Pakistan is will soon be get J10B

Military Forum Of China Super Camp - the most influential military forum LONDON February 11 news: According to the Russian Military News Network February 10 reports, Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has announced that China and Pakistan jointly developed the JF-17 "Lightning" (China as FC-1 "Fierce Dragon") fighters in the Pakistan territory into mass production phase, the project's implementation is two an "all-weather ally" the results of military-technical cooperation.

It is reported, JF-17 fighters in Pakistan has started the aviation industry in the Kamla City, integrated plant production. Pakistan Air Force Chief of Staff of Sulaiman had announced that Pakistan had set up their first JF-17 fighter brigade, a total of 22 aircraft. Pakistan air force under the plan, Pakistan Ministry of Defence this year, JF-17 fighters will purchases an additional 50 planes, in the future will be equipped with a total of 270.

F-16 4.5-generation multirole version

This is the 4.5-generation multirole version which uses more Chinese components, including radar, engine, and missiles. China is interested in reducing its reliance on foreign technology for both cost reasons and a desire to improve its domestic research and design. It is reported that one regiment of J-11Bs are currently in service, but this seems to contradict with the latest information provided by the Chinese government: In May, 2007, the existence of J-11B was finally acknowledged by the Chinese government for the first time when the state-run Chinese TV stations first aired the report on J-11B in PLAAF service, which were subsequently publicized in various domestic Chinese media such as state-run websites and newspapers (like Xin Wen Hua Bao, New Culture Newspaper). However, the official Chinese report claims that there are only two squadrons of J-11Bs in service, instead of a regiment, which is consisted of three squadrons (as of end of 2007). According to the Chinese report, which is agreed by some western sources such as Information Group, the J-11B is superior to Su-27SK in the following areas:

U.S. report on Chinese developments: Foreign Military Acquisitions and PLA Modernization

PLAAF EQUIPMENT TRENDS
By Richard D. Fisher, Jr.
Senior Fellow, Jamestown Foundation
For the National Defense University Conference,
“PLA and Chinese Society in Transition”
October 30, 2001
INTRODUCTION 
Despite its never having done so before in a large fashion, the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) is pursuing an overall modernization program to enable the conduct all-weather offensive and defensive operations in a modern high-technology environment. This is consistent with the general doctrinal goal to build a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) capable of waging “Local War Under High Tech Conditions.” Expansion of all-weather offensive capabilities is a relatively recent and ominous trend in the PLAAF. Apparently, this could include offensive naval strike missions for the PLAAF and greater consideration of using Airborne Forces in a strategic strike capacity. 

Pakistan using UAVs in 'drone war' against terrorist elements

Robert Hewson Air-Launched Weapons Editor - London

Key Points

Pakistan has been using Falco UAVs to help combat militants in the country's remote tribal areas

The Falco has been deployed on surveillance and target 'hunting' missions


Pakistan has quietly been conducting its own 'drone war' against militant forces and terrorist elements using Selex-Galileo Falco tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), has learned.

According to a number of industry officials who have been in Pakistan and experienced UAV operations there, the Pakistani military is using unarmed Falcos for traditional surveillance tasks but also in a 'hunter' role - targeting air strikes, providing real-time coverage of attacks and then delivering battle damage assessments. 

Afghanistan's Minister of Energy and Water Mohammad Ismail Khan has strongly rejected a plan to erect permanent US military bases in his country.

Speaking on Tuesday in a ceremony to commemorate the anniversary of Soviet troops' withdrawal from Afghanistan, Ismail Khan slammed Afghan Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak for his support of the plan. 
Ismail Khan pointed out that the defense minister should change his stance as he had ignored the dignity of Afghan people. 

The minister of energy and water further reiterated that the Afghans would be capable of providing security in the war-hit country if foreigners stop interfering. 

“Millions of Afghans were killed and injured because they wanted to live freely, and they did not accept to be in foreigners' subjection,” Ismail Khan noted. 

A Finnish soldier serving with US-led foreign troops has been killed and several others wounded in the volatile northern Afghanistan.

The soldier died in an explosion in the Northern Province of Samangan. 

