Australian E-7A Wedgetail Ends Mission Supporting Ukraine After Successful Surveillance Deployment

 The Royal Australian Air Force's E-7A Wedgetail aircraft, part of Operation Kudu aiding Ukrainian forces, is set to return home after a six-month mission in Europe. The Wedgetail played a pivotal role in Ukraine, contributing to the downing of Russian Su-34s, according to experts.

Australia's Defense Ministry announced the E-7A's return, highlighting its mission in providing crucial surveillance over Eastern Europe. The aircraft logged over 250 flight hours, aiding in both military and humanitarian efforts.

Lieutenant General Greg Bilton praised the ADF personnel's support, emphasizing Australia's commitment to upholding global order. Air Marshal Robert Chipman lauded the Wedgetail's capabilities and the dedication of Australian personnel.

While the E-7A's return marks the end of this chapter, Australia's military assistance to Ukraine will continue. Operation Kudu's expanded training element will provide vital support throughout 2024.

Speculation surrounds the E-7A's role in the downing of Russian Su-34s, attributed to its superior capabilities against Russian defenses. Despite Australia's clarification that it did not facilitate attacks, the Wedgetail played a crucial role in safeguarding international aid flow to Ukraine.

Operating outside Russian airspace, the E-7A provided early warnings of potential threats, filling a capability gap NATO couldn't address. With its mission concluding, there will be no gap in Western monitoring capabilities.

Philippines Agrees to Greater American Presence

MANILA, Philippines — The Philippines on Jan. 27 announced plans to allow a greater U.S. military presence on its territory, in a move analysts said was directly aimed at trying to contain a rising China.

Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario said the Philippines was looking for more joint military exercises with its former colonial ruler, as well as having a greater number of U.S. troops rotating through the country.

“It is to our definite advantage to be exploring how to maximize our treaty alliance with the United States in ways that would be mutually acceptable and beneficial,” del Rosario said in a statement.

Del Rosario did not specifically name China as driving the Philippines’ push for a greater U.S. military presence, but highlighted “territorial disputes.” The most pressing territorial dispute for the Philippines is with China over claims to parts of the South China Sea, home to some of the world’s most important shipping lanes and believed to hold vast deposits of fossil fuels.

The Philippines and Vietnam, who also claims parts of the South China Sea, complained repeatedly last year of what they said were increasingly aggressive acts by China in the decades-long rift.

The accusations, which included a Chinese naval ship firing warning shots at Filipino fishermen, fueled fears among some nations in the region about China as its military and political strength grows.

In his statement, del Rosario said a greater U.S. military presence in the Philippines would help bolster regional security.

“Such cooperative efforts would as well result in achieving a balance of influence to ensure peace, stability, and economic development in the region,” he said.

Nevertheless, del Rosario and other officials emphasized there were no plans to allow a return of the large-scale U.S. military bases that existed in the Philippines until 1992, when Filipino senators voted to close them down.

Del Rosario said the increased U.S. military presence could include “planning more joint exercises to promote interoperability, and a rotating and more frequent presence by them.”

Aside from regular military exercises, the most notable U.S. presence in the Philippines in recent times has been a rotating force of about 600 troops that has been stationed in the southern Philippines for the past decade.

The U.S. special operations forces train local troops in how to combat Islamic militants but are not allowed to have a fighting role.

Del Rosario’s statement expanded on comments by U.S. State Department officials on Jan. 26, who said the two countries were involved in talks this week on increasing military cooperation.

Philippine officials said more talks would be held in March to determine specifics of the plans.

Political analysts in Manila said the Philippines’ decision to allow a larger U.S. military presence was a direct reaction to China’s perceived increased aggressiveness, particularly regarding the South China Sea.

“The Philippines is now playing the U.S. card to get more leverage against China,” said Rommel Banlaoi, head of the Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence and Terrorism Research.

Rene de Castro, a lecturer in international studies at De la Salle University said: “We are playing the balance of power game because we have no means to deal with an emergent and very assertive China.”

In a strategic shift that has angered China, the United States has been looking to increase its military presence across the Asia Pacific.

U.S. President Barack Obama said in November the United States would deploy up to 2,500 Marines to northern Australia. The next month a U.S. admiral wrote that the U.S. expected to station several combat ships in Singapore.

