On several defense issues

On Christmas Day, John Pomfret wrote a ridiculous article understating Chinese military capabilities.

In that article, Pomfret claimed, inter alia, that:

1) China has only 63 submarines. This is obvious incorrect; as stated on my blog, China has at least 71 submarines as of December 2010, and is building subs faster than the US is. It has been estimated that it has at least 2 Shang class submarines; if it has more than 2, it has more than 71 submarines of all classes. 71 boats is also the number of subs owned by the USN. Wikipedia’s numbers suggest that, depending on how many Romeo/Ming class subs the PLAN has, it has a total of 67-75 submarines (23-31 Romeo/Ming class boats, 5 Han class subs, 2 Shang class subs, 1 Xia class sub, 1 Golf class sub, 5 Jin class subs, plus dozens of Song class, Yuan class and Kilo class boats). Wikipedia’s total estimate is 63, but it is incorrect according to Wikipedia’s own numbers. The PLAN has no fewer than 67 subs if it has 23 Romeo/Ming class subs.

2) That Jin class are noisier than Soviet submarines produced 30 years ago and would be detected as soon as they’d leave their homeport. How exactly would they be detected? Their homeport (the Sanya submarine base) is underground; these subs are underwater as soon as they leave their homeport. How the hell is the USN going to detect them? Remember, this is the same navy that can’t even detect a Song class submarine.

3) That China doesn’t yet have anti-ship BMs and is unlikely to acquire them in at least a decade. Again, flat wrong. China ALREADY POSSESSES DF-21 ASBMs, which, as stated by multiple sources, CAN sink American warships, including aircraft carriers. Exemplary source: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40850

4) That DF-21 ASBMs can’t hit the USN’s carriers because, as soon as they’d be launched, they’d be detected and the carriers would get enough time to move away from the targeted place. Oh yeah, as if a huge, 100,000-ton carrier could get away from such a place quickly enough. And that is of course assuming that the Chinese wouldn’t blind these satellites (or shoot them down) first. If Robert Gates, a man who frequently understates the Chinese threat, admits that Chinese ASBMs seriously threaten the USN, then it must be true.

I do not intend to refute all of the lies stated by Pomfret in his article. The above examples, however, are illustrative of what an “expert” on defense issues he is.

Meanwhile, The Diplomat’s Robert Dreyfuss has slammed John McCain and other supposedly “extremely bellicose neocons”, including AEI and HF experts, for the suggestion that the US should establish an alliance with India and include it in the “neocon” plan of a “Great Wall against China” (i.e. a grand alliance against an aggressive, belligerent, expansionist China). (http://the-diplomat.com/2010/11/19/india-eyed-for-us-great-wall-plan/2/)

He portrayed them as belligerent neocon aggressors conspiring to attack China, and claimed that such an alliance would be against the interests of the US and India. (He probably believes that America’s interests would be best served by appeasing China.)

China is the biggest threat the US is facing right now. Bigger than the Islamist threat, the Iranian threat, Russia, you name it. It is a country hostile to the US. It’s the most dangerous military threat the US is facing right now. It is therefore necessary to construct a broad alliance linking the US to all Asian countries which consider themselves threatened by China and would like to stand with the US against that communist juggernaut.

Also, yesterday, HumanEvents.com reported that

“The Associated Press reports that China has achieved “initial operational capability” on the Dong Feng 21D missile system – a weapon that could be launched from shore, to take out large, slow-moving ships.  Either they’re planning to take out Hugh Hefner’s yacht during his honeymoon, or they’re developing the capability to destroy aircraft carriers. 

(Congrats to the 84-year-old Hefner and his blushing 24-year-old bride, by the way.  It’s wonderful when a man can marry a woman who was born after he started collecting Social Security.  Take that, actuarial tables!)” (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40850)

ROTFL!

About stealthy aircraft and defense spending

As I stated yesterday, photos of an alleged (unproven, as of yet) Chinese stealthy fighterplane (named the J-20) are circulating around the Internet. It is not yet known whether this plane is the real deal or just a product of Photoshop. (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12/is-this-chinas-first-stealth-fighter/)

Nonetheless, on the so-called “Danger Room” blog on the Wired.com website, a certain amateur blogger by the name of David Axe has utterly discredited himself by writing this:

“Panicky Western air-power advocates, who a year ago claimed America would be “less safe” if the Pentagon pressed forward with plans to end production of the F-22 stealth fighter at 187 copies, might just announce the end of America’s 50-year dominance of the skies. Alarmists made similar claims when Russia’s new T-50 fighter first flew, despite that plane’s many non-stealthy attributes and dubious production prospects.

