Tous les articles par Foxhound

China in talks for sale of jet engine technology to Germany

Export of state-of-the-art machinery to a country known for its high-quality products would improve the international image of China’s manufacturing industry

PUBLISHED : Sunday, 14 January, 2018, 9:33pm
UPDATED : Sunday, 14 January, 2018, 11:28pm
China is in talks to sell Germany state-of-the-art machinery and technology critical in the manufacture of high-performance jet engines, a senior government scientist has revealed.

The machinery produced turbine blades capable of withstanding temperatures several hundred degrees Celsius higher than the melting point of metallic alloys, the scientist said.

The scientist, who is involved in the negotiations, asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Turbine blades convert heat generated by combusted fuel into the energy that propels a plane. The blades are one of the most important components in modern aircraft, both military and civilian, and their quality determines how safe, powerful and durable a jet engine will be.

The technological progress could be a very important step for made-in-China jet engines, with China now the world’s largest market for commercial aircraft. Thousands of planes are on order from Airbus and Boeing, and China is also developing its own C919 passenger jet.

In recent years, tremendous leaps in blade-processing technology, combined with breakthroughs in alloy casting and aerodynamic design, have allowed China to produce a brand-new series of powerful military jet engines.

The most notable example is the WS-15 turbofan jet engine, designed for use in China’s J-20 stealth fighter. The WS-15 has experienced reliability problems, but state media boasted last year that its performance matched that of the Pratt & Whitney F119, the world’s most advanced jet engine in military service, which was developed in the United States for the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor stealth fighter.


China and the US are the only countries in the world with tactical stealth jets in service.

“We are willing to share with industrial partners in Germany our latest hardware and technology,” the scientist said. “Industrial representatives from the two sides have finished the first round of contact.”

The export of state-of-the-art machinery to Germany – traditionally known for its high-quality products – would improve the international image of China’s manufacturing industry, he said.

A delegation from Xian, the capital of China’s northwestern Shaanxi province and the main production base for China’s military aircraft engines, would visit Berlin early this year to draft an export proposal with German counterparts, the scientist said.


The scientist asked that the government and business bodies involved not be named because the negotiations were still in their initial stage. The deal would require both Chinese and German government approval given the sensitivity of the machinery and technology involved, which could be used for both military and civilian purposes.

Beijing has expressed support for the possible deal.

“The collaboration between China and Germany is continuing to deepen in multiple sectors, the positive progress achieved is broadly recognised, which reflected the high level of Sino-German relations,” the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Tuesday in response to South China Morning Post questions about the negotiations.

“The prospects for cooperation between the two sides in the fields of hi-tech and intellectual property are very promising … we would like to work together with Germany to promote new progress in cooperation in the relevant fields under the principle of mutual openness, mutual benefits and mutual development.”

The German embassy in Beijing did not respond to a request for comment.

Professor Chen Jiang, from Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, who was involved in the development of new jet engines for China’s air force, said he would not be surprised if China provided military jet engine technology to Germany, which built the world’s first jet fighter at the end of the second world war and supplies many jet engine components, including turbine blades, to American and British manufacturers.

“It is quite possible,” he said. “China’s manufacturing has achieved some remarkable progress on numerous strategic sectors in recent years.”

But another Beijing-based jet engine scientist, who worked in Germany for years, said the deal might not eventuate.

“Germany is an ally of the United States,” he said. “It will face many restrictions to work with China in this sensitive field of technology.”

The German government and German companies had also voiced concerns about China’s infringement of intellectual property rights through reverse engineering or direct copying, he said.

China’s turbine blade breakthroughs have won numerous top national science and technology prizes since 2010. They include the development of a unique hollow structure to make lighter and stronger blades; new single-crystal alloys capable of withstanding high temperatures; and a special membrane that can be applied to a blade’s surface to accelerate cooling. Two of the national science and technology prizes announced by Beijing this week were awarded for work on turbine blades: one for single crystal alloys and the other to do with mechanical grinding.

The Chinese machinery being discussed with the Germans uses ultra-fast laser beams to bore extremely small holes or other fine structures on a turbine blade that allow air to flow through it and take away harmful heat.

The scientist in Xian said laser processing was widely used in making jet engines, but China was using a new technical approach that differed from the traditional methods adopted in the US and Britain.

The US, Britain and France are home to the world’s four dominant jet engine makers: General Electric (GE), Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce and CFM.

He said one challenge was to achieve high output while keeping defect rates low. GE, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce had been researching the manufacture of turbine blades for decades and guarded the technology as one of their top business secrets.

“Our machine has outperformed theirs on some benchmarks,” the scientist said. “The Germans have seen and grown interested in our technology.”

Another researcher involved in the negotiations said the export of the blade processing machine would be part of wider jet engine collaboration between the two countries.

“We will buy something else from them in return,” he said. “It can be either hardware or technology. The Germans are very good at the design and engineering of compressors [which send fresh air into the combustion chamber].”

Professor Peng Jiahui, who studied laser processing technology in Huazhong University of Science and Technology, said many Chinese researchers and engineers who had worked at GE, Pratt &Whitney and Rolls-Royce had returned to China and significantly increased the pace of jet engine development.

But a more important factor driving China’s technical innovation was the size of market, he said.

China had more than 1,700 military planes in service, second only to the US. The demand for turbine blades from China’s air force, which was still expanding rapidly, required the industry to come up with better manufacturing methods.

“China can make the best mobile phones because there is huge demand,” Peng said. “The same applies to jet engines.”

GIGN adopts MAWL-DA aiming systems

B.E. Meyers & Co., Inc. is pleased to announce that the MAWL-DA has been selected by the French National Gendarmerie’s elite police tactical unit, the GIGN, as their official individual NIR/VIS weapon laser and illuminator. The GIGN is currently upgrading legacy systems, and has begun to integrate new technologies with the unit’s available weapons platforms.

After evaluating various laser aiming and illumination systems through rigorous testing, and in real-world scenarios, the MAWL-DA was proven to be the superior solution, and was selected for formal procurement and deployment within the unit. In addition to the MAWL-DA’s selection by the GIGN, other units in France, and other European SOF units have adopted it for use in their respective operations.

The GIGN is the elite Police Tactical Unit of the French National Gendarmerie. Its missions include counter-terrorism, hostage rescue, surveillance of national threats, protection of government officials, and targeting organized crime. It is renowned for its selection and implementation of innovative technology and tactics, using a comprehensive suite of both small arms solutions, and weapon enabling systems. The unit’s selection of the MAWL-DA as a tool for mission success is notable in light of the GIGN’s pedigree, and reputation as a premiere SOF unit. B.E. Meyers & Co. looks forward to the MAWL-DA’s service with the GIGN as NIR/VIS pointing and illumination system which will assist in the unit’s response to both domestic and international threats.


The MAWL-DA (Modular Advanced Weapon Laser – Direct Action) is a high-power infrared and visible green aiming and illumination laser for individual carbines. Offering improved ergonomics, interface, and performance, the MAWL-DA has been designed from the ground up around the needs of the modern night fighter.


Engineered to address the shortcomings of common laser devices in use with both military and law enforcement, the MAWL® incorporates cutting edge VCSEL technology which eliminates the current problem of inconsistent and granular, speckled illumination. This unparalleled beam quality is leveraged with multiple modes of divergence and power, based on the ideal settings for any operational environment: Close Range, Mid Range, or Long Range.



Yémen, les pertes saoudienne deviendraient abyssales

Coalition arabe: 2 pilotes évacués suite à un crash de jet suite à une faute technique

Dimanche 7 janvier 2018 – 18h15
Le colonel Turki Al-Maliki, porte-parole des forces de la coalition
Asharq Al-Awsat

Le commandement des forces de la coalition arabe a déclaré dimanche que la coalition avait mené une opération spéciale pour évacuer deux pilotes après l’écrasement de leur avion de combat en raison d’une panne technique.Dans une déclaration à l’agence de presse saoudienne, le porte-parole des forces conjointes de la coalition, le colonel Turki Al-Malki, a révélé qu’un avion de combat saoudien avait subi une faute technique après avoir mené une opération de légitimation au Yémen.

L’avion s’est écrasé dans la zone d’opération mais son équipage n’a subi aucune blessure, a t-il dit.

« Le commandement des forces de la coalition arabe a mené une opération conjointe privée en collaboration avec les forces aériennes et terrestres pour évacuer deux pilotes vers l’Arabie Saoudite », a ajouté le porte-parole.

bien entendu cette histoire de problème technique n’est que du vent l’avion a bien été abattus ! 
traduction rocbalie & google translate

At least seven Russian planes -might be ?- destroyed by shelling at Syrian air base: Kommersant


MOSCOW (Reuters) – At least seven Russian planes were destroyed by rebel shelling at the Hmeymim air base in Syria on Dec. 31, Russian daily Kommersant reported late on Wednesday, citing two sources.

In the single biggest loss of military hardware for Russia since it launched air strike in Syria in autumn 2015, more than 10 servicemen were wounded in the attack by “radical Islamists”, the report said.

At least four Su-24 bombers, two Su-35S fighters and an An-72 transport plane, as well as an ammunition depot, were destroyed by the shelling, Kommersant said on its website, citing two “military-diplomatic” sources.

Kommersant said the Russian defense ministry had not commented. Reuters was not able to immediately reach the ministry.

Earlier on Wednesday, the ministry said a Mi-24 helicopter had crash-landed in Syria on Dec. 31 due to a technical fault and two pilots died.

Last month, Russia began establishing a permanent presence at Hmeymim and a naval base at Tartous although President Vladimir Putin has ordered a “significant” withdrawal of his military from Syria, declaring their work largely done.

Reporting by Vladimir Soldatkin; Editing by Robin Pomeroy



At least Seven Russian planes destroyed by shelling at Syrian air base: Kommersant

4 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 (NATO: Fencer) attack aircraft 
2 Russian Sukhoi Su-35S (NATO: Flanker-E) fighters
1 Russian Antonov An-72 (NATO: Coaler) transport aircraft


Anti-Tank missiles vs Tanks

Russia has long been known for having a large force of tanks, but they also deployed capable anti-tank missiles. Russia has widely exported its missile systems. Russia not only has anti-tank warheads, but also thermobaric systems that can do some serious damage to infantry and light vehicles. Often lost in the discussion of Russian military hardware are the anti-tank missiles. While Russia has long been known for having a large force of tanks (almost 22,000, according to, they also deployed capable anti-tank missiles. In the Cold War, major systems used by the Soviet Union were the AT-4 Spigot, the AT-5 Spandrel, and the AT-7 Saxhorn. These were all wire-guided systems…..

After Donald Trump Accuses Pak Of « Deceit », US Blocks $255 Million Military Aid

The confirmation comes on the same day when US President Donald Trump accused Pakistan of giving nothing to the US but « lies and deceit » and providing « safe haven » to terrorists in return for USD 33 billion aid over the last 15 years.
World | Press Trust of India | Updated: January 02, 2018 10:49 IST


WASHINGTON: The United States has suspended its 255 million dollars military aid to Pakistan for now, the White House has confirmed, saying the fate of such assistance will depend on Islamabad’s response to terrorism on its soil.

The confirmation comes on the same day when US President Donald Trump accused Pakistan of giving nothing to the US but « lies and deceit » and providing « safe haven » to terrorists in return for USD 33 billion aid over the last 15 years.

« The United States does not plan to spend the USD 255 million in FY 2016 in Foreign Military Financing for Pakistan at this time, » a senior administration official told PTI on conditions of anonymity.

