Reports 1997

Index 1997

– December 1997,– The threat of IT, Turmoil in Asia

– November 1997, Consolidation in the French defence industry – Turmoil in Asia

– October 1997, Israel, an outlook – Rotating stocks into small and mid caps

– September 1997, Sense and nonsense about diversification – The Market in volatility

– August 1997, II, Financial Affairs

– July 1997, German Forces for the next millenium – The future of Hong Kong stocks

– June 1997, Indonesia, a country at the crossroads – Lean but not mean – A financial update

– May 1997, II, Counter the terrorist threat

– May 1997, Investing in South-East Asia

– April 1997, Securing your investments – The Zaïrean dilemma

– March 1997, The volatile stock market – Syria versus Israel

– February 1997, The World in 1997

– January 1997, Financial Review

April 2013, III

April 2013, III

The Euro, Euro-zone and the EU

The Euro

The single currency in the European Union, EU, started to promote trade, business and it would make life easier for the people. The unification with the Euro in the Euro-zone was a political project to bring the EU even more together. A political, or even an economical union, was still a bridge to far. The single currency was essentially an attempt to unify through the back door.

With the current knowledge we know, it worked out not as planned.

The basic idea of more integration, more cooperation, in Europe is not a bad idea, it could promote trade and contacts between the people of the EU. To be successful you need however at least some kind of fiscal union or at best a political union. Regulations, fiscal policy, need to be synchronized to create a real common economy in the EU.

In the end it remains a political concept, what do the politicians and the people want in and with the EU. The governments in the Euro-zone decided that they wanted a common currency, which in the end means more integration, cooperation.

The economy and the Euro

The financial crisis in the world and especially in the south of Europe led to several thoughts about the common currency. Many in the north and south have great doubts about the Euro. It allegedly brought more worse than good. The answer to that question depends on the individual situation and the political outlook.

The common currency, Euro, is however a fact of life and any discussions about if it should be or shouldn’t have been implemented is a rather superfluous discussion. It is here and will be here for now.

The existence of the Euro is up to the members, especially to the big three or four, Germany, France, Italy and Spain. If one of them decides to get out it is over and out.

To leave and abandon the Euro will not deliver the advantages which are described by the followers of independent currencies and sovereign nations.

The main advantage of having an independent currency, if something like that exists, is that the value of the currency depreciates if the economy is performing bad or is in a recession. The lower value of the currency would stimulate export. This would increase growth, more employment, more demand and after that a stronger economy. Regrettably, other countries, your trading partners, are mostly also experiencing economic worser times, limiting demand from those countries and their currency will also depreciate. This will destroy your relative advantage.

Not included in this simple equation is that your imports will become equally more expensive and the payment of loans and interests will also become more expensive. To this, we should ad that the patterns of export and import are in the EU mostly limited to the closest by neighbors and the products are not that exclusive that they’re unique, irreplaceable.

The only EU economy producing products that are more or less unique is Germany, the demand for their products will remain, at lower level but will not evaporate. The products of other economies in the Euro-zone are not that exclusive and can be replaced or even avoided.

The debts of the countries, national or business, are also nominated in Euros, so any change tot hat will be complicated and very expensive to all parties. With a renomination of the currency in a national currency will be more or less 1 to 1, but within a second this will change, the southern currencies will fall and will be need to pay the double to the Euro days. The same is valid for the interest rates which have to be paid. In percentage to the BBP/GNP, whatever, more need to be paid to interest rates.

The advantage of a weaker currency is not valid as it seems, if you are alone on the world and eveybody else is doing all right, it could work. In reality, it works out a little different. All national economies are already that connected, interdependent, that there is no such thing as sovereign national, economic/fiscal, policy.

The future of the Euro

The existence of the Euro depends on its members, especially Germany, France, Italy and Spain. It is still and remains a political project. If they want to end it, it can be done, the price for it will be more expensive for the southern countries as their debts will mulitply and a default will be their only option. This would result in massive write offs for the northern countries. For all countries in the EU, even the ones which are not members of the single currency, the price will be very high. In the end it will be expensive for all parties, countries, involved. Everybody which has some how has a connection through trade or debts with the Euro-zone will be hurt by the end of the Euro.

The countries which kept their own currency will not be off the hook, the ones which are performing better have done their howework before, implemented changes in their economy and are now able to harvest the profits from that changes. But other countries which have not done so are experiencing the same difficulties, it doesn’t matter if they are in or out the Euro. Germany in the Euro and Sweden, Switzerland and Norway outside the Euro are doing better. Norway is of course a different category with its massive oil/gas resources. The UK and to a lesser extent Denmark, even if they’ve their own currency, are doing not that good. Just as many of the other Euro countries with high debts and unbalanced budget deficits.

There will be no winners nor advantages in leaving or ending the Euro. Continuation of the Euro will demand further unification, fiscal and political unification, to structurally solve the problems in the Euro-zone. This will demand changes and adaptions in and from the Euro members. All choices will be expensive but a world with a Euro will be more beneficial, cheaper, especially on the long term.

April 2013, II

April 2013, II

North-Korea vs South-Korea; a potential war

War in the Koreas

The war in Korea, 1950-1953 has formally never ended, there was only an armistice, restoring a status quo. The tensions between the two have remained and at times intensified.

Both countries have since developed in opposite directions, communist vs capitalist. The north stayed poor and relatively underdeveloped and the south progressed to wealth and one of the leading economies in the world.

This making North-Korea one of the few remaining true communist countries in the world. This autocratic regime, a police state, survived by closing the country to virtually all foreign influences and living of contributions and all kind of shady businesses, including the trade in nuclear technology.

This all cumulated in a policy of developing a nuclear device, or something close to it. This aspiring nuclear weapons power used its knowledge to somehow blackmail the world in supporting the country (financially/economically), get some respect and of course have it to defend the country against the evil world.

The assumption of power by the new North-Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, changed the rule of the game as they felt more threatened, lost respect, the economy was in ever worser shape and above all Kim needed to establish his power.

Conflict in 2013

North Korea used all options to increase the tensions between the two countries, everything was used to keep the fire burning. The final escalation to war seems to be around the next corner. The nuclear program restarted, the question remains if it was ever stopped, borders closed, missile launch commands given and even foreign diplomats were told that their safety couldn’t be guaranteed anymore.

The military training operations between South Korea and the USA have been used as an excuse to make new threats but they’re probably sincerely felt by the north as a danger to their existence. More than ones, military training, maneuvers, were used as a pre-cursor to an attack.

It remains however very unlikely that North-Korea will start a conflict, the odds are simply against them. Military they’ve greater numbers but the level of technology, the quality of the forces and the logistical capabilities of South-Korea vastly outnumber everything the north has to offer. Only a possible functioning and deliverable nuclear device could change the odds somewhat in the favor of the north.

Weapons of mass destruction, nuclear devices, are however unuseable in military conflict as there always would be an equal devastating counter-attack after the first use of nuclear weapons. MAD still works even if one of the parties in conflict seems to be irrational. Irrationality will end if there is a chance to survive, remain in power. If they can survive, MAD will work. Nuclear weapons are only good for defence, keep the enemy at bay.

North-Korea only kind of war play could be a very short conventional attack on the south by the massive use of artillery and missile barrages, commando style attacks on strategic objectives and a possible use of a man created natural disaster. In North-Korea close to the border with South-Korea there is a big dam used to genrate electricity, if that would be destoyed, the flood would cause massive damage. The economical cost would however equally worse for the north.

A short attack on the south were after the UN and the world community would quickly intervene to end the fighting could be beneficial to the north. If the north would be given financial/economical support to stop the fighting.

The uncertain factor would be South-Korea who are fed up with the northern policy of black mail. The south could use the opportunity to eliminate the military threat out of the north and create a kind of security zone by destroying most military equipment in a 30 to 50 kilometer zone. That kind of military loss could mean the end of the regime in North-Korea, or at least the rule of Kim Jong Il.

It can be concluded that the chance of survival of the Kim Jong Il regime is more likely if they don’t start a conflict. A conflict, war, could be the end of the regime and than they could become irrational but they would have to make the first move and strike at the south but again considering the situation of the military in North-Korea it is unlikely if not impossible to start an attack against the south.

Militarily they’re essentialy incapable to strike at the south. The equipment is out of date, badly maintained, the ammunition is in equally worse shape and the level of training is bad. The armed forces have been used for internal security roles, had to take care of growing their own food and help in civil affairs and natural disasters. And finally the supply and payment of the troops, with the exception of the special forces, have become worser so beside the capability even the loyality of the mass of the forces can be questioned.

A war never can be excluded but in the current situation very unlikely.

April 2013, I

April 2013, I

Syria; an endgame without an end

Syria, an assessment

The conflict in Syria has been going on for a couple of years without any victory in sight, if you can speak about victory in a conflict which has already cost over 70.000 casualties.

The Assad government wants to remain in power because the alternative is absolutely not acceptable for them. As the track record of atrocious behaviour of the security forces and the militias created and supported by the Assad regime is that bad that any peaceful solution or any negotiations for that matter are out of the question. It will ultimately mean death for Assad and co.

The opposition, in some way allied within the SNC, Syrian National Coalition, with its military arm, FSA, Free Syrian Army, which consists out of numerous independent fighting groups strongly connected to one area are nearly just as focussed on the defeat of the other side.

With a third party somewhat of an outsider, the Kurdish PYD in the north-east of the country wanting independence or at least autonomy.

