2010年5月5日水曜日

F35 核兵器搭載へ

F35は核兵器を搭載できるようだ。

イスラエル国防軍(IDF)
2015年から2025年までF35を購入するか決定する予定。
 1億2000万ドル~1億3000万ドル/機 (固定費含む)
 その後、9000万ドル/機

 購入理由
 ・イスラエルに対する軍事的優位
 ・イランによる湾岸制圧中止
 ・核兵器がテロ組織に渡るのを阻止
 ・核開発拡大競争の中止

米報道
アルカイダは、イスラム教を布教するために、イランの支援を受け、
イスラエル周辺から米国人を追出し、イスラエルを破壊し、欧州と
米国を征服する。そのために、F35をイスラエルに売却するか、
オバマは近いうちに判断する必要に迫られる。

米国は、ベルギー、英国、ドイツ、イタリア、オランダとトルコの
倉庫に約200以上の戦術爆弾(核弾頭?)を所有。現有は5113発。
露は、欧州圏内に約5400以上戦術核兵器を所有。
MD構想におけるSM3Block2Aでは、ICBMを撃墜できない。

NPRは、米政府にF35戦術核弾頭搭載改修のための資金供給を許可。
搭載される戦術核弾頭B61は、重力爆弾。

F35は、開発予算が超過し、開発工程もかなり遅れている。
さらに、開発者が更迭され、競争すべき技術も予算超過から削減と
なった。

防衛省は、次期戦闘機にF35を検討するとのことだったが、F22に
比べれば価格は半分。しかし、国内でのライセンス生産の可能性は
低く、メンテナンスもできる範囲が狭い。
事故による部品交換や装備品の不具合による部品交換は、日本の
商社が部品全てを確保できないだろう。
CX/PX開発の際に問題になった技術の伝承は、劣化する。
さらに、戦闘機の技術開発力は低下すると思う。

F-35は戦術核弾頭が搭載できることになった。防衛省は米政府の
この発表を待っていたのか。

F35開発遅延 13ヶ月


F35 First Hover


F35 AIR SHOW


---NPT再検討会議:米核弾頭5113発 透明性強調、他国に軍縮迫る---
毎日新聞 2010年5月5日 東京朝刊
http://mainichi.jp/select/world/news/20100505ddm002030024000c.html