Finland has around 180 soldiers in Afghanistan.

At least 44 foreign soldiers have been killed in the war-torn country so far in 2011.

Last year was the deadliest for foreign forces in Afghanistan -- with over 711 foreign troops killed.

NATO has admitted to the rising power of the militants in Afghanistan despite the presence of 150,000 US-led forces in the country.

The invasion of Afghanistan took place with the official objective of curbing militancy and bringing peace and stability to the country. Nine years on, however, Afghanistan remains unstable and civilians continue to pay the price.

The rising death toll among the US-led foreign forces has prompted growing opposition to the Afghan war in countries that have contributed troops to the mission. source

A report says that Washington spends $300 million of American taxpayers' money on Afghan war per day, and this comes as the US has failed so far to establish security in the war-torn country.

This is while the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq will allow for a reduced US defense budget in 2012. 

Under the Pentagon's proposed budget, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will drop to $117.8 billion for fiscal year 2012, a reduction of $41.5 billion from the previous year, AFP reported. 

As the US war effort winds down in Iraq, the budget sets aside $10.6 billion for “Operation New Dawn,” with the remaining 50,000 US troops there due to withdraw by the end of 2011. 

Spending for the Afghan mission calls for $107.3 billion, down slightly from the last budget, which requested $113.5 billion. 

The budget released Monday offered no insight into the scale of the planned drawdown, with the Pentagon's budget document assuming an average of 98,250 troops on the ground by the end of 2012. 

US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the Pentagon had "decided to budget conservatively" as it was too soon to predict how many troops would be withdrawn after July. 

"But that's not to say that we will have 98,000 troops at the end of Feb. 2012. In fact it's a lead pipe cinch we won't," he added. 

The budget for Afghanistan and Iraq includes $79.2 billion for operations, $10.1 billion to counter the threat posed by homemade bombs -- the main killer of NATO-led troops in the war. 

Some $11.9 billion is devoted to repairing and replacing equipment lost or damaged and $12.8 billion for training and arming Afghan security forces, who are supposed to gradually take over security duties between now and 2015. 

By October, the United States and NATO plans to expand the Afghan army to 172,000 soldiers and the police to 134,000 police.

Two security guards and an insurgent were killed in an attack in the Afghan capital Kabul, officials say.

Reports said the blast occurred just inside a shopping complex in the city centre after an attacker carrying explosives was challenged by guards.

A gun battle which broke out following the explosion has now ended.

It is the second attack in less than three weeks in the heavily fortified Afghan capital, after nine died in an attack on a supermarket on 28 January.

The Taliban told the BBC they had carried out that attack.

Monday's attack is thought to have begun when an attacker was challenged by security guards as he attempted to gain access to the shopping precinct, says the BBC's Quentin Sommerville in Kabul.

When Washington's red-walled Opera House drew in friends and fellow travellers from the world over to pay tribute last week to veteran American diplomat Richard Holbrooke, President Barack Obama set them a challenge.

"He made a difference. Let us now carry that work forward in our time," Mr Obama declared as he ended his eulogy for the Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, following his sudden death of a heart attack last month.

But who would fill this larger-than-life figure's big dusty boots?

Names mentioned by several people close to this process are obvious choices on Washington's rollcall of the best and brightest.

But many tried-and-tested troubleshooters are said to be demurring, citing other commitments, advancing age, or the daunting scale of the task.

How will the approaches championed by Mr Holbrooke move forward, including a strong civilian role alongside the growing military juggernaut and its powerful four-star, all-star General David Petraeus?

"The essence of the challenge is getting the balance right between the military and the political, civilian and diplomatic aspects," reflected former deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, a close friend of Mr Holbrooke, who now heads the Brookings Institution.

"That's a 21st Century ass-whooping right there," says a US marine as an airstrike turns a mud compound into dust. That was the offensive against the Taliban in Marjah, in southern Afghanistan, in the spring. The video, filled with a constant chatter of automatic fire, was taken by marines and passed to us.

