A Middle East Nato to blunt Iran?

Thanks to William for the link!

via Bloomberg

Trump administration is in talks with Arab
allies about having them form military alliance that would share
intelligence with Israel to help counter Iran, WSJ reports,
citing unidentified Middle Eastern officials involved in the
talks.
* Alliance would include Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Egypt, and
Jordan, according to the article
* Under the alliance, attack on one member would be treated as
an attack on all, though details are still being worked out,
WSJ says
* U.S. would offer military, intelligence support, while the
country, together with Israel, wouldn’t be part of the
mutual-defense pact: WSJ
* Arab diplomats in Washington have been in talks with Defense
Sec. Jim Mattis and Mike Flynn until his resignation Monday:
WSJ
* Trump administration, spokesman for Israeli PM didn’t
respond WSJ’s requests for comment

Hmm.  Why are they pushing this?  The GCC is already a quasi-military alliance and all this would do is formalize in a bureaucratic way, stuff that's already being done.

I don't see the advantage.

One thing is certain.  Iran scares the hell outta the Gulf States.  For them to go from calling for Israel's destruction to now working with them tells you everything you need to know.

We're inching toward a major flareup in the Middle East.

NATO is an illusion by George Friedman

Thanks to giannis for the link!

via Business Insider.

Many Europeans see NATO as the foundation of their national security. In other words, they depend on the United States… the only NATO member with a global military capability.
Now the Europeans worry that the US has lost confidence in NATO and the alliance is no longer the safety guarantor it used to be. And I think they are right.

Then this.

 The Europeans felt that the United States’ power should be available to them through NATO. They now hear the message that the United States is not prepared to spend a vast amount of money on its military and then allow the Europeans a voice in its use.
The issue is not NATO itself, but the defense relationship between Europe and the United States. NATO is simply the old framework for that relationship, which was established after World War II.
At the time, the United States towered over Europe economically and militarily. Europe had little that it could contribute to defense, while the United States had an overriding interest in preventing the Soviets from seizing Western Europe.
Comfortable with the asymmetrical arrangement, the US contributed the bulk of the military power to potentially fight a war on European territory, while Europe took the primary risk.
That was the foundation of NATO. That foundation crumbled long ago, mostly with the fall of the Soviet Union and the signing of the Maastricht Treaty that created the European Union.

Story here and its a MUST READ! 

Blast from the past. AIM-152 Advanced Air to Air Missile

via Wikipedia.

The AIM-152 AAAM is a long-range air-to-air missile developed by the United States. The program went through a protracted development stage but was never adopted by the United States Navy, due to the ending of the Cold War and the reduction in threat of its perceived primary target, Soviet supersonic bombers.

Then this.

 The AIM-152 originated in a U.S. Navy requirement for an advanced air-to-air missile to replace the AIM-54 Phoenix. By the mid-1980s the Phoenix was seen to be no longer cutting edge, and the Navy wanted a long range missile to counter the Soviet Tu-22M Backfire and Tu-160 Blackjack long-range supersonic bombers. The goal was to produce a weapon which was smaller and lighter than the Phoenix, with equal or better range and a flight speed of Mach 3 or more.
Some of the systems considered for the missile had already been evaluated by the China Lake Naval Weapons Center in the early 1980s as part of the Advanced Common Intercept Missile Demonstration (ACIMD) program. ACIMD missiles had been built but none had flown by the time the project was cancelled. In 1987, Hughes/Raytheon and General Dynamics/Westinghouse were selected to produce competing designs for the AIM-152.
The Hughes/Raytheon design was largely based on the ACIMD missile, with a hybrid ramjet/solid rocket engine which offered high speeds. The missile would use an inertial guidance system with terminal guidance provided by active radar homing - a mode of flight that would later be employed in the AIM-120 AMRAAM. An infrared terminal homing seeker was also planned, which would allow the missile to engage without any emissions which would alert the target.
The GD/Westinghouse design was even smaller, with a multiple-pulse pure solid rocket motor. It also had an inertial guidance system, but midcourse updating was provided via a dual-band semi-active radar. Terminal guidance was via an electro-optical sensor, with a backup infrared seeker also included. One flaw of semi-active radar homing is that the launch aircraft must illuminate the target with its radar during flight, meaning that it must fly towards the enemy and so expose itself to greater danger. GD/Westinghouse planned to avoid this by equipping the launching aircraft with a radar pod which could illuminate the target from both forward and aft, allowing it to turn and escape whilst still providing a target for the missile.
With the fall of the Soviet Union the threat from Russian bombers effectively ended, and since no other nation could match the previous threat the AAAM was left without an enemy to defend against. The project was cancelled in 1992, shortly after the YAIM-152A designation had been given to the two prototypes.
With the phasing out of the Phoenix missile the US Navy lost its long range AAM capability, relying instead on the medium range AIM-120 AMRAAM. Longer range versions of the AMRAAM are in development to restore some of this capability.

