United States, Japan Say Patience on North Korea “Not Unlimited”

27 April 2007

Two countries to cooperate on Korean nuclear issue, Japanese abductees

By Stephen Kaufman
USINFO Staff Writer

Washington -- U.S. patience with North Korea to follow through on its pledge to shut down its Yongbyon nuclear reactor and other commitments as part of a February 13 agreement is “not unlimited,” President Bush says, but he adds that North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il still has time to “make the right choice.”

In April 27 remarks with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe at Camp David, Maryland, Bush said their two nations are showing North Korea a “better way forward” than confrontation with the international community over its nuclear weapons program.

The trip marks Abe’s first visit to the United States as prime minister.

The president said the United States and Japan, as well as fellow Six-Party Talks participants China, South Korea and Russia, are continuing to seek the elimination of nuclear programs from the Korean Peninsula through diplomatic means.  He warned that if North Korea fails to honor its pledges it could face additional sanctions.  (See related article.)

“Our objective is to hold [Kim Jong-Il] to account.  But he's got different ways forward and we have made that avenue available for his choice,” Bush said.

The February 13 agreement is “the beginning of an opportunity for him to be in a different position, vis-à-vis the United States government on a variety of fronts,” Bush said.

Abe said Japan and the United States both recognize the need to place additional pressure on North Korea if it does not fulfill its promises.

“[In] our understanding of the issue and the direction we are pursuing, we completely see eye to eye on this matter, and we've had completely the same attitude,” Abe said, adding that Japan and the United States will “maintain close coordination for the resolution” of the North Korean issue.

Under the February 13 agreement, North Korea was to have shut down and sealed its main nuclear reactor at Yongbyon within 60 days as well as allow international verification and provide a list of all of its nuclear programs to the other Six-Party Talks participants. During the same period, the other members were to have provided North Korea an initial shipment of 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil (HFO) as emergency energy assistance.

However, North Korea demanded the release of more than $25 million in funds frozen at Banco Delta Asia (BDA), a Macau-based bank, before it would continue participating in the Six-Party Talks.  Macanese authorities unblocked the funds April 10.  (See related article.)

At the State Department, deputy spokesman Tom Casey said North Korea’s interlocutors in the Six-Party Talks are “anxious” to see the country finalize the transfer of the BDA funds and take “the real actions required to shut down Yongbyon” under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Casey said the BDA issue “took longer to resolve than anyone had reasonably thought it would,” but the Bush administration wants to see the commitments in the February 13 agreement honored, and move beyond the first 60-day phase of that agreement.

“[R]emember this isn't about just this one first step agreement, it's about getting to the agreed conclusion of the September 19th [2005] document, which is a denuclearized Korean Peninsula,” he said. (See related article.)

The February 13 agreement also calls for the creation of five working groups to focus on achieving a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula, the normalization of U.S.-North Korean relations, the normalization of Japan-North Korean relations, economic and energy cooperation, and the creation of a Northeast Asia peace and security mechanism.

Bush said his meeting with the mother of a Japanese woman who was abducted by North Korea in 1977 “added a human dimension to an issue which is obviously very important to the Japanese people,” and pledged to work with the Japanese government to resolve the issue of abductees.

“It's a human issue now to me; it's a tangible, emotional issue,” Bush said.

A transcript of remarks by Bush and Abe is available on the White House Web site.

For more information on U.S. policy, see The U.S. and the Korean Peninsula.

(USINFO is produced by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

FIDEL CASTRO BACK IN POWER OVER CUBA!

BARQUISIMETO, Venezuela (Reuters) -- Cuban President Fidel Castro is back "in charge" after undergoing intestinal surgery in July, his friend and protege Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday.

An intestinal ailment has kept the communist leader out of the public eye for the past nine months, sparking speculation about whether he will return to power, which he ceded temporarily to his brother Raul on July 31.

"He is charge, he is in charge, he is doing a lot of thinking," Chavez said in a speech at a summit of the ALBA group, which promotes co-operation between Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Nicaragua.

Despite a growing consensus among officials that the 80-year-old "Comandante" is becoming more robust, U.S. President George W. Bush predicted on Saturday that the end of what he called Cuba's "cruel dictatorship" was near.

Chavez is in frequent contact with Castro, from whom he said he had just received a long letter including reflections on Argentine-born revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara and the Chinese economy. Castro took power in 1959.

The Venezuelan president said Castro was well enough to be not only closely monitoring the ALBA summit but was also running affairs behind the scenes.

"He is in charge, the great helmsman of ALBA is Fidel," he said.

Chavez said earlier this month that Castro, 80, had informally resumed "a good part" of his governing duties.

Bolivian President Evo Morales has said he is sure Castro will attend a May Day parade in Havana, but Chavez said he did not know whether his mentor would be there.

"I think Evo and Fidel have a plan so secret that even I do not know," he said, triggering a wave of laughter.             

ARMY

Osborne Construction Co., Kirkland, Wash., was awarded on April 24, 2007, an $117,508,318 firm-fixed-price contract for design and construction of family housing replacements. Work will be performed at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, and is expected to be completed by Dec. 31, 2009. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were an unknown number of bids solicited via the World Wide Web on Oct. 4, 2006, and one bid was received. The U.S. Army Engineer District, Elmendorf, Alaska, is the contracting activity (W911KB-07-C-0018).

GM GDLS Defense Group L.L.C. (Joint Venture), Sterling Heights, Mich., was awarded on April 24, 2007, a delivery order amount of $59,261,435 as part of a $249,090,634 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract for STRYKER vehicle and remote weapon station system parts support. Work will be performed in Sterling Heights, Mich. (17 percent), Ft. Lewis, Wash. (30 percent), Germany (8 percent), Iraq (14 percent), Kuwait (2 percent), and London, Ontario, Canada (29 percent), and is expected to be completed by Feb. 29, 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This was a sole source contract initiated on April 24, 2007. The U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity (W56HZV-07-D-M112).

Contrack International Inc., Arlington, Va., was awarded on April 24, 2007, a $38,162,330 firm-fixed-price contract for Construction of a rotary and fixed wing aircraft hangar, operations facility, and other related support facilities. Work will be performed at Al Udeid Air Base, Qatar, and is expected to be completed by March 15, 2009. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were 14 bids solicited on Oct. 19, 2006, and seven bids were received. The U.S. Army Engineer District, Winchester, Va., is the contracting activity (W912ER-07-C-0006).

Brechbill & Helman Construction Company Inc., Chambersburg, Pa., was awarded on April 25, 2007, a $12,666,300 firm-fixed-price contract for 167th Airlift Wing Base Conversion from C-130 to C-5 aircraft and replacement of a fire station and a base supply facility. Work will be performed in Martinsburg, W.V., and is expected to be completed by May 8, 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were an unknown number of bids solicited via the World Wide Web on Dec. 22, 2006, and five bids were received. The U.S. Property and Fiscal Office, Buckhannon, W.V., is the contracting activity (W912L8-07-C-0006).

Price Waterhouse Coopers L.L.P., Washington, D.C., was awarded on April 25, 2007, a delivery order amount of $7,542,860 as part of a $16,771,039 firm-fixed-price contract to conduct a financial statement audit of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works FY2007 financial statements. Work will be performed in Washington, D.C., and is expected to be completed by April 25, 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were five bids solicited on March 20, 2006, and five bids were received. The Washington Headquarters Services, Arlington, Va., is the contracting activity (N00421-05-D-0025).

Summa Technology Inc.*, Huntsville, Ala., was awarded on April 24, 2007, a delivery order amount of $7,408,686 as part of a $51,104,153 firm-fixed-price contract for a container roll-in/out platform. Work will be performed in Cullman, Ala., and is expected to be completed by June 30, 2011. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. There were an unknown number of bids solicited via the World Wide Web on Dec. 21, 2005, and six bids were received. The U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command, Warren, Mich., is the contracting activity (W56HZV-06-D-0269).

NAVY

Raytheon, Network Centric Systems, Petersburg, Fla., is being awarded a $59,101,540fixed-price, award fees requirements contract for logistics support of the AN/USG-2 shipboard and AN/USG-3 airborne Cooperative Engagement Capability systems. Work will be performed in Largo, Fla. (80 percent), and St. Petersburg, Fla. (20 percent), and work is expected to be completed by April 2012. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not awarded competitively. The Naval Inventory Control Point is the contracting activity (N00104-07-D-L001).

BAE Systems Technologies, Inc., Rockville, Md., is being awarded a $26,119,652 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N00421-03-C-0035) to exercise an option for engineering and technical services in support of identification system programs. The estimated level of effort for this option is 468,000 man-hours. Work will be performed at the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, St. Inigoes, Md. (60 percent) and in California, Md. (40 percent), and is expected to be completed in April 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, St. Inigoes, Md., is the contracting activity.

AIR FORCE

Lockheed Martin Missile and Fire Control – Orlando, Orlando, Fla., is being awarded a $54,561,370 firm-fixed-price contract to provide for sniper targeting pods in the amount of 22 each and associated support for foreign military sales requirements to Pakistan. At this time, $27,280,685 have been obligated. Solicitations began March 2007 and negotiations were complete April 2007. This work will be complete December 2010. Headquarters 542d Combat Sustainment Wing, Robins Air Force Base, Ga., is the contracting activity (FA8539-07-C-0009).

Honeywell Inc., Defense and Space Electronic Systems, Clearwater, Fla., is being awarded a $14,449,555 firm-fixed-price contract modification to provide for the purchase of 29 Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System (EGI) Retrofit Kits for the MH-60/47 Aircraft Platform, 149 EGI Production Units (Installs) for the UH-1Y, MH-60T, VH-60/CH-47 and AH-64D Platforms, 18 EGI Initial Spares for the F-16 and F/A-18 Platforms, 20 EGI mounts for the MH-60T platform and 22 Contractor Depot Repairs (CDRs) for the Air Force Research Laboratory and the MH-47 platform through the Tri-Service EGI Office at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. At this time, total funds have been obligated. This work will be complete March 2009. Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8626-06-C-2065/P00025).

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

Macquarie Aviation North America 2, Inc., Atlantic Gulfport Division, Gulfport, Miss., is being awarded a maximum $6,946,713 fixed price with economic price adjustment contract for jet fuel. Using services are Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Federal civilian agencies. There was 1 proposal solicited and 1 responded. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. Date of performance completion is March 31, 2011. Contracting activity is Defense Energy Support Center (DESC), Fort Belvoir, Va. (SP0600-07-D-0024).

http://www.defenselink.mil/Contracts/Contract.aspx?ContractID=3505

Edwards Test Mission Helping Shape Future Force

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif., April 27, 2007 – A team of military and civilian employees and contractors at the Air Force Flight Test Center here is helping to build the Air Force of the future as they improve on air systems in use around the world today in the war on terror.

