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 »

US did the same thing after 9/11 and the OIF/Afghan wars started. CIA + SEALS + Delta force work in teams now. I think Gen McChrystal was instrumental in pushing through this new mode of working for more timely closed loop, all signoff players at same table intel analysis and direct action. before ISAF commander he was JSOC commander for 5 yrs.

in our context perhaps RR + CRPF + state police SOG + IB + state police CID co-operating closely in a daily scrum in COIN ops would be a close analogue if it were to happen.
saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4231
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by saip »

Just watching 60 minutes and the F 22. This super duper fighter costing a cool 150 mil seems to have big problems. Not only it was never used in combat but fully 18% have suffered from hypoxia at one time or the other. It was grounded once and even though it is flying it is only on training missions. Did they not deploy this fighter recently to middle east? Looks like the US airforce is not able solve the problem inspite of spending a lot of resources.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Singha »

oxygen issue will be fixed. but nothing can save a product from imperfect requirements capture or the 'market' itself shifting away from the niche the product was designed for. more specialized the product more the risk of market transitions affecting . eg a good computer will take any SW and remain relevant. a hardcode ASIC based music player that only plays Qawalis will have no demand if people dont like qawalis sometime later.

its not feasible to fix the kind of bulky 2000lb GBU and CBU munitions that get the job done within its slim internal bay. SDB hype is there but not useful for area targets and large structures. hence it will need to carry such bombs and missiles externally as the teens do, which kills its RCS VLO and affects its aerodynamic figures . I suspect the wings are also not strong enough to carry the kind of payloads the Teens do, being designed for a clean internals only config.

so as a product its a evolutionary dead end. they will find some use for it to keep it funded and in service but major changes or updates will no longer be on cards. instead funds will go with JSF and UCAVs

by the time PLAAF gets stealth fighters into squadron service, the F22 will likely have retired out.
D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by D Roy »

costing a cool 150 mil seems
It actually costs a not so cool 400 million now.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05 ... ts-mutiny/

the latest programmatic unit cost of the F-35 is 161 million and even that may rise.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by NRao »

Very, very interesting.

India needs to support this development.

In fact, India needs to lease Socotra from Yemen (keep it pristine too) and get some boots in Berbera and Aden (a place that India developed for the British).
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

No further cuts as UK balances 10-year defence budget
The UK will be able to meet its military spending priorities for the next 10 years without having to make additional cuts to its personnel or equipment profiles, defence secretary Philip Hammond announced on 14 May.

Marking the completion of a delayed planning round process for 2012, Hammond's statement confirmed that the Ministry of Defence's long-term funding has been brought into balance, with £152 billion ($245 billion) to be available over the next decade, plus an un-allocated contingency of £8 billion. The department's actions of the last 18 months have removed a previously-identified shortfall of £38 billion. "The black hole in the defence budget has finally been eliminated," Hammond says.

All major aircraft programmes remain in place. These include the Eurofighter Typhoon, Lockheed Martin F-35, Airbus Military A400M and A330 Voyager tanker/transport, plus investments in rotorcraft and complex weapons.

"We will not commit to any programme without a 10-year budget line," Hammond says, describing the stance as representing a model of new financial discipline. "This department has seen its reputation tarnished in the past," he says. "I am determined for it to turn a new leaf."

"Although transformation is an important process, the result must be about delivering capability," says Gen Sir David Richards, Chief of the Defence Staff. "We are now in a position to build."

Hammond's announcement follows a change of direction for the UK's future purchase of the F-35, which he confirmed on 10 May. This will see the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm operate the fifth-generation type in its short take-off and vertical landing guise, rather than the C-model carrier variant. All three armed service chiefs agreed to the switch, which should allow the navy to bring both of its Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers into service from early in the next decade.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Singha »

tough problem here:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Facing a mysterious safety problem with the Air Force's most-prized stealth fighter, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta on Tuesday ordered new flight restrictions on the F-22 and summoned help from Navy and NASA experts.

Panetta endorsed Air Force efforts to figure out why some F-22 pilots have experienced dizziness and other symptoms of an oxygen shortage while flying, but his personal intervention signaled a new urgency. A secretary of defense does not normally get involved in a service-specific safety issue unless it is of great concern.

The Air Force grounded its F-22s for four months last year because of the oxygen-deficit problem, and now some pilots are refusing to fly them. An Air Force advisory panel headed by a retired Air Force general studied the problem for seven months and reported in March that it could not pinpoint the root cause. It endorsed a plan keeping the aircraft flying, however, with pilots using special sensors, filters and other safety precautions.