« The president has made clear the US expects Pakistan to take decisive action against terrorists and militants on its soil, and that Pakistan’s actions in support of the South Asia Strategy will ultimately determine the trajectory of our relationship, including future security assistance, » he said.

The US administration continues to review Pakistan’s level of cooperation, the official said.

Earlier in the day, US President Donald Trump, in his first tweet of the New Year, blasted the Pakistan leadership by saying that they have given America « nothing but lies and deceit » despite having received more than USD 33 billion in last 15 years.

« They give safe haven to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more! » Trump said, clearly indicating that Pakistan would no longer receive any security aid from the US till the time it sees a change in behaviour from them in fight against terrorism.

Within hours, the Pakistani Defence Ministry fired back alleging that it has got « nothing but invective and mistrust » for all the actions it took in support of America’s war against terrorism.

« Pak as anti-terror ally has given free to US: land & air communication, military bases & intel cooperation that decimated Al-Qaeda over last 16yrs, but they have given us nothing but invective & mistrust. They overlook cross-border safe havens of terrorists who murder Pakistanis, » the Pakistan Defence Ministry said in a tweet.

Mr Trump who returned to the White House from Mar-a-Lago in Florida where he spent his Christmas and New Year vacation did not respond to shouted questions from reporters on « what is your plan on Pakistan? »

Several US lawmakers came out in support of President Trump adopting a tough approach on Pakistan.

« I support the decision today by President Trump to end aid to Pakistan, » Republican Congressman Markwayne Mullin from Oklahoma said.

« You’re either with the US, or against us. We will always help our friends, but for too long, the US has propped up countries that do not share our goal to end terrorism. I’m proud to see our president take bold steps to put America first, » Mr Mullin said.

« I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been fighting to end aid to Pakistan for years and will again lead the charge in the Senate, » tweeted Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky.

Samantha Vinograd, CNN’s national security analyst spoke in favour of Trump’s move.

« As a way to make it clear to the Pakistanis that enough is enough, if President Trump actually follows through, it could be an effective move, » she said in an opinion piece published on the CNN website.

« It isn’t the only step by any means, but it could be the right one, » she said.

« Great start. Why give millions to countries who would harbor our enemies? » Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr tweeted yesterday.

Syrian war has revealed a number of technical flaws of Russian Mi-28 helicopter

The Russian military intervention in the Syrian War began in 2015. The intervention consisted of air strikes fires by Russian aircraft and attack helicopters, included modern Mil Mi-28s, stationed in the Khmeimim base in North Syria, against militant groups opposed to the Syrian government.

During a military operation in Syria was revealed a number of technical flaws of Mil Mi-28 (NATO reporting name of “Havoc”) modern attack helicopter designed to close air support and destroy operations armoured and un-armoured vehicles, and enemy personnel in combat.

New Russian helicopters have problems with engine installations, avionics, control and navigation systems. Earlier there were cases had an engine control problem and was reported that debris ejected on the launching of rockets could cause catastrophic damage.

According to head of the Russian Federation Council’s Committee for Defence and Security, Viktor Bondarev, Russian defence industry has fixed a number of technical and design flaws of the helicopter, but still have problems with onboard electronics and night vision systems.

“Electronics is a failure: the pilot does not see anything, hears nothing,” said Viktor Bondarev.

According to the ex-commander-in-chief of the Russian Aero-Cosmic Forces (VKS) Viktor Bondarev, the night vision goggles used on the Mi-28s got the pilots nickname “death to pilots”.

It is worth remembering the crash of a Mi-28 helicopter in the Homs region on April 12, 2016. The tragedy was due to an error of the pilots who operated the flight in the dark conditions, according to the official version. But the military said that the cause of the crash was the problem with the night vision glasses of the helicopter pilot.

The Mi-28 “Night Hunter” is a modern attack helicopter designed to carry out search and destroy operations against tanks, armoured and un-armoured vehicles, and enemy personnel in combat, as well as low-speed airborne targets. The helicopter developed by Rostvertol, which is part of the of Russian Helicopters company,  in Rostov-on-Don.

According to the Russian Helicopters, Mi-28 can operate night and day, and in adverse weather conditions. The Mi-28 “Night Hunter” has been officially accepted into service with the Russian Ministry of Defence.



Expert: Russian tanks helpless against US-made Javelin anti-tank missiles

Russian defence reporter and military expert Alexey Khlopotov fearing that Russian main battle tanks would be helpless against man-portable fire-and-forget anti-tank missiles like the Javelin.

Alexei Khlopotov clarified that in the existing versions all Russian serial tanks are practically defenseless against a US-made Javelin anti-tank guided missile (ATGM). Khlopotov noted that even with a lot of disadvantages, Amercian ATGMs can confidently hit modern and upgraded tanks of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

The Javelin anti-tank missile is capable of defeating modern tanks by attacking them from above at the top armor, which is generally thinner and has weak protection. It uses a fire-and-forget, automatic infrared guidance that allows the user to seek cover immediately after launch.

The Javelin employs a long-wave infrared (LWIR) seeker for guidance to destroy tanks, bunkers, buildings, small vessel and low-speed helicopters with a high hit probability. It carries a tandem shaped charge enabling a maximum range of 2,500m.

According to the expert, it is urgent to carry out a number of measures that could reduce the effectiveness of such anti-tank weapons. This, above all, installation of active protection systems on tanks, which could reliably defeat ATGMs.

Also, of course, need to improve the means of reducing thermal visibility and it is necessary to fundamentally revise the principles of installing dynamic protection on top armor, the expert emphasized.

Only an integrated approach will significantly reduce Javelin’s threat, said Alexei Khlopotov.



Apple facing trillion dollar lawsuit for reducing processing speed of aging iPhones

Apple facing trillion dollar lawsuit for reducing processing speed of aging iPhones
A US woman is suing Apple for nearly one trillion dollars after the company acknowledged it had deliberately slowed down iPhones as they get older. The US tech giant now faces nine suits over the issue.

Violetta Mailyan is reportedly seeking compensation, demanding Apple pay her $999,999,999,000.

At least eight other class action lawsuits have been filed in the US District Courts in California, New York, and Illinois over how Apple handles power management of batteries in older iPhones.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages from Apple, in addition to reimbursement for the phone’s purchase with two of the plaintiffs asking the court to ban the company from reducing the speed of devices or, at least to oblige Apple to inform users before it does so.

Last week, the corporation admitted it had slowed down older iPhones. Apple said it has algorithms in place to help keep an iPhone running at optimal performance if there is an older battery inside that can’t keep up with the required power. Apple said it aimed to stop unexpected shutdowns of older iPhone models and keep them running to the best possible standard.

A similar case was filed in an Israeli court on Monday after Los Angeles residents Stefan Bogdanovich and Dakota Speas took Apple to court shortly after the company announcement.

If it turns out consumers would have replaced their battery instead of buying new iPhones had they known the true nature of Apple’s upgrades, you might start to have a better case for some sort of misrepresentation or fraud,” said Rory Van Loo, a Boston University professor specializing in consumer technology law, as quoted by Reuters.


Neutralité du Net : le procureur général de New York lance un procès contre la FCC

La FCC a récemment mis fin à la neutralité du net aux États-Unis. Mais tout n’est pas joué : le procureur général de New York vient de lancer un procès à l’encontre de la FCC et a le support de plusieurs États dans cette procédure.

La sauvegarde de la neutralité du Net est l’un des sujets les plus importants de ces dernières années. Et pour cause : tout le monde devrait avoir un accès libre et sans limites au réseau, qu’importe l’opérateur, fournisseur d’accès ou abonnement.

Elle a toutefois connu un énorme coup dur hier, puisque la FCC a réussi à abroger la loi Obama visant à garantir la neutralité du Net. Sous peu, les opérateurs américains pourraient dès lors limiter l’accès à certains sites en baissant les débits, et offrir un Internet à bouquets comme les chaînes satellites.

Eric Schneiderman s’attaque à la FCC

Une modification qui ne passe bien sûr pas pour tous. Le procureur général de New York, Eric Schneiderman, vient d’annoncer qu’il lancerait un procès à l’encontre de cette décision, afin de « stopper le retour en arrière illégal de la FCC sur la neutralité du Net« . Ce procès sera lancé en collaboration avec plusieurs États.

« Nous allons déposer une réclamation afin de préserver les protections de tous les New-yorkais et tous les Américains. Et nous allons travailler d’arrache-pied pour que les dirigeants de la FCC ne puissent pas faire davantage de dégâts à Internet et à notre économie« .


Une affaire de commentaires

La décision de la FCC est d’autant plus injuste pour le procureur général qu’elle a été prise alors que de nombreux faux commentaires ont été découverts lors de l’audit public de cette décision. Eric Schneiderman avait ainsi demandé, en compagnie de plusieurs États, à ce que cette décision soit mise en pause pour mener l’enquête.

La FCC a alors poussé son vote sans que les réclamations de ces États n’aient été prises en compte. Il y a donc fort à parier que ceux-ci rejoignent le procès lancé par New York.


Clap de fin pour l’Internet

La neutralité du net aux États-Unis, clap de la fin. 


Le principe de neutralité du net, entériné sous Obama en 2015, devrait être supprimé jeudi prochain…

O. P.-V.


C’est une décision qui peut sembler porter sur un détail technique, mais ses répercussions sont potentiellement immenses. Jeudi 14 décembre, la Federal Communications Commission (FCC), en charge des télécoms aux Etats-Unis, devrait enterrer le principe de neutralité qui régit l’Internet américain. 

La fin programmée de cette règle outre-Atlantique est un changement majeur. 20 Minutes fait le point sur la question.

Qu’est-ce que la neutralité du net ?

La neutralité du net est une règle longtemps restée tacite garantissant une égalité de traitement des flux de données par les opérateurs des télécommunications. Pour faire simple, les fournisseurs d’accès n’ont pas le droit de privilégier la qualité du trafic en fonction des sites qu’ils veulent que les internautes consultent. Tout le monde doit pouvoir accéder de manière égale à n’importe quel domaine du Web, tant qu’il y a une connexion. C’est expliqué avec beaucoup d’humour ci-dessous par le présentateur américain John Oliver.


Que va changer la décision de la FCC aux Etats-Unis ?

La commission souhaite imposer de nouvelles règles à l’issue du vote du 14 décembre permettant la dérégulation du net, afin que les principaux opérateurs américains, comme AT & T, Verizon et Comcast puissent chacun de leur côté privilégier l’accès à leurs services, ou au contraire ralentir le flux sur les sites et contenus concurrents. L’éditorial du New York Times du 3 décembre résume l’esprit : « La FCC veut laisser les télécoms transformer Internet en une version moderne de la télévision par câble, dans laquelle ils décident ce que les clients peuvent regarder et combien ils paient pour ce contenu ».

Les géants du net (Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, PayPal, Twitter, etc.), à travers leur lobby Internet Association, ont bien tenté de faire pression pour annuler le vote, arguant dans un communiqué que « ce projet de décret ignore les souhaits de dizaines de millions d’Américains qui ont exprimé leur soutien à l’ordonnance de 2015 sur l’Internet ouvert ». Une ordonnance passée sous l’administration Obama, entérinant dans la loi américaine le principe de neutralité du net, et sur laquelle veut revenir le nouveau pouvoir.