The fighting between the two opponents have been long and messy with little progress. None of the parties could enforce a decision and both used their advantages, the government has/had superior firepower and logistics and the opposition has/had the initiative, popular support, better tactics and lately ever more foreign support including more advanced weapons and ammunition.

The Assad government concentrated their forces at the most important areas/points and the Alewite/Druze/Christian homelands to protect their regime. Leaving most of the rest of the country with little to none resistance to the opposition. Fighting between the two sides occured mostly at those contested important areas/points, like Damascus and especially Aleppo.

The recently received additional Western support, especially the weapons and ammunition, immediately made a difference. The FSA could go on the offensive and take on the Syrian army in Damascus and Aleppo and press on and continue the battle. Until now the FSA was often limited in its operations because of the lack of supplies, especially ammunition.

In the mean time the logistical situation for the government is worsening, stocks get lesser, soldiers and officers desert and even long trusted Russian and Iranian support diminishes. The first by intention the second by situation.

The Kurdish north-east of the country is another ball game. The PYD was divided whom to support, Assad or the SNC/FSA. They considered them both as possbile friends or foes. They fight for their own cause, autonomy at least or independence preferred for their Kurdistan. The PYD managed to keep both contestors out of the region. The government left voluntarily, the FSA has been more or less forced out. For both sides the Kurdish territories are not of urgent interest as both have other more important battle fields, areas, to contest.

The future of the Assad regime

Due to the deteriorating combat, logistical, financial and political situation and the improving situation of the FSA, the chance of survival for Assad and his regime will be very unlikely. Within 12 to 18 months, 6 if given western air support, the Assad government will be defeated, they’ll have lost Damascus, Aleppo and other strategic important areas. Assad and his most loyal forces can however survive a long time in the Alawite home areas but not forever.

The rate of desertion will most likely increase in the coming months forcing Assad to rely only on his most loyal security forces and his less capable but even more brutal militia forces. Because of lesser forces available Assad and co will be forced to concentrate their forces. Logically they will withdraw to the coastal areas taking as much arms and ammunition with them, including the much feared biological and chemical weapons.

The survival in the coastal home areas will depend on the unity in the FSA and of course, to a lesser extent, the level of support, air support, from the West.

International, Arab and Western, support, weapons, ammunition, intelligence, training and other logistical support will be absolute necessary to defeat Assad. Without it, it will become very difficult as the firepower, the level of organization and the supplies are still better and larger at the Assad side.

The FSA as an organization

The FSA is a collection of independent groups with the common aim to defeat the Assad regime. All groups have their own leader and the followers are loyal to their leader and not to the FSA or SNC per se. The strength of each group is also very different. The number of men under arms, the quality of the weapons and the availability of ammunition used to vary a lot. If they’re out of stock, the men would go home and would continue if the ammunition would be resupplied.

The FSA can be divided in about two kind of groups, the moderate groups wanting a new government with some kind of democratic system and the other group of Islamic fundamentalistic groups who also want a new government but then a Islamic republic, with Allah and the Sharia as the leading principle. The moderates constitute the majority but the Islamists are the most agressive and daring. In fighting the government the Islamic groups are more effective and successful. They will demand a price, a role if Assad will be defeated, and are certainly willing and able to fight for their demands.

This is going to be the major weakness in the fight against Assad and especially in the time there after. The several more or less independent groups with different levels of capability and support will be a major problem as there is no central and strong system and hierarchy of control and command.

All groups are more or less represented in the FSA leadership, with the exeption of the Islamic fundamentalists. And even this leadership is divided, as the previous moderate leader Mouaz al-Khatib resigned his position as the hardliners rejected any form of negotiations.

The lack of unity can and will be the biggest problem for the FSA and SNC, as long as Assad is still in command in Damascus, the groups will cooperate and continue to fight against Assad. But there after?

An end without and end

The future of Syria looks bleak as Assad is still not defeated and also still has some potential to fight and be dangerous. But this is more or less just a matter of time but the time there after will be much more troublesome and demanding.

Syria could end up with four different groups fighting each other. A complicated civil war with each group fighting each other and with little common ground to negotiate and to cooperate.

The moderates, the Islamic fundamentalists, the Kurds and of course the minorities of Alawites, Druze and Christians with or without Assad. All will fight and continue to fight as giving up or loosing is not an option.

The committed atrocities by all sides, the culture of revenge and honor and the strong religious differences between Sunni, Shia and Christians are all reasons for a long fight were only a total exhaustion could end the conflict or create a balance of power between three or four different areas, new countries, as two groups are strongly bound to an area.

December 2001

December 2001

War against terrorism, a never ending story

War against terrorism

The declared war on terrorism by the USA after the atrocious attacks on 11 September 2001, seem to deliver its first tangible results as the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan, a major supporter of Islam inspired terrorism, seems to be on the verge of collapse.

The opposition groups in Afghanistan organized in the Northern Alliance, or as they like to be called right now the United Front, were able with US air support and technical advice of US and British special forces, to retake large parts of Afghanistan. With the exception of some small Taliban units moving around in the countryside and the area around the city of Kandahar, the country is under control of the Northern Alliance. The situation at Kandahar is very unstable and the anti Taliban forces could have taken the city as this report is going to press.

The Northern Alliance could through military victories and especially by the defection of local groups, warlords, to their side retake much of the territory they lost in the last 5 to 6 years. All major cities with the exception of Kandahar is under their control, and the fall of Kandahar does only seem to be a matter of time. There are however still some Taliban units operating in the countryside and ocassionally killing some foreign journalists if they happen to cross their roads but the effectiveness of those Taliban forces as a fighting force is very doubtful.

The fight against terrorism is slowly impoving as some high ranking people of the Al Qaeda network have been killed by the air attacks or in combat with the Northern Alliance. The where about of Osama bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar the leader of the Taliban are not known but they are expected to be somewhere around Kandahar and Bin Laden could however also eventually be around the city of Jalalabad or Tora Bora in the eastern Nangahar province. Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda have many friends around Jalalabad and Tora Bora and they took over and have build extensive networks, caves, supplies and armaments around those two areas which are difficult to locate, to reach and to target.

The instability in Afghanistan becomes clearly visible in the the fight for Kandahar where local Pushtun and Northern Alliance forces are about to start a fight for the city. Local Pushtun groups which have defected the Taliban to the Alliance are moving towards Kandahar to fight the remnants of the Taliban regime, approximately 12.000 Aghans and 5.000 Arabs, Pakistanis and Chechens which voluntarily fought with the Taliban. The fight for Kandahar could become intensive as the Taliban promised to fight until death and they would not surrender. This is very likely the case with the 5.000 foreigners fighting at the side of the Taliban but rather unlikely for the Afghans which would most likely surrender, change sides, if the fight delivers no hope on a victory. Especially as the Afghans are most likely to get some amnesty offered if they would surrender. The international volunteers are worser off as they will face a much harder treatment if not being executed.

The city of Kandahar will therefore fall rather quickly and the Northern Alliance and the local Pushtun will take over control. The swiftness of the fall of Kandahar will become faster as the Afghan, Pushtun, fighting groups will change sides and join the Northern Alliance.

The US fight against the Al Qaeda network is moving much slower as it is difficult to unravel and at the moment they are only able to freeze some financial assets of the Al Qaeda network in a number of allied countries and make some arrests of people who allegedly supported the Al Qaeda but none to little success in eliminating parts of the network itself.

A never ending story

The war on terrorism might develop in a never ending story as the definition of terrorism is fraud, it can be used by every government to depict any group which is considered hostile to their rule. It remains valid that the terrorist for one party is a freedom fighter for the other.

The large number and diversity of terrorist groups is one of the major causes which make any war against terrorism a never ending story. Every group has its own history and sometimes even a justifiable case to fight for. This is the evil of terrorism. The bad political, economical and social situation without any chance on improvement of large groups in the world will fuel the large number of terrorists organizations. And for those people terrorism seems very often the only way for improvement.

The difficulty of defeating terrorism becomes clear with the Al Qaeda network which can not be destroyed by the operations in Afghanistan, the freezing of assets or the rather indiscriminatory arrests of suspected Arabs. Even if the leadership of the Al Qaeda is eliminated the network might be still operational in other countries and able to commit atrocious terrorist attacks in the West. The cell structure and the relatively freedom and independence of the cells make each cell a danger in itself and above all difficult to destroy.

The advantage of the operations in Afghanistan is that the support network of the Al Qaeda will be damaged and will have some difficulties, if not great difficulties, to operate as efficiently as before. The targeting of the command structures, including the leaders of the Taliban and the Al Qaeda, will make a coherent defence, fight, and the planning and execution of terrorist attacks impossible.

It is therefore very likely that the Taliban will be defeated within a couple days to about one month. The Taliban will not be able to resist the increasing pressure of the Northern Alliance and especially the US bombings of targets of importance.

The landing of US marines in the vicinity of Kandahar delivered a new outlook on the conflict. The US forces are much better trained and armed than the Taliban or for that matter the Northern Alliance. If the Taliban continues the conventional kind of warfare thing around Kandahar they will quickly learn that they are no match for the US armed forces. The Taliban will therefore, most likely, be defeated on the short term and with some luck the US forces can capture Bin Laden, terrorists of the Al Qaeda network and the leadership of the Taliban. The US will however not have infinitive time to reach those goals.