 クリントン米国務長官は3日、ニューヨークの国連本部で同日開幕した核拡散防止条約(NPT)再検討会議で演説、米国の保有核弾頭数を公表すると述べた。米国防総省は同日、戦略・戦術核や備蓄分も含め昨年9月末現在で5113発を保有すると明らかにした。機密だった核弾頭数を全面的に公表するのは異例で冷戦後初めて。秘密のベールに覆われた「核の世界」に説明責任を持ち込むことは、他の核保有国に情報公開や核軍縮を迫る圧力にもなる。【ニューヨーク大治朋子、モスクワ大木俊治、テヘラン鵜塚健】
 今回発表された国防総省の資料によると、核弾頭数は冷戦期だった1967年の3万1255発をピークに漸減し、ベルリンの壁崩壊を機に激減。91年に2万発を切り、ソ連(ロシア)との第1次、第2次戦略兵器削減条約調印などを経て、04年に1万発を割り、07年から5000発台になっている。国防総省は94年から昨年までに解体した核弾頭は8748発とした。
 ただ、現有の5113発には既に退役し、廃棄待ちの核弾頭「数千発」は含まれておらず、AP通信などによると全体の数は8000~9000発程度になるという。
 核保有国が核弾頭数をあいまいにしてきたのは、核抑止力を実態以上に大きく見せたり、核軍縮の義務をあいまいにできる利点があったからだ。公表したことで、核軍縮のスタート地点が明確になる。国防総省は「世界の核保有の透明性を高めることが、核不拡散や今後の削減努力に重要になる」とした。
 同省高官は記者団に「米国は機密解除により(情報公開の)基準を示した。特に中国には透明性の確保を求めたい」と述べるなどその軍事力を「不透明」と非難する中国に姿勢転換を求める戦術だったことも示唆した。
 公表のもう一つの狙いは、非核国の核保有国に対する不公平感を解消し、核不拡散体制の強化に向けた協力を取り付けたいという思惑だ。
 3日、クリントン長官に先立ち非同盟諸国の代表として演説したインドネシア外相は「(米国など核保有国は)国際社会の期待を満たしていない」と指摘。「さらなる核軍縮の努力が必要だ」と訴え、不満を示した。
 オバマ政権は今年4月、ロシアとの新しい戦略核削減条約「新START」に調印し、配備済みの弾頭の上限数をそれぞれ1550に制限した。だが、弾頭数の数え方が複雑で、実際に削減する量は両国とも200発未満との指摘もある。対象は射程の長い戦略核のうち配備済みのものに限られ、配備外の戦略核に加え、戦術核は対象から外されている。こうしたあいまいさが非核国の不信を呼んでいる。
 そもそも人類を何度も滅亡させることが可能な数千もの核弾頭を保有する必要があるのか。公表で非核国から批判が起こる可能性もある。
 他の核保有国の受け止め方は冷静だ。米国と並ぶ核大国のロシアの専門家で、軍事誌「国防」のコロチェンコ編集長は「数字の公表に大きな意味はない。核保有の透明性を主張するパフォーマンスとしてロシアが同様の公表措置をとる可能性もある」とみる。
 米国が公表した核弾頭数は、第1次戦略兵器削減条約(START1)に基づき米露が相互に通告してきた数字と大差ない。4月に調印された新STARTでも相互通告は義務付けられた。ロシアの軍事研究所によると、昨年8月の相互通告では戦略核と戦術核を合わせて、米国が保有する核弾頭数は5573発、ロシアは3906発だった。このうち戦略核は運搬手段の数も相互通告している。
 ただ、実際の核軍縮交渉では見せかけの核弾頭数よりも備蓄弾頭の扱いや検証方法、ミサイルなどの運搬手段が大きな争点になってきた。戦術核の運搬手段については両国間の取り決めはなく、今回の公表ではこうした問題は解決されない。

◇脅迫だ/違反、自動的に罰を イランと米、強気の応酬
 3日のNPT再検討会議ではイランのアフマディネジャド大統領も演説、クリントン長官と非難の応酬を繰り広げた。イランが大統領まで送り込んだのは、NPT順守の姿勢を強調、ウラン濃縮を巡る国連安保理の追加制裁を回避する狙いがある。米国側にはイランを参加国の中で孤立させて議事妨害を防ぐ意図がありそうだ。
 アフマディネジャド大統領は「核兵器でイランや他の国を脅迫している」と米国を非難。「核の平和利用を続ける」とあくまでウラン濃縮を続行する意思を明確にした。
 イランが強気の態度を取るのは恐怖の裏返しとの見方もある。オバマ政権は先月の「核態勢見直し(NPR)」の中で、イランや北朝鮮を核攻撃の対象から除外しなかった。「過剰なまでの反応は強い危機感の裏返しだ」とテヘランの外交筋は分析する。
 イランは制裁回避に躍起だ。イランのアホンザデ外務次官は再検討会議を前に毎日新聞と会見し、核兵器廃絶に向けた研究機関をテヘランに設置する方針を明らかにした。この機関が中心となり、今年4月にテヘランで開いた核軍縮国際会議を来年も開催する。国際社会の批判をそらす狙いがある。
 一方、クリントン長官は演説でウラン濃縮活動を続けるイランは「国際社会から孤立し、その圧力に直面している」と反撃。「イランはこの中で唯一、国際原子力機関(IAEA)の包括的保障措置協定に従わない国だ」と強調。違反を「自動的に罰する」制度を検討する必要があると提案した。
 アフマディネジャド大統領はイスラエルの核兵器保有もやり玉にあげ、95年の再検討会議での中東非核化決議の即時履行も求めた。今後、全会一致が原則の再検討会議を混乱させる可能性もある。05年の前回と同様に非核国が核保有国に反発、イランがそれを利用して最終文書に合意ができない事態もありうる。そうなれば「NPT体制の深刻な危機だ」と国連外交筋は懸念する。


