Aerospace World
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Defense Security Cooperation University Expert Course of Instruction
Defense Security Cooperation University Expert Course of Instruction Content, Design, Implementation JEFFERSON P. MARQUIS, JENNIFER D. P. MORONEY, PAULINE MOORE, REBECCA HERMAN, JONATHAN WELCH, REID DICKERSON Prepared for the Office of the Secretary of Defense Approved for public release NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RRA572-1 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2020 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface In its 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the U.S. Con- gress called for the professionalization of the security cooperation (SC) workforce as part of a range of reforms designed to confront perceived deficiencies in Department of Defense (DoD) SC planning, man- agement, execution, and assessment and placed the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) in charge of this effort. -
Dod OIG Semiannual Report to the Congress October 1, 2012 Through
DoD IG Semiannual Report to the Congress -October 1, 2012 - March 31, 2013 - March 31, to Semiannual Report the 2012 Congress IG -October 1, DoD United States Department of Defense OCTOBERInspector 1, 2012 TO MARCH General 31, 2013 Semiannual Report to the Congress Required by Public Law 95-452 InteGrIty effIcIency accountabIlIty excellence InteGrIty effIcIency accountabIlIty excellence Mission Our mission is to provide independent, relevant, and timely over- sight of the Department that: supports the warfighter; promotes accountability, integrity, and efficiency; advises the Secretary of Defense and Congress; and informs the public. Vision Our vision is to be a model oversight organization in the federal government by leading change, speaking truth, and promoting ex- cellence; a diverse organization, working together as one profes- sional team, recognized as leaders in our field. Fraud, Waste and Abuse HOTLINE 1.800.424.9098 • www.dodig.mil/hotline For more information about whistleblower protection, please see the inside back cover. INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 4800 MARK CENTER DRIVE ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA 22350-1500 I am pleased to present the Department of Defense Inspector General Semiannual Report to Congress for the reporting period October 1, 2012, through March 31, 2013, issued in accordance with the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended. This year marks the 30th anniversary of DoD IG. Over the course of 30 years, many groundbreak- ing audits, inspections, and investigations have paved the way for reducing fraud, waste, and abuse across the Department. When you consider the projects we have completed over the past 30 years, the positive impact we have made on the Department is truly remarkable. -
Evaluation of Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report Submissions by Military Service Law Enforcement Organizations
Report No. DODIG-2018-035 U.S. Department of Defense InspectorDECEMBER 4, 2017 General Evaluation of Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report Submissions by Military Service Law Enforcement Organizations INTEGRITY EFFICIENCY ACCOUNTABILITY EXCELLENCE INTEGRITY EFFICIENCY ACCOUNTABILITY EXCELLENCE Mission Our mission is to provide independent, relevant, and timely oversight of the Department of Defense that supports the warfighter; promotes accountability, integrity, and efficiency; advises the Secretary of Defense and Congress; and informs the public. Vision Our vision is to be a model oversight organization in the Federal Government by leading change, speaking truth, and promoting excellence—a diverse organization, working together as one professional team, recognized as leaders in our field. Fraud, Waste, & Abuse HOTLINE Department of Defense dodig.mil/hotline|800.424.9098 For more information about whistleblower protection, please see the inside back cover. Evaluation of Fingerprint Card and Final Disposition Report ResultsSubmissions by in Military Brief Service Law Enforcement Organizations December 4, 2017 Findings (cont’d) Objective The FBI NGI database is a national computerized system for storing, comparing, and exchanging fingerprint data and The objective of our evaluation was to criminal history information for law enforcement purposes. determine whether all Military Services Law Enforcement Organizations (LEOs) The FBI NGI’s primary function is to provide the FBI a fully had submitted fingerprint cards and final automated fingerprint identification and criminal history disposition reports for Military Service reporting system. The failure to populate the NGI with all the members convicted by court-martial of required fingerprint records can allow someone to purchase qualifying offenses, as required by DoD a weapon who should not, hinder criminal investigations, instruction. -
Turkey and Black Sea Security 3
