High Velocity Penetrating Weapon initiative, is meant “to reduce the technical risk for a new generation of penetrating weapons to defeat difficult hard targets,” Walker told House lawmakers Tuesday in prepared remarks. This weapon “will use a higher velocity impact to increase warhead penetration capability,” he explained. “Advanced technologies,” he continued, “will enhance weapon kinematics, ensure precision guidance in contested environments, and dramatically reduce the size of the overall weapon.” In fact, as a result, future fighters “will be able to deliver bunker-busting capabilities currently associated only with the bomber fleet,” he said . . .
WHAT WAR WITH CHINA WOULD LOOK LIKE— (AirForce-Magazine.com, March 28, 2011): If China attacks Taiwan in 2015 and the United States comes to the island’s rescue, the Air Force would have a tough fight on its hands, predict analysts with RAND Project Air Force. The “significant number” of modern fighters, surface-to-air missiles, long-range early-warning radars, and secure communication links that China is likely to have by 2015, coupled with Chinese capabilities to strike US bases in the western Pacific, would make the air campaign “highly challenging for US air forces,” they write in
FORTIFYING GUAM’S INFRASTRUCTURE—AirForce-Magazine.com, April 14, 2011): The Air Force has a number of initiatives planned to bolster the resiliency of Andersen AFB, Guam, one of its strategic hubs in the western Pacific, Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told lawmakers last week. For Fiscal 2012, plans are in place to harden infrastructure there, Schwartz told the House Appropriations Committee’s military construction panel. “That includes both facilities and, importantly, utilities,” such as “making sure that we have some redundancy and resilience in the fuel supplies,” said Schwartz. He said there also are plans to disperse Andersen assets “at outlying locations around Guam” in time of conflict . . .
USED USAF F-15S FOR ISRAEL?—(AirForce-Magazine.com, April 20, 2011): Israel may seek to procure a squadron of used USAF F-15s to bridge the anticipated gap until it receives its first F-35 strike fighters . . .
Though Israel inked a $2.75 billion deal with the United States for 20 F-35s last October—with an eye toward an eventual 75—delays in the overall F-35 program may push back the first Israeli deliveries by several years to as late as 2018 . . .
THE LAST GUNSLINGER (by Michael Behar,
. . . “You don’t want to make an airplane be the Swiss Army knife of a fighter,” [78-year-old retired colonel Donn Byrnes, who got involved with the F-15 Eagle program in 1969] says. “I’m absolutely not in love with the idea. The F-35 is the worst nightmare of hardware idiocy. It does everything wrong. You need a long-legged fighter, not a short, fat one . . .”
CHINA REVEALS NEW AMRAAM—(by Wendell Minnick,
. . . The new Chinese PL-12D AAM might use a new active/passive guidance system, said Richard Fisher, a China defense analyst at the International Assessment and Strategy Center, an Alexandria, VA, think tank. “This kind of combined guidance system confers concealment/stealth advantages, while the passive mode also uses less battery power, allowing the missile to achieve its maximum range,” Fisher said.
“ . . . It is a troubling development,” Fisher said. “That the People’s Liberation Army could field an AAM featuring an active/passive guidance system potentially before the U.S. deploys the AIM-120D is not where we want to be.”
CYBERATTACKS CONSTITUTE AN ACT OF WAR—(www.Stratfor.com, May 31, 2011): The Pentagon on May 31 adopted a new strategy that will classify major cyberattacks as acts of war, meaning the United States for the first time can respond to such acts with traditional military force,
PRICE SMACKDOWN—(AirForce-Magazine.com, June 1, 2011): Boeing on Tuesday challenged Lockheed Martin’s recent comparison of F-35 strike fighter and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet prices. Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing Military Airplanes, called a telecon with defense reporters to rebut last week’s
CHINESE WARSHIP INTERCEPTS INDIAN VESSEL—(Stratfor.com, September 1, 2011): An unidentified Chinese warship intercepted Indian amphibious assault ship INS
LOOMING CUTS CAST CLOUD OVER AFA CONFERENCE—(by Dave Majumdar, Defense News, September 26, 2011): . . . The U.S. Air Force will not push the envelope as it historically has when developing new technology for future weapons because declining defense spending will reshape the military’s purchasing priorities.
“ . . . Future development efforts will have to be less ambitious because we cannot assume the kind of risk that past acquisition strategies have incorporated in their development plans,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norman Schwartz said Sept. 20. “While the Air Force has historically “advanced the state of the art” of technology, “we now must be more calibrated in pushing the technological envelope,” the general said.
“ . . . We must be ruthlessly honest and disciplined when operational requirements allow for more modest and less exquisite, higher confidence production programs,” he said.
CHINA: MILITARY OPPOSED TO INTERNATIONALIZING SOUTH CHINA SEA ISSUE—(Stratfor.com, September 28, 2011): China’s military authority reiterated Sept. 28 that attempts to internationalize the South China Sea issue would further complicate the matter, Xinhua reported. Any move meant to internationalize or multilateralize the issue will not help, a Chinese Defense Ministry spokesman said, adding that China’s sovereignty over the islands in the sea and the surrounding waters is incontestable.
PROLOGUE
KAMCHATKA PACIFIC MISSILE TEST RANGE, EASTERN SIBERIA
SUMMER 2014
“Bridge, Combat, ballistic missile inbound!” the urgent call came. “Altitude six-seven miles, range three- three-zero nautical, closing speed eight thousand!”
The skipper of the USS
“Bridge, Combat, weapons tight, engagement as briefed, aye,” came the response.
“Count it down, Combat,” Taverna ordered. He raised a pair of binoculars and scanned the horizon to the north, and the visitor did likewise.
“Impact in fifteen seconds . . .” The skipper couldn’t believe how fast this was happening . . . “Ten . . . five