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
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by PratikDas »

India doesn't have to prove anything to anybody. A bullshit article from the BBC certainly doesn't deserve response.

This from another source:
Most countries who spoke after the treaty stalled said they fully supported it, although some major ones, including India and Russia, voiced strong reservations about some provisions. India said the draft treaty favored exporters. Russia said it should be more specific about banning conventional weapons sales to nonstate actors.
So you could choose to look at the other side of the coin as well.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Austin »

Soyuz Spacecraft Makes Six Hour Flight to ISS, Fastest Ever Recorded
A new Russian-American crew arrived at the International Space Station (ISS) Friday after a fast-track trip from Earth which lasted under six hours and carried three astronauts.

A NASA astronaut, Chris Cassidy, and two Russian cosmonauts, Pavel Vinogradov and Alexander Misurkin, arrived in the Soyuz-TMA spaceship and floated into the ISS to greet the other three astronauts that are already stationed there. The incoming crew will spend five months in space before returning to Earth.

"It's such a beautiful sight, hard to believe my eyes," the 59-year-old Vinogradov, who had been in space in 1997 and 2006, was heard saying on NASA TV, according to a live broadcast on Russian TV.

This is the fastest trip from blast-off at Russia's Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan to docking with the ISS lasted less than six hours, slashing the usual travel time by some 45 hours.

Mike Suffredini, NASA's International Space Station program manager said in a statement, "The four-orbit rendezvous has the advantage of a very short period of time from launch to docking."

"It reduces the amount of time the crew has to spend in a small environment before they get to ISS," he added. The crew said they feel the shorter flight time will make them less fatigued and improve the performance of biomedical experiments.

According to NASA this is the third space mission for Vinogradov, a former design engineer. Misurkin, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Russian Air Force, is making his first spaceflight and Cassidy, a commander in the U.S. Navy, is making his second spaceflight.
Read the American Astronauts Cassidy was also an ex Navy Seal
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by NRao »

Surya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5034
Joined: 05 Mar 2001 12:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Surya »

NRao

France24 had an hour long programme - on ground with the French troops

along with an interview with the Paris Match journalist who wrote the original article

very interesting for many of us
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Austin »

Study: Iraq, Afghan Wars To Cost U.S. Up to $6 Trillion

WASHINGTON — The Iraq and Afghanistan wars will cost the United States between $4 trillion and $6 trillion in the long term, constraining the government’s budget for decades to come, a study says.

Harvard University scholar Linda Bilmes concluded that the United States will face increasing costs to care for an estimated 2.5 million veterans and to pay down debt incurred by borrowing to pay for the wars.

“As a consequence of these wartime spending choices, the United States will face constraints in funding investments in personnel and diplomacy, research and development and new military initiatives,” said the report released Thursday. “In short, there will be no peace dividend, and the legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan wars will be costs that persist for decades.”

Bilmes, who served in government under former President Bill Clinton, calculated that the United States has already spent nearly $2 trillion directly for the two wars launched by former President George W. Bush. But Bilmes’ study said the biggest cost would be medical care and disability benefits, saying that more than half of the 1.56 million troops discharged from service have already been granted benefits for life.Bilmes, who called the numbers unprecedented, said that costs will climb over decades. She wrote that the peak year for disability payments related to World War I, which ended in 1918, was 1969, as veterans became elderly.

“The magnitude of future expenditures will be even higher for the current conflicts, which have been characterized by much higher survival rates, more generous benefits and new, expensive medical treatments,” she said.

Bilmes also factored in debt, finding no precedent for a time when the United States went to war while lowering taxes, with the possible exception of the Revolutionary War, when U.S. colonies borrowed from France.

The study also looked at social costs, with families burdened with the effects of the deaths or injuries of service members.

The United States is expected to maintain a limited military presence in Afghanistan after 2014, when President Barack Obama plans to withdraw combat troops first sent after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Opinion polls show that most of the U.S. public has grown weary of the longest U.S. war, in Afghanistan, and is critical of Bush’s decision to invade Iraq a decade ago.