SIPRI Background Paper December 2018 TURKEY AND SUMMARY w The Black Sea region is BLACK SEA SECURITY experiencing a changing military balance. The six littoral states (Bulgaria, siemon t. wezeman and alexandra kuimova* Georgia, Romania, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine) intensified their efforts to build up their military potential after Russia’s The security environment in the wider Black Sea region—which brings takeover of Crimea and the together the six littoral states (Bulgaria, Georgia, Romania, Russia, Turkey start of the internationalized and Ukraine) and a hinterland including the South Caucasus and Moldova— civil war in eastern Ukraine is rapidly changing. It combines protracted conflicts with a significant con- in 2014. ventional military build-up that intensified after the events of 2014: Russia’s Although security in the takeover of Crimea and the start of the internationalized civil war in eastern Black Sea region has always Ukraine.1 Transnational connections between conflicts across the region been and remains important for and between the Black Sea and the Middle East add further dimensions of Turkey, the current Turkish insecurity. As a result, there is a blurring of the conditions of peace, crisis defence policy seems to be and conflict in the region. This has led to an unpredictable and potentially largely directed southwards, high-risk environment in which military forces with advanced weapons, towards the Middle East. including nuclear-capable systems, are increasingly active in close proxim- Russian–Turkish relations have been ambiguous for some years. ity to each other. Turkey has openly expressed In this context, there is an urgent need to develop a clearer understanding concern about perceived of the security dynamics and challenges facing the wider Black Sea region, Russian ambitions in the Black and to explore opportunities for dialogue between the key regional security Sea region and called for a actors. -
Response of the Turkish Government to the Report of the European
CPT/Inf (2007) 8 Response of the Turkish Government to the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Turkey from 16 to 28 October 1994 The Turkish Government has authorised the publication of this response. The report of the CPT on its October 1994 visit to Turkey is set out in document CPT/Inf (2007) 7. Strasbourg, 11 January 2007 Note: In accordance with Article 11, paragraph 3, of the Convention, certain names have been deleted. - 3 - Response of the Turkish Government to the report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Turkey from 16 to 28 October 1994 INTRODUCTION 1. Turkey has been a Party to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment since 1 February 1989 and has therefore been subject, since that date, to supervision by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT). Under the terms of the Convention the CPT has visited Turkey on the following dates: 9 - 21 September 1990 Ad hoc visit 29 September - 7 October 1991 Ad hoc visit 22 - 25 September 1992 Talks with officials 22 November - 3 December 1992 Periodic visit 7-9 December 1993 Top-level talks 16-28 October 1994 Periodic visit 2. At the close of the above-mentioned ad hoc and periodic visits the CPT drew up reports. On 21 December 1992, in accordance with Article 10, paragraph 2 of the Convention, it also issued a "Public Statement" on Turkey. -
Informational Materials
Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 06/06/2019 7:41:37 PM V. TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS DEPUTY PRIME MINISTRY AND MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS 3 October 2018 Excellency. I have the honour to bring to your kind attention the recent attempts by the Greek Cypriot administration of Southern Cyprus to perpetuate the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot people in ail fields of life, which is poisoning the atmosphere between the two peoples on the island, particularly at a time when Your Excellency and the UN Security Council are calling upon the sides to proceed with Confidence Building Measures (CBMs). In this regard, the Greek Cypriot side has been aggressively pursuing a policy of defamation and misinformation regarding the Turkish Cypriot side. To provide a recent example, a series of letters have been sent to the maritime authorities of various countries in order to prevent any maritime interaction/trade between these countries and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). The Greek Cypriot side has gone so far as to unilaterally deem our sea ports as “illegal”, and has been encouraging the said countries to issue penalties against their own shipping companies for cooperating in any way with or travelling to ports in North Cyprus. As known, the ports in the TRNC have not been deemed as illegal according to international law by any country or international organization, including the European Union. In this connection, 1 would like to refer to a statement by Mr. Olli Rehn, the then European Commissioner responsible for Enlargement, dated 17 October 2007 (E-4901/2007), which reads: "The Commission is aware that in 1974, the "government of the Republic of Cyprus ” has declared the sea ports in the northern part of Cyprus (Famagusta, Kyrenia, Karavostassi) prohibited and closed for all vessels. -
