International Military Discussion

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Jan 2014 06:25

They need some one like Gates on the top to put brakes on US MIC thats constantly at war and scouting for new one.

Gates has played a big role in GWB Jr and Obama term to roll back its military adventure which was going no where and costing US life limb and USD.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 22 Jan 2014 14:26

Iraq: Again, there was no reason except ego to go into Iraq,

well they went there for the oil & gas fields

and to grab iraq's oil-for-food fund

plus to keep Iraq billing its oil sales in dollars.

and to gain a captive market.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 22 Jan 2014 21:17

NRao wrote:^^^^^\

Very nice!!

U.S. Offers Russia High-Tech Aid to Thwart Sochi Terror

This is not a for sure thing. We really don't like sharing high tech that can be used against ue. After all, we Americans are nothing exceptional. Also there is a highly conservative Congress that controls the purse strings. And time is short. The olympics start soon.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jan 2014 02:53

Looooong time ago ......................

1898 Simms' Motor Scout
Little more than a four-wheeled frame with a Maxim machine gun affixed to it, the Motor Scout is nonetheless important for being what is considered the first armed motor vehicle. A simple shield made of plate steel provided almost no protection for the driver of the adapted De-Dion Bouton donor vehicle, and the extremely modest horsepower rating of 2¾ made for slow escapes.

1914 Armoured Rolls-Royce
Initially, Rolls-Royces found use in combat rescuing downed pilots in World War I. Much of the officer class in the Royal Air Force came from the aristocracy, and officer-owned private cars were soon armed and armoured for dangerous rescue operations.

1940s Chevrolet 1½ tonne
On the other side of the war in the desert were the tough soldiers of the Long Range Desert Group (LRDG). Of these, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel would later say they “caused us more damage than any other British unit of equal strength.”

1940 BMW R-75 with sidecar

1956 Vespa 150 TAP
At first glance, this comical-looking machine appears to be a Vespa with a bazooka mounted on it. As it happens, that's exactly what it is.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 30 Jan 2014 20:46

russian missile tests may be in violation of 1987 treaty.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01 ... latestnews

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jan 2014 21:03

RS-24 yars is just the MIRV version of the single-warhead topol-M and will supplement in the rail mobile mode.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jan 2014 21:25

Almaz-Antey S-400 factory in pictures

http://i-korotchenko.livejournal.com/818605.html

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 30 Jan 2014 21:40

pretty tfta looking german japanese machinery there like DMG-Mori and Trumpf.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Jan 2014 07:19

TSJones wrote:russian missile tests may be in violation of 1987 treaty.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01 ... latestnews

They are not talking about RS-26 but R-500 Cruise Missile part of Iskander-K system that is alleged to be violating the 500 km range of INF treaty.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Jan 2014 07:19

General Confirms Enhanced Targeting Capabilities of B61-12 Nuclear Bomb

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 31 Jan 2014 15:26

^^^^^ still doesn't violate arms control treaty with russia.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 31 Jan 2014 15:49

TSJones wrote:^^^^^ still doesn't violate arms control treaty with russia.

Didnt post that news for arms control stuff

In either ways if US really feels some development are breaking arms control then they can verify it as INF treaty or for that matter START are legally binding treaty ..so far there is no offical complain from State Department or White House on such break ...just the usual Senators shouting off the roof.

Here is something to chew from more sane voice

Allegations of Russian Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty Violations—Where’s the Beef?

Russian Missile Test Creates Confusion and Opposition in Washington

Russian INF Compliance

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 01 Feb 2014 00:04

See new navy digital camo. coolness. go kestrels!

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/9d681d9b6165

calling all chinese plane painters! calling all chinese plane painters!

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 01 Feb 2014 01:12

....and dig these canauckian and slovakian(???? huh?) paint jobs!

http://www.hyperstealth.com/Mig29/

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Feb 2014 09:21

American Drone Stoned by Angry Afghan Villagers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUFqt_Ks0LU

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 02 Feb 2014 22:58

The end of the tank? The Army says it doesn’t need it, but industry wants to keep building it.

member_28395 · Post by **member_28395** » 03 Feb 2014 01:55

I had wished for an imaging project like this ...
http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive ... lite-swarm

I wonder if ISRO can use cubesats like these to provide better local 24/7 coverage ...

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 03 Feb 2014 02:36

can any gurus explain how the goal based commanding works[how does the command function, adv/disadva of this approach]? take example mars rover. tia

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Feb 2014 02:33

Jan, 2014 :: USAF reveals plan to replace JSTARS with business jets by 2022

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 05 Feb 2014 02:34

Jan, 2014 :: UAE raises possible deal for "Block 61" F-16

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Feb 2014 20:02

Nice Read , Talk about AMaRV , HTV-2 etc

The Future of the U.S. Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Force

Rand Report : http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... MG1210.pdf

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 09 Feb 2014 09:06

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 09 Feb 2014 11:52

Next Gen FMBT?