Donald Rumsfeld, the defense secretary under Bush, said before the invasion that the Iraq war would cost around $50 billion and called higher estimates “baloney.”
Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1286
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Nikhil T »

Arms treaty passes, India abstains
NEW DELHI: India abstained from voting on a global arms trade treaty which was passed overhelmingly by the UN General Assembly on Tuesday. India's status as the world's biggest arms exporter turned out to be a huge vulnerability because the treaty, according to Indian officials, leans heavily towards the interests of exporting countries rather than importers. The treaty, the first ever intended to limit illicit arms trade was passed with 154 votes in favor, 3 against and 23 abstentions. Other countries joining India in abstaining were China, Saudi Arabia, Russia among others.

In its explanation of vote, the lead negotiator, Sujata Mehta said, "The draft treaty that is annexed to the resolution is weak on terrorism and non-state actors and these concerns find no mention in the specific prohibitions of the treaty. Further, India cannot accept that the treaty be used as an instrument in the hands of exporting states to take unilateral force majeure measures against importing states parties without consequences. The relevant provisions in the final text do not meet our requirements."

During the negotiations, surprisingly, none of India's concerns were taken on board by the seven co-authors of the treaty. India wanted the treaty to regulate arms transfers to non-state actors like terrorist groups. New Delhi focus was on terror groups that target India or even internal insurgent groups like the Maoists but this was shot down. Countries like the US and the UK who supply arms to opposition groups such as in Syria and Libya wanted to retain the flexibility to continue to do so. Terrorist groups do find mention, but only in the non-binding preamble, not in the main body.

Mehta said the Indian government "will undertake a full and thorough assessment of the ATT from the perspective of our defence, security and foreign policy interests".
Another URL
UNGA passes Arms Treaty
UNITED NATIONS: The UN General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the first UN treaty regulating the multibillion-dollar international arms trade on Tuesday, a goal sought for over a decade to try to keep illicit weapons out of the hands of terrorists, insurgent fighters and organized crime.

The resolution adopting the landmark treaty was approved by a vote of 154 to 3 with 23 abstentions. As the numbers appeared on the electronic board, loud cheers filled the assembly chamber.

A group of treaty supporters sought a vote in the 193-member world body after Iran, North Korea and Syria blocked its adoption by consensus at the end of a two-week final negotiating conference last Thursday. The three countries voted "no" on Tuesday's resolution while Russia and China, both major arms exporters, abstained.

Many countries, including the United States, control arms exports. But there has never been an international treaty regulating the estimated $60 billion global arms trade.

Australian ambassador Peter Woolcott, who chaired the negotiations, said the treaty will "make an important difference by reducing human suffering and saving lives."

"We owe it to those millions — often the most vulnerable in society — whose lives have been overshadowed by the irresponsible and illicit international trade in arms," he told the assembly just before the vote.

The treaty will not control the domestic use of weapons in any country, but it will require countries that ratify it to establish national regulations to control the transfer of conventional arms, parts and components and to regulate arms brokers.

It covers battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons. A phrase stating that this list was"at a minimum" was dropped, according to diplomats, at the insistence of the United States. Supporters complained that this limited the treaty's scope.

The treaty prohibits states that ratify it from transferring conventional weapons if they violate arms embargoes or if they promote acts of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. It also prohibits the export of conventional arms if they could be used in attacks on civilians or civilian buildings such as schools and hospitals.

In considering whether to authorize the export of arms, the treaty says a country must evaluate whether the weapon would be used to violate international human rights or humanitarian laws or be used by terrorists or organized crime. They must also determine whether the weapons transfer would contribute to or undermine peace and security.

The treaty also requires parties to the treaty to take measures to prevent the diversion of conventional weapons to the illicit market.

Ammunition was been a key issue in negotiations, with some countries pressing for the same controls on ammunition sales as arms, but the US and others opposed such tough restrictions.

The final text calls for each country that ratifies the treaty to establish regulations for the export of ammunition "fired, launched or delivered" by the weapons covered by the convention.
Sha
Nikhil T
BRFite
Posts: 1286
Joined: 09 Nov 2008 06:48
Location: RAW HQ, Lodhi Road

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Nikhil T »

The hypocrisy of U.S. and the Western world is sickening. When U.S. was against the treaty, they forced UN General Assembly to pass the treaty ONLY if there was a absolute consensus among all countries, effectively giving themselves a veto power. Now, when U.S. is pro-treaty, 8 year old rules were changed overnight to put the treaty to a simple vote in UNGA.