The Pentagon hasn’t had a chance to comment on the J-20 photos, but is likely to remain sanguine. In deliberations over the F-22, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates acknowledged that the Chinese were working on a stealth fighter, but insisted the Communist country would have “no fifth-generation aircraft by 2020,” while the United States would have more than a thousand F-22s and F-35s.

In the year-and-a-half since Gates made that claim, the Pentagon has delayed F-35 production and China has apparently accelerated its own stealth development — alleged J-20 photos aside — but the spirit of Gates’ assertion remains valid.

Even if the photos are real and the J-20 exists as more than blueprints, there’s probably no cause for alarm. The United States flew its first stealth prototypes — the YF-22 and rival YF-23 — in 1990; the J-20 hasn’t even flown yet. It took 15 years for the F-22 to enter front-line service. Considering China’s quality-control problems with high technology, it could take a decade or more for the J-20 to appear in numbers that make any difference in the Pacific balance of power. Gates might have been slightly off in his assessment of the Chinese air force, but probably not by much.”

I’m not sure who David Axe called panicky, but I am not  panicky. When Gates asked the Congress to end the F-22 program, I merely warned- calmly – that such a policy would endanger America. We, the defenders of the F-22 program, were right. Now that the F-22 program has been prematurely closed, America is less safe than it would’ve otherwise been. (The reason is not this alleged Chinese fighterplane, which might not even exist, but rather Russian and Chinese 4.5th generation and 5th generation aircraft like the Sukhoi PAKFA).

Now that photos of this alleged Chinese stealthy aircraft have emerged, no one is going to announce the end of the era of American pilots dominating the skies. But the US military is no longer uncontested in that realm, and we can’t be sure that the US military will always rule the skies.

As for T-50s (PAKFAs), those aircraft ARE stealthy, and they have good market prospects. Russia and India between them plan to purchase several hundred of them. Countries like China, Venezuela, Iran, Syria and Angola would also likely buy such aircraft, and will likely be targeted as potential customers. David Axe needs to learn that Russia (like China) is willing to sell any weapons to anyone who can pay for them.

The most ridiculous statement David has made, though, was that:

“In deliberations over the F-22, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates acknowledged that the Chinese were working on a stealth fighter, but insisted the Communist country would have “no fifth-generation aircraft by 2020,” while the United States would have more than a thousand F-22s and F-35s.

In the year-and-a-half since Gates made that claim, the Pentagon has delayed F-35 production and China has apparently accelerated its own stealth development — alleged J-20 photos aside — but the spirit of Gates’ assertion remains valid.

Even if the photos are real and the J-20 exists as more than blueprints, there’s probably no cause for alarm. The United States flew its first stealth prototypes — the YF-22 and rival YF-23 — in 1990; the J-20 hasn’t even flown yet. It took 15 years for the F-22 to enter front-line service. Considering China’s quality-control problems with high technology, it could take a decade or more for the J-20 to appear in numbers that make any difference in the Pacific balance of power. Gates might have been slightly off in his assessment of the Chinese air force, but probably not by much.”

(http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12/is-this-chinas-first-stealth-fighter/)

With this statement, David has proven that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Gates’ claim (which was never anything more than a rosy projection not based on any data, but rather on Gates’s personal beliefs) was wrong when it was made, and it is wrong now. It was always wrong. His assertion is not valid and never was. And Gates wasn’t just “a little off” with his assessment of the PLAAF, he was 100% wrong.

Gates cannot predict the future, and neither can anyone else, so it’s ridiculous for anyone to insist that by Year XXXX, China will have 0 5th generation fighterplanes. Moreover, data available about China suggests that with 2 indigenous 5th generation fighterplane programs, a Russia willing to sell PAKFAs and Su-35BMs to anyone, and US intel projecting that China’s first 5th generation fighterplane will fly by 2017, it’s likely that by 2017 China will have some 5th generation fighterplanes, possibly even hundreds of them if it decides to buy PAKFAs or Su-35BMs.