After a year-long campaign of "ass-whooping", Nato hopes it has "shaped the battlefield" to help achieve its objectives for the next phase of the campaign. The plan is to leave the Taliban weakened enough for the Afghan police and army to start taking over from the international forces. Another aim may be to force the insurgents into talks with the government, though this is not publicly stated by Nato officers.

"Finally, we've aligned our resources with the demands of the campaign," said Nato's top civilian official in Afghanistan, Mark Sedwill, speaking about the surge of forces ordered by President Obama. "It's still fragile. There's a long campaign ahead but we've regained the initiative having, candidly, lost it in the past."

Recent years have seen the re-emergence of the hardline Islamic Taliban movement as a fighting force in Afghanistan and a major threat to its government.

They are also threatening to destabilise Pakistan, where they control areas in the north-west and are blamed for a wave of suicide bombings and other attacks.

The Taliban emerged in the early 1990s in northern Pakistan following the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan.

A predominantly Pashtun movement, the Taliban came to prominence in Afghanistan in the autumn of 1994.

It is commonly believed that they first appeared in religious seminaries - mostly paid for by money from Saudi Arabia - which preached a hard line form of Sunni Islam.

The Taliban's promise - in Pashtun areas straddling Pakistan and Afghanistan - was to restore peace and security and enforce their own austere version of Sharia, or Islamic law, once in power.

A major international conference on Afghanistan has backed President Hamid Karzai's timetable for control of security to be transferred from foreign to Afghan forces by 2014. The BBC's Ian Pannell in Kabul looks at the chances of meeting that goal.

By most estimates the security situation across the country looks increasingly bad.

Violence continues to rise and June was the deadliest month in nearly nine years of war.

According to the UN, the number of roadside bombings rose by nearly 100% in the first quarter of this year compared with 2009.

Assassinations rose by half and suicide attacks doubled. More than 1,000 people died in the first six months of the year, with June being the worst so far for foreign troops.

But military commanders and the politicians who gathered in Kabul on Tuesday think they are on the right track.

Their argument is that the rise in violence is an expected but temporary result of a surge in troops that has deliberately and sometimes aggressively targeted the Taliban in their havens.

Missile attacks by US drones in Pakistan's tribal areas have more than doubled under the Obama administration, research by the BBC Urdu service shows.

Since January 2009 nearly 2,500 people have been killed in Pakistan as a result of US drones and Islamic militant attacks. The graphics below show how Islamic militant strongholds in the border area close to Afghanistan have been targeted by US drone aircraft, while, at the same time, Islamic militants have carried out attacks across Pakistan.

Missile attacks by US drones in Pakistan's tribal areas have more than doubled under the Obama administration, research by the BBC Urdu service shows.

Compared with 25 drone strikes between January 2008 and January 2009, there were at least 87 such attacks between President Obama taking office on 20 January 2009 and the end of June 2010.

More than 700 people have been killed in such attacks under Mr Obama, compared with slightly fewer than 200 from under his predecessor, George W Bush.

The militant backlash over the same period has been even more violent. Extremists have struck more than 140 times in various Pakistani locations, killing more than 1,700 people and injuring hundreds more, the BBC research shows.

A roadside bomb blast in southern Afghanistan has claimed the life of a retired US Customs officer and left three other customs workers wounded.

A roadside bomb blast in southern Afghanistan has claimed the life of a retired US Customs officer and left three other customs workers wounded.

The attack at the Inland Customs Warehouse in the province of Kandahar killed David Hillman, a retired US Customs and Border Protection officer, on Monday.

According to a statement released by US Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in Washington, Hillman had worked for the US government for 30 years, AP reported. 

Waite Rawls: Was there a better choice for C.S.A. president than Jefferson Davis?

By Waite Rawls

President and chief executive of the Museum of the Confederacy

The Provisional Constitution of the Confederate States of America was finalized and signed on February 8, 1861. One of the first acts of the new Congress was to choose the first Provisional President. They did so the following day, and Jefferson Davis was by far the best choice—for both political and military reasons.

