Medvedev Pushes Plan To Remake Russian Military

This is good for everyone. The Russian Army will get better, but there will also be less risk of a conventional war with that army.

-----------------------------

Philip P. Pan
Washington Post 


MOSCOW, March 17 -- President Dmitry Medvedev vowed Tuesday to press ahead with an ambitious overhaul of Russia's armed forces despite the nation's economic problems and vocal opposition from within the military. Medvedev promised weapons upgrades but also endorsed organizational changes that will cut the officer corps by more than half, or as many as 200,000 positions.

The plan, first disclosed in October, envisions the most dramatic transformation of the Russian military since World War II, abandoning a structure designed to mobilize large numbers of new troops to fight a major war and replacing it with a leaner,standing army that can respond more quickly to local conflicts. Thousands of combat units staffed now only with officers would be eliminated, and the military's four-level command structure would be trimmed to a three-tier hierarchy.

The plan has run into stiff resistance from officers worried about cuts as well as retired generals and opposition politicians who say it will leave Russia too weak to prevail in a war against a strong opponent such as NATO or China. Russia's most severeeconomic crisis in a decade has also exacerbated concerns about the welfare of demobilized officers and the government's ability to equip the smaller military with new weapons as promised.

But in a meeting with the Defense Ministry's top staff, Medvedev said Russia needed to push ahead with the changes because "serious potential for conflict remains in many regions." He cited the threat of terrorism and local crises such as the war withGeorgia in August, as well as "attempts to expand the military infrastructure of NATO near Russia's borders."

"All this requires a qualitative modernization of our armed forces," he said. "We now have all the necessary conditions for this despite the current financial difficulties."

By mentioning NATO, Medvedev seemed to be trying to answer critics who say the plan represents a downscaling of Russian military ambitions because it focuses on regional conflicts and gives up on trying to maintain an army capable of winning a war against the West.

But Alexander Golts, a Russian military analyst who has written a book about failed efforts to revamp the armed forces, said the facts of the plan undermine the Kremlin's rhetoric about the threat posed by NATO. "If you really believed in the possibility of military confrontation with NATO and the United States, you can't move to an armed forces of this kind," he said.

Golts added that Medvedev's remarks appeared intended to settle doubts about the plan that have intensified as the economy has soured. "It's an important signal to those who insist on slowing down because of the crisis," he said. "It's absolutely clear now they want the reductions to take place."

Speaking at the meeting, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov repeated the Kremlin's goal of moving to a more mobile, brigade-based structure by Dec. 1. He also stood by the government's plan to drastically reduce the number of officers, who now account for nearly one of three Russian soldiers.

By eliminating hollow units that are supposed to call up conscripts in the event of war, the government plans to cut the officer corps from about 355,000 to 150,000, shedding more than 200 generals, 15,000 colonels and 70,000 majors. Meanwhile, the number of ground force units would be slashed from nearly 2,000 to less than 200.

Dozens of military academies, research institutes and hospitals would also be shut, and the overall size of the military would fall from about 1.13 million to 1 million.

Without referring to the reductions, Medvedev said remaining units would be "transformed into the category of constant readiness" and equipped with the most modern weapons. Officers would also see a sharp pay increase.

But the proposal has caused alarm in military circles, with retired defense officials publicly protesting the plan and the opposition Communist Party demanding Serdyukov's resignation. Many have argued that the cutbacks should be postponed until after the economy recovers and expressed concern about a severe housing shortage in the military, which is supposed to provide homes to officers.

Medvedev said the changes would address serious flaws in the military exposed by the Georgian war, the first time Russia has sent its forces to fight abroad since the fall of the Soviet Union. Though Russia easily triumphed in the five-day conflict, analysts say the Kremlin was alarmed by problems with aging weapons, communications and equipment, as well as the command structure.

Medvedev said arms procurement would be "almost entirely preserved" this year despite a budget shortfall but added that "large-scale rearming" would have to wait until 2011. Serdyukov said up to 90 percent of the weapons and equipment used by the military are outdated, and he pledged to bring that figure down to 70 percent by 2015. The plan's critics say that leaves Russia vulnerable for too long and have urged more spending.

Northrop Advance Brings Era Of The Laser Gun Closer

It looks like another bit of science fiction is about to become science fact!