Pakistan Responds Harsh to NATO strike

ISLAMABAD — While the Pakistani military is in no mood to quietly return to full cooperation with NATO/ISAF forces in the aftermath of the Nov. 25-26 attacks on Pakistani border posts, a “restart” in the Pak-U.S relationship is still possible, experts said.

Brian Cloughley, former Australian defense attaché to Islamabad, said the Pakistani military — specifically the Army — does not want to settle for a low-key response from the U.S.

“The Army doesn’t want a ‘quiet’ acknowledgement. What it wants is a proper apology — publicly,” he said.

The Army is united in this opinion, and if a public apology is not forthcoming the considerable ill-will directed toward the U.S. will continue, “and there will be continuing lack of cooperation.”

The Pakistani response to the Jan. 23 NATO/ISAF report into the attacks, which killed 24 Pakistani troops, was predictable, he said.

The accompanying Inter Services Press Release (ISPR) statement says Pakistan disagrees with “several portions and findings” of the NATO/ISAF report, which are deemed to be “factually not correct.”

The basis of the NATO/ISAF report, “self defense” and “proportional use of force,” is rejected as “contrary to facts.”

The ISPR statement reiterates Pakistan contacted NATO/ISAF forces “within minutes of initiation of US/NATO fire,” and rejects attributing partial responsibility for the attacks to Pakistani forces as “unjustified and unacceptable.”

It also states, “The fundamental cause of the incident of 26th November 2011 was the failure of US/ISAF to share its near-border operation with Pakistan at any level.”

In addition, it lists “the complicated chain of command, complex command and control structure and unimaginative/intricate Rules of Engagement, as well as lack of unified military command in Afghanistan,” as further causes of the attacks.

It ends by stating NATO/ISAF forces “violated all mutually agreed procedures with Pakistan for near-border operations put in place to avert such uncalled for actions,” and reiterates the attacks were an “unprovoked engagement” that took place inside Pakistan and were therefore a violation of NATO/ISAF’s mandate.

Zafar Nawaz Jaspal, associate professor at the school of Politics and International Relations at Islamabad’s Quaid-e-Azam University, said Pakistan’s response to the NATO/ISAF report has tried to prove what has already been stated by the Pakistani side, and that there “doesn’t seem to be a desire to let this go.”

It details that NATO/ISAF forces had carried out previous operations in the vicinity and were fully aware of the course of the border and location of Pakistani positions. It also says that some operations on the Afghan side of the border were undertaken by NATO/ISAF forces in support of Pakistani anti-Taliban operations on its side of the border.

Using photographs and aerial images to reinforce its assertions, the Pakistan statement also rejects claims NATO/ISAF forces were fired upon by the Pakistani posts. It specifically criticizes the NATO/ISAF report’s mandate, which did not include affixing direct responsibility for the attacks, and that it implied “Pakistan was considered in an adversarial role.”

Lt. Col. Jimmie Cummings, ISAF spokesman, was unable to comment on the Pakistani response and referred questions to CENTCOM as the investigative report into the attacks was carried out by CENTCOM, not ISAF.

He said ISAF was only able to comment on “the recommendations that CENTCOM made in the original report.”

“The recommendations in the CENTCOM report are designed to work toward building a positive relationship and constructive cross-border coordination measures to ensure this type of incident does not ever occur again. US and ISAF are taking these recommendations and are moving forward toward full implementation,” he said.

No response was forthcoming from CENTCOM, however, or from the defense section at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad.

Jaspal is optimistic there is a chance for the Pak-U.S. relationship to be “restarted,” but “not as it was previously” “There won’t be a ‘blank check’ as there was previously; there will restrictions,” he said.

The main factor is the ongoing block on NATO supplies transiting Pakistani territory.

“The Pakistan supply route will probably remain closed, and the northern routes will continue to be used and expanded, if possible,” said Cloughley. “There is already a mammoth increase in air supply. The costs are horrific.”

Austrailian Black Hawks resume Sorties

MELBOURNE — Australia’s fleet of Black Hawk combat helicopters returned to the skies Jan. 24 after being temporarily grounded Jan. 20 over safety concerns surrounding fractured bolts.

The defect was found during routine maintenance of an Army S-70A-9.

