Zbigniew Mazurak's Blog

A blog dedicated to defense issues

  • Subscribe

  • Blog Stats

    • 125,262 hits
  • August 2015
    M T W T F S S
    « Jul    
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  

Rebuttal of disarmament advocates’ blatant lies

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on February 25, 2015


142074.439nuclear_explosion

The unilateral disarmament lobby in the US has hardly given up on its goal to compeltely and unilaterally disarm America, even though Barack Obama himself seems to have given up on that goal. Nor have Russia’s, China’s, and North Korea’s nuclear buildups and aggressive actions sobered these people up.

They have written yet another garbage screed calling for deep cuts in America’s nuclear arsenal – while Russia, China, North Korea, and others are growing their own arsenals.

Specifically, ACA’s Daryl Kimball and NRDC’s Matthew McKinzie have written a garbage screed published by the leftist DefenseNews website.

In it, they falsely claim at the beginning (3rd paragraph):

“Moscow’s actions have prompted calls from some to halt implementation of nuclear arms control agreements, including the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which verifiably limits Russian nuclear potential to no more than 1,550 strategic deployed warheads.”

That is a blatant lie right at the start. The New START treaty has not limited Russia’s nuclear arsenal AT ALL. On the contrary, it has permitted Moscow to significantly GROW that arsenal – so much so that it now stands at 1,643 deployed (and many more nondeployed) strategic warheads, far above New START limits – and Moscow keeps ADDING warheads.

If limiting Russia’s strategic nuclear arsenal was the goal, New START has failed abysmally to achieve it – as I predicted in 2010.

I was right, and the pro-disarmament lobby was wrong.

But the screed’s authors don’t stop at that one blatant lie. Despite Moscow’s, Beijing’s, and Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile buildups – and aggressive actions – they falsely claim that it’s time to cut America’s nuclear arsenal even further, that the US nuclear arsenal is “excess”, and that the US should rely on “diplomacy, economic sanctions, and conventional deterrence” instead!

They reject any calls to modernize and build up the US nuclear arsenal and falsely claim that:

“But rather than helping to protect Ukraine or NATO, these proposals would undermine strategic stability and increase nuclear dangers. Moscow’s actions in Ukraine require a tough and unified US and European response involving diplomacy, economic sanctions and NATO conventional deterrence, but the challenge can’t be effectively resolved with nuclear weapons or a US nuclear buildup.

As President Barack Obama declared in 2012, “[t]he massive nuclear arsenal we inherited from the Cold War is poorly suited for today’s threats.” (…)

Moscow and Washington could do more to reduce their nuclear excess and should pursue a further one-third cut in their strategic stockpiles. With New START verification tools in place, additional nuclear reductions can be readily achieved without a new treaty.”

Au contraire! The only language that Putin, China’s Xi Jinping, and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un understand is the language of force. Ony military strength – and that has to include nuclear strength – can dissuade them from further aggression.

Diplomacy and economic sanctions have utterly failed and will continue to fail. These dictators don’t care about their nations’ economic well-being (if they did, they’d have pursued market-based economic reforms long ago) or diplomatic niceties. Western sanctions have already wrecked havoc on Russia’s economy – but Moscow’s behavior towards its neighbors (especially Ukraine) and towards the West has only become more aggressive since 2014.

As for conventional deterrence, the US alone (not to mention the entire NATO alliance) already has a huge edge over Russia in conventional weapons. The problem is not inadequate conventional deterrence. The problem is inadequate nuclear deterrence – and a lack of will to enforce the West’s red lines. No amount of military power – nuclear or conventional – means anything unless it is used when aggressors overstep acceptable bounds.

Put simply, Western nations are not willing to defend themselves (let alone Ukraine), and Putin knows it.

What would REALLY undermine strategic stability and increase nuclear dangers would be to fail to modernize and sufficiently increase America’s nuclear deterrent. It’s the only effective protection the US and over 30 of its allies and friends have against nuclear, chemical, or bilological attack – or blackmail of such an attack.

Russia has a vast and very diverse nuclear arsenal and is still growing it (along with the fleet of delivery systems: ICBMs, bombers, and boomers). China has a large and still growing nuclear and ballistic missile arsenal – in fact, the fastest growing in the world according to USAF intel. North Korea is growing its nuclear stockpile, perfecting its ICBMs, and testing a ship-based ballistic missile intended for its Golf-class submarine.

What would REALLY undermine strategic stability and increase nuclear dangers would be to fail to modernize and sufficiently increase America’s nuclear deterrent under those circumstances. Yet, that is precisely what ACA and the NRDC advocate.

The claim that America’s nuclear arsenal is “poorly suited” for today’s threats and that it’s “excess” is a blatant lie. The US nuclear arsenal is perfectly suited to address the biggest threats to America’s and its allies’ security.

These threats are not Ebola, Al Qaeda, or the Islamic state, but the nuclear and missile arsenals of Russia, China, and North Korea. Nothing else comes even CLOSE to being as grave a threat as these three.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not an isolated incident, but a mere part of Russia’s overall pattern of aggressive behavior towards the US, the West, and any country Putin perceives as aligning itself with the West – including Ukraine and Georgia. In accordance with this pattern of aggressive behavior, Russia has, in recent years, threatend to aim or use its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles against the US or its allies 15 times; has flown nuclear-armed bombers near US and allied airspace, and sometimes even into the airspace of countries such as Denmark, Sweden, and Finland; has dramatically increased the frequency of its nuclear-armed submarine patrols; has threatened to deploy nuclear weapons in the Crimea; and has conducted a dramatic buildup of its nuclear and ballistic missile arsenal.

In doing so, it has violated every arms limitation treaty it is party to, including the INF, CFE, CTBT, and New START treaties.

If the US fails to modernize and increase its nuclear arsenal, or worse, cuts that arsenal, it will fail to address that threat, and thus commit suicide.

Kimball and McKinzie deny that their organizations have recently called in Vienna on the US to disarm itself unilaterally, But ACA has repeatedly called on the US to do that on many occassions in the last several years. A few years ago, Tom Z. Collina, then ACA’s “Research Director”, called on the US to unilaterally cut its nuclear arsenal and falsely claimed that “there’s no reason to wait for Russia.” Also, ACA has, for many years, advocated (and still advocates) foregoing the modernization of the US nuclear deterrent, including cancelling the replacement for the USAF’s obsolete bombers and ICBMs and cutting the planned buy new new ballistic missile subs to just 8. That would essentially be unilateral disarmament by atrophy and neglect. That would be just as bad as scrapping the US nuclear arsenal outright.

Last but not least, Kimball and McKinzie are trying to delude the American people with totally unrealistic, fantastic fairy-tales of global nuclear disarmament:

“We proposed “making nuclear disarmament” a global enterprise. We called on all states to press China, India and Pakistan, in particular, not to increase their fissile material or weapons stocks. A unified push for further US-Russian arms cuts combined with a nuclear weapons freeze by other nuclear-armed states could create the conditions for meaningful nuclear risk reduction.”

This is a total, unrealistic fantasy. The idea that cuts in America’s and Russia’s nuclear arsenals will prod other nuclear powers to reduce their own stockpiles is fantasy – as is the idea that China, India, and Pakistan will ever succumb to “pressure” not to increase their fissile materials or nuclear weapon stocks. These countries don’t care about international pressure or America’s meaningless unilateral disarmament gestures; they only care about their own military power.

