International Military Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Singha »

my vision was the Midgetman + the new depressed trajectory MARV they developed for the topol family.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM-134_Midgetman

as you can see above midgetman was only 14m long, weight 14t, diameter 1.17m which is quite compact vs the typical icbm weight of around 50t, but it could deliver a payload out to 11,000km
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

They had a project called Courier (RSS-40 /SS-X-26) it was direct answer to US Midgetman and was supposed to be the smallest ICBM in the world , it got cancelled due to arm control treaty , probably they must have dusted the old files and resurrected it.

http://www.vokrugsveta.ru/vs/article/3230/
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Singha »

compared to the topol-M (48t and huge size), this Courier design is far more suitable for road mobile ICBM and does not need the huge 7x7 TELAR vehicle. a regular semi-trailer that hauls the 40ft containers could haul this over Russia's vast road network , making it much harder to spot in satellite imagery (the container based Klub concept has already been shown in CG), while for x-country use in the taiga, a smaller MAZ tel could haul this puppy.

I am sure new materials and technologies are applied over the base 1991 design.
Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Craig Alpert »

AK Antony to visit Russia next week to review military projects
3
NEW DELHI: In the run-up to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's summit-level talks in Russia later this year, defence minister A K Antony will be in Moscow next week to review ongoing and proposed bilateral military projects.

Sources said the impending 10-year lease of K-152 Nerpa nuclear submarine, the fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) project and the ongoing $2.33 billion refit of aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov will figure during the India-Russia inter-governmental commission on military technical cooperation ( IRIGC-MTC) on Tuesday.

The FGFA project, in particular, is crucial since it will in the coming years become the biggest joint defence programme. As of now, India and Russia have only inked the $295 million preliminary design contract for it. But, as earlier reported, India will end up spending around $35 billion over the next two decades to induct 250-300 of the advanced stealth fighters from 2020 onwards.

Moreover, there are several problems still to be sorted out in the ongoing programmes. India remains unhappy about Russia not adhering to delivery schedules, jacking up costs mid-way through execution of agreements, creating roadblocks in technology transfer and failing to provide uninterrupted supply of spares.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

Russia tests new ballistic missile
Russia carried out on Thursday a successful test of a new sea-based intercontinental ballistic missile, the Defense Ministry said.

The Liner missile was launched from the Tula (Delta IV class) strategic submarine in the Barents Sea targeting the Kura test grounds on the Kamchatka peninsula.

"The missile's warheads hit the designated area on schedule," spokesman Col. Igor Konashenkov said.

The Liner is an advanced version of the solid-propellant Sineva submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) which is currently in service with the Russian Navy. It has a longer range and enhanced missile defense penetration capability.

According to the developer of the missile, the State Missile Center, the Liner can carry up to four medium-yield warheads or up to 12 small-yield warheads, or their mixture.

In comparison, Russia's much-coveted Bulava SLBM can carry only six small-yield warheads.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Singha »

>> In comparison, Russia's much-coveted Bulava SLBM can carry only six small-yield warheads.

true, but the bulava is smaller than sineva and fit the Borei nicely without need for a hump. the Borei in shape and size is much stealthier compared to a delta-4 or typhoon which have the hump/obesity to hold the sineva.\

small, stealthy and packing a sharp bite like borei and courier-mki is the way to go. the days of 1000s of silo based missiles and monster trucks and railways prowling the taiga forests are done - low footprint, less cost and survivability counts.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

It was more of a question of upload potential then the actual warhead they carried , which is to say if need be a normal 6 warhead missile could be armed with 10-12 warhead giving it more punch for the same missile , the Trident D5 had this upload potential that till date before Liner the Russian SLBM lacked and the upload potential of missile has been a sticking point of START treaties.

In a normal situation these SLBM could carry more decoys with half of the potential warhead and decoys do not mess with any START obligations.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

Its good bye AK-74

AK-74 dismissed by the army
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

Future of Russian missile defense to be based in air
Russia's next generation missile defense systems which are currently under development will be based not on the ground but in the air, former chief designer of Almaz-Antei corporation Igor Ashurbeili said.

"The successor missile that will replace the S-500 (expected to enter service in 2015) won't be land-based but air-based," Ashurbeili said.

He explained that air-based firepower involves placing weapons on a flying platform, in other words, on a plane. "This will be an aircraft that will fly, control the field and not only track targets, but strike them," Ashurbeili said.