Today, the Australian Ambassador (the sponsor of the treaty) and his Western colleagues are thumping their chests, with a PR blitz of terms like 'victory of millions', 'making world a safer place' and 'reducing human suffering' blah blah, but everyone knows that the majority of the world was FOR the treaty even 8 years back, so these last 8 years were wasted only by U.S. and the West. And the reason is simple - for watering down the agreement to a point where it can be used as an ethical whipping stick according to their own Foreign Policy.

The NYTimes says this about the vote today:
The United States and many European countries say they already have arms sales guidelines in effect that tie sales to the human-rights records of the buyers and other issues included in the treaty.
Now, for uttering these ethical sermons, they surely must be smoking something good. Are the current multi-billion US and Western military sales to Saudi, Pak and entire Middle East including Syrial rebels 'humanitarian' compliant according to the statement above?

Anyway, this treaty will come into effect when 50 states ratify it - which will be as soon as end of this year according to NYTimes and others. India should be very clear about the fact that even if imports to us are allowed, it CAN and WILL BE easily turned off in case of a war that West doesn't agree with. And with this treaty, even Russian/Israel or other friendly powers won't be able to help.

Effectively, as the biggest arms importer, India has been slapped with military sanctions today - just that the date of enforcement hasn't been decided. Its time to develop our indigenous capabilities.
member_20011
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by member_20011 »

Effectively, as the biggest arms importer, India has been slapped with military sanctions today - just that the date of enforcement hasn't been decided.
May be , just may be it force us to go for Pokharan 3.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by svinayak »

Nikhil T wrote:

Anyway, this treaty will come into effect when 50 states ratify it - which will be as soon as end of this year according to NYTimes and others. India should be very clear about the fact that even if imports to us are allowed, it CAN and WILL BE easily turned off in case of a war that West doesn't agree with. And with this treaty, even Russian/Israel or other friendly powers won't be able to help.

Effectively, as the biggest arms importer, India has been slapped with military sanctions today - just that the date of enforcement hasn't been decided. Its time to develop our indigenous capabilities.
It is not going to be simple. India has to work on making gvts illegal which are run by military. Those countries should not be given mil grants and arms. Military grants and arms to countries promoting terrorism will be restricted.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by NRao »

I see this as a boon!!!!

Outside of AC engines, transports and subs, India should be able to build her own stuff. Granted it will take time, but, not that long.
pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1671
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by pentaiah »

India can build everything if only there is will.

If you can build a howtzer barrel you can build a tank turret, you can build a naval gun.
If you can weld high pressure vessels to contain corrosive fluids ou can build sub hulls
if you can build steam generators and heat exchanges you can build Sub propulsions
if you can build a CM you can build a tarpedo and vice versa

If you can build earth moving heav duty vehicles you can build tracked vehicles
If you can build strap on rocket motors you can build MBRLs
If you can

You will
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by NRao »

^^^^^

Agree.

Would like to add two more things to "will". Crabbing and corruption.
sourab_c
BRFite
Posts: 187
Joined: 14 Feb 2009 18:07
Location: around

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by sourab_c »

The real question is, who is going to enforce these treaties and how?
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by member_22539 »

^^The best thing to happen to indigenous arms industry ever.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Singha »

ITAR will be selectively enforced against the have-nots based on the needs of the khan.
I feel its more a way to sell arms but do intrusive monitoring of end users and gain insights into how they operate, develop contacts
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by NRao »

3/27/13 :: Russian officials deny Chinese deal on Su-35s, submarines
Russian defence officials have denied reports over the weekend of 23-24 March by China's Central Television (CCTV) of a major arms deal between the two countries.

According to CCTV, Beijing and Moscow signed two major arms export contracts during President Xi Jinping's first foreign visit as the Chinese Communist Party chief and titular head of state.

CCTV and others reported that the deals signed were for "24 Sukhoi Su-35 fighters and four Lada-class submarines" and heralded the development as "the first major weapons sale in 10 years between the two nations".

On 25 March the press office for the Russian Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation (FSVTS) responded by stating that "no agreements on the delivery of either Russian weapon systems or military technology to China were signed. Questions on the issue of military technology between Russia and China during the visit of People's Republic of China [PRC] Chairman Xi Jinping to Moscow were not even raised," said a FSVTS spokesman.

