Showing posts with label F. MICHAEL MALOOF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label F. MICHAEL MALOOF. Show all posts

Sunday, October 21, 2012

TROUBLES MOUNT FOR F-35 JET FLEET


Editor’s Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND.Subscriptions are $99 a year or, for monthly trials, just $9.95 per month for credit card users, and provide instant access for the complete reports.
WASHINGTON – There are mounting problems in building the new stealthy F-35 “fifth generation” fighter not only in terms of cost but ensuring that its three variants for the Air Force, Navy and Marines can even be delivered, according to a report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.
There also are concerns about international customers who are banking on the aircraft to replace their own aging jet fighters.
In fact, the Europeans have decided not to go down the expensive route of developing their own aircraft and instead have provided assistance in the development of the F-35 as their future front-line aircraft.
Lockheed Martin first received the contract in 2001 to produce the plane, and there now is little hope that it will be ready for full production and deployment by the projected 2020 date, aviation analysts say.
The development is placing even greater stress on the aging F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s and the more recent stealth fighter F-22, whose production was halted in favor of proceeding with the F-35. Almost all of these aircraft, produced by Lockheed Martin, have been in service since the 1980s.
While they have been updated with new avionics and internal technologies, they are becoming less competitive with the new fifth generation fighters being developed and beginning to go into production in Russia and China.
Since it’s been 11 years since the contract was awarded, and there’s still uncertainty when the F-35 will be available, there is mounting concern that it may not be the aircraft envisioned in 2001 as plans are proceeding to prepare for the “sixth-generation” fighter to be ready by 2030.
Now, the sustainment cost for the F-35 is estimated to approach $1 trillion, and the new head of the joint program office for the F-35 is thinking of abandoning Lockheed’s support system for the aircraft and open it up to competition.
Critics say that the approach may work in the long term but it won’t ensure delivery of the aircraft by 2020. By then, it is estimated that only a fraction of the requested 2,400 will be operational.
The services needing the F-35 will still have to rely primarily on updated F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s and F-22s, as will European partners who will have to weigh whether to continue their investment in the F-35 or instead place their limited funding in upgrading what they have.
At this point, the services, especially the Air Force, need to worry about the U.S. industrial base that not only supports the development of the F-35 but has been involved in the production of the older aircraft.
In recognition of maintaining the industrial base and meeting legitimate defense needs, critics say the decision may have to be made to continue production of the older aircraft and devise new ways to adjust military plans to new capabilities to meet future needs by 2030.
Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