The US forces in Afghanistan just have to be aware that they live on borrowed time in Afghanistan. At the moment they receive support from the population but this will change very fast as the majority of the Taliban units will be defeated. As quick as the Northern Alliance have defeated the Taliban as a fighting force the US will be treated as an unwelcome guest and needs to be removed from Afghan territory. And this could be done with every mean available to the Afghans,

The US government can delay the departure from Afghanistan by using an UN protection force which should protect the transition of Afghanistan to a peaceful nation or they can even use the different groups in Afghanistan in a dangerous divide and rule game but in the end they have to make the decision to leave even if their goals have not been accomplished. The British adagium on Afghanistan is still valid, to conquer Afghanistan is not that difficult but staying there or getting out is the difficult part.

Even if the best case scenario is coming through and the Afghans manage it to come together and govern the country successfully, the problem of terrorism is still present in the world and will be far from defeated. There are still many hard feelings between the extremist part of the muslims and countries which allegedly are working against the muslims or a supporting the countries which do so.

The war on terror will become more difficult as the Taliban forces have been defeated. After the victory of the Northern Alliance the US forces will be unnecessary for the Alliance and not welcome anymore. By that time they will need to have catched the people they want or become some kind of occupation force in Afghanistan. And that is not a pleasant forecast. A long term involvement with the presence of US forces in Afghanistan should be avoided. In any way the war on terror will be much less focused when the Taliban is defeated and whether or not Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda have been eliminated is not that important to the Northern Alliance.

The strength of Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda will be decimated after they have lost their base in Afghanistan as no other country will deliver the same kind of safety and support to operate. Even if Bin Laden would survive with parts of its Al Qaeda network the impact will be much lesser as their capabilities have been reduced and they will remain targeted by many countries in the world. This will be a clear victory and an advantage to the security in the world. But terrorism is still around. And any fight will be more difficult as a clear target with the same standing as Osama bin Laden will be not around.

A shift to Iraq, Sudan, Somalia and Jemen, as countries which support terrorism will be much more difficult as the international support for such operations will be lesser. It will also be much more difficult to proof that those countries support terrorism or the much used word of being a threat to the world security. It might be that those countries consider it as that they are just protecting their national interests, the terrorist-freedom fighter dilemma. It is there by difficult to make a case against one or more of those countries, e.g. that they are directly connected to the kind of terrorism as of the 11^th September and even more important without being perceived as a threat by the neighboring countries.

Another problem with those four countries is that they have little to none clear targets, in the case of Somalia, there is even no strong central government, it are relatively large countries with little infra structure and industries and it will demand a supply of forces which would possibly even overstretch US capabilities.

There are at the moment no countries which support terrorism like the Taliban controlled Afghanistan did, even not the four above mentioned countries.

The four countries did and will not support the US activities in their war against terrorism and they might even condone some organizations which are considered by some countries as terrorist organizations but those organizations are not like the Al Qaeda network. And the four groups are most likely viewed by the above mentioned countries as freedom fighters who fight for a legitimate cause.

At best there are some Al Qaeda cells in those four countries, possibly dangerous, but without support from the Al Qaeda itself much less dangerous and defeatable with other means, read political and economical pressure towards countries which do not prosecute them of even allow them to live in those countries.

What will be around are many small groups with smaller goals, smaller attacks but sometimes with much more support in the population or in the world. A number of those groups are viewed as freedom fighters, fighting for the good, by some countries.

The terrorist organizations after Al Qaeda

The terrorist organizations which remain active in the world are the familiar kind like the Hamas, Jihad and Hizbullah. Groups which have smaller goals and do not have any ambitions to become a worldplayer, e.g. start a woldwide conflict between the western world and the islamic world.

The three above mentioned groups are extremist islamic organizations which have gained a lot of influence in the Middle East. Beside their military wings which commit terrorist acts they have a social network providing education, healthcare, food and other social support services to the people living in the area. This makes them very popular with the population which do not have many hopes on any improvement.

Combatting terrorism is therefore a large part fighting the poverty in the region. And of course the political injustice in the region. The case of the Palestinians is a prime example of doing everything wrong. The creation of a Palestinian nation in the region is an absolute necessity to pacify the region and eliminate the organizations like the Hamas, Jihad and Hizbullah.

The starting point to come to a conclusion should not be the current situation but the division plan of the UN in 1948 with the creation of the state of Israel. From this plan the division should be arranged with some small changes to the division to be finalised at a summit. But this is an other story.

November 2001

November 2001

Fighting Terrorism

Terrorism

The acts of aggression of a generally small group of people who want to make a statement about in their opinion an unjust situation are mostly defined as terrorism. The act has to be visible and is mostly pretty bloody to get as much attention as possible. All to often innocent bystanders, civilians, are the victims as government officials are more difficult to get and the impact would not have been that dramatic.

Terror organizations, no matter their scale, are all to often difficult to eliminate as they present a subgroup with their own culture and values. If they are used to work covertly the members will be unknown. This is especially true if the organization has been forced to operate underground as the group was considered hostile and dangerous to the society or better the government in charge. The existing members from the early period will be known but new recruits, people, will be unknown and will only become visible if caught after an attack.

The organization of terrorist groups

There a large number of terrorist groups in the world. Many countries have been hit by the actions of those groups. The terrorist group is the first stage of a rebellion against the sitting government and if the terrorist group becomes larger and the ideas find widespread following and acceptance in the population the next stage of taking over power can be started.

The majority of terrorist groups work according the principle of Lenin of an advanced guard who is fighting the suppressive government with all means at their disposition. The group has to be very secretive to avoid being detected and eliminated.

To be that secretive the majority of the terrorists work out of a cell structure with numerous cells working throughout a country, or for that matter all over the world, with the goal of undermining the government. Every cell is doing that what is supposed to be beneficial to the group’s cause. And the strength of the cell structure is that no one knows to much of other cells and the structure of the organization making infiltration and eliminating the terrorist group more difficult and time consuming. The cell leader knows one member of one other cell but nobody knows about the whole group, or better the structure/organization of a terrorist group. There are essentially two kind of operations, they can be local and/or executed by one cell without other parts of the organization having any knowledge of the act being planned or who did it until the act is claimed. Even the leadership can have no knowledge of the act being planned and would only be informed if the act is executed or just before execution.

Or the operation is carefully planned and executed by the leadership with one or more cells supporting the execution often without knowing what each person and each cell is doing. The common procedure is that one group, cell, is doing intelligence work about a project, an other group, cell is preparing places to stay and transport at the location, an other group, cell, is responsible for the delivery of the weapons and explosives and finally an other group, cell, is responsible for the attack. With this construction only the last group will be informed about what and when to attack, making an interception much more difficult. All other groups are only supporting and they do not know much because they do it more often without that something happens, it happens at a much later moment or it is considered not worthwhile by the leadership.

The second kind of operation is the most dangerous as it is planned and executed by professionals and is therefore more effective and more difficult to end and eliminate. Security is at all times maintained, information is gathered about several objects without any certainty that the object will become a target for an attack. Houses and cars are leased and bought more often even as an investment opportunity. Weapon storages are created also more often for possible later use and several small storages are more difficult to eliminate than a couple of large storages.

The picture gets even more dangerous as different terrorist groups in the world, with all different and little to non common interests occasionally meet, co-operate and support each other. This co-operation is out of the need that all are operating against a mostly more powerful opponent, e.g. a government of a country, Through the rule of interdependency between the nations of the world, countries in the world co-operate and so do the terrorist groups. Weaknesses can be improved and modus of operandi can be exchanged to improve the fight against the opponnent.

The communication within the group and between different groups is face to face or through covert means like the internet. The internet with websites and chatboxes offer many opportunities to hide and exchange information between members of the group and between groups. Telephone, fax and e-mail messages are prone to being intercepted by the security services around the world and it makes the identification and location of the people messaging each other more likely.

The elimination of terrorist groups

Terrorist groups are difficult to eliminate as they are covering themselve and use all methods available to evade being captured. If the terrorist groups belong to a non-western culture the identification and capture of the group will become even more difficult.

The apprehension of a terrorist group is a time consuming affair as getting information on a group is difficult and capturing one person or even a couple of cells will not damage the group that much. The elimination of terrorist groups is a long and structured process, you must identify the group, its goals, the structure, the operation methods and the relations outside the group. The creation of such a profile is possible by signal intelligence, SIGINT, communications intelligence, COMINT and of course human intelligence, HUMINT. SIGINT and COMINT are possible without that much difficulty. Both are in the preparation of the profile very helpful. To get more delicate information on for example structure and methods HUMINT will be necessary. HUMINT can deliver the information needed to eliminate a terrorist group.

The placing of covert operatives in terrorist organizations is however a dangerous, difficult and time consuming affair as the operative has first to enter the group and subsequently has to work his way up the hierarchy in a group.

To enter a group is already difficult as most groups are relatively small, paranoid and mostly know eachother or their families from the region of origin. Especially the non western groups are very incrowd and some relation between the members is present from the beginning.

The operative has to come from the same group to be succesfull and be given time, freedom and support to enter the group. Any pressures to deliver information quickly could be damaging to his position.

If a complete group profile is created the group can be eliminated and the majority of cells can be arrested. This however is not enough as the cause of terrorism has to be eliminated. The causes are mostly in some perceived or actual unfair treatment or situation of a given group of people. This situation must be changed to forego a resurrection of a same kind of group.

The elimination of terror is a case of a political, economical and law enforcement solution. Those three are able to eliminate the causes and the consequences of terrorism. Everything less will only be a part solution.

Afghanistan 2001

The case of the Al Qaeda is an example of the difficulties in defeating terrorism. The Al Qaeda is a highly capable organization with a firm base and an extensive network of cells and with many relations to other terrorist organizations. The Al Qaeda is even more difficult to defeat as it receives the support of a country, Afghanistan.