Moreover, both China and Russia already possess hundreds Generation #4.5 fighterplanes (Su-27s, SU-30s, Su-33s, Su-35s, J-10s, J-11s and JF-17s) that are decisively superior to 4th generation fighterplanes (including F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s). They are younger and more maneuvrable, and have better radars and EW equipment. The USAF itself admits that its F-15s are inferior to Flankers. You can’t effectively fight 1990s’ and 21st century fighterplanes with aircraft produced during the 1970s and the 1980s.

Moreover, Gates asserted that by 2020, the US would have a thousand F-22s and F-35s. Let’s hope it will be the case, but it’s unlikely. Gates has closed the F-22 program and delayed the F-35 program. Many liberal and libertarian politicians, pressure groups and journalists, as well as the misnamed Deficit Reduction Commission, have called on the DOD and the Congress to end the F-35 program. (That’s nothing new, though: liberals often say “we should end this weapon program because there’s already a good alternative, i.e. that weapon program”, and when the first program is closed, the second program – the one which was supposed to be the alternative – is the next one they malign and target for closure.) Even if the F-35 program is not closed, however, and even if it is not delayed any further (and that is a big IF), and even if the Congress doesn’t cut that program further, it’s unlikely that by 2020 the US military will have 1,000 F-22s and F-35s. The math doesn’t add up.

So Mr Gates was 100% wrong with his assessment of the PLAAF. His claim was wrong when it was made in 2009, and it is wrong now. Not that this would be any surprise to anyone: Mr Gates knows absolutely nothing whatsoever about defense issues.

Davd’s fellow D-Room blogger Noah Shachtman has denounced the F-35 type as a “gajillion-dollar stealth fighter, now easier to shoot down”, on the basis of a design flow that has already been corrected. Moreover, a single F-35 does NOT cost  “a gajillion dollars”. The unit price for a single F-35 is $83 mn. Compare that to a single Raptor ($135 mn), a single PAKFA (projected to be $120-$150 mn), a single EF-2000 Typhoon (over 60 bn GBP, which is over $100 mn), or a single Dassault Rafale (64 mn EUR, i.e. about $89 mn). All of these aircraft types are more expensive than the F-35, yet the latter two are inferior to it.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/06/stealth-fighter-mods-make-it-more-likely-to-get-shot-down/

The D-Room has also recently tried to deceive the American people about America’s defense spending when it claimed that:

“Fighting (or pretending to fight) al-Qaeda on behalf of the U.S.? Congress is your private Santa.

Defying Beltway expectations, both chambers of Congress approved a $724.6 billion defense bill for the current fiscal year. Congress was feeling generous, and the money lavished on the United States’ proxies shows it.”

(http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12/shadow-wars-get-big-bucks-in-last-minute-defense-bill/)

This is claim is wrong for several reasons: firstly, not all of this sum of $724.6 bn would be defense spending; only about $549 bn would be. The rest would not be defense spending, but rather GWOT spending, which would have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with defense (i.e. the task of creating and maintaining a strong military). Instead, the money would be spent on purposes such as bribes for Pakistan and Yemen to fight terrorists, and funding for equipment for their militaries. America has never had a $724.6 bn defense budget. Not this fiscal year. Not ever.

Secondly, this “bill” was never passed by the Senate, only by the House. Thirdly, it has never been signed into law. Instead, the Congress has decided to fund the federal government (including the DOD) at FY2010 funding levels.

A new Congress is scheduled to convene on January 5th, 2010. AT has warned everyone to expect a tough budget battle between the Congress and the President. Let’s hope the Congress doesn’t cut defense spending.

Why China can’t blackmail the US about America’s debt

Many people believe that China is America’s banker, and that it can refuse to buy American debt any time and dump the US public debt that it has already bought. The first part of that claim is wrong. The second part of that claim is technically correct, but irrelevant, because China cannot blackmail the US.