Kimball’s and McKinzie’s screed is total garbage. Shame on DefenseNews for publishing it.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/commentary/2015/02/23/commentary-nuclear-dangers-myth-reality-responses/23885837/

 

Posted in Nuclear deterrence, Threat environment | Leave a Comment »

Rebuttal of DefenseNews’ Blatant Lies About the Rafale

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on February 24, 2015


This Sunday, DefenseNews, an American military affairs website, published a garbage screed smearing the Dassault Rafale and quoting garbage Russian state propaganda in support of one of its rivals, the Su-30MKI. (Who would’ve thought thatan American news website would be parrotting Russian state propaganda?)

In that article, DefenseNews falsely claims that the Rafale will likely fail to win an export order in India because, supposedly, France is an unreliable supplier of weapons. In support of that garbage claim, DefenseNews parrots Russian propaganda:

“Russian officials and pundits have gone out of their way in recent months to cast France as an unreliable trading partner, a supplier that may cancel deals at the last minute in accordance with the political whims of its puppet masters in DC, and have promised to pursue legal damages if Paris does not go through with the delivery.”

France is a poodle of its puppet masters in DC? Can anyone take these people seriously?

The reason why the delivery of the Mistrals has been suspended is because Russia has illegally invaded another state and annexed part of its territory by force. This is illegal and contrary to the norms accepted throughout the civilized world. If Russia doesn’t like that, it should withdraw from Ukraine, return the Crimea to that country, and respect its territorial integrity. Period.

But DefenseNews doesn’t stop there. It says Rafale will likely fail to land the deal because the Su-30MKI Flanker is supposedly a better alternative. To support that ridiculous claim, it again quotes garbage Russian propaganda:

“Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Center for the Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, a Moscow-based defense think tank, said Russia has been lobbying for some time for India to ax the Rafale contract.

“Russia has tried its best to explain to India, as the Eurofighter people have, that it is completely senseless to buy a platform designed in the 1980s for such a huge amount of money,” Pukhov said, “especially since the full fleet won’t be operational for, let’s say, 10 years.”

For the money India would spend on Rafale, it could buy from a mature product that they already know how to maintain and operate, Pukhov argued, adding that its combat capability surpasses that of any other aircraft in India’s Air Force.”

All of that is utter garbage.

Firstly, India has not signed a contract for the Rafales yet. Secondly, although the Rafale was designed in the 1980s, the Flanker – which Pukhov touts as a superior alternative – is much older. It was designed in the late 1960s and in the 1970s as the Soviet response to the American F-15 and first flew in 1977 – a full 9 years before the Rafale did. In fact, at that time, the Rafale project didn’t even exist. Furthemore, the Flanker entered service with the Soviet (not Russian) Air Force in 1984 – 2 years before the Rafale first flew.

Thus, the Rafale is much younger.

As for the Eurofighter, it is also older than the Rafale. The Eurofighter project was initiated in the early 70s and early 80s, but in 1984, by decision of then-French Defense Minister Charles Hernu, France withdrew from the project and then started its own fighter program.

But age isn’t the most important metric of a fighter. Combat capability is. ANd here, the Rafale has an undisputable edge over all competitors, including and especially the Su-30MKI.

The most important criteria by which to measure fighters are: reduced observability (to the human eye, on radar, and to thermal (IR) sensors); speed and maneuverability (including turning capability and climb rate);its combat radius; its weapons load and capability; combat availablity and ease of maintenance; and avionics.

Those are the criteria that actually determine victory in air combat, because:

1) An aircraft which is easy to detect (whether visually, with radar, or with infrared sensors) is not survivable and therefore destined to lose. History of air combat since the First World War shows 80% of fighters shot down went down unaware of their predator. The pilot also must have good vertical and unobstructed all-around horizontal visibility, so that he can see what’s behind his aircraft.

2) An aircraft which is less maneuverable than the opponent will be outmaneuvered by him, and he’ll position himself behind that aircraft’s rear, its most vulnerable quadrant, while being slower than the enemy makes fleeing him – or chasing him – impossible;

3) An aircraft which lacks the combat radius to perform distant missions or to protect a sizeable part of a nation’s territory is useless;

4) An aircraft which can’t carry a meaningful, useful weapons load will have few weapons to fire at opponents who will likely try to duck them, and if its weapons are simply inferior, it can simply be outgunned;

5) An aircraft which has to spend too many hours on the ground cand can’t fly often is, to be blunt, useless; and

6) Modern fighter aircraft need a wide range of modern avionics – including active and passive sensors, computers, and datalinks – to detect and target enemies, attack them accurately, maintain contact with friendlies, and exchange information with them.

By these criteria, the SU-30MKI is decisively inferior to the Rafale:

1) The Su-30MKI, like other Flankers, is much larger, heavier, and hotter – and thus much easier to detect visually, with radar, and with infrared sensors – than the Rafale. So a Rafale could detect a Flanker much earlier than the other way around. Worst of all, the Flanker’s (including the Su-30MKI’s) pilots have very poor rearward visibility, while the Rafale (like other Eurocanard aircraft, as well as the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, and F-22) gives its pilot completely unobstructed horizontal visibility. So a Rafale can sneak behind an Su-30MKI, and the Indian Flanker pilot won’t even know the Rafale is there! That’s basically game over already, but let’s review the other criteria, shall we?

2) The Su-30MKI is decidely less maneuverable than the Rafale: it climbs slower (300 m/s vs 305 m/s for the Rafale) and has a very high wing loading ratio (401 kg/sq m, vs 304 kg/sq m for the Rafale – a difference of almost 100 kg/sq m!). It has excellent roll onset, pitch onset, instantaneous turning, and sustained turning rates. Thus, the Rafale can easily outturn and outclimb the Su-30MKI. As my fellow blogger Picard has written:

“Rafale’s placement of canards, which are close coupled to the wing, means that outboard canard vortices energize wing tips regardless of the angle of attack. This results in excellent roll onset rate at all flight conditions, allowing aircraft to be flown with rapid reversals of flight directions instead of rolling pulls. Canards also create an area of low pressure on forward part of the wing, which results in a significant pitch-up tendency and consequently in rapid pitch onset rate. Maximum climb rate is 305 meters per second, indicating very good acceleration, while wing loading of 275 kg/m2 at combat weight gives it instantaneous turn rate unmatched among Western fighters, especially when combained with close-coupled canard’s favorable effects on wing lift at high angles of attack. Thrust-to-weight ratio is 1,2 at combat weight, and allows it good sustained turn rate, especially when combined with its very high lift to drag ratio.”

3) Both aircraft have sizeable combat radii, but the Rafale’s is greater, at 1,852 kms unrefueled.

4) The Rafale B and C can carry more weapons than the Su-30MKI – 13 and 14, respectively, vs the Su-30MKI’s 12. The Rafale is, in fact, the only fighter in the world which can carry ordnance and fuel weighting 1.5 times the aircraft’s empty weight. Its 30mm gun is the best fighter gun in the world, and its MICA IR missiles permit it to shoot down opponents detected by its IRST at a range of up to 80 kms.

5) The Rafale spends only 8 hours on the ground for each hour flown. The Su-30MK (including the MKI) has to spend FOUR times as much time on the ground – 32 hours for each hour flown! So the Rafale can fly four hours for each hour the Su-30MKI can fly. So even if the IAF could buy four times more Su-30s than the 126 Rafales it’s in talks to buy, in practice, only a quarter of these would be operationally available. Put another way, to numerically match the Rafales in the air, you’d have to have a total Su-30 fleet 4 times larger than your opponent’s Rafale fleet. Problem is, the Su-30MKI is not much cheaper than the Rafale.

