Page 14. Fascinating article on Russian AESA. The company making T/R modules for Phazotron says "We are not in the final production stage, but we have no doubt we can do that. We are close to a final production configuration".NRao wrote:Page 19 :: Italy's new carrier
Bettina H. Chavanne chavanne@aviationweek.com
Boeing is dusting off its failed bid for the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH), its so-called AH-6 Light Attack/Reconnaissance Helicopter, in a bid for a burgeoning international market, the company declared Oct. 7.
The massive defense contractor announced the new rotorcraft program, based on the platform it built to bid on ARH in 2005, at the Association of the U.S. Army show in Washington, D.C. While executives stressed the helicopter is being geared strictly to an international market, the announcement comes in the shadow of a still unresolved Nunn-McCurdy breach on Bell's ARH.
At an earlier roundtable, Army aviation officials said four separate Defense Department teams are examining different aspects of ARH capability. "We're still under contract with Bell," said Paul Bogosian, the Army's program executive officer for aviation. "Either we'll be re-certified...or the next step would be to present a strategy that conforms with the [office of the Secretary of Defense]."
Since the Army requirement will not disappear even if Bell's ARH does - which is not planned - Boeing is well-positioned to re-sell its AH-6. Asked to comment on whether it could replace Bell, Boeing's director of rotorcraft, Mike Burke, said: "It might be premature [to say anything] because of the sensitivity of where they are...But as the aircraft sits on the ramp today, it will meet all of the key performance parameters (KPP) of the Army's capabilities document for an ARH."
Features of the AH-6 include a six-blade rotor system and four-blade rotor, which allows increase payload and maneuverability. It will be powered by Rolls Royce's C30R/3M engine with 850 shaft horsepower.
Boeing's goal is a first international order of 18 to 24 aircraft in the early part of 2009.
Aircraft would be similar to Boeing's Little Bird, shown above. Photo: Boeing
Oct 8, 2008
John M. Doyle
In the competition for defense funding sought by the next administration, only two U.S. Air Force production lines are likely to remain in operation – the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the replacement refueling tanker – a top congressional appropriator says.
Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, thinks the F-22 Raptor will “fall by the wayside,” as will the C-17 cargo lifter.
In an Oct. 5 interview with a Washington, D.C., television program, Murtha said that no matter who wins the White House, weapons systems programs are going to face stiff competition from demands to restore equipment depleted by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, expand the size of the Army and Marine Corps and increase nonmilitary spending on social programs such as health care.
“The pressure on us is going to be so great,” Murtha said, adding “the new president is going to be forced to look at health care for everyone, Medicare, Social Security, and the military – as we wind down from Iraq – is going to be off the front page.”
Murtha said he’s trying to convince the Defense Department and industry to decide “what weapons systems we need, how we’re going to look at them and let’s buy them up in a quantity that we save some money.” Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said Oct. 6 that he’s ordered his staff to examine all Army proposed procurement programs and study what size force it would need in the future.
Murtha said during WUSA’s “This Week in Defense News” broadcast that “our big problem” is the $160 billion U.S. Army Future Combat Systems (FCS) modernization effort. He predicted that outside pressures will force the Army to reduce FCS spending. “What you’re going to see, instead of buying the vehicles, they’re going to upgrade the equipment that we have now – reset and rehabilitate the equipment – and I don’t think you’ll see them buying much, even though there’s less maintenance costs. The money just won’t be there to do it. I don’t see it.”
POM plans
Murtha’s observations run contrary to the Army’s Aug. 5 Program Objective Memorandum (POM) for fiscal 2010-2015, which proposes cutting procurement funding for the Stryker M113 and Abrams tank by more than $3 billion to increase spending on FCS by $45 billion between fiscal 2010 and 2013. But the POM still must be approved by Pentagon leadership, as well as the White House and Congress (Aerospace DAILY, Oct. 1)
Murtha said military health care and mental health, as well as physical therapy, is going to eat up a big part of the Defense budget in coming years. “We need to decide is there a real threat. Do we need to sustain this large Army? Can we put more emphasis on the National Guard?”
Because the all-volunteer force is so expensive, Murtha said he favored restoring the military draft. The commanding general of Force Command, Gen. Charles Campbell, says increasing the size of the Army through full mobilization and return to the draft are “not politically supportable.” Campbell told an Association of the U.S. Army dinner Oct. 4 that he favored increasing the size of all force components, including the Guard and Army Reserve.