---次世代F35に戦術核搭載=前方展開、抑止力維持-米---
2010/05 /03-14:23
http://www.jiji.com/jc/c?g=int_30&k=2010050300187

 【ワシントン時事】米国防総省が次世代戦闘機F35に戦術核兵器を搭載できるように、機体の開発と既存の核爆弾の改修を進めることが3日、分かった。F35は将来、在日米軍基地や欧州に配備される予定で、前方展開地域における「核の傘」を維持する能力を確保する狙いがある。
 核兵器廃絶を目指す一方で、北朝鮮やイランなどの核の脅威が存在する限り、核の抑止力を維持するオバマ大統領の方針を反映したものだ。
 オバマ政権が策定した核戦略体制の見直し(NPR)によると、核爆弾を搭載できるF16戦闘機の退役に備えて、F35に核爆弾を搭載できるようにする。NPRは「この決定は、同盟国を支援するために、戦術核を前方配備する能力を維持することを確実にする」としている。


---米標的ミサイル迎撃は困難 日米共同開発中の新型SM3---
2010年5月3日 02時02分
http://www.tokyo-np.co.jp/s/article/2010050201000555.html

 北朝鮮が米本土やハワイに向けて長距離弾道ミサイルを発射した場合、日米が共同開発している新しい海上配備型迎撃ミサイル(SM3ブロック2A)を日本周辺のイージス艦から発射しても、高い軌道を飛ぶ弾道ミサイルには射程が足りず、迎撃が困難なことが2日分かった。複数の防衛省幹部が明らかにした。
 米国に向け発射されたミサイルを迎撃するには、憲法解釈で禁じられている集団的自衛権の行使を容認することが必要。「迎撃を拒めば同盟は破綻する」との指摘もあり、迎撃能力があることを前提に進められてきた集団的自衛権をめぐる議論にも影響を与えそうだ。
 現行のSM3は射程が200~300キロと推定され、米国を狙ったミサイルを迎撃できないことが明らかになっている。ブロック2Aも射程は非公表だが、軍事専門家の間で迎撃が可能との見方もあった。
 防衛省幹部によると、北朝鮮が約7千キロ離れたハワイへ弾道ミサイルを発射した場合、日本近海でイージス艦からブロック2Aを発射しても、高軌道を飛ぶミサイルには射程が足りず、迎撃は不可能という。(共同)


---U.S.-IDF relations are much warmer than U.S.-Israel ties---
Published 22:08 29.04.10
Latest update 22:10 29.04.10
http://www.haaretz.com/magazine/week-s-end/u-s-idf-relations-are-much-warmer-than-u-s-israel-ties-1.287443

At the end of his week in Washington, Defense Minister Ehud Barak will have to decide where he stands - with the IDF or with Netanyahu.
By Amir Oren

This week, Iran held a celebration to mark the 30th anniversary of Operation Eagle Claw - the failed attempt to rescue the 53 hostages at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. No Iranian forces were actually involved in the incident: When the air force pilots decided to abort the operation, with president Jimmy Carter's approval, a helicopter and a Hercules aircraft collided and the would-be invaders left behind fatalities and wreckage. It was a costly disgrace. It contributed to Carter's loss in the elections six months later, made the Pentagon recognize the importance of establishing a body to oversee the Special Forces from all the military branches, and encouraged the latter to cooperate with the Israel Defense Forces.

Lt. Gen. (ret.) Jerry Boykin was the elite Delta Force operations officer during Eagle Claw and later its commanding officer, and senior leader of the Special Operations Command. In his memoirs, he published a photograph of himself and his colleague Peter Schoomaker, who later became chief of staff, wearing IDF uniforms during a visit to Israel.