CCTV coverage stated that there had been additional agreements on Russian and Chinese co-operation for the Almaz-Antei S-400 air defence system, the Saturn/Lyulka 117S jet engine, and the Ilyushin Il-476 airlifter and Il-78 aerial tanker aircraft.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Singha »

Nice good cop bad cop routine they have going there.
After a while we will see the miraculous cloning of su35 in china over vehement rus denials of any deal.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by NRao »

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by TSJones »

Apparently, we're pretty darn serious about this:

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2013/04 ... -asteroid/

I think we've lost our freaking minds. What if we overshoot the lunar orbit and hit earth? That's gotta hurt!

Oh well, the NoKo's are probably gonna nuke us before any that happens. :|
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by SaiK »

jee.. if the sole super power with all the super duper facilities needs to fear about noko nukes, then think about the poor countries in the neighborhood.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Austin »

US Needs 5-7 GBIs to Intercept One Topol ICBM
MOSCOW, April 2 (RIA Novosti) – The United States will need between five and seven Ground Based Interceptors (GBI) to intercept one Russian Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile, a Russian military expert said on Tuesday.

“From my contacts with the director of the [US Department of Defense’s] Missile Defense Agency, I have learned that the Americans will need five to seven interceptors to engage one Topol-M missile,” retired Col. Gen. Viktor Yesin, former chief of staff at Russia’s Strategic Missile Forces (1994-1996), told a news conference hosted by RIA Novosti.

He did not elaborate on the nature of his contacts with the MDA head or when he had received the information.

The US has deployed 30 GBIs, Yesin said – “26 in Alaska and four in California,” adding that the effectiveness of the US countermissiles is “somewhat limited.”

He also said missile defense negotiations with the United States will produce no positive results, and that development in that area will continue.
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by member_22539 »

^Any other source for such news other than the Russians?
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Austin »

The source is his recent interview to Ria Novosti , all other source will quote ria
http://ria.ru/defense_safety/20130402/930568958.html

http://missilethreat.com/us-needs-5-7-g ... le-expert/
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Austin »

New START Treaty Aggregate Numbers of Strategic Offensive Arms

http://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/207020.htm
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Austin »

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2982
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by VinodTK »

Navy's New Laser Weapon Blasts Bad Guys From Air, Sea
:
:
:
:
:
A Navy video of testing conducted last summer off the coast of California shows how a laser beam fired from a Navy destroyer was able to set aflame an approaching UAV or drone, sending it crashing into the ocean.

"There was not a single miss" during the testing, said Rear Admiral Matthew Klunder, chief of Naval Research. The laser was three for three in bringing down an approaching unmanned aerial vehicle and 12 for 12 when previous tests are factored in.

But don't expect in that video to see the firing of colored laser bursts that Hollywood has used for its futuristic laser guns. The Navy's laser ray is not visible to the naked eye because it is in the infrared spectrum.

Many of the details about how the laser works remain secret, such as how far its beam can travel, how powerful it is or how much power is used to generate it.

But Navy officials have provided a few unclassified details. For example, the laser is designed to be a "plug and play" system that integrates into a ship's existing targeting technologies and power grids. Those factors make it a surprisingly cheap weapon.

Klunder says each pulse of energy from the laser "costs under a dollar" and it can be used against weapons systems that are significantly more expensive. The Navy says it has spent about $40 million over the past six years in developing the weapon.
:
:
:
Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21233
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Prem »

So Russia Has an Upgraded Flamethrower Tank Now
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04 ... ower-tank/
When you absolutely, positively have to destroy everything within 300 square meters, leave it to Russia to roll out an upgraded flamethrower tank during recent military exercises.In late March, a battalion of Moscow’s Radiation, Chemical, and Biological Defense Troops stormed a simulated enemy position in eastern Russia — armed with upgraded shoulder-fired and vehicle-launched thermobaric weapons. In a video from news agency RIA Novosti, shown above, the launchers are seen hurling 24 220-millimeter unguided thermobaric rockets at a time.Just before reaching their targets, the rockets released a mixture of combustible gas. Within seconds, the gas is ignited, and “all living things within 300 square meters are destroyed by high pressure and temperature,” RIA Novosti observed.In addition to the Burning Sun, Russian chemical troops can be seen firing RPO-A “Schmel-M” (or Bumblebee-M) shoulder-fired thermobaric rockets — though obviously much smaller at a mere 90-millimeters than the vehicle-mounted launcher. Also an upgrade, these rockets are about six years old and have a maximum range of 1,700 meters compared to the standard Bumblebee’s 1,000 meters. Oh, and it’s nicknamed the “Satan-tube.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... -7ZtZSyAfk
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Austin »