We see shades of the Congress’ political concerns today, as both our current Democratic and Republican Parties are split between moderates in each camp and the “true believers.” At the time of the selection of President, the Confederate Congress was faced with a similar choice in leadership. Should they pick a hard-line “fire eater” who had led the secessionist movement, a movement primarily centered around slavery? If so, Alabama’s William Lowndes Yancey, Georgia’s Howell Cobb or Robert Toombs, or South Carolinian Robert Barnwell Rhett would get the nod.

Their principal concerns, however, were northward to the Upper South, where their hard-line pro-slavery stance had gained some support but had not resulted in the secession of the Upper South states. Moderation in the conduct of the Deep South might have some influence. Additionally, there was some hope, in both North and South, that some compromise might be struck or that the Deep South would be allowed to go in peace. Again, moderation might have some influence over future events.

The Confederate Congress also knew that war, not peace, might result from the secessions of the Lower South states, and Davis’ military experience was extensive. He was a graduate of West Point and had distinguished himself in the U. S. Army during the Mexican War. He had resigned from his seat in the U. S. Senate to become President Franklin Pierce’s Secretary of War, where he proved to be one of the more progressive men to hold that seat in our country’s history, before or since. He knew the leading Army professionals personally, and he appreciated recent changes in the conduct of war from his close study of recent conflicts in Europe. America has had a number of war-time generals who later became President, but no U. S. President has ever been better qualified to be a war-time Commander-in-Chief than Jefferson Davis.

So the Provisional Confederate Congress turned to the leading Southern moderates—Mississippi’s Jefferson Davis and Georgian Alexander Stephens for their choice. Both had served in the U. S. Congress, both had close friends in the North, and both had originally opposed secession. Stephens had actually voted against secession in the Georgia convention, and Davis had been proposed as a possible compromise candidate for U. S. President in 1860 by some Northern Democrats. Davis became the unanimous choice for President because he engendered a high level of trust in his character and confidence in his military experience. Stephens was the unanimous choice for Vice President.

Read More

Pakistan has to do more in terror war: US

Washington, Aug 4 : The United States says Pakistan started to take more direct action against terrorist safe havens in its territory after extremists tried to move on to its capital, but unquestionably Pakistan needs to do more.


"If you look at the progress that we have made with Pakistan on safe havens, on confronting terrorists, I think that is a record that they and we can be proud of," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday.


"Does more have to be done? Unquestionable," he said when asked if President Barack Obama now believes that the Pakistani military, intelligence and civilian government will support the US from now on.


"We have tough work ahead in Pakistan and in Afghanistan. And together with our partners, we'll make progress," Gibbs said refuting a reported suggestion by Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari that the Afghanistan war is lost.


"I don't think the President (Obama) would agree with President Zardari's conclusion that the war is lost," he said referring to Zardari's reported remarks to French newspaper Le Monde.


Zardari was quoted as telling Le Monde that "the international community to which Pakistan belongs is losing the war against the Taliban. Above all, it is because we've lost the battle for hearts and minds."


"I don't know why he's come to that conclusion," Gibbs said. "But I think it is safe to say that the actions and the efforts that the coalition, international forces and American forces, have taken over the last several months have very much the hearts and minds of the Afghan people at the forefront.


"The Afghan people know of the brutality of the Taliban, just as the Pakistani people, on the actions that their extremist counterparts were taking in Pakistan last year to move on the capital of Pakistan is why the country of Pakistan started to take more direct action against safe havens," he said.


"So I think that the hearts and minds of those in Afghanistan and Pakistan are obviously a key part of our strategy, as well as what is in the hearts and the minds of the extremists that seek to do Afghans or Pakistanis harm, Gibbs said. (IANS)
Read More