The situation in Afghanistan is very difficult and dangerous as a country, the dominating group in a country, the Taliban, is actively protecting and supporting terrorist organizations. Or of course in the view of the Taliban, people with the same ideas who fight the unjust treatment of muslims in the world. And as always it just takes a little to perceive a bad treatment. And the Taliban have a missionary conviction, they want to share the faith with as many people as possible.

The Taliban is protecting the Al Qaeda organization led by Osama bin Laden which is supporting and guiding many other muslim organizations in the world. The information on the Al Qaeda is rudimentary as it could operate for a long time without to much control with support of in the first place the Taliban but also with covert support from many fundamentalistic social/relief organizations in Arab and muslim countries.

The Al Qaeda received more attention from the intelligence community in the world as the attacks which were supported by the Al Qaeda became more intensive and the scale of the network of the Al Qaeda became visible. Not withstanding the large scale of the Al Qaeda they became really known, targeted and tracked after the 11 September 2001 attack on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The 11 September was the turning point for the Al Quada, before they could live in a protected environment in Afghanistan and with no much opposition from the Arab and muslim world. Afterwards the Arab and muslim countries had to choose a side.

The Taliban and Afghanistan are since then targeted by the international community in general and the U.S. and the U.K. in particular. Air strikes and Special Forces operations have since then be the name of the game in an attempt to destroy the Taliban and the Al Qaeda organization.

The first targets could be reached with little difficulty, the infra structure of the Taliban could be destroyed and some units of the Taliban could be hit but the fighting power on the short term is still more or less intact. The Special Forces raids could create some instability and hit the Taliban but all these actions is anything far away from forcing the Taliban into a defeat.

The operations in Afghanistan will therefore continue as before but with the air strikes changing from the infra structure to Taliban combat units and the front line with the Northern Alliance. The number of targets like infra structure, barracks and headquarters will become rare in Afghanistan. Special Forces will also continue to operate inside Afghanistan and operate as reconnaissance, forward air control and with hit and run operations. And as long as the Special Forces teams are not directly landed into a Taliban unit the number of casualties will remain controllable or acceptable. If casualties can be acceptable.

The esptablishment of camps in Aghanistan to support the operations in the country is a good idea out of a logistic view and to help in an emergency but dangerous as it presents a clear target for the Taliban. Even a camp in the north of the country, in alliance held territory, will present a magnet to all suicide bombers in the country.

The best strategy in Afghanistan is to remain on distance and attack with air strikes and Special Forces operations where and when you please as this will hurt the Taliban the most, they will destabilize the Taliban. The Taliban, the enemy, can be hit and the losses and costs on the own side can be limited. The air strikes are defeating any larger opposition and concentrations of Taliban forces and are like some kind artillery for the Northern Alliance and the Special Forces operating in Afghanistan. The Special Forces operations are the best way to meet the small units of the Taliban without giving the Taliban the advantage of using their geographic knowledge of the country side. The fast in and out operations are like some kind of guerilla war against the Taliban. The Taliban can be ambushed and severely limited in their movement. This kind of warfare is exactly the same what the Afghan resistance did to the armoured dominated Soviet occupation forces from 1980 to 1988 but now the Taliban is attacked without giving a change to fight.

The Northern Alliance can in the same time keep the pressure on the Taliban and conquer some terrain they had lost in previous campaigns against the Taliban. A defeat of the Taliban by the Northern Alliance is at the moment not possible for the Northern Alliance as they are to weak and fragmented to make a big impact on the short term.

The strength of the Taliban is thereby still uncertain as the knowledge about the fighting power, the capabilities and numbers, of the Taliban are not exactly known and the effects of the air strikes are unpredictable. The structure of the Taliban forces, mostly light units, armed with assault rifles, grenade/AT launchers, some artillery and even lesser armored vehicles, makes them very mobile and the effectiveness of air strikes lower than desired. The fighting power of the Taliban should not be underestimated as they remain good fighters in a head on engagement, they have the stamina and the will to fight on if they want. Afghan fighters are battle hardened and willing to take losses, running away is not their game. But the Aghan fighters, or better their leaders can be persuaded to change their minds, e.g. change sides.

The operations in Afghanistan are because of the above mentioned factors a long term affair unless, unexpectedly, the leadership of the Taliban can be eliminated and/or an increasing number of the Taliban forces walk over to the other side. Something not uncommon in Afghan politics that the warlords change sides if it is beneficial for their group or clan.

October 2001

October 2001

Terrorism, consequences and implications

Terrorism

Terrorism has been around since many years, everytime a non-state group, entity, with a political background attacked, this might be government buildings, officials, forces or even civilians, the government talked about terrorism. This criminalised the group which could be described tomorrow as rebels, next week as freedom fighters and next month as a friendly head of state.

Terrorism and terrorists are relative descriptions depending on time and situation what it is. Terrorism can be in some cases legitimate resistance against a suppressive and illegitimate government. Otherwise, the resistance movements against the German occupation in Europe from 1940 until 1945 were also terrorists organizations. And more recently, the Kosovo Liberation Army was in the eyes of Milosevic just a terrorist organization. So the terrorist to the one might be a freedom fighter for the other.

This should give some insight to the words terrorism and terrorists, it are words with many explanations. It should be evaluted every time, if it is terrorism and if it is valid to others too. It is therefore preferred to call the evil with the name instead of something ill defined as terrorism. The use of the word terrorism is acceptable if describing an unacceptable act but if it is to be prosecuted or punished it should be clear who is the target.

Acts of terrorism are usually bloody acts which cause very often many victims and even bigger economical damage. The terrorists act out of an idea of bad treatment and this is in the view of the terrorists the only way to get the attention and change the according to the terrorists wrong or bad situation.

Terrorism is therefore a difficult concept, the cause might be fraud and acts of terrorism can easily get out of control, to many casualties and no connection between target and cause. If this happens terrorism deteriorates to murder.

The attack on the World Trade Center, the Twin Towers, was such an act of murder. The connection between target and cause is non-existent. It was aimed at destroying a symbol of the United States. The WTC represented the economical system of the U.S. but it was only an office building. With many people who had no connection to the politics of the U.S. This act is therefore best described as a criminal act, mass murder, done by a criminal organization.

There are just a few people and/or organizations capable and with the motive to commit such an act. Osama Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization is the most likely suspect.

The attack on the WTC was aimed to enrage the U.S. and subsequently to seduce the U.S. government to a reaction which would rally the muslim world behind the causes of the suspected perpetrator Osama Bin Laden. The objectives of Bin Laden are to eliminate the western influence and presence in the Arab / muslim world and protect the muslims all over the world from the infidels. A clash of civilizations is planned by Bin Laden to, in the end, create a muslim world.

The actions of Bin Laden and his organisation Al Qaeda, the base, had mostly nothing to do with the Islam or the protection of the islam. It is and was aimed at the destabilization of the world and is against the peace. The objective of Bin Laden is to create a struggle between the islamic world and the west, which they see as the biggest evil in the world and needs to be eliminated to protect the islamic faith.

Bin Laden and its followers are only a small militant and extreme fraction which calls itself islamic and pure but violates many islamic rules and traditions. If it proves to be true that Bin Laden and the Al Qaeda are responsible for the attack on the Twin Towers of the WTC complex then they would have crossed all lines of political and military opposition and even human conduct, even in times of conflict. They would have place themselve outside any legitimacy and on the same level as other mass murderers in the history of mankind.

The day the world changed

Tuesday, 11 September 2001, will be remembered as the day history took a new direction, as if the new milennium started that day. The near simultaneous attack on the Twin Towers of the WTC and on the Pentagon with hijacked airliners started a new dimension of terrorism. No high tech attack but simple hijacked airliners used as Tomahawk missiles. Effective and deadly.

This act will change the perception of security in the U.S., changing ways of doing things, calling out a national emergency and the U.S. will be looking for protection and security which never can be reached. It is an illusion to find a method against terrorism, especially this kind of terrorism, by physical methods. It will need an advanced and intelligent approach to eliminate this kind of acts or for protection.

All increased security attempts as increased control and privileges for the law enforcement institutions will only limit the freedom, liberties and way of living which are meant to be protected. Those values which are supposed to be so much better than what the perpetrators claim and are willing to enforce. If those values are limited in name of security the perpetrators would gain a success in the end. Not to speak of the economic costs of the increased security measures and the especially the continuation of the feelings of insecurity will destroy all the trust in the market and economy.

The question who committed this atrocious act will be not that difficult to answer. Only a few organizations are able to conduct an operation like the one committed on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. It will need intelligence capability, funds to finance a long term operation and suicide candidates with some experience in flying an aircraft and which have the basic skills of handling Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft. And above all, the motivation to conduct such an act which would invite the retaliation of the U.S.A. The reaction of the U.S. would be as fast as possible and without any remorse. No country or political organization would be that foolish as the costs would be simply to high. Only a determined organization without any great alliances to established countries or organizations would be able to commit such an act.

The only person who fits to this description is Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization. It fits in the policy of Bin Laden to attack the U.S.A. to create a situation in which some kind of clash of civilizations would occur. The Islamic world vs the western world. In this situation he would most likely get the support of many impoverished or suppressed muslims in large parts of the world and become some kind of hero or martyrer if he would be killed. He will not get a majority but the loudest supporters will support Bin Laden. And in any case many will out of a feeling of humiliation and disrespect by the west and even if they do not agree with it they understand the motives of the attack.