-----------------------

Peter Pae
LA Times


Northrop Grumman Corp. engineers in Redondo Beach have developed an electric laser capable of producing a deadly 100-kilowatt ray of light, a major milestone that is expected to help transform what was once a Buck Rogers space fantasy into reality.

Announced Wednesday, the landmark achievement -- long considered a Holy Grail for weapon developers -- opens the way for development of laser weapons small enough to fit in a fighter jet yet powerful enough to destroy an enemy craft in the blink of an eye.

After more than four decades of frustrations and failures, "you can now see that the battlefield applications of laser weapons are becoming a real possibility," said Barry Watts, senior fellow and an expert on so-called directed energy weapons at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments think tank in Washington.

Laser guns are still years from being used in combat and it may be the middle of next decade before they are installed on fighter planes, tanks and ships.

But Northrop "proved" that a laser powered by electricity could generate a beam powerful enough to destroy targets in the battlefield, said Brian Strickland, the Army's manager for the Joint High Power Solid State Laser program.

"This is a major milestone because we have proven that we can build it," Strickland said.

The beam from a solid-state laser is powered by electricity, which can be generated by a jet engine or the turbines of a tank. Chemical lasers are capable of producing much more powerful beams, but because the energy output relies on the quantity of chemicals used, they take up a lot of space.

Dan Wildt, vice president of Northrop's directed energy systems program, said few believed that an electric laser could produce a 100-kilowatt beam. Reaching even 10 kilowatts was considered a milestone just a few years ago.

"Five years ago few people believed that a solid-state laser could produce a militarily suitable 100-kilowatt beam," Wildt said.

With the major hurdle overcome, the next step would be to take the laser from the laboratory to the field and begin shooting down missiles with it, Strickland said. The laser would also have to be scaled down and "ruggedized" so it could withstand battlefield abuse. "It is still a little heavy and a little big," he said.

The word "laser" is an acronym for "light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation." The technology turns atomic particles into light with enough radiation to damage an object it encounters. The range and severity of the damage depend on how much power can be generated and how well the light can be focused on a target.

The Northrop laser produced a beam at more than 105 kilowatts, which is akin to focusing more than 1,000 100-watt light bulbs on a small spot. The intensity of the light would be comparable to that on the surface of the sun.

A secret demonstration was held for the military at Northrop's Space Park in Redondo Beach last month and then verified by the Army before it was disclosed Wednesday.

The sprawling complex, built during the height of the Cold War, has developed some of the nation's most complex weapon systems, including the Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile, as well as pioneering military communication and spy satellites. It took up laser research in the 1960s and became the first laboratory to develop a weapons-grade chemical laser.

American Legion Strongly Opposed to President's Plan to Charge Wounded Heroes for Treatment

I think this clearly shows what the President thinks of American veterans. I hope they will remember that in 4 years!

---------------------------------

WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The Obama administration recently revealed a plan to require private insurance carriers to reimburse the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in such cases.

"It became apparent during our discussion today that the President intends to move forward with this unreasonable plan," said Commander David K. Rehbein of The American Legion. "He says he is looking to generate $540-million by this method, but refused to hear arguments about the moral and government-avowed obligations that would be compromised by it."

The Commander, clearly angered as he emerged from the session said, "This reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate ' to care for him who shall have borne the battle' given that the United States government sent members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. I say again that The American Legion does not and will not support any plan that seeks to bill a veteran for treatment of a service connected disability at the very agency that was created to treat the unique need of America's veterans!"

Commander Rehbein was among a group of senior officials from veterans service organizations joining the President, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Eric Shinseki and Steven Kosiak, the overseer of defense spending at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The group's early afternoon conversation at The White House was precipitated by a letter of protest presented to the President earlier this month. The letter, co-signed by Commander Rehbein and the heads of ten colleague organizations, read, in part, " There is simply no logical explanation for billing a veteran's personal insurance for care that the VA has a responsibility to provide. While we understand the fiscal difficulties this country faces right now, placing the burden of those fiscal problems on the men and women who have already sacrificed a great deal for this country is unconscionable."