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 09 Feb 2014 14:52

NRao wrote:

Proves one point to those who says Arjun cannot be mobile enough because of the weight.
Huge difference in weight between Abrams and T-90. Still the Abrams got out.

An old video though, still demonstrates the very good mobility features of the Arjun tank.
[/quote]

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 18 Feb 2014 17:42

US nuclear forces, 2014 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
( Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris )

http://bos.sagepub.com/content/70/1/85.full.pdf+html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Feb 2014 12:23

No new ICBM for US after Minuteman III .....coz contractors charging a bom

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/20 ... l-continue

But a major blow to developing a new missile came on February 4, with the publication of an Air Force-funded RAND study. That detailed analysis found that an “all-new ICBM system will likely cost almost twice (and perhaps even three times) as much as incremental modernization and sustainment of the MM III system.” Specifically, RAND estimated that the lifecycle costs for incrementally modernizing the Minuteman III would be $60 to $90 billion, while a new silo-based ICBM would cost between $84 billion and $125 billion. Rail- and road-mobile versions would cost significantly more, from $124 billion to $219 billion.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 19 Feb 2014 14:04

Is everyone working on developing those new US ICBMs going to be paid millions?! Those development costs sound absolutely horrendous.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 19 Feb 2014 16:13

merlin wrote:Is everyone working on developing those new US ICBMs going to be paid millions?! Those development costs sound absolutely horrendous.

No its just the Private contractors ripping of Pentagon ... if DOD had government body like our DRDO they would have made a new ICBM at 1/10 of $90 billion.

The Private Contractors have Senators on payroll and they have to keep their share holders happy ....its a viscious circle where they rip every dime from pentagon. Even if the project is cancelled the contractors get paid for the money they spend ....so is win all the way to the bank for them.

merlin · Post by **merlin** » 19 Feb 2014 16:48

Austin wrote:
merlin wrote:Is everyone working on developing those new US ICBMs going to be paid millions?! Those development costs sound absolutely horrendous.
No its just the Private contractors ripping of Pentagon ... if DOD had government body like our DRDO they would have made a new ICBM at 1/10 of $90 billion.

The Private Contractors have Senators on payroll and they have to keep their share holders happy ....its a viscious circle where they rip every dime from pentagon. Even if the project is cancelled the contractors get paid for the money they spend ....so is win all the way to the bank for them.

When our private players get into the same game here, somehow we will need to prevent that.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 19 Feb 2014 22:33

Screens to replace windows on S-512 supersonic jet

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 19 Feb 2014 23:07

Austin wrote:
merlin wrote:Is everyone working on developing those new US ICBMs going to be paid millions?! Those development costs sound absolutely horrendous.
No its just the Private contractors ripping of Pentagon ... if DOD had government body like our DRDO they would have made a new ICBM at 1/10 of $90 billion.

The Private Contractors have Senators on payroll and they have to keep their share holders happy ....its a viscious circle where they rip every dime from pentagon. Even if the project is cancelled the contractors get paid for the money they spend ....so is win all the way to the bank for them.

The only way that's possible is if there's a oligopoly of some sort. What's to stop another contractor from doing it for cheaper ?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 20 Feb 2014 00:25

The Putin effect, rolling across the globe?

BTW, here is the original paper:

The Future of the U.S. Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Force

In the lead-up to the Air Force Ground Based Strategic Deterrent Analysis of Alternatives, RAND was asked to examine and assess possible intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) alternatives against the current Minuteman III system and to provide insights into the potential impact of further force reductions. The researchers developed a framework consisting of five categories — basing, propulsion, boost, reentry, and payload — to characterize alternative classes of ICBM and to assess the survivability and effectiveness of possible alternatives. Using existing cost analyses and cost data from historical ICBM programs, they derived likely cost bounds on alternative classes of ICBM systems. Finally, they developed force reduction scenarios, examined their impacts on several key nuclear specialty career fields to understand the implications of reductions on the current organizational structure, and compared sustainment and requirement profiles within the various reduction scenarios.

This whole paper seems to have been a modelling effort. So, where did the Senators and stock holders come into the picture, I am not too sure. Although those things could happen.

The pdf version, all 188 pages of it: http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... MG1210.pdf

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Feb 2014 09:04

KrishnaK wrote:The only way that's possible is if there's a oligopoly of some sort. What's to stop another contractor from doing it for cheaper ?

Why should they when there is big money at play ...all are there for money and the winner takes the lead the the looser in many cases play 2nd fiddle to the winner.

Just check the history of US procurement and the contractors never looses ..... the US MIC dilemma can be well spelled out by the chief of JSF program when he said and I quote

"“What I see Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney doing today is behaving as if they are getting ready to sell me the very last F-35 and the very last engine and are trying to squeeze every nickel out of that last F-35 and that last engine,”

MIC is there to squeeze every dime from Pentagon and yes they have their shareholder to answer too.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 21 Feb 2014 09:52

The segment, on 60 minutes, that preceded the F-35 episode, was about Putin and how he is robbing Russia!!!

Guess it is an international trend: India, perhaps China, France, ............