It would actually be beneficial for the US (yes, for the US) if China dumped America’s debt. Why? Because America’s allies would then start buying it. And it would be better if America’s debt was owned by its allies, not its principal enemy. Gordon Chang, an expert on Chinese affairs, has explained this fact:

“For the same reason, the Chinese cannot dump our debt, as a Chinese general suggested in February as a means of punishing us for arms sales to Taiwan. In any event, the tactic, which the Chinese call the “nuclear option,” will not work.

If the Chinese sell our debt, they will still get back dollars. If they are doing this to hurt us, they will exchange their dollars for other currencies. As a practical matter, they will be converting their dollars into euros, pounds, and yen.

Those purchases will send the value of those currencies soaring, which means Brussels, London, and Tokyo will go out into the market to rebalance their currencies, and the only way they can do that is to buy… dollars. The result? Our debt will be held by our friends instead of a potential adversary. If debt is a weapon, then dumping it is unilateral disarmament.

So the Chinese government has bought and will continue to buy our debt. There were reports that Beijing sold $34.2 billion of U.S. Treasury securities in December from publicly tracked accounts, undoubtedly sending us a warning. But at about the same time, the Chinese were buying Treasuries through foreign nominees—that is, secretly. We should of course be concerned about the estimated $1.7 trillion of our government’s debt that China owns, but this holding is not a sword over our heads.

The Chinese, struggling to keep their economy moving forward, are more dependent on us than we are on them. And that means what everyone knows about China—that Beijing holds all the cards—is just a myth. That’s why Hu Jintao is in Washington at this moment.” (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-11/chinas-reign-ends-tomorrow/2/)

On several various defense issues

I used to write separate posts about various defense issues. This time, I’ve decided to write one post about several different defense affairs. Enjoy!

1) Photos of an alleged Chinese stealthy 5th generation fighterplane have emerged on the Internet. It isn’t yet known whether this is a photoshop product (which could be made by Chinese aviation enthusiasts) or a picture of a real plane. If it’s real, it isn’t known how did the Chinese figure out how to construct it. Maybe it’s a copy of an F-22 or a Sukhoi PAKFA, or both. But even if it isn’t, it was certainly influenced, at least to some degree, by both of them: the front half of this aircraft is almost identical to that of an F-22, and the rear half resembles that of a PAKFA plane. (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/12/is-this-chinas-first-stealth-fighter/)

2) Those who believe that the USMC is obsolete and unneeded, or that its amphibious vehicles and the Navy’s amphibious ships are, should read this paper written for the MIT in 1976 by General Robert Cushman, a former commandant of the USMC. Back then, as today, many people claimed that the USMC and its amphibious equipment were unneeded. They were wrong. (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2538504)

3) The former USS Gualdalcanal (LPH-7), when it served, participated in de-mining missions and, with its helicopters, captured an Iranian minelaying ship during the 1980s (in 1987). Thus, it proved that amphibious ships can do such missions. Mines are the cheapest acess-denial weapons available, and constitute the single biggest weapon-category threat the US military faces these days. They are so cheap and so easily available that they could be used by state and non-state actors alike. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Guadalcanal_(LPH-7) )

4) Former SECDEF James Schlesinger, a veteran of defense issues, says that a nuclear-weapons-free world is both undesirable and unachievable, and that the US will ALWAYS need a nuclear deterrent. I agree with him.

5) An ignorant Reason.com columnist by the name of Cathy Rodgers wrote earlier this month (on December 7th, 1941, the 69th anniversary of the Japanese aggression against the US) that the START treaty is no big deal. Really? A treaty that commands the US to dramatically reduce its nuclear arsenal and its arsenal of delivery systems, to inadequate levels, allows Russia to add delivery systems, and greatly restricts missile defense, is no big deal? What planet does Cathy Rodgers live on? If that ridiculous statement wasn’t enough, Rodgers claimed that:

“On the opposite side, some conservatives such as Heritage Foundation fellow Peter Brookes and columnist Ralph Peters have argued that START makes dangerous concessions to Russia. The terms of the treaty, they claim, would not only force the U.S. to give up too much of its nuclear arsenal but also undercut our conventional capability and our potential for developing missile defense. Yet a Brookings Institution analysis published last summer suggests that these concerns are vastly exaggerated; some top conservative foreign policy experts such as Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations agree. Yet, contrary to the assertions of some STARTers (such as Sullivan), these experts generally don’t regard START as beneficial so much as irrelevant—in Boot’s words, “much ado about nothing.”"