6) The Rafale’s OSF infra-red search and tracking system and its RBE2 AESA radar are among the best in the world. By contrast, the Su-30MKI uses the inferior Phazotron Zhuk AESA radar and the OLS-30 IRST which, although good, is nowhere near as good as the Rafale’s OSF – or the OLS-35 used on the newest Flanker variant, the Su-35.

A few final considerations are worth pointing out: The Rafale needs only a 450 m runway to take off, and its wingspan of 10,8 meters allows it to take off from Western-style highways, or from makeshift runways, if need be. The Su-30MKI, with a runway requirement of at least 550 m and a wingspan of 15 m, cannot do that.

Last but not least, the Russian officials cited by DefenseNews claim that India has experience building, maintaining, and operating the Su-30MKI. That is true, but that is no justification for buying an inferior aircraft when one can buy a much better fighter. And India is a relatively recent Sukhoi customer, while it has literally decades and decades of experience operating Dassault fighters. If New Delhi procures the Rafale, IAF pilots and technicians would need little retraining.

In short, the DefenseNews screed is a piece of Russian propaganda BS. If BS were currency, the authors of that screed could easily bail Russia out of its fiscal problems.

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/02/22/india-rafale-russia-eurofighter-mistral/23666011/

Posted in Air combat | 6 Comments »

François Hollande confirme: la dissuasion nucléaire est indispensable, la France ne peut pas baisser la garde

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on February 19, 2015


Le président de la République, François Hollande, en tant que chef des armées, a confirmé lors de sa visite à la base aérienne d’Istres que la dissuasion nucléaire est indispensable à la securité nationale et l’independance de la France et que la France ne peut pas baisser la garde en vue du contexte international actuel. Il a exprimé ces propos dans un discours à la base aérienne d’Istres, l’une des deux bases des Forces Aériennes Strategiques:

http://videos.tf1.fr/infos/2015/hollande-pas-question-de-baisser-la-garde-sur-la-dissuasion-nucleaire-8567339.html

Il a raison. Le monde est en effet très dangereux aujourd’hui, et le contexte international présent exige que la France maintienne sa force de dissuasion nucléaire au moins au niveau actuel (déjà à peine suffissant en raison des coupes profondes faites par les presidents précedents, y compris Nicolas Sarkozy, qui esperait en 2008 de donner un exemple qui stimulerait un desarmement nucléaire global… ce qui ne s’est pas du tout passe).

Rappelons-nous du contexte international actuel:

  • La Russie dispose d’un arsenal nucléaire de 8,000 têtes, y compris 1,643 têtes strategiques deployées et ciblees sur les USA, environ 2,000 têtes strategiques en total, et entre 2,000 et 6,000 têtes nucleaires tactiques qui peuvent être utilisées partout en Europe, y compris contre la France, et peuvent être portées par des vecteurs très divers, y compris des sous marins d’attaque, des navires de surface, des pièces d’artillerie, des avions d’attaque tactiques Sukhoi et MiG, des bombardiers continentaux Tu-22M Backfire, des missiles de courte et moyenne portée (Iskander, Brahmos, R-500), et par un pseudo-ICBM envisagé par la Russie. Le developpement du missile R-500, qui a une portée entre 500 et 5 500 kilomètres, est en violation du traité INF entre Moscou et Washington.
  • La Chine possède un arsenal nucléaire qui est estimé de comprendre entre 800 et 3,000 têtes nucléaires (elle ne divulge pas aucun nombre exact). Ces têtes peuvent être portées par des missiles ballistiques de courte, moyenne, et longue (intercontinentale) portée, par des missiles croisières, par des bombardiers strategiques H-6, par des SNLE (Type 094 et Type 096), et par des sous-marins d’attaque.
  • La Corée du Nord possède un arsenal nucléaire et des missiles qui peuvent porter ses têtes sur des distances intercontinentaux; elle continue à perfectionner ses missiles intercontinentaux Taepodong-2 et KN-08; elle est en cours d’essayer le lancement des missiles ballistiques mer-sol et construit un sous-marin lanceur d’engins; et, selon le renseignement américain, elle prepare maintenant un nouvel essai nucleaire, ce qui est tout en violation du Traité de Non-Proliferation Nucléaire et les obligations de la Corée du Nord sous les résolutions du CS de l’ONU.
  • L’Iran continue à developper des armes nucléaires, ce qui est une ménace à la securité de la France, de l’Europe entière, des partenaires de la France au Golfe Perse, et a l’Israel.

Ces arsenaux nucléaires ne sont pas une ménace théoretique, mais réelle : par exemple, la Russie envoie ses bombardiers nucléaires proche des frontières des pays européens, du Canada, et des USA, pour les ménacer. C’est aussi  le cas avec la France. Aucun pays européen, y compris la Finlande et la Suéde, n’a pas été épargné par les Russes. La Russie s’est aussi reservé un “droit” à utiliser l’arme nucléaire premiere, même contre des états qui n’en disposent pas.

Dans cette situation mondiale, la France ée peut absolument pas baisser la garde et affaiblir sa force de dissuasion nucléaire. Ce serait suicidal.

La dissuasion nucléaire assure aussi l’independance de la France vis-a-vis toute puissance étrangere, y compris les USA et la Russie. Grace à sa force de dissuasion, la France peut leur parler comme un égal, pas comme un vassal à ses maitres.

Enfin, la dissuasion nucleaire aide a la France de developper sa puissance technologique et économique, notamment dans le domaine missilier et nucléaire.

Quant à ceux qui cherchent à délegitimer la force de dissuasion en l’accusant de priver les forces coventionnelles des moyens, c’est une mensonge : le coût de la dissuasion nucléaire représente seulement 0,0015% du PIB et 10% du budget de la Défense. C’est un coût miniscule – et la securité de la France vaut cette dépense.

Donc François Hollande a raison : la France a besoin de sa force de dissuasion nucléaire plus que jamais. Il est hors de question de baisser la garde.

 

Posted in Nuclear deterrence, Threat environment | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

How American, Russian, and Chinese nuclear-powered submarines compare

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on February 17, 2015


Oftentimes, and especially by rank amateurs, submarines’ quality is measured by just one criterion: noise level. While it’s critical (as it determines its stealthiness), it isn’t by any means the sole criterion. Being stealthy does not make a submarine completely invincible; conversely, being noisy doesn’t automatically doom a sub to being sunk. A lot of other factors are in play, including the submarine crew’s training and competence, the tactics adopted by its skipper, and the quality of the opposing force (both materiel and men).

That being said, one can make a careful comparison of the nuclear powered submarines of the US, Russian, Chinese, British, and French navies, to the extent data is publicly available. Based on the data that IS available, I’m offering this simple comparison of these submarines based on noise levels, maximum depth, and speed. All of these criteria are crucial for submarine survival and capability; it doesn’t matter if you can detect an enemy submarine if it can outrun you and escape.

Noise levels

The following graph was published in 1997 by the Office of Naval Intelligence – the US Navy’s intelligence arm.