For the past 60 years, this sprawling Mojave Desert base has hosted more major aviation milestones than any other spot on the globe. Then-Capt. Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier in his rocket-powered Bell X-1 aircraft here in 1947. Other test pilots here followed his lead, pushing Yeager’s speed and altitude records to new limits.

It was also here that the X-15 rocket plane probed the threshold of space, and where the space shuttle landed on its initial return from orbit.

Today, “Team Edwards” is building on that legacy, pushing aviation to new limits and ensuring the safest, most dependable aircraft possible, Col. Chris Cook, commander of the 412th Operations Group, told American Forces Press Service.

Engineers, scientists, logisticians, technicians and test pilots here – “50-pound brains,” as Cook calls them -- strive to push the aviation envelope and work out every imaginable “bug” before delivering a new aircraft or system to the field.

“We try to mitigate some of the risk,” said Cook, a former test pilot himself. “What we try to make sure is that the second lieutenant flying the aircraft for the first time isn’t a test pilot.”

For that, Edwards has its own test pilots, trained at the Air Force Test Pilot School here. Most are senior captains or junior majors who come armed with technical degrees and high ratings as aircrew members before being selected for the rigorous year-long program.

One of their most important attributes, Cook said, is the ability to think on their feet – or in just about any other position or situation imaginable. “I have to be able to talk to you about my altitude while upside down and spinning,” he said. “Those are the things that separate test pilots from the rest of the world. You have to be able to fly, but you also have to be technically oriented to understand that side of things.”

These test pilots work shoulder-to-shoulder with some of the country’s brightest engineers, scientists, logisticians and technicians throughout the aircraft research, development, testing and evaluation process, Cook said.

“We try to get involved as early as possible in the concept stage so the testing effort gets planned for early,” Cook said.

The goal is to avoid surprises and the need for “rework” that can send a project back to the drawing board or signal its death knell. “Rework is the thing that kills us,” Cook said. “The (development) schedule goes out the window and the cost goes way up.”

As aircraft systems and platforms are developed, they’re put through the test process in what Cook calls “baby steps.” Tests typically begin through computer models and in simulators before progressing to real flight operations.

Those tests, too, go in a precise step-by-step sequence. “Sometimes going very fast requires us to go slow,” Cook said. “We’re very methodical. After all, you have only one opportunity to do it right.”

Only when real-life results begin to validate those projected in computer models, the testing expands “from what we know to what we don’t know,” he said. They’re subjected to different altitudes, different speeds and new demands.

“It’s kind of like being a blind person,” he said. “We have our cane and start to tap around looking for cliffs. There are still cliffs out there we don’t even know about.”

The meticulous work done here aims to make sure operators never have to encounter those cliffs during real operations, he said. “We want to ensure they have the safest, most reliable systems possible,” he said.

Cook said the staff members here recognize they “stand on the shoulders of giants” who served before them. Over Edwards’ history, its people have played key roles in developing nearly every aircraft that’s entered the Air Force inventory since World War II.

Now, as they focus on new and future systems — the F-22A Raptor, the RQ-4A Global Hawk and the F-35 “Lightning II” Joint Strike Fighter, among them — Cook said he recognizes they’re helping shape the future Air Force for generations to come.

“We recognize the importance of what we do here and the long-term implications it has for the Air Force,” he said. “I tell my guys we’re history makers.”

Edwards Readies for Joint Strike Fighter Testing

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif., April 27, 2007 – All systems are moving toward “go” here as officials prepare for upcoming tests on the next-generation strike fighter, the F-35 “Lightning II” Joint Strike Fighter.

A new mission control room opened its doors earlier this month, equipped so the Integrated Test Force will be able to monitor real-time performance of the aircraft during its test missions here beginning this fall.

The long-awaited aircraft, the first to be developed within the Defense Department to meet the needs of three services, promises state-of-the-art technology at a cost officials say simply couldn’t be matched by three separate aircraft programs.

“What’s unique about this aircraft is that we’re building three variants, all at once,” said Marc Trinklein, deputy director for the Integrated Test Force.

These variants are designed for the specific needs of the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, as well as international partners that are helping fund and develop the aircraft, he said. This represents the first time in military procurement history that the United States has partnered with another nation to build an aircraft from the ground up.

Current partners are the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway, but Trinklein said more are expected to sign on.

This arrangement brings unprecedented economies of scale. The aircraft’s three models share many common designs, technologies and maintenance requirements, Trinklein said. For example, all three aircraft can use a common engine, one produced by two different contractors.

At the same time, he said, they’ll deliver revolutionary new capabilities adapted for close-air support, tactical bombing and air-to-air combat missions.

The bulk of the F-35s will be the “A” model, configured for the Air Force to replace F-16 Fighting Falcons and A-10 Thunderbolt IIs and complement the F-22A Raptor. They will feature conventional takeoff and landing capabilities.

This aircraft, which made its maiden flight at the Lockheed-Martin plant in Fort Worth, Texas, in mid-December, is expected to undergo developmental testing here and at Fort Worth beginning in mid-2009 or early 2010.

Meanwhile, developmental testing for the other two F-35 variants, the “B” and “C” models, will take place at Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.

The “B” model, being developed for the Marine Corps, will have short takeoff and vertical landing capabilities. It is designed to replace the Marines’ F/A-18C and D Hornet fighters and AV-8B Harrier IIs.

Initial plans called for the models to be developed sequentially, “A” followed by “B,” then by “C,” but Trinklein said the “B” model has moved to the front of the line. “The Marines have the greatest need due to the age of the Harrier fleet,” he said. “They are flying Harriers, and they are very old and not so capable, so they are recognized as the biggest need.”

The F-35B is expected to make its first flight in May 2008.

The “C” model F-35 will be adapted for the Navy for carrier landings. It will feature larger, folding wings and stronger landing gear than the other variants and complement the F/A18 “E” and “F” models.

After developmental testing here and at Patuxent River, all three models – six of each, plus two British versions -- will undergo operational testing here beginning in 2011, Trinklein said.

The goal, he said, is to get the first F-35B’s fielded to the Marine Corps in 2012. The other two models are expected to follow to their respective services in 2013.

When they’re delivered, these aircraft will bring cutting-edge technologies. They’ll provide a level of stealth not found in previous Navy and Marine Corps aircraft and a highly advanced radar capability Trinklein said “is incredible compared to what’s out in the field now.”

An infrared electro-optical targeting system will provide “awesome” detail, and an integrated distributed aperture sensor system will enable a pilot to see infrared imagery from any direction via a helmet-mounted display.

“This is a huge step in situational awareness,” Trinklein said. “It’s revolutionary to have the pilot to have no blind spots, day or night.”

An autonomic logistics system is designed to run without paper, technical orders or even checklists.

The aircraft also will monitor its own systems and issue reports as needed. “It’s designed to be predictive,” Trinklein said. “It will be able to tell if a system is starting to degrade before it becomes a problem. It will say what part is needed, so that part can be ready when the plane lands.”

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- U.S. forces detained 17 suspected insurgents in raids targeting al Qaeda in Iraq on Saturday, the military said, a day after the Pentagon announced the capture of one of the terror network's most senior and experienced operatives.

Elsewhere, U.S. forces used fighter jets to destroy a truck bomb discovered in Anbar province, and conducted a raid south of Baghdad that netted weapons that insurgents apparently had imported from neighboring Iran, the military said Saturday.

Denmark also announced it is sending special forces to southern Iraq in an effort to stop stepped-up attacks against Danish and British soldiers in the Shiite-dominated area.

U.S. and Iraqi officials in Baghdad declined to comment about Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, 46, who was captured last fall on his way to Iraq, where he may have been sent by top terror leaders in Pakistan to take a senior position in al Qaeda in Iraq, officials said Friday in Washington. (Full story)

The insurgent group has claimed responsibility for some of the deadliest attacks in Iraq, including last year's bombing of a revered Shiite mosque in Samarra, which touched off a fierce cycle of retaliatory sectarian violence.

After being secretly held by the CIA for months, al-Hadi -- who was born in the northern city of Mosul and once served in Iraq's military -- has been shipped to the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, military prison for terror suspects, the Pentagon said.

It said the Iraqi militant is believed responsible for plotting cross-border attacks from Pakistan on U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and leading an effort to assassinate Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and U.N. officials.

The U.S. military in Baghdad said Saturday's raids targeting suspected al Qaeda in Iraq insurgents netted four people in Mosul; six near Karmah, 50 miles (80 kilometers) west of Baghdad; two near the Syrian border; two in the Iraqi capital; and three near Balad, 50 miles (80 kilometers) north of Baghdad.

The detainees were not identified, but the statement linked some to al Qaeda in Iraq, including one who allegedly served as an intelligence officer.

"We're achieving a deliberate, systematic disruption in the al Qaeda in Iraq network," Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a U.S. military spokesman, said in the statement.

Denmark sends special forces to southern Iraq

The truck loaded with explosives was found early Friday near Fallujah, a city in Anbar province, when Marines were tipped off about it by a suspected insurgent they detained during a routine combat operation in the area, the military said.

Loaded with eight large barrels of an unidentified liquid, the truck contained hidden detonation wire and explosives, the statement said. After cordoning off the area and evacuating nearby citizens, the Marines called in U.S. fighter jets that destroyed the truck, causing an explosion large enough to damage some nearby buildings, the military said.

No civilian or coalition injuries were reported.

In Mahmoudiya, about 20 miles (30 kilometers) south of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi forces detained eight suspected insurgents and confiscated three caches of weapons during a raid on an apartment complex on April 22, including mortars, rockets and ammunition. The weapons appeared to be new and "were stamped with recent dates and Iranian markings," the military said.

The United States has frequently accused Iran of allowing insurgents to enter the country carrying weapons such as deadline roadside bombs used to attack U.S. and Iraqi convoys.

For instance, a roadside bomb hit an Iraqi police convoy in western Baghdad at 7:50 a.m. Saturday, damaging one vehicle but causing no casualties, the U.S. military said.

Also Saturday, the Danish military announced that it has sent an unspecified number of special forces to Iraq to reinforce its 460-strong contingent near the southern city of Basra.

But it stressed the troops were on a temporary mission and would not affect Denmark's plans to withdraw its contingent from the area by August and replace it with a smaller helicopter unit in transferring security responsibilities to Iraqi forces.

Danish and British forces in the area have faced stepped-up attacks as Shiite militias have vied for power since Britain announced in February that it would begin withdrawing troops in Iraq this summer as it hands over control of southern Iraq to local forces.

"I can confirm that the Iraqis, Danes and British are putting a great effort into finding the elements that are shooting at Danish and British soldiers day and night," Defense Minister Soeren Gade told Danish broadcaster TV2.