The Sullivan referred to by Cathy Rodges is the extremely liberal, extremely ignorant, extremely stupid Atlantic.com blogger Andrew Sullivan. The ridiculous litany of lies published by the Brookings Institution last summer failed to refute any of the claims of us opponents of the treaty. The claims of the HF and Peter Brookes (who works for the HF) are correct, and anyone with a Net connection can verify them by reading the treaty. As for Max Boot, calling him a “top foreign policy expert” is an insult to every real expert. He is not an expert on anything (let alone a top expert), and he’s not a conservative, he’s a liberal masquerading as a conservative. His words about this treaty are exemplary proof. As for the claim that the entire debate about the treaty was “much ado about nothing” and the treaty was irrelevant – it was utter gibberish. The debate was about a treaty deeply unfavorable to the US. One thing Rodgers got right was that the START treaty is, indeed, “a Cold War relic”. Today’s Russia, unlike the Soviet Union, cannot afford to start an arms race against the US. (http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/07/a-cold-war-relic)

6)

CSBA’s Colonel Mark Gunzinger (USAF, ret.) has written a study which, Inter alia, suggests that the F-35C type is a bad choice for the Navy because it has a range of only 650 nm and restricted combat theaters might force the Navy to operate 1,000 miles away from the shore of an enemy country (e.g. China). But that’s no problem if an F-35C refuels twice during an attack mission. Moreover, according to the Colonel’s own study, the F-35C type represents a significant improvement over all previous USN strike aircraft except A-6 Intruders. WW2-era F6F Hellcats, SBF Dauntless Bombers and TBF Avengers had a combat radius of only 400 miles; AD-1s and F9F Panthers, 560 miles; F-4 Phantoms (the worst aircraft flown by the US military since Curtiss fighterplanes), a paltry 367 miles; A-7 Corsairs, 620 miles; A-6 Intruders, 890 miles; F-14 Tomcats, 600 miles; F-18Cs, 325 miles; F-14 Bombcats, 500 miles; F-18E Super Hornets, 500 miles. So F-35Cs’ combat radius will be, if these aircraft are produced, longer than that of any other strike aircraft ever operated by the USN, except A-6s, and twice longer than that of the aircraft they’re designed to replace (F-18Cs). So there’s a good reason to continue the F-35 program, including the F-35C variant. (http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20100914.Sustaining_America/R.20100914.Sustaining_America.pdf)

7) Before the START treaty was passed by the Senate, Republicans managed to include in it some amendments that might slightly ameliorate the treaty. The Weekly Standard has written that:

“

With the adoption of amendment 4904 to the New START Resolution of Ratification, the President must certify prior to entry into force of the treaty that it is the policy of the United States to qualitatively and quantitatively improve the US missile defense system.  This includes deployment of all four phases of his own Phased Adaptive Approach, with the last phase having a capability against ICBMs that could hold at risk the US homeland, as well as the continued development of the two-stage ground-based interceptors as a technological and strategic hedge to the PAA.  The amendment further expressed the position of the United States that the deployment of these systems does not constitute a basis for questioning the effectiveness and viability of the treaty, and therefore would not give rise to circumstances justifying Russian withdrawal from the Treaty.  This much more directly confronts the Russian position on the matter, when compared to the feckless unilateral statement issued by the United States at the signing of the treaty.  The amendment requires the President to communicate all of this to Russia at the time of the exchange of the instruments of ratification.  The amendment also provided an Understanding that the treaty preamble does not impose a legal obligation on the parties, which will be included in the instrument of ratification.    

 

Amendment 4864 was adopted by consent to the Resolution of Ratification, which requires the President to certify prior to entry into force of the treaty that he intends to modernize or replace the triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems, namely a heavy bomber and air-launched cruise missile, an ICBM, and an SSBN and SLBM.

 

Amendment 4892 was adopted by consent to the Resolution of Ratification, which requires  the President to certify prior to entry into force of the treaty that he intends to accelerate to the extent possible the design and engineering phase of the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) building and the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF); and request full funding, including on a multi-year basis as appropriate, for these facilities upon completion of the design and engineering phase for such facilities.” (http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/kentucky_mcconnell_and_the_tem.html; http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gop-memo-new-start_524867.html)

 

 

 

How big are the Russian and Chinese submarine fleets?