A word of caution is on order: any ONI publications or data must be treated very skeptically. The ONI is also known as the US Navy’s propaganda arm. It routinely overestimates and exaggerates the USN’s capabilities and dramatically underestimates that of its adversaries. Moreover, it can’t even get basic facts right: for example, it calls the Vanguard class “SSNs”, i.e. attack submarines, when they are in fact ballistic missile subs, and includes them in a noise comparison of other attack submarines. No professional organization would make such a mistake.

a1997ONIchartonsubmarinenoiselevels

 

The above ONI graph shows that when the Improved Akulas entered service in the late 1980s and early 1990s, thanks to the milling equipment sold to the USSR by Japan, they were quieter than the Improved Los Angeles (688I) class. So will be the Severodvisnk class SSGNs the Russian Navy is now building. The US Navy has been forced to respond by building first Seawolf-class and then Virginia-class (NSSN) submarines. By contrast, the Chinese Navy’s Type 091 Han class and Type 093 Shang class were found in 1997 to be very noisy – but that is very old (18 year old) data. The PLAN is now building a newer, much quieter variant of the Type 093 Shang class – as well as the even newer and quieter Type 095 class.

Speed

As stated above, it doesn’t matter how noisy the enemy submarine is if it can run fast enough to escape its predators.

The Seawolf and Virginia classes are Fast Attack Submarine classes, that is, the vessels which make them up can run fast when submerged (at a speed of up to 35 knots), one of the fastest in the world. The LA class is slower: officially, it can run only at speeds “over 20 knots” (the exact speed is classified), but reportedly, it can do up to 33 knots.

Which puts it at rough parity with the older Victor and Sierra classes of Soviet attack submarines and the Oscar class of SSGNs, all which can run at 32 knots maximum, but at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the Akula and Yasen classes, which can do as many as 35 knots. The Chinese Type 093 Shang class also comes somewhat short, at 30 knots maximum, although the newest Chinese SSN class, the Type 095, can run at over 30 knots (how many exactly is classified). On par with all these classes is their British contemporary, the late 1970s Trafalgar class, which can run at up to 32 knots (surprisingly, the newest British SSN class, the Astute class, can run at only 30 knots).

France is at a great disadvantage vis-a-vis the rest of the club – her Rubis class of SSNs has a max speed of “over 25 knots”, but it isn’t known how many. The newest French class of SSNs – Barracuda – will have the same max speed. This suggests speed is not a priority for the French SSN fleet.

Operating depth

Another important criterion – which indicates a submarine’s survivability as well as its possible range of missions – is the maximum depth at which it can operate. Here, the Russian Navy holds an overwhelming, outsized edge over the US Navy – and everyone else in the world, for that matter.

Data is not available for the Chinese Navy, but for the other navies’ submarine classes, maximum depths are as follows:

Yasen class: 600 m (2,000 ft)

Akula class: 600 m (2,000 ft)

Borei class: 450 m (1400 ft) (test depth)

Los Angeles class: 290 m (950 ft)

Seawolf class: unknown

Virginia class: 240 m (800+ ft)

Sturgeon class: 400 m (1,320 ft)

Astute class: over 300 m (test depth)

Posted in Naval affairs, Threat environment | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Rebuttal of UCS’s ridiculous tirade against nuclear weapons

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on February 10, 2015


The Left never stops in its attempt to disarm the US unilaterally. In order to do so, it has, for a long time, conducted a black propaganda campaign aimed to mislead the American people about US defense policies, budgets, and weapon programs, and about how security is ensured.

One of the latest examples of this propaganda campaign is the Feb. 1st piece published in DefenseOne (a leftist website) by Stephen Young of the “Union of Concerned Scientists”, a far-left pacifist group that adamantly opposes (and has always opposed) a strong national defense, and in  particular, America’s nuclear deterrent and missile defense system.

The Left has long (and wrongly) claimed that American nuclear weapons provide little security and cost much (both of which are blatant lies – see below). But Young goes even further and ridiculously claims that America’s nuclear deterrent actually makes her less safe and that disarming the US unilaterally would make the nation safer!

“Not only would reducing our bloated arsenal save U.S. taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, it would make us safer. Nuclear weapons are the only threat to the survival of the United States. (…) Again, not only is this an unnecessary expense, it undermines national security. (…) Rather than an asset that increases national security, nuclear weapons are now our greatest security liability.”

Needless to say, this is utter garbage. It is military strength – including, and especially, nuclear strength – that guarantees a nation’s security, and it is military weakness – such as an inadequate nuclear umbrella, or the complete lack of one – that puts a nation at risk, as more and more countries are recognizing.

Young claims that America’s nuclear weapons undermine her security because, allegedly, they undermine efforts to stop nuclear weapon proliferation. But that is also a blatant lie (like everything else he claims). The US nuclear arsenal actually HELPS global nonproliferation efforts by a) posing a huge obstacle to any nuclear challenger not named Russia or China; and b) reassuring over 30 of America’s allies and partners around the world who rely on the US nuclear umbrella for their security and their very survival.

Should the US reduce its umbrella further, however, many of America’s allies will acquire atomic weapons of their own – and thus, the proliferation problem will become much worse. Already, 66% of South Koreans want their country to be a nuclear power, and former Polish President Lech Walesa wants the same for his country. Saudi Arabia has already acquired DF-21 ballistic missiles from China and will arm them with nuclear warheads if it ever judges the American nuclear umbrella insufficient.

Young falsely claims that unilateral reductions in the US nuclear arsenal:

“enhance our efforts to eliminate North Korea’s limited arsenal, head off potential increases in China’s stockpile and limit Iran’s potential program. As they have in the past, U.S. cuts could prompt Russia to reduce its stockpile, particularly as the tumbling price of oil wreaks havoc on its economy. Even Putin’s decision to end cooperative programs to lock down Russian nuclear material and U.S.statements that Russia has violated the Intermediate Forces Treaty do not rule out such an outcome.”

Again, this is a blatant lie. Since the end of the Cold War in 1991, the US has cut its nuclear arsenal by 75% – but that has utterly failed to prevent Pakistan and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons, Iran from undertaking to build them, or China from greatly increasing its nuclear arsenal (which credible experts, such as Professor Philip Karber and General Viktor Yesin, estimate at between 1,600 and 3,000 warheads). Cutting the US nuclear arsenal over the last 24 years has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER to slow down global nuclear proliferation.

Any claim that cutting the US nuclear arsenal further would somehow entice other countries to cut or scrap their own nuclear stockpiles is utterly false – not just because of past experience, but also because of the nature of the nuclear-armed regimes the US faces. They won’t be impressed by such unilateral disarmament gestures; on the contrary, they will only consider them (and rightly so) as signs of weakness, to be exploited against the US. This would only jeopardize US national security. And no one should be deluded to think that Russia’s temporary economic problems will slow down, let alone stop, Putin’s nuclear buildup. They haven’t, and they won’t – and major European countries, such as Germany and Greece, are already talking about loosening the EU’s sanctions on Russia. The EU scrapping these sanctions is only a question of when, not if.

(Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who wants to retake the Presidency in 2017, wants the EU to go even further and officially recognize Russia’s illegal annexation of the Crimea and is parroting Russian propaganda.)

Young also falsely claims that

“But spending money on new types of warheads undermines efforts to stop additional countries from pursuing these weapons.”

Which is also a blatant lie, because other countries’ (Russia’s, China’s, North Korea’s, Iran’s) nuclear programs are caused NOT by America’s nuclear arsenal, but by these countries’ aggressive designs against the US and against their neighbors (and in Iran’s case, by its declared desire to wipe Israel off the map).

Pakistan’s and India’s nuclear programmes are due to their hostility towards each other and have nothing to do with the US. The nuclear weapon programmes of some of America’s allies are due to these allies’ uncertainty about whether the US will continue to provide a reliable, credible nuclear umbrella to them. Cutting the US nuclear arsenal further will only prove their doubts correct and prod them to acquire their own atomic weapons.

