Hardware Dep't Bulletin . . .

DEFENSE TECH follows military happenings world wide. Of interest, India has decided to buy 129 French Rafale fighters after comparing "against everything from the Eurofighter Typhoon and Mig-29 to the American made F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and F-16." That's the Rafale, below. They will definitely give China and Pakistan something to ponder, because gaining air superiority over the Indians isn't going to get any easier in the next decade.

Next, we have the dispatch of HMS Dauntless to the Falklands, to the relief of the inhabitants. You see, over the last 18 months, the Argentine government has become ever more truculent, and it's starting to look like the Argies might just be stupid enough to give it another try. While Dauntless is a mere 7,000 tons, according to Denfense Tech, it's not your average destroyer, and the Argies really don't want to try this one on for size:

The Type 45 destroyer is the most advanced anti-aircraft and anti-ballistic ship in the world equipped with 48 Sea Viper missiles and the Sampson radar, which is more advanced than Heathrow air traffic control.

Last, it appears the USAF is up-grading its bunker-busters. It seems they spent close to $60 million on 16 of 'em, but they're not sure they will go deep enough to take out the deeply buried Iranian nuclear facilities, but another 80 or 90 million bucks should fix the problem. As it is now, the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) is a 30,000-pound tool for penetrating 32 stories of reinforced concrete, carried in pairs by a B-2.

The decision to ask now for more money to develop the weapon was directly related to efforts by the U.S. military’s Central Command to prepare military options against Iran as quickly as possible, according to a person briefed on the request for additional funds.

Hmmm . . . 6 months, 12 months?

Limitations . . .

When the only world-class thing
you have is your military,
a lot of countries begin to look
like they really need a war.

Bedpans or Bombs? Decisions, Decisions . . . .

Wow!

With savings like this nearly 20 more wars could be funded.

Maybe a debate between Big Pharma/Big Insurance and the Military/Industrial Complex is in order.




Let the campaign donations begin . . . .



(Cross-posted from Moved to Vancouver)

Whoops! That'll Cost You More, stevie . . . .

And further to Alison and Boris, compliments of this evening's Globe and Mail:

Defence plan to cost $20-billion more than announced

STEVEN CHASE - May 14, 2008 at 5:53 PM EDT

Globe and Mail Update

Ottawa — Canada's new defence strategy will cost up to $50-billion over two decades – $20-billion more than what the Harper government announced earlier this week – one of the country's top generals said Wednesday as the military scrambled to quell criticism that the plan lacks sufficient detail.

Lieutenant-General Walter Natynczyk, Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, said the military would spend between $45-billion and $50-billion on planes, combat vehicles, ships and fighters under the Canada First Defence Strategy, the Conservative government's plan for the military that was originally released Monday without comprehensive details.

_______________


Mr. Harper's office has exerted stronger control over the Department of Defence's communications in recent months, particularly after the treatment of detainees captured by Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan made headlines.

stevie has to be receiving "A's" in the "Follow the bush-league Model of Incompetence" course he's enrolled in.

My gawd. Not only does he make incredibly stupid moves to ruin Canada's image worldwide, he also has no grasp of how to pay for his actions.

Just like georgie: Let future generations pick up the tab for a "legacy" of military stupidity . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)

The More Things "Change" . . . .

From AlterNet yesterday:

Will Clinton and Obama Continue Bush's High-Priced Militarism?
By Robert Scheer, Truthdig - Posted on February 6, 2008

Will your favorite Dem challenge the bloated military budget Bush proposed for 2009?

Curb your enthusiasm. Even if your favored candidate did well on Super Tuesday, ask yourself if he or she will seriously challenge the bloated military budget that President Bush has proposed for 2009. If not, military spending will rise to a level exceeding any other year since the end of World War II, and there will be precious little left over to improve education and medical research, fight poverty, protect the environment or do anything else a decent person might care about.

You cannot spend well over $700 billion on "national security," running what the White House predicts will be more than $400 billion in annual deficits for the next two years, and yet find the money to improve the quality of life on the home front.

_______________


Which one of the likely winners from either party would lead the battle to cut the military budget, and where would the winner find support in Congress? Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have treated the military budget as sacrosanct with their Senate votes and their campaign rhetoric. Clinton is particularly clear on the record as favoring spending more, not less, on the military.

John McCain, who previously distinguished himself as a deficit hawk and was almost in a class by himself in taking on the rapacious defense contractors, has thrown in the towel with his inane support for staying in Iraq till "victory," even if it should take a century. It is simply illogical to call for fiscal restraint while committing to an open-ended war in Iraq that has already cost upward of $700 billion.

_______________


The U.S. already spends more than the rest of the world combined on its military, without a sophisticated enemy in sight. The Bush budget cuts not a single weapons system, including the most expensive ones, those designed to combat a Soviet military that no longer exists. Those sophisticated weapons have nothing to do with combating terrorism and everything to do with jobs and profits that motivate both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

It is not known whether Osama bin Laden even possesses a rowboat in his naval arsenal, but that won't stop Joe Lieberman from pushing, as is his habit, for an increase in the defense budget to double the funding for the $3.4-billion submarines built in his home state of Connecticut. Nor does the collapse of the old Soviet Union -- and with it the need for enormously expensive stealth aircraft to evade radar systems the Soviets never built -- dissuade congressional supporters of those planes from pushing for more, not less, than Bush is requesting. Nor does wasting an additional $8.9 billion on ICBM missile defense have anything to do with stopping terrorists from smuggling a suitcase nuke into this country.

The centerpiece of the Bush legacy is a "war on terror" based on a vast disconnect between military expenditures and actual national security requirements that the presidential candidates all fully understand. The question is whether the voters and media will force them to face that contradiction or whether we're in for more of the same -- no matter how much the candidates go on about change.

No matter who occupies the White House on January 20, 2009, chances of a reduction in military spending are slim and none.

"The more things change", and all that . . . .

(Cross-posted from Moving to Vancouver)