World Air Forces Flight 2011/2012 International
SPECIAL REPORT WORLD AIR FORCES FLIGHT 2011/2012 INTERNATIONAL IN ASSOCIATION WITH Secure your availability. Rely on our performance. Aircraft availability on the flight line is more than ever essential for the Air Force mission fulfilment. Cooperating with the right industrial partner is of strategic importance and key to improving Air Force logistics and supply chain management. RUAG provides you with new options to resource your mission. More than 40 years of flight line management make us the experienced and capable partner we are – a partner you can rely on. RUAG Aviation Military Aviation · Seetalstrasse 175 · P.O. Box 301 · 6032 Emmen · Switzerland Legal domicile: RUAG Switzerland Ltd · Seetalstrasse 175 · P.O. Box 301 · 6032 Emmen Tel. +41 41 268 41 11 · Fax +41 41 260 25 88 · [email protected] · www.ruag.com WORLD AIR FORCES 2011/2012 CONTENT ANALYSIS 4 Worldwide active fleet per region 5 Worldwide active fleet share per country 6 Worldwide top 10 active aircraft types 8 WORLD AIR FORCES World Air Forces directory 9 TO FIND OUT MORE ABOUT FLIGHTGLOBAL INSIGHT AND REPORT SPONSORSHIP OPPORTUNITIES, CONTACT: Flightglobal Insight Quadrant House, The Quadrant Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5AS, UK Tel: + 44 208 652 8724 Email:LQVLJKW#ÁLJKWJOREDOFRP Website: ZZZÁLJKWJOREDOFRPLQVLJKt World Air Forces 2011/2012 | Flightglobal Insight | 3 WORLD AIR FORCES 2011/2012 The French and Qatari air forces deployed Mirage 2000-5s for the fight over Libya JOINT RESPONSE Air arms around the world reacted to multiple challenges during 2011, despite fleet and budget cuts. We list the current inventories and procurement plans of 160 nations. -
Command Live Issue 12.Pdf
Free COMMAND NEWS NETWORK Issue 12 The Headlines of Today. The Battles of Tomorrow. Est – 2016 ‘Blue Homeland’ vs. ‘Greek Lake’ A HAF Mirage 2000 BGM. Long simmering tensions buzzing a helicopter carrying encounter and perhaps even A long history between Greece and Turkey the country’s defence minister unwritten ‘rules’ to reduce the This latest encounter over now threaten to explode - which had been flying over risk of an accidental. These aer- the Aegean thus has long his- into outright conflict in the Greek islands in the eastern ial provocations have resulted tory as the location of territo- Aegean. Aegean. in several dogfights between rial disputes between Greece In early May 2020 a video While the HUD tape may ap- Greek and Turkish fighters over and Turkey, which twice in 1987 surfaced of an aerial engage- pear these aircraft were engaged the years, beginning from 1974 and 1996 has almost resulted ment over the Aegean Sea - with in a real dogfight, at least one during the Turkish invasion of in outright conflict between the a Turkish Air Force F-16 caught analyst noted that the lack of a Cyprus when two Turkish F-102s two countries. In particular, the in a Greek Air Force Mirage radar lock on the Turkish F-16, were destroyed by two Greek claims and counter-claims are 2000 gunsights. The Mirages had along with it popping no flares F-5s with several losses - includ- exacerbated by the geography of reportedly intervened as these trying to escape, indicated a ing a midair collision in 2006. -
Strategic Choices for a New Administration
CHARTING A COURSE Strategic Choices for a New Administration a New for Choices Strategic Strategic Choices for a New Administration Edited by R.D. Hooker, Jr. Edited by R.D. Hooker, Jr. Strategic Choices for a New Administration Edited by R.D. Hooker, Jr. National Defense University Press Washington, D.C. December 2016 Published in the United States by National Defense University Press. Portions of this book may be quoted or reprinted without permission, provided that a standard source credit line is included. NDU Press would appreciate a courtesy copy of reprints or reviews. Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily rep- resent the views of the Department of State, Department of Defense, or any other agency of the Federal Government. Cleared for public release; distribution unlimited. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record of this publication may be found at the Library of Congress. National Defense University Press 260 Fifth Avenue (Building 64) Suite 2500 Fort Lesley J. McNair Washington, DC 20319 NDU Press publications are sold by the U.S. Government Printing Office. For ordering information, call (202) 512-1800 or write to the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash- ington, DC, 20402. For GPO publications online, access its Web site at: http://bookstore.gpo.gov. Book design by Marco Marchegiani, U.S. Government Printing Office Cover photo: Unarmed Minuteman III ICBM accelerates toward test range near Guam after launching from Vandenberg Air Force Base, March 27, 2015 (DOD) • iv • Contents Foreword . -
European Bureau for Conscientious Objection to Military Service