Young also falsely claims that nuclear weapons add very little to America’s national security:

“Nuclear weapons do precious little to address the real threats we and our allies face today, and do nothing to address the threat of terrorism. Nothing to counter Islamic State forces in Iraq and Syria. Nothing to counteract the growing risk of cyber attack.”

And again, this is a blatant lie. In fact, nuclear weapons are PIVOTAL to America’s national security. That’s because by far the biggest threats to US and allied security – and to world peace – are posed by the nuclear and ballistic missile arsenals of Russia, China, and North Korea, and by Iran’s nuclear program.

Not terrorism. Not Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Not cyber attacks. Not Ebola. It is Russia’s, China’s, and North Korea’s nuclear arsenals and their delivery systems – and their willingness to use these weapons – that pose by far the biggest threat to the security of the US, all of its allies, and the world.

Nothing else comes even close.

Al Qaeda can blow up a few buses or trains, but it can’t wipe out any US cities or even repeat anything on the scale of 9/11. The Islamic State is the Middle East’s and Europe’s problem (which could’ve been easily avoided by not importing Muslim immigrants en masse). But Russia and China could both potentially wipe all major US cities off the map. North Korea could wipe at least one major US city out. Moreover, China’s regime-controlled media has openly written about attacking the US with nuclear weapons, while Russia has, in recent months, repeatedly flown nuclear-armed bombers very close to US airspace to “practice attacking the enemy”, as the Russians themselves have said. One such practice bombing run occurred on the Fourth of July in 2012.

Furthermore, the US has to provide a nuclear umbrella not only to itself, but also to over 30 allies and partners – from Canada to European allies to Persian Gulf partners to allies in East Asia – who rely on it for their very survival. They cannot afford to bet their security and survival on Young’s and UCS’s “disarming unilaterally will make us more secure” fantasy.

Therefore, addressing the Russian, Chinese, and North Korean nuclear threat must be America’s highest defense priority and merits any investment necessary.

But Young disagrees, and falsely claims this about the Obama administration’s nuclear arsenal modernization programme:

“This is an expensive and profound mistake, and one that ignores the limited contribution that nuclear weapons make to U.S. security.

The administration’s costly plan proposes to rebuild the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal, including the warheads, and the missiles, planes and submarines that carry them. These plans will cost $348 billion over the next 10 years, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate released last week. The National Defense Panel, appointed by Congress, found that the price tag over 30 years could be as much as a $1 trillion.”

Again, this is dead wrong. Firstly, the $1 trillion figure comes from the Monterey Institute for International Studies, a far-left, anti-nuclear group, NOT from the National Defense Panel, and is therefore certain to be wildly exaggerated. Secondly, even if it were true (which it isn’t and likely never will be), it will only be a drop in the bucket compared to total planned defense spending over the next 30 years (in the pessimistic scenario, 30 * ca. 500 bn, i.e. about $15 trillion). Thirdly, 1 trillion is just 33.3 bn per year. And fourthly, even if that $1 trillion figure were true (which, again, it isn’t), such investment would’ve been fully justified, because the objective is the modernization of America’s nuclear arsenal – by far the most important part of America’s defenses.

Young also falsely claims that:

“And, while recognizing the very problematic behavior of Russian President Vladimir Putin, the truth is U.S. nuclear forces did not stop the Russian military from invading Ukraine either. Spending more money on nuclear weapons would not turn them back.”

Firstly, to say that Vladimir Putin’s behavior is “very problematic” is like saying that the Holocaust was “very problematic.” No, Mr Young, Putin’s behavior is not merely “very problematic” – it is a huge threat to US, allied, and world security. Putin’s aggressive behavior constitutes a string of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against peace – in Chechnya, in Georgia, and Ukraine.

If the world’s leaders had even a shred of decency and integrity, Putin would’ve already been tried and executed as a war criminal.

Putin’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine was not an isolated incident, but merely one of the many examples of Putin’s aggressive, Soviet-style, neo-imperialist behavior towards his neighbors, towards Europe at large, and towards the US itself – as exemplified also by the Russian Air Force’s frequent simulations of nuclear strikes on the US and its allies, his nuclear buildup, his coddling of North Korea and Iran, and his support of America’s enemies worldwide.

Finally, Young falsely claims that the US could unilaterally cut its nuclear arsenal down to the low hundreds and still be secure:

“In fact, the United States could maintain a fully capable deterrent without the unnecessary and redundant weapons or spending. No current or conceivable future threat requires the United States to maintain more than a few hundred survivable warheads. As a first step in this direction, the Obama administration should limit its total nuclear arsenal to 1,000 weapons, including both long- and short-range weapons, deployed and reserve.”

Again, like the rest of his screed, it’s a blatant lie. An arsenal of just a few hundred warheads would be woefully inadequate to protect America, let alone her allies. This is for two reasons. Firstly, a small nuclear arsenal, consisting of just a few hundred warheads, would be way too easy for a potential adversary – like Russia or China – to destroy in a first strike, leaving the US with no nuclear weapons to retaliate with against the aggressor. Secondly, even if some of these few hundred atomic weapons survived a first strike, they would be woefully inadequate to execute a truly painful retaliatory strike against the aggressor.

To do be able to do that, the US needs thousands of nuclear weapons – not a mere few hundred. This is because both Russia and China have thousands of military assets which the US needs to be able to credibly threaten to destroy – e.g. ICBM siloes, airbases, naval bases, weapon production plants, command centers, etc. Short of that, the US will NOT be able to threaten a credible retaliation against Russia or China for major aggression they may commit against the US or its allies.

In short, Stephen Young’s screed is a litany of blatant lies. Not a single claim he makes therein is true. Not a single one.

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015/02/obamas-trillion-dollar-nuclear-weapons-gamble/104217/

Posted in Nuclear deterrence | 1 Comment »

Des idees pour ameliorer la qualite de l’air a Paris

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on January 30, 2015


Il y a de nouveau un pic de pollution de Paris. La nouvelle maire, Anne Hidalgo, a donc decide d’adopter des mesures tardives et peu efficaces pour ameliorer la qualite de l’air a Paris, empruntees a sa rivale UMP Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, qu’elle a battue en mars 2014. Anne Hidalgo veut interdire Paris – en comptant du 1er juillet, pas d’aujourd’hui – aux cars et poids-lourds les plus polluants et creers de zones d’ultra-basses emissions, permises seulement aux vehicules propres, pietons, cyclistes, et les transports en commun.