Ashurbeili expressed his opinion that the aerospace defense firepower will within the next 20-25 years be based on scientific and technological potential, followed by the modernization of four anti-aircraft missile systems and complexes: the Morfey (short-range), the Vityaz (mid-range), the S-400 (long-range) and the S-500(missile defenses).
joshvajohn
BRFite
Posts: 1516
Joined: 09 Nov 2006 03:27

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by joshvajohn »

NATO's missile defence offer to India: Nothing to lose
http://www.business-standard.com/india/ ... se/451882/

I will be happy to know what are pros and cons of this offer.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by shiv »

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by chackojoseph »

anishns
BRFite
Posts: 1382
Joined: 16 Dec 2007 09:43
Location: being victim onlee...

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by anishns »

A neutral article IMO ofcourse :)

SR71 v/s MiG25/31
Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3407
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Cosmo_R »

This was interesting. I assume they are talking about conformal sensors throughout the JSF skin for a 3Dx360

"However a JSF already has the basics of elements like DAS which no other small 1-2 man fighter even remotely approaches. If you start junking thinks like the STOL elements that does give you real estate for extra and more pwoerful ewarfare elements, but its still relies heavily upon automation at the platform level. That kind of ewarfare dependancy is dangerous - irrespective of whether the technology exists to start taking up more and more of the backseater roles, the legal and operational constraints are not conducive to it.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/air-f ... ler-11499/
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

Second Bastion coastal system with Yakhont missiles supplied to Vietnam
By Interfax News, on October 18th, 2011 at 03:00:54PM GMT

MOSCOW. Oct 18 (Interfax-AVN) – Russia has supplied to Vietnam the second mobile coastal missile system, Bastion, with the Yakhont unified supersonic anti-ship
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

The Russian army will receive from the satellite-guided bombs
Module Development "Compass" can be screwed into the head of the artillery shells of 152 mm and above, at the regular place of fuse. It includes a combination fuze, GLONASS receiver and control surfaces - aerodynamic control surfaces, which are arranged in the flight path of the projectile and correct, - said the source "Izvestia"

In contrast, shells, controlled by a laser beam, the projectile with the module "Dynamics" does not depend on weather conditions and does not require external illumination purposes, so you can quickly hit point targets with known coordinates. Circular error probable modernized so the shell does not exceed 10 m, whereas for conventional 152-mm shells at long range shooting, it may be 100 m or more.

Russian version of the modernization of ammunition allows the shells with a satellite-guided considerably more expensive than 155-mm projectile American Excalibur from guided by GPS. This missile, equipped with a gas generator and built-in rudder, it is worth more than $ 80 thousand is expected that a large batch of its price should fall to $ 50 thousand Domestic module which allows to upgrade existing missiles in storage, will cost a little more than $ 1 thousand,

The module can be used for both the old shells, as well as new, but in any case it will be much cheaper than American products. Russian scientists have been able to achieve sustainable GLONASS signal reception on the rotating shell, whereas the American "Excalibur" to stop its rotation to get a navigation signal. This greatly complicates and increases the cost of its construction
Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14332
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Aditya_V »

US Air Force grounds F-22 fighters again over safety concerns: Officers

See the above report which is far more mature than DDM Flying coffin reporting after every crash or grounding. The aircraft cost $150 million is also understated and $30Billion plus in the R&D expense for the aircraft is not mentioned.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

member_20011
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by member_20011 »

Aditya_V wrote: See the above report which is far more mature than DDM Flying coffin reporting after every crash or grounding. The aircraft cost $150 million is also understated and $30Billion plus in the R&D expense for the aircraft is not mentioned.
I wonder why TOI did not add their in-depth analysis to report as they do it for LCA.
Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Craig Alpert »

prithvi

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by prithvi »

shivagarg wrote:
Aditya_V wrote: See the above report which is far more mature than DDM Flying coffin reporting after every crash or grounding. The aircraft cost $150 million is also understated and $30Billion plus in the R&D expense for the aircraft is not mentioned.
I wonder why TOI did not add their in-depth analysis to report as they do it for LCA.
This is an AFP generated report which TOI just sourced so obviously the quality will be high
Ankit Desai
BRFite
Posts: 634
Joined: 05 May 2006 21:28
Location: Gujarat

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Ankit Desai »

New revolutionary drone coming soon
US-made drone aircraft that can stay in the air for up to four days at 65,000 feet
-Ankit
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

makes a good read

The Secret War: How U.S. hunted AQ in Africa
Clandestine SEAL mission planted cameras, but little came out of the images
vishal
BRFite
Posts: 336
Joined: 27 Feb 2002 12:31
Location: BOM/SIN

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by vishal »

Active-duty SEALs, real weapons, real tactics, fictional scenario. Very slick!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnlPgo9T ... e=youtu.be
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Philip »

Red Arrows tragedy,ejector seat malfunction on Hawks,old problem.Will it ground Indian Hawks?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -team.html

Second tragedy hits Red Arrows team
A Red Arrows pilot died yesterday after his jet’s ejector seat was triggered while on the runway.
The death is the second tragedy to beset the RAF’s aerobatic display team in less than three months and raises questions about its future.

