Defenses if there's ever a clash.”

The intelligence official was referring to the fact that penetrating the latest surface to air missile defenses is something only the F-22 can do. China and Russia have variants of the the S-300/400 family that includes the SA-20 which is being sold in Asia and the Middle East. The F-22 can stay ahead of SA-20 because it it flies about a half-mach faster, two-miles higher and has a smaller Radar Cross Section than the F-35.

and this

“I’m still planning on getting those airplanes,” says Brig. Gen. Peter Pawling, who earlier this year was commander of the Hawaii ANG’s 154th Wing and has now moved to the staff of U.S. Pacific Command. “I’ve been assured that [despite a smaller fleet] they are still coming to Hawaii.

“It’s just that the F-35 and F-22 are such different airplanes,” Pawling says. “There are those who think you can simply build more F-35s [to compensate for a smaller Raptor fleet]. But the F-22 is one of those once-in-a-lifetime airplanes. There is nothing out there that can fly against it. If we had a major conflict [against someone with advanced air defenses], I can’t imagine going in there with anything but an F-22.”

The congress, our secdef, and our president are making a HUGE mistake.

Read more...

So long, old friend

According to the New York Times Senate democrats led the charge to remove provisions for funding seven more F22's from a military defense bill. This news is not particularly surprising, given the administration and Gates' overt feelings on the cost and utility of F22.

Sean outlined a few months ago about the importance of the F22 in his DSSFeed blog. I find his arguments on deterrence particularly convincing. Sean Wrote

Rather, elected officials and defense experts should insist on a return to the strategy of deterrence. They must make the argument that not only will the Raptor ensure air superiority for 40 years, but that it is necessary to have that capability for dissuasion and deterrence. A strong case can be made that the F-22 will dissuade rising competitors like China from challenging the US in the realm of air combat. Its advanced avionics and high technology can also deter a resurgent (and uppity) Russia from seeking a fait accompli in any future aggression against Eastern Europe (assuming F-22s are deployed in Europe).

The administration seems to disagree and it looks like the world's most advanced fighter will be capped at #187. The administration seems bent on cutting the defense budget of vital resources like the F22, in favor of grossly expanding other parts of the budget.

The administration rather favors the production of the F35 as its primary weapon to ensure air superiority over any current or potential adversaries. The problem is that many air force wonks disagree.

Retired General Merrill McPeak told Fox News

"I think it's a real mistake, The airplane is a game-changer and people seem to forget that we haven't had any of our soldiers or Marines killed by enemy air since 1951 or something like that. It's been half a century or more since any enemy aircraft has killed one of guys. So we've gotten use to this idea that we never have to breathe hostile air."

Former SecDef, Bill Cohen ( a clintonite ) said this about the f22

The F-22 will enable the Joint Strike Fighter (f35) to carry out its primary strike mission. The JSF(F35) was not designed for the air-superiority mission.

It all comes down to this - the f35 cannot achieve the same strategic objectives that the f22 was designed for.

We know that plans for the f35 have been hacked by the Chinese which means that its value has been at least somewhat compromised. Not to mention the fact that the f22 outperforms the f35 statistically in air to air exercises almost across the board.

So instead the funds will be diverted by the administration to some stimulus package designed to save wild horses.

Au Revoir, Raptor, mon ami!

Read more...

The best news you've heard on healthcare

The health care debate rages on. The left seems to have elevated the concept of health care to a right rather than a responsibility, a huge jump in American governmental philosophy. Perhaps they are right on the issue, but the ensuing implementation of health care by the federal government is going to be what I like to call MOAB, or the Mother Of All Bureaucracies. Not to mention the fact that our constitution is silent on the issue of health care, which means that legislation would require some kind of constitutional amendment. But lets be honest, that silly thing called the Constitution that won’t stop team Obama from ramming this through though.

Here's the issue with Americans, we always want something for nothing. The house wants to impose a 5.4% tax on the wealthy to pay the billions that are needed to raise money to implement this system. So long as the majority of citizens aren't paying for it, they don't mind taxing the minority. This is what we call de facto wealth redistribution for a socialized health care system. Those words should scare constitutionalists.