The defective bolts were found on the drive shaft between the engine and transmission, and a fleetwide suspension of flying was ordered following concerns that all power could have been lost to the engine if the bolts failed entirely.

The Black Hawk is a twin-engined helicopter.

The only helicopters allowed to operate during the period were three assigned to Joint Task Force 631 in Timor Leste to provide emergency aero-medical evacuations for International Stabilization Force personnel if required.

The Royal Australian Navy’s 16 S-70B-2 Seahawks were not affected by the grounding order.

Speaking at the time, Col. Stephen Evans, acting director general Aviation, said, “The precautionary suspension will remain in place to allow an investigation into the cause of the fracture to be completed.”

During the investigation, Chris Clapperton, director of Maritime and Asia Strategies for Sikorsky Aerospace Services, noted, “The bolt that failed is a general aviation hardware bolt that is not manufactured by Sikorsky; we are assisting the Australian Army with their investigation into the cause of the failure.”

In an announcement that flying would resume Jan. 24, Maj. Gen. Michael Slater, commander of Forces Command (Army Operational Airworthiness Authority), said, “The engineering investigation has indicated the defective bolts were confined to a single manufacturer’s batch and were not a fleetwide issue. The defective batch of bolts has been quarantined from use.

“The precautionary suspension has been lifted following airworthiness advice from the Technical Airworthiness Authority. The suspension demonstrates Army’s commitment to safety. The temporary safety precaution was affected while a thorough engineering investigation was carried out following discovery of the defective bolts.”

Australia has 34 Black Hawks, including the three in Timor Leste, but the type is being replaced by the European MRH 90 Multi-Role Helicopter, being assembled in Australia by Eurocopter subsidiary Australian Aerospace.

Asian Navies Shift to Bigger Vessels, Downplay Littoral Ops

TAIPEI - As Western navies build fewer aircraft carriers, destroyers and submarines, Asian navies are moving in the opposite direction, ignoring the littorals with construction and procurement of larger warships and submarines.

The U.S. and Europe have stepped back from larger platforms designed for the Cold War and invested in smaller platforms such as the U.S. Navy's Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). But this is not the case in East Asia and the Pacific, where there have been increases in spending on destroyers and submarines in Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, said Bob Nugent, vice president of naval advisory services at AMI International, based in Seattle.

One of the most notable cases involves Taiwan's procurement of four Kidd-class guided missile destroyers and plans to procure eight submarines. Japan and South Korea have also invested heavily in guided missile destroyers equipped with advanced phased array radars.

Even in budget-challenged Southeast Asian countries, the trend has been a shift from smaller to larger platforms, such as frigates and large corvettes. Examples include Singapore's Formidable-class frigates, Indonesia's SIGMA-class corvettes, Malaysia's recent decision on the SGPV/LCS frigates, and Vietnam's plan to buy SIGMAs and the pending delivery of Russian-built Kilo-class submarines.

The main reason regional navies are ignoring littoral capabilities has to do with geography. In the region, "the home team enjoys an enormous advantage of range and proximity and the attacker would have to be prepared to conduct pre-emptive strikes against the coast state's bases before conducting operations in the littoral," said Sam Bateman a regional naval specialist at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, in Singapore.

The U.S. Navy should "think twice" about deploying classic sea control/power projection capabilities, such as carrier battle groups, within range of subs and land-based strike aircraft, Bateman said. The U.S. Navy's new LCS will be "hugely vulnerable without close-air support and that cannot be guaranteed."

The U.S. and Singapore have recently agreed to allow the U.S. Navy to station the LCS in Singapore.

Air support is the "elephant in the room" with littoral warfare, Bateman said. Littoral warfare is dependent on fire support directed against targets on land, either from aircraft close-air support or naval gunfire. Despite all the advances with missiles, "the big caliber naval gun remains an attractive and effective way of putting down fire in coastal areas."

Another problem in the Asia-Pacific has been increased tension over exclusive economic zone (EEZ) claims, particularly in the South China Sea. Many countries, including China, claim restrictions over naval operations in their EEZs.

Some within the region have invested in stealthy vessels to avoid detection in the littoral environment. Singapore's Formidable-class frigates are based on the stealthy French-built La Fayette-class frigates and Singapore's ST Engineering is conducting research to develop the 27-meter Stealth Interceptor and 57-meter Stealth Patrol Vessel.