This.  This is what we need!

The current idea of what is a long ranged Air to Air Missile isn't sufficient.  I know that you can't lob missiles blindly but we must be able to kill the Archer and that means missiles that can reach out to at least 300 miles away.

I'm guessing that we need to go in the opposite direction when it comes to missile development.  I'm talking larger missiles and probably two staged at that!  First stage to get you there and then a second stage to maneuver and kill.  My simplistic solution would be to somehow marry an AIM-120D launcher to a second stage AIM-9X kill section!

You're talking about a huge missile so we would probably need dedicated interceptors.   We need planes with long range, heavy carry capacity, fabulous electronic warfare suites, impressive loiter on station and a huge AESA.

Think F-111/Growler on steroids hybrid.

The conventional wisdom on AAM's is that they reach around 100 miles.  Unlike WVR missiles that are now creeping toward being effective at up to almost 40-50 miles, BVR missiles have remained almost static for 50 years.

They aren't tech constrained they're dimension constrained because of the aircraft that we project to carry them.  With lasers, advanced electronic warfare and better missiles, perhaps it's time to change the size of fighters to better accommodate all the upcoming tech.  Maybe it's time to make a move back to the future in the guise of dedicated, heavyweight Interceptors!

Open Comment Post. Feb 16, 2017.

Iranian Nuke Deal Secret Side Agreements...Why is Iran so scared of them becoming public????

via Washington Free Beacon.

Senior Iranian officials are warning the Trump administration about disclosing secret deals related to the nuclear deal that have long been hidden from the public by the Obama administration, according to recent comments that prompted pushback from senior sources on Capitol Hill.
Iran's warning comes on the heels of a Washington Free Beacon report disclosing that former national security adviser Michael Flynn had been pushed out of office partly due to his intention to release these sensitive documents to the American public.
Leading lawmakers in Congress launched multiple investigations last year into the Obama administration's efforts to keep these documents secret and out of public view. Sources who spoke to the Free Beacon about the matter said that the Trump White House is working on ways to publicize this information despite warnings from Iran.
Secret side deals related to the nuclear agreement remain unclassified but have been stashed in a secure location on Capitol Hill, making it difficult for staffers and lawmakers to view them. Individuals seeking to view these documents must have security clearance and are barred from taking notes or speaking about what they see.
Multiple senior congressional sources familiar with the nature of the documents told the Free Beacon that lawmakers and the Trump administration would not be intimidated by Iranian threats.

Story here. 

I disagree with Obama Admin foreign policy on numerous points.  But disagreement does not equal criminality...until they cut this deal.

The amount of secrecy we're seeing on an agreement that was basically cut with the wave of a pen and done by a "form" of executive order is distasteful at best.

Its another reason to hate lawyers.

But back on task.  What are those secret side deals?  Why have they made them so difficult to see...even for our representatives?  Why is Iran so batshit determined to keep those side deals from becoming public?  Finally did the Flynn really get "politically assassinated" because he was pushing to release them?

We need to know what's going on with regard to this deal.  The Trump Admin should make the agreement public poste haste!

Patria AMV Winter Tests - Day 2 somewhere above the Arctic Circle

What happened to all the talk of a "Missile Truck"?

Start the vid at around 9:20.  That is how "futurist" in the USAF saw the future fight.  But did you notice something?  They acknowledged the lack of "high end" F-22's.  The F-22's aren't augmented by the F-35 in this aerial but instead a missile truck based on the B-1R!

What happened to this concept?  Why isn't it still being pursued?  If the B-1 is too old then what about other aircraft to fill this need?  Remember that as late as around Oct of last year the talk of a "missile truck" was being actively discussed.

Boeing has already demonstrated that they're capable of "up gunning" F-15's to carry a stunning number of air to air missiles.  If the "Cuda" ever gets beyond concept then the number would be downright staggering.

Fortunately the Navy is already making moves in the direction and might be bringing back the "kill the archer" concept via its networked fires approach.  The Super Hornet, especially after being given the "Advanced" treatment, is no slouch in the missile truck department.

My issue is simple.  