So easy access to health care for all eh? Let’s toss out the issues of implementation and constitutionalism. Those arguments are so last week anyhow. Let's look at the question at hand.

Is there free health care available for every American on demand?

By God there is! Great news! No need to inflate the deficit anymore this year Obama. No trillion dollar plan is needed. I've got your health care solution and its right under your nose.

Every American can get free healthcare by enlisting in the United States military. In fact under the 2006 Defense Authorization Act, any citizen that qualifies may enlist in the Army up until age 42.

That means for a good 24 years, every citizens eligible for service, which these days is darn near universal, is entitled to free health care through military service. This also includes insurance for your children.

The issue today isn't the question of access to health care, the military is more than happy to provide it to American's willing to defend their country. The question is, are American's universally willing to work to those ends?

My guess? They aren't.

Read more...

The Dear Leader Exacts Revenge

It seems as though the Dear Leader has not forgotten the Department of Treasury's successful 2006 bulwark of North Korea from the international financial system. The AP is reporting that North Korea is suspected of cyber-attacks against our Department of Treasury, Secret Service, and a few other agencies. I guess this is Kim Jong Il's attempt at revenge. Revenge you may ask? If you don't know the story - you should.

Daniel Glaser is known the architect behind the throttling of North Korea's illicit financial networks. Glaser works as the Department of the Treasury's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes. It serves as the offensive branch of the treasury which protects the international financial system from funding the activities of rogue nations, drug cartels, and terrorist organizations. They are the unsung financial warriors of our current GWOT (or overseas contingency.... whatever Barry and Napolitano call it.) They also have constructed mechanisms to keep rogue nations like Iran and North Korea out of the international financial system, thus hurting their chances of financing a war of annihilation against the United States and its allies. Needless to say I am thankful for their efforts.

One of the greatest efforts put forth by the TFI and the program under it FINcen (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network) is the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) a program designed in 1989 to counter the use of the international financial system as a tool of criminals. Essentially FATF is a coalition of large first-world economies which monitor each others financial dealings and places restrictions on those that deal with less than savory characters. Since membership is voluntary, it takes some convincing to persuade nations to give up the free flow of financial capital.

Originally, the program targeted drug cartels as a part of the crusading war on drugs. We learned in the post 9-11 world that the system was also effective against other illicit networks; including FTO's and rogue states.

Glaser, serving as the head of the U.S. delegation to FATF, convinced member nations that it was not within their economic interest to allow banks in their territory to deal with the money laundering- counterfeiting- Hennessey drinking-Rambo loving- Kim Jong Il regime. These banks had a fiduciary obligation to their shareholders to insulate themselves from North Korea. It did help that section 311 of the patriot act allowed FINcen to target specific banks and order US banks to halt their dealings with them.

The most notable bank was the Banco Delta Asia (BDA) which crumbled under the financial isolation. This sent a clear message - stop dealing with North Korea or your financial institution may be next. This is the best "kickass" moment I think the Department of Treasury will ever experience.

Stuart Levey commented on the real impact of the financial restrictions was that,

"many private financial institutions worldwide responded by terminating their business relationships not only with [BDA], but with North Korean clients altogether".

Within a short period of time, North Korea found their hands financially tied. Thus we gained leverage over the North's nuclear program. Leverage that we quickly wasted - this was THE window of opportunity for the United States to take a meaningful shot at Kim's illegal nuclear program. Instead the Bush administration valued the six party talks as almost an end.

Robert Joseph (professor at DSS) commented in a WSJ article,

"For a short period, a matter of weeks, the approach seemed to produce results. But when Pyongyang announced its willingness to return to the negotiations, the Bush Administration, in an abrupt reversal of its policies which I opposed and could not support, rushed headlong into the snare. By February 2007, the Talks were becoming the strategy, and an end in themselves. There would be no more “pressure” placed on the North. Strengthening interdiction capacities and even implementing the mandatory UN sanctions were seen as too provocative, as threatening the prospects for diplomacy. It soon became apparent that the Administration would endure any humiliation to keep the Talks going. The spectacle of American diplomats pleading for foreign banks to facilitate the return of the assets from Macao, some of which were known to stem from the North’s proliferation activities, could not have been more pathetic or, ironically, more damaging to the prospects for diplomacy. "

So we lost an opportunity. We did however make inroads to discovering a meaningful tactic against rogue nations. If we can strangle finances, rogue states will come to their knees. Note that FATF is currently targeting Iran.