Even though he thinks the F-22’s U.S. production days are numbered, Murtha opposes selling the stealth fighter’s technology to allies like Japan or Israel. But he believes in the future the U.S. will sell “a lot” of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, as many as 3,000.
Sep 29, 2008
Robert Wall
PARIS — France has released its latest defense budget, which includes a boost for modernization spending to €17 billion from €15.4 billion in the current fiscal year.
The budget provides for delivery of 14 Rafale fighters and 8 Tiger attack helicopters. Also due to be handed over are the second Horizon air defense frigate and 96 Véhicule Blindé de Combat d’Infanterie (VBCI) armed vehicles.
In terms of new orders, the budget also provides for orders for 60 more Rafale fighters, 22 NH90s transport helicopters and 332 VBCI vehicles, three frigates and the second Barracuda attack submarine, with deliveries unfolding over the next 10 years.
Also on the agenda is a mid-life update for France’s E-3 AWACS fleet, upgrade of five Cougar helicopters, and purchase of 1,000 Armament Air-Sol Modulaire (AASM) precision bombs.
The topline is €32 billion for defense, a 5.4 percent boost over the current year. With troops deployed to various locations, including Afghanistan and Africa, France also has boosted maintenance spending by around 8 percent or €2.9 billion.
I have actually had a Flight of 3 Little Birds fly right over my campsite (treetops) and they are quiet as hell. Didnt hear them till they were right above me. OTOH Apaches scared the living crap out of me..lol.New AH-6 Pitched For International Market
Do we have any such system in production or development phasekit wrote:China Debuts Aegis-type radars
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... _n21376644
In the same article
The Soviets seem to have had considerable trouble in exercises with their Gorshkov phased array radar
Or do we have any plans to do sohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_missileStarstreak is a British short range surface-to-air missile manufactured by Thales Air Defence Limited (originally Shorts Missile Systems), in Belfast. It is also known as Starstreak HVM where HVM stands for "High Velocity Missile". After launch the missile accelerates to approximately Mach 3.5, at which point it launches three laser beam riding submunitions. The use of three submunitions increases the likelihood of a successful hit on the target. Starstreak has been in service with the British Army since 1997.
Barney Frank will not soon be named secretary of defense or, insha'Allah, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. So there's really no reason to fear that his recent call to cut defense spending by 25% is a harbinger of what to expect in an Obama administration.
Then again, maybe there is.
When it comes to defense, there are two Barack Obamas in this race. There is the candidate who insists, as he did last year in an article in Foreign Affairs, that "a strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace"; pledges to increase the size of our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines while providing them with "first-rate equipment, armor, incentives and training"; and seems to be as gung-ho for a surge in Afghanistan as he was opposed to the one in Iraq.
And then there is the candidate who early this year recorded an ad for Caucus for Priorities, a far-left outfit that wants to cut 15% of the Pentagon's budget in favor of "education, healthcare, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger [and] deficit reduction."
"Thanks so much for the Caucus for Priorities for the great work you've been doing," says Mr. Obama in the ad, before promising to "cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending . . . slow our development of future combat systems . . . not develop new nuclear weapons."
Joe Biden also cut an ad for the group that was even more emphatic: "I'll tell you what we cannot afford . . . a trillion-dollar commitment to 'Star Wars,' new nuclear weapons, a thousand-ship Navy, the F-22 Raptor."
Mr. Biden is right that we can't afford a thousand-ship Navy, not that anyone has proposed it. Current levels of funding don't quite suffice to operate 300 ships, or about half the number the U.S. had at the end of the Reagan arms buildup. The Navy would be satisfied with 313.
Current funding is also just adequate to purchase about 65 new planes for the Air Force each year, even as the average age of each plane creeps upward to nearly 24 years. Last year, the entire fleet of F-15Cs -- the Air Force's mainstay fighter -- was grounded after one of the planes came apart in midair. Spending on maintenance alone is up more than 80% from a decade ago. Is that another defense item Mr. Biden thinks we can't afford?