Car les opposants au vote de la FCC, y compris la puissante Internet Association donc, se sont cassé les dents sur l’intransigeance de son président, Ajit Pai (sur la photo en tête d’article), nommé par Donald Trump, qui assure vouloir « forcer les fournisseurs d’accès à être transparents pour que les consommateurs puissent choisir les offres qui conviennent le mieux ».

Quelles répercussions cela pourrait avoir en France ?

Ce qui se passe aux Etats-Unis ayant toujours un écho à l’international, ce changement de paradigme pourrait avoir des conséquences au-delà des frontières américaines. Comme l’écrit The Verge, « quel que soit ce que les autorités américaines font du respect de l’internet, cela aura des répercussions sur le reste du monde ».

En France, la neutralité du net est inscrite dans la loi pour une République numérique d’octobre 2016, bien qu’un rapport publié le 31 mai 2017 par la Quadrature du net appelle à faire attention à son respect effectif dans le cadre européen. En dehors de l’Hexagone, il existe un exemple sur le continent de pays proche du modèle que souhaite la FCC aux Etats-Unis : le Portugal, avec l’exemple ci-dessous de la multiplication de package qui permettent d’accéder à l’internet lusitanien.


La neutralité du net aux Etats-Unis, clap de fin?

NUMERIQUELe principe de neutralité du net, entériné sous Obama en 2015, devrait être supprimé jeudi prochain…

O. P.-V.


C’est une décision qui peut sembler porter sur un détail technique, mais ses répercussions sont potentiellement immenses. Jeudi 14 décembre, la Federal Communications Commission (FCC), en charge des télécoms aux Etats-Unis, devraitenterrer le principe de neutralité qui régit l’Internet américain. La fin programmée de cette règle outre-Atlantique est un changement majeur. 20 Minutes fait le point sur la question.

Qu’est-ce que la neutralité du net ?

La neutralité du net est une règle longtemps restée tacite garantissant une égalité de traitement des flux de données par les opérateurs des télécommunications. Pour faire simple, les fournisseurs d’accès n’ont pas le droit de privilégier la qualité du trafic en fonction des sites qu’ils veulent que les internautes consultent. Tout le monde doit pouvoir accéder…

View original post 413 mots de plus

Russian MoD Reports Incident With US F-22 Fighter Over Syria’s Euphates River

SU-35 Flanker

F-22 Raptor

The Russian Defense Ministry has called the presence of the US air force in Syria illegal.

« An American F-22 fighter actively prevented the Russian pair of Su-25 attack aircraft from carrying out a combat mission to destroy the Daesh stronghold in the suburbs of the city of Mayadin in the airspace over the western bank of the Euphrates River on November 23. The F-22 aircraft fired off heat flares and released brake shields with permanent maneuvering, imitating an air battle, » Major-General Igor Konashenkov, the Russian Defense Ministry’s spokesperson said on Saturday.

The Defense Ministry has commented on the US claims regarding Syria’s airspace, explaining that the majority of near-misses between US and Russian planes in Syria and in the area of the Euphrates were connected with the Washington’s attempts to hinder Daesh’s defeat.

« The statements of the US Army representatives that a part of the Syrian airspace belongs to the US is puzzling, » Konashenkov stated, reminding the Pentagon that « Syria is a sovereign state and a member of the United Nations, therefore, the United States does not own any part of sky. »

At the same time, he noted that « after the appearance of a Russian multifunctional super maneuverable Su-35S fighter, the American fighter stopped dangerous maneuvers and hurried to move into Iraqi airspace. »

he ministry’s representative has also noted that the US has failed to give any answer to the Russian command at the Khmeimim airbase in Syria « concerning this and many other incidents in the Syrian sky, » the general added.

US-Russia Possible Collision in Syrian Sky

The statement was made in the wake of The New York Times newspaper’s Friday’s report, citing US commanders as expressing their concern over a possible collision between Russian and US warplanes over Syria, which might take place because of alleged violations of the deescalation deal by the Russian side a dozen times a day since the agreement had come into force.

« It’s become increasingly tough for our pilots to discern whether Russian pilots are deliberately testing or baiting us into reacting, or if these are just honest mistakes… The greatest concern is that we could shoot down a Russian aircraft because its actions are seen as a threat to our air or ground forces, » Lt. Col. Damien Pickart was quoted as saying by the media.

Col. Jeff Hogan, deputy commander of the air operations center at the Qatar base, told the newspaper that he had daily phone calls with Chief of the Russian General Staff Valery Gerasimov, but because of occasional misunderstandings, he had to make additional calls.

According to the newspaper, the military explained Moscow’s actions by the desire to entrench the positions of the Syrian army and cement its territorial acquisitions ahead of the peace talks aimed at ending the seven-year war.

The report was made in the wake of Putin’s Wednesday’s announcement, saying that that the Daesh terrorist group (banned in Russia) had been completely defeated on both banks of the Euphrates River in Syria, following a similar Gerasimov’s statement on the same day, declaring that the remaining terrorists had been defeated in Deir ez-Zor.

US-Russia Deconfliction Deal

The United States and Russia signed a bilateral memorandum of understanding to ensure flight safety during combat missions over Syria in October 2015, specifying that the deconfliction would be implemented in different ways, with the help of separate telephone lines for air and ground deconfliction, as well as face-to-face meetings.

In November 2017, the Russian Defense Ministry said that the planes of the US-led coalition were trying to impede the Russian Aerospace Forces’ operations in Syria’s Al Bukamal. However, the disagreements were later resolved and the sides agreed to fly on opposite sides of a 45-mile stretch of the Euphrates River to avoid collisions.

The US-led coalition of more than 70 members has been conducting airstrikes, ground-based and rocket-propelled artillery fire against Daesh in Syria and Iraq since 2014. These actions, however, were not authorized in Syria either by the government of President Bashar Assad or the UN Security Council.

Meanwhile, the Russian Aerospace Forces have been present in Syria since September 2015, following an official request from Assad. Since March 2016, following Vladimir Putin’s order to pull out the bulk of the forces from the country, Russia maintains a military presence in Syria to train and assist local troops.


Expert on North Korea’s New H-15 ICBM: « You Cannot Stop This Thing »



The United States likely does not have an effective means to counter North Korea’s massive new Hwasong-15 (HS-15) road mobile intercontinental ballistic missile according to analysts. The missile is so large that it could carry a multitude of decoys and countermeasures. It might even be able to carry multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) in the future.

“This missile potentially has enough throw weight to carry multiple warheads plus decoys, chaff, jammers and other countermeasures to defeat any known missile defense system,” arms-control expert and president of the Ploughshares Fund Joseph Cirincione told the National Interest.

“It could overwhelm, fool and blind the radars, sensors and kill vehicles. You cannot stop this thing.”

Kingston Reif, director for disarmament and threat-reduction policy at the Arms Control Association, agreed with Cirincione’s assessment.

“Video and photographs of the HS-15 released by the North Korean government indicate that it is more than large enough to carry decoys/countermeasures that would be designed to put further strain on the ground based midcourse defense (GMD) system,” Reif told The National Interest.

“The missile might even be big enough to accommodate multiple RVs [reentry vehicles] down the line, if North Korea could develop compact RVs that are compact enough.”

Moreover, the United States’ Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) is not likely to be particularly effective against the North Korean missile.

“The system is garbage,” Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, bluntly told The National Interest.

“It is intended to deal with a threat like this, but the test record stinks and the payload is roomy enough that we need to think worry about countermeasures.”

Missile expert Vipin Narang, an associate professor of political science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, told The National Interest that policymakers cannot count on the GMD to protect major population centers from a North Korean missile.

I wouldn’t bet New York on GMD working,” Narang said.

Reif explained the fundamental problem with the GMD system. “According to the Defense Department’s independent testing office, GMD has ‘demonstrated capability’ to defend the U.S. homeland against a small number of simple, intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) threats that employ ‘simple countermeasures,’” Reif said.

“It’s not clear how DoD defines ‘simple countermeasures.’ The May 30 test of the GMD system against an ICBM target reportedly included simple countermeasures, but an analysis of the information on the test released by DoD appear to indicate that the decoy(s) used in the test had different brightness levels than the actual target.”

Moreover, North Korea might not be using simple decoys—and the GMD has never been tested against more complex countermeasures.

“We do know that the system has never been tested against ‘complex countermeasures,’ which DoD defines as ‘Use of target dynamics and penetration aids,’” Reif said.

“Are such countermeasures beyond the capability of North Korea to develop? I highly doubt it.”

Moreover, the North Koreans—despite the wishful thinking of certain commentators—are not stupid. Pyongyang knows exactly how to exploit the weaknesses of the GMD.

“The fact that North Korea tested the HS-15 at night would pose additional challenges to our defenses,” Reif said.

“First, testing the ability to load and launch with little warning would stress our ability to get an early track on the missile and its trajectory. Second, the GMD system has never been successfully intercept tested at night. In fact, there has been only one intercept test that has taken place at night.”

Indeed, the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency seems to take pains to make sure that all of its tests take place where the Sun offers some level of illumination.

“All of the 10 successful intercept tests of the system took place with the target directly illuminated by the sun,” Reif said.

“There’s a reason for this. The sun’s rays help to ‘brighten’ the RV and possible decoys/countermeasures for the GMD system’s infrared kill vehicle.”

The Pentagon states that the GMD does not rely on the sun, but there are indications that darkness poses challenges for the interceptors’ electro-optical sensors.

“The Missile Defense Agency argues that the system does not rely on the sun’s rays and thus the time of the test would not be a factor,” Reif said.

“But the dynamics of a nighttime intercept could cause problems such as by confusing the kill vehicle. The signature of a target at night presents a greater challenge than has been demonstrated through flight-testing to date. All of which means we should do more testing of the GMD system under more realistic and/or expected conditions.”

The GMD is not entirely useless however. Under perfect conditions—and if North Korea or another adversary gave some sort of advanced notice that it might launch an ICBM—the GMD offers some level of protection.

“We may be able to intercept a relatively small number of unsophisticated missiles under favorable conditions but a determined adversary—which North Korea is—is unlikely to present us with such a scenario,” Reif said.

“Missile defense will never provide an impenetrable shield and steps to improve and expand defenses will prompt adversaries to take steps to counter them, which is what North Korea is doing. Missile defense has a role to play as part of a comprehensive effort to counter the North Korean threat but it’s a limited one and its capabilities are often vastly overstated.”

However, even reaching an imperfect level of defense would require realistic testing under real operational conditions. Despite the Pentagon’s assertion to the contrary, that has not happened. Right now, the GMD’s chances of success against the HS-15 are more a matter of prayers than science.

“Overall, flight intercept testing of the system has not demonstrated that GMD is capable of reliably defense the U.S. homeland against even a limited threat,” Reif said.

“The current ‘shot doctrine’ would be to fire four interceptors at each incoming missile and then… Cross our fingers.”

Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @Davemajumdar.

Image: Reuters.



Russian defense minister arrives in Egypt

The Russian defense minister is expected to meet with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi

CAIRO, November 29. /TASS/. Russian Defense Minister Army General Sergey Shoigu has arrived in Cairo, which hosts the fourth meeting of the joint Russian-Egyptian commission for military and technical cooperation on Wednesday, the Defense Ministry said.
During the visit, Shoigu is expected to hold talks with Egyptian Minister of Defense and Military Production Sedki Sobhi to discuss bilateral military and military-technical cooperation.
The Russian defense minister is also due to meet with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. At the meeting, the sides plan to discuss international and regional security.