Commander Rehbein reiterated points made last week in testimony to both House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees. It was stated then that The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. The Legion argues that, depending on the severity of the medical conditions involved, maximum insurance coverage limits could be reached through treatment of the veteran's condition alone. That would leave the rest of the family without health care benefits. The Legion also points out that many health insurance companies require deductibles to be paid before any benefits are covered. Additionally, the Legion is concerned that private insurance premiums would be elevated to cover service-connected disabled veterans and their families, especially if the veterans are self-employed or employed in small businesses unable to negotiate more favorable across-the-board insurance policy pricing. The American Legion also believes that some employers, especially small businesses, would be reluctant to hire veterans with service-connected disabilities due to the negative impact their employment might have on obtaining and financing company health care benefits.

"I got the distinct impression that the only hope of this plan not being enacted," said Commander Rehbein, "is for an alternative plan to be developed that would generate the desired $540-million in revenue. The American Legion has long advocated for Medicare reimbursement to VA for the treatment of veterans. This, we believe, would more easily meet the President's financial goal. We will present that idea in an anticipated conference call with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel in the near future.

"I only hope the administration will really listen to us then. This matter has far more serious ramifications than the President is imagining," concluded the Commander.

After 43 Years, France To Rejoin NATO As Full Member

The irony is that despite the protests from many of the French, this move strengthens France by giving them a voice in NATO decision making!

------------------

Edward Cody
Washington Post


PARIS, March 11 -- President Charles de Gaulle infuriated the United States when he suddenly pulled France out of NATO's military command in 1966, arguing he had to preserve French independence in world affairs.

Forty-three years later, President Nicolas Sarkozy announced Wednesday, France has decided to return as a full-fledged member of the 26-nation military pact, the North Atlantic Alliance, which came together under U.S. leadership at the start of the Cold War in 1949 and has served as the basis for U.S.-European security relations since.

Casting aside Gaullist dogma long cherished in France, Sarkozy declared that rejoining the U.S.-led integrated command in Brussels will not diminish the independence of France's nuclear-equipped military and, on the contrary, will open the way for more French influence in deciding what NATO's new missions should be after the Cold War.

"The time has come," he said in a speech to France's Strategic Research Foundation, adding, "Our strategy cannot remain stuck in the past when the conditions of our security have changed radically."

The decision, widely debated even before it was formally announced, marked another significant step in Sarkozy's effort to bring France and the United States closer together after a period of estrangement and backbiting. Since taking over in May 2007, Sarkozy has repeatedly declared himself a friend of Washington and made gestures to warm the chill that had settled over French-U.S. relations under Presidents George W. Bush and Jacques Chirac, chiefly because of Chirac's opposition to the Iraq war and Bush's with-us-or-against-us approach.

"We need a renewed trans-Atlantic partnership between an America that is open and a Europe that is being strengthened," Sarkozy's defense minister, Hervé Morin, said in an address to the same conference.

Sarkozy said he would formally notify France's allies of its return to the NATO command during celebrations to mark the North Atlantic Alliance's 60th anniversary, with President Obama in attendance, scheduled for April 3-4 in Strasbourg, France, and Kehl, just across the border in Germany. At Sarkozy's insistence, according to reports in Paris, Obama has penciled in a stop beforehand at the World War II Normandy landing beaches to dramatize the historic underpinnings of French-U.S. ties.

De Gaulle's defiant gesture, which caught Washington unaware, came at a time when U.S.-European security revolved around girding against a possible Soviet attack from the East. It meant in theory that the French military and its nuclear arsenal would no longer take orders from the American general commanding NATO forces. In addition, de Gaulle ordered out thousands of U.S. troops stationed on French soil and at NATO headquarters, then in a Paris suburb.

France never left the overarching North Atlantic Alliance, however, and within a year the practical effect of withdrawing from the integrated command was also watered down. A secret accord between U.S. and French officials, the Lemnitzer-Aillert Agreements, laid out in great detail how French forces would dovetail back into NATO's command structure should East-West hostilities break out.

Since then, the threat of a Soviet attack has melted away and NATO has launched a long study about how it should redefine its mission in the 21st century, including what has become a practice of military operations beyond the borders of member countries. Since the 1990s, for instance, NATO forces have intervened in conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan, none of which fit the NATO mission as originally conceived.