As the Congress ponders shipbuilding plans and defense spending, it is important to answer that question, to ensure that the Navy will receive enough funding to build an adequate number of submarines.

As of 21/12/2010, Russia has 248 SLBMs: 192 (12*16) on its 12 Delta class submarines (16 missiles per submarine), 40 on its 2 active-duty Typhoon class submarines (20 missiles per submarine), and 16 on the Borei class submarine Yuri Dolgoruki.
If Russia has 248 SLBMs, 88 intercontinental bombers and 369 ICBMs, then its total triad of delivery systems numbers 705 weapons.
Russia currently possesses 12 active-duty Akula class subs, plus 1 reserve vessel; 8 Victor class submarines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_class_submarine); and 3 Sierra class submarines. The total Russian SSN fleet is 24 subs. On top of this, Russia has 10 SSGNs (which are not subject to the New START treaty), including 8 Oscar-II class submarines, plus 16 SSBNs (3 of the Typhoon class, 12 of the Delta class and 1 of the Borei class), including 2 reserve SSBNs of the Typhoon class. So the total Russian fleet of nuclear submarines is 48 submarines, including 2 reserve subs. Yes, Russia is modernizing its military and developing decent weapon systems, but it cannot afford to maintain its nuclear arsenal at its current size.

On top of those 40 nuclear-propelled submarines, Russia has 17 conventional Kilo class submarines (including reserve boats) (all of the Paltus subclass), 1 obsolete Tango class submarine, and 1 Lada/Amur class submarine, although there are several Tango class and Kilo class submarines whose status is uncertain/unknown.

So Russia has a total fleet of 59 submarines of all types.

If it is true that 31 Romeo class and Ming class are still serving with the Chinese Navy as of 28-11-2010, then the PLAN has 71 submarines of all kinds (31 Romeo class and Ming class subs, 5 Han class subs, 2 Shang class subs, 1 Xia class SSBN, 5 Jin class SSBNs, 13 Song class submarines, 5 Yuan class submarines, and 1 Golf class submarine). This is the same as the number of subs possessed by the USN (43 LA class submarines, 3 Seawolf class submarines, 18 Ohio class subs, and 7 Virginia class subs.) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarines_of_the_People%27s_Liberation_Army_Navy)

The ancestors of Jesus Christ

As documented by the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke, Jesus is a 28th generation descendant of King David of Israel and simoultaneously a 42nd generation descendant of Abraham, the founder of the Jewish nation, the father of Isaac. Jesus, who was born in Bethlehem, is indeed the true Jewish King.

Luke has also documented that Jesus is a descendant of Adam, the first human. He is not a descendant of Cain, though, but rather of a third son of Adam named Seth.

God fulfilled His promise. He sent His Son to the Earth. His Son is the real Jewish King. And that’s the best news anyone could hear on Christmas.

Merry Christmas, Dear Readers!

Dear Readers,

I wish you Merry Christmas and a happy New Year!

Senate Republicans have surrendered to Obama and Reid

Once again, Senate Republicans have disappointed and shown a middle finger to their party, its grassroots fans, and conservative principles, by voting to end the debate on the disastrous New START treaty.

Mitch McConnell didn’t even try to force GOP Senators to vote “no”, so 10 RINO Senators (Richard Lugar, Bob Corker, Lamar Alexander, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Scott Brown, Lisa Murkowski, Bob Bennett and George Voinovich) voted to end the debate.

Corker and Alexander are easy-to-buy Senators; Reid probably promised them some pork projects. Bennett is a RINO rejected this year by the people of his own state; Murkowski is a RINO rejected by the Alaskan GOP who won by a plurality of votes and by blocking legal appeals by Joe Miller; the other Senators are unpricipled RINOs.

Credit is due to the 28 Republican Senators who voted not to end the debate, including John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who voted to began the debate in the first instance. Some of these 28 Senators offered various amendments that were aimed to ensure the Russians would not cheat and the US would not be disadvantaged by the treaty, but the Dems and the RINOs rejected these amendments, because they want what is bad for the US. They don’t want America to be adequately protected or to know if the Russians are cheating.