Eleven British soldiers have been killed in the area this month, raising to 145 the number of British troops who have died in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. Six Danish soldiers have been killed in Iraq.

Other developments

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Some of the militants arrested in a terror sweep in Saudi Arabia trained to use civilian aircraft in suicide missions, an official said Saturday, detailing a plot that reflected the September 11 attacks on the United States.

Mansour al-Turki, the Interior Ministry spokesman, said the group of 172 Islamic extremists "are carriers of al Qaeda ideology, working on achieving al Qaeda goals, which is to take over the society."

Saudi Arabia announced Friday that one of the largest terror sweeps to date in the kingdom had stopped plans to mount air attacks on the kingdom's oil refineries, break militants out of prison and send suicide attackers to kill government officials. Al-Turki said Friday that some of those arrested had trained abroad as pilots. (Watch how Saudi arrests linked to Iraq war )

"They were trained on civilian aircraft, to use the aircraft as a tool to carry out suicide operations," al-Turki told The Associated Press by phone from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

His comments marked a rare mention of al Qaeda by Saudi officials, who customarily refer to the organization as a "deviant group."

It was also the first confirmation that those arrested planned suicide missions similar to those of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

The months-long roundup was one of the biggest since Saudi leaders began cracking down on religious extremists four years ago, after militants attacked foreigners and others involved in the country's oil industry, seeking to topple the monarchy for its alliance with the U.S.

Al-Turki told The AP that the militants planned to use the planes "like car bombs ... to use the aircraft as a tool to carry out suicide operations." He said the targets also included Saudi military bases, which he said the militants had no other way of reaching but "through these means" of blowing up an aircraft.

According to an Interior Ministry statement Friday, the militants had trained in a "troubled" country nearby and planned to storm Saudi prisons to free jailed militants.

"It could be Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, there are so many troubled regions in the world. I can't specify," al-Turki said.

U.S. officials have warned that Iraq could become a regional base for extremists planning attacks elsewhere in the Middle East. (Watch CNN's Nic Robertson explain terror plot )

Al-Turki had said on Friday that the plotters completed preparations for their attacks, and all that remained to put the plot in motion "was to set the zero hour."

The Interior Ministry has said they were organized into seven cells and planned to stage suicide attacks on "public figures, oil facilities, refineries ... and military zones," including some outside the kingdom. It did not identify any of the targets.

"Documents and confessions from the detained uncovered that they were targeting public figures, including officials, ministers, policemen, directors of vital sectors," al-Turki said Saturday.

He said al Qaeda's target is "the ruling system, wherever they are."

Saudi Arabia's long alliance with the United States has angered Saudi extremists such as al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden -- a Saudi exile -- who object to Western ways.

An austere strain of Islam known as Wahhabism is followed by the country's predominantly Sunni Muslim population, and militant groups have attracted recruits from Saudis with extremist leanings. Fifteen of the 19 airline hijackers in the September 11 attacks were from Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi ruling family has pursued an aggressive campaign against militants in the past four years, and its security forces have managed to kill or capture most of those on its list of most-wanted al Qaeda loyalists in the country.

(CNN) -- A suicide bomb exploded Saturday at a public gathering in northwestern Pakistan, killing at least 15 people and injuring scores of others, including the nation's interior minister, police said.

Interior Minister Aftab Ahmad Khan Sherpao was addressing the gathering of a few hundred people when the blast took place in Char Sadha, police said.

A police official confirmed it was a suicide bombing, saying the bomber's head had been found.

Pakistan's GEO-TV reported that the minister, his son and others were taken to a hospital.

But police said Sherpao's injuries were minor.

           C7A1

Yongbyon [Nyongbyon]

North Korea has several nuclear facilities that, collectively, have the potential to produce nuclear fuel for weapons. Most are located at Yongbyon, 60 miles north of Pyongyang, which has an estimated staff of some 2,000. The major installations include a 5-megawatt electric (MW(e)) research reactor, a larger a 50-MW(e) reactor that was under construction in Yongbyon, and a plutonium reprocessing facility. Yongbyon is also the site of the Radiochemical Laboratory of the Institute of Radiochemistry, the Nuclear Fuel Rod Fabrication Plant, and a storage facility for fuel rods.

Under the cooperation agreement concluded between the USSR and the DPRK, in 1965 a Soviet IRT-2M research reactor was assembled for this center. From 1965 through 1973 fuel elements enriched to 10 percent were supplied to the DPRK for this reactor. In 1974 Korean specialists independently modernized this reactor bringing its capacity up to 8 megawatts and switching to fuel enriched to 80 percent.

Since nuclear development began in earnest in the '80s, the college of physics and technical college of physics were set up at Yongbyon to train specialists necessary for the operation of nuclear facilities like the atomic reactor at Yongbyon, the nuclear fuel re-processing plant and nuclear fuel manufacturing plant.

In March 1986, satellite imagery of Yongbyon depicted small craters in the sand near a river bank, apparently from experimental high-explosive detonations. At that time a study earlier imagery showed similar craters in the same area since 1983. In June 1988, satellite imagery reportedly indicated craters at a detonation test site used to develop high explosive implosion techniques for nuclear weapons located near the Kuryong-gang River [ie, Kuryong-gang 39°44'"N 125°49'"E]. By 1991 South Korean sources estimated that North Korea has conducted approximately 70 explosions at a test site located along the banks of the aka Yuryong] river (south of Yongdong).

International Atomic Energy Agency Activities

Comprehensive safeguards agreement with DPRK entered into force on 10 April 1992, permitting verification that all nuclear material and all nuclear facilities in the DPRK were used exclusively for peaceful purposes and assessment of whether the initial declaration of material and facilities was complete and correct.

On 04 May 1992, North Korea submitted its declaration of nuclear materials to IAEA, as required by IAEA's safeguards agreements. According to the declaration, North Korea had seven sites and about 90 grams of plutonium in its possession that were subject to IAEA's inspections. According to North Korea, the nuclear material resulted from its reprocessing of 89 defective fuel rods in 1989.

In July 1992, an IAEA inspection team collected information that subsequently resulted in the disclosure of discrepancies in North Korea's declaration of nuclear materials. Instead of reprocessing spent fuel from 89 damaged fuel rods on just one occasion, IAEA concluded that North Korea has probably reprocessed spent fuel on three to four occasions since 1989. Additional inspections revealed further inconsistencies in North Korea's declaration.

These inconsistencies between the DPRK's declaration of nuclear material and International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] findings led the Agency to conclude that undeclared plutonium must exist in the DPRK - whether in grams or kilograms. Three separate but possibly interrelated elements were the object of the Agency's special interest: firstly, two sites that were apparently related to nuclear waste that could provide evidence of reprocessing activities in the DPRK; secondly, the core of the 5 MW(e) Experimental Nuclear Power Reactor, the history of which could shed light on the extent of any possible reprocessing; and thirdly the DPRK's reprocessing plant - called the Radiochemical Laboratory - and the use that had been made of it.

Late in 1992, the IAEA informally requested that it be given access to two additional sites -- located in the Yongbyon nuclear complex -- that it suspected of housing nuclear waste. North Korea allowed IAEA to visually inspect one of the sites but denied any access to the other. On 09 February 1993, IAEA invoked the "special inspections clause" of its safeguards agreement with North Korea, indicating that it wanted to inspect two sites that North Korea had not declared and that IAEA suspected had a bearing on the history of North Korea's nuclear program. North Korea denied IAEA access to the two undeclared sites. North Korea said that the sites were military installations with no connection to its nuclear program.

At a 22 February 1993, meeting of the IAEA board, the members were shown US overhead surveillance photographs and a chemical analysis of data collected by IAEA inspectors. The evidence reportedly confirmed the existence of a nuclear waste dump -- long denied by North Korea -- and disclosed discrepancies in North Korea's declaration of the nuclear materials in its possession. On 12 March 1993, North Korea announced its intention to withdraw from the NPT, effective June 12, 1993. The announcement elevated what was viewed as a serious proliferation threat into a major diplomatic confrontation between the United States and North Korea.

On February 15 1994, after lengthy talks with the IAEA, a detailed understanding was reached with the IAEA about conducting inspections that the Agency requested - with the exception of the two non-declared, apparently waste related sites. IAEA resumed inspections March 3-14, 1994. The inspectors proceeded without incident at several locations but encountered problems at the reprocessing plant, where they were precluded from entering certain portions of the plant and performing activities -- such as taking samples from reprocessing equipment and conducting a gamma ray scan of the reprocessing facility--that North Korea had agreed to on February 15, 1994. On 15 March 1994 IAEA terminated inspections after North Korea barred the inspectors from taking samples at key locations in its plutonium reprocessing plant. The March 1994 inspection reportedly indicated that North Korea had resumed construction on the second reprocessing line in the facility, constructed new connections between the old and new reprocessing lines, and broken seals on previously tagged reprocessing equipment.

In early 1994 the American military prepared detailed plans for attacking the Yongbyon facility with precision-guided munitions. The US was confident that the reactor could be destroyed without causing a meltdown that would release radioactivity into the area. The nearby buildings designed to reprocess the reactor fuel into bomb material would also be leveled in the attack. The US demonstrated a willingness to use military force by positioning forces to strike Yongbyon and reinforcing military units that were deployed to defend South Korea.

After further talks between DPRK and other States, the DPRK accepted Agency inspection of the points earlier blocked.

Following progress made during bilateral consultations between DPRK and United States representatives, the DPRK accepted enlarging the scope of inspections in early September 1994. The IAEA inspectors were given access to the Nuclear Fuel Rod Fabrication Plant and the Nuclear Fuel Rod Storage facility for periodic inspections, as required by the IAEA. The inspectors were also enabled, in addition to the other activities being carried out at the 5 MWe Reactor, to enter the reactor fuel storage to verify the fresh fuel rod inventory. However, at the Radiochemical Laboratory, the DPRK continued to refuse to allow the Agency inspectors to ascertain the state of completion of the new process line under construction there and declined examination of records and gamma-mapping activities.

On 21 October 1994, the United States and North Korea signed in Geneva a Framework Agreement to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue. Its main provisions were that the North would freeze and eventually dismantle its existing suspect nuclear program, including the 50 MW and 200 MW graphite-moderated reactors under construction, as well as its existing 5 MW reactor and nuclear fuel reprocessing facility. In return, Pyongyang would be provided with two 1,000 MW light-water nuclear reactors, which would be safer and would produce much less plutonium (the key material for atomic weapons), in order to help boost the supply of electricity in the North.

Under the "Agreed Framework" the DPRK agreed that there would be no operations at the facilities covered by the freeze and no construction work of any kind, either at existing facilities or new, related facilities; that the spent fuel from the 5 MWe reactor will be stored and disposed of in a manner that does not involve reprocessing in the DPRK; and that any movements of nuclear material or equipment within those facilities, any necessary maintenance work by the operator and any transfers of nuclear material out of the facilities would have to be carried out under the observation of IAEA inspectors or under other IAEA arrangements.