Despite their absence from the integrated command, French forces, the largest in Europe with 259,000 regulars and 419,000 reservists, have been major contributors to each of these interventions. More than 3,000 French soldiers have been dispatched to Afghanistan as part of the International Security Assistance Force and, since Sarkozy became president, they have expanded their role to include combat missions.

Sarkozy argued that, given the level of French participation on the ground, it made no sense for France to continue boycotting the command structure that runs such interventions.

"We send our soldiers onto the terrain but we don't participate in the committee where their objectives are decided?" he said. "The time has come to end this situation. It is in the interest of France and the interest of Europe."

In any case, he added, rejoining the integrated command still leaves France free to refuse to participate in an operation that it judges unwise. For instance, Germany, a full NATO member, refused to get involved in the Iraq war, he pointed out.

Sarkozy said France's return to the integrated command will not bring a radical strategic change for France as a nuclear power because Paris will remain outside NATO's nuclear coordination. As a result, he said, he will still be the only one with his finger on the button of French nuclear weapons.

Former prime minister Édouard Balladur recalled in a recent interview with Le Figaro newspaper that he began negotiations on a return to the integrated command when he was prime minister as far back as two decades ago, under the Socialist president, François Mitterrand. Similar negotiations were held under Chirac several years ago, Sarkozy said. But in both instances, they foundered on the level of participation by French officers in NATO's key commands.

In the agreement shaping up now, reports here said, French generals will be given the command of NATO's regional headquarters near Lisbon and the Norfolk, Va.-based Allied Command Transformation study group drawing up plans for future NATO missions.

The return to NATO's integrated command also will require France to slightly increase its financial contributions, estimated at about $175 million a year, or 7.5 percent of the total. But that represents a small part of France's military budget, estimated at $44 billion this year, and has not been a factor in the debate.

Sarkozy predicted that the country's return to NATO command also will accelerate development of a European defense force, long a goal of French diplomacy.

Previously, he said, Britain and to some degree Germany and other countries were reluctant to cooperate with France on such a force out of fear it would be interpreted as a split from NATO. As a result, the idea of a European defense force was hailed repeatedly at European Union summit meetings but has produced little in the way of practical results.

Since Sarkozy's plans became known in recent weeks, the president has found himself under attack from the main opposition group, the Socialist Party, and from those attached most strongly to the Gaullist heritage within his own conservative coalition. But he said that France over the years has quietly resumed cooperation with almost all facets of the NATO command and that his decision was a final step recognizing the reality of a long process.

Former prime minister Dominique de Villepin, who served with Sarkozy under Chirac, nevertheless called the decision a blunder that would dilute the independence of French foreign policy. Ségolène Royal, the Socialist former presidential candidate, said Sarkozy was identifying France too closely with the United States just as the world was moving from U.S. domination.

In response, Prime Minister François Fillon said he would put the government's foreign policy up for debate in the National Assembly on Tuesday. That will give the Socialists an opportunity to vent their criticisms of the NATO move, observers noted, but will force Sarkozy's coalition majority to swallow its reservations and vote with the government.

Pentagon's Unwanted Projects In Earmarks

These are some of the examples of what's wrong with the DoD procurement process.  The military is criticized for expense weaponry, but many times it's things that the military didn't even want in the first place!

---------------------

R. Jeffrey Smith and Ellen Nakashima

Washington Post

 

When President Obama promised Wednesday to attack defense spending that he considers wasteful and inefficient, he opened a fight with key lawmakers from his own party.

It was Democrats who stuffed an estimated $524 million in defense earmarks that the Pentagon did not request into the 2008 appropriations bill, about $220 million more than Republicans did, according to an independent estimate. Of the 44 senators who implored Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in January to build more F-22 Raptors -- a fighter conceived during the Cold War that senior Pentagon officials say is not suited to probable 21st-century conflicts -- most were Democrats.

And last July, when the Navy's top brass decided to end production of their newest class of destroyers -- in response to 15 classified intelligence reports highlighting their vulnerability to a range of foreign missiles -- seven Democratic senators quickly joined four Republicans to demand a reversal. They threatened to cut all funding for surface combat ships in 2009.

Within a month, Gates and the Navy reversed course and endorsed production of a third DDG-1000 destroyer, at a cost of $2.7 billion.