China Pulls Ahead of U.S. in Latest TOP500 List

TOP500 News Team | November 13, 2017 08:59 CET

The fiftieth TOP500 list of the fastest supercomputers in the world has China overtaking the US in the total number of ranked systems by a margin of 202 to 143. It is the largest number of supercomputers China has ever claimed on the TOP500 ranking, with the US presence shrinking to its lowest level since the list’s inception 25 years ago.

Just six months ago, the US led with 169 systems, with China coming in at 160. Despite the reversal of fortunes, the 144 systems claimed by the US gives them a solid second place finish, with Japan in third place with 35, followed by Germany with 20, France with 18, and the UK with 15.

China has also overtaken the US in aggregate performance as well. The Asian superpower now claims 35.4 percent of the TOP500 flops, with the US in second place with 29.6 percent.

The top 10 systems remain largely unchanged since the June 2017 list, with a couple of notable exceptions.

Sunway TaihuLight, a system developed by China’s National Research Center of Parallel Computer Engineering & Technology (NRCPC), and installed at the National Supercomputing Center in Wuxi, maintains its number one ranking for the fourth time, with a High Performance Linpack (HPL) mark of 93.01 petaflops.

Tianhe-2 (Milky Way-2), a system developed by China’s National University of Defense Technology (NUDT) and deployed at the National Supercomputer Center in Guangzho, China, is still the number two system at 33.86 petaflops.

Piz Daint, a Cray XC50 system installed at the Swiss National Supercomputing Centre (CSCS) in Lugano, Switzerland, maintains its number three position with 19.59 petaflops, reaffirming its status as the most powerful supercomputer in Europe. Piz Daint was upgraded last year with NVIDIA Tesla P100 GPUs, which more than doubled its HPL performance of 9.77 petaflops.

The new number four system is the upgraded Gyoukou supercomputer, a ZettaScaler-2.2 system deployed at Japan’s Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, which was the home of the Earth Simulator. Gyoukou was able to achieve an HPL result of 19.14 petaflops. using PEZY-SC2 accelerators, along with conventional Intel Xeon processors. The system’s 19,860,000 cores represent the highest level of concurrency ever recorded on the TOP500 rankings of supercomputers.

Titan, a five-year-old Cray XK7 system installed at the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and still the largest system in the US, slips down to number five. Its 17.59 petaflops are mainly the result of its NVIDIA K20x GPU accelerators.

Sequoia, an IBM BlueGene/Q system installed at DOE’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, is the number six system on the list with a mark of 17.17 petaflops. It was deployed in 2011.

The new number seven system is Trinity, a Cray XC40 supercomputer operated by Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories. It was recently upgraded with Intel “Knights Landing” Xeon Phi processors, which propelled it from 8.10 petaflops six months ago to its current high-water mark of 14.14 petaflops.

Cori, a Cray XC40 supercomputer, installed at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), is now the eighth fastest supercomputer in the world. Its 1,630 Intel Xeon « Haswell » processor nodes and 9,300 Intel Xeon Phi 7250 nodes yielded an HPL result of 14.01 petaflops.

At 13.55 petaflops, Oakforest-PACS, a Fujitsu PRIMERGY CX1640 M1 installed at Joint Center for Advanced High Performance Computing in Japan, is the number nine system. It too is powered by Intel “Knights Landing” Xeon Phi processors.

Fujitsu’s K computer installed at the RIKEN Advanced Institute for Computational Science (AICS) in Kobe, Japan, is now the number 10 system at 10.51 petaflops. Its performance is derived from its 88 thousand SPARC64 processor cores linked by Fujitsu’s Tofu interconnect. Despite its tenth-place showing on HPL, the K Computer is the top-ranked system on the High-Performance Conjugate Gradients (HPCG) benchmark.

For the first time, each of the top 10 supercomputers delivered more than 10 petaflops on HPL. There are also 181 systems with performance greater than a petaflop – up from 138 on the June 2017 list. Taking a broader look, the combined performance of all 500 systems has grown to 845 petaflops, compared to 749 petaflops six months ago and 672 petaflops one year ago. Even though aggregate performance grew by nearly 100 petaflops, the relative increase is well below the list’s long-term historical trend.

A further reflection of this slowdown is the list turnover. The entry point in the latest rankings moved up to 548 teraflops, compared to 432 teraflops in June. The 548-teraflop system was in position 370 in the previous TOP500 list. The turnover is in line with what has been observed over the last four years, but is much lower than previous levels.

A total of 102 systems employ accelerator/coprocessor technology, compared to 91 six months ago. 86 of these use NVIDIA GPUs, 12 systems make use Intel Xeon Phi coprocessor technology, and 5 are using PEZY Computing accelerators. Two systems use a combination of NVIDIA GPU and Intel Xeon Phi coprocessors. An additional 14 systems now use Xeon Phi chips as the main processing unit.

Green500 Highlights

Turning to the new Green500 rankings, the top three positions are taken by newly installed systems in Japan, all of which are based on the ZettaScaler-2.2 architecture and the PEZY-SC2 accelerator. The SC2 is a second-generation 2048-core chip that provides a peak performance of 8.192 teraflops in single-precision.

The most efficient of these ZettaScaler supercomputers is the Shoubu system B installed at RIKEN’s Advanced Center for Computing and Communication. It achieved a power efficiency of 17.0 gigaflops/watt.

The number two Green500 system is the Suiren2 cluster at the High Energy Accelerator Research Organization/KEK, which managed to reach 16.8 gigaflops/watt.

The number three Green500 slot was captured by the PEZY Computing’s own Sakura system. It achieved 14.2 gigaflops/watt. All of these top three systems are positioned in the bottom half of the TOP500 rankings: Shoubu system B at position 258, Suiren2 at 306, and Sakura at 275.

The fourth greenest supercomputer is a DGX SaturnV Volta system, which is installed at NVIDIA headquarters in San Jose, California. It achieved 15.1 gigaflops/watt, and comes in at number 149 on the TOP500 list. The number five system is Gyoukou, yet another ZettaScaler-2.2 machine.  It achieved an efficiency of 14.2 gigaflops/watt and it currently ranks as the fourth most powerful supercomputer in the world.

Vendor trends

A total of 471 systems, representing 94.2 percent of the total, are now using Intel processors, which is slightly up from 92.8 percent six months ago. The share of IBM Power processors is at 14 systems, down from 21 systems in June.

The number of systems using Gigabit Ethernet is unchanged at 228 systems, in large part thanks to 204 systems now using 10G Ethernet.  InfiniBand technology is found in 163 systems, down from 178 systems in the previous list, and remains the second most-used system interconnect technology in the list. Intel Omni-Path technology is now in 35 systems, down from 38 six month ago.

HPE has the lead in the number of installed supercomputers at 122, which represents nearly a quarter of all TOP500 systems.  This includes several systems originally installed by SGI, which is now owned by HPE.  HPE accounted for 144 systems six months ago.

Lenovo follows HPE with 81 systems down from 88 systems on the June list.  Inspur rose further in the ranks and has now 56 systems, up from only 20 six month ago. Cray now has 53 systems, down from 57 systems six month ago. Sugon features 51 systems in the list, up from 44 in June.  IBM follows with only 19 systems remaining under their label. These are mostly BlueGene/Q supercomputers, reflecting an aging install base. The average age of IBM systems on the list is now five years.

Cray continues to be the clear performance leader, claiming 19.5 percent of the list’s aggregate performance. HPE is second with 15.2 percent of the TOP500 flops. Thanks to the number one Sunway TaihuLight system, NRCPC retains the third spot with 11.1 percent of the total performance. Lenovo is fourth with 9.1 percent of performance, followed by Inspur at 6.3 percent, IBM at 6.1 percent and Sugon at 5.2 percent. All top vendors, with the exception of Inspur and Sugon, lost performance share compared to six months ago.

HPCG Results

The TOP500 list is now incorporating the High-Performance Conjugate Gradient (HPCG) benchmark results into the list to provide a more balanced look at system performance. The benchmark incorporates calculations in sparse matrix multiplication, global collectives, and vector updates, which more closely represents the mix of computational and data access patterns used in many supercomputing codes.

As previously mentioned, the fastest system using the HPCG benchmark remains Fujitsu’s K computer, which is ranked number 10 in the overall TOP500 rankings. It achieved 602.7 teraflops on HPCG, followed closely by Tianhe-2 with a score of 580.0 teraflops. The upgraded Trinity supercomputer comes in at number three at 546.1 teraflops, followed by Piz Daint at number four with 486.4 teraflops, and Sunway TaihuLight at number five at 480.8 teraflops.

The International Space Station computer, built by HPE, is now listed in the HPCG results, making it the “highest” computer on the list.

Chinese Fighter Developments Revealed

 – October 27, 2017, 8:59 AM

New information on China’s jet fighter development has emerged this week, during the twice-in-a-decade Communist Party Congress (CPC). Many of the country’s senior defense industrial leaders also hold positions in the upper ranks of the party. As such, they use the event to try to gain advantage over their rivals in the budgeting process. In particular, significant developments in the stealthy J-20 and FC-31 programs have been revealed.

The Chengdu J-20 first flew in the beginning of 2011 but did not make its first public appearance until the 2016 Zhuhai Air Show—and then only in a brief flypast. The latest reports state that the aircraft has entered low-rate production and that it is close to being deployed with operational combat units. Official but anonymous Chinese sources have stated that putting the J-20 into service is aimed at creating leverage for China in advance of U.S. President Donald Trump’s state visit, scheduled for next month.

The same Chinese sources state that the J-20 now has a reliable domestically produced powerplant. Previous models of the J-20 were powered with the Russian-made Saturn/Lyulka AL-31F engine. The Chinese engine can still not match the performance of the Pratt & Whitney F119 that powers the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, but it supposedly enables the J-20 to supercruise. There will be 100 J-20s in service by 2020 and another 100 by 2023, it is reported.

The Shenyang FC-31 has gone through a major redesign to correct a number of shortcomings seen in the original prototypes. Among other changes, the structure has been reworked so that it is now three metric tons heavier and between 20 and 30 inches longer. The aircraft’s Russian-made RD-33 engine has been replaced with a Chinese engine that is supposedly “smokeless,” and the aircraft’s planform has been redesigned in order to reduce its radar cross section.

The new FC-31 variant is also supposed to receive the new WS-19 engine in 2019 and will give this aircraft supercruise capability as well. The radar is also reported to have been upgraded with new modes, including the ability to carry out dependent targeting or battlefield management tasks. The extra airframe structure will help in the eventual design of a carrier-capable version.

Other Chinese sources are also claiming that Indonesia is a serious potential export prospect for the FC-31. Jakarta had previously taken a minor role in the development of the Korean KF-X stealthy fighter. But that cooperation has reportedly ended.

The J-10C is the third and most advanced version of the single-engine fighter produced at Chengdu. It has completed a number of weapons tests and other operational validation flights. Most recently the aircraft successfully demonstrated air-to-air refuelling with one of the PLAAF’s tankers.

A NATO intelligence officer with significant experience in China told AIN that this week’s news was significant for being all about « indigenous » Chinese programs. “You notice that nothing has been said about the Russian aircraft in the PLAAF, or the copies that Chinese industry now builds of the Sukhoi Su-27. That is not an accident, and it shows that in President Xi’s ‘new China,’ the emphasis is definitely on the country’s own home-grown weaponry,” he said.


US May in Fact Lose War Against North Korea, Ex-Pentagon Commander Says

In a possible conflict between Pyongyang and Washington, the North Korean forces would outnumber South Korea-based US troops, which will be undersupplied, according to a former deputy commander of US Forces in Korea.