Panetta was briefed on the problem last Friday, just days after a CBS "60 Minutes" report featured two F-22 pilots who said that during some flights they and other pilots have experienced oxygen deprivation, disorientation and other problems. They cited safety concerns as well as the potential for long-term personal health issues.

Asked why Panetta was acting now, Navy Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, said the defense chief has been aware of the F-22 problem "for quite some time." In light of the recent deployment of several F-22s to the Persian Gulf and because of pilots' expressions of alarm, Panetta chose to "dive a little more deeply into the issue."

In a letter to Air Force Secretary Michael Donley, Panetta ordered that F-22 flights remain "within proximity of potential landing locations" so that pilots can land quickly in the event they experience an oxygen-deficit problem. Kirby said the specifics of those flight restrictions are to be set by individual F-22 pilots and commanders.

Panetta also told Donley to accelerate the installation of an automatic backup oxygen system in each F-22. The first of those is to be ready for use by December, Kirby said.

And the Pentagon chief ordered the Air Force to call on the expertise of the Navy and NASA in pursuit of a solution.

Panetta's actions have no immediate effect on U.S. combat operations, since the F-22 is not in Afghanistan. But Panetta said the plane would give up long-distance air patrol missions in Alaska until the planes have an automatic backup oxygen system installed or until Panetta agrees the F-22 can resume those flights. Other aircraft will perform those missions in the meantime.

Panetta's chief spokesman, George Little, told reporters that Panetta supports the Air Force's efforts to get to the bottom of the problem.
"However, the safety of our pilots remains his first and foremost concern," Little said.

Little did not rule out Panetta taking additional measures. Asked whether Panetta considered grounding the fleet again, Little said Tuesday's less drastic moves are "the prudent course of action at this time," adding that Panetta will keep a close eye on the situation, "and all options remain on the table going forward."

In a conference call with reporters, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., and Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., said they were briefed by the Air Force and told that the number of pilots who came forward with complaints has risen from two to nine. Warner called Panetta's action a "step in the right direction" but said questions still remain.

"This is a confidence issue that has to be addressed fully and transparently by the Air Force," Warner said.
The F-22 Raptor, which has never flown in combat, recently deployed to the United Arab Emirates for what the Pentagon called routine partnering with a Middle East ally. Little, the spokesman, told reporters that Panetta's order to impose new flight restrictions would not affect flight operations during the UAE deployment.

The plane, conceived during the Cold War as a leap-ahead technology that could penetrate the most advanced air defenses, is seen by some as an overly expensive luxury not critical to fighting current conflicts. The fleet of 187 F-22s — the last of which was fielded just two weeks ago — cost an average of $190 million each.

Panetta's predecessor as Pentagon chief, Robert Gates, persuaded Congress to cap production of the F-22 earlier than originally planned. He saw it as primarily of use against a "near-peer" military competitor like China, noting that the plane did not fly a single combat mission during a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

With its stealth design, the F-22 is built to evade radar and has advanced engines that allow it to fly at faster-than-sound speeds without using afterburners. Its manufacturer, Lockheed Martin Corp., describes the plane as "the only fighter capable of simultaneously conducting air-to-air and air-to-ground combat missions with near impunity."

The fleet of 170 F-22s is stationed at six U.S. bases: Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska: Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii; Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Va.; Nellis Air Force Base, Nev.; Holloman Air Force Base, N.M.; and Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla.
F-22 pilots are trained at Tyndall. Flight testing is at Edwards Air force Base, Calif., and operational testing and tactics development is performed at Nellis.
___
Associated Press writer Donna Cassata contributed to this report.
gakakkad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4667
Joined: 24 May 2011 08:16

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by gakakkad »

great...khanate spent a trillion of craptor...now no ones wants to fly em... if jsf fails too ,(which I seriously hope it does) ,it might be the end of the amreeki dominance in mil aviation...
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Singha »

in american lingo partner = gubo , so they need to redefine partner to the dictionary sense of the word.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Singha »

the helmet looks like something out of hellboy proto-nazi gear with hellboys stub horns added .http://focusfeatures.com/uploads/image/ ... ea/950.jpg
unless the helmet works, the JSF "flying wine barrel-MKI" vision of avoiding turning combat, but blowing straight at high speed, releasing high off-boresight missile shots is unworkable with a more normal HUD.

and before a JSF groupie beats me up, let me post the "manouverability is irrelevant" claim
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... verab.html


http://aviationintel.com/2011/08/03/f-3 ... er-at-all/
The F-35s Distributive Aperture System (DAS) is amongst it’s strongest attributes. It makes sense that it could cue High-Off-Bore-Sight (HOBS) missiles to their targets via data-link, without the launching aircraft needing to turn almost at all. In other words, at the merge, when traditionally fighter pilots begin employing aggressive maneuvering tactics in order to put the enemy into a defensive position, ending in a succesful weapons employment solution, the F-35 would simply fire it’s HOBS short-range missile while accelerating away from the fight. The missile would make close to and 180′ turn toward the enemy while they are in a vulnerable, energy depleting turn. In theory the enemy would be either destroyed by the missile or they would lose larger amounts of energy trying to defeat it while the F-35 has accelerated out of the within visual range fight.