Taiwan wants to build a stealthy 900-ton catamaran corvette and is manufacturing a stealthy 180-ton fast-attack missile patrol boat, armed with Hsiung Feng-2 anti-ship missiles. The stealthy SIGMA-class corvettes procured by Indonesia and now being considered by Vietnam are other examples.

For Asian countries dealing with the littoral issue, the challenge is finding the right investment balance among intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and defensive and offensive technologies, Nugent said.

"Unmanned systems are critical to ISR and defense in the littoral now and will become more so for offensive littoral warfare as unmanned maritime systems are more widely armed for all domains in the future," he said. Investments in better sensors and C4ISR are the other areas where the "gaps that create vulnerabilities in ship's self-defense against missiles and torpedoes in the littoral are getting a lot of attention."

Another area of growing interest is the use of unmanned surface vehicles (USV) and unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV). ST Engineering is developing the 9-meter Venus USV ostensibly for harbor patrol, but the vessel has potential for littoral warfare.

USVs and UUVs will be "particularly useful for littoral warfare as they can be launched outside the EEZ or convenient surveillance range of the coastal state, which is unlikely to have the capabilities of detecting them," Bateman said. "They can be used for surveillance/intelligence collection and as an offensive weapon - to lay mines or fire torpedoes," he said.

There is also potential for anti-submarine warfare, but that capability is as yet "unrealized."

Australia Ranked 1st, N. Korea Last on Nuke Safety

WASHINGTON - Australia has the tightest security controls among nations with nuclear material while North Korea poses the world's greatest risks, a new index by experts said Jan. 11.

The Nuclear Threat Initiative, in a project led by former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn and the Economist Intelligence Unit, aims to draw attention to steps that nations can take to ensure the safety of the world's most destructive weapons.

Among 32 nations that possess at least one kilogram of weapons-usable nuclear materials, Australia was ranked as the most secure. It was followed by European nations led by Hungary, the Czech Republic and Switzerland.

On the bottom of the list, North Korea was ranked as the least secure of its nuclear material, edging out Pakistan.

The index, which gave rankings on a scale of 100, also listed Iran, Vietnam and India below the 50-point threshold.

"This is not about congratulating some countries and chastising others. We are highlighting the universal responsibility of states to secure the world's most dangerous materials," said Nunn, who has long been active on nuclear safety.

Nunn, a Democrat who represented Georgia in the Senate from 1972 until early 1997, voiced concern that the world had a "perfect storm" - an ample supply of weapons-usable nuclear materials and terrorists who want them.

"We know that to get the materials they need, terrorists will go where the material is most vulnerable. Global nuclear security is only as strong as the weakest link in the chain," he said.

The index, timed ahead of the March summit on nuclear security in South Korea, called for the world to set benchmarks and to hold nations accountable for nuclear safety. It also urged nations to stop increasing stocks of weapons-usable material and to make public their security regulations.

North Korea has tested two nuclear bombs and in 2009 renounced a U.S.-backed agreement on denuclearization. The world has watched warily since last month as young Kim Jong-Un takes over as leader from his late father Kim Jong-Il.

Pakistan has vigorously defended its right to nuclear weapons. The father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan, admitted in 2004 that he ran a nuclear black market selling secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea but later retracted his remarks.

Australia does not have nuclear weapons and supports their abolition. But it has a security alliance with the United States and holds the world's largest reserves of uranium.

Of acknowledged nuclear weapons states, Britain scored best at 10th among the 32 countries. The United States ranked 13th.

The Nuclear Threat Initiative also released a separate index of security conditions in countries without significant nuclear materials, saying they could be used as safe havens or transit points. Somalia, which is partially under the control of the al-Qaida-linked Shebab movement and has effectively lacked a central government for two decades, was ranked last among the 144 countries surveyed.

Other countries that ranked near the bottom included Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe, Eritrea and Chad.

On the top of the list, Finland was ranked as the most secure nation among those without nuclear material. It was followed by Denmark, Spain, Estonia, Slovenia and Romania.

China Criticizes New U.S. Defense Policy

BEIJING - Beijing said Jan. 9 that a new U.S. defense strategy focused on countering China's rising power was based on "groundless" charges, and insisted it posed no threat to any nation.