Even as it will be clear that Bin Laden is behind the attack, it will be difficult to proof that Bin Laden is responsible for the attack as there will be no written order to commit the act. The burden of proof is more difficult because of the structure of the Bin Laden’s organization, Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is essentially a small organization with many alliances, relations, with many other groups. It is more like a network, a web of groups with the same goals and way of thinking and acting. And all have a cell structure in which only a small number of persons know people of other groups. Al Qaeda is essentially only responsible for intelligence, financing, training and probably some command and communication functions. They are a support group which does not commit any or little operations of their own. The command function is very vague and could probably more look like a consultancy function with some leverage. But one should always remind that the word of a man of the standing of Bin Laden means something and can cause a lot, his words are very important and the majority of the people in his surrounding obey to his words. Not to speak of the support Bin Laden is able to give to other groups. This is all together is very convincing for other groups to follow the leadership of Bin Laden.

The attack on the U.S.A.

Tuesday, the 11^th September 2001, started as every other day in New York city. The day would however change the world. Four aircraft, 2 Boeing 757 and 2 Boeing 767, were hijacked. The hijackers took over control of the airplanes with knives and the threat of a bomb. They took over the pilots seat and changed the direction of the aircraft towards NYC and Washington DC.

Two aircraft with a 15 minutes break rammed the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, one slammed into the Pentagon and one crashed in the countryside. The passengers in the last plane staged a counter attack and the plane crashed, thereby saving the U.S.A. from another disaster. The likely targets were the White House or the Capitol.

All targets were highly symbolic targets of American prowess. The Twin Towers symbolised the capitalistic free trade system and the Pentagon the all mighty military power of the U.S.A. It represented everything Bin Laden and its followers despised. It was a kind of revenge, we can hurt, humiliate, the U.S. and it will get Bin Laden the admiration and support from many muslims in the world.

The attack however unified the U.S.A. in its demand for retribution, a war against terror. The U.S.A.received the support from all over the world in the fight against terror. Only many countries will have a second thought with their support and expect to receive support in the elimination of their terrorists in their home countries.

Consequences

A terrorist attack like the one on the Twin Towers is because of its many victims, the negative effects on the economy and while it is viewed as a criminal act and not a political act will have serious consequences for the group who did it and anyone who would support such a group. It will demand a hard and if possible fast answer from the U.S.A.

The first reaction of the U.S.A. was to secure the home land by grounding all flights and increasing the security measurements around the country at important buildings and installations. These actions feezed the U.S. economy and public life.

Many other pro security measurements are studied at the moment, like the introduction of ID-cards, more rights for the law enforcements agencies to tap and follow and hold people, more intruding laws into the private life of people and the most obvious, increased security checks at airports, more police at the airports and air-marshals in the planes to counter the chance on an attack. All these measurements are however only delivering a phony-security, it increases the feeling of security but will not increase the security of the people and/or nation. It will on the contrary limit the freedom and liberties of the people, exactly that which needed to be protected from the suppression and terror of the Bin Laden’s of the world.

For example air marshals will give a bigger sense of security but the problem is if the terrorists could get aboard it is already to late. A shoot out aboard high in the sky could puncture the aircraft the consequences of that would be that the plane would most likely crash. Distance control of aircraft is equally dangerous as if the control system would be under control of terrorists it would be come even more dangerous. Tighter security, more laws, would only limit the freedom of the people without any higher chance of capturing terrorists as they operate undercover in small groups mostly doing nothing illegal until the big hit and they are able to get what they want on the black market.

The intelligence and law enforcement agencies are in te mean time busy to build a case against the involvement of Osama Bin Laden in the attack of 11 September 2001. A political offensive rallied the world behind the U.S.A. in the fight against terrorism. Afghanistan which is suspected of supporting Bin Laden has been targeted by political isolation, even long time supporters like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have withdrawn the support and recognition for the Taliban government in Afghanistan. The mass support of a lot of Arabs in the fight against the west did not materialize as all sided with the U.S.A. as the governments decided that would be best. Even if parts of countries with a large number of islamic people thought different, especially the poor without any hope promoted the fight against the west.

The military answer will come later as enough forces have been deployed to the most advantageous points and if the targets are clearly presented. The first target will most likely be found in Afghanistan, or better the Taliban controlled part, as they are protecting Bin Laden. If the Taliban will not accept the U.S. demands, including the hand over of Bin Laden, the end of support to terrorism and the right to control the training camps, something they never be able to do, they will be attacked at some time. The U.S. will not let the Taliban get away with their support to Bin Laden.

The military answer will not include an invasion, an army deployment, in Afghanistan but only precision bombardements of B 2, B 52, F15E, F16C/D and F/A 18C bombers and fighter bombers and ofcourse Tomahawk guided missiles on Taliban institutions and buildings, military infra structure and training camps. And the U.S. will use special forces to raid suspected places and areas. Forces like the Green Barets, Delta Force, Seals, Rangers and probably the British SAS will be involved in those operations.

Places which might be attacked are the airbases; Kabul international, Kandahar, Shindand, Herat, Mazar and Kunduz. The larger ground force bases as Qargah and Rishkor on the outskirts of Kabul and the former 18^th Divivsion base at Deh Dadi outside Mazar. These bases have been used by Arab and foreign combatants but will now be most likely deserted. Smaller bases and frontline positions can also be attacked with the help of the Northern Alliance which is combating the Taliban.

So the only kind of operations in Afghanistan will be a fast in and fast out strategy and hit and run tactics. Creating maximum damage on the enemy without becoming a target itself.

The U.S.A. will not make the same mistake as the Russians did in their Afghanistan adventure. They will not enter with large military forces to try to hold and change the country. They will be invisible and only the results of their actions will be visible.

Fighting Terrorism

This strategy will not deliver immediate tangible results and it will take time before the cell structure can be touched and the first successes can be achieved. The fundamentalistic islamic organizations will be in the mean time be able to strike back against targets in the west.

The U.S. operations in Afghanistan are just a first step in a long process. And it will take more than military and law enforcement operations, or even political co-operation. It will take a policy, economically and socially, to support the islamic countries who have large groups of poor people without any perspectives and/or people living in refugee camps. As long as these bad situations exist people like Bin Laden find a fertile ground for their extremist ideas, get the attention and receive as much support as they want.

The world community can do its part to make terrorrist have a bad time. This will have to do with co-operation and ofcourse limiting the freedom of terrorists in the world. Intelligence should be shared, an active human intelligence network should be set up and law enforcements should co-operate with less bureaucratic hurdles. The co-operation between the intelligence communities will be difficult as they guard their knowledge very carefully. It is their working capital and only an equal exchange of information will work and not a one way street. A one way street should be avoided at any time as this would be regarded as one country would benefit mostly from the co-operation and destroying any chance of combatting terrorism effectively.

The international community should take two other measures as soon as possible. Terrorist organizations should not be able to work out of a country and most importantly the financial structure of terrorist groups should be eliminated. If they can not fund their work they can not operate properly and are more likely to make mistakes. Even as terrorism is a relatively cheap way to fight a war it still requires capital to buy weapons, train the people, commit terrorist acts, propagate the goals and ofcourse pay for the living of the staff and operatives.

The majority of the actions against terrorism can be implemented very quickly, it will only need the will of the governments to do it. It will not need new extended laws limiting the rights and liberties of the people. It also does not need the increased security measures introduced after the Twin Towers atrocity. It will only need the will to execute existing laws, co-operation and better intelligence.

And to finally defeat islamic terrorism of the Bin Laden kind on the medium to long term, you firstly need to support the people without future and in refugee camps in the world. As this is where terrorism will grow fast and easy. Partly the cause but certainly the support base. And secondly, causes like the continuing Middle East conflict between Israel and the Palestinians and the unfair treatment of people in the Middle East need to be ended. This will subsequently limit the involvement of the west in the Middle East and at the same time one of the grievances of the muslim population.

September 2001

September 2001

A note on Warfare

The use of armed forces in the future, Heavy vs Light Forces

Since the end of the cold war, the bi-polar world, the political landscape has changed dramatically. A large number of states in the western world cashed in the socalled peace dividend, lowered the expenditures of defence and decreased the number of forces under arms. There was a widespread believe that conflict and the chance of new conflicts had been over. The opposite proved to be true, new and old suppressed conflicts came alive and demanded the attention of the world community.

The nature of the conflicts had changed, as the world had formerly prepared itself to fight one big conflict between the two ideological blocs, the U.S.A and the U.S.S.R, or a more or less controlled representative war in a rather unimportant country between two ideologically different groups each linked to one of the superpowers. The new conflicts, internal conflicts and conflicts between two or more countries were of a different character and intensity. And above all most of them are little to none controllable.

The developed nations of the world wanted to do something to meet the pressures and dangers from the new actors and nature of the conflicts. The developed nations had to do something new to make up the lapse in capabilities since the demise of the East-West conflict and the speed with which new conflicts developed and which were relatively immune to political or even economical pressure.

New and lighter forces are to be introduced which could be available on a very short time span on every place in the world. Or better nearly every place. Together with these new lighter forces a new doctrine had to be invented when and how to use the light forces.

The return of the Light Brigade

Light forces, e.g. light cavalry and infantry, have existed since many years and were mainly used for reconnaissance, counter attack, surprise and other kind of missions where speed and deployability were the most important conditions. The speed and deployability had of course their price as protection, armour and support and logistics were less important and only rudimentary available.

In the years of the cold war light forces, airborne and infantry units, were of lesser importance and only used in support of the heavy forces which dominated the stand off. War and conflict was seen as a fight between large heavy armored forces rolling over the plains of Western Europe.