Kabul denies agreeing to buy all fuel from Iran

KABUL: Afghanistan on Monday dismissed a claim by Tehran that the two countries had reached an agreement for Iran to supply all of its private sector fuel, drawing out a long-running dispute between the neighbours.
Ghulam Mohammad Aylaqi, deputy commerce minister, denied comments made Sunday by Iranian Oil Minister Masoud Mirkazemi that an agreement was made under which the private sector would buy “all its needed products” from Iran.
Aylaqi said Kabul could not afford such a deal with Iran.
“We have offered to buy the (fuel) needs of western and southwestern Afghanistan (from Iran). We have not agreed and will not agree to buy all our supplies from Iran,” Aylaqi said.
He added that it was not viable to buy from Iran for north and east Afghanistan because imports from nearby central Asia and Pakistan were cheaper.
About one third of Afghanistan’s fuel needs, imported from Russia, Turkmenistan and Iraq, transit through Iran.
The transport of the fuel has become a sensitive issue as the Islamic republic has prevented the passage of trucks carrying the supplies to Afghanistan.
Thousands of fuel trucks were left stranded on the Afghan-Iranian border in a dispute between the two sides over fuel earlier this year although the backlog has now been largely cleared.
Tehran has hinted to Kabul that it suspected the fuel in the trucks would be used to supply US and other foreign troops fighting a Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan.
Finance Ministry spokesman Aziz Shams also said Afghanistan could not afford to import all its fuel supplies from Iran.
Read More

International reaction to Egypt’s dilemma

Passengers crowd the departure area at the Cairo International airport as Egyptians across the nation take to the streets calling on the resignation of their long-term president Hosni Mubarak. At the same time, EU demands reform in Egypt and moves to open a new chapter in ties with Tunisia. China urged a return to order in Egypt as soon as possible without openly taking sides in the unrest threatening Hosni Mubarak’s regime. In Lebanon, Seoul and South-East Asia, demonstrators gathered to show solidarity with protestors in Egypt.

Read More

Egypt violence seems to backfire on Mubarak

CAIRO: Violence against Egyptian protesters by Hosni Mubarak loyalists appeared to backfire on Wednesday, drawing criticism from the United States, which hardened its stance on the president’s political future.
The activists who have staged unprecedented protests against Mubarak said the rough tactics had also hardened their resolve.
The extent of their determination will become clear on Friday, when the protesters have called another mass rally to demand the 82-year old president step down.
Scenes of men claiming loyalty to Mubarak armed with sticks and knives might also have undermined some of the sympathy the president generated during his televised address on Tuesday, when he announced he would not seek re-election in September.
But public relations appeared to be of no importance to whoever was behind the violence: reporters were also attacked, including foreigners, in what the Committee to Protect Journalists said was an effort at “blanket censorship”.
By nightfall, the protesters were still holding their ground in Tahrir Square, scene of Wednesday’s violence and the hub for the anti-Mubarak protests over the last week.
Whether they stay or leave might not matter that much.
The anti-Mubarak protest movement has generated great momentum over the last nine days. Were the protesters to leave the square, they would likely be able to regroup for Friday, harnessing the social media that allowed them to organise.
“If they’re attacked as they were today, by armed young men, then there’s the potential for real instability,” said Elijah Zarwan, a senior Cairo-based analyst with International Crisis Group. “I fear it could be a harbinger of further unrest.”
In Washington, a vital ally for Egypt, a senior US official, speaking privately, shared the assessment of protesters and witnesses in Cairo that someone loyal to Mubarak had unleashed gangs of armed men to intimidate the protesters.
“UNCLE MUBARAK”
In London, British Prime Minister David Cameron also took seriously the idea that the government was behind the violence.
“If it turns out that the regime in any way has been sponsoring or tolerating this violence, that would be completely and utterly unacceptable. These are despicable scenes that we’re seeing,” Cameron told reporters.
Speaking after a day of violence in which at least three Egyptians were killed and 1,500 wounded, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said the United States wanted an immediate start to some form of unspecified transition. “Now means now,” he said.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Omar Suleiman, appointed deputy president by Mubarak this week, that a transition has to begin now.
In his speech on Tuesday, Mubarak, ruler for three decades, offered concessions including promises of constitutional reform.
That was not good enough for the protesters, who are seeking his immediate exit and deep change in the way the autocratic Arab state is governed. More than a million people demonstrated across the country on Tuesday.
In an effort to counter the anti-Mubarak tide, loyalists had staged peaceful protests across Cairo earlier in the day, focusing on his promises of reform. In one, children with “Uncle Mubarak” daubed on their cheeks waved the Egyptian colours.
Yet by mid-afternoon, scenes of men on horses and camels, armed with whips and sticks, charging the protesters in Tahrir Square dominated live coverage by Arab satellite networks.
Journalists were among those attacked by Mubarak loyalists on Wednesday, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said.
“What happened has cast a very negative shadow on the Mubarak government. It tarnishes his image abroad,” said Mustapha Kamel al-Sayyid, a political scientist.
Hassan Nafaa, a political scientist and leading opposition figure, said the violence was a “stupid, desperate move by the ruling National Democratic Party and state apparatus”.
“This will not put an end to the protests,” he said. “This is not a Tahrir Square revolution, it is a general uprising.”
Read More