Saturday, September 22, 2012

NUKE DISPUTE SPARKS IRANIAN, ISRAELI PSY-OPS


Editor’s Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND.Subscriptions are $99 a year or, for monthly trials, just $9.95 per month for credit card users, and provide instant access for the complete reports.
WASHINGTON – While Iran swears it doesn’t have nuclear weapons, the Western thinking that it’s working on such a program despite crippling sanctions of questionable results is having the effect of enhancing the Islamic republic’s international stature, according to a report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory, gives members the right to enrich uranium for fuel reactors and use for medical research, among other civilian uses.
The NPT doesn’t preclude the possibility Iran or any other NPT signatory or member of the International Atomic Energy Agency could build the components to make a nuclear weapon, without actually putting the components together to make one.
The question of the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program – absent firm intelligence – helps Iran leave open the possibility that such a program exists and that it could possess the means to build a nuclear bomb rapidly, without actually having such a program, analysts say.
To these analysts, this approach has allowed Iran to rub shoulders with the “big boys” – the P5+1, or United Nations Security Council members of the permanent five of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China plus Germany.
In pressing its right under the NPT to enrich uranium despite sanctions, Iran actually has gained considerable concessions, and is able to meet with the members. It also has been successful at meetings to kick the proverbial can down the road – to get the P5+1 members to agree to meet again. This has bought Iran more time for developing its nuclear program – the West, including Israel, believe.
And this is where the U.S. and Israel disagree – the U.S., unlike Israel, doesn’t believe that Iran has achieved the technological breakthrough to make a nuclear weapon, let alone the capability of placing it on a missile requiring additional technology know-how that Iran isn’t yet assessed to possess. On the other hand, Israel believes Iran is only months away of such breakthroughs.
The heart of the problem, according to analysts, appears to be the exchange of rhetoric between Israel and Iran.
According to George Friedman of the open intelligence group Stratfor, Israel – and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in particular – looks on Iran as an irrational actor and that armed with a nuclear weapon it would act irrationally and make every effort to destroy Israel.
While Iran has expressed what Friedman says is irrational rhetoric, Iran actually has been cautious in its actions, “engaging instead in reckless rhetoric.”
Given this fundamental difference in perceptions, Israel believes it is intolerable for Iran to have nuclear weapons in a mutually assured destruction, or MAD, relationship, similar to what worked during the Cold War between the then-Soviet Union and the United States and its allies.
All of this assumes that Iran indeed is embarked on a nuclear weapons program. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa, or religious edict, saying that its nuclear development program is not intended to make a nuclear weapon.
Given Iran’s irrational talk about Israel’s destruction, however, Netanyahu firmly believes that such irrational Iranian talk means that the Islamic republic indeed is embarked on developing a nuclear weapon and actually intends to use it against Israel.
Israel, however, appears divided on this issue. Netanyahu’s view that Iran is an irrational actor is contrary to the assessment of his own military and intelligence chiefs.
Given Netanyahu’s prevalent thinking, the notion of MAD won’t work. Any actual Israeli military attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, analysts suggest, actually could accelerate an Iranian effort to turn its nuclear program into developing nuclear weapons.
This prospect has been reinforced by separate research that showed the 1981 Israeli attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor actually pushed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to try to make nuclear weapons.
Yet, Israel hasn’t taken action, claiming it is waiting for the U.S. to join it in destroying Iran’s nuclear sites.
In looking at a years-long rhetorical exchange between Israel and Iran, Friedman lays out their respective strategies in his recent article, “War and Bluff: Iran, Israel and the United States.”
He states:
“Up to this point, the Iranians have not even fielded a device for testing, let alone a deliverable weapon. For all their activity, either their technical limitations or a political decision has kept them from actually crossing the obvious redlines and left Israel trying to define some developmental redline.
“Iran’s approach has created a slowly unfolding crisis, reinforced by Israel’s slowly rolling response. For its part, all of Israel’s rhetoric – and periodic threats of imminent attack – has been going on for several years, but the Israelis have done little beyond some cover and cyberattacks to block the Iranian nuclear program. Just as the gap between Iranian rhetoric and action has been telling, so, too, has the gap between Israeli rhetoric and reality. Both want to appear more fearsome than either is actually willing to act.
“The Iranian strategy has been to maintain ambiguity on the status of its program, while making it appear that the program is capable of sudden success – without ever achieving that success. The Israeli strategy has been to appear constantly on the verge of attack without ever attacking and to use the United States as its reason for withholding attacks, along with the studied ambiguity of the Iranian program. The United States, for its part, has been content playing the role of holding Israel back from an attack that Israel doesn’t seem to want to launch. The United States sees the crumbling of Iran’s position in Syria as a major Iranian reversal and is content to see this play out alongside sanctions.”
Iran, however, has dispersed its nuclear program around the country to the point that any military attack may produce questionable results unless Israel uses some exotic weapon, such as an electromagnetic pulse from a high-altitude nuclear explosion over central Iran. That would affect all electronics not only in Iran but the entire Middle East.
This approach, analysts say, would allow Israel to proceed with bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities virtually without detection or resistance.
Separately, WND/G2Bulletin recently reported that an EMP attack is one option Israel is considering.
Friedman says that while Israel on the surface has been driving U.S. policy, he said the reverse may be true.
“Israel has bluffed an attack for years and never acted. Perhaps now it will act, but the risks of failure are substantial,” Friedman said. “If Israel really wants to act, this is not obvious.
“Speeches by politicians do not constitute clear guidelines,” he said. “If the Israelis want to get the United States to participate in the attack, rhetoric won’t work. Washington wants to proceed by increasing pressure to isolate Iran.
“Simply getting rid of a nuclear program not clearly intended to produce a device is not U.S. policy,” he added. “Containing Iran without being drawn into a war is. To this end, Israeli rhetoric is useful.”
Friedman sees Netanyahu’s rhetoric as actually aiding U.S. policy.
“Israel’s bellicosity is not meant to signal an imminent attack, but to support the U.S. agenda of isolating and maintaining pressure on Iran,” he said. “That would indicate more speeches from Netanyahu and greater fear of war. But speeches and emotions aside, intensifying psychological pressure on Iran is more likely than war.”
Or is it?
Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