"Too many contractors have been allowed to get away with delay after delay in developing unproven weapon systems," Obama said, attributing $295 billion in cost overruns to "influence peddling" and "a lack of oversight" that produces weapons meant "to make a defense contractor rich" instead of securing the nation.

He did not mention that since 2006, Democratic lawmakers have presided over a 10 percent increase in the Pentagon's budget -- it now amounts to 46 percent of the government's total discretionary spending -- and have also voted repeatedly to keep funding weapons systems that have had hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns.

Although Obama complimented one Democratic and one Republican senator who last month proposed revisions, senior Pentagon officials predict that gaining support on Capitol Hill for ending procurement abuses will be an uphill battle.

"There is equal blame to go around," a senior defense official said Friday, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of political sensitivities. "It's bipartisan. It's all about political expediency."

He added that Gates, who has lately been urging both the Pentagon and Congress to set aside parochial interests in setting budget priorities, is "not naive" -- he expects only to improve the process, not to perfect it. Gates is "willing to use the capital he has built up" if necessary, the official said.

But a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) defended the Democrats' record on defense spending. "This kind of spending can play an important role in our ongoing effort to improve critical national defense programs," spokesman said Jim Manley said.

Independent experts say the obstacles to radical change in defense procurement are all familiar: Close ties between contractors and the military services help ensure that waste and inefficiency are unpunished. Lawmakers seeking home-state jobs and a steady flow of campaign contributions have every incentive to keep funding programs that Pentagon officials say they do not need, particularly in an economic downturn.

"A lot of these weapon systems that are big-ticket items now have no purpose," said William Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, a Washington think tank. "The Taliban doesn't have an air force. China and Russia are at least a generation behind us. So at a time when we're talking about developing unmanned aerial vehicles and want to increase our special forces, we ought to be making a clean sweep of these systems that were built during the Cold War."

The problem, he added, is that the defense industry, now dominated by a handful of large firms with offices or subcontractors in key congressional districts, plays the political game extremely well.

Tens of thousands of jobs directly related to the F-22, for example, are spread among 44 states, a point emphasized in a letter of support for the program signed by 194 House members on Jan. 21. The fighter was conceived in the mid-1980s, and even though Gates said last year its production should end at a fleet of 183, a bipartisan group of lawmakers appropriated $523 million as a down payment on parts to build 20 more in 2010.

"The F-22 decision is an important national security decision with ramifications for the next 30 years," said Jeff Adams, a spokesman for Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin, its manufacturer, noting that the Air Force still says it needs more planes.

Each aircraft now costs about $145 million, and senior defense officials note that the plane has not been used in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. Although the F-22 is built as an air superiority fighter, there have been few dogfights since the Vietnam War, one of the officials said. The signatories to the Jan. 16 Senate letter supporting the additional planes included now-Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

"The thing about weapons and bases is they are backyard issues for members of Congress," said Gordon Adams, a professor at American University who formerly served as associate director for national security and international affairs for the Office of Management and Budget. "It's not like foreign aid. It's about contracts in my district, contributors to my election campaign, things that directly affect my prospects of staying in office and my ability to say to my constituents, 'I got one for you!' That's the heart of a weapons decision."

Since Democrats took control of the defense appropriations process in 2006, the defense industry has shifted gears: During the 2008 election cycle, more than half of the industry's estimated campaign donations of $25.4 million went to Democrats, marking the first time in 14 years the party had come out on top, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group that monitors campaign spending.

The impact of the shift was pronounced in the two committees that control military spending in the House, where Democrats collected 63 and 66 percent, respectively, of all defense industry funds given to committee members in that cycle. The champion was defense appropriations subcommittee Chairman John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), who collected $743,275 of the industry's money; second place was held by Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), who collected $268,799, according to the center's tally.

Murtha added more than $100 million in earmarks to the fiscal 2008 defense bill, nearly a fifth of the total inserted by all Democrats, according to the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. Every earmark reflects a project that the Pentagon did not seek in its budget request, and some of Murtha's earmarks benefited clients of a lobbying firm called PMA Group, now under FBI investigation for possible violations of federal election law. PMA is run by a former Murtha aide, and some of its clients were donors to Murtha campaigns.

"We receive thousands of requests for funding each year, all of which are fully vetted and approved by the committee and the House," said Murtha spokesman Matthew Mazonkey. "In the end, we recommend funding only those programs that have the most value and merit to the Defense Department." Some, he added, have produced innovations that brought eventual cost savings.