IAEA inspectors regularly monitored the 5-MW(e) reactor, the fuel fabrication plant, and the reprocessing plant. IAEA uses all technical means available to monitor the freeze at these facilities, such as using seals that can indicate instances of tampering, using video cameras, and making short-notice inspections. The particular method(s) used depends on the circumstances at each of the three facilities. The primary monitoring method was the use and frequent verification of tamper-indicating seals on equipment and installations throughout the "frozen" nuclear facilities. Video cameras are also used for surveillance. Finally, short-notice inspections were used to monitor certain equipment and areas in the frozen facilities that have not been allowed to be sealed. IAEA inspectors also monitorrf activities related to the canning and storage of spent fuel from the 5-MW(e) reactor and have, through qualitative measurements of the fuel rods (spent fuel), verified whether the rods are, in fact, irradiated (spent) fuel rods.

As of late 1999, United States experts remained on-site in North Korea working to complete clean-up operations after largely finishing the canning of spent fuel from the North's 5-megawatt nuclear reactor.

Through late 2002 DPRK continued to maintain a freeze on its nuclear facilities consistent with the 1994 US-DPRK Agreed Framework. North Korea had not allowed the IAEA to perform inspections sufficiently comprehensive at all sites to verify the operating history of the 5-megawatt (electric) reactor, the amount of reprocessing accomplished, and whether special nuclear materials have been diverted to develop nuclear weapons.

Under strict adherence to the Agreed Framework, North Korea was required to make its nuclear program completely transparent and must allow the IAEA to perform special inspections prior to the delivery of Nuclear Suppliers' Group (NSG) controlled items to the Light Water Reactors. North Korea also had obligated itself beyond its NPT and IAEA requirements by agreeing to eliminate eventually all its existing or planned nuclear power and related facilities.

In early December 2002 North Korea received a shipment of 20 tons of the specialty chemical tributyl phosphate [TBP] from a Chinese company in Dalian, a Pacific coast port. The chemical shipment coincided with the announcement by Pyongyang that it would restart its nuclear reactors in Yongbyon, and the TBP could be used to extract material for nuclear bombs from North Korea's stockpile of spent nuclear-reactor fuel.

By the end of 2002 North Korea said it was lifting the freeze on facilities frozen under the agreed framework between the United States and North Korea, including a nuclear reactor at Yongbyon. Furthermore, North Korea asked the International Atomic Energy Agency to remove its cameras from the Yongbyon facility. North Korea defied world opinion on 21 December 2002 by removing United Nations seals and cameras at a nuclear power plant suspected of making weapons-grade plutonium. North Korea tampered with surveillance devices the UN nuclear watchdog installed at the Yongbyong complex. The agency said the North cut most of the seals on equipment and tampered with cameras at the five-megawatt reactors. North Korea says the agency did not respond to Pyongyang's requests that it remove the equipment. The International Atomic Energy Agency said it was trying to keep communications open with Pyongyang. IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said it was deplorable North Korea had ignored requests for talks.

US Senator Joe Biden said he believed North Korea's restarting of the Yongbyon nuclear reactor poses a greater threat than Iraq. He said within months Pyongyang could have enough material for five more nuclear weapons. The incoming chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Republican Senator Richard Lugar, said Washington must actively engage its allies in the region.

During a visit to Yongbyon on 08 January 2004, North Korea showed an unofficial American delegation what it asserted was weapons-grade plutonium. The group spent about a day at Yongbyon, and was shown the empty cooling pond where the 8,000 fuel rods from the 5-megawatt nuclear reactor had been stored. During the visit, the reprocessing plant was operating.

The Entire Complex

5MW Reactor Support Area

IRT Reactor

Th White Squares are the Anti-Aircraft Artillery Batteries. Probably ZSU's, ZU's or ZPU old Soviet Russian AAA Weaponry. If they are not chinese which are based on the same concept and design.

The Yongbyon Nuclear Complex is protected by at least 22 anti-aircraft artillery batteries.

Russia: Boris Yeltsin Dead At 76

By Jeremy Bransten

April 23, 2007 (RFE/RL) -- Boris Yeltsin, the first president of an independent Russia, has died at the age of 76, reportedly of heart failure.

Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin, son of Siberian peasants, began his career building machines and ended up reshaping a nation.

Yeltsin was not born to money or influence. He was born to hunger, on February 1, 1931, in the village of Butka, in Russia's Sverdlovsk Oblast.

But Yeltsin's ambition helped him survive that harsh decade as well as World War II. His charisma and working-class background won him a place at the Urals Polytechnic Institute's engineering faculty. After graduation, Yeltsin quickly rose from construction foreman at a local machine-building plant to chief engineer of the Yuzhgorstroi construction company.

Early Riser

He joined the Communist Party in 1961, at the age of 30. Yeltsin spent the next two decades rising through the ranks of Sverdlovsk's Communist Party organization, becoming first secretary of the Sverdlovsk Region's Communist Party Committee in 1976.

In 1985, the same year Mikhail Gorbachev came to power, Yeltsin was brought to Moscow and made a member of the Soviet Communist Party's Central Committee. He soon joined the Kremlin's inner sanctum, becoming first secretary of Moscow's Communist Party Committee and a member of the Politburo. But Yeltsin retained a populist touch, which presaged Gorbachev's own democratization campaign.

He rode the subways from time to time, and was fond of turning up at Moscow markets to sample farmers' produce. Just as the first winds of perestroika began to blow, however, Yeltsin broke with his Kremlin mentors.

In October 1987, Yeltsin delivered a scathing criticism of top party leaders before a plenary meeting of the Soviet Communist Party's Central Committee. He was immediately removed from his post as Moscow party boss and kicked out of the Politburo. Gorbachev shunned him. But Yeltsin got his revenge two years later with his election to the Soviet Union's first democratically elected parliament, the Congress of People's Deputies. In May of 1990, Yeltsin was elected chairman of the Russian Republic's Supreme Soviet. A month later, the Russian republic declared its sovereignty within the Soviet Union. The following month Yeltsin terminated his Communist Party membership. A year later, he was elected president of the Russian republic by popular vote.

Moscow was now the capital of two states: Russia and the Soviet Union. But the rivalry would not last long. Yeltsin's defining moment came in August of 1991, when Gorbachev's closest advisers tried to depose the Soviet leader in a ineptly-staged coup. Yeltsin summoned the resistance from atop a tank in Moscow, in the name of the Russian people.

"On the night of August 18 to August 19, 1991, the legally elected president of the country was deposed from power," Yeltsin told the crowd. "Regardless of the reasons used to justify this act, what we are dealing with is a genuine, reactionary, unconstitutional coup. Despite all the difficulties and hardships that our people have known, the democratic process in our country has become broad-based and is irreversible. The people of Russia are becoming masters of their own fate."

The coup was put down, and a humiliated Gorbachev brought back to the Kremlin to preside over the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Hero Of The Nation

Yeltsin, flush with victory, addressed supporters: "Most of the leaders of the world's countries yesterday, overnight, and this morning, telephoned and said: 'An enormous thank-you to all the people of Russia, to Russia, to Russians, for saving democracy, for saving the union, for saving the peace."

But Yeltsin, who used the power of democracy to propel himself to power, soon began to rule Russia like a benevolent autocrat. He unveiled a series of presidential decrees that launched Russia into a program of crash economic liberalization. Led by a team of young economists, the "top-down "economic reform freed prices, lifted restrictions on foreign investment, and introduced piecemeal privatization in a matter of months.

Wrenching economic adjustment followed, as real wages and domestic production plummeted, and inflation skyrocketed. Shops filled with goods, but mostly for the new rich, who often turned out to be old party bosses, cashing in on their connections. Russia's borders were opened and a free press flourished, but social tensions increased.

The Russian parliament, still dominated by former Communists, increasingly began to oppose the president. In a bid to eliminate this rival center of power, Yeltsin dissolved the parliament by decree in September 1993. But legislators barricaded themselves inside the parliament building, known as the Russian White House, eventually calling for the government's overthrow. Yeltsin sent in tanks to crush the rebellion. The White House was shelled into submission and rebellious legislators arrested.

Yeltsin rewrote the constitution to give him broad powers, ensuring that the next parliament could not oppose him. He also cut deals with several regional governors, granting them special exemptions from federal taxes and controls to retain their favor.

The end of Yeltsin's first term was marked by greater economic stability but also a disastrous decision to send troops to the secessionist Caucasian Republic of Chechnya. As the bodies of dead Russian soldiers continued to pile up, the Kremlin sank deeper and deeper into a guerilla war that was sapping its international prestige and draining financial resources.

The war took a personal toll on Yeltsin, who became increasingly remote and began to spend more and more time in hospitals or at sanatoria. Rumors of Yeltsin's drinking and heart problems dominated international headlines. The Kremlin once again became of place of intrigue and power struggles.

Yeltsin appeared to make a miraculous recovery as he campaigned for a second term as president against Communist Party leader Gennady Zyuganov. Yeltsin crisscrossed the country and used all available resources to marshal Russia's fractured society to his side. He was reelected in July of 1996 and immediately disappeared from public view, his aides speaking of his "postelectoral exhaustion." The resolution of the war in Chechnya and the running of the country's economy were left to his entourage.

Health Problems Surface

As Yeltsin's absence lengthened, his advisers confirmed the rumors of heart trouble. Yeltsin underwent quintuple bypass surgery in November of 1996, under the supervision of leading U.S. heart surgeon Michael DeBakey. The operation breathed new life into the Russian leader and once again, a long period of withdrawal from the public eye alternated with a brief period of frenetic activity. But it did not last long. Yeltsin ended 1997 much as he had 1996 -- in a sanatorium, recovering from a series of what aides described as "bad colds."

Meanwhile, the country lurched from crisis to crisis, with unpaid workers regularly striking and key reform promises remaining unfulfilled. Yeltsin made one final attempt to forge ahead with reforms in the spring of 1998, by removing long-time Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin from power. He replaced him with the young and ambitious Sergei Kiriyenko, who promised rigid belt-tightening measures and crafted plans to collect taxes from Russia's most powerful companies. But the "oligarchs" -- whose economic and political influence had grown much as Yeltsin's powers had ebbed, revolted.

As the summer of 1998 came to a close, Russia plunged into its most serious economic crisis since emerging from the wreckage of the Soviet Union in 1991. And as panicked Russians rushed out to convert their rapidly devaluating rubles into any solid commodity and the communists and nationalists openly called for the president's resignation, Yeltsin remained holed up in his dacha, a shadow of his former self.