Newsweek obtained the text of a letter from Jan-Marc Jouas, former deputy commander of US Forces in Korea to an array of Democratic members of Congress.

In the letter, he warned Washington of the potential consequences of a military confrontation with North Korea, should one arise.

« The 28,500 US Armed Forces personnel in South Korea are vastly outnumbered by North Korean forces, as well as [South Korean] forces that will conduct the overwhelming majority of the fighting. Unlike every conflict since the last Korean War, we will not be able to build up our forces prior to the start of hostilities, » the letter said.

Jouas alleged that it would take days or even months for the US military to deliver its reinforcements and supplies to the Korean Peninsula.

He also warned that any fresh US troops there face the risk of a conventional or chemical weapons attack by an estimated 1.2 million-strong North Korean army, something that he said « will further delay their entry into the war. »

Jouas voiced doubt that North Korea’s nuclear capabilities will be « completely » eliminated by a full-fledged war on the Korean Peninsula, which he said can be fueled by any US military action against Pyongyang.

His letter came a few days after US President Donald Trump called on North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions, saying that further nuclear provocations will put the country in danger.

Speaking at the South Korean National Assembly, Trump at the same time avoided threatening Pyongyang with « fire and fury, » suggesting that the diplomatic option is viable to resolving the crisis.

Trump also warned that the US is poised and ready to use military force if necessary and called for the international community to join forces « to isolate the brutal regime of North Korea – to deny it any form of support, supply, or acceptance. »

In the past few months, the situation on the Korean Peninsula has exacerbated significantly, following several ballistic missile launches and nuclear tests conducted by Pyongyang in violation of the UN Security Council resolutions.


Irak: le Kurdistan prêt à geler les résultats du référendum

Le Kurdistan irakien, en pleine crise politique et économique et acculé par Bagdad, a proposé mercredi de geler les résultats de son référendum d’indépendance pour tenter de sortir d’une crise dans laquelle il a déjà beaucoup perdu. Les autorités irakiennes n’ont pas immédiatement réagi à cette initiative.
Il y a un mois jour pour jour, cette région autonome dans le nord de l’Irak organisait en grandes pompes une consultation populaire et le « oui » l’emportait massivement. Aussitôt éclatait une crise d’une ampleur sans précédent avec Bagdad, soutenu par des voisins turc et iranien désireux de couper court aux velléités indépendantistes de leurs propres minorités kurdes.
Assuré de ces appuis –mais également des Etats-Unis et d’autres, soucieux de « l’unité de l’Irak », acteur majeur de la lutte contre les jihadistes–, et disant s’appuyer sur la Constitution, le Premier ministre irakien Haider al-Abadi a envoyé ses troupes.
Elles ont repris en quelques jours à peine la quasi-totalité des zones disputées à travers l’Irak aux combattants kurdes, les peshmergas, dans une démonstration de force –qui s’est en de rares endroits soldée par des combats ayant fait une trentaine de morts.
L’unique condition pour éviter ces mouvements militaires, avaient prévenu les responsables à Bagdad, jusqu’au président Fouad Massoum, lui-même kurde, était l’annulation pure et simple des résultats du référendum.
Jusqu’ici, Erbil, la capitale du Kurdistan irakien, refusait en bloc toute condition préalable à l’ouverture d’un dialogue avec Bagdad. Mais mardi des affrontements ont éclaté entre forces kurdes et irakiennes dans le nord frontalier de la Turquie, et Bagdad se dit déterminé à reprendre l’ensemble des points de passage et autres terminaux à la région autonome, aux mains des peshmergas.
Pour éviter « la guerre » et « la destruction du tissu social », le Kurdistan irakien a proposé mercredi de « geler les résultats » de son référendum d’indépendance et d’entamer « un dialogue ouvert » avec Bagdad « sur la base de la Constitution ». Dans son communiqué publié tôt mercredi, la région autonome se dit aussi prête à « un cessez-le-feu immédiat ».
Erbil, en position de force depuis la débandade des forces fédérales en 2014 face à la percée jihadiste, a depuis perdu gros. Et après son référendum, elle n’a pas obtenu le soutien international qu’elle avait espéré.
Sur le terrain, elle a quasiment perdu tous les territoires où ses peshmergas s’étaient déployés au-delà des frontières administratives de la région autonome.
A l’issue des opérations de « restauration du pouvoir central » dans les zones disputées, notamment la riche province de Kirkouk, elle a perdu les immenses champs de pétrole qui aurait pu assurer la viabilité économique d’un hypothétique Etat kurde, assurent les experts.
L’ONU, qui jusqu’à la veille du référendum du 25 septembre plaidait pour un plan alternatif de négociations, a réitéré mardi sa proposition d’aider à des pourparlers entre Bagdad et Erbil pour faire cesser l’escalade.
Dans un communiqué, le représentant spécial du secrétaire général des Nations unies en Irak, Jan Kubis, « offre les bons offices de la mission de l’ONU en Irak pour faciliter les discussions si les deux parties le demandent ».
La proposition d’Erbil intervient au moment où M. Abadi, de retour d’une tournée régionale chez les poids lourds arabes du Moyen-Orient, notamment l’Arabie saoudite et l’Egypte, est attendu en Turquie.
Il a déjà annoncé qu’il évoquerait avec les responsables turcs la question du référendum kurde, de la gestion de la frontière entre son pays et la Turquie dont il entend reprendre le contrôle.
La veille, conséquence de la crise que traverse le Kurdistan dont la classe politique se déchire, le Parlement kurde a reporté les élections législatives et présidentielle, prévues le 1er novembre.
L’opposition kurde réclame la démission du président du Kurdistan Massoud Barzani et un « gouvernement de salut national » pour éviter à cette région, qui traverse une grave crise économique, plus de divisions et de déboires politiques face à Bagdad désormais en position de force.
Ces derniers jours, Erbil et Bagdad ont chacun émis des mandats d’arrêt visant de hautes personnalités politiques et militaires adverses.
Publié il y a 2 hours ago par Assawra
Libellés: Irak


Exclusif: Le Maroc intéressé par l’acquisition du système de missiles sol-air russe S-400

Par M’Hamed Hamrouch le 12/10/2017 à 12h49 (mise à jour le 12/10/2017 à 13h21)

Le Maroc négocierait l’acquisition des missiles sol-air russes S-400 pour renforcer sa Défense anti-aérienne (DCA), apprend le360, au lendemain de la signature d’un accord de coopération militaire maroco-russe, mercredi 11 octobre, à l’occasion de la visite de Dmitri Medvedev. Révélations.

le premier ministre russe, Dmitri Medvedev, a annoncé, hier mercredi 11 octobre, à l’occasion de sa visite de travail à Rabat, la décision de son pays de « livrer des produits militaires » au Maroc, sans toutefois préciser la nature de ces produits. Ne vous y trompez pas: il ne s’agirait pas de livraison du fameux sous-marin russe « Amur 1650 » de quatrième génération, ni de bombardiers Sukhoï, comme cela a été longuement rapporté par les médias spécialisés dans les questions de Défense. Une source militaire contactée par le360 a balayé du revers de la main ces supputations, précisant que « le besoin réel de l’armée marocaine n’est pas en sous-marins, pas plus qu’en aéronefs de guerre, les appareils acquis auprès des USA, notamment les F16, sont suffisants ».

Selon notre source, qui a souhaité ne pas être citée, « le Maroc serait plutôt intéressé par l’acquisition du système de missiles sol-air russe S-400 ». Ce système de grande et moyenne portée, sollicité aussi par de grandes puissances militaires comme la Chine et la Turquie, est destiné à abattre tout type de cible aérienne: avions, drones et missiles de croisière hypersoniques. Le système est capable de tirer simultanément 72 missiles sur 36 cibles éloignées à une distance de 400 km.


« Les Russes sont très forts en armement de défense anti-aérienne », fait valoir notre source, « autant que sur le système d’artillerie, notamment les obusiers ». « C’est là que le besoin est ressenti le plus par l’armée marocaine, dans sa composante terrestre pour être précis, pour mieux protéger ses frontières terrestres ».


Maroc-Algérie, pour équilibrer le rapport de force

« Il faut évaluer les besoins d’un oeil stratégique », indique notre source. Et sur ce point, il suffit juste de constater que le voisin de l’Est, l’Algérie, si on en juge par des photos publiées par le blog algérien Secret Difa3, possèderait quatre régiments de missiles sol-air S-400, dont une partie est déployée à sa frontière Ouest avec le Maroc. D’après le même blog, un contrat de livraison des S-400 en Algérie avait été signé en 2014. Une photo d’un camion BAZ-64022 équipé d’une rampe de lancement bâchée confirme en effet la livraison. Selon l’auteur, la photo a été prise au printemps 2015 lors de tests des armes livrées. Toujours selon le blog, l’Algérie devrait en équiper 3 ou 4 régiments (soit 6 à 8 groupes composés chacun de huit batteries).


Si ces informations venaient à être confirmées, l’Algerie serait le premier acheteur étranger des missiles russes S-400. Il est donc temps que le Maroc équipe ses forces terrestres de ce type de missiles ultramodernes.


How Russia Is Trying to Make America’s F-22 and F-35 as Obsolete as Battleships

Charlie Gao
October 14, 2017

Ever since the development of stealth technology for aircraft, many different systems have been advertised as “stealth killing.” One of the more innovative solutions is the Russian Struna-1/Barrier-E bistatic radar system developed by NNIIRT, a division of the Almaz-Antey Joint Stock Company. Almaz-Antey is the premier air-defense and radar manufacturer in Russia; they make the Tor, Buk and S-400 anti-aircraft systems, as well as their respective search radars. The Struna-1 was originally developed in 1999. A further evolution of Struna-1, the Barrier-E system was later showcased for export at MAKS 2007. While it is not part of Almaz-Antey’s online catalog, it was shown alongside other radars at MAKS 2017. The system is rumored to be deployed around Moscow.

The Struna-1 is different than most radars in that it is a bistatic radar, meaning it relies on the receiver and transmitter of the radar to be in two different locations as opposed to conventional radar technology where the receiver and transmitter are located in the same location. Normal radar systems are limited by the inverse fourth power law. As the radar target goes further away from the transmission source, the strength of the radar signal decays as per the regular inverse square law. However, radar detection works by receiving reflections of the radar signal. With a conventional radar, this results in the received signal being four times weaker than that put out. Stealth works because at a distance, an aircraft can mitigate its radar returns to be small by scattering them and absorbing them using radiation-absorbent materials. This degrades the quality of the radar track so it is harder to distinguish precise information about an aircraft.

The Struna-1 solves this problem by positioning the transmitter in a different location than the receiver. The link between the transmitter and receiver has increased power relative to a conventional radar, as it falls off according to the inverse square law as opposed to the inverse fourth power law. This allows the radar to be more sensitive, as it is effectively acting as a radar tripwire. According to Russian sources, this setup increases the effective radar cross section (RCS) of a target by nearly threefold, and ignores any anti-radar coatings that can scatter the radio waves. This allows the detection of not only stealth aircraft, but other objects with low RCS such as hang gliders and cruise missiles. As many of ten receiver/transmitter tower pairs—each tower is called Priyomno-Peredayushchiy Post (PPP) in Russian publications—can be placed. Sources vary in potential configurations of the towers, but the maximum span between two single towers is 50km. This leads to a maximum theoretical perimeter of 500km.