NASA Images May Show 1970s Soviet Mars Lander

Image
Image
WASHINGTON, April 12 (RIA Novosti) – A group of Russian space followers think they have spotted the remnants of a Soviet spacecraft that made the first successful soft landing on Mars more than 40 years ago in an image from 2007 taken by NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter.

“While following news about Mars and NASA’s Curiosity rover, Russian citizen enthusiasts found four features in a 5-year-old image from Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter that resemble four pieces of hardware from the Soviet Mars 3 mission: the parachute, heat shield, terminal retrorocket and lander,” NASA said in a statement.

The Soviet space program’s Mars 3 mission made a soft landing on the Red Planet on December 2, 1971 and sent data back to earth for 14.5 seconds before the transmissions stopped abruptly.

When Russian space aficionado Vitali Egorov saw an image taken by NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter of the crater where Mars 3 was believed to have landed, he made models of what key pieces of the Soviet spacecraft would have looked like and got members of an online community that follows NASA’s Curiosity rover to look for objects in the image that matched his models.

The group identified four specks in the bottom part of the image from the MRO that they thought might be Mars 3’s heat shield, parachute, retrorocket and lander.

Alfred McEwen, the principal investigator of the University of Arizona’s High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) for NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, was asked to analyze a follow-up image of Mars 3’s landing site, and said the objects identified by the Russian sleuths could be the real thing.

“The parachute, which is seen as an especially bright spot, was the most distinctive and unusual feature in the images,” McEwen told RIA Novosti.

“Overall, the way the images look and their layout on the ground – everything makes sense as belonging to Mars 3,” McEwen said.

But the US scientist said he was still on the fence and wanted to follow up the Russian citizens’ investigation to see if we can “definitively resolve that this is Mars 3.”

Earlier suspected finds of spacecraft remnants on Mars were found by HiRISE to be “energetic particle hits that make ‘noise’ in the image,” McEwen said.

Egorov was quoted by NASA as saying that the Russian citizens’ project showed that “Mars exploration today is available to practically anyone” and that their detective work allowed them to “connect with the history of our country.”
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by TSJones »

^^^^^ “Mars exploration today is available to practically anyone”

Well yeah, as long as the US makes it so. Hopefully India will be adding to the Mars quotient with it's up coming mission. Keeping my fingers crossed because Mars is one tough muthaf***er. You gotta have persistence and determination. You can't get easily discouraged. When India pulls this off, it's gonna raise some eyebrows. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. That sorta thing......
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Austin »

I agree no one has been as successful in interplanetary mission then NASA did and its their good will that others too get benefited from MARS mission

Looks like Nuclear Propulsion would be required for Deep Space mission

Russia to create spacecraft for interplanetary flights - head of the Federal Space Agency Popovkin
According to him, “The engineering design of the Energia Rocket and Space Corporation has already been completed. The full-scale engineering development and the creation of experimental units will be started soon. The timeframe has not changed: in 2018, the first flight of a new unmanned spacecraft is to take place. But it will be a principally new ship ready for interplanetary flights.”

However, the new manned spacecraft in itself is not a solution. “It is necessary to develop... a prospective manned transportation system, which includes both a heavy carrier rocket and various manned systems,” Popovkin is certain.

He also said that “the gradual modification of the Soyuz manned spacecraft is currently underway.” “We have made the digital control system, modernised the rendezvous system. The life support system and propulsion system are to be next.”

With taking into account the possible interplanetary Russia is for the first time creating a “compact nuclear power plant with a capacity of 1000 kW with electric-jet propulsion system engines.” “This is a megawatt-class unit. Its development opens up principally new opportunities in space, makes it possible to take a new look on the use of geostationary orbits,” the head of the Russian Federal Space Agency explained. “By comparison, the solar arrays of the International Space Station (ISS) generate about 100 kW. But the station is on a near-Earth orbit. And a flight to Mars, for example, would require an area of solar arrays comparable to a dozen football fields!”