Murtha also joined other Democrats -- including Boxer -- in adding billions of dollars to the war budget for 15 Boeing C-17 cargo planes that the Pentagon did not request. "We have said we have enough" of the C-17s, the senior defense official said. "But members keep adding them to every spending bill, every opportunity they can find." Taxpayers for Common Sense calls the persistent funding "a gift to Boeing." Boeing spokesman Douglas J. Kennett says that the program's cancellation would cost "over 30,000 jobs with over 600 aerospace suppliers."

Reid is no match for Murtha, but he still managed to sponsor or co-sponsor $68 million in unrequested defense earmarks in the 2008 bill, financing the development of a "truck-deployed explosive containment vehicle," an "integrated imagery network" for the Nevada National Guard, an Army flatbed trailer, Nevada anti-drug operations, an Air Force diesel air quality project, and a propellant agent for "slurry gel" used by the Army.

Three of Reid's Democratic colleagues -- Kennedy, Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) and Evan Bayh (Ind.) -- also helped add almost a billion dollars to the Pentagon budget over the past two years for continued production of an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, though the Pentagon said in 2007 that the engine is unnecessary. The plane is already $55 billion over its budgeted cost, according to the Government Accountability Office. The engine is being developed and built by General Electric and Rolls Royce in Massachusetts, Vermont, Indiana and other states; its production team says the engine will offer more flexibility for the fighter pilots if it is installed.

Kennedy also joined Sens. John F. Kerry (Mass.), James Webb (Va.), Herb Kohl (Wis.) and other Democrats in demanding funding for the third, unwanted DDG-1000 Navy destroyer. "The world has changed markedly since we began the march to DDG-1000 in the early 1990s," Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, said in January, explaining why he sought to cancel the ship in favor of building more of a smaller, cheaper and older alternative vessel.

Intelligence reports have warned that the ship will be unable to fend off missile threats, including an advanced missile being developed by China and simple ones already possessed by Hezbollah. As a result, the Navy agreed to end production of the hard-to-hide 14,000-ton vessels, capping the program at two ships instead of seven.

A Kennedy aide said of the senators' joint letter to the Pentagon that "we'd like to think that it played a big role in changing their mind." He confirmed that Raytheon, which makes the destroyer's electronic components in Massachusetts, had contacted Kennedy's office about keeping the ship in production. But, he added, "we don't do Raytheon's bidding."

A Navy spokesman said Friday that the service still considers the DDG-1000 "a ship you don't need."

Ill Airman Loses Fight For Medical Benefits

The USAF might be in the right legally, but this makes them look really bad. People will think that the USAF can spend billions on weapon systems, but they won't take care of a sick airman. Bad idea!

----------------------------

Sig Christenson
San Antonio Express-News


The Air Force has decided that a Lackland AFB recruit diagnosed with cancer will be discharged without the right to receive military medical care — a decision that leaves him facing an uncertain future as he leaves San Antonio today.

Airman Basic Joseph Weston, treated at Wilford Hall Medical Center after being diagnosed last summer with a rare form of pediatric leukemia, had sought to receive a discharge that would qualify him for medical and retirement benefits.

A Pentagon panel that spent months evaluating the matter, however, ruled against Weston, saying he had a pre-existing condition. He will now be treated at Helen DeVos Children's Hospital in Grand Rapids, Mich., but an Air Force spokesman acknowledged that the military's decision puts Weston in a dicey position.

“I think if left to the decision of what is the ... best thing for Joseph Weston, the best thing for Joseph Weston would probably be to continue to receive medical care at Wilford Hall,” Lt. Col. Tadd Sholtis said Wednesday. “The issue is really that we're not in the position to be able to provide that based on the determination of his pre-existing medical condition, and the law and (Defense Department) regulations.”

The decision ends Weston's brief Air Force career and raises questions of how he will continue expensive treatment that will run for years. He came to Lackland last summer but quickly faltered in physical training. After undergoing a battery of tests, Weston, 21, learned he had acute lymphoblastic leukemia — a disease typically seen in 3- and 4-year-old children.