European Bureau for Conscientious Objection 35 Van Elewyck street, 1050 Brussels, Belgium Tel: +32 2 648 5220, Fax: +32 2 648 6988 [email protected] / www.ebco-beoc.org Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Palais des Nations CH-1211 Geneva 10 Reference: OHCHR study on youth and human rights 11 January 2018 Dear Ms Imma Guerras-Delgado, On behalf of the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (EBCO), I am pleased to send you the following contribution to the study on the implementation of human rights with regard to young people. First of all, the right to conscientious objection to military service is a human right that concerns young people, more than other groups. Indeed, the age that young women and men receive the first call up for the compulsory military service is around 18 years old. Despite this, only the Ibero-American Youth Convention recognises explicitly the right to conscientious objection as a youth right. Its article 12 states as follows: “1. Youth have the right to make conscientious objection towards obligatory military service. 2. The States Parties undertake to promote the pertinent legal measures to guarantee the exercise of this right and advance in the progressive elimination of the obligatory military service. 3. The States Parties undertake to assure youth under 18 years of age that they shall not be called up or involved, in any way, in military hostilities.” At UN level, the right to conscientious objection to military service is based on article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief. -
Tracking Conflict Worldwide
CRISISWATCH Tracking Conflict Worldwide CrisisWatch is our global conict tracker, a tool designed to help decision-makers prevent deadly violence by keeping them up-to-date with developments in over 70 conicts and crises, identifying trends and alerting them to risks of escalation and opportunities to advance peace. Learn more about CrisisWatch July 2021 Global Overview JULY 2021 Trends for Last Month July 2021 Outlook for This Month DETERIORATED SITUATIONS August 2021 Ethiopia, South Africa, Zambia, CONFLICT RISK ALERTS Afghanistan, Bosnia And Herzegovina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Ethiopia, Zambia, Armenia, Azerbaijan Cuba, Haiti, Syria, Tunisia RESOLUTION OPPORTUNITIES IMPROVED SITUATIONS None Central African Republic, Côte d’Ivoire CrisisWatch warns of three conict risks in August. Ethiopia’s spreading Tigray war is spiraling into a dangerous new phase, which will likely lead to more deadly violence and far greater instability countrywide. Fighting along the state border between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the deadliest since the Autumn 2020 war, could escalate further. More violence could surge in Zambia as tensions between ruling party and opposition supporters are running high ahead of the 12 August general elections. Our monthly conict tracker highlights deteriorations in thirteen countries in July. The Taliban continued its major offensive in Afghanistan, seizing more international border crossings and launching its rst assault on Kandahar city since 2001. South Africa faced its most violent unrest since apartheid ended in 1991, leaving over 300 dead. The killing of President Jovenel Moïse in murky circumstances plunged Haiti into political turmoil. Tunisia’s months-long political crisis escalated when President Kaïs Saïed dismissed Prime Minister Hichem Mechichi and suspended parliament. -
Weapons Transfers and Violations of the Laws of War in Turkey
WEAPONS TRANSFERS AND VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF WAR IN TURKEY Human Rights Watch Arms Project Human Right Watch New York AAA Washington AAA Los Angeles AAA London AAA Brussels Copyright 8 November 1995 by Human Rights Watch. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 95-81502 ISBN 1-56432-161-4 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH Human Rights Watch conducts regular, systematic investigations of human rights abuses in some seventy countries around the world. It addresses the human rights practices of governments of all political stripes, of all geopolitical alignments, and of all ethnic and religious persuasions. In internal wars it documents violations by both governments and rebel groups. Human Rights Watch defends freedom of thought and expression, due process and equal protection of the law; it documents and denounces murders, disappearances, torture, arbitrary imprisonment, exile, censorship and other abuses of internationally recognized human rights. Human Rights Watch began in 1978 with the founding of its Helsinki division. Today, it includes five divisions covering Africa, the Americas, Asia, the Middle East, as well as the signatories of the Helsinki accords. It also includes five collaborative projects on arms transfers, children's rights, free expression, prison conditions, and women's rights. It maintains offices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, London, Brussels, Moscow, Dushanbe, Rio de Janeiro, and Hong Kong. Human Rights Watch is an independent, nongovernmental organization, supported by contributions from private individuals and foundations worldwide. It accepts no government funds, directly or indirectly. The staff includes Kenneth Roth, executive director; Cynthia Brown, program director; Holly J.