As I have talked about before, aerial beyond visual range targeting in a net centric battlefield will be provided increasingly by remote sensors such as AWACS, ship based radar and via other tactical aircraft, so it would make sense that DAS could utilize the F-35′s advanced data-link to direct properly equipped short-range missiles as well. The AIM-9X Block II looks to be that exact missile for the job. Now in the late stages of testing, the AIM-9X Block II will feature lock-on-after-launch capability and a data link receiver which are both needed to take advantage of the F-35′s DAS system and tactics as described above.

That being said this is even a larger argument for my continued support of a stealth, supercruising regional attack/interceptor aircraft. Why make a fighter sized aircraft at all when you can have much greater range, speeed, and weapons carriage capability with a larger fighter-bomber sized airframe while still being able to protect yourself within visual range??? The DAS system is not unique to the F-35, a similar system can be integrated into any airframe. So why is the USAF spending hundreds of billions of dollars on an aircraft that is a fighter but does not need to be a fighter??

This also makes a strong case for the F-22 to receive a DAS or upgrade its advanced missile warning system to provide the same capability. I think we are going to be getting into the realm of “imagine the F-22 with the F-35s avionics” pretty soon here. What we need is just that, a stretched regional attack FB-22 with much greater fuel and munitions payload and the avionics system of an F-35. The number one thing Raptor pilots wish for is more missiles, I say we give it to them. If the J-20 goes into production and is sold around the globe, this may not just be logical but totally necessary. The problem is the JSF eats up so much of the USAF budget for the next 30 years that this may be impossible. You can see my alternative plan to the JSF here: http://aviationintel.com/?p=1185, its amazing what we could buy while still saving money if we used the JSF as a research and development program, taking its avionics suite and integrating it into more affordable or more capable aircraft in the future.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Singha »

What we need is just that, a stretched regional attack FB-22 with much greater fuel and munitions payload and the avionics system of an F-35. The number one thing Raptor pilots wish for is more missiles, I say we give it to them.

and that might just be the PAKFA :mrgreen: though it will feature TVC and turn with the raptor as well :twisted:

20 years later than raptor, but the most formidable foe of all is "imperfect requirements definition" - :lol: - no amt of inspired engineering can defeat that one.
anand_sankar
BRFite
Posts: 162
Joined: 09 Jan 2009 19:24

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by anand_sankar »

The USAF with the F-22 seems to have stumbled into an area of aeromedicine where there is precious little data to work with. The problem seems to be in altitudes above 44,000 ft, where the Raptor with its engines have an unparalled advantage but pilot life support systems are having difficulties. An interesting debate and investigation is underway, I'm sure being watched closely by us, the Russians and the Chinese, as our new aircraft will break this barrier too.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... se-373144/

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... es-372642/
D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by D Roy »

He He.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/ind ... ef=wl_home
BANGALORE, JUNE 19:
The Defence Research & Development Organisation (DRDO) plans to inaugurate a new facility of the Defence Bioengineering & Electromedical Laboratory (DEBEL) on Wednesday.

A release from the organisation said that DEBEL is a life sciences laboratory of the DRDO that carries out research and development in the areas of aero-medical equipment, human engineering related to aviation, biomedical engineering and life support systems for the armed forces.

DEBEL is currently engaged in the development of integrated life support systems for new generation aircraft like LCA and technical textiles specifically targeted for military applications.
VishalJ
BRFite
Posts: 1034
Joined: 12 Feb 2009 06:40
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by VishalJ »

Lockheed, Boeing and Eurofighter place formal bids for Seoul’s F-X III requirement
Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and the Eurofighter consortium have presented formal bidding documents to South Korea for the 60 aircraft F-X III competition.

The receipt of the formal bids was announced by Seoul's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) on its website. It expects to make a decision by October.

The presentation was largely a formality, as the three companies have already mounted extensive campaigns for the requirement.
Lockheed Martin is pitching its F-35A, Boeing the F-15 Silent Eagle, and the Eurofighter Consortium the Typhoon.