The pilot was flung from the Hawk T1 aircraft during a training session at the team’s base at RAF Scampton, Lincs.
Last night it was not clear why the ejector seat was activated and the RAF said a full independent inquiry would investigate what occurred.

The team was previously grounded in July 2010 because of a problem with the ejector seats on Hawk jets identified during a routine check carried out at RAF Valley. A crack was discovered in one of the seats. In August Flt Lt Jon Egging, another pilot, was killed during an air show near Bournemouth Airport in Dorset.
Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 533
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Nick_S »

Vietnam has requested for additional military aid and civil nuclear reactors.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 610605.ece

I do hope that GoI can get its act together. We need to prop them up. And in this process we would end up increasing our defense output and reducing costs through economies of scale.
Bob V
BRFite
Posts: 389
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 04:29
Location: Out at the sea
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Bob V »

Image
bksahu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 17 Dec 2009 14:37
Location: Lost in the sun

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by bksahu »

Didnt know where to post. Aplologies if already posted or OT.

Shootout: Who makes better weapons
http://indrus.in/articles/2011/10/10/sh ... 13097.html
rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by rajanb »

bksahu wrote:Didnt know where to post. Aplologies if already posted or OT.

Shootout: Who makes better weapons
http://indrus.in/articles/2011/10/10/sh ... 13097.html
Thanks BKSahu. This a fabulous article. Something my dad used to tell me, being an Aero Engineer.

MODs which thread should this actually be places in?
bksahu
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 59
Joined: 17 Dec 2009 14:37
Location: Lost in the sun

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by bksahu »

You are most welcome rajanb sir.

I was pretty shocked to find many details where not public domain and also enthralled :).

MODS please help to move article in the relevant thread!!!!!!!!
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

U.S. ready to provide Russia with missile shield details
The United States is ready to provide Russia with technical specifics of interceptor missiles of the European missile defense system, Russia's Kommersant daily said on Monday, citing U.S. sources.

The newspaper said Russian specialists were invited to take part in tests of RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) and visit the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) headquarters at the Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado.

"During the consultations [U.S. Undersecretary of State for Arms Control Ellen] Tauscher said Washington was ready to provide information about the missile's speed after it uses up all of its fuel. This information, referred to as burnout velocity (VBO) in international documents, helps to determine how to target it," Kommersant said.

In October, Moscow's NATO envoy Dmitry Rogozin said Russian talks with the United States on missile defense had hit a dead end.

The Kremlin says the U.S. expanding anti-missile system in Europe is a potential threat to Russian nuclear arsenal, while Washington tries to convince Moscow that the system poses no threat to Russia and is needed to protect against missiles that could be fired by countries with smaller arsenals such as Iran.

The missile shield dispute between Russia and the U.S. has undermined efforts to build on improvements in relations between the former Cold War foes and is intensified by Russia's uncertainty of U.S. policy after the November 2012 presidential elections.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Philip »

OZ,now southern hemisphere's poodle...sorry,pet 'roo?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/op ... 64141.aspx
Bid to check Chinese naval power high-risk game
BY BRUCE HAIGH
21 Nov, 2011 In view of the sycophantic nature of Australia's relationship with the United States over the past 60 years, I guess it was inevitable that Australia, in the absence of tough-minded governments, would eventually come to host a US military base. The North West Cape, Pine Gap and Geraldton communication facilities and joint exercises were incremental steps along that path - not to mention Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf war, Iraq and Afghanistan.

As announcements go relating to major policy change, this one was a shocker. While the rest of the world called it for what it was, the establishment of a US base, Defence Minister Stephen Smith said it was merely an enhancement of joint exercises. We have been told that in mid next year, 250 US marines will arrive on a six-month posting to undertake training. Over five years that commitment will rise to 2500. That figure represents a stripped-down brigade. Also hinted at, alluded to, mumbled about, are B52s and other aircraft, including perhaps fighter aircraft operating out of or based at Tindal for unspecified periods of time, perhaps permanently. Then the most important mumble of all, there will be more US naval visits, including capital ships to Darwin - soon.