According to Popovkin, “It is possible that the engines will run on pure xenon, heated to very high temperatures. And this will make it possible to get the propellant specific impulse 20 times higher than in the chemical engines. The most important for us is the way the module with such energy can be used: in inter-orbital tugs, multifunctional platforms and spacecraft for interplanetary missions. There are no such analogues in the world.”

But there are two problems: “What the reactor itself and its cooling system should be like. A unique cooling system is based on the drop method, which we have theoretically confirmed on Earth. I think that next year we will conduct such an experiment on the ISS to show that it works also in outer space.”

“We plan to make a prototype model of the nuclear propulsion system with the capacity of some 250 kW by 2018,” Popovkin promised.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Austin »

Moon offers absolutely new possibilities for research: Roskosmos head
According to Popovkin, “nobody is going to repeat the flight of US Apollo 11 and Russian Luna-16 and Luna-17”. “Those flights were not scientific, but political - who will be the first to step onto the Moon, who will be the first to bring a stone from the Moon. And programs were designed proceeding from that,” he said.

“Now, science knows much more about the Moon. We used to think there is no water there. It turned out that there is water in polar areas, and quite a lot - in form of ice. And water means life, energy store,” the Roskosmos head said. { Also Chandrayan findings of water on moon )

He also said that at the end of 2015 or early in 2016 Russia is going to launch space vehicle Luna-Glob and train the landing in the polar area of the Moon. This will be followed by a major scientific program Luna-Resurs consisting of several stages, including research from the Moon’s orbit { orbiter will be Chandrayan-2 }, as well as a major scientific complex with the task to land it on the Moon it, he said. “There will be also Moon-research vehicles. Work is underway to design equipment for sample retrieving, and not just from the surface but from a depth of two meters,” he added. “Besides, it must be designed ‘temperature resistant’ so that water elements of steam and ice don’t evaporate before we retrieve samples,” he said. “And finally all that has been retrieved must be brought back to Earth. This is an immediate task,” he added.

“A major problem is that it may happen so that the first who makes himself at home on the Moon will be the one to privatize it,” he added. “We are equally interested with Americans,” Popovkin admitted. “As a first step we would like to preserve all that exists on the Moon at the moment. Armstrong’s footprint, a Soviet Moon-research vehicle, remains of Luna-16. There is also our pennant lying somewhere there,” he added. “This is of course international jurisdiction, which must be updated. And such work is underway at UN’s Legal Subcommittee,” Popovkin reported.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Austin »

US Missile Shield No Threat to Russia - Deputy PM

LONDON, April 16 (RIA Novosti) - Russia’s strategic forces are capable of penetrating the US missile shield and it poses no military threat to the country, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said on Tuesday.

“We have solved the issue of penetrating the missile shield. We regret that the United States waste their money on missile defense and compel us to do the same. The missile shield is nothing for us, it’s a bluff. It poses no military threat, but remains a political and economic problem,” Rogozin said during his speech at the Russian embassy in London.He said that most of Russia’s criticism is caused by the fact that the planned missile shield is “provocative” and “excessive by nature” and thus forces other countries to boost their strategic defenses.

The deputy prime minister, who oversees Russia’s defense industry, said that Russia was “compelled to search for a wise and asymmetric response.”

“We are carrying out a rearmament program until 2020, it would enable us to renew the hundred percent of our strategic forces. It will be done within the framework of international commitments,” the vice premier said.

Rogozin added that because of missile defense issues, countries have to divert attention and funding from other important needs, such as the asteroid threat.

“We have recently witnessed the [meteorite] event in Chelyabinsk. No one can say whether more such incidents will follow, whether we are guaranteed against meteorite strikes. Scientists are baffled by how billions that are being spent on missile shield… while a space threat to the whole humanity is being ignored,” he said.

He said that Russia seeks international cooperation in creating a global system to monitor and exchange information on potentially dangerous space objects.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Austin »

NASA Funds Research into Fusion Powered Rocket for Deep Space Travel
NASA estimates a round-trip human expedition to Mars would take more than four years using current technology. The sheer amount of chemical rocket fuel needed in space would be extremely expensive—the launch costs alone would be more than $12 billion.