These individual towers have relatively low power consumption, and they do not emit as much energy as traditional radars, making them less vulnerable to anti-radiation weapons. The towers are mobile, allowing for forward deployment in times of conflict. They rely on microwave data links to communicate with each other and a centralized monitoring station, which can be located at a significant distance from the system. The distributed nature also allows the system to keep operating if one node goes down, albeit with less precision. The low height of the transmitter and receiver towers (only 25m off the ground) make Struna-1 very good at detecting low altitude targets, a target set that conventional radars often have trouble with.

Limitations of the Struna-1 include a low detection altitude. The nature of the system results in the detection range being a rough biased parabola between the receiver and transmitter. This limits the detection altitude to around 7km at the tallest point, with the maximum detection range going down as one gets closer to the transmitter/receiver towers. The transverse size of the detection zone islikewise limited, being around 1.5km close to the towers to 12km at the optimal point between the towers. The small size of the detection zone limits the use of the Struna-1 system as a tripwire, it cannot replace traditional radars as an overall search mechanism. However with its high precision tracks of stealthy aircraft, it would serve as a good counterpart to other longer-band radar systems such as Sunflower, which provide less precise tracks of planes. The Struna-1 cannot act as a targeting radar due to its inability to provide constant radar illumination tracking a target, so it cannot be used to guide in semi-active surface-to-air missiles.

While the Struna-1 bistatic radar is not a be-all end-all detection solution for stealth aircraft, it could pose a significant threat to stealth NATO aircraft in a future conflict. Strike aircraft with stealth features are particularly vulnerable, the strike role tends to favor flight profiles that might cause aircraft to fly into the Struna-1’s detection range. In tandem with other modern “stealth-defeating” radar systems, the Struna-1 could provide critical information to an adversary on the position and movement of stealth aircraft.

Charlie Gao studied Political and Computer Science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national security issues.

Image: Reuters

Les Kurdes favorables au dialogue avec Bagdad après l’opération militaire

Le gouvernement du Kurdistan irakien s’est déclaré jeudi favorable à un dialogue avec le pouvoir central à Bagdad dont les forces viennent de chasser les combattants kurdes de zones disputées.
« Le cabinet du Kurdistan accueille favorablement l’initiative du Premier ministre Haider al-Abadi d’entamer des négociations pour régler les problèmes en suspens selon la Constitution et les principes de partenariat », selon un communiqué officiel publié à Erbil, la capitale du Kurdistan.
Le communiqué a été publié après une réunion du cabinet tenue sous la présidence du Premier ministre kurde Nechervan Barzani et du vice-Premier ministre Qubad Talabani.
« Le Kurdistan demande l’aide et la contribution de la communauté internationale en parrainant ce dialogue », selon le gouvernement de cette région autonome.
Lundi et mardi, les troupes fédérales irakiennes et des milices alliées ont évincé les forces kurdes de la riche province pétrolière de Kirkouk (nord-est), ainsi que des provinces de Ninive (nord) et de Diyala (est).
Cette opération visait à rétablir l’autorité du pouvoir central dans les zones disputées du pays. Elle intervenait après un référendum d’indépendance kurde organisé le 25 septembre lors duquel le « oui » l’avait massivement emporté, provoquant la colère de Bagdad.
Mardi, M. Abadi a fait une offre de dialogue tout en affirmant que ce référendum était « terminé et faisait désormais partie du passé », de même que « son résultat ».
Il avait fait de l’abandon du résultat de cette consultation une condition préalable à l’ouverture d’un dialogue avec la région autonome.
L’opération de Bagdad a permis –presque sans combats– au pouvoir central de reprendre le contrôle des zones tenues par les Kurdes depuis 2013. Ces derniers sont désormais largement cantonnés à leurs trois provinces autonomes du nord du pays.
Les Kurdes avaient progressivement gagné du terrain à la suite de l’invasion américaine de 2003 et de la percée fulgurante du groupe Etat islamique (EI) en 2014.
Malgré la volonté de dialogue affichée, des tensions subsistent entre Bagdad et le Kurdistan.
Kosrat Rassoul, vice-président du Kurdistan irakien et haut dirigeant de l’Union patriotique du Kurdistan (UPK), a affirmé que « l’armée irakienne et la police fédérale dans la province de Kirkouk étaient des forces d’occupation ».
Jeudi, un tribunal de Bagdad a émis un mandat d’arrêt contre lui pour « propos provocateurs envers l’armée irakienne », selon une source judiciaire.
« Le tribunal considère ces propos comme une provocation contre les forces armées conformément à l’article 226 du code pénal », a précisé Abdel Sattar al-Bireqdar, porte-parole du Conseil suprême de la magistrature. Il risque au maximum sept ans de prison ou une amende.
Par ailleurs, le gouvernement irakien s’en est pris vivement jeudi, sans le nommer, à l’accord signé la veille par le géant semi-public russe du pétrole Rosneft avec les autorités du Kurdistan irakien.
Le ministère irakien du Pétrole a souligné dans un communiqué que « ce département et le gouvernement fédéral irakien sont les deux seules parties avec lesquelles il faut traiter pour conclure des accords concernant le développement et les investissements dans le secteur de l’énergie ».
Rosneft avait annoncé mercredi un accord avec les autorités du Kurdistan irakien, à qui il compte payer jusqu’à 400 millions de dollars (338 millions d’euros) pour exploiter ses vastes ressources en hydrocarbures, disputées avec le pouvoir central de Bagdad.


Irak: Bagdad et les Kurdes se donnent 24 heures de plus pour éviter l’affrontement

Bagdad et le Kurdistan irakien se sont accordés dimanche une journée de plus pour éviter par le dialogue tout affrontement armé, alors que leurs troupes, massées dans la riche province pétrolière de Kirkouk, se font face.
En fin de matinée, le président irakien Fouad Massoum, lui-même kurde, a débuté une rencontre avec Massoud Barzani, le président du Kurdistan autonome.
De hauts responsables de l’Union patriotique du Kurdistan (UPK), le parti de M. Massoum, grand rival du Parti démocratique kurde (PDK) de M. Barzani, participaient également à cette réunion à Doukan, dans la province de Souleimaniyeh, fief de l’UPK.
M. Massoum va soumettre aux responsables kurdes « un projet », a indiqué à l’AFP l’un de ses conseillers qui l’accompagnait, Abdallah Aliwaï. Il a refusé de divulguer la teneur du projet mais a expliqué qu’il se basait « sur le dialogue et la négociation pour éviter le conflit et la violence ».
Les peshmergas –les combattants kurdes– se divisent entre les deux partis. Les forces kurdes présentes dans la province de Kirkouk, que les forces irakiennes cherchent à déloger, dépendent de l’UPK.
Alors que les politiques tentent de reprendre langue, des milliers de combattants se font face dans cette province située au nord de Bagdad, trois semaines après la tenue d’un référendum au Kurdistan qui a exacerbé les tensions.
Tôt dimanche, un photographe de l’AFP a vu les troupes irakiennes toujours massées face aux peshmergas, qui tenaient leurs positions, sans qu’aucun mouvement ne soit visible.
Les forces, qui disent « attendre les ordres » de leurs commandements, ont obtenu un nouveau délai de 24 heures, selon le responsable kurde.
Saad al-Hadithi, porte-parole du Premier ministre irakien Haider al-Abadi, a refusé tout commentaire au sujet de ce délai.
Il a toutefois affirmé à l’AFP que « les forces gouvernementales irakiennes ne veulent pas et ne peuvent pas porter atteinte aux citoyens, qu’ils soient kurdes ou autres, mais elles doivent faire appliquer la Constitution ».
La loi, a-t-il poursuivi, prévoit que « le gouvernement central exerce sa souveraineté sur les zones que la Constitution définit comme disputées (dont la province de Kirkouk fait partie, NDLR), de même qu’en matière de commerce extérieur, notamment de production et d’export de pétrole ».
L’Irak exige de reprendre le contrôle des positions tenues par les peshmergas depuis la débâcle de l’armée et de la police irakiennes face à la percée fulgurante du groupe Etat islamique (EI) en juin 2014.
Outre des bases militaires, les combattants du Kurdistan –région qui bénéficie depuis 1991 d’une autonomie étoffée au fil des ans– se sont également emparés d’infrastructures et de champs pétroliers de cette province disputée de Kirkouk.
Les forces irakiennes, gouvernementales et paramilitaires, avaient laissé aux peshmergas jusqu’au milieu de la nuit de samedi à dimanche pour s’en retirer, avaient affirmé les responsables kurdes.
Une fois ce délai expiré, combattants, habitants et politiques disaient redouter le pire.
Dans la nuit, des civils kurdes circulaient en armes dans la ville de Kirkouk, tandis que leur gouverneur, Najm Eddine Karim, limogé par Bagdad mais qui reste à son poste, prévenait: « les habitants aideront les peshmergas (…) nous ne laisserons aucune force pénétrer dans notre ville ».
Jusqu’à présent, les forces irakiennes n’ont pas entamé de combat, se contentant de progresser et de reprendre certaines bases désertées peu avant par les peshmergas.
Leur objectif n’est pas la ville de Kirkouk, indiquent même les autorités à Erbil. Elles veulent reprendre « les champs pétroliers, une base militaire et un aéroport » mitoyen.
En outre, Bagdad, dont le budget est grévé par la chute des cours du pétrole et trois années de mobilisation et de combats contre l’EI, entend reprendre la main sur les 250.000 b/j de pétrole des trois champs de la province de Kirkouk: Khormala, pris par les Kurdes en 2008, et Havana et Bay Hassan, pris en 2014.
Le Kurdistan, qui traverse la plus grave crise économique de son histoire, pourrait lourdement pâtir de la perte de ces champs qui assurent 40% de ses exportations pétrolières.
Bagdad, en crise ouverte avec Erbil depuis la tenue le 25 septembre du référendum d’indépendance y compris dans des zones disputées comme Kirkouk, a récemment multiplié les mesures économiques et judiciaires pour faire plier le Kurdistan.
Autre mesure de rétorsion, l’Iran, hostile au référendum, a fermé dimanche trois postes-frontières permettant le passage de biens et de personnes du Kurdistan irakien à son territoire, a indiqué à l’AFP un responsable kurde.
Washington, allié à la fois des Kurdes et des forces irakiennes dans la lutte contre l’EI, a affirmé vouloir « calmer les choses ».

Analyse sur le rapprochement entre la Turquie et l’Iran

Etude de Cemil Dogac Ipek, docteur en Relations internationales à l’Université Ataturk

Analyse sur le rapprochement entre la Turquie et l’Iran

          L’Iran et la Turquie sont deux puissances régionales qui partagent une frontière de 560 kilomètres qui n’a pas changé depuis près de 4 siècles. Outre l’ambassade de la Turquie à Téhéran, la Turquie a un consulat général à Tabriz, Ourmia et Masshad. L’Iran a de son côté comme représentation en Turquie, l’ambassade d’Iran à Ankara et les consulats généraux d’Istanbul, d’Erzurum et de Trabzon. La Turquie vise à développer ses relations avec l’Iran, sur les principes de respect, de bon voisinage et de ne pas se mêler des affaires internes entre eux. Les deux pays font des efforts en vue de développer et faire avancer le dialogue politique et les relations bilatérales via les visites réciproques de hauts rangs réalisées en particulier ces derniers temps.