After the demise of the Soviet Union, the large armored threat out of the east disappeared making the existence of the large heavy armored formations less important. The conflicts which emerged after the cold war were less intensive and mostly combat between lightly armed forces, often even nothing more than armed para-militaries or guerilla forces against a light and outdated armed government army.

The place of combat was thereby often far from the developed world in less developed areas which are geographically beneficial to the use of light forces, e.g. mountainous, forested and remote areas.

The developed western world needed forces which would be able to react quickly and move fast without long deployment times and the need for host nation support en route or in country. The use of heavy armored forces, which require a relatively long time of deployment and more infra structural support, were therefore more or less excluded. The geographic condition further promoted the use of lesser armored vehicles and/or forces, e.g. light forces.

The need to modernize the forces, the need to react adequately to the new military demands ergo the need for light fighting vehicles and the economic benefits of replacing the heavy armored forces which are expensive to acquire, maintain, operate and deploy with lighter vehicles sounded very attractive to the military and especially to the finance departments.

The light forces returned to the spotlight and nearly all developed countries have some kind of program to re-introduce the light forces as a substantial part of the armed forces. There is not only an increase in airborne forces but also in light infantry or better the above mentioned units which use the light armored vehicles.

The light infantry is fast to deploy over considerable distances as they can be airlifted in large quantities. They are very mobile in their movements as they are fast and agile. They have enough fire power to eliminate the targets they most likely will meet in the expected low to medium intensity warfare. Superior intelligence, information warfare and fire power of lightweight artillery and missiles should further deliver the punch to win in a combat situation.

The main fighting power with the light units are the people fighting in the units. The vehicles are only a support element to bring them form A to B in relative safety and to give some fire support. The kind of operations which are momentarily in high demand, Peace Support Operations, PSO, or Peace Enforcement Operations are very good executable with these kind of forces. Manpower, mobility with enough firepower and stamina are considered the elements to make those operations successful. These are the reason why light forces are that popular again.

Armored vs Light units

The heavy armored forces which dominated the army landscape for several decades have been on the losing side. The heavy units have been cut in modernization, maintenance and operation budget. The air force, navy and even the infantry, airborne and special forces elements in the army received more attention. The heavy forces were considered less worthwhile as their use was in the PSO, peace enforcement operations on the first sight not that important and useful.

This could occur firstly out of the wish the save funds as the defence departments received lesser funds each year as other social and budget/financial problems seemed to be more important and got a bigger part of the cake. Secondly strategic questions like the increased use of the armed forces in PSO operations under the flag of the United Nations draw more attention than the armored forces which only seem to play a minor role in the majority of the PSO operations.

The question here is what is the position of the armored forces in the future. Do they deserve the role which they have been forced upon during the last couple of years? Are armored units representing only a small part of the army mainly to be tasked to defend the country from an attack and in the secondary role of supporting the light forces, infantry and airborne forces, in PSO operations?

The capabilities of armored forces have been greatly underestimated in recent times merely on the fact that they are more expensive and especially because they more difficult and slower to transport over large distances. And of course because they have been used incorrectly in a couple of conflicts. The most clear example of the ill use of armored forces has been the Russian operation to conquer Grosny, Chechnya, in the first Chechnyan uprising. A Russian company of Russian T-80 main battle tanks, MBTs, were destroyed in the attempt to take and hold Grosny. They were eliminated with an ease not only destroying the name of a rather good MBT, the T-80, but also discrediting the use of armored warfare in future conflicts.

Disregarding all historic knowledge of using MBTs in warfare, the MBT has to be accompanied with infantry to secure the area especially in all close in fighting. Even the highly capable and much praised Israeli Defence Force learned this lesson on the hard way in the Yom Kippur war in 1973 when they used MBT only formations without the necessary support of armored infantry and artillery. Previous experiences in the six day war in 1967 delivered that good results with MBT dominated units and the idea that the Middle East was not Europe where infantry and artillery support are absolutely necessary was the reasoning behind the move to have MBT only units. However the introduction of effective Anti Tank missiles and as the fighting closed in the MBT became vulnerable and could be destroyed by the opposite forces. The fighting power and morale of the IDF had been severely undermined by this heavy loss of MBTs and casualties.

In all wars the strength of an army depends on the co-operation of the combined arms team of MBTs, infantry and of course artillery and air support. They are equal partners in the equation. If one is considered less important the chance for success will diminish.

The MBT in the combined arms team has an important role even in urban warfare, the kind of warfare considered unsuitable for MBTs. All depends how to use the MBT, in what position. All parts of the combined arms team should be used flexible, in urban warfare infantry takes the leading role in open warfare the MBT will take the leading role but each is less useful without the other. The strengths of all should be used most beneficially to the team and all have a place. The combined arms team can maximize the possibilities and minimize the vulnerabilities, so increasing the fighting power of the unit and their chance on success.

The MBT is even useful in urban warfare if some rules are respected, and violating these rules could mean the destruction of the MBT. The MBT has to operate in the combined arms team, all movements has to be covered by the accompanying infantry, no spearhead operations, the MBT is to be used in urban warfare as a support and defensive weapon, not as a system to enforce a breakthrough and ofcourse the MBT should not stay to long in one place to attract the attention of the enemy as the MBT remains a great trophy to destroy.

Conclusion

The world has changed since the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the controllable conflicts of the bi-polar system. New conflicts emerged with other demands on the defence forces. There grew a demand for military units which could be deployed quickly over large distances and could operate without to much support and if possible were not to expensive.

The light units, infantry with wheeled light armored vehicles and airborne units fulfilled this demand. Efforts have been put in place by a large number of developed countries to increase the number of these units in the last couple of years to have a large number of these forces available to be used.

This at the expense of the existing armored units which are considered less usefull and valuable in PSO operations. This trend is likely to continue in the coming years but it could proof to be a to big investment into one kind of system with in the end a big headache as the light forces could not meet all demands. Or better met an opponent which has been to strong. The dominance of the MBT in the cold war period is over but to replace them with light armored vehicles coud therefore be short sighted on the medium to long term.

There is a need for a balanced defence force to encounter all possible eventualities including the defence of the homeland and expedition operations against a stronger opponent then the now encountered light armed units or para-military units which can be controlled by the light forces.

The defence forces of the future should be combined arms teams and they should be integrated at the lowest level possible. For example the brigade should be a combat formation with heavy armored units, armored infantry, light infantry and artillery.

They should train to co-operate on the lowest level to maximize the effects of all systems. If the co-operation between the heavy, light and artillery units is running correctly it can outmaneuver and outfire all existing and future opponents.

Combat operations can only be excuted correctly if all three work together and use their strengths. If only one part is used and others neglected it will just be a matter of time before they will meet an opponent who will destroy the strength of one system and tactic. Remind the Russian experience in Grosny or even better the Israeli one in the Yom Kippur war in 1973.

A comprehensive defence force with the strategy and tactics to use the capabilities of the combined arms team is the only way to avoid tragic incidents as happened if parts were left out. There are no short cuts to success and security. It is an all or nothing game and light only is just to little to make it if the going get’s tough.

August 2001

August 2001

Investing in difficult times – Missile Defence

Investing in difficult times

Introduction

Investments into one or more of the various stock markets of the world has been a rather disappointing and costly way of investing your money. The majority of the stock markets on the world have delivered a bad return on your investments. The markets did not continue to boom as in the previous years but were severely affected by the economical slow down and the depreciation of the stocks. To many bad reports, the slowing down of the U.S. economy and the world wide negative effects on the development of the U.S. stock market were the main reasons for the sell off.

Many sectors and stocks lost a large part of their value, even if they could occasionally show some signs of improvement, and the stocks will continue to do so, the trend will be flat to slightly negative on the short term. The stock market will most likely regain its strength if the economies, especially the U.S. economy and to a lesser extent the European economies, will show some better growth perspectives.

It will probably take another three to six months until the first signs of a rebounding economy wil become visible. Before the first signs become apparent it is now the opportunity to invest in the most promising stocks and to be ready if the market will take off again.

Market Situation

The stock markets are still without a clear direction, a number of companies are giving warnings, the sales, procurement, GDP numbers and the E/P ratio will be lower as in the previous year and some companies are performing better than expected. All these indecisive data do not give a clear direction for the future. To much can be read into the data, the bulls and the bears both claim the possess the right knowledge about what the market will do. But maybe there is to much interpretation of the data.

What is certain is that the economies of the world are growing at a much slower pace. Instead of a 3 to 5 percent growth for the developed countries the growth is limited to 1 to 2 percent.The performance of the companies is equally lower, south of the double digit growth instead of north of the double digit growth with the internet, communications and technology, ICT, sector receiving the biggest hits. The internet companies received the biggest hit with a decrease of over 80 percent in value, the communication companies because of the high debts and lower demand up to 40 percent of their value and the internet focused tech companies with equal high decreases.

The question is how far will this depreciation continue, when do we bottom, when will the stocks inprove again and when does the economy show better growth figures. The U.S. interest rates have become lower and will most probably get lower another 25 to 50 basispoints, the European rates will most likely also see some bigger movement with an approximate 50 to 100 basis points. The European inflation seems to be more under control so giving the ECB space to support the economic development. The effects of the rate cuts will take some time before the first effects will become visible.

An improvement of the economies can therefore be expected to start in the next three to six months. The first bigger improvements will first become visible if the quarter reports will be made public. The last quarter of 2001 or the first quarter of 2002 will see an increasing number of companies delivering better then expected results. The improved business figures will be boosted by the lowered interest rates which will in the first to second quarter of 2002 affect the growth of the economies.