U.S. President Barack Obama unveiled the strategy Jan. 5, calling for a leaner U.S. military focused on the Asia-Pacific region and signaling a shift away from large ground wars against insurgents.

But China, whose People's Liberation Army has benefited from a huge and expanding budget boosted by the nation's rapid economic growth, said the fears were baseless, urging the U.S. to "play a more constructive role."

"The charges against China in this document are groundless and untrustworthy," foreign ministry spokesman Liu Weimin said in response to a question from state media about whether China poses a threat to U.S. security.

Liu was referring to the strategy document released last week, which said the growth of China's military power "must be accompanied by greater clarity of its strategic intentions in order to avoid causing friction in the region."

"To maintain the peace, stability and prosperity of the Asia-Pacific region serves the common interest of all countries within the region," Liu added. "We hope the U.S. side will play a more constructive role to this end."

Washington's focus on Asia is fueled by concerns over China's growing navy and its arsenal of anti-ship missiles that could jeopardize U.S. military dominance in the Pacific. China's responses to recent U.S. moves to boost its military presence in Asia - including the deployment of up to 2,500 Marines to northern Australia - have so far been restrained.

China's official Xinhua news agency said Jan. 6 it welcomed a bigger U.S. presence in Asia as "conducive to regional stability and prosperity," while urging it against "warmongering."

China "adheres to the path of peaceful development, upholds an independent foreign policy of peace and a defense policy that is defensive in nature," Liu said. "Our national defense modernization serves the objective requirements of national security and development and also plays an active role in maintaining regional peace and security. It will not pose any threat to any country."

Pratt & Whitney Wins Contract for F-35 Engines

Pratt & Whitney has won a $194 million fixed-price contract for long lead parts for 37 F-35 engines, the Pentagon announced Jan. 6. The engines are for the sixth production lot of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

The U.S. Air Force, which flies the conventional F-35A version of the tri-service jet, will receive 18 of the engines. The U.S. Navy will receive seven engines for its carrier-based variant - the F-35C model - while the U.S. Marine Corps is buying six engines for its short take-off vertical landing F-35B model planes.

There are also six foreign engine orders, four for the Italians and two for Australia.

The Navy is paying $37 million for the engines; the Air Force is paying $54 million; and the Marines are paying $84.6 million. The engines for the Marine Corps are more expensive because they include the lift-fan propulsion system needed for its variant.

As for the foreign engine orders, the Italians are on the hook $11.5 million while the Australians will pay $5.6 million.

The work should be completed by this September. The contract is being administered by the Naval Air Systems Command at Patuxent River, Md.

China State Media Cautious on New U.S. Defense Plan

BEIJING - China's official Xinhua news agency said Jan. 6 it welcomed a bigger U.S. presence in Asia, but only if it helped promote peace in the region, after President Barack Obama unveiled a new military strategy.

The plan calls for the U.S. military to strengthen its presence in Asia and prepare for possible challenges from countries such as China, while downplaying future huge counter-insurgency campaigns such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beijing has given no official response to the review, but Xinhua said Jan. 6 that the United States was welcome to make "more contribution to peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region", while urging it against "warmongering".

"The U.S. role, if fulfilled with a positive attitude and free from a Cold War-style zero-sum mentality, will not only be conducive to regional stability and prosperity, but be good for China," it said in a comment piece.

"However, while boosting its military presence in the Asia Pacific, the United States should abstain from flexing its muscles," it added. "If the United States indiscreetly applies militarism in the region, it will be like a bull in a china shop, and endanger peace instead of enhancing regional stability."

The United States is increasingly focusing its attention on the Asia-Pacific region, where commanders worry about China's growing military power.

The People's Liberation Army is the world's largest active military, and is extremely secretive about its defense programs, which benefit from a huge and expanding military budget.

In November, Obama went on a week-long tour of the Pacific in a bid to enhance the role of the United States in the region, positioning Marines in northern Australia and pushing for a trans-Pacific trade pact.

Shortly afterwards, China announced it would conduct routine naval exercises in the Pacific Ocean, in what some saw as a symbolic move aimed at the United States. Meanwhile, the Global Times - an official, nationalistic daily newspaper - accused the United States of trying to contain China and called on Beijing to "strengthen its long-range strike abilities and put more deterrence on the U.S."