A U.S. Army investigation noted that Eagle Claw's planning and execution had been flawed, but acknowledged that the operational concept itself had been right on target. The aim was to free the hostages through a limited invasion that would not lead to an American-Iranian war. The method was to send in cells in advance to check access, prepare weapon caches and establish infrastructure for communications and landing; to fly in forces and equipment from distant bases to an "airhead" - an improvised landing strip somewhere in the huge empty desert; to unite all the forces during a period of 24 hours; and to leave for Tehran the following night.

The Iranians shouldn't dismiss the ability of an advanced Western army, decades later, to carry out pinpoint jabs around their country. Something that failed once will not necessarily fail again. They themselves know they failed in October 1980 in an attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor - something which the Israeli air force succeeded to do, seven months later.

That attack, in June 1981, was carried out by F-16 aircraft from the Ramat David base, whose pilots zealously defended their exclusive right to bomb the reactor, to the chagrin of F-15 pilots from the Tel Nof base, who accompanied them almost until Baghdad to protect against interception attempts and were eager to participate in the bombing as well. The F-16 used in the reactor attack, like today's F-15I Ra'am (Thunder) and the F-16I Sufa (Storm), came to Israel thanks to American generosity.

Military aid depends on Israel not doing anything to upset the Americans - i.e., no strategic surprises, such as initiating a war or doing something that may cause a war, and no tactical surprises either, such as those relating to the timing and scale of smaller moves. The Americans determine how much freedom the IDF has. They also can cut the connection to the galaxy of GPS satellites, without which there is no precise navigation or GPS-guided weaponry (although there are also missiles and bombs guided by other means).

This aid serves an American interest, of course: It wants its allies, including Israel, to all use compatible operational systems and logistical infrastructure. Therefore, Washington wants Israel to acquire F-35 aircraft. Should the U.S. Air Force, which will be primarily using F-35s in the coming years, need to deploy squadrons to Israel during an emergency, it would want to find suitable maintenance here.

U.S.-IDF ties

Israel is slated to decide within three months whether to acquire F-35s and, if so, how many. There are plans, apparently, for one costly squadron ($120 million to $130 million per plane) in 2015 and another one or two ($90 million per plane, because certain fixed costs are included in the first purchase) over the following decade.

At the end of talks at the Pentagon this week with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Defense Minister Ehud Barak stressed the importance of making sure the IDF has proper equipment. Gates and the American top brass are demonstratively embracing the Israeli defense establishment, Barak and Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi - which is not exactly the same treatment Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman are getting.

The administration, from President Barack Obama and his National Security Advisor James Jones through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to the top generals and admirals, has been running a damage-control operation to amend the (correct) impression that there's a rift between Washington and Jerusalem. Everyone has read aloud from the page of talking points, which start with a firm commitment to Israel's security.

Most notable was Central Command head Gen. David Petraeus, who two weeks ago attended an event at Washington's Holocaust museum honoring Holocaust survivors and their American liberators. Petraeus, who commands the forces in western Asia, did not mention Iran by name, but declared that the current generation must "read the storms before they break upon us." To ensure the message reached its target, Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren was also invited to the event. The message was this: If Gen. Dwight Eisenhower liberated the death camps and insisted on witnessing sights that were unbearable to someone as tough as Gen. George Patton - then Petraeus, who might run for president like Eisenhower did, must help prevent a second Holocaust.

American policy-makers assume that the means should suit the aim. The aim is to prevent Iranian nuclearization, for four good reasons (foiling an existential threat to Israel, stopping Iran from gaining control of the Gulf, preventing nuclear weapons from reaching terror organizations and stopping the nuclear arms race). The means may ultimately be military, but diplomacy is important in order to prove there was no alternative.

In the meantime, America's power needs to be augmented, both diplomatic and military. The Israeli role is to help the Americans help those who are helping them: i.e., the moderate regimes in the region. This is essential to block Iran and to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan. Al-Qaida sees getting rid of those regimes as the second stage in its five-step plan to impose Islam on the world: expelling the Americans from the region, toppling regimes, destroying Israel, and conquering Europe and thence America.