L’un des résultats du référendum illégal d’indépendance tenu il y a quelques jours en Irak du nord, a été le rapprochement entre les deux pays. Ce rapprochement, est également évalué par certains comme une nouvelle formation d’alliance au Moyen Orient. Actuellement, il est encore tôt pour qualifier ce rapprochement d’alliance. Toutefois, si le rapprochement entre les deux pays va vers une alliance, ce ne sera pas une surprise.

Depuis de longues années, la Turquie et l’Iran sont en concurrence dans une large géographie allant de l’Asie du sud-est au Caucase, de l’Asie centrale au Moyen Orient. La concurrence n’a jamais disparue. Mais, nous savons que les deux Etats sont en coopération dans les traités où la sécurité est primordiale telles que le traité de Sa’dabad et le pacte de Bagdad, et les organisations centrées sur l’économie et le commerces telles que le RCD, le D-8 et ECO.

Dans ce contexte, la visite du président de la République turque Recep Tayyip Erdogan il y a quelques jours en Iran a tourné l’attention du Moyen Orient vers les relations turco-iraniennes. Nous pouvons affirmer que la dimension sécuritaire est très en avant plan dans les relations turco-iraniennes ces derniers temps en raison de la visite du chef d’état-major turc Hulusi Akar en Iran à la veille de celle du président Erdogan, et de la visite du chef d’état-major iranien Mohammed Bakri en Turquie au mois d’aout.

Le cours des évènements actuel qui va vers une division de l’Irak et de la Syrie, rapproche Ankara et Téhéran. L’approche commune adoptée au terme du référendum illégale réalisé au nord de l’Irak, font hausser les commentaires selon lesquels ce rapprochement pourrait atteindre une dimension supérieure. Dans ce contexte, la visite du président de la République turque Erdogan à Téhéran la 4e réunion du haut conseil de coopération, paraît importante aux yeux de l’opinion publique. Un grand nombre d’accords allant du tourisme au secteur bancaire, de la coopération économique au sujet du gaz naturel, ont été signés lors de cette visite du président Erdogan. Par ailleurs, le volume commercial de 30 milliards de dollars et l’usage des monnaies nationales, ont été les sujets prééminents. De plus, des négociations à savoir quel genre de politique sera suivi contre la décision de référendum de l’administration régionale kurde d’Irak du nord et comment seront dirigées les régions de désescalade en Syrie, ont eu lieu. Cette situation montre que les deux pays sont en quête de coopération étroite dans les domaines de la défense et des renseignements.

Ankara et Téhéran sont déterminés à faire renoncer Barzani à son erreur, en soutenant les mesures prises par Bagdad contre Arbil. Les déclarations et décisions annoncées par Erdogan lors de ses entretiens avec les leaders iraniens à Téhéran, montre cela. Par exemple, l’approche commune adoptée par les leaders iraniens au sujet de la déclaration d’Erdogan, selon laquelle Israël et les Etats-Unis sont derrière cette initiative entreprise par Barzani, est appréciable. Une autre décision prise lors des entretiens de Téhéran, est l’alourdissement des sanctions contre l’administration de Barzani. Ces nouvelles sévères sanctions sont pour le moment inconnues. La Turquie est en particulier restée prudente et devrait maintenir cette approche.

Les organisations terroristes telles que le PKK/PYD soutenu et utilisé comme outils par certains pays occidentaux dans leurs politiques moyen-orientales, ont obtenu certains acquis en Irak et en Syrie. Ces acquis poussent la Turquie et l’Iran à mettre de côté leurs différences de vues sur ces sujets, et à coopérer dans le domaine de la sécurité. A ce niveau, il faut que les alliés de la Turquie qui ferment les yeux sur les intérêts vitaux de la Turquie dans la région, commencent à comprendre que cela pousse Ankara à coopérer avec Moscou et Téhéran. Car ce qu’il se passe, est une question d’existence pour la Turquie. Les alliés de la Turquie doivent comprendre cette situation et faire ce que nécessite l’alliance. Dans le cas contraire, il sera inéluctable que la Turquie se rapproche de l’Iran et de la Russie.

La Turquie et l’Iran sont actuellement conscients de la menace qui les vise dans la région. C’est pourquoi, leur rapprochement va continuer.  Les craintes communes sur la sécurité accélèrent ce rapprochement. La lutte de supériorité en Syrie et en Irak entre les deux pays, a causé le renforcement de l’organisation terroriste PKK qui menace l’intégrité territoriale des deux pays. C’est peut-être pour cette raison que la coopération est désormais devenue une obligation. Alors, est ce que la Turquie et l’Iran pourront mettre de côté leur concurrence historique et se diriger vers une alliance étroite ? Les développements qui auront lieu dans la région dans la période à suivre, nous le montreront.


The story of another time the US considered attacking North Korea

Writer Todd Crowell recalls events when Richard Nixon was president of the US and Washington was considering an attack on North Korea.


MAY 2, 2017 4:55 PM (UTC+8)

Recent headlines suggest the United States is considering a range of “options” to curb North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile ambitions, up to and including air strikes.

What seems to have been forgotten is that there was a moment between the two countries in the past that also involved the planning of an air attack by the US.

Though it eventually never took place, it’s not as easy for me to forget, as I was personally involved.

There was nothing to indicate that the day April 15, 1969, would be any different from any other day as winter gave way to cherry blossom season in Japan.

I was a young air force lieutenant stationed with the 347th Fighter Wing at Yokota air base as an intelligence officer for a squadron of F-4 Phantoms.

I began my daily routine by stopping by the communications shop to pick up the morning “flemsies,” a military version of teletype print outs. From them I would construct a short briefing for the benefit of what was grandly called the “battle staff.”

On that particular morning there was no indication that anything out of the ordinary was taking place. There was the usual complement of war news from “down south,” meaning Vietnam and Cambodia, where the war was still going strong, and some information on deployment of Russian fighters in the Far East.

As I entered the War Room to give the 7 a.m. briefing, I could see immediately that something was different.

The room consisted of a bank of seats culminating at the top dais where the wing commander and his deputy sat, and people usually slowly drifted in.

But this day every seat was occupied and, it seemed, every eye was on me. I went over to a major sitting in the corner, and bent down to ask him what was going on.

“North Korean jets shot down one of our planes,” he said.

“Oh,” I said. I stood up and turned to face the briefing audience, fully aware that as I repeated what he had just told me, I was probably the last in the room to know.

So I added, optimistically, “We’ll provide more information when we get it.”

That is how I learned about what could have become a seminal event of the Cold War in Asia. Two North Korean MiG-21s ambushed and shot down a U.S. Navy EC-121 electronic surveillance aircraft with the loss of all her crew of 31 sailors and marines over the Sea of Japan.

Within in an hour I was ordered to grab my kit and we were hustled aboard a C-130 transport plane and flown from Yokota to Osan Air Force Base in South Korea, the advance base for our wing of jet fighters.

For the next week we were on a war footing, fully expecting to launch air strikes on North Korea. I still remember our target: Pukchang-ni air base north of the capital, Pyongyang. It is still an important North Korean Air Force base, home for MiG-23 and MiG-29 fighters.

Everyone was on edge. Pilots, who usually could barely conceal their boredom on our briefings, suddenly became very attentive to what we had to say about defenses they might encounter on bombing runs.

We pulled together maps and photos and anything else we could find out about Pukchang-ni in order to make target folders. There wasn’t much we could do, considering how skillfully the North concealed its assets, including placing many aircraft safely in underground bunkers.

Cropped and modified version map from "Historical Crises in North Korea Lessons from the USS Pueblo and EC-121 Incidents—1968 and 1969" by Richard A. Mobley from Studies in Intelligence Volume 59, Number 1 (March 2015). Photo: Central Intelligence Agency

Cropped and modified version map from “Historical Crises in North Korea Lessons from the USS Pueblo and EC-121 Incidents—1968 and 1969” by Richard A. Mobley from Studies in Intelligence Volume 59, Number 1 (March 2015). Photo: CIA.

But after a week of fevered activity we were ordered to stand down. No airstrikes were ordered, and I returned to the comforts of Japan — able to enjoy the cherry blossoms instead of enduring the tag end of a cold Korean winter.

This was former President Richard Nixon’s first real crisis, coming about three months after he was sworn in, or roughly the same time frame President Donald Trump sits in today.

Nixon and his advisors considered several responses, including air strikes on North Korean military facilities. After debating various options, he decided against retaliatory air strikes. Presumably, he believed that one war at a time was enough.

Instead, he dispatched a small armada of warships, built around several aircraft carriers, into the Sea of Japan as a show of force — very much like the flotilla sent into the region by Trump.

But after a time, they departed and Nixon simply ordered the reconnaissance flights to resume, albeit escorted by fighters.

He faced the same conundrum that bedevils policy makers to this day: namely, what kind of force could the U.S. use that would be tough enough to punish North Korea but not so tough that Pyongyang would think it was prelude to a general invasion, requiring a massive retaliation?

Remember, this was a time when nuclear weapons were only a gleam in the eye of supreme leader Kim Il-sung.

The shooting down of the EC-121 was the single largest loss of U.S. aircrew during the Cold War.

There is no memorial to the crew, but the U.S. Navy detachment at Misawa Air Force Base places a floral wreath on the edge of the Sea of Japan and watches it drift out to sea. They have been doing this every April 15 for 47 years.

Todd Crowell is the author of The Coming War Between China and Japan published as an Amazon Single Kindle. This article was first published in the magazine of the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan. You can see it here.


North Korean’s Mig-21 interceptors

A U.S. Navy Lockheed EC-121M Warning Star (BuNo 143209, tal code JQ-14) of fleet air reconnaissance squadron VQ-2 Batmen in the early 1970s. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

A U.S. Navy Lockheed EC-121M Warning Star (BuNo 143209, tal code JQ-14) of fleet air reconnaissance squadron VQ-2 Batmen in the early 1970s



How to shoot down a stealth fighter

Posted in Design by Scott Locklin on January 20, 2017

Editorial note: I actually wrote most of this five years ago, but was reluctant to publish it for misguided patriotic reasons. Since people are starting to talk about it, I figure I might as well bring some more sense to the discussion.

I’ve already gone on record as being against the F-35. Now it’s time to wax nerdy as to why this is a dumb idea. I’m not against military spending. I’m against spending money on things which are dumb. Stealth fighters are dumb. Stealth bombers: still pretty dumb, but significantly less dumb.




I have already mentioned the fact that the thing is designed for too many roles. Aircraft should be designed for one main role, and, well, it’s fine to use them for something else if they work well for that. The recipe for success is the one which has historically produced good airplanes: the P38 Lightning, the Focke-Wulf Fw-190, the F-4, the F-16, the Su-27, and the A-10. All of these were designed with one mission in mind. They ended up being very good at lots of different things. Multi-objective design optimization though, is moronic, and gets us aircraft like the bureaucratic atrocity known as the F-111 Aardvark, whose very name doesn’t exactly evoke air combat awesomeness.

What is stealth? Stealth is a convergence of technologies which makes an aircraft electronically unobservable, primarily via Radar. The anti-radar technology is two-fold: the skin of the aircraft can be radar absorbent, but the main trick is to build the aircraft in a shape which scatters the radio energy away from the radar set which sent the signal.  What is a fighter? A fighter is an aircraft that shoots down other aircraft. Fighters use guns, infrared guided missiles and radar guided missiles. Most modern radar guided missiles work by pointing the missile more or less in the target direction, illuminating the target with radar (from the jet, or from the missile itself; generally from the missile itself these days), and launching. The wavelength of the missile and jet radar is dictated by the physical size of the missile or jet. The main purpose of radar-resistant technology for a stealth fighter is avoiding being detected in the first place by enemy radar, but also defeating radar guided air to air missiles.