Yeltsin left Russia with a very mixed legacy. The larger than life leader brought Russia independence. He offered bravery and presence of mind, inspiring the nation at defining moments. He unleashed economic reforms.

But Yeltsin, like Gorbachev before him, succumbed with old age to the habits of a party apparatchik, insulating himself from the outside world with a coterie of advisers while his associates grabbed chunks of Russia for their own personal profit, leading the country to the edge of bankruptcy.

Surprise Resignation

On December 31, 1999, Yeltsin stunned the nation by announcing his immediate resignation during a televised New Year's address.

"Today, I am addressing you for the last time as Russian president," Yeltsin announced. "I have made a decision. I have contemplated this long and hard. Today, on the last day of the outgoing century, I am retiring."

The mantle of leadership was passed on to Yeltsin's hand-picked successor, Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin used his farewell address to apologize to the tens of millions of Russians for whom prosperity remained as distant and unrealized a promise as it had under the previous decades of communism.

"I want to ask you for forgiveness, because many of our hopes have not come true, because what we thought would be easy turned out to be painfully difficult," Yeltsin said. "I ask to forgive me for not fulfilling some hopes of those people who believed that we would be able to jump from the gray, stagnating, totalitarian past into a bright, rich, and civilized future in one go."

In the end, whether the new Russian society Yeltsin helped to create will evolve into an economically stable democracy is still up to history's judgment.

Copyright (c) 2007. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036. www.rferl.org

Gates Announces Formation of U.S.-Russia Working Group on Missile Defense

By Linda D. Kozaryn
American Forces Press Service

MOSCOW, April 23, 2007 – The United States and Russia will form a working group of experts to discuss the proposed U.S. plan to base missile defenses in Eastern Europe, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates announced here today.

“The key to this is cooperation,” the secretary said. “We would like to have the Russians as partners in this process. We would like to share information with them. We’re prepared to collocate radars with them. We think there are some real opportunities here for both sides.”

Gates spoke with U.S. and Russian reporters following meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin, First Deputy Premier Sergey Ivanov at the Russian White House government building, and Defense Minister Anatoliy Serdyukovat the Ministry of Defense.

“A bilateral working group will address technical details and questions about the proposed sites and also Russian concerns that current proposed sites and designs might someday take on a different and larger form,” Gates said. “I believe the experts will both clear up any misunderstandings as well as address the Russians’ concerns.”

Gates said the Russians are fairly clear that the current design and the current plan for 10 interceptors are not a threat to Russia in any way. What U.S. officials need to address, however, is the Russians’ concern that “someday in the future, the character of these sites might change, and would become a greater concern in terms of Russia’s strategic security,” he said.

The secretary said he invited the Russians to inspect the U.S. interceptor site in Alaska and a radar site in California. Gates noted that this is in keeping with President Bush’s desire to approach this issue “transparently and cooperatively” with both the Russians and the Europeans.

From Moscow, Gates is slated to travel to Poland and Germany, where he will also discuss the missile defense plan.

U.S. officials want to deploy the missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic to deal with possible missile attack from rogue nations such as Iran. Gates said the Russians are “skeptical that the Iranians will have a ballistic missile that will have the range to hit targets in Western Europe in the foreseeable future.”

“My view is, and what I expressed to both Minister Serdyukov and President Putin, was that we have to look at this strategically and that we need to look 10 to 20 years out,” the secretary said. “Based on my own experience in the intelligence world, I would argue that (saying) countries in the Middle East might not have missiles with that kind of range or capability would be making a very risky assessment.”

At the start of his meetings with Putin and Serdyukov, Gates noted this was his first visit to Russia in 15 years and said he was impressed by the changes. Gates said he last visited Moscow in 1992 as the director of the CIA at the invitation of the head of Russia’s intelligence service to establish a new way forward after the end of the Cold War.

“We established a foundation for cooperation on counternarcotics, counterterrorism and nonproliferation, subjects which clearly still remain at the top of the agenda,” Gates said. “In the interval, a robust military-to-military relationship has developed, and there are opportunities for future cooperation as well as current issues between us.”

Russian and American relations are very important, Gates said and added that he looks forward to positively developing the relationship. While today’s meetings touched on a wide range of topics, he said, the primary focus was on missile defense.

While Putin expressed some of his concerns about the missile defense plan, Gates reported that Putin received him “very cordially.” The secretary said he felt very welcome and that the meeting had a very positive tone.

Gates said he expressed his appreciation for the invitation, noting this was the first visit to Russia by a U.S. defense secretary in six years.

“I felt we made some real headway in clearing up some misunderstandings about the technical characteristics of the system that are of concern to the Russians,” he said. “I would say I came away from the meetings cautiously optimistic.”

Although the Russian defense minister told reporters after his meeting with Gates that the Russians’ position on missile defense "remained basically unchanged,” Gates said he had the impression the minister’s statement was prepared before the meeting.

“I just felt there was a good atmosphere in the meeting,” he said. “And while we were waiting to meet with the press, there were a number of side conversations going on among the experts -- senior Russian military officers and our experts -- that I think even went beyond some of the discussions at the table.

“I don’t want to put words in their mouths, and I don’t want to characterize this more optimistically than perhaps is warranted,” he said, “but I felt this was a useful meeting, and I thought we made some headway.”

During the two-year [2002-2003] flight test program, DoD reviewed buying existing helicopters as an alternative, should the V-22 fail to meet safety and reliability requirements. The FY2004 Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) directed a study of alternatives for the V-22, including the Sikorsky S-92 Helibus, an upgrade of the existing CH-53E Super Stallion, or the AgustaWestland EH101.

From March to June 2005, an operational test and an evaluation was conducted that deemed the Osprey operationally suitable and operationally capable. On 28 September 2005 the Defense Acquisition Board endorsed the V-22 Osprey and recommended moving toward full production of the aircraft. Textron and Boeing will build at least 458 of the V-22 aircraft for the Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy. The Marine Corps accepted the first production Block-B MV-22 Osprey in a ceremony at Bell Helicopter in Amarillo, Texas, 08 December 2005. This progression from Block A to Block B marks the baseline configuration that will reach initial operational capability in 2007. VMM-263 stood up as the first operational MV-22 squadron on 03 March 2006 under the command of Lt. Col. Paul Rock.

The MV-22B configuration aircraft serves as the baseline design. The CV-22 configuration will include additional wing fuel tanks, a Terrain Following/Terrain Avoidance radar, and enhanced avionics packages to satisfy SOF specific mission requirements. The V-22 will replace the CH-46E and CH-53A/D helicopters in the Marine Corps; replace USSOCOM's MH-53J and MH-60G helicopters; and supplement USSOCOM's MC-130E/H fleet. CSAR requirements of the USN by the HV-22 variant will augment and replace an as yet to be determined (TBD) aircraft.

Due to its range, payload flexibility, and speed, the MV-22 is envisioned as a major component of the Navy/Marine Corps concept of Operational Maneuver from the Sea. The Air Force requires the CV-22 to provide a long-range VTOL insertion and extraction capability and to supplement the Special Operations Forces (SOF) MC-130 aircraft in precision engagement. The V-22 is expected to operate in both global and regional conflicts in support of operations ranging from peactime engagements to conventional, high-intensity, general warfare. Projected threats to the V-22 include small arms, man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), anti-aircraft artillery, missiles and projectiles fired from high performance fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft, lasers, and integrated air defense systems.

The V-22 "Osprey" Program is a Department of the Navy program responsible for developing, testing, evaluating, procuring, and fielding a tilt-rotor, vertical takeoff and landing aircraft for Joint Service application. The V-22 provides the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps with a multi-engine, dual piloted, self-deployable, medium lift, Vertical Take-Off and Landing aircraft to be used to conduct combat, combat support, combat service support, and special operations missions worldwide.

The V-22 Osprey Program consists of a Joint Multi-Mission Vertical Lift Aircraft that provides the USMC, Headquarters USSOCOM, USAF, and the United States Navy (USN) with a multi-engine, dual piloted, self-deployable, medium lift, vertical take-off and landing aircraft to be used to conduct combat, combat support, combat service support, and special operations missions worldwide. Missions include, but are not limited to, amphibious assault, land assault, raid operations, medium cargo lift, Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR), and Special Operations Force (SOF) support. The aircraft (MV-22 for the USMC, CV-22 for USSOCOM, and HV-22 for the USN) are capable of conducting operations in adverse weather, during daylight hours or at night, in climates from arctic to tropical from aviation and air capable ships (primary operating and support sea bases are Amphibious Assault (General Purpose) (LHA) and Amphibious Assault (Multi Purpose) (LHD) class ships, or from improved and unimproved landing sites ashore; and in a variety of conventional, unconventional, and contingency combat situations including Chemical, Biological, and Radiological warfare conditions. An air refueling capability will extend the aircraft's combat mission range when required, and it will be self-supporting to the maximum extent possible.

The aircraft is manned by a pilot, copilot, and enlisted aircrew appropriate for the specific service and type of mission being flown. The V-22 is optimized to transport troops (i.e., 24 combat-equipped Marines, or 10,000 pounds of external cargo) to austere landing sites from aviation capable amphibious ships and expeditionary forward operating bases ashore. The V-22 will be capable of flying over 2,100 nautical miles with one aerial refueling, giving the Services the advantage of a Vertical/Short Takeoff and Landing aircraft that can rapidly self-deploy to any location in the world.

Testing has confirmed key advantages in range, speed, and payload, in comparison to current rotary-wing aircraft that are inherent to the tilt-rotor concept. In the planning and execution of missions, these three improved characteristics of range, speed, and payload can be interchanged and utilized in countless ways. Together they provide a major step ahead in tactical flexibility. For example, the increased range of the MV-22 (as compared to the CH-46 and CH-53 helicopters) enables the execution of combat assaults at extended ranges. The ensuing greater radius of action will allow the Landing Force Commander more options in LZ selection, enabling the force to go where the enemy isn't. This increased range can also be employed to provide reduced exposure of the LHA/LHD platform to shore threats. In raid or Other Expeditionary Operations, MV-22s will be able to launch at a greater distance, employing greater speed to get to the objective area hours before such an operation using CH-46s. In medical evacuations, the longer legs, greater speed available, coupled with the point-to-point VSTOL capability of the V-22 will save lives.

The V-22 is the first tilt-rotor aircraft to be fielded in the military. It is a hybrid aircraft, combining selected capabilities of an airplane and a helicopter. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has classified tilt rotors as powered lift aircraft, neither airplane nor rotorcraft. The V-22 uses many unique items to achieve its configuration and capability. The airframe incorporates new materials and structural designs. Advanced avionics provide mission enhancement while new wiring technologies increase reliability and reduce weight. New hydraulic technology is also applied. Redundant digital systems such as fly-by-wire flight controls are used in lieu of traditional hybrid redundancies. New processes are applied in the operation and maintenance of the V-22. Examples include the mission planning station used by aircrew before flight, and the maintenance station used between flights to automatically identify defects and conduct trend analysis to predict future maintenance actions.