Slough and his team have published papers calculating the potential for 30- and 90-day expeditions to Mars using a rocket powered by fusion, which would make the trip more practical and less costly.

Is this really feasible?

Slough and his colleagues at MSNW think so. They have demonstrated successful lab tests of all portions of the process. Now, the key will be combining each isolated test into a final experiment that produces fusion using this technology, Slough says.

The research team has developed a type of plasma that is encased in its own magnetic field. Nuclear fusion occurs when this plasma is compressed to high pressure with a magnetic field. The team has successfully tested this technique in the lab.

Only a small amount of fusion is needed to power a rocket – a small grain of sand of this material has the same energy content as one gallon of rocket fuel.

To power a rocket, the team has devised a system in which a powerful magnetic field causes large metal rings to implode around this plasma, compressing it to a fusion state. The converging rings merge to form a shell that ignites the fusion, but only for a few microseconds.

Even though the compression time is very short, enough energy is released from the fusion reactions to quickly heat and ionize the shell. This super-heated, ionized metal is ejected out of the rocket nozzle at a high velocity. This process is repeated every minute or so, propelling the spacecraft.
joygoswami
BRFite
Posts: 523
Joined: 11 May 2010 19:08
Location: Destination Moon For 5yrs with Zaid Hamid

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by joygoswami »

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

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Austin »

Typhoon-K Class Light Universal Vehical

http://twower.livejournal.com/1024786.html

Video http://youtu.be/e5W2iPcbZ14
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by Austin »

45 mice, eight Mongolian gerbils, 15 geckos and one Dove in orbit today

Bion-M program (use translator ) http://www.roscosmos.ru/main.php?id=400
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by NRao »

US finalizing $10 billion sale of weapons, warplanes to Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE
The officials said the United States will sell to Israel an undisclosed number of KC-135 aerial refueling planes and V-22 Osprey aircraft, the tilt-rotor hybrid that can take off and land like a helicopter and then fly like an airplane, as well as precision-guided missiles and advanced radar for Israeli fighter aircraft. It would be the first sale of the V-22 to a foreign nation.
The United Arab Emirates would purchase 26 F-16 warplanes under the deal, as well as advanced air-launched missiles. Three Pentagon officials who briefed reporters on the arrangement Friday said the UAE segment of the deal is valued at $4 billion to $5 billion. They did not specify the value of the sales to Israel and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are expected to buy advanced air-launched missiles.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by NRao »

Shiv,

This one is for you:

45 min of HD stuff:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFwqZ4qAUkE
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Post by NRao »

!!!!!!

Russia ready to negotiate with India on MiG-35 fighters
Russia is keen that India buys its MiG-35 fighter aircraft, a top Russian official said.

The Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG (RAC MiG) has proposed to India to consider the possibility of concluding a contract on the supply of the MiG-35 multipurpose fighter jet, RAC MiG Director General Sergei Korotkov told Itar-Tass in an interview.


"Despite the fact that we lost the tender for the supply of 126 multipurpose fighters to the Indian Air Force, the RAC MiG fulfilled all the requirements set the tender committee," Korotkov said. "The aircraft has demonstrated good results, sometimes even exceeding expectations."

According to him, the corporation hopes that "India will consider the possibility of concluding a contract on the supply of the MiG-35 fighters."


"And we will have the opportunity to implement it," he said. "Within this bundle of knowledge that India received during this tender, I would like the MiG-35 issue to be continued against the background of our common history and 50 years of partnership."

According to preliminary information, the winner of the tender for the supply of fighter aircraft to the Indian Air Force was the French Dassault Rafale. However, neither party has announced the official timeframe of the contract conclusion.

"This year the next batch of four aircraft will be delivered," said the head of the MiG Aircraft Corporation.

He also took part in the celebrations to mark the 50th anniversary of the start of the Soviet MiG-21 fighters' deliveries to the Indian Air Force.

The agreement on the supply of the MiG-21 planes to India was signed in 1962, and the deliveries began a year later. In 1967, the Indian company Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) handed over to the Indian Air Force the first MiG-21 fighter that was built here under the USSR license.
Post Reply