Weston sought a discharge that would allow him to receive government-covered chemotherapy treatment for the next three years. A medical/honorable discharge also could help him receive a 100 percent disability rating that would qualify him for medical retirement benefits.

“Obviously we're disappointed in the final decision by the evaluation board because they still claim it was a pre-existing condition,” Jim Weston, the airman's father, said Wednesday. “Until we know what benefits Joe will have for medical coverage, Medicaid or VA, we're concerned that it might be limited.”

Lackland spokesman Kirk Frady said Weston would be discharged today. Weston will receive one last treatment at Wilford Hall this morning before his care shifts to the DeVos hospital, which is about 90 minutes from his home in Cadillac, Mich. His first treatment there will take place next week and be identical to the regimen at Lackland, which the elder Weston said treated his son “very generously over the last several months.”

“He won't skip a beat at this time,” Jim Weston said. “It's kind of depending on Medicaid picking up the payment. We don't know the limitations of Medicaid or Medicare.”

A Wilford Hall doctor had argued that Joseph Weston had fallen ill only after starting basic training at Lackland, but a San Antonio-based evaluation board ruled that he was sick before coming to boot camp. It ordered him dismissed from duty with an administrative discharge — making him ineligible for medical and retirement benefits.

Weston continued to receive treatment at Wilford Hall while appealing the decision to a pair of other boards in the ensuing months.

“There were four levels of review which included docs looking at this, and through that review process they determined that given the symptoms he exhibited — given the very short length of time he had been in service before he began exhibiting symptoms during basic training — that it was a pre-existing condition,” Sholtis said.

Weston could not be reached for comment.

Under the decision by the Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council, Weston will receive a medical separation under honorable circumstances. The discharge will not grant disability compensation, but he could still receive medical care from the Veterans Affairs Department, which must still review his case.

“There's really no good decision in this case,” Sholtis said. He pointed to the long review process as proof “that no one is intentionally trying to be callous or not take away the difficulties of the situation. In making a decision, it's just tough decisions are forced upon us sometimes, and this is one of them.”

China Hints It's Building Its First Aircraft Carrier

This is a signal to both Taiwan and the United States.

-----------------------------------------

Christopher Bodeen

Associated Press

 

Beijing--China will have an aircraft carrier “very soon,” a top Chinese naval officer told a newspaper published Friday, fueling speculation over a pending official announcement on the long-awaited project.

The Global Times newspaper cited east China fleet commander Adm. Xu Hongmeng as saying China possessed both the ability and motivation to build a carrier--a weapon system that is strongly backed by the navy but somewhat less enthusiastically by the People’s Liberation Army’s top commanders.

“China really needs a carrier. Both technologically and economically, China already has the capacity to build a carrier,” said Xu, who was quoted while attending the national legislature’s annual session in Beijing on Thursday.

“China will very soon have its own aircraft carrier,” he told the paper, published by the Communist Party mouthpiece People’s Daily.

Xu’s remarks came on the day the central government announced its 2009 budget, including a 14.9 percent rise in military spending this year to $70.27 billion. No breakdown of the defense budget was provided.

Xu did not say when a carrier might be added to the fleet or whether work had already begun on one, saying only, “as for the specific construction situation, you need to ask the shipyard.”

Beijing has been researching an aircraft carrier for years, having bought and towed to China a mothballed Russian carrier, the Varyag, in 1998. The PLA is also rumored to have purchased four carrier landing systems and up to 50 Russian Su-33 carrier-based aircraft.

Strategically, a carrier is seen mainly as a deterrent to U.S. intervention in a conflict over Taiwan, although Chinese experts say it would mainly serve to police the 1.16 million square miles of sea claimed by Beijing as its maritime territory.

A carrier would also provide vital air cover in the event of a conflict farther from China’s shores, either in the South China Sea, where it has feuding territorial claims with other nations, or in the crucial sea lanes of the Indian Ocean.

Chinese officers and commentators have also focused on the importance of a carrier as a symbol of national strength, noting that China is the only permanent member of the United Nations Security Council not to have one in its fleet.

“Building aircraft carriers is a symbol of an important nation,” former navy political commissar Hu Yanlin was quoted as saying in Friday’s China Daily newspaper.

China’s navy is planning major celebrations for its 60th anniversary next month, and Asian media has speculated an announcement about a carrier could be made on that occasion.