(As for nuclear weapons, the U.S. hasn't built a new warhead in decades. Its mainstay, the W76, is widely suspected of being unreliable, yet Congress has resisted funding the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead.)
Maybe it seems odd that the Pentagon, whose budget for 2009 runs to well over $500 billion -- not including the supplemental $165 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan -- should struggle to afford the equipment it needs.
But it's not odd. We've been fighting two wars, straining people and equipment. Weapons have generally become more complex and expensive. President Clinton's "procurement holiday" punted the modernization problems to the present. And even after the Bush buildup, defense spending amounts to just 4% of gross domestic product. By contrast, at the nadir of Cold War defense spending under Jimmy Carter, the figure was 4.7%.
All this should argue for at least a modest recapitalization effort by an Obama administration, assuming it really believes a strong military is "necessary to sustain peace." A study by the Heritage Foundation makes the case that defense spending should rise to close to $800 billion over the next four years in order to stick to the 4% GDP benchmark. That's unrealistic in light of the financial crisis. But holding the line at current levels is doable -- and necessary.
But what if a President Obama doesn't actually believe in the importance of a strong military to keep the peace? Or has an attenuated idea of what qualifies as a "strong" military? Or considers military strength a luxury at a moment of financial crisis? Or thinks now is the moment to smash the Pentagon piggy bank to fund a second Great Society?
Does anyone really know where Mr. Obama's instincts lie? During the third debate, he cited former Marine Gen. James Jones as a member of his wise man's circle -- which was reassuring but odd, given that the general made a point of appearing at a McCain campaign event simply to distance himself from the Democratic candidate.
The Obama campaign has also produced a lengthy defense blueprint on its Web site. It reads more like a social manifesto, promising to "improve transition services," "make mental health a priority," and end "don't-ask, don't-tell." All very well, except the document is notably vague on naming the kinds of weapons systems Mr. Obama would actually support.
And so the question remains: If elected, which Obama do we get? The nuanced centrist or the man from Ben and Jerry's?
Some voters may like answers sometime before next Tuesday. Alternatively, they can click the button called "I'm Feeling Lucky."
Write to bstephens@wsj.com
Budget Crunch Forces U.S. Military to Choose Which Form of Defense to Pursue; This-War-Itis vs. Next-War-Itis
By AUGUST COLE and YOCHI J. DREAZEN
Washington
For years, the military has been roiled by a heated internal debate over what kind of wars it should prepare to fight.
One faction, led by a host of senior officers, favors buying state-of-the-art weapons systems that would be useful in a traditional conflict with a nation like Russia or China. The other side, which includes Defense Secretary Robert Gates, believes the military should prepare for grinding insurgencies that closely resemble the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The dispute has long been largely academic, since the soaring defense budgets in the years since the September 2001 terror attacks left plenty of money for each side's main priorities.
That is beginning to change, a casualty of the widening global financial crisis. With the economy slowing and the tab for the government's bailout of the private sector spiraling higher, Democratic lawmakers are signaling that Pentagon officials will soon have to choose which programs to keep and which to cut. In the long and unresolved debate about the military's future, a clearer vision of how best to defend America will emerge -- but not without one side ceding hard-fought ground.
"The services are used to the old approach, with everyone getting everything. But there's not enough money," says Rep. Neil Abercrombie, the Hawaii Democrat who heads the Air and Land Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. "The due bill is finally coming in."
The two competing schools of thought each warn that making the wrong decisions now could imperil U.S. national security down the road. The military officials who favor buying advanced weapons believe that failing to invest in those systems today could leave U.S. forces ill-equipped to fight a modernized Russian or Chinese military in the future. Conversely, advocates of expanding the size of the ground forces argue that the military will be unable to meet the troop demands of the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to say nothing of conflicts elsewhere in the world, unless the Army and Marines recruit tens of thousands of additional troops.
The final decision will ultimately fall to the next administration, which will have to prioritize how to divvy up what may be a significantly smaller defense budget. Neither the Obama nor the McCain campaign has tipped its hand on whether to focus on asymmetric conflicts like Iraq or possible large-scale conventional wars.
In Congress, however, the wheels are already in motion. Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha, who controls the congressional purse strings for defense issues, startled Pentagon officials recently when he said that longstanding plans to recruit more soldiers and Marines would need to be scaled back or canceled.