Therefore, Israel has been asked meanwhile to help by behaving with diplomatic moderation. Netanyahu's efforts to present a frightening "Obamazen" combination of the American president and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) are damaging Israel's security. They are also interfering with the preparations for a possible American-Israeli military response to Iran. The IDF brass believes the political leadership, by avoiding progress on the Palestinian and Syrian tracks, is wasting the period of quiet the army has afforded it. At the end of his week in Washington, Barak will have to decide where he stands - with the IDF or with Netanyahu.


---Pentagon offered new deal on F35 engine---
By Jeremy Lemer
Published: April 27 2010 22:28 | Last updated: April 27 2010 22:28
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d2a90a7a-5221-11df-8b09-00144feab49a.html

In a bid to save their engine for the F-35 fighter jet from cancellation, General Electric and Rolls-Royce have offered the Pentagon a fixed-price contract that would leave the partners, not the government, exposed to any cost overruns.

GE and Rolls-Royce have been battling to keep their F136 engine programme going in the face of determined efforts by the Pentagon to cancel it and support an engine built by Pratt & Whitney, part of United Technologies.

Only repeated congressional intervention has kept the project alive.

The stakes are high for the two partners. If their engine is cancelled it could hand Pratt an enviable prize - sole-source contracts for about $100bn of engines spread over the 30 year lifespan of the F-35 combat jet.

As part of the offer, Rolls and GE will commit to a fixed price from 2012 and will then cut the price for the next two years. The proposal extends an offer first made last year, affecting 150 production run engines and could save the government $1bn.

David Joyce, chief executive of GE Aviation, said the offer was designed to counter sky-high official estimates for the cost to complete the engine that were used to disqualify the project.

The Pentagon says the partners will need $2.9bn to finish the F136. GE and Rolls say $1.8bn is more accurate.

At the same time John Rice, a vice chairman at GE, said introducing commercial terms would make the F136 a model for the Pentagon’s efforts to reform defence acquisition.

The DoD has said that it will try to use more fixed-price contracts where possible to lock in costs and hold contractors responsible for overruns and delays.

But the move is a gamble. In the first place, it would transfer the entire production risk from the government to the contractors, something that defence companies have traditionally been reluctant to do.

According to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, the project is already facing “cost and schedule challenges.” For example, the start of flight testing for the engine has slipped about 21 months to late 2011.

GE and Rolls argue that with the engine 75 per cent complete they have a good handle on costs and the bet is one they are willing to take.

Moreover, to generate about half of the $1bn in projected savings, the GE and Rolls are relying on the fact that rival engine producer Pratt will have to match its prices - something they are under no obligation to do.

Rolls and General Electric have been developing an alternative engine to power the F-35 since 1996 but Pentagon has repeatedly sought to cancel the F136 programme which it claims is “a collosal waste of money.”

Earlier this year Robert Gates, secretary of defence, again excluded money for the project in the 2011 defence budget.

But Congress has consistently reinstated funding for the engine on the basis that competition will help bring down costs, by as much as $20bn, over the 30-year lifetime of the F-35 fighter jet.

Savings are particularly important for the F-35 programme because development and procurement costs of about $323bn make it the Pentagon’s largest ever project and it is already significantly over budget and behind schedule.

GE shares fell 1.5 per cent to $19.03 in midday trading while Rolls Royce shares closed down 1 per cent to 590p on the London Stock Exchange. United Technologies shares dipped 2 per cent to $75.03.


---Europe's Emotions Are Mixed on Tactical Nukes---
Apr 7, 2010
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/europes-emotions-are-mixed-on-tactical-nukes/19430780

BERLIN (April 7) - As President Barack Obama travels to Prague to sign the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, he is soaking up warm praise from world leaders about his drive to rid the world of nuclear weapons. But one often overlooked point could still spark a rift in NATO in coming weeks: the deeply unpopular arsenal of hundreds of U.S. tactical nukes deployed in Europe.