The decision to put a US base in the Northern Territory, centred on Darwin, has to do with the containment of China's growing naval power. From around 2001, China embarked on an ambitious ship-building program, including the Type 094 and 093 ballistic missile and nuclear attack submarines, based near Sanya, the most southern city in China. The base and pens have been built underground; 200km north at Zhanjiang is the base of China's South Sea Fleet. Attached to that fleet are two marine brigades. China has 10 nuclear submarines and 50-60 diesel-electric submarines. In September of this year it commissioned into service, after an 18-month refit, a former Russian aircraft carrier. In 2009, China said it intended to construct its own aircraft carriers. This would have taken some time. China apparently decided it was short of time, and time concerns now seem to be driving both China and the US. The US views the expansion and modernisation of the Chinese navy as a matter of deep concern; it believes it is the only power capable of confronting the Chinese, particularly with respect to disputed territorial claims by China over the Spratly and Paracel Islands in the South China Sea. It is said that China is expanding its naval capabilities in order to defend and assert maritime claims, freedom of navigation and protect energy imports from the Persian Gulf. China is particularly worried about taking vital supplies through the choke point of the Straits of Malacca. They fear a US blockade in the event of deteriorating relations. Opening a base in Australia would help the US in that regard. China also seeks - through the use of aid, development projects, and the presence of its navy - to have influence over littoral states that impact or could impact upon its lines of communication. To this end, it is constructing port facilities at Hambantota in Sri Lanka, Gwadar on the south-west coast of Pakistan and at Sittwe in Burma.

All are being constructed as trading and economic facilities but are capable of transformation to naval use. China financially assisted the government of Sri Lanka to defeat the Tamils, in exchange it gained a great deal of influence and the right to develop Hambantota, which will give China a strategic reach into the Indian Ocean and the Gulf. Britain and the US have a joint base on nearby Diego Garcia. Gwadar will provide China with a capacity to monitor and match US naval activity in the Persian Gulf and Indian naval activities, including US/Indian naval co-operation in the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea.
China is expanding its military/naval capabilities because of perceptions of vulnerability over extended trading routes. It fears being cut off from supplies, in much the same way as the Japanese did in the years leading to World War II. China is expanding its military/naval capabilities to match its economic capabilities and needs, and is doing so because it can; which is bringing it nose to nose with the US, who does not agree that it should.

The pace of change in US policy over recent weeks has been frenetic, partly to position Barack Obama for the presidential race next year, partly to take attention away from the failure of Afghanistan and partly because it seems the US has regained its nerve. Over the past 10 years, while China beavered away making money and rebuilding its navy, the US was spending its money in pursuing terrorists in the deep, dark canyons of Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama now tells us he has had enough of the Middle East and all the action is in the Pacific and Indian oceans. The US wants India on side. Australia has been pressured by the US to sell uranium to India. So we will. The US is not worried about India adding to its stockpile of nuclear weapons. As Pakistan and Afghanistan slide away, they need India, and they need India to help counter Chinese naval power. At the same time Obama was in Australia, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was in the Philippines to sign a Philippine-US Partnership for Growth, but really she was there to urge the Philippines to help facedown China.

Clinton said the US was ''updating'' the relationship with five treaty-bound allies in the region - Australia, Japan, the Philippines, South Korea and Thailand. She said the 21st Century would be America's Pacific century and ''... the world's strategic and economic centre of gravity will be the Asia-Pacific, from the Indian subcontinent to the western shores of the Americas''.

The dispatch of marines to Darwin seems a bit of a smoke screen in terms of the gunboat diplomacy the US is building up to wage against the Chinese. It is the port of Darwin that she covets. Basing B-52s in Darwin has the capacity to upset the Chinese. The B-52 has a range of around 15,000km, enough for them to threaten southern and eastern Chinese naval bases, including the submarine pens at Sanya. Will these planes carry nuclear weapons? Will nuclear weapons be stored in Australia? And will the US lobby the NT and federal governments to ''enhance'' its presence?

What are the rules of this game? Does the US believe it can break the Chinese like it broke the Russians? What is the end game? Both these states need each other. What are the Chinese and the US seeking to achieve? They need to sit down and talk; they need to deploy the hard-talking diplomacy of the Cold War.

Australia, along with other smaller littoral states, stand to gain a lot more in the emerging Great Indo-Pacific Game by oscillating between Beijing, New Delhi and Washington, than by throwing their lot in with anyone of them. By so doing they will or have destroyed their bargaining power.

•Bruce Haigh is a political and strategic analyst and retired diplomat.
Post Reply