Mr. Abercrombie, meanwhile, has fought to cut funding from the Army's flagship weapons program, the $160 billion Future Combat Systems initiative, and says he hopes to pare it back next year, even after the program recently received full funding.
"I think we should focus on the troops who are in the field today, not on some Star Wars technology that may never work," he says.
U.S. policy makers have generally preferred to buy advanced weapons, believing that the American technological edge contributed to the U.S. victory in the Cold War and to the speedy defeat of Saddam Hussein's military in the first and second Iraq wars. The approach continues to attract enthusiastic adherents, particularly within the ranks of the various armed services themselves.
Despite terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and insurgency warfare abroad, supporters argue that it is far too soon to conclude that U.S. forces will never fight a conventional war again. They note that China, which has been dramatically expanding its military, still could target Taiwan, a close U.S. ally, if the island declares independence. They also note that Russia's recent invasion of Georgia showed that the U.S. might one day have to fight Moscow on behalf of American allies like Poland and Ukraine.
"Should we simply wish away China's increasing muscle, or a resurgent Russia's plans for a fifth-generation fighter that would surpass our top-of-the-line jet, the F-22 stealth fighter?" Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap wrote in an op-ed piece this year.
The other side in the debate argues that the enthusiasm for advanced weapons systems is misplaced. This faction, which includes Mr. Gates and many lawmakers, argues that a battery of expensive weapons are useless in counterinsurgency conflicts like Iraq, which pit U.S. forces against lightly armed but dogged foes. They say history is replete with examples of powerful militaries that were ultimately defeated by guerrilla fighters.
"The Chinese, Vietnamese, Sandinistas, Hezbollah, Palestinians and Chechnyans all triumphed over forces with superior military power," retired Marine officer Thomas X. Hammes wrote in "The Sling and the Stone," a 2006 book widely read in military circles. "The superior technology of the losers did not prove to be a magic solution."
The two sides have traded muffled potshots at each other for months. In a speech in May, Mr. Gates accused some military officials of "next-war-itis," which shortchanges current needs in favor of advanced weapons that might never be needed. The comment prompted some in the defense community, especially in the Air Force, to quietly chide Mr. Gates for "this-war-itis," a short-sighted focus on the present that could leave the armed forces dangerously unprepared down the road.
For the most part, soaring defense budgets have long kept Pentagon officials from having to settle the debate. For 2009, the Pentagon's base budget is $512 billion, which is up almost 7% from 2008 and at a historic level. Last year, supplemental spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan added more than $100 billion to the Pentagon's coffers.
With lawmakers talking openly of cutting back the defense budget, however, policy makers may soon have to make some difficult trade-offs.
"A lot of the key problems and questions that were already there had been kicked down the road, and they can't be kicked down the road any further," said Peter Singer, director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative at the Brookings Institution.
One of the thorniest issues is how many ground forces the U.S. military should have. Mr. Gates said last year that he wants to add 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines by 2012. President George W. Bush has endorsed the idea and regularly champions it in public remarks about the military.
But the idea is running into growing resistance on Capitol Hill. Mr. Murtha says the Pentagon won't be able to afford more soldiers and Marines, and needs to take better care of the troops it has.
"This is not academic anymore," he says. "This is the direction the budget is going to have to go."
Mr. Murtha believes that the military needs to focus instead on getting U.S. ground forces back in fighting shape for possible future operations against strategic threats like China and Russia.
"If you want to deter a war, you've got to be prepared," he says.
Replacing the weapons and vehicles that have been worn down after years of service in Iraq and Afghanistan will be expensive. Mr. Murtha, a supporter of some of the military's most advanced weapons, estimates the "reset" cost for the armed forces at $100 billion or more.
Mr. Gates, for his part, believes that curtailing the growth of the ground forces would be a "mistake," according to Pentagon spokesman Greg Morrell.
"Secretary Gates firmly believes that growing the Army and Marine Corps is essential to our national security," Mr. Morrell says. He adds that defense officials acknowledge that the Pentagon has "probably hit our high-water mark" in terms of defense spending, and that some cutbacks are inevitable.
One X-factor is the fate of Mr. Gates himself, who is being actively courted by advisers to both presidential candidates. Mr. Gates, who has a stopwatch in his suitcase ticking down to the end of the Bush administration's tenure, has said he is unlikely to stay on. But the defense chief is always careful to leave himself some wriggle room.