C’est bienvenu, mais c’est trop peu, trop tard. Il faut agir plus vite – comme le reclamait NKM en 2014. Specifiquement, il faut:

  1. Comme le proposait NKM, eradiquer systematiquement le diesel de la flotte municipale de Paris et celle de la RATP, interdire Paris a tous poids-lourds, creer une ceinture verte (cyclable) autour de Paris, creer des Zones d’Action Prioritaires pour la qualite de l’air (ZAPA), promouvoir les vehicules electriques et hybrides dans la ville (plus des stations de rechargement), et doubler le nombre des places de stationnement (30% de la circulation a Paris est due aux conducteurs qui simplement cherchent (en vain) des places de stationnement a Paris).
  2. Couvrir tout le peripherique (une autre idee emprunte a NKM), ou se concentre 25% de la circulation a tout Paris, et elever la vitesse maximale sur ce boulevard a 80 km/h, ou les voitures roulent en 5eme, avec des tours du moteur faibles (env. 1000 ou moins tours/minute). Ce qui aussi n’epuise pas trop les moteurs.
  3. Designer tous les rues, avenues, et boulevards sortants de Paris, la rue Saint Antoine, la rue Royale, toutes les rues partants de la Place de Madeleine, toutes les rues autour de l’Opera, et l’ensemble du peripherique comme routes reservees au covoiturage; designer aussi au moins une voie dans chaque sens sur toutes les autoroutes sortantes de Paris et deux voies sur la rue de Rivoli comme voies reservees aux vehicules portants au moins 2 personnes (sauf les vehicules electriques). Il faut aussi une voie reservee au co-voiturage dans chaque sens sur chaque autre avenue partant de l’Etoile. Progressivement, le covoiturage devrait etre obligatoire sur de plus en plus des rues de Paris. Regardez la carte de Paris, avec des rues pour lesquelles je propose des voies de covoiturage, ci-dessous.
  4. En plus, il faut designer une voie dans chaque sens sur la rue Royale, la rue de l’Arrivee, la Place Bienvenue, et l’Avenue de la Maine, comme un couloir de bus.
  5. Elever la limitation de la vitesse aux avenues Foch et de la Grande Armee et sur les quais de la Seine, a 80 km/h.
  6. Faire plus a ameliorer les transports en commun a Paris, notamment en:

a) installant des escaliers mecaniques a plus de stations;

b) assurant que tous les trains du metro et du RER, et tous les stations du metro et du RER a Paris, soient climatise(e)s;

c) ameliorant la securite aux stations et trains du metro et du RER;

d) assurant que les lignes J et R du Transilien, et les lignes A et D du RER, tres saturees, soient desserviees plus souvent, et seulement par des Voitures de Banlieue a 2 Niveaux (VB 2N);

e) ameliorant les autres connexions ferrovriaires de Paris avec les banlieues et les villes d’Ile de France plus distantes (comme p.e. Evry-sur-Seine), afin que partout en Ile-de-France il y ait une alternative a la voiture;

f) accelerant la construction du CDG Express de sorte qu’elle soit achevee en 2019 au plus tard; apres la completion, la branche “Aeroport CDG 2 TGV” de la ligne B du RER devrait etre supprimee;

g) ne prolongeant pas la ligne 14 du metro a Roissy et Orly mais, au lieu de cela, creant un lien ferroviare direct entre Chatelet-Les-Halles et Aeroport Roissy-Charles de Gaulle (avec seulement 2 arrets, a la Gare du Nord et au Parc des Expositions) et entre Chatelet et l’Aeroport d’Orly (sans arret), destine a transporter seulement les touristes entre ces aeroports et le centre-ville. Par contre, la ligne B du RER devrait cesser de desservir l’Aeroport Roissy-Charles de Gaulle;

h) changeant le nom de la station “Charles de Gaulle – Etoile” a “Place de l’Etoile” afin d’eviter toute confusion avec l’Aeroport Charles de Gaulle;

i) automatisant les lignes 5, 6, 8, 9, et 13 du metro;

j) installant des portes au bord des quais des stations de ces lignes du metro, et de toutes les lignes du RER (et finalement au bord des quais de toutes les stations du metro);

k) introduisant le retournement automatique des trains sur les lignes 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, et 9 du metro et donc reduisant l’intervalle entre deux trains sur ces lignes, en heures de pointe, de 110 a 95 secondes (http://transports.blog.lemonde.fr/2012/09/09/lenfer-de-la-ligne-13-il-parait-que-cest-fini/).

l) geleant ou voire en reduisant, les prix des billets des transports en commun jusqu’au 2020.

7) Instituer un peage urbain (exactement comme a Londres), c’est-a-dire un peage pour l’entree en voiture dans le centre-ville. Cela devrait financer SEULEMENT les transports, et d’abord les transports en commun (mais aussi la couverture du peripherique), a Paris. Pas les fonctionnaires, pas l’ASP, pas le “fonctionnement de la ville”, seulement les transports. Cela pourrait meme permettre une baisse des prix des billets de transports en commun!

paris_map2

Posted in Transport | Leave a Comment »

Comment la France peut gagner des commandes pour le Rafale

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on January 22, 2015


Le Dassault Rafale, en dépit d’être un superbe avion de combat polyvalent, n’a pas encore gagné aucune commande étrangère et a déjà echoué à plusieurs concours. Sans de commandes étrangères, la chaîne de production des Rafale sera fermée en 2019 – et la France perdra donc des milliers de bons emplois, des milliers d’employés très qualifiés, et un know-how et bijou industriel precieux. Comment donc l’empêcher? Comment gagner des commandes étrangères pour le Rafale?

La réponse est: il faut écouter les clients potentiels, remplir ses besoins, et être un exporteur credible.

Pour être un vendeur credible, la France doit absolument toujours tenir sa parole donnée et livrer tout armement commandé par ses clients. Il faut donc livrer les 2 navires Mistral que la Russie a commandés. L’Inde, l’Egypte, les pays du Golfe de Perse, la Malaysie, l’Indonesie, et le Bresil ne peuvent pas acheter des armes à un fournisser qui subit facilement la pression américaine. Les USA ont essayé, depuis longtemps, d’isoler le président egyptien et ont eu parfois des relations difficiles avec l’Inde et le Bresil. Il faut donc être un fournisseur 100% fiable et credible.

Quant à écouter les clients potentiels et remplir ses besoins, chacun a ses besoins specifiques, et il faut les toutes remplir. Heureusement, le Rafale est parfaitement capable de remplir les besoins strictement militaires et technologiques. Mais la vente des armes, ce n’est pas que la vente des armes elles-mêmes; c’est aussi un jeu poliitque, géopolitique, et économique.

Le Bresil aura bientôt besoin d’un avion de combat capable d’opérer de leur porte-avions Sao Paulo. Le Qatar, le Koweit, et les Emirates Arabes Unis, quant à eux, veulent non seulement un avion mais aussi un partenaire credible qui leur aidera à combattre l’Iran et son programme nucléaire illegal, qui est une menace grave à tous les pays du Proche Orient et aussi pour l’Europe. Le desir de l’Iran de dominer le Golfe Perse et tout le Proche Orient (avec l’aide de ses proxies Hezbollah et Hamas et de la Syrie de Bachar al-Assad) est également une menace grave à leur securite – et la notre. Pour combattre ces menaces et gagner la confiance des partenaires arabes de la France, il faut donc:

  • Soutenir le projet de loi Menendez-Kirk au Congrès américain, encourager de toute façon possible le Congrès américain à le voter, et soutenir même des sanctions américaines plus dures. Convaincre l’administration Obama à soutenir ces sanctions.
  • Instituter des sanctions plus dures au niveau national en France.
  • Encourager l’UE à adopter des sanctions plus dures, y compris un embargo total sur les importations iraniennes.
  • Dans les negociations directes entre le groupe P5+1 et l’Iran, bloquer tout accord qui permettrait a l’Iran de retenir l’usine à eau lourde d’Arak, la capacite d’enrichessement d’uranium, ou des missiles ballistiques. Il faut des inspections regulières et très intrusives pour verifier que toutes ces conditions seront remplies.
  • Etre prêt à bombarder l’Iran (avec les partenaires arabes de la France mais sans les USA), s’il le faut pour arrêter le programme nucléaire iranien.
  • Vendre aux pays arabes tout armement qu’ils demanderont.