A road for better stocks

The last two quarters of 2001 will be very likely difficult quarters, the market will lack any clear direction, the economies are still in a low growth scenario and to many companies delivering disappointing results. This market situation will be flat, with some up and down reactions on news but in the end no big changes, the Dow Industrials for example will be moving in the 10.200 – 10.600 range, other market indices will continue moving in the same kind of range 10 to 15 percent below their former highs.

This level will however deliver opportunities to get into some markets previously considered to expensive. The ICT is the most prominent example but also the most risky sector. It will take some time until they recover from their very big decrease in value but the ones which survive will be in two to three years back in the front line of the best performing stocks. It is therefore very profitable to invest into the most promising ICT stocks if you have some time to let them develop.

In the meantime it is safe and profitable to put your cards on the blue chips of the market. They will most likely not give in to much to the occasional bad news reactions and still should be able to deliver a little growth.

Which and where to invest

This period of indecisiveness and low stock prices is a very good opportunity to make some additional purchases. The market will remain depressed for some time but on the medium term, read 9 to 12 months many stocks will surge in value.

The sectors first to benefit from the improvement are the pharmaceutical, biotech, HMO, oil/energy, financial/insurance, automotive, food and beverage, retail sectors. The ICT sector, including the computer, processor and software and service companies, will follow the lead of the old blue chip companies. They will take some time to recover but if they recover it will be stronger and financial healthier. The better ICT companies will survive the carnage. These are the companies with a strong brand name, a number of proven and new products available, enough financial resources and even some profits achieved in the last couple of quarters. Investing in the ICT sector will need a longer time horizon as they will only be able to start their growth in 12 to 18 months. (For a full list of stocks of which we expect higher growth look at our May 2001 report Financial Assessment.)

Missile Defence

Introduction

The idea of missile defence is not a new option. It exists since the first missiles were developed and both, the U.S. had temporarily a missile defence system operational, and Russia has since many years a Missile Defence system operational around Moscow.

The idea of missile defence and the possible elimination of nuclear missiles exists since many years. Especially after it was seriously put on the agenda and put in development by U.S. president Ronald Reagan.

The socalled Star Wars programma, SDI, Strategic Defence Initiative, was aimed at the defence of the U.S.A. from every possible missile attack. The programme proved to be to difficult to implement with the current technological capabilities and has been continued in the mean time with lesser ambitions and without a pressing time scale.

The idea of missile defence was reactived/rejuvenated with the election of George Walker Bush as the new president of the U.S. Before Bush the missile defence program was more or less every year continued at the pressure of the U.S. Congress. The new missile defence system should not defend the world against a full scale missile attack as envisioned during the Cold War but as a defence against a limited strike of around 10 to 15 missiles. The rogue states, or the states of concern, were the main objective of the rejuvenated missile defence plan. Countries like North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria were the ones at which the missile defence system was primairily aimed.

Options for missile defence

The SDI program evolved into the Ballistic Missile Defence Organisation, BMDO, with a less ambitious defence plan and with lesser but still considerable funding available. The BMDO was to be responsible for the development of a defence system for the country and forces deployed abroad against ballistic missile attack. The program was to be called initially the National Missile Defence system which should be able to defeat a small number of ballistic missiles, up to 15, fired by states of concern. The main goal was to protect the U.S.A. from black mail attempts from states of concern, at least this was the official description of it.

The NMD programme increased somewhat in scale as two sites were to become operational instead of one. The NMD program became more advanced as after the first territorial differences between a land based and naval based defence system, both were to be included in the NMD system. The NMD was to be organised into the Ground Based Midcourse system and the Navy Theater Wide system.

The Ground Based system is particularly developed for the protection of the U.S.A. and eventually its allies. The Navy Theater Wide system was designed to protect U.S. forces abroad and eventually allies under threat. As the navy system is based aboard of ships it is easy to relocate.

Even after that many years of research and development the BMDO has not yet one system available which could be fielded, with the exception of the Patriot PAC III but this has been operable over a decade and updated every couple of years. The PAC III version should be able to defeat an entering warhead/missile with a hit to kill shot. Another program close to be introduced is the Naval area anti ballistic missile system, the Standard SM 2 IVA missile with small modifications in the Aegis radar/FCS system.

All other programs are still in the development stage but they could be fielded within the next five to ten years if appropriate funding is available.

Ballistic missiles can be tracked and intercepted at three stages. In the boost phase, in the mid course phase and in the terminal phase. The boost phase is the easiest and safest phase as the missile will fall back on the launching territory.. The missile is in the boost phase easy to identify, relatively slow so better to intercept and still in one big part, so easier to hit. The mid course phase is the time of flight in space or in high atmosphere.. The speed has increased and the radar and/or infra red signature gets smaller. At this phase the missile is best attacked with space based weapons.

The terminal phase is when the missile/warheads re-enter the atmosphere and are moving towards their targets. The missile/warhead is at this stage very fast and only a hit to kill will eliminate the missile/warhead.

Most programmes of the NMD are aimed at the terminal phase and boost phase as it are the easiest, smallest and cheapest parts to realise.

The missile attack is to be identified by satallite, the now to be built Space Based Infra-Red Satallite, SBIRS, is the main radar to identify and track the missiles. This in support of some land based radars like the one in Alaska.

After the missile is identified and tracked it can be attacked. The main means to attack the ballistic missiles are the above mentioned Patriot PAC III and Standard SM2 IVA missiles which destroy the missile in the terminal phase.

Secondly, the missiles in development, the Theater High Altitude Area Defence System, THAAD, and the Standard SM3, Theater Wide defence system. Both missiles are targeting the ballistic missile at higher altitudes in the terminal phase and are capable to hit a missile in its boost phase, just before entering the mid course phase. Especially the SM3 is designed also to destroy a missile in this phase. The SM3 as a ship based missile can be placed on the coast of a country which intends to launch ballistic missiles.

The Patriot, THAAD and the SM2 IVA and SM3 missiles are either operational or close to be operational. They are very good fit to be used in a limited anti ballistic missile defence system as intended by the NMD plan.

The NMD programme also covers some more exotic weapons like the Airborne Laser System, ABL, which should be able to destroy ballistic missiles in their boost phase. The ABL is supposed to be demonstrated in 2003. Other laser systems are also under development which should destroy missiles in their terminal phase. And finally there are some plans to re-launch some kind of Brilliant Pebbles system. Brilliant Pebbles was a space based system which was aimed at destroying missiles in their mid course phase. It was a space based system, a kind of garage for missiles, ready to be launched at missiles entering and moving through space.

If the NMD system is to be deployed with the above mentioned missiles, the ABL, other laser systems and some kind of Brilliant Pebbles, NMD will become more than a limited defence against 10-15 ballistic missiles. It will be closer to a system for defeating a limited strike, e.g. over 100 missiles, And this is what Russia and China worry most about. If some kind of system is fielded it is relatively easy to make it bigger and make the Chinese and Russian missile inventories rather useless.

Thoughts about missile defence

The NMD missile defence system has some logic. It could protect the U.S.A. and its allies from missile attacks from the socalled states of concern. And ofcourse an incidental launched missile. It is better to have a defence system making the possession and development of ballistic missiles and Weapons of Mass Destruction useless. It would somewhat make the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction, MAD, irrelevant. The MAD policy may have worked well in the cold war but is something stupid if defences against attack/destruction are available.

A limited NMD system is technically feasible, a larger defence system with lasers and space based systems might be still be a bridge to far on the short to medium term, but certainly not impossible.

The NMD system will violate the ABM treaty but taking in mind the development and spread of ballistic missiles with WMD capabilities it should be questioned if the ABM treaty between the U.S.A. and Russia has outlived its usefullnes. The situation in the world has changed dramatically making to use of ballistic missile defence systems something very beneficial to the safety and security of the world.

The ABM treaty in itself is thereby not only under pressure by the U.S.A. with the development of THAAD, SM3 and the ABL but the Russians themselve possess and have developed anti ballistic missile systems with the operational Gazelle system around Moscow, the operational S-300 air defence system with ABM capabilities and with the development of the new S 400 missiles which boast even further improved ABM capabilities.

NMD is a positive development for the security in the world, it is there and can not be stopped by political pressure from Russia, China or even some of the allies of the U.S.A. It is more important to co-operate to develop and introduce a good NMD system with the best capabilities available, making the use of or threat with ballistic missiles impossible.

July 2001

July 2001

A note on Stealth

Introduction

Stealth has been a very popular and much used word in recent times. New equipment has to be designed and built with stealth in it and in every conflict were western powers are involved, the use of stealth is something as a necessity, a God’s gift, a guarantee that you will win the conflict.

Stealth is often used with the name Low Obeservable’s, LO, which as the name says are the technologies used to minimise the chances to be located and identified. The stealth/LO technology is around us for many years and promises to be very effective if used correctly. The most known fact about stealth is that it decreases the Radar Cross Section, RCS, of a vehicle. The newest products have in the mean time achieved RCS factors which equal birds and insects. Were only the strongest of radars or innovative used radar systems or the use of a total different systems are able to identify Stealth vehicles.

Stealth is the ability to make radar detection very difficult if not impossible, the stealth vehicle is to absorb radarwaves, through Radar Absobent Materials, RAM, or by Radar Absorbent Structures, RAS, or to redirect the radarwaves, through the particular construction of the product to avoid detection. Stealth is however not limited to radar but also covers the limitation or even elimination of infra red, radio frequency and electronic emissions. In short the total emission management of a vehicle.

The effectiviness of stealth is only assured if combined with proper intelligence,

systems which can locate radars and identify them to evade them, surprise and ofcourse supporting aircraft like AWACS, EW and eventually fighter aircraft.