CAIRO: The balance between the two sides in the Egyptian crisis is at a delicate juncture and it is still too early to see how the confrontation will end.
Here is a summary of the sources of strength of the two sides:
THE PROTEST MOVEMENT
* The protesters have the numbers, for the moment. The movement brought more than one million people onto the streets last Tuesday and its rally in central Cairo on Friday was almost as well attended. The protests have also been massive in provincial cities and towns, especially Alexandria, Suez and the textile town of Mahalla in the Nile Delta. Rallies in favour of Mubarak have been much smaller. They started later and have already started to diminish. But some Egyptians say the government has made enough concessions and the protests should end. Many say they are tired of the disruption and losses the protests have caused.
* The opposition has widespread international sympathy, enhanced by the reputation it has earned for non-violence. A crucial phase in the battle for public opinion came when Mubarak supporters attacked the protesters on Wednesday and tried to expel them from the square with rocks, petrol bombs and gunshots. The protesters are searched for weapons when they enter Tahrir Square and have to defend themselves with whatever they can find there.
* The protesters have a promise from the army that it will not shoot them. Although the army’s role has been mysterious and ambiguous, most do at least trust the army to keep that promise.
* Foreign governments, the United Nations and international rights groups have upheld their right to demonstrate peacefully and is watching the Egyptian government’s behaviour carefully.
Any attempt to disperse the Tahrir Square protests by force would lead to condemnation and international isolation.
* The opposition has the momentum, again for the moment. Mubarak and others in government have made a succession of concessions and gestures, the most important of which was Mubarak’s announcement that he will not stand for re-election when his current term runs out in September. The core protesters have held fast to the demand that Mubarak must leave.
MUBARAK AND HIS GROUP
* Mubarak is supreme commander of the armed forces, which has more than 450,000 men and a vast arsenal of weapons. But so far the army has done little to help his cause, other than to protect government buildings. It has sometimes restricted access to Tahrir Square but not in a way that severely hampers the protest movement’s activities. The army has urged the protesters to go home but the protesters has ignored it. No outsiders can readily judge whether the army command might at some stage press Mubarak to give up and resign.
* The police forces, especially the Central Security riot police force, are in serious disarray after withdrawing from the streets on Jan. 28. Vice President Omar Suleiman has said it will take months to restore their capabilities. But if the confrontation drags on, some police units could return as a force in Mubarak’s favour.
* Mubarak remains president of the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP) but the party is immensely unpopular and many of its offices have been ransacked or burned. In practice, the party is not a very significant asset.
* Mubarak still controls the state media, which have proved one of his most loyal tools, broadcasting a stream of propaganda in his favour. But many Egyptians now have access to a wide range of satellite television channels that the government cannot control. The Qatari channel Al Jazeera played an important part in keeping Egyptians informed but the government has now made it more difficult to receive.
* The popular uprising has alarmed many Egyptians, including some prosperous middle-class people, those who benefited from the old system and some Coptic Christians who fear the inclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood in political life. But those people are unlikely to come out in the streets for the moment.
* Mubarak has support and sympathy from right-wing leaders in countries such as Israel, Italy and Saudi Arabia. On Saturday the United States shifted its position significantly, saying that Mubarak should stay on for some time to supervise political change — not very different from Mubarak’s position. But foreign connections are a political liability for both sides.
Read More