So it looks like Kim Jong Il is exacting his revenge against the United States Treasury in the form of cyber attacks. I'm not certain that his "revenge" will have a lasting impact on the United States, but I do know that the combination of the Patriot Act, FINcen FATF did.

Although I'm sure his advisers informed him that the attack was a resounding success.

Just as a side note, if you ever get the chance, take a look at Bradley Martin's Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty. I'm in the process of reading it now - the stories of the two Kim's - father and son - are unreal.

Read more...

Mr. Obama Goes to Moscow

President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are meeting in Moscow to discuss a successor to the soon-to-expire Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). On the table for consideration (according to U.S. and/or Russian officials) are levels of deployed and stockpiled strategic nuclear warheads, strategic delivery systems (intercontinental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, and bombers), and missile defense. Off the table are nonstrategic nuclear weapons, which the Russians hold in abundance.

Truly understanding the situation between Washington and Moscow requires a brief look at the numbers:
U.S. - 2,200 strategic nukes deployed (~2,500 reserve)
U.S. - ~1,000 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers
U.S. - 400-500 tactical nukes
Russia - 2,700 strategic nukes deployed (unknown thousands in reserve)
Russia - ~650 ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers
Russia - 3,000-5,000 tactical nukes

In terms of strategic delivery systems, the U.S. still has decades before most of its systems will need replaced, while many Russian systems will reach the end of their service lives within the next decade, reducing their numbers to around 330.

The Obama Administration, in its rush to conclude the START follow-on by the current treaty’s expiration date on December 5th, is therefore playing into the Russians’ hands. By pushing for deep warhead cuts (the Russians will not go below 1,500 deployed) and considering a further reduction in the permitted number of strategic delivery vehicles, U.S. negotiators are essentially getting nothing for something. Since the Russians will have to eliminate many of their aging warheads, missiles, and bombers with or without an arms control treaty, they are trying to maintain parity with the United States through a new START accord. In return, the U.S. is getting something it would have gotten without having to reduce the survivability and flexibility of its nuclear arsenal.

Until recently, the Obama Administration was seemingly giving credence to Russian objections to a third missile defense site in Central Europe. Even former Secretary of Defense (and nuclear abolitionist) William Perry (D) stated in House testimony that trading missile defense for Russian promises was absolutely unreasonable. The president’s special assistant, Michael McFaul, stated last week the U.S. was “not going to reassure or give or trade anything with the Russians regarding NATO expansion or missile defense.” This is a step in the right direction. Tying defensive conventional systems to offensive nuclear systems, which President Medvedev is still insisting on, is a relic of the Cold War “mutually assured destruction” thinking.

Therefore, the U.S. approach to the START follow-on has been fundamentally flawed. By agreeing not to include nonstrategic nuclear weapons in the limits, the U.S. allowed Russia to maintain its biggest geopolitical advantage. Many experts believe it is these “battlefield” nuke stockpiles that will be the likely source of any future nuclear terrorism or nuclear use by a state (Russia explicitly states they would be used to “de-escalate” an invasion of their homeland). Furthermore, once U.S. warhead and delivery system levels have been drastically reduced, Washington will little leverage to urge Moscow to reduce its tactical nukes.

The arms control process is also misguided in the link some are attempting to make between a new START and “global zero,” the nuclear abolitionist movement. The bipartisan Strategic Posture Commission determined that complete nuclear disarmament required a “fundamental transformation of the world political order.” Guiding a new treaty along what optimists consider a decades-long goal is a recipe for miscalculation and bad decisions. The Obama Administration needs to take a step back, assess U.S. interests over the long term, and proceed with a modest START follow-on from there. Idealism is one thing. Dealing with the Russians about nuclear weapons is entirely different.

Read more...