Thursday, September 20, 2012

Homeland Security: What EMP action plan? - Federal agency lacks strategy for catastrophic collapse of grid, society


WASHINGTON – The Department of Homeland Security still hasn’t adopted a National Planning Scenario in the event of an electromagnetic pulse, or EMP, event – even though the department is well aware of the potentially debilitating consequences of such an event on the nation’s electrical grid system and the critical infrastructures that depend on that grid system to function.
Brandon Wales, director of the DHS Homeland Infrastructure Threat and Risk Analysis Center, also was unable to give a cost breakdown for Congress to know how much money needs to be provided by the federal government to protect the grid in view of the tremendous costs private utilities would incur.

Wales, along with other federal agency witnesses, provided his testimony on Sept. 12 before the House Homeland Security Committee’s Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection and Security Technologies on the consequences of either a natural or man-made EMP event on the national grid.
A natural event could be triggered by a solar flare; a man-made event by a nuclear explosion in the atmosphere.
DHS has outlined 15 such National Planning Scenarios as an element of its risk analysis mission, according to James Carafano of the Washington-based Heritage Foundation.
He said that such scenarios describe possible high-consequence threats, such as terrorist attacks or natural disasters, but an EMP attack is not included, despite a call for such a scenario in a report from the congressionally mandated 2008 EMP Commission.
“In 2008, under the National Defense Authorization Act for (fiscal year) 2008,” Carafano said, “the Department of Homeland Security was required ‘to coordinate efforts with the (EMP) Commission for work related to electromagnetic pulse attack on electricity infrastructure, and protect against such an attack.’
“Therefore, efforts were made to create interagency cooperation on such a critical threat to U.S. homeland security,” Carafano said. “Despite the grave dangers posed by an EMP attack, an EMP threat scenario has yet to be incorporated into the National Planning Scenarios.”
Michael Frankel, who was executive director of the EMP Commission, pointed out in congressional testimony in August 2010 that the commission had provided 75 unclassified recommendations, most of which were aimed at DHS and intended to “mitigate vulnerability and increase resilience of the nation’s critical infrastructures.”
“Unlike the response of the (Department of Defense), there has been no detectable resonance as yet out of the DHS,” Frankel had testified. “As a result, the commission’s recommendations seem to have simply languished.”
Existence of the National Planning Scenario provides the DHS with priorities on how to proceed in the event of a national emergency.
As sources point out, however, an EMP event is not one of them, despite the high prospect for what is termed a solar storm maximum which scientists and experts say is expected between now and 2013 that could have catastrophic effects on the vulnerable national grid system, depending on its intensity.
The U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the National Academy of Sciences have confirmed to WND that such a solar storm maximum could occur sometime between now and 2014, with the most likely peak of its 11-year cycle occurring in 2013.
The sun produces solar explosions, or coronal mass ejections also called CMEs, that propel bursts of particles and electromagnetic fluctuations into the Earth’s atmosphere.
These electromagnetic fluctuations in turn could induce electric fluctuations at ground level that then blow out electrical transformers in power grids. The CME’s particles also collide with crucial electronics onboard a satellite and disrupt those systems, which could greatly impair Ground Positioning Systems and worldwide telecommunications.
A solar storm maximum today could result in large-scale blackouts affecting more than 130 million people and would expose more than 350 transformers to high risk or permanent damage.
Without taking adequate protective measures between now and the time of the expected “severe geomagnetic storm scenario,” experts agree the cost from space weather-induced outages that in turn could cause “non-space-weather-related events” could run from $1 trillion to $2 trillion during the first year alone, with a recovery time taking anywhere from four to 10 years.
Such a natural solar storm, and especially an EMP from a man-made high-altitude nuclear explosion, has the potential of thrusting the United States back to the 19th century, cutting off access to the basic necessities of life such as water and food delivery for millions of people, resulting in massive starvation.
Not only will such a development impact critical civilian infrastructure, but could have an adverse effect on U.S. military systems because of their heavy reliance on commercial satellites for worldwide communications.
Testimony from the Department of Defense at the Sept. 12 House congressional hearing confirmed that the military has a 99 percent dependency on the civilian electrical grid system.
“The biggest failure is in the White House, with the president,” one congressional source told WND.
“Even though Obama personally is concerned about the natural EMP threat from a great geomagnetic storm, he has failed to show personal leadership,” the congressional source said.
“He deserves kudos for PPD-8 and the 2011 Strategic National Risk Assessment that for the first time includes a geostorm scenario. But he is letting the bureaucrats spin their wheels forever on ‘paper progress’ that leaves the grid unprotected.”