En plus, pour faire l’offre française plus attractive économiquement, il faut:

  • Leur promettre un transfert total de technologie; et
  • Leur vendre les aéroports français (y compris ceux de Paris, Lyon, Nice, etc.) s’ils s’engagent a n’acheter que des avions civils et militaires français.

Enfin, pour encourager les clients potentiels même plus à acheter le Rafale, il faut inviter ses chefs d’état/de gouvernement et ses armées aux defilés militaires du 14 juillet et approfondir les liens culturels entre la France et ces pays.

Posted in Defense exports, Economic affairs, Obama administration follies, Threat environment | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The SECDEF Himself Confirms: The Next Gen Bomber Is Absolutely Needed

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on January 21, 2015


Last week, anti-nuclear, anti-defense groups such as POGO, the “Council for a Livable World”, the Arms Control Association, and the Cato Institute were dealt a severe blow when no less an authority than the Secretary of Defense debunked their lie that the next generation bomber, and the US nuclear deterrent in general, are not needed.

Speaking to Airmen at Whiteman AFB, MO, outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel underlined the crucial importance of America’s nuclear deterrent:

“It’s always about strategic deterrence so that we don’t have to send our men and women into conflict. Our adversaries have to know and have to believe, and essentially have to trust that we have deterrent capability, that in fact we have everything we say we have.”

And he especially stressed the importance of fielding a new, stealthy bomber to replace the USAF’s old, obsolete B-52 and B-1 bombers – especially in view of China’s military buildup and America’s need to defeat any possible adversaries:

Hagel said the military should invest billions of dollars in developing a new aircraft to replace some of today’s aging bombers, in particular the B-52, which are more than 50 years old. He said the new aircraft program, known as the Long-Range Strike Bomber, or LRS-B, will be well funded in the budget request slated for release in February.

“I think the Long-Range Strike Bomber is absolutely essential for keeping our deterrent edge. … We need to do it. We need to make the investments. We’ll have it in the budget. It’s something I have particularly put a priority on.”

The bomber is absolutely needed because older bombers – the B-52 and the B-1 – stand absolutely no chance of being able to survive in airspace protected by, let alone defeat, modern Russian air defense systems such as the S-300, S-400, and their Chinese clones – and Russia is set to export both systems to Iran soon.

As reported by DefenseOne:

This new aircraft would reassure allies and extends the reach of U.S. military strategic power, Hagel said.

“It’s something that I have particularly put a priority on [in] the budgets and things that I’ve talked about with the Congress,” he said.  “I have confidence that the Congress will support us. It’s a critical element of our future long-range strategic deterrence capabilities.”

Later this year, the Air Force is expected to select either Northrop Grumman or a Boeing-Lockheed Martin team to build the new bomber. Pentagon leaders have said little about the project as it’s classified, with its details shrouded in secrecy.

According to DefenseNews, the US Air Force is set to choose who will build the next gen bomber – called the Long Range Strike Bomber – in late spring or early summer this year:

WASHINGTON — In late spring or early summer, the US Air Force will decide who will build its next-generation bomber. Yet, despite all the hype and public interest, the program remains shrouded in mystery.

The Long Range Strike-Bomber (LRS-B) program is stealthy, literally and figuratively. Few details are actually known about the bomber’s capabilities or design. But the program’s impact is already being widely felt throughout the Pentagon and its industry partners.

The half a dozen analysts and experts interviewed by Defense News for this piece all agree on one thing: the LRS-B has the chance to shape American military aerospace for the next 20 years. Whichever competitor wins will reap a windfall of development money; the loser could find itself out of the military attack airframe business entirely.

And while the program appears to be on track, Congress is waiting in the wings for any sign of cost overrun or technological problems.

“This is crunch time,” said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group. “It’s the biggest single outstanding DoD competition by a very wide margin. That makes it important in and of itself.”

Unfortunately, the $550 mn per unit price ceiling may limit the bomber’s capabilities:

A source with knowledge of the program said the Air Force is likely looking at something smaller than a B-2, perhaps as small as half the size, with two engines similar in size to the F135 engines that power the F-35, so enhancement programs can also be applied to the bomber.

“They should go bigger [in terms of airframe], but Gates threw that $500 million figure out there without thinking through the overall effect and requirement,” the source said.

Retired Lt. Gen. David Deptula, former deputy chief of staff for ISR, agreed that the focus on the $550 million figure may end up hurting the bomber’s capabilities by driving the discussion from what the plane does to what can keep the price down.

“One of the biggest concerns is that this is going to turn into a cost shootout, and whomever can produce a ‘technically acceptable’ airplane at the lowest cost will be the winner, without any judgment or look at the ability for growth, the ability to connect to new technologies,” he said. “That is a big concern amongst folks out there who are involved in this evolution.”

And then there are the theories that the bomber is further along in its development cycle than it appears. Last year, J.J. Gertler, an analyst with the Congressional Research Service penned a memo noting that the bomber’s budget profile looks more like a production than a research and development program, hinting that much of the technological development and testing has already occurred behind the scenes.

In any case, this demonstrates that – once again – I was right all along, and those anti-nuclear, anti-defense groups were dead wrong all along.

Source material:

1) http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/01/13/hagel-backs-air-force-plans-for-long-range-strike-bomber/21713815/

2) http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2015/01/new-air-force-bomber-critical-piece-pentagons-pacific-weaponry/102798/?oref=d-mostread; http://csbaonline.org/2015/01/13/new-air-force-bomber-is-a-critical-piece-of-the-pentagons-pacific-weaponry/

3) http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/01/18/air-force-bomber-industry/21805275/

4) http://missilethreat.com/sophisticated-russian-s-400-missiles-iran-new-military-pact-s-300s-egypt-syria-hizballah/

Posted in Air combat, Nuclear deterrence | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

L’hypocrisie du gouvernement Valls sur la securité nationale

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on January 11, 2015


Le gouvernement Valls ne cesse jamais d’augmenter la repression contre les automobilistes…

Mais il est maintenant évident que le Premier Ministre, le Président de la République, et leurs ministres sont des HYPOCRITES! Ils ne respectent pas du tout le même Code de la Route dont le respect ils exigent aux conducteurs.

Manuel Valls, lui (ou son chauffer) a roulé à 160 km/h au lieu de 90 km/h (la limitation locale) dans un tunnel, a ignoré des feux rouges, et a roulé en contresens. Cette dernière infraction a été aussi commise souvent par l’ex-ministre Arnaud Montebourg, qui a aussi roulé sur des voies de bus et a ignoré 12 feux rouges sur un tronçon de 3,5 km! Bernard Cazeneuve, lui, aussi viole souvent le Code de la Route.

Des details ici: http://www.planet.fr/magazine-auto-les-francais-ne-sont-pas-prudents-au-volant.759672.1501.html

Posted in Road safety, Transport | Leave a Comment »

L’achat d’Alstom par General Electric: Une menace grave contre l’independance et la securite de la France

Posted by zbigniewmazurak on January 6, 2015


Comme tout le monde devrait deja le savoir, en 2014 le géant américain d’énergetique General Electric (dont le PDG, Jeffrey Immelt, a des liens étroits au President Obama), a acheté la fillière nucléaire et celle des turbines à vapeur et à gaz d’Alstom.