People are turning to the idea of fighting outnumbered against high powered enemy fighters, especially if a large portion of the force is flying stealth fighters with limited weapons load.  The F-35 is inadequate.  A missile truck combined with networked fires over the fleet along with E-2Ds providing long range detection of enemy forces might be the only thing to save us when the big fight comes.

We need a Missile Truck based on the Advanced Super Hornet.

Su-35S Stealth Multi-Role Fighter (vid)

Harward for NSC? Mattis is consolidating power...he bears watching!

Thanks to Galvars for the link!

via Reuters.

The Trump administration has offered the job of White House national security adviser, vacated by former U.S. intelligence official Michael Flynn, to Vice Admiral Robert Harward, said two U.S. officials familiar with the matter on Wednesday.
It was not immediately clear if Harward, a former deputy commander of U.S. Central Command who has Navy SEAL combat experience, had accepted the offer, according to sources.
A White House spokesperson had no immediate comment.

Story here. 

Who is Harward?  A Navy SEAL.  Combat Vet.  Deputy Commander of Centcom.  Mattis loyalist/mentor/sycophant(?).

I wasn't as sold on Mattis as SecDef.  I was alone in my concerns and most Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Coast Guardsmen cheered.  So did the Establishment Republicans, Establishment Democrats, National Security Establishment and the Military Industrial Complex.

Think about that.

The people that many of us love to hate cheered for this guy and most didn't even wonder why.

Having said that, Mattis hasn't done anything alarming.  He's laying low but I have noticed one thing that should be troubling.

In a quiet, almost Rumsfeld like fashion he is getting in place personal loyalist.  Trump shot down a deputy Mattis wanted but in true Marine Corps fashion he's continued moving forward ... the appointment of Harward as National Security Adviser would be a feather in the hat of not only Mattis but of the Establishments that I mentioned.  He will be seen as a "moderating" force in the Trump inner circle.

Don't get me wrong.

I don't think Mattis is a "bad guy".  I do think he has an agenda that is more "stay the course" rather than the change that I think the nation and Trump is looking to see implemented.  Yeah.  I don't think evil but I do think keeping an eye on his moves is warranted.  Next up?  The review of the F-35 vs Super Hornet.  That will tell us a lot.

Czech Republic seeks new tracked IFVs

via Janes.

The Czech Ministry of Defence (MoD) plans to proceed with a tender worth over CZK50 billion (USD1.9 billion) to fulfil an urgent requirement for over 200 new tracked armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) for the Army of the Czech Republic (ACR).
General Josef Becvar, chief of staff of the ACR, stated on 14 February that the ACR plans to hold industry days in mid-2017 and invite domestic and foreign manufacturers of tracked armoured vehicles to demonstrate their platforms in mobility and live fire modes before an ACR selection team of experts.
The industry demonstrations will be followed by further ACR vehicle evaluations, including pricing competitiveness, service support, and other selection criteria.

I didn't put it on the blog but the Czech Republic recently put out a tender for more Pandur II's.  Now they're seeking to replace their BMP's with another tracked vehicle?

The wheels vs. tracks debate continues.

I fail to understand how wheels, which we've been told have equal mobility and firepower in relation to tracks but have lower operating costs aren't making tracks obsolete.

Something is off when major armies are continuing to buy, field and develop/improve (think AMVP with the US Army) tracked vehicles.  Either wheels have developed to a point where they're equal to tracks or we're being fed a line of, how do the Brits say it...Bollocks!

This is my fear.  Are wheeled vehicles situational?  Are they really limited to mid and lower spectrums of warfare?  Are the mobility claims lies?  And finally are they attractive because they're biased toward withstanding IED attacks and that's what makes them attractive to modern forces?

Mattis delivers the bad news to NATO members

Thanks to Mobeius for the link!

via Telegraph.

Gen James Mattis, the Pentagon chief, said the new “political reality” in America meant it was unacceptable for America to continue carrying the burden of defending European states.
Low-spending countries were in denial and had turned their back on the threat posed by Russia and Islamic State, the newly appointed US defence secretary said.
Gen Matis said the alliance must set out a timetable for when members will reach the Nato target of spending 2 per cent of GDP on their militaries.

Story here.

Interesting.  Everyone, myself included, thought that Mattis would do nothing but pat the Europeans on the back and tell them that everything was well.

That's not happening.

I don't know if this is Trump asserting himself or the National Security Establishment reading the wind but its obvious that the fury of the American people is being heard at the highest levels.

We will no longer fund the defense of people that will not shoulder their share of the burden.

This isn't good news...this is great news!

Open Comment Post. Feb 15, 2017.