Design

The V-22 is a dual-piloted, twin engine, medium-lift, tilt-rotor aircraft that combines the speed, range, and fuel efficiency of a turboprop aircraft with the slow flight and hover capabilities of a helicopter. Its design incorporates advanced, but mature technologies in composite materials, fly-by-wire flight controls, digital cockpits, survivability, airfoil design, and manufacturing.

The airframe is constructed primarily of graphite-reinforced epoxy composite material. The composite structure will provide improved strength to weight ratio, corrosion resistance, and damage tolerance compared to typical metal construction. Battle damage tolerance is built into the aircraft by means of composite construction and redundant and separated flight control, electrical, and hydraulic systems. An integrated electronic warfare defensive suite including a radar warning receiver, a missile warning set, and a countermeasures dispensing system, will be installed.

The V-22 fuselage has a number of advanced composite structures. A rear loading ramp has been incorporated, which when closed, comprises the lower portion of the aft fuselage section. There is one side-entry personnel door. The fuselage is a semi-monocoque structure that connects the wing, nacelles, landing gear, sponson, ramp and empennage. External skin, bulkheads, and stringers are primarily constructed of carbon/epoxy with some metallic and fiberglass skin panels. Cabin floor panels are honeycomb sandwiches. Frames are constructed of either aluminum or carbon/epoxy.

The empennage consists of a horizontal stabilizer and two vertical stabilizers. The construction is a semi-monocoque design using predominantly carbon/epoxy composite material. The fuselage-to-empennage attachment is accomplished by an integrated design consisting of two retainer pin assemblies. Loss of a single retainer is failsafe under a reduced flight load regime. Horizontal-to-vertical stabilizer attachment is accomplished by dual composite/aluminum angle assemblies at both forward and aft stabilizer spars. Each attachment assembly consists of one upper and one lower angle fitting, only one of which is required to maintain integrity of the vertical stabilizer.

The horizontal stabilizer consists of two spars that extend and mechanically attach at each end to the vertical stabilizer. Thirteen ribs are located chordwise. The vertical stabilizer consists of two spars, which coincide with the two horizontal stabilizer spars. Nine ribs are located chordwise.

The wing structural assembly consists of (1) the wing torque box, and (2) the pylon, support structure. The wing torque box primary structure consists of forward and aft spars, ribs (18 in total), and upper and lower skin panels with co-cured stringers. The wing tip ribs are machined aluminum forgings and have provisions for mounting the conversion spindle, the conversion actuator spindle, and the pylon downstop fittings. The pylon support structure consists of the transmission adapter, pylon support fitting, and the conversion spindle. The conversion spindle along with the conversion actuator and downstop provides the structural support between the pylon support structure and the wing.

The V-22 power plant (designated T406-AE-1107), auxiliary internal fuel capacity, and an aerial refueling capability give the V-22 the ability to self-deploy worldwide. Two 6150 shaft horsepower turboshaft engines each drive a 38 ft diameter, 3-bladed proprotor. The proprotors are connected to each other by interconnect shafting which maintains proprotor synchronization and provides single engine power to both proprotors in the event of an engine failure. The engines and flight controls are controlled by a triply redundant digital fly-by-wire system.

Changes necessary to convert the basic assault troop transport configuration for other missions will be simple and easily accomplished by organizational level maintenance personnel in field and shipboard environments.

MV-22 Marine Corps Variant

The Marine Corps’ MV-22 tiltrotor aircraft, which is designated as the "baseline" variant, is a vertical/short takeoff and landing medium lift assault, self-deployment, and sustained land operations capable air vehicle. The MV-22 must provide combat assault transport of Marines in the initial assault waves and follow-on stages of amphibious operations and subsequent operations ashore. It must also be capable of supporting the following secondary mission tasks: combat assault transport of supplies and equipment, evacuations and maritime special operations, mobile forward area refueling and rearming operations, casualty evacuation, and Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel (TRAP) operations. The aircraft must therefore be self-deployable, capable of handling 24 combat equipped troops, capable of operationally lifting external loads up to 10,000 pounds and able to operate in adverse weather, day or night from air capable ships.

The MV-22 is intended to provide the speed, endurance, radius of action, payload, and survivability needed to support the United States Marine Corps' (USMC) operational concepts. MV-22 squadrons must be capable of rapidly embarking aboard and operating from air capable ships in support of training, contingency, combat, and non-combat operations. The aircraft's performance enhancements and improved systems are intended to support the rapid Ship-To-Objective Maneuver (STOM) and provide a greater operational reach for embarked Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) elements.

Operational Maneuver From The Sea (OMFTS) missions require the seamless maneuver of MAGTF assault forces from a ship directly to an inland objective without the operational pause inherent with the historical use of Force Beachhead Lines. MV-22 squadrons must be capable of landing the assault elements of a Marine Expeditionary Force ashore within a time span of 90 minutes utilizing projected Navy amphibious lift and Marine Corps force structure in support of OMFTS. The typical OMFTS scenario will originate with an over-the-horizon shipboard launch, at night, in low visibility or adverse weather. The over-water portion of the flight will likely include a low to medium altitude flight profile until coastal penetration or arrival at designated control points. Once overland or prior to reaching the probable point of first enemy contact, terrain flight/terrain masking techniques will likely be used en route to the landing zone. Data burst communications and secure voice will be used between Command and Control (C2) agencies and the aircraft for mission coordination in order to minimize threat direction finding, jamming and intrusion opportunities.

Other Expeditionary Operations (OEO) missions include those combatant and non-combatant missions that fall short of traditional warfare. Typical OEO missions include, but are not limited to, Noncombatant Evacuation Operations (NEO), In-Extremis Hostage Rescue (IHR), Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and Personnel (TRAP), Disaster Relief, and Security operations. Similar to the OMFTS scenario, the typical OEO mission scenario will originate with an over-the-horizon shipboard launch, at night, in low visibility or adverse weather. The over-water portion of the flight could include a low to medium altitude flight profile until coastal penetration or arrival at designated control points and then change to terrain flight/terrain masking techniques for the remainder of the flight en route to the landing zone.

The MV-22 is intended to be capable of supporting committed forces from sea-based shipping, austere forward operating bases, or expeditionary airfield facilities. During the conduct of sustained operations ashore (SOA), the MV-22 will use its Vertical and Short Takeoff and Landing (V/STOL) performance to make multiple takeoffs and landings on a variety of air capable ships and diverse terrain in support of committed forces. Diverse mission requirements will require the MV-22 to fly day or night, in favorable or adverse weather, at altitudes ranging from terrain flight regimes to above 10,000 feet MSL.

The Marine Corps will employ a phased strategy for the transition of the Marine Corps Medium Lift fleet to the MV-22 aircraft. Twenty-two CH-46E/CH-53D squadrons will transition to the MV-22 aircraft (18 active and four reserve). Upon transition, each squadron will maintain an aircraft inventory (Primary Aircraft Authorized (PAA)) of 12 aircraft. The estimated time-to-train for a squadron transitioning to the MV-22 aircraft is approximately 24-30 months (Stand-down, Transition, Post-Transition, Pre-Deployment Training).

CV-22 Air Force Variant

The Air Force is acquiring 50 CV-22 Ospreys to replace its fleet of MH-53J Pave Low helicopters used to insert and extract special operations forces from hostile areas. The Osprey can cruise at 230 knots, and has a two times greater speed, range and payload than the MH-53J.

The CV-22 is being acquired to meet the requirements of Special Operations Forces (SOF). Special Operations missions require air support over a wide range of operating parameters. The missions generally require low-visibility, clandestine operations over the entire spectrum of conflict, including peacetime crisis response, expanded contingency operations, and general war. Flights may involve deep penetration of hostile/ politically denied airspace to reach target areas from wartime staging locations within theaters of operations or peacetime bed down locations for sensitive mission prosecution. CV-22 aircraft must be capable of conducting these long distance operations efficiently, reducing as much as possible the need for additional support forces or assets. The aircraft must be capable of operating at low level, under conditions of minimum visibility or adverse weather, navigating precisely to designated way points and arriving at objective target locations within narrow time parameters. SOF missions require extreme precision (navigational accuracy and time) to ensure the element of surprise, thereby maximizing mission success.

The CV-22 fills a long-standing USSOCOM and Air Force requirement to conduct long range insertion and extraction missions in one period of darkness. SOCOM has always been able to insert but not until now, to reliably extract at long range. Now this is possible because the CV-22's Suite of Integrated Radio Frequency Countermeasures includes an active radar jammer. This equipment can geo-locate threats using its missile warning receivers, as well as incorporate real-time intelligence from a multi-mission advanced tactical terminal. This is accessible to the pilot on a digital map. The CV-22 also has a Directed Infrared Countermeasures system which includes an active infrared jammer. Other CV items include a survivor locator system, additional radios and upgraded computers.

The Air Force Special Operations Forces/United States Special Operations Command mission is the most stringent mission of the V-22 variants due to the anticipated extended exposure to a high threat environment. The CV-22 variant will travel 500 nautical miles at or below 500 feet above ground level, locate a small landing zone, infiltrate and exfiltrate a team of 18 special operations forces, and return to base. This must be done covertly, at night and in adverse weather. The CV-22 maintains maximum commonality with the MV-22 baseline design. However, several significant differences in equipment tailors the V-22 for the special operations mission.

The CV-22 will have enhanced survivability by virtue of the electronic warfare suite specific to the SOF mission as well as meeting the survivability standards identified for the basic MV-22 weapons system. The Air Force version of the Osprey will have a Suite of Integrated Radio Frequency Countermeasures (SIRFC), which includes an active jammer. SIRFC can geo-locate threats using its missile warning receivers, as well as incorporate real-time intelligence from a multi-mission advanced tactical terminal (MATT). Other differences between the CV-22 and its Marine counterpart include terrain following/terrain avoidance radar (TF/TA), an additional 900 gallons of fuel capacity, rope ladders, a survivor locator system, and additional radios and upgraded computers.

The primary anticipated tactic of the CV-22 aircrew will be to avoid detection and, if detected, avoid engagement. The primary method of threat avoidance is through extensive, preflight mission planning to avoid known threats. This implies access to an accurate, real time intelligence capability. Special Operations missions use radio silence, cover of darkness, terrain following/terrain avoidance flight in IMC conditions at or below 300 feet AGL and using terrain masking, avoidance of enemy radar/air defenses and populated areas, exploitation of intelligence, meteorological conditions, and topography; and the use of deceptive countermeasures and receivers to avoid detection/acquisition by enemy defenses. In high threat areas, the CV-22 aircraft will circumnavigate the intense threat areas. The aircrew will use passive countermeasures to reduce detection, but if detected will employ active countermeasures (i.e., infrared and radar jamming and expendables) available for use.

Projected threats to the V-22 include small arms, man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS), anti-aircraft artillery, missiles and projectiles fired from high performance fixed wing and rotary wing aircraft, lasers, and integrated air defense systems. Communications will be threatened by regional collection and jamming capabilities over a variety of frequencies. The most severe threat to the V-22 will be a combination of these diverse systems, with the degree of severity being mission scenario dependent.

The Air Force initially planned to buy 55 CV-22s, but this requirement was later reduced to 50 aircraft. The first four aircraft will go to the 58th Training Squadron at Kirtland where they will be used for CV-22 advanced aircrew training. Initial operational capability is expected in September 2004, with a squadron of six aircraft stationed at Hurlburt Field, Fla. All 50 CV-22s are scheduled to be in service by 2009. In early 1998 plans were changed to accelerate the CV-22 annual procurement buy profile from 7 to 9 per year rate in FY 2003, and shorten the CV-22 buy one year from FY 2008 to FY 2007. The Air Force is responsible for paying for 50 of the basic configuration aircraft. USSOCOM is then responsible for adding SOF unique equipment; terrain following/terrain avoidance radar, extended range fuel tanks, ECM, sensors, SATCOM, etc. This works out to about 15% of the cost USSOCOM pays and 85% paid by Air Force.

The CV-22 will replace several MC-130E Combat Talon aircraft and MC-130P Combat Shadow tanker aircraft. The MC-130E also is a long-range, covert operations penetrating tanker for the helicopter, while the MC-130N/P provided low-altitude, covert, nighttime non-penetrating refueling missions. The CV-22 is acoustically quieter -- less likely to be heard coming in -- and has a cleaner design, which means it will have less drag and be more efficient to fly.

With the CV-22, US Special Operations Command will add new and much needed capability to extract SOF personnel and American citizens from behind enemy lines. The CV-22 can also be useful to the Air Force in performing Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR). Conducting the CSAR mission with the CV-22 will eradicate current mission deficiencies and enhance execution through advances in Combat Search and Rescue Task Force and command and control doctrine. In addition to evolving current doctrine to enhance CSAR, the CV-22 will lead to new CSAR capabilities and doctrine.

On Feb. 3 2000, the V-22 program submitted a response to a Request for Information from the U.S. Air Force. This RFI was to support an Analysis of Alternatives for the Combat Search and Rescue replacement aircraft program. The TPIPT has solicited CSAR concept submittals from industry over the past several years to identify and rank likely material solutions to the CSAR mission area's top-ranked deficiencies. These include reaction time, range, survivability, payload, battlespace awareness and operational availability. The CV-22 addresses all the mission area deficiencies and has consistently ranked highest of the Non-Developmental full system concept submittals. The Osprey is considered a leading contender due to its speed, range, payload and combat survivability. The Air Force has used 105 Sikorsky HH-60G helicopters in active reserve and Air National Guard units to provide CSAR capability for all U.S. forces.

HV-22 Navy Variant

The United States Navy has a requirement for a specially configured V-22 variant known as the HV-22. These will be used for shipborne combat search and rescue and fleet logistics support. As of 1999, detailed requirements have not yet been established. The total requirement is for 48 aircraft (originally 50), with deliveries from FY10.

Other possible production versions include the SV-22 variant for the US Navy, used to provide mid- to long-range sea-based airborne antisubmarine warfare protection.

The US Marine Corps and U.S. Navy require that the V-22 be compatible with below-decks stowage, flight deck elevators, flight deck edge clearance for the wheels, control island clearance for the rotors, rapid turn-around times, and the limited availability of maintenance facilities on aircraft carriers or air capable ships. The Osprey's airframe footprint, tail configuration, and stowed dimensions are all affected by these requirements. Of these requirements, the most defining characteristic is the requirement to operate from a launch and recovery spot located next to the control tower or island of a helicopter carrier. The clearances to the island structure on one side (12'8") and the deck edge on the other side (5') define a very precise limitation on overall wingspan and available rotor diameter.

The Osprey's ability to fly long distances at low altitudes in adverse weather conditions and then hover over a point makes the V-22 the ultimate search and rescue vehicle. Whether picking up downed airman, stranded seaman or performing disaster relief the V-22 could do what no helicopter or fixed wing aircraft can.

UV-22 Army Variant

The Army initially planned to buy 231 basic UV-22 models, but this requirement was later eliminated. As initially envisioned, JVX would satisfy the Marine Corps' HXM requirements as well as provide a new special electronic mission aircraft (SEMA) for the Army, a combat search and rescue aircraft (SAR) for the Navy and Air Force, and an Air Force special operations aircraft. Additionally, it was anticipated that JVX would reduce or replace a number of aircraft and helicopters in the DoD inventory, given its multi-mission capability. The Army would replace its SEMA aircraft (OV-I, RU-21, RC-12, EM-I, etc.).

A Service Secretaries Memorandum of Understanding of 4 June 1982 established a funding share for the common development program of: 34 percent Army, 50 percent Navy and 16 percent Air Force. Each service was to fund and support its own unique operational testing as well as the cost of unique configuration packages and mission equipment. The Army's SEMA mission required the JVX to vertically lift a 4,600 pound electronic kit and cruise at 250 knots up to 30,000 feet for four hours. This lift requirement necessitated a larger aircraft (40,000 pound) and more powerful engine than the other services' mission needs.

In the Spring of 1983, the Army reviewed its overall aircraft mission requirements and decided to withdraw from the JVX development program.

Cockpit

The V-22 Osprey is designed to be operated by a crew of two, pilot and copilot, situated side-by-side in the cockpit. Each crewmember is considered redundant (for system survivability) in that each has a complete set of controls necessary to fly the aircraft. Incapacitation of both crewmembers will result in aircraft attrition. Each crewmember is seated in an armored bucket seat. Construction is of boron carbide/spectra 1000B and has a ballistic V50 rating of 2700 ft/sec for 0.30 cal. APM2 projectiles at 0 degrees obliquity. In addition, each crew member is protected by an armored vest with the same ballistic rating as the seat armor.

The V-22's cockpit features side-by-side seating for the pilot and co-pilot. The Marine Corps MV-22 has a folding crashworthy jumpseat for a third crew member mounted on the forward face of the cabin/cockpit door. The special operations CV-22 has a folding, crashworthy jumpseat with an extended seat pan allowing a flight engineer access to the center and overhead consoles. The pilot's main flight instruments are provided on two multifunctional displays (MFDs) on the instrument panel in front of each pilot. These MFDs provide each pilot access to the cockpit management system including flight symbology, sensor video, communication-navigation, and system data.

The Control Display Unit / Engine Instrument Crew Alerting System (CDU/EICAS) provides the pilot critical system status and control. The engine instruments portion of the display provides full time display of critical aircraft parameters, including NG, MGT, oil pressure, gearbox temperatures and pressures, and hydraulic system pressures. The CDU function provides the primary means of data entry to the cockpit management system. The crew alerting portion of the display provides dedicated space for display of caution/advisory messages and aircraft state indications.

Standby flight instruments provide essential flight and system information should the normal cockpit displays become inoperative. These standby instruments consist of airspeed, altitude, attitude, and the Standby Flight Display which provides nacelle angle, engine performance, hydraulic system health, flap angle, and fuel quantity data. (Standby attitude indicator is missing in this photo.) The Flight Director Panel serves as the primary pilot data entry interface for flight director (autopilot) systems control and annunciation. The pilot can select from various coupled and uncoupled flight director modes.

The communication system provides voice transmission and reception of radio signals on frequencies selected by the pilot or copilot. It also provides audio communications for crewmembers on the aircraft, as well as a connection for the ground crew. The intercommunication system (AN/AIC-30) includes seven stations: pilot, copilot, jump seat, troop commander, forward and aft cabin, and an external station for ground operations or maintenance support. The V-22 can accommodate up to four MIL-STD-1553B-compatible radios. The MV-22 uses to ARC-210 radios. The CV-22 replaces the ARC-210s with DCS 2000s.

The navigation system provides primary navigation data and controls inertial navigation sensors and radio navigation sensors. The system data includes position, heading, attitude, geographic frame velocities, magnetic variation, radar altitude, and radio navigation data such as distance and bearing to ground stations, and marker beacon station passage. The system also receives barometric altitude, calibrated airspeed, and temperature data to calculate true airspeed, wind speed, and wind direction. The standard, triple-redundant, lightweight inertial navigation system (LWINS) provides an output of aircraft acceleration, velocity, position, altitude, magnetic and true headings, and attitude to the avionics and flight control computers.

The ARN-147 provides terminal area landing aides for standard approaches and departures. It provides VHF omni-range (VOR) relative bearing, instrument landing system (ILS) localizer/glideslope data, and approach-marker beacon indications to the aircrew. Working with onboard radios, an automatic direction finder (ADF), provides continuous indication of the relative direction of tone-modulated or continuous wave signals. Audio reception is also provided to the aircrew. The radar altimeter provides aircraft altitude above ground level (AGL) from 0 to 1,524 meters (0 to 5,000 feet).

Payload

The V-22 has a large, open cabin with a rear loading ramp that provides easy access to the cabin. Numerous cabin and cargo systems have been designed for the V-22 and are available to satisfy a full range of mission tasks. The standard configuration is seating for 24 combat loaded Marines (a reinforced rifle squad) and one crewman. The seats are identical to the cockpit jumpseat except that the restraint system is a three-point lap belt and single shoulder harness.

The V-22 is designed to carry up to 24 combat troops. Their lives are primarily protected by features that keep the aircraft in flight; e.g., fire and explosion suppression features in the sponson fuel area that greatly reduce the likelihood of fire in areas that cannot be reached by the crew or passengers with fire extinguishers. In addition, the V-22 has been designed with a number features to improve the likelihood of surviving a crash.

The V-22 is fitted with two external cargo hooks, either of which can support a load of 4,538 kg (10,000 lbs). If the retractable hooks are used together for stability, the combined capacity can be up to 6,804 kg (15,000 lbs).

The Osprey is also fitted with a rescue hoist that consists of a hydraulically powered winch mounted on a removable boom and support shaft. The winch holds 76 usable meters (250 usable feet) of 0.4 cm (5.32 in) diameter corrosion-resistant steel cable. It has a rated capacity of 272 kilograms (600 pounds) with a 2.5 g limit load factor. Cable speed is variable between 0.13 and 1.37 m/s (25 and 250 ft/min). A stainless steel rescue hook is attached to the hoist cable. A remote hand-held control is provided for the crewman operating the hoist.

The V-22's cabin and cargo ramp are capable of accepting cargo pallets or containers as large as 68 inches wide, 66.23 inches high, and 250 inches long as long as the object is capable of achieving the necessary restraint criteria. The Osprey has a usable cabin volume of 739 cu ft and is designed to carry up to a 20,000 lb load internally.

The JORD requires that the MV-22 provide sufficient cargo space capacity for the safe aerial transport of loads such as one light vehicle with trailer and seating for a 4-member crew, or four tandem-loaded 48-inch x 48-inch skid boards/platforms or two 463L half pallets with a maximum gross weight of 4,000 lbs. each.

The initial round of MV-22 OPEVAL was conducted November 1999 through July 2000. The MV-22 configuration tested during OPEVAL contained a non-production representative cargo handling system, the subject of a CNO-waiver. The ramp and cabin floor were evaluated during OPEVAL and determined to be of inadequate strength to carry certain wheeled vehicles unless temporary shoring was in place to prevent damage to the ramp and floor. The flooring in the MV-22 has the same strength as other medium-and heavy-lift helicopters, which would have the same internal load limits. The cabin shoring consisted of two 20-ft long, 12-in wide aluminum extruded bars weighing 353 pounds each. It required six men to lift each long piece of shoring. This shoring also presented logistical and storage problems, as logistics support was required at both the embark and debark sites along with personnel to move it. Ramp shoring also presented similar problems as the cabin shoring. Two 82-inch-long, "C" channels with a 12-inch inside opening, weighing 157 pounds, were placed on the ramp to create a treadway for tactical vehicles and hydraulic carts. Four men were needed to lift each "C" channel. Storage and logistical problems existed for all types of shoring required for the ramp and the cabin area.

Cabin width presents a problem with the embarkation and debarkation of vehicles. The light tactical vehicles representative of required capabilities are approximately 62 to 65 inches in width, leaving as little as 1-1/2 inches on both sides of the aircraft to work with when aligning the vehicle in the cabin. Extreme caution necessitated a slow vehicle entry and exit with multiple aircrew directing to preclude damage to the aircraft. Representative operational scenarios at night with night-vision goggles (NVGs) will present a high risk of aircraft damage. Cabin configuration/reconfiguration flexibility is at significant risk.

A threshold requirement of the JORD is that the MV-22 be equipped with a personnel hoist. The MV-22s as tested in OPEVAL lacked such a hoist. Accordingly, the only personnel recovery that has been successfully demonstrated, without a full landing, is via the use of special personnel insertion/extraction (SPIE) equipment, which was effective. The program is investigating the installation of a personnel hoist over the aft ramp, which looks more promising than the cabin door location.

OPEVAL demonstrated that the MV-22 met its KPP requirements for external lift missions under hot conditions. However, a review of the technical charts depicting the available torque of the MV-22 indicates a fall-off at temperatures below approximately -10 degrees Centigrade. In addition, under these conditions, the aircraft may require use of the anti-icing system, further reducing the available torque.

OPEVAL demonstrated that deficiencies identified in prior operational testing periods regarding the crew and cabin environment remain uncorrected. The MV-22 did not demonstrate the capability to provide an acceptable level of comfort for aircrew and passengers. Cabin and cockpit comfort levels due to an inefficient environmental control unit (ECU) was deemed unacceptable by test participants. During OPEVAL, flights were conducted in temperatures ranging from 117 degress F in the desert to cruising at 18,000 ft. altitude, where the standard-day temperature is 23 degrees F. The ECU did not demonstrate the capability to sufficiently warm or cool the aircraft throughout the operating environment. In addition, the V-22 provided for adequate situational awareness of cockpit aircrew, but with a lack of windows in the cabin did not provide for adequate situational awareness of cabin aircrew and embarked passengers. Finally, the aircraft does not contain relief facilities. The potential for extended flight time of the aircraft, combined with the noted inefficiency of the ECS and the required emphasis on personal hydration, will require both aircrew and passengers to relieve themselves during flight.

Following several earlier phases of operational testing, DOT&E raised concerns regarding the potential of the downwash created by the V-22 to interfere with needed operations below or close-by the aircraft; e.g., troop embarkations, hooking-up of external loads, and fastroping. Subsequent operational testing has shown that several of these operations can be safely conducted with the use of appropriate tactics; e.g., approaching the hovering aircraft from specific directions (and avoiding other directions) on the ground. Nonetheless, testing has demonstrated that some required capabilities (e.g., landing at night in desert environment) can be conducted only with great difficulty, some JORD-required capabilities (e.g., use of a rope ladder or three simultaneous fastropers) are unlikely to be achieved, and some planned capabilities have yet to be tested for downwash effects (e.g., personnel rescue from sea).

Following several earlier phases of operational testing, DOT&E raised concerns regarding the potential of the downwash created by the V-22 to interfere with needed operations below or close-by the aircraft, e.g., troop embarkation, hookup of external loads, and fastroping. Subsequent operational testing has shown that several of these operations can be safely conducted with the use of appropriate tactics, e.g., approaching the hovering aircraft from specific directions (and avoiding other directions) on the ground. Nonetheless, testing has demonstrated that some required capabilities can be conducted only with great difficulty, some capabilities are unlikely to be achieved, and some planned capabilities have yet to be tested for downwash effects.

During OPEVAL, due to "brown-out" conditions produced by the downwash, experienced pilots found it very difficult to land in a desert environment at night while using night-vision devices (NVDs). In a desert environment, sand was ingested in the cockpit and cabin area, including the sub-flooring. While such ingestion is not uncommon with other assault support aircraft operating in a desert environment, of more concern is the number of failures caused by sand blown about by downwash. Failures of the engine air particle separators, shaft driven compressor, windscreen damage, full authority digital engine controls failures, overheating of the gearbox oil cooler, and hydraulic tubing chafing were attributed to the ingestion of sand and debris. The oil coolers in the nacelles became clogged and overheated the gearbox lubrication systems. Requirements to clean wing panels, wing coves, and wheel wells of sand and grass had an impact on unscheduled maintenance and aircraft post-flight inspection times.

Downwash impacted all direct assault missions utilizing ropes. To reduce downwash, hover altitudes of 65-75 feet were maintained, thereby exposing both the aircraft and the ropers for longer periods of time. When conducting Maritime Interdiction Operations or Gas and Oil Platform Operations, operational judgment dictated the necessity for ropers once aboard the ship or platform to stay prone to reduce downwash concerns. Techniques for ropers will have to be developed to enhance their capability to fight once on the ship or platform. Direct action assaults are assessed as the operational scenario most in jeopardy.

Although the JORD requires the capability to employ rope ladders through both the ramp and cabin door (a USSOCOM threshold requirement for the CV-22), testing of several rope ladder designs has shown that the ladder flails about in the V-22 downwash. It is now considered unlikely that a rope ladder will be able to be employed safely.

One of the collateral missions of the MV-22 will be Combat Search and Rescue, a mission that often involves the ability to hoist an individual from the water. This is also an implicit requirement for any rotary-wing aircraft in a combat theater. Appropriate tactics may enable the V-22 to perform this function despite the V-22 downwash, but this ability has yet to be demonstrated via operational testing. Recovery of personnel via hoist was not tested during the initial round of OPEVAL due to the lack of a personnel hoist in the OPEVAL aircraft.

MV-22 OPEVAL was conducted by Marine Tiltrotor Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron Twenty-Two (VMX-22) at MCAS New River from March to June 2005 and found to be operationally effective, operationally suitable and recommended for Fleet introduction. All key performance parameters met or exceeded threshold requirements. As a result of the successful OPEVAL, the Defense Acquisition Board approved Milestone III in September 2005, authorizing Full Rate Production of the Osprey.

Six Canadian soldiers were killed and two others were injured Sunday when their armoured vehicle struck a roadside bomb west of Kandahar City, resulting in the worst single-day loss of life for Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, military officials said. 

The LAV III hit an "improvised explosive device" around 1:30 p.m. local time, Col. Mike Cessford, deputy commander of Task Force Afghanistan, told reporters at the airbase in southern Kandahar province. Ten soldiers in total were in the vehicle. 

Earlier, Prime Minister Stephen Harper confirmed the deaths while speaking to a shocked crowd of dignitaries and veterans in Lille, France, where he was attending a dinner to mark the 90th anniversary of the Battle of Vimy Ridge.

"Sadly today has been a difficult day in Afghanistan," Harper said. "We've learned that an incident has claimed the lives of six Canadian soldiers and injured a number of others. 

"Our hearts ache for them and their families, and I know as we gather here on Easter Sunday our thoughts and prayers are with them," the prime minister said.

Harper's announcement was met with an audible gasp from the crowd.

The troops were serving with NATO's International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Helmand province, where the multinational force recently launched a major offensive against the Taliban called Operation Achilles.

No names or hometowns of the soldiers involved have been released.

In another area of the south, one NATO soldier was killed and another injured earlier Sunday by a similar type of bomb, a NATO spokeswoman said. The location was not disclosed. 

One soldier in serious condition

Cessford said the 10 soldiers were riding in the vehicle when it struck the explosive. Four Canadian soldiers were flown to the hospital at Kandahar airbase.

One is listed in serious condition with non-life-threatening injuries and will likely be taken to the U.S. military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany, Cessford said. A second soldier suffered minor injuries and the other two were not hurt.

"We lost six of our best, and really, we are thinking of the families as much as anyone," Cessford said, adding that despite the tragic incident, the soldiers stationed at Kandahar remain committed to the mission.

"We are focused on rebuilding Afghanistan and doing the right thing by those kids who wave at us every day as we drive down the roads here," Cessford said.

Maj.-Gen. Ton van Loon, the ISAF chief of Regional Command South, said "the hearts of his soldiers" go out to the victims' families and their country.

Reaction to soldier deaths

In Toronto, NDP Leader Jack Layton told CBC News, "It's a devastating blow."

He said that there will be doubt about the mission in Afghanistan, which was recently extended by the government, but Sunday was a day to pray for and reflect on those who sacrificed their lives for the country.

In Ottawa, Lewis MacKenzie, a retired major-general, said he was "naturally shocked, but not surprised" by the latest Canadian casualties, and added that there is an insurgency going on over there, "so things like this will happen."

The Canadian soldiers were likely escorting logistics convoys filled with fuel and food, MacKenzie speculated.

Since 2002, 51 Canadian soldiers and a diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan, where Canada has more than 2,000 troops, with the majority in Kandahar.

The main thrust of the offensive in Helmand province is being handled by British and American troops, with Canadian soldiers offering backup and security. About 5,000 soldiers in all are engaging the Taliban, including elements of Afghanistan's army.

In February, the Taliban said it had 6,000 fighters ready for a spring offensive and could dramatically increase that number if necessary.

Al-Jazeera reported at the time that Taliban leader Mullah Dadallah had recruited 500 suicide bombers for the campaign.