Of course, what nobody will tell you: the air to air radar guided missiles haven’t historically been very effective. The US has some of the best ones; the AMRAAM. They’ve only shot down 9 aircraft in combat thus far using this weapon; it has a kill probability of around 50% depending on who you ask. Previous generations of such missiles (the AIM-4AIM-7 and Phoenix) were fairly abysmal. The AIM-4 was a complete failure. The AIM-7, also a turkey in its early versions with a 10% kill probability in the Vietnam War (later versions were better). The Phoenix never managed a combat success, despite several attempts, though it was somehow considered a program success anyway, mostly by paper pushing war nerds. By and large, the venerable IR guided sidewinder works best. Amusingly, the Air Force thought the beyond visual range radar guided air to air missile would make stuff like guns and dogfighting obsolete … back in the 1950s. They were so confident in this, most of the Vietnam era fighters didn’t come equipped with guns. They were completely wrong then. They’re almost certainly wrong now as well. Yet, that is the justification for fielding the gold plated turd known as the F-35; a fighter so bad, it can’t even out fight a 45 year old design.

Oh. Well, stealthy planes can defeat the IR missiles that end up being used most of the time, right? No, actually. The stealthy technology can’t really defeat such missiles, which can now home in on a target which is merely warmer than the ambient air. I could build such a sensor using about $40 worth of parts from Digikey. All aircraft are warmer than the ambient air, even “stealthy” ones. Friction is one of the fundamental laws of physics. So, if a stealth fighter is located at all, by eyesight, ground observers or low frequency radars or whatever: an IR missile is a big danger. Worse, the planes which the US is most worried about are Russian made, and virtually all of them come with excellent IR detectors built into the airframe itself.  Airplane nerds call this technology IRST, and the Russians are extremely good at it; they’ve had world beating versions of this technology since the 1980s. Even ancient and shitty Russian jets come with it built into the airframe. The US seems to have mostly stopped thinking about it since the F-14. A few of the most recent F-18s have it strapped as an expensive afterthought to fuel tanks (possibly going live by 2018), and the F-35 (snigger) claims to have something which shoots sharks with laser beam eyes at enemy missiles, but most of the combat ready inventory lacks such sensors.

There is no immunity to gunfire, of course, so if you see a Stealth fighter with your eyeballs, and are close enough to draw a 6, you can shoot it down.

Now, it’s worth thinking a bit about the fighter role. What good is an invisible fighter? There are a couple of issues with the concept, which has never actually been usefully deployed in combat anywhere in all of history. It is also rarely spoken of. If you want to shoot down other jets with your stealth fighter, you have to find them first. To find them, the best way to do it is using radar. Maybe you can do this with AWACS.  AWACS somewhat assume air superiority has already been established. They’re big lumbering things everyone can see, both because they have giant signatures to radar, and because they are emitting radar signals. Maybe you can turn on your stealth fighter’s radar briefly, and hope the enemy’s electronic warfare facilities can’t see it, or hope the passive radar sensors work. Either way, you had better hope it is a fairly big country, and it is dark outside, or someone could find your stealth fighter. People did a reasonable job of spotting planes with binoculars and telephones back in the day. Modern jets are a little more than twice as fast as WW-2 planes, but that’s still plenty of time to alert air defences. Invisibility to radar guided missiles is only of partial utility; if you’re spotted, and your aircraft isn’t otherwise superior in air combat (the F-22 is), you stand a decent chance of being shot down. So, for practical use as a fighter, stealthiness is only somewhat theoretically advantageous. It’s really the attack/bomber role where Stealthiness shines as a concept; mostly for taking out air defences on the ground.

The F-117 (which was a misnamed stealth attack aircraft, an actual use for the technology) was shot down in the Serbian war by a Hungarian baker  by the name of Zoltan Dani.  The way he  did it was as follows: first, he had working radars. He did this by only turning them on briefly, and moving them around a lot, to avoid wild-weasel bombing raids. He also used couriers and land line telephones instead of radio to communicate with the rest of his command structure; he basically had no radio signal which could have been observed by US attack aircraft. He also had “primitive” hand tuned low-frequency radars. Low frequency means long wavelength. Long wavelength means little energy is absorbed by the radar absorbent materials, and, more importantly, almost none of it is scattered away from the radar receiver. Since the wavelength of a low-frequency radar is comparable to the size of the aircraft itself, the fine detail which scatters away modern centimeter-wavelength radars doesn’t have much effect on meter-wavelength radar. Mr Dani shot his SA-3 missiles up, guided it in using a joystick, and that was the end of the F-117, a trophy part of which now hangs in the garage of a Hungarian baker in Serbia.


best hunting trophy ever

Similarly, if you want to shoot down stealth fighters, you need an integrated air defense system which uses long wavelength radars to track targets, and you dispatch interceptors to shoot them down with IR missiles, guided in by the air defense radar. Which is exactly how the Soviet Mig-21 system worked. It worked pretty well in Vietnam. It would probably work well against F-35’s, which are not as maneuverable as Mig-21’s in a dogfight. The old Mig-21 certainly costs less; I could probably put a Mig-21 point defense system on my credit cards. Well, not really, but it’s something achievable by a resourceful individual with a bit of hard work. A small country (I dunno; Syria for example) can afford thousands of these things. The US probably can’t even afford hundreds of F-35s.

Maybe the F-35 is going to be an OK replacement for the F-117? Well, sorta. First off, it is nowhere near as stealthy. Its supersonic abilities are inherently unstealthy: sonic boom isn’t stealthy, afterburners are not stealthy, and supersonic flight itself is pretty unstealthy. It does have an internal “bomb bay.” You can stuff one 2000lb JDAM in it (or a 1000lb one in the absurd VTOL F-35B). The F-117 had twice the capacity, because it was designed to be a stealth attack plane from the get go, and didn’t have to make any compromises to try to get it to do 10 other things. You could probably hang more bombs on an F-35’s ridiculously stubby little wings. But bombs hanging on a wing pylon make a plane non-stealthy. So do wing pylons. In clean, “stealthy” mode, the thing can only fly 584 miles to a target, making it, well, I guess something with short range and limited bomb carrying capability might be useful. The F-117 had twice the range. So, an F-35 is about a quarter as effective in the attack role as the F-117 was, without even factoring in the fact that it is only about a twice the radar cross section of an F-117. It kind of sucks how the F-35 costs a lot more than the F-117, which was designed for and demonstrably more useful for this mission. It’s also rather confusing to me as to why we need 2000 such things if they ain’t fighters with a significant edge against, say, a late model F-16 or Superhornet. But then, I’m not a retired Air Force General working at Lockheed. I’m just some taxpayer in my underpants looking on this atrocity in complete disbelief.

There are three things which are actually needed by Air Force procurement.  We have a replacement for the F-15 in air superiority role: the F-22. It works, and it is excellent; far more effective than the F-35, cheaper and stealthier to boot. We can’t afford many of them, and they have problems with suffocating their pilots, but we do have them in hand. If it were up to me, I’d keep the stealthy ones we got, make them attack planes, and build 500 more without the fancy stealth paint for air superiority and ground attack. It will be cheaper than the F-35, and more capable. Everyone will want to “update the computers.” Don’t.

The most urgent need is for a replacement for the F-16; a small, cheap fighter plane that can be used in the interceptor/air superiority role. The US needs it. So do the allies. It doesn’t need to be stealthy; stealth is more useful in the attack role. Building a better F-16 is doable: the Russian MIG-35, and Dassault Rafale all manage it (maybe the Eurofighter Typhoon also, though it isn’t cheap). I’m sure the US could do even better if they’d concentrate on building a fighter, rather than a do-everything monstrosity like the F-35. I’m sure you can strap bombs to a super F-16 and use it in the attack role as well, once your stealth attack planes have taken out the local SAMS and your air superiority planes have taken out the fighters. Making a fighter plane with a bomb-bay for stealth, though, is a loser idea. If I were king of the world: build a delta winged F-16. The prototype already exists, and there was nothing wrong with the idea. It’s pathetic and disgusting that the national manufacturers simply can’t design even a small and cheap replacement for the ancient T-38 supersonic trainers. All of the postulated ones under consideration are foreign designs. The best one is actually a Russian design; the Yak-130.

The second need is a replacement for the F-117 for stealthy attack on radar and infrastructure. F-35 doesn’t even match the F-117 in this role. The F-22 almost does, but it is expensive and largely wasted on this role. I thought theBird of Prey was a pretty good idea; something like that would serve nicely. Maybe one of the stealthy drones will serve this purpose. Whatever it is, you could build lots of them for the price of a few dozen F-35s.

Finally, we urgently need a decent attack plane for close air support. The F-35, and F-35B will be a titanic failure in this role. They have neither the armor nor endurance required for this. You could shoot it down with a large caliber rifle shooting rounds that cost $0.50. This one is dirt simple: even the A-10 is too complicated. Just build a propeller driven thing. Build a turboprop A-1 Skyraider. The Tucano is too small to cover all the bases. Presumably someone can still build a F4U Corsair or F6F Hellcat and stick a turboprop in it, some titanium plates around the cockpit, and shove a 30mm cannon in the schnozz. People build such things in their backyards. It shouldn’t be beyond the magnificent engineering chops of the present day “Skunk Works” at Lockheed or one of the other major manufacturers. Using inflation on the A-1 or calculating such a device as approximately 1/4 of a C-130, you should be able to build one in the $5m range and have 30-50 of them for each F-35 they replace.

The entire concept of “Stealth Fighter” is mostly a fraud. Stealth bombers and tactical attack planes have a reasonable use case. Stealth fighters are ridiculous. The F-35 is a gold plated turd which should be flushed down the toilet.


The Parable of Zoltán Dani: Dragon Slayer

Ronald Bernard – Partie 3


Partie 3, témoignage boulversant de Ronald Bernarht. Ceci étant je ne cautionne pas tout ce qu’il dit, et notamment le passage sur le Protocol des Sages de Sions. On y découvre qu’il a été abusé lui aussi par son père.  On ne peut qu’être révolté par l’enfance qui devient un vulgaire produit commercial comme toute chose. Surtout quand il parle de ces infirmières parties en Inde.  Qui les envoyé ? Pour le compte de qui ? Et surtout qui les a reçu ? Qui a organisé ce commerce ? Qui sont les responsables locaux ?  L’Inde c’est vraiment un pays de « merde ». Comme l’avait dit notre ami Stratégika il n’y a rien à espérer de leur sytème. Vous etes « intouchables », vous etes condamnés à être rien.

Mecanisme de l’eternel endettement


Ce documentaire, partie 2, fait suite à la partie 1 publié sur le site de Dominique.


Ronald Bernard explique les principes de l’eternel endettement, et du trés troublant ESM, Mécanisme de Stabilité Européen. Comment ceux qui ont le pouvoir -entre 8.000 et 8.500 personnes – s’arrangent pour rester au sommet de la pyramide, et ceux qui sont en bas, y resteront. Il explique qu’accéder au sommet est impossible. Le coeur de tout ce dispositif c’est la Banque des Regléments Internationnaux -où Bank for International Settlements  BIS-. Celle ci suit les ordres des 8.500 plus puissants, ordonne aux Banques Centrales Mondiales, les gouvernments s’executent. Le restant n’est que baratin.