There is one final chance to stop this disastrous treaty. Please call your Senators and tell them that if they vote to ratify this treaty, you will never vote for them again. (UPDATE: The Senate has ratified the treaty by a vote of 71:26.)

A number of credible defense experts have written articles which nicely explain why this disastrous treaty should not be ratified. Among the must-read articles are:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/31315

http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/generals-diplomats-warn-of-new

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Factsheets/The-START-Treaty-Undermining-National-Security

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/why_america_needs_nuclear_arms.html

The fourth article, written by my fellow AT contributor John Griffing, cites one of my articles (the one that explains why the New START treaty should not be ratified) as one of its sources.

These articles, however, except Griffing’s work, do not categorically question/refute Obama’s goal of a “world without nuclear weapons”, which is nothing more than a childish fantasy.

It’s a childish fantasy because there will NEVER be a world without nuclear weapons. China, North Korea and Pakistan will NEVER surrender nor dismantle their nuclear weapons, under any conditions.

Nor is a world without nuclear weapons desirable.

America’s nuclear weapons have been shielding the US and dozens of its allies for 65 years, thus preventing any aggressor from ever attacking them. The New START treaty would end this historically-proven policy and replace it with childish assumptions.

American nuclear weapons don’t threaten anyone except rogue states. They are well guarded and cannot be stolen easily. They actually prevent nuclear proliferation by discouraging America’s allies from developing their own nuclear weapons. The US will ALWAYS need a large nuclear arsenal.

Griffing rightly mentioned the 3000 targets that the US military would need to eliminate to conduct a biting retaliatory strike, but even he assumed that nuclear weapons could become irrelevant and unnecessary one day – if the US developed a giant missile defense system. Not only would such a system be very expensive to build, it would not make nuclear weapons unneeded, because the US would still need to be able to eliminate those 3000 targets that Mr Griffing mentioned.

There is no alternative to a large US nuclear arsenal. And this arsenal is not a threat to the US nor to the world. It’s a crucial defensive shield which has protected the US for the last 65 years. As VADM Robert Munroe (ret.) rightly wrote, this is a historically proven policy that should not be ended.

———-
Other defense news:
1) The Russians are working on plasma stealth technology and aircraft that could use that technology.
2) Yesterday, India signed a $30 bn contract to purchase hundreds of 5th generation Russian fighterplanes. That’s a huge deal for the Russian defense industry.
3) The conservative Rep. Howard McKeon (R-CA), AKA Buck, is running for Chairman of the House Armed Services Cmte. If elected, Buck would ensure that the US military would be properly funded and equipped, and would attempt to prevent defense spending cuts. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) is running for Chairperson of the House Foreign Relations Cmte. IRL is a critic of Russia, Cuba and Venezuela and would try to limit the influence of the Kremlin in the Western Hemisphere.
4) According to the Pentagon, America’s GDP, as of 2010, is $15 trillion. This would mean that the FY2010 DOD budget ($534 bn) constituted just 3.56% of GDP, not 3.65% of GDP that I calculated assuming that America’s GDP is still $14.61 trillion.
5) There are still 7 decommissioned Tu-160 bombers in Ukraine. The DOD should buy them and study them.

Yet another reason to continue the F-35 program

I’ve discovered yet another reason to continue the F-35 program.

It has been revealed, after flight tests, that the radar cross section of an F-35 is no larger than that of a ping-pong-ball. The F-35 would therefore be stealthier than any currently serving aircraft in the world, except B-2s and F-22s. The radar cross section of an F-22 is the size of that of a metal marble, which means this aircraft is undetectable for any current radars.

The F-35 type is only slightly less stealthier than the F-22 type, under the condition that it carries no more than 2 weapons externally (which means carrying other weapons in the plane’s interior). It’s no problem, if the US military orders enough F-35s.