The congressional source questioned why Obama has not ordered DHS to adopt a National Planning Scenario focused on EMP.
“All federal, state and local emergency planning, training, and resource allocation is based on the National Planning Scenarios,” the congressional source pointed out.
“Absent an NPS for EMP, the threat is on nobody’s radar screen, except at DOD and in Congress. Obama should press NERC to start hardening the grid, or at least to launch experimental pilot programs for grid hardening in some states,” he said.
The NERC refers to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation which is an organization of U.S. electrical grid operators of the private utilities. They determine and implement standards for keeping the grid in functioning order.
While the federal government through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, is charged with developing reliability standards, only private industry can implement those standards.
In his Sept. 12 Capitol Hill testimony, FERC Director Joseph McClelland expressed concern that private utilities are not prepared to handle a catastrophic EMP event, saying that the effects would be widespread on the national grid system.
McClelland pointed out that the FERC’s jurisdiction is limited to the “bulk power system” under the Federal Power Act and excludes local distribution facilities.
The FPA also excludes all of Alaska and Hawaii, as well as any federal facilities located in these states. Their authority also excludes all local distribution facilities, including those connected to the defense infrastructure.
This has the effect, McClelland testified, of “precluding commission action to mitigate cyber or other national security threats to reliability that involve such facilities and major population areas,” which would be every major city in the United States.
McClelland added that the challenge will be in getting local electrical distribution facilities to take the threat of an EMP seriously and put up the capital investment.
The congressional source pointed out that promising legislation called the SHIELD Act is languishing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired by Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich.
H.R. 668, known as the Secure High-voltage Infrastructure for Electricity from Lethal Damage Act, or SHIELD, was introduced last year by Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.
The SHIELD Act would amend the Federal Power Act to authorize the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, with or without notice, hearing, or report, to order emergency measures to protect the reliability of either the bulk-power system or the defense critical electric infrastructure whenever the president issues a written directive or determination identifying an imminent grid security threat.
Among other things, it also directs the FERC to order the Electric Reliability Organization, or ERO, to submit reliability standards to:
  1. Protect the bulk-power system from a reasonably foreseeable geomagnetic storm event or electromagnetic pulse event (EMP); and
  2. Require entities that own or operate large transformers to ensure their adequate availability to restore promptly the reliable operation of the bulk-power system in the event of destruction or disability as a result of attack or a geomagnetic storm or EMP.
“Obama should call Upton and ask him to pass SHIELD,” the congressional source said. “Obama should tell (U.S. Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid to introduce a Democrat version of SHIELD in the Senate. Contrast this with Obama’s aggressive leadership to stop ‘global warning’ through promotion of green energy and draconian regulations.
“Obama spends his political capital on the fictional threat from global warming,” the congressional source added, “leaving the nation vulnerable to EMP just as we are entering the solar maximum.”
Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, who was staff director of the 2008 EMP Commission, also acknowledged that the SHIELD Act is stalled but praised the work of a number of members of Congress for their continued work on the threat of an EMP event on the national grid system.
“The biggest kudos to the Congress (in the House who are) the real leaders on this issue,” Pry said in an email to WND. “Hats off to the Congressional EMP Caucus led by Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R), Rep. Trent Franks (R), and Rep. Yvette Clarke (D). They have launched numerous initiatives to protect the nation from EMP, and understand the grave and immediate nature of the threat.”
A new network television drama also recently presented the cataclysmic consequences of an EMP attack, in “Revolution,” which portrays life in the former United States 15 years after an electromagnetic pulse disables all electronics.
In the story, society has collapsed and the country devolved into a collection of mutually hostile self-styled militias, private armies and warring tribes. Former members of the Marine Corps become warlords. Google executives become rifle-toting soldiers. Insurance salesmen transform into militia members.
It shows that basic necessities that Americans take for granted, such as widely available food and clean water, become inaccessible as millions die from starvation, disease or widespread violence.
A coming book, “A Nation Forsaken,” suggests that the show actually may downplay the real threat.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/homeland-security-what-emp-action-plan/