Notably absent is Sukhoi.
Seoul had invited the Russian manufacturer to pitch its developmental PAK FA (designated the T-50).
In January, South Korean media reports said Sukhoi did not attend a meeting at DAPA where contenders received the request for proposal (RFP) for the competition.

The reports had also suggested that Swedish aircraft maker Saab had attended the RFP meeting, but it appears the company is not bidding its JAS39 Gripen.


According to Seoul's Yonhap news agency, the aircraft will be judged by four primary criteria and 150 secondary criteria.
The four main criteria are cost, capability, inter-operability with South Korean forces and industrial benefits.
Seoul is likely to require the F-X III winner to provide significant help with its indigenous KFX fighter programme.
Mihir
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 884
Joined: 14 Nov 2004 21:26

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Mihir »

Army scraps eye-catching pixel camo uniforms
After eight years and a reported $5 billion in development, the U.S. Army is ditching its pixelated-looking uniform in favor of something that doesn't look like it was borrowed from the "Contra" Nintendo game :mrgreen:. The design, known as the Universal Camouflage Pattern (UCP), has failed at doing what camo should do: Hide our soldiers. "If we can see our own guys across a distance because of it, then so can our enemy," one Army specialist said. According to insiders, the design was selected after the Marines had switched to an eye-catching pixel-driven pattern. "That's what this really comes down to," the editor of Soldier Systems Daily said. "'We can't allow the Marine Corps to look more cool than the Army.'"
On a related note: The Army's uniform is closely modelled on the Marine pattern, which they could not use because the Marines patented it. Why? Because it was a part of the Marines' unique identity, which they didn't want the Army stealing, etc. etc. At that time, a marine spokesman said, “We want to be instantly recognized as a force to be reckoned with. We want them to see us coming a mile away in our new uniforms”. True story.
vina
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6046
Joined: 11 May 2005 06:56
Location: Doing Nijikaran, Udharikaran and Baazarikaran to Commies and Assorted Leftists

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by vina »

Researchers use spoofing to hack into a flying drone
Encrypted GPS hacked and used to take control of a drone ! :-?
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Singha »

perhaps that is what Iran used to bring down the US drone...thats what they claimed.
nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 9102
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by nachiket »

A comment from the JSF article that Singha linked
Why do I have a sinking feeling that the sales-pitch from Lockheed consisted of showing the Top Brass an advanced screening of Iron Man 2, with the salesdude finishing his pitch with a loud "Now THAT'S what we're talking about! YEAH! Bitchin', man!!!!!" while he pumps the air and hi-fives all the Generals 'n' Majors.



Didn't anyone think to show the Top Brass all those home-made videos where they stick a video cam on the helmet of a downhill skier or a Nascar driver, and quietly explain: "Guys, that's what real-life looks like when you go at high speed with a helmet stuck on your head".
:rotfl:
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by abhishek_sharma »

Two book lists

1 2
Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Victor »

Singha wrote:...alternative plan to the JSF here: http://aviationintel.com/?p=1185
Speculation on stealth drones is fine on paper for specialized combat niches but they cannot and will not take over the tasks of manned warplanes anytime soon. And relegating a large chunk of manned air forces to older airframes like the F-15/16/18 for the next two or three decades when the likes of the J-20 and T-50 are coming on stream is a complete non-starter with the US military and Congress.

Though still very potent, the F-15/16/18 are less prepared to survive air defence advances than even moderate 5th gen aircraft and are simply not the airplanes to carry a leading military into the 1st half of the 21st century. The F-22 is a hand built machine that cannot become what the US and its allies want--a manned, mass producible next-gen multirole warplane to form the common backbone of their air forces in the next 20-50 years. To force it to is to essentially redesign it from scratch. It's therefore not about economics and the F-35 will definitely happen sooner rather than later as they have absolutely no alternative to it. We need to focus on our own huge challenges in this regard.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Singha »

well the Teens need not be the tip of spear anymore. Day1 offensives against C3I and SAM nodes would be conducted with a mix of cruise missiles (multiple types like thawk,jassm) , a limited number of strike UCAVs with SDB, Growlers and the new MALD drone that apparently has range of 750km. throw in some hypersonic global strike weapons as well for shock and awe effects made for CNN. send in a few B1 to pound some camp with 80 JDAMs.

considering the US has no stomach to pick a fight with the PRC or TSP, the only other candidates look modest as in Iran, Syria types. even the Teens can defeat them but the above will reduce casualties to minimum while the air is made safe for the Teens and bombers to go in and start a long bombing campaign.