Please watch this video:

(7:11)

The F-35 type is also more stealthy than the F-117 type. That aircraft was stealthy, but it used first-gen stealth technology. It was detected by a Yugoslavian radar and shot down by an S-125 (SA-3 Goa) SAM. Why? For three reasons:
1) The plane’s bomb bay was open when the radar found the F-117, thus enabling the radar to find the aircraft. The commander of the SAM unit which shot the plane down, Zoltan Dani, admitted this.
2) The plane was visible to non-static radars, as explained by Petr Ufimtsev. A non-static radar is one consisting of two units: the emitter and the receiver of radar waves. The F-117 deflected the radar waves emitted by one unit towards another unit, enabling the second unit to detect it.
3) During OAF, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, NATO aircraft flew along the same routes time after time. The Yugoslavians learned these routes and guessed where they could expect NATO aircraft to fly from, and positioned their SAMs and radars accordingly.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-117_Nighthawk#Combat_losses)

Some claim that a remedy could be a “stealthy” F-15, the F-15SE variant. They’re wrong for a number of reasons:
1) The F-15SE is designed to be stealthy only from the front, and only for X-band radars, i.e. the radars used by enemy aircraft. It is not designed to be stealthy to other-band radars, like the ones that inform SAMs where to shoot.
2) The F-15SE’s weapons and fuel tanks would be hidden in internal bays. This would reduce the amount of ordnance or fuel that an F-15 could take.
3) The cost of an F-15SE is $100 mn per plane, according to Boeing. This makes this fighterplane variant significantly more expensive than an F-35. A single F-35 costs $83 mn. If the USAF buys such aircraft (because it’s unlikely that existing F-15s can be retrofitted to the F-15SE standard, although I might be wrong on that issue), it would pay a higher cost for inferior aircraft. An F-15SE cannot serve as anything other than a stopgap plane until enough F-35s arrive.

The truth is that there is NO alternative to the F-35 program. The CAGW and the NYT claim otherwise, but they’re wrong. There is NO alternative to the F-35 program.

Gates disproven by his own service chiefs

I’ve recently found this Reuters article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNN0615186020100507?rpc=44

When earlier this year (on May 6th, IIRC), Gates questioned the requirements for 11 carriers and 33 amphibious ships, he was disproven by his own service chiefs and the USN’s weapons buyer!

Gates made false claims about the unit prices of American warships and claimed that because no other navy had more than 1 aircraft carrier (British Invincible class small carriers didn’t count), the USN doesn’t 11 such ships. Gates, who knows nothing about defense issues, is unaware of the fact that the USN needs 11 carriers to project military might across the globe, and deliver its fighterplanes wherever they may be needed, even if foreign countries don’t allow the US military to use their bases.

The Navy’s weapons buyer, Sean Stackley, and the Chairman of the JCS, Admiral Michael Mullen, himself a former CNO, said that the USN needs 11 aircraft carriers.

As for amphibious assault ships, Gates said that because America’s enemies have purchased, and continue to produce, access-denial weapons, amphibious landings are no longer feasible and therefore the USN doesn’t need amphibious warships and the USMC doesn’t need amphibious vehicles.

He was disproven by his own USMC Commandant (whom he recommended to President Bush in 2007), Gen. James Conway, who said that these ships and vehicles are absolutely necessary:

“In addition, he circled back to his doubts, first voiced publicly last April, about amphibious warfare. He repeated questions about a projected $13.2 billion Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program for the Marine Corps.

The Commandant, General James Conway, has said it is “an absolute critical requirement” for the Marines. (…) The Navy and Marine Corps have determined they can make do with no fewer than 33 amphibious warfare ships, Stackley, the assistant Navy secretary for research, development and acquisition, testified Thursday.

Lieutenant General George Flynn, the deputy Marine commandant for combat development and integration who also testified, said 33 such ships represented a “limit in acceptable risk” for two Marine expeditionary brigades to punch their way through enemy shores.”

Gates’s own CNO, Admiral Gary Roughead, also defended amphibious warships earlier this year, saying that they are extremely flexible and therefore, the USN needs them.

The new USMC commandant appointed this year, on Gates’s recommendation, Gen. James Amos, also says that the Department of the Navy needs at least 33 amphibious ships, because they’re flexible and can deliver troopers, military equipment and humanitarian supplies alike, wherever and whenever needed. He pointed out the important role played by amphibious ships of the USN during the Haitian crisis earlier this year, when the ships delivered supplies by sea, while the Port-au-Prince airport was clogged.

Gates, when corrected by his own service chiefs, should humbly apologize and correct his mistakes.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idCNN0615186020100507?rpc=44