"The U.S. must realize that it cannot stop the rise of China and that being friendly to China is in its utmost interests," it said in en editorial.

The new U.S. strategy unveiled Jan. 5 calls for a leaner military, and also focuses on preventing Iran from securing nuclear weapons.

U.K. Defense Chief Urges U.S. To Maintain Tight NATO Ties

LONDON and WASHINGTON - Just before the Pentagon unveiled a new military strategy that emphasizes a shift in focus toward the Asia-Pacific region, Britain's Defense Secretary Phillip Hammond urged the U.S. government to maintain the strength of its commitment to the NATO alliance.

Speaking Jan. 5 in Washington on his first visit to the United States since taking over for Liam Fox in October, Hammond said that "however pressing the growing importance of the Asia-Pacific region is to the United States, the alliance between the U.S. and the countries of Europe is, and will remain, of vital interest to both continents."

Hammond said the growth in power and influence of other regions is a reason to strengthen the NATO alliance rather than weaken it.

The speech to an audience at the Atlantic Council, an organization formed to promote trans-Atlantic cooperation, was delivered right before U.S. President Barack Obama took the stage in the Pentagon briefing room to announce a new strategy that envisions a smaller military with resources increasingly devoted to the Pacific.

The eight-page strategy document says the United States remains committed to "bolstering the strength and vitality of NATO," but it also acknowledges that the strategic landscape in Europe has changed since NATO was first created and therefore the U.S. military posture must also evolve.

"Most European countries are now producers of security rather than consumers of it," the document says. "Combined with the drawdown in Iraq and Afghanistan, this has created a strategic opportunity to rebalance the U.S. military investment in Europe, moving from a focus on current conflicts toward a focus on future capabilities."

Hammond said he planned to meet with his U.S. counterpart, Leon Panetta, later that afternoon to discuss the new defense posture and the impact of the U.S. military spending cuts on trans-Atlantic relations.

The strategy did not say how many U.S. troops could leave Europe, but some reports indicate 4,000 more may withdraw.

"Of course reductions in U.S. troop numbers are not going to be welcomed by European allies, but I think we all understand the budget pressure the United States, like all of us, is under," Hammond said.

NATO members also recognize the world is changing and that the United States may have to shift its strategic focus, he said.

"I think Europe needs to respond in a mature way, not in a histrionic way," he said.

The release of the strategy document did not include new programmatic details, including any information on potential changes to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Pentagon's largest and most expensive weapon program. The United Kingdom plans to buy the naval variant of the aircraft.

Hammond said he is particularly concerned with what a delay to the program's schedule or a reduction to the U.S. buy could do to the aircraft's unit cost and availability.

"We're already under some pressure from public opinion in the United Kingdom that we're going to have built and launched [aircraft] carriers some years before we have the aircraft to fly off them," he said.

His speech served to remind the United States of the importance of NATO as it makes its strategic transition toward Asia.

At the same time, Hammond wanted to address comments made by Panetta and former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who have both been critical of the unbalanced resources some European countries provide NATO and its operations.

Although Afghanistan and Libya had shown what the alliance was capable of, the contributions of many alliance members fell short "in terms of capability, the balance of contributions and in terms of the will to deploy."

In June, Gates said NATO had become a two-tiered alliance with some members shouldering the costs and participating in combat missions, while others enjoy the benefits of NATO membership without footing the bill or participating in difficult operations.

Despite these shortcomings, Hammond said people need to be realistic.

"Without strong economies and stable public finances, it is impossible to build and sustain in the long term the military capability required to project power and maintain defense," he said. "That is why today the debt crisis should probably be regarded as the greatest strategic threat to our nations."

With defense budgets continuing to be cut by NATO members, he warned the situation would get worse before it got better.

"Across the alliance, aggregate defense expenditure is certain to fall in the short term and, at best, recover slowly in the medium term," Hammond said.

Part of the answer to NATO's capability woes in a time of austerity lies in a series of capacity enhancing measures. He recommended a thorough assessment of NATO's capabilities and then stacking these against its current ambitions.