Of course there are no shareholder he has to face. Or, even if there were it does not matter.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Feb 2014 10:40

Also original of NRao to bring in the canard Putin into the argument when flaws of US MIC are discussed and something exposed by their own watch group

CBS should also do a 60 minutes on how the US MIC and Banking sector is robbing America

but that would be a tough thing for the main stream media in the US

Putin the Evil Man very original from American Main Stream Media

Even our own DPSU MIC BEML , MDL have their own can of worms

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 21 Feb 2014 11:48

Austin wrote:=Why should they when there is big money at play ...all are there for money

That totally goes against the charge of an MIC holding the government to ransom. What is to stop another Elon Musk from crashing into the party ? After all there is BIG money at play. The point I was trying to make is, if the defense companies keep gouging, they will eventually work themselves out of a business. To be clear, it's not my claim that they aren't doing now, although I doubt there's too much of it going on. I'd rather not confuse "biting off more than can be chewed" with malice.

Just check the history of US procurement and the contractors never looses .....

Why should the contractor lose ?

the US MIC dilemma can be well spelled out by the chief of JSF program when he said and I quote

"“What I see Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney doing today is behaving as if they are getting ready to sell me the very last F-35 and the very last engine and are trying to squeeze every nickel out of that last F-35 and that last engine,”

MIC is there to squeeze every dime from Pentagon and yes they have their shareholder to answer too.

Let's see what the numbers reveal.

Profit margins & EPS
Boeing 5.29% 5.96
Northrop Grumann 7.92% 8.35
Lockheed Martin 6.57% 9.14
United Technologies/Pratt & Whitney 9.14% 6.25

To compare, some of the most profitable companies in the world
Apple 21.28% 40.23
Google 21.60% 38.02

One of the lowest
Amazon 0.37% 0.59

Let's try a different industry
GM 3.44% 2.38
Exxon Mobil 7.99% 7.37

Added EPS in addition to profit margins, same story. Defense is about as profitable as cars and oil, no more. IMO, having the greediest but best MIC would be a good problem to have.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Feb 2014 12:21

That totally goes against the charge of an MIC holding the government to ransom. What is to stop another Elon Musk from crashing into the party ?

Because its a chosen party only the selected few is invited and the few are selected by the powers would be

It is a good problem to have if you print your way to glory which will have its own terrible long term consequences but not a good problem for countries like ours or many others who cant do that.

They say in US there are two entity who run the Government one is the Bankers and the others MIC and there is reason why Government bails them out.

This is a good open on NY Times on US MIC The Permanent Militarization of America

The Military-Industrial Complex is Ruining the Economy

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 21 Feb 2014 23:17

Austin wrote:
That totally goes against the charge of an MIC holding the government to ransom. What is to stop another Elon Musk from crashing into the party ?
Because its a chosen party only the selected few is invited and the few are selected by the powers would be

It is a good problem to have if you print your way to glory which will have its own terrible long term consequences but not a good problem for countries like ours or many others who cant do that.

They say in US there are two entity who run the Government one is the Bankers and the others MIC and there is reason why Government bails them out.

This is a good open on NY Times on US MIC The Permanent Militarization of America

The Military-Industrial Complex is Ruining the Economy

I'm not quite sold on your explanations like

Because its a chosen party only the selected few is invited and the few are selected by the powers would be

You have provided no data to back that claim up. I don't care for what nytimes has published. It could very well some bleeding heart liberal, their own dotty roys. It could just as well be fact. But the numbers I pointed you to, don't back your claims up boss. Where't the BIG money in those numbers ? It's healthy, but that's about it. I would want my MIC to have a healthy balance sheet, else it's not a viable business to be in. Incidentally it's AAPL that's robbing America blind, not the banks or the MIC.

It's one thing to claim the MIC is robbing the Pentagon. Another to claim that it's starting off wars so they can stay in business. Charges of some cabal running the world is about as pervasive as the feeling that the world was much better in the past. They're just that, feelings.

One way out of that problem, if indeed there's one, is to enable more companies to get into the fray by lowering the barrier of entry. Would that be technology ? There's plenty of $$ out there willing to chase a good idea. Discussing this as if it's something is should watch out for is pretty

KrishnaK · Post by **KrishnaK** » 21 Feb 2014 23:21

Austin incidentally, this from the NYTimes article

The military-industrial complex has not emerged in quite the way Eisenhower envisioned. The United States spends an enormous sum on defense — over $700 billion last year, about half of all military spending in the world — but in terms of our total economy, it has steadily declined to less than 5 percent of gross domestic product from 14 percent in 1953.

I think his argument is a big different from what you claim.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 21 Feb 2014 23:37

Its upto you to believe or not but the JSF head speaking about LM and PW trying to squeeze every dime from Pentagon is a good enough from some one serving the force ......thats how it works in US , if you dont believe what he says then there is nothing much to add.

something more to chew

The End of the Military Industrial Complex

The Case of the Missing Military-Industrial-Complex Money