Monday, September 17, 2012

U.S., ISRAEL ENGAGING IN 'NON-OBVIOUS' WARFARE


Editor’s Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND.Subscriptions are $99 a year or, for monthly trials, just $9.95 per month for credit card users, and provide instant access for the complete reports.
WASHINGTON – The United States and Israel have been engaged in “non-obvious” warfare for a few years against a common target – Iran – but, until now, it’s been a discreet means of engagement as a substitute for outright military conflict, according to a report in Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.
The cyber attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities and the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists fit in this category. So does Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence Directorate’s work through proxies it created to launch attacks against India but also undertake terrorist attacks in Afghanistan against troops of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In effect, such an engagement constitutes a war between Pakistan and Afghanistan without outright military conflict between the two countries.
It’s not just a Western concept. Countries such as Iran similarly have engaged in such activities against a superior military force, such as the United States.
Now, a defense contractor, the RAND Corporation, has sought to lay out what all “non-obvious warfare” encompasses.
The types of warfare that could be considered to be non-obvious include:
  • Cyber warfare
  • Space warfare
  • Electronic warfare
  • Drone warfare
  • Sabotage, special operations, assassinations and mines
  • Proxy attacks
  • Weapons of mass destruction
  • Intelligence support to combat operations
Dr. Martin C. Libicki of RAND points out that non-obvious warfare is in stark contrast to a tank invasion, with their uses limited.
“It is quite difficult to take over the capital of another country anonymously,” Libicki wrote in the Fall 2012 Strategic Studies Quarterly.
A recent example of non-obvious warfare was infecting the Iranian nuclear program with the Stuxnet electronic virus. And then some of its nuclear scientists were blown up in Tehran, to which the Iranians reciprocated on at least one occasion.
“Even if wielded solely in pursuit of good aims,” Libicki said, “such (non-obvious) techniques corrode both military values and diplomatic norms. Non-obvious warfare, almost by definition, has to be the work of small teams that must isolate themselves from the larger community, much like intelligence operatives, lest word of their adventures leak out.
“The efforts of the small non-obvious warfare teams would leave the mass of the national security establishment quite uncertain about what exactly was going on and who exactly was behind all the activity.”
Libicki pointed out that wide adoption of non-obvious warfare would likely result in a more suspicious world.
“Once attacks are shaped to look like accidents,” he said, “many accidents will start to smell like attacks.”
Keep in touch with the most important breaking news stories about critical developments around the globe with Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.