Stealth is a long known ability which has been known since many years.

The use of stealth will and has brought many advantages to the user, higher survivability of the crew and vehicle, higher chances on success and a bigger impact on the enemy, which is being attacked without knowing it in advance where and how.

The fundamentals of stealth were developed by the equations of the 19^th century physicist James Clarke Maxwell. Radar development and stealth are based on the computations of Maxwell on the absorption and reflection properties of electro-magnetic waves Many educated nations knew and know about stealth and research has been abundant on the subject. Not only the U.S.A. is busy with stealth also a number of European countries are committed to stealth. The U.S. advantage with stealth is about the integration and operation of complete stealth vehicles, and especially stealth aircraft. Europe’s stealth capabilities are at the moment more limited to ships, missiles and parts.

The use of stealth

Stealth can be used in aircraft, ships, vehicles, remotely piloted vehicles / unmanned aerial vehicles and missiles. The use of stealth in aircraft is widely known after the U.S.A. made their F 117 strike aircraft and later the B 2 bomber public. These aircraft, and especially their abilities to penetrate without being seen, played to fantasy of the people as if it was a plane from outer space.

But before the introduction the F 117 and B 2 research on stealth was already done by many countries in the western world. Research on stealth technology started already in world war II.

The research on stealth in the U.K. was closely connected with the research done in the U.S.A., In Germany they have executed and are executing stealth programs. They have proceeded very far with even a large scale model of a stealth aircraft called the Lampyridae, Firefly, which was designed to operate over the SAM and radar infested areas over the inner German border. This project was halted after massive U.S, pressure on the German government. France also has its stealth projects which was highlighted by the introduction of the Storm Shadow / SCALP EG air to surface missile, which is one of the first missiles boasting stealth capabilities. And by the La Fayette frigates which was the first frigate which was designed and constructed with stealth as the main design factor.

The La Fayette design was soon to be followed with the Dutch LCF frigate, the German F 124, A 100 and A 200 designs and by the U.S. planned DD 21 destroyer.

Land systems were also being designed with stealth on their mind. New Armoured Fighting Vehicles, AFV, were built to minimise the Infra Red emissions, the detectability by ground radars and ofcourse the visual appearance. Examples of these are the Leclerq main battle tank and the MRAV which is under development at the moment.

Further work has been done on RPV’s and UAV’s which incorporated stealth technology to increase their mission succes.

In all new designs stealth plays a major role but the implementation of stealth in aircraft is the most commonly known and the most eye catching.

The above mentioned F 117 and B 2 aircraft were the first which were designed completely with stealth as the most influential factor. Before those two planes other planes like the SR 71 and the U 2 recconaissance aircraft also used elements of stealth to increase their chances to survive on a mission over enemy territory.

The F 117 and the B 2 were designed to be very difficult to detect or even to be invisible to enemy radars. This was however not completely reached as, especially the F 117, they need careful intelligence about the whereabouts of enemy SAM systems, EW aircraft to accompany the ingress and egress routes and surprise to use their advantages and reach a high success rate. If one of these elements are missing the success rate gets lower very quickly.

The stealth factor was continued in the design of the F 22 Raptor air defence fighter and the planned Joint Strike Fighter. The F 22 and JSF combination should be the continuation of the F 15 and F 16 game. The F 22 is providing air defence, air dominance, and the JSF is the bomb truck. The JSF was therefore designed with as little as possible electronic equipment installed. This to keep the price low and to built a to the job aircraft.

The JSF programme is under threat by the new government as they might eventually skip a generation of aircraft and go directly to the Unmanned Combat Aircraft and/or built a F 22 in a strike version. There have been talks to built beside the 339 air defence F 22’s, 423 air to surface optimised F 22’s. This combination would be a very powerful instrument in the hands of the USAF, and would make the JSF superfluous. Existing F 16 block 50 or 60 and F18 E/F’s could easily make up the gap left, if the JSF will not be produced, until the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles were to be introduced.

As things stands today the F 22 and the JSF are a new generation of aircraft which promise to deliver new opportunities in fighting and winning the next war. Higher strike rates, higher accuracy and lower fatalities on the own side.

The European aircraft programmes, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale, have also been designed with stealth on their minds. Not as rigorously as with the F 22 but on some aspects of the aircraft. Especially the front side is said to very small on radar screens.

Stealth has become an inseparable part in the design of new vehicles, equipment and ammunition. Existing vehicles and equipment is updated whenever it is possible and stealth assets are, were possible, included.

The limits of Stealth

Stealth is however not a magic instrument which can overcome all enemy defences. The defences not even need to be the most modern to be able to limit the effectiveness of stealth. And history has made this clear.

As have been made clear the use of stealth is, if it is succesful, will need something more than just a plane build according the highest stealth specifications. The plane itself will need advanced electronic systems to identify the radar systems and map a flight route through a radar field, it will need pre-strike intelligence about the whereabouts of radars and SAM systems, it will need to know about the capabilities and the signature of the radar systems, it will need surprise and it will need cover from AWACS type of aircraft, air defence suppression from SEAD aircraft and EW aircraft and eventually cover from air defence fighters. A succesful air strike with stealth aircraft is therefore more complicated and demanding as envisioned at the first look.

If one of the above mentioned elements is missing the succes of a stealth air attack will be much less certain. The level of succes will even reach the levels of an attack with coventional aircraft.

The undetectability/invisibility of stealth aircraft is much more limited as first presumed. Firstly the aircraft can only be used at night as the visual detectability is just as great as of conventional aircraft.. Secondly, the stealth aircraft have to carefully manage the emission of all possible sources, radio frequency, infra red and ofcourse radar. Stealth aircraft are just as vulnerable as non-stealth planes as systems like the Czech Tamara system will locate them just as easily, Tamara scans for emissions from the aircraft and then locates and identifies the source.

Thirdly, beside the mark one eyeball identification, a real time system of radars connected to one control side could also identify a stealth plane. This is at the moment not possible, at least not with current in service equipment.

Fourthly, the unconventional use of radars and the socalled radical radars. Radars can be shifted to a different spectrum were LO technology is not just as effective. And some LO materials are not very effective against low frequency radars as used in the older Soviet made UHF radars. And ofcourse new developments in radar technology will make the radar more capable and able to locate stealth aircraft.

A new kind of radar, the radical radar could also locate stealth aircraft. The use of Ultra Wide Band or bi-static radars could also identify stealth planes. There are still some problems with the new radars like the UWB radar require very high power to achieve long range detection and shaping techniques render them much less efficient than narrow band radars. With the bi-static system, the emitter and receivers are separated and need to be pointed at the the target in order for detection to take place. Searching a large volume in this way is difficult and would require a complex system of multiple platforms which is beyond the ability of many states. Both systems are therefore not available or operational yet. But future improvements may make the system more effective and operational.

Fifthly, another way to detect stealth aircraft is by detecting and tracking the inevitable disturbance all aircraft, stealthy or not, produce in their immediate environment. The most favored method is to exploit the disruption of commercial radiation transmissions blanketing the earth. These passive detection systems detect disturbances of FM radio, television and mobile phone waves/signals. This is a relatively cheap system as all transmitters are delivered with no cost an donly recevers have to be put in place.

And at last, stealth aircraft like the F 117 and the B 2 are not very good aircraft once detected and air defence fighters are sent to them. They are not designed for air to air combat or even to much self defence. These aspects would severely limit the chances on survival for the stealth aircraft.

A note on the side, the JSF is developed as a stealthy bomb truck, largely to keep cost under control, and only after massive pressure from the services and foreign potential customers it is included with some more electronics. The JSF was except from its stealth at the level of an F 16 A//B, where as the updated JSF will only reach the level of a F16 C block 50 aircraft. If the JSF would meet an updated F 5 or MiG 21 with a helmet mounted sight and advanced missiles it would have a very hard time to survive..

The weakness of stealth became visible as the Serbian/Yugoslav armed forces downed one F 117 and at least damaged one other. This was possible because of inadequate intelligence, the loss of surprise by using the same routes several times and the better placement of air defence systems / radars in anticipation of a coming raid.. The stories about a leak in western European defence circles about the strike routes of the U.S. stealth aircraft is nothing more than an attempt to save face. Or better to save the implacable reputation of stealth aircraft as superior invincible aircraft.

Conclusion

To put stealth in the right perspective, stealth offers a new capability which is very useful but it has to be used correctly and should not be overestimated. It is not a magic instrument which can overcome all defences. It has its weaknesses and new systems will certainly be able to detect stealth aircraft. It is like the competition between the anti-tank missile and the armour of a tank. There always will be a counter reaction to eliminate the advantage of the other. And the race with stealth and counter stealth is just to begin.

Not withstanding the counter stealth offensive which is about to be unleashed, the F 22, the B 2, the Typhoon and the Rafale remain very good aircraft which have a right to exist. They will improve the capabilities of the air forces using them.

The stealth factor is necessary to improve the survival of the aircraft and the success of the mission. The level of stealth is open to debate and depends on the specific role of the aircraft and the price the user is willing to pay. But to much stealth and especially to much reliance on it could proof to be very dangerous and costly. Cost in the procurement of the stealth aircraft and the risk of losing the aircraft as it ignores the dangers against it. Or better the limits of stealth.

IN-SE Services

Intelligence – Security Services

Auteursarchief: inseservices

Index 1997

April 2013, III

April 2013, II

April 2013, I

December 2001

November 2001

October 2001

September 2001

August 2001

July 2001