Such an analysis would provide the basis for choices regarding "greater pooling and sharing of capabilities; mission, role and geographic specialization; greater sharing of technology; cooperation on logistics; alignment of research-and-development programs, and more collaborative training."

The strategy document released by the Pentagon hinted at a similar approach.

"In this resource-constrained era, we will also work with NATO allies to develop a 'Smart Defense' approach to pool, share, and specialize capabilities as needed to meet 21st century challenges," it says.

Without more money, Hammond said the challenge was to maximize existing NATO capability.

"Prioritizing ruthlessly, specializing aggressively and collaborating unsentimentally. ... With budgets so tight, allies need to revisit approaches and ideas that might previously have seemed politically unacceptable," said Hammond.

Hammond also argued for greater cooperation with allies outside of NATO, naming Sweden, Australia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Japan and South Korea.

However, he said he is opposed to growing the alliance and rejected the idea that the European Union should be a member.

F 35 is useless

Australia to Let-Go Foreign Troops: Come Here

SYDNEY - Australia's military is looking to recruit foreign troops, particularly those let go in Britain where the government has announced cutbacks on defense spending, according to a Dec. 27 report.

The Australian Defence Force has struggled to fill recruitment quotas and was seeking highly skilled specialists such as fighter pilots and submarine crews from overseas, The Australian newspaper said.

The Royal Australian Navy (RAN) recently sent a delegation to Britain to look into the possibility of recruiting recently retrenched sailors, it added.

The Australian Defence Force, which is facing competition for personnel - particularly engineers - due to the nation's lucrative mining boom, confirmed that talks had taken place with British officials.

"The Royal Australian Navy has been in talks with the Royal Navy about this possibility and that obviously will depend on those personnel meeting the Royal Australian Navy's requirements," a spokesman told Agence France-Presse.

He did not comment on whether the military, which has some 1,550 troops in Afghanistan, was prepared to fast-track Australian citizenship for foreign recruits, as reported by The Australian.

The development comes after British Prime Minister David Cameron unveiled 8 percent cuts to the armed forces budget and set out plans to reduce the size of the Royal Army, Navy and Air Force by 17,000 troops.

The report in The Australian said Australian Navy chief Ray Griggs assured his British counterpart that Canberra would not recruit personnel the British needed to maintain their capabilities.

The Australian Defence Force was also looking to other western countries, including the United States, Canada and New Zealand, to build up personnel, particularly for its submarine crews, the newspaper said.

On its website, the Australian Defence Force says it "looks to overseas candidates to fill gaps in our services that can't currently be satisfied by standard recruitment."

It said its Navy recruitment program was aimed at "serving or immediately ex-serving officers and sailors of foreign naval forces [not greater than three years since separation from military service] with specific qualifications and/or experience that is directly transferable to the RAN."

Pakistan: Border Attack Report 'Short on Facts'

ISLAMABAD - The Pakistani military rejected the findings of the U.S. investigation into the NATO attacks on Pakistani border posts on the night of Nov. 25-26 that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

Though no detailed rebuttal was made by the Pakistani military, Inter-Services Public Relations - the military's public relations arm - stated it did not agree with the U.S.'s findings and labeled them as being "short on facts."

Pakistan said a detailed response would be given when it received a formal report. No additional information from the military was forthcoming when contacted.

The U.S. Department of Defense said in a statement that the attacks were not intentional. The DoD found "inadequate coordination by U.S. and Pakistani military officers operating through the border coordination center - including our reliance on incorrect mapping information shared with the Pakistani liaison officer - resulted in a misunderstanding about the true location of Pakistani military units."

"This, coupled with other gaps in information about the activities and placement of units from both sides, contributed to the tragic result," the statement said.

The misidentification by the NATO forces of the Pakistani position rests on claims they were initially fired upon. However, the Pakistan military continues to deny that its troops opened fire first.

South Asia analyst and former Australian defense attaché to Islamabad, Brian Cloughley, called the report into question because of how the investigation was carried out.

"How can you have a proper investigation when only one side is involved?" Cloughley said. He called the investigation a "farce" due to Pakistan not being consulted.

Coughley said he does not think the report will improve relations between Pakistan and International Security Assistance Forces under NATO's command, which the Nov. 25 incident further damaged.

"I don't think there is a hope of recovery," he said.