"Well, let me just say that I'm getting a lot more career advice and counseling than I might have anticipated," he told reporters earlier this month, laughing. "I think I'll leave it at that."
If Mr. Gates remains in his job for at least a year, that would leave him in a position to help settle, once and for all, the military's internal debate about its priorities.
Write to August Cole at august.cole@dowjones.com and Yochi J. Dreazen at yochi.dreazen@wsj.com
It is always some equipment failure for SL. Last time Indian radar didnt't worked, now Chinese fighters failed!!JaiS wrote:Interceptors’ missile ‘lock on’ failure jolts SLAF
Tuesday’s failure to shoot down a single LTTE aircraft despite timely detection by radar has jolted the SLAF into investigating its limitations amidst evidence that the enemy has acquired a capability to neutralise the threat of a heat seeking missile attack.
......
By THOM SHANKER and CHRISTOPHER DREW
Published: November 2, 2008
WASHINGTON — After years of unfettered growth in military budgets, Defense Department planners, top commanders and weapons manufacturers now say they are almost certain that the financial meltdown will have a serious impact on future Pentagon spending.
Across the military services, deep apprehension has led to closed-door meetings and detailed calculations in anticipation of potential cuts. Civilian and military budget planners concede that they are already analyzing worst-case contingency spending plans that would freeze or slash their overall budgets.
The obvious targets for savings would be expensive new arms programs, which have racked up cost overruns of at least $300 billion for the top 75 weapons systems, according to the Government Accountability Office. Congressional budget experts say likely targets for reductions are the Army’s plans for fielding advanced combat systems, the Air Force’s Joint Strike Fighter, the Navy’s new destroyer and the ground-based missile defense system.
Even before the crisis on Wall Street, senior Pentagon officials were anticipating little appetite for growth in military spending after seven years of war. But the question of how to pay for national security now looms as a significant challenge for the next president, at a time when the Pentagon’s annual base budget for standard operations has reached more than $500 billion, the highest level since World War II when adjusted for inflation.
On top of that figure, supplemental spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has topped $100 billion each year, frustrating Republicans as well as Democrats in Congress. In all, the Defense Department now accounts for half of the government’s total discretionary spending, and Pentagon and military officials fear it could be the choice for major cuts to pay the rest of the government’s bills.
On the presidential campaign trail, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama have pledged to cut fat without carving into the muscle of national security. Both have said they would protect the overall level of military spending; Mr. McCain has further pledged to add more troops to the roster of the armed services beyond the 92,000 now advocated by the Pentagon, a growth endorsed by Mr. Obama.
Some critics, citing the increase in military spending since Sept. 11, 2001, say it would be much easier to cut military spending than programs like Social Security and Medicare at a time when most people’s retirement savings are dwindling because of the financial crisis. Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has raised the idea of reducing military spending by one-quarter.
At the Pentagon, senior officials have taken up the mission of urging sustained military spending. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has asked Congress and the nation to pledge at least 4 percent of the gross domestic product to the military. And Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has warned against repeating historic trends, in which the nation cut money for the armed services after a period of warfare.
“We basically gutted our military after World War I, after World War II, in certain ways after Korea, certainly after Vietnam and after the end of the cold war,” Mr. Gates said. “Experience is the ability to recognize a mistake when you make it again.”
Mr. Gates acknowledges that military spending is almost certain to level off, and he expressed a goal that the Pentagon budget at least keep pace with inflation over coming years.
Apprehension over potential budget cuts has trickled down the Pentagon bureaucracy to those who each year draft the military’s spending proposals.
“If that’s what they want, they have to know that we simply cannot do everything we are doing now, but for less money,” said one Pentagon budget officer who was not authorized to speak for attribution. “So if there’s going to be less, it’s up to the president, Congress and the public to tell us what part of our national security mission we should stop carrying out.”
Much of the Pentagon budget pays for personnel costs, which are difficult to cut at any time, and particularly while troops are risking their lives in combat.
Mr. Obama has said his plan to begin drawing down American forces from Iraq would ease a wartime taxpayer burden that now totals over $10 billion a month. But budget analysts at the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill say that even troop reductions in Iraq — whether at the cautious pace laid out by President Bush and endorsed by Mr. McCain or at the more rapid pace prescribed by Mr. Obama — would present little savings in the first years.