Some Europeans have been loudly urging Obama to start his noble nuke-scrapping by removing the some 200 tactical bombs the U.S. warehouses in Belgium, Britain, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. These weapons -- gravity bombs rather than intercontinental ballistic missiles -- are designed for use in the European theater. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a key U.S. ally, vowed last autumn that her government would seek to persuade the U.S. to remove all nuclear weapons from German soil. It's a point that Germany's foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, never tires of pressing.

Indeed, Westerwelle this week leavened his praise for Obama's historic steps toward nuclear disarmament with a message closer to home. The changes in U.S. nuclear strategy, he said, "open new possibilities for a reduction of the so-called tactical nuclear weapons in Europe and as a result the withdrawal of these weapons from Germany."

But that is not explicitly part of the U.S. plan. Reducing the dangers of nuclear war is just one part of the Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which President Obama unveiled this week; the U.S. also pledges in the document to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent. And it defers any decision about the weapons based in Europe to NATO, which will meet to discuss the issue for the first time later this month in Tallinn, Estonia.

In one respect, it is only on the surface that the U.S. leaves the future of European-based nuclear weapons up to the alliance itself. The NPR also commits the U.S. to funding an upgrade of F-35 aircraft to allow them to deliver tactical nuclear bombs -- "specifically B61 gravity bombs," which make up the U.S.-owned NATO nuclear arsenal in Europe, says Damon Wilson, a former director on the National Security Council and NATO expert at the Atlantic Council, a think tank.

While the NPR does not specifically address the debate within NATO, Wilson wrote on the Atlantic Council's blog that explicit U.S. commitments to a forward-deployed nuclear force in Europe mean Obama has no intention of withdrawing these weapons from Europe on his watch. The Germans don't like that.

Until now, U.S. policy regarding its nukes in Europe has been divided. Some officials close to Obama have sided with Europe's doves -- which now include conservatives like Merkel -- in calling for their removal. Hardliners at the Pentagon have insisted that the U.S. retain its tactical weapons and focus the debate instead on the much larger number of Russian tactical nukes able to be deployed to Europe (though they are no longer based, for obvious reasons, in the former Warsaw Pact countries).

That confusion in U.S. policy left a vacuum that help fuel a debate in European capitals and led to the decision to put the issue on the agenda of the NATO summit in Tallinn. Now, Wilson says, the U.S. has finally outlined its position and is taking the lead within NATO.

"By the positions it has included in the NPR, the U.S. is putting down clear markers about how far it is willing to go," he says.

What this all means is that NATO could be headed for a turbulent debate over the next few months. The estimated 200 tactical nuclear weapons (some say there are many more) stationed in Europe are what remain of a nuclear force that was meant to deter the former Soviet Union from invading Western Europe during the Cold War. Like its predecessor, the Russian military is thought to have a substantial advantage in conventional military capabilities in Europe and also has an estimated 5,400 or more tactical nuclear weapons within reach of Europe.

Some Europeans argue that time has moved on and Russia no longer poses a threat to Western Europe. "Nuclear weapons as an instrument of deterrence are a relic of the past century," said Claudia Roth, a leader of the environmentalist Green Party in Germany.

If the U.S. is determined to keep its tactical nuclear weapons in Europe -- for which it has the support of key allies such as France -- Washington will have to find a way to defuse an almost certain conflict with Germany's foreign minister over the issue.

"Because of the territory that Westerwelle has staked out, they will have to show that they changed something, even if that change is just symbolic," Wilson says.

Europe itself is divided on the issue. Behind the scenes French officials are angry about the German position. In eastern Europe, where people still remember well the years of Soviet domination, there is also support for keeping U.S. nukes in Europe as a symbol of American commitment.

"In Germany, most people see these weapons as a relic of the past. But for historical reasons, people in Eastern Europe place greater emphasis on the need for these weapons as a sign of U.S. solidarity with Europe," says Oliver Schmidt, a security expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations.

0 コメント: