The U.S. Defense Department intends to ask Congress for hundreds of millions of dollars in grant funding to purchase additional Iron Dome rocket and short-range missile intercepting batteries.

Details of the planned funding package have not yet been determined, but U.S. and Israeli sources estimated that the request to Congress could exceed $500 million to cover production of up to 10 additional batteries.

Preliminary discussions were held in Washington last week between a senior Ministry of Defence representative and officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense. An itemized Israeli request is expected to be presented to the Pentagon in the coming days, sources from both countries said.

“The Department of Defense has been in conversations with the Government of Israel about U.S. support for the acquisition of additional Iron Dome systems and intends to request an appropriate level of funding from Congress to support such acquisitions based on Israeli requirements and production capacity,” Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said in a March 27 email.

During the rocket attacks earlier this month, the Iron Dome system intercepted more than 80 percent of targeted rockets fired at southern Israel.

“The United States has previously provided $205 million in support of Israel’s Iron Dome short range rocket and mortar defense system,” Little said.

Israel has deployed three Iron Dome batteries and a fourth is in final stages of acceptance testing with the Israel Air Force’s Air Defense Command. The first two batteries were funded by Israel’s shekel-based defense budget while the $205 million appropriated by Congress last year were used to fund the third and fourth batteries as well as two additional batteries now being produced by an Israeli industrial team led by state-owned Rafael.

Israel’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, in a study last year, concluded that Israel required at least 13 Iron Dome batteries to protect populated areas from the growing rocket and short-range missile threat.

An Israeli industry source said Rafael has secured a letter of intent from Israel’s MoD for additional production pending clarification of funding pledges from Washington. He noted that Israel is capable of producing up to four batteries per year, which include a battle management system, launcher, interceptor missiles and a multimission radar by Elta Systems, a subsidiary of Israel Aerospace Industries.

Supporting Israel is a top priority of U.S. President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Little said.

In a March 27 statement, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak praised the Pentagon’s announced commitment for additional funding support for Iron Dome.

“The American decision is an additional manifestation of the deep defense ties between the United States and Israel. I praise the American government for its strengthened support for Israel’s defense.”

Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also hailed the Pentagon’s announced decision to request additional Iron Dome funding. Berman, a co-author of the Iron Dome Support Act submitted to Congress March 21, described the Israeli intercepting system as “a game-changer.”

In a March 27 statement, Berman noted the threats Israel faces from “incoming, indiscriminate terrorist rocket attacks” that are countered “by this cutting-edge system.” According to Berman, “Iron Dome is fundamentally shifting political, diplomatic and military realities on the ground, while saving lives of innocent Israelis.”

He added that the Pentagon’s statement of additional funding support “is a further step in the right direction.

The proposed Iron Dome Support Act authorizes Obama “to provide assistance, upon request by the Government of Israel, for the procurement, maintenance and sustainment of the Iron Dome anti-missile defense system for purposes of intercepting short-range missiles launched against Israel.”

“I am pleased that the President now acknowledges the need to increase funding to counter a deadly threat, and I look forward to working together to identify the additional resources necessary to help defend our Israeli friends,” Rep. Howard McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement.

Source: Defense news

Israel and the United States have agreed to postpone a major military defense exercise scheduled for spring, Israeli public radio reported Sunday, amid rising regional tension over Iran’s nuclear program.

The air-defense drill, named "Austere Challenge 12," is expected to be the largest exercise between the two allies, who regularly hold joint military maneuvers.

The Pentagon said it was scheduled for the spring, but now would take place in the second half of 2012.

Israeli media reports originally said it was cancelled due to budgetary constraints. But some pundits speculated that the real reason was fear of creating further friction with Iran, which is showing signs of deepening isolation over its refusal to halt nuclear activity.

A U.S. official denied that tensions with Iran were a factor and an Israeli security source cited logistical problems. Both sources spoke on condition of anonymity.

"It's for a host of reasons, mainly logistical, but not the reason you cited (tensions with Iran)," the Israeli source said.

Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain John Kirby played down the delay, saying it was not uncommon for routine exercises to be postponed.

"There were a variety of factors at play in this case, but in general, leaders from both sides believe that optimum participation by all units is best achieved later in the year," Kirby said.

Israel sees the makings of a mortal threat in Iran's uranium enrichment and missile projects, and the Jewish state's leaders have not ruled out the use of military force to stop it.

Iran says its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.

Tensions between Washington and Tehran have risen in recent weeks after U.S. President Barack Obama signed a bill on New Year's Eve that, if fully implemented, would make it impossible for most countries to pay for Iranian oil.

Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important oil shipping lane, if sanctions prevent it from exporting oil. The United States has said it will not tolerate such a move.

General Martin Dempsey, the top U.S. military officer, is due to travel to Tel Aviv for talks later this week in which Iran is certain to be one of the topics of discussion. It will be Dempsey's first trip there since becoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in September.

In a November 30 interview with Reuters, Dempsey said he did not know whether Israel would alert the United States ahead of time if it decided to take unilateral military action against Iran. He also acknowledged differences in perspective between the United States and Israel over the best way to handle Iran and its nuclear program.

BEIJING - China on Sept. 22 strongly condemned a $5.85 billion U.S. deal to upgrade Taiwan's fleet of F-16 fighter jets, summoned the US ambassador and warned the move would undermine warming military relations.

China, which claims Taiwan as part of its territory, urged the United States to cancel the deal and said it had jeopardized recent improvements in military ties between the two world powers and affected relations with Taiwan.

But analysts said the deal, which stopped short of selling new planes to Taiwan, would probably not be as damaging as an earlier arms package that led to a break in China-U.S. military exchanges in 2010.

"The Chinese military expresses great indignation and strong condemnation," the defense ministry said in a strongly worded statement announcing it had called in the acting U.S. military attaché for talks.

"U.S. actions ... have caused serious damage to Sino-U.S. military relations and have seriously undermined the good momentum of the peaceful development of cross-strait relations," the statement said.

Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Zhijun urged Washington to "immediately cancel the wrong decision" and summoned U.S. Ambassador Gary Locke to protest against the deal, which was branded a "huge mistake" by China's top newspaper.

"If American politicians feel that the United States can ... irresponsibly and randomly damage China's core interests without paying the price, this is a major and huge mistake," said the People's Daily, considered the mouthpiece of China's Communist Party.

But Jean-Pierre Cabestan, political science professor at Hong Kong Baptist University, said Beijing had learned lessons from the 2010 break-off in military ties and was unlikely to react as strongly this time.

"They are going to react, to get angry, and the military may take measures to better counter these retrofitted F-16s, but they will not break military ties with the United States like they did before," he told AFP.

"They're (China) in a new phase - more flexible and accommodating, and with the Taiwanese electoral factor, it reduces their room for maneuver a lot, and it will force them not to overreact on this."

Taiwan's President Ma Ying-jeou of the Beijing-friendly Kuomintang party will seek re-election in January, and Cabestan said China would be keen not to cause any upsets ahead of the polls.

Russell Leigh Moses, a Beijing-based political analyst, said China's reaction was an exercise in "how to avoid slamming the door while shouting."

"I think that Beijing's outrage has multiple audiences, in particular those at home on the mainland and in Taiwan," he said. "There are ways in which they could have said hardly anything, but the consensus clearly was - we'll go into the default mode of being pretty upset and angry, but not like it was a year ago."

Taiwan first lodged a request to buy 66 F-16 C/D fighters - which have better radar and more powerful weapons systems than its F-16 A/Bs - in 2007 in response to China's growing military muscle.

The deal to upgrade the existing fleet includes equipment, parts, training and logistical support.

The Taiwan defense ministry said it was "another signal of the solid foundation for mutual trust and the close security cooperation between Taiwan and the United States."

Observers and media in Taiwan said that although the deal may mean little in any war with China, it represented a valuable sign of U.S. commitment to help the island's defense.

"This is a U.S. compromise to satisfy some of Taiwan's defense needs and maintain friendly ties with Taiwan without touching China's bottom-line by selling new jets," said Kenneth Wang, a military expert at Taiwan's Tamkang University.

Washington recognizes Beijing rather than Taipei but remains a leading arms supplier to the island of 23 million inhabitants, providing a source of continued U.S.-China tension.

However, relations between the U.S. and Chinese militaries have improved over the past year. In July, U.S. Navy Adm. Mike Mullen became the first chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff since 2007 to visit China.

Ties between China and Taiwan have improved since Ma came to power in 2008, but Beijing has refused to renounce the use of force against the island, even though it has ruled itself for more than six decades since their split in 1949.

Source: Defense News

A southern island with long-standing issues with the mainland; local residents up in arms over the construction of a new, large military base; environmentalists concerned that these plans will disrupt sensitive under sea coral formations.

Another chapter in the unending Okinawa Marine base saga?

No. In this instance the island is Jeju-do off the southern coast of South Korea. The issue is Seoul’s desire to build a major naval base in Gangjeong village on the southern part of the island to serve as a home port for South Korea’s growing fleet of large and sophisticated warships.

Much is made about China’s rapidly expanding navy and ambition to create a fleet capable of projecting power globally. Not so well known is South Korea’s decade-long project to build its own blue water navy. There is nothing particularly secret about South Korea’s naval build up, it just doesn’t get the kind of attention that China’s gets.

This ocean-going force is built around an arsenal of sophisticated guided missile destroyers, including most recently, two 7,600-ton Aegis-equipped monster destroyers with one more under construction , half a dozen 4,500-ton destroyers, submarines and amphibious assault ships.

The Dokdo is the largest warship belonging to any Asian navy east of India

The flagship of this new strategic fleet is an 18,000 ton, flat-topped amphibious assault ship with the pregnant name of Dokdo, after the tiny island in the Sea of Japan that is claimed by both Korea and Japan and which is a frequent source of tensions between the two countries.

The Dokdo is currently larger than anything in the Japanese navy or even the rapidly expanding Chinese navy – or at least until Beijing finally launches its much-talked about aircraft carrier. Indeed, it is the largest warship belonging to any Asian navy east of India.

Although its main armament would be helicopters and marines, it would also be capable of supporting unmanned aircraft in some future conflict. The South Koreans are planning to build several more of this type of vessel, although probably not as large.

The official purpose of this naval buildup by South Korea is, much as in China, to project power beyond its coastline plus being able to participate in international peacekeeping operations and disaster recovery and relief efforts. Several South Korean destroyers participate in the anti-piracy patrols off Somalia’s coast, along with warships from China and Japan.

A more logical explanation would be that, as in China, the expansion and modernization of the fleet is a natural and inevitable growing process of a nation’s armed forces proportional to the rapidly growing size of its economy. Rationales for the expansion are found later.

Tourist on the Jeju island

A naval base on the south side of Jeju is an obvious step in South Korea’s blue water ambitions, as it allows direct access to the open sea. But it is also located about as far away from the sensitive border with North Korea, supposedly South Korea’s true enemy, as one can be and still be in the country.

When completed in 2014, the base will accommodate about 20 of the country’s most modern surface warships and submarines. There is also proposed space to dock two large cruise ships, an apparent sop to locals as it could be argued the new port boosts tourism.

Growing numbers of Chinese are visiting Jeju and would likely formed the bulk of the passengers on the tourist vessels. Seoul probably is not unhappy that thousands of ordinary Chinese will get a good look at Korea’s growing naval might while enjoying beaches and sampling kimchi.

South Korea’s blue water naval strategy developed in the late 1990s, during a period of relatively relaxed relations with North Korea. This was the time of the Sunshine policy of President Kim Dae-jung and his successor.

But unlike China, which has few if any threats along its coastline, North Korea does pose a real menace. That was driven home last year when a North Korean submarine put a torpedo into the South Korean Corvette Choenan, sending her to the bottom along with more than 40 of her crew.

While Seoul was dreaming of grandiose deep sea ambitions, it had taken its eye off the ball and become somewhat lackadaisical about protecting its sensitive northern coastline. And if the events of last year proved anything, it is that one cannot be lackadaisical about the dangerous provocations from the North.

This sobering experience has not immediately altered Seoul’s naval procurement plans, which of course, were longstanding. But one hears less and less about blue water power projection. Last May the government withdrew “Ocean Navy Strategy” as an official rationale for the Jeju naval base (though work proceeds).

Unlike Okinawa, which is mainly a three-cornered dispute between Tokyo, Washington and the people of Okinawa, the Jeju base dispute has attracted more attention from international peace groups, Catholic organizations and other NGOs. Unlike Okinawa, which bristles with military bases there are no major installations on Jeju. Indeed, it likes to bill itself as an “island of peace.”

But like Okinawa, which still harbors resentments toward the mainland, Jeju has its own issues. For Okinawans it was the way they were used as cannon fodder during the last battle of World War II. For Jeju people it is the “4.3 Incident”.

The date refers to a rebellion, probably stoked by the communist Workers’ Party (now the rulers of North Korea but banned in the South, that broke out in April 3, 1948. The army put the rebellion down but it is estimated that 14,000 to 60,000 were killed. Since then South Korea’s military has not been particularly welcome on Jeju.