Moving tens of thousands of troops and their heavy equipment home from the Persian Gulf region is a costly undertaking. And housing at stateside bases is more expensive than in the war zone, so savings would be seen only in subsequent years.
Calls by both presidential candidates to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan actually would add costs to the Pentagon budget, according to military planners and Congressional budget experts. It is significantly more expensive to sustain each soldier in Afghanistan than in Iraq because of Afghanistan’s landlocked location and primitive road network.
The federal budget is due to Congress in February, but that document is expected to be little more than an outline, arriving soon after Inauguration Day. Congressional officials predict the new president will require several months to put his imprint on a detailed spending plan that would actually be worth debating on Capitol Hill.
On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama has said he would initially maintain overall military spending at current levels.
“Obama has made it very clear that he doesn’t see how the defense budget can be cut now given the commitments we have,” said F. Whitten Peters, a former Air Force secretary now advising Mr. Obama on national security policies. “His sense is that there is not money to be cut from the defense budget in the near term.”
But in looking to future Pentagon budgets, he added, it is clear that “all the weapons programs cannot fit.”
“So,” he continued, “you’re going to have to make some hard decisions.”
Mr. McCain, a former Navy combat pilot who was taken prisoner during the war in Vietnam, is known for taking on what he has seen as wasteful Pentagon spending.
According to one of his advisers on military policy, Mr. McCain “feels very strongly that the whole procurement process is totally dysfunctional.”
“He believes that putting order, discipline and accountability back into the process will stop the gold-plating and bring costs down,” said the adviser, who asked not to be named in order to discuss the candidate’s views frankly.
These budget pressures also seem quite likely to add to the tensions between Congress and the Pentagon over the best balance between supporting the troops fighting insurgencies and developing weapons that might be needed in larger wars.
“I think we need a complete review of this whole thing,” said Representative Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat from Hawaii who is chairman of a House Armed Services subcommittee. “You cannot make a case for undermining the readiness of the Army and the Marines in the circumstances that we face today with a commitment of so much money to weapons systems that are at best abstract and theoretical.”
Executives at the leading defense contractors say they realize that the Pentagon’s spending is likely to be more restrained. Boeing’s chief executive, W. James McNerney Jr., recently wrote in a note to his employees: “No one really yet knows when or to what extent defense spending could be affected. But it’s unrealistic to think there won’t be some measure of impact.”
Ronald D. Sugar, the chief executive of Northrop Grumman, told stock analysts last month that financing for the company’s projects seemed locked in for the coming year. But, Mr. Sugar added, “Clearly the pressures are going to increase in the out years.”
A number of scholars who have examined the subject, including David C. Hendrickson, a political scientist at Colorado College, predict that “defense will not prove to be ‘recession proof.’ ”
“Serious savings could be had by reducing force structure and limiting modernization,” said Professor Hendrickson, who posted a “blogbook” on the financial crisis at pictorial-guide-to-crisis.blogspot.com. “Though American power has weakened on every count, there is no reconsideration of objectives. Defining a coherent philosophy in foreign affairs and defense strategy that is respectful of limits is vital.”
Other analysts, like Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a policy research center, say that weapons spending will be fiercely defended by many in Congress and their allies in the weapons industry as a way to stimulate the economy. Buying new armaments and repairing worn-out weapons, Mr. Thompson said, protects jobs and corporate profits, and therefore benefits the economy over all.
The SLAF is pathetic. First they fail to down a LTTE plane and then they complain about failure of equipment and LTTE acquiring countermeasures for heat seekign missiles. If the jet failed to lock on to the target then why didn't it use the cannons.Sid wrote:It is always some equipment failure for SL. Last time Indian radar didnt't worked, now Chinese fighters failed!!JaiS wrote:Interceptors’ missile ‘lock on’ failure jolts SLAF
Tuesday’s failure to shoot down a single LTTE aircraft despite timely detection by radar has jolted the SLAF into investigating its limitations amidst evidence that the enemy has acquired a capability to neutralise the threat of a heat seeking missile attack.
......
Is there something fundamentally wrong in their operational doctrine or lack of professionalism?