Dorénavant, General Electric controle la fillière nucléaire d’Alstom et sa production des turbines pour les réacteurs nucléaires d’Areva (ceux qui sont operés ou en construction en France et ceux que Areva espère d’exporter a l’étranger), pour les sous-marins français (y compris les sous-marins lanceurs d’engins de la Marine Nationale, la fillière primaire de la dissuasion nucléaire française), pour le porte-avions Charles de Gaulle, et les sous-marins conventionnels que la France espère d’exporter.

C’est une desastre grave pour l’independance, la securité, et la prospérité de la France. En donnant le feu vert pour ce rachat d’Alstom à General Electric, François Hollande et le gouvernement Valls ont trahi la France et l’ont vendue aux USA et soumise au controle américain. Voila pourquoi c’est une desastre pour la France:

Premièrement: GE aura controle sur toutes les turbines et d’autres components des réacteurs nucléaires produits par Alstom. Ceci permettra à GE d’en priver Areva, le constructeur français des réacteurs nucléaires, qui espère de decrocher plusieurs contrats pour la construction des réacteurs nucléaires dans les marchés promettants (comme la Chine, l’Inde, et le Moyen-Orient) et permettra à Westinghouse (le plus grand rival d’Areva) d’acheter ces technologies et le savoir-faire lié. C’est, bref, un grand pas vers la tuérie d’Areva elle-même et vers la perte des marches nucléaires étrangers pour Areva (et donc pour la France).

Deuxièmement: GE aura controle sur toutes les turbines de propulsion, les turbines des réacteurs nucléaires, et d’autres components des sous-marins nucléaires français et le porte-avions français Charles de Gaulle.

C’est-à-dire, GE aura une controle totale sur les components vitaux de propulsion de la flotte entière des sous-marins francaise, dont la composante principale de la force de la dissuasion nucleaire francaise, et du seul porte-avions francais!

C’est-a-dire, la France n’aura AUCUN controle sur sa propre flotte des sous-marins, sur une de deux composantes de sa force de dissuasion nucleaire, et de son seul porte-avions!

Cela facilitera enormement les efforts américains, menés depuis l’epoque du Président Kennedy, de désarmer la France, de la priver de sa force de dissuasion indépendante. Rappelons que John F. Kennedy était fiercement opposé à cette force independante française et faisait tout ce qu’il a pu de priver la France et la Grande-Bretagne de leurs arsenaux nucléaires indépendants.

Le Président Obama evidemment voudrait en priver la France… et avec son ami Jeffrey Immelt, il pourra le faire, tout simplement en interdisant aux societés américaines de fournir des turbines de propulsion (ou des turbines des réacteurs) aux pays étrangers qui maintiennent un arsenal nucléaire. Obama s’est deja montré comme un ennemi des armes nucléaires en général et des forces de dissuasion indépendantes de la France et du Royaume-Uni en particulier: par exemple, il a passé les numéros de série des missiles ballistiques Trident II britanniques (manufactures aux USA) à la Russie.

Si l’un des successeurs d’Obama (par exemple, Hillary Clinton, un personnage qui souhaite aussi le désarmement nucléaire de la France) souhaite un jour désarmer la France, il/elle pourra le faire.

Troisiemement, GE aura controle sur toutes les turbines de propulsion des sous-marins produits en France – tant pour la Marine Nationale que pour l’export. Donc, si les USA s’opposent un jour à une operation militaire de la France ou voudront s’emparer d’un contrat de vente des sous-marins à un pays (par exemple, l’Australie), ils pourront en priver le DCNS facilement en privant le DCNS des turbines nécessaires pour propulser les sous-marins. N’oublions pas que General Electric est l’une des plus grandes societés dans le secteur de défense américain – c’est lui qui construit la moitie des sous-marins nucléaires utilises par la marine américaine (l’US Navy).

Ce rachat est donc une menace grave a l’indépendance de la France et sa securité nationale. Comme le decrit Jean-Michel Quatrepoint dans Le Figaro:

Non seulement le 50-50 est devenu 50 plus une voix pour General Electric, mais le groupe américain détiendra 80 % pour la partie nucléaire. C’est dire que la production et la maintenance des turbines Arabelle pour les centrales nucléaires sera contrôlée par GE.

Quelles sont les conséquences sur l’industrie française, notamment sur la filière nucléaire?

On peut dire ce que l’on veut, mais c’est désormais le groupe américain qui décidera à qui et comment vendre ces turbines. C’est lui aussi qui aura le dernier mot sur la maintenance de nos centrales sur le sol français. La golden share que le gouvernement français aurait en matière de sécurité nucléaire n’est qu’un leurre. Nous avons donc délibérément confié à un groupe américain l’avenir de l’ensemble de notre filière nucléaire…

Pourquoi General Electric qui, il y a un an, n’était intéressé que par les turbines à vapeur a-t-il mis la main sur ce secteur nucléaire?

Tout simplement, parce que l’énergie est au centre du projet stratégique américain. Et que le nucléaire est une des composantes de l’énergie. Le marché redémarre. Dans les pays émergents, mais aussi en Grande-Bretagne et aux Etats-Unis. General Electric en était absent. Là, il revient en force et acquiert, pour quelque milliards de dollars avec Arabelle, le fleuron des turbines nucléaires.

Sur le marché chinois, l’un des plus prometteurs, Westinghouse associé à Hitachi, est en compétition face à EDF, Areva et Alstom. Arabelle était un atout pour la filière française. Que se passera-t-il demain si GE négocie un accord avec Westinghouse pour lui fournir Arabelle? C’est donc à terme toute la filière nucléaire française qui risque d’être déstabilisée à l’exportation.

Non seulement le 50-50 est devenu 50 plus une voix pour General Electric, mais le groupe américain détiendra 80 % pour la partie nucléaire. C’est dire que la production et la maintenance des turbines Arabelle pour les centrales nucléaires sera contrôlée par GE.

Quelles sont les conséquences sur l’industrie française, notamment sur la filière nucléaire?

On peut dire ce que l’on veut, mais c’est désormais le groupe américain qui décidera à qui et comment vendre ces turbines. C’est lui aussi qui aura le dernier mot sur la maintenance de nos centrales sur le sol français. La golden share que le gouvernement français aurait en matière de sécurité nucléaire n’est qu’un leurre. Nous avons donc délibérément confié à un groupe américain l’avenir de l’ensemble de notre filière nucléaire…

Pourquoi General Electric qui, il y a un an, n’était intéressé que par les turbines à vapeur a-t-il mis la main sur ce secteur nucléaire?

Tout simplement, parce que l’énergie est au centre du projet stratégique américain. Et que le nucléaire est une des composantes de l’énergie. Le marché redémarre. Dans les pays émergents, mais aussi en Grande-Bretagne et aux Etats-Unis. General Electric en était absent. Là, il revient en force et acquiert, pour quelque milliards de dollars avec Arabelle, le fleuron des turbines nucléaires.

Sur le marché chinois, l’un des plus prometteurs, Westinghouse associé à Hitachi, est en compétition face à EDF, Areva et Alstom. Arabelle était un atout pour la filière française. Que se passera-t-il demain si GE négocie un accord avec Westinghouse pour lui fournir Arabelle? C’est donc à terme toute la filière nucléaire française qui risque d’être déstabilisée à l’exportation.

Il faut donc:

1) Que l’Etat français devienne l’actionnaire majoritaire (51% d’actions) des activités énergie d’Alstom; et

2) Que tous ceux qui ont permis à General Electric d’acheter cette fillière d’indépendance de la France soient SEVEREMENT punis, y compris François Hollande et Emmanuel Macron.

Posted in Economic affairs, Nuclear deterrence, World affairs | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 523 other followers