JSF is a kind of test case for manufacturability and opex of VLO aircraft. ..if it cannot be done on budget and with interchangeable parts, even after khan throwing the kitchen sink at it, its unlikely anyone else like EU, japan, soko, Rus will be able to - khan is rather good at the costly end of the manufacturing process.

Russia pragmatically does not seem to be even trying for such tolerances and uber-paranoid emission control and passive targeting and has come up with the PAKFA, whose tolerances , materials, capabilities and design is at a level which their industry can handle. and we are along for the ride.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by svinayak »

Check how military is used to expand economic growth in new region.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthre ... 48&page=31
Naval Convergence Theory?

Finally, Russian naval strategy, as manifested in its operations, pronouncements, and budgets, is becoming well aligned with Russian national-security strategy—perhaps as its principal military tool. This strategy, as noted earlier, seeks to enhance both national prosperity and Russia’s stature. Military power is aimed primarily at preventing war, but otherwise is considered another element of national power, used principally in support of Russia’s economic growth. This same message is repeated throughout our own guidelines, A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower . 15

While Russian and American strategies refer to regional warfighting capability in concert with allies, both nations’ military forces primarily exist to foster stability, trust, prosperity, and cooperation. Both strategies also acknowledge that, while sovereignty disputes and natural-resource competition may spark future conflict, each navy’s most likely principal challenges are terrorist networks, criminal elements, and natural disasters.

This logic could likewise underpin the argument for the relative importance of American naval power, enabling us to become an “offshore balancer” after we withdraw from ground wars in the Middle East and Central Asia. However, it almost certainly argues for major changes in the size, shape, and composition of the future Russian military, and particularly in its navy.

The historic Russian obsession with large standing armies of conscripts created an unaffordable military tool without a credible mission. Even the technologically sophisticated portions of the Russian military aimed at offensive operations against large nation-states have become problematic, and this leaves the need for a smaller, professional, military capable of defending Russian borders and combating domestic disruptions caused by terrorists and nationalist movements. It also calls for a military force whose principal role is to project the Russian image abroad and ensure the security of all Russian economic expansion. This is the strategic and ever-widening niche for the future Russian navy.

These trends may result in a rise back into the upper crust of the world’s navies. However, we are more likely to see Russian warships operating in multinational antipiracy patrols in the Gulf of Aden than trailing American carrier strike groups in the Pacific or the Mediterranean. These antipiracy patrols will increasingly be carried out by small, fast, stealthy multimission platforms. The very likely increased Russian presence in the Arctic Ocean will have more to do with global trade and oil security than it will with bastion defense of ballistic-missile submarines. Russian task groups in the Caribbean will be increasing Russia’s international stature as well as selling arms to Latin American nations, rather than threatening American military exercises. The U.S. task is to be able to discriminate those military activities required by an expanding economy from those that challenge vital U.S. interests as our national-security strategy moves into the second decade of the 21st century. The U.S. Navy’s maritime strategy just might have struck a resonant chord in Moscow.
jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5727
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by jamwal »

WARSIM Wobbles Into Action

After eight years of effort, and spending over $300 million, the U.S. Army has officially received its new wargame (WARSIM) for training battalion, brigade, division, and as big as you want to get, commanders, and their staffs. Now even the most elaborate commercial wargame would not get $300 million for development, and eight years to create the system. But wargames for professional soldiers have different requirements, and a troublesome Department of Defense bureaucracy to deal with. First, the requirements. Commercial wargames shield the player from all the boring stuff (support functions, especially logistics.) But professional wargames must deal with these support activities, because in a real war, these are the things commanders spend most of their time tending too. Sad, but true, and it?s why you have the ancient military quip, ?amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics.? Professionals also study personnel issues. A division commander will also know his half dozen combat and support brigade commanders very well, and the 15 or so battalion commanders well enough to know who is ready for a promotion to brigade commander, and who has to be supervised a little more carefully. Actually deciding where the combat units go, and when they attack or defend, takes up little of a commanders time, especially for higher level commands (divisions and larger.)
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

Iran's latest Great Prophet 7 exercise some videos



Iran has developed an anti-ship ballistic missile using the fateh 110 missile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mQ8_xaPYSI
SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5778
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by SBajwa »

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5778
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by SBajwa »

SBajwa
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5778
Joined: 10 Jan 2006 21:35
Location: Attari

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by SBajwa »

ManjaM
BRFite
Posts: 1217
Joined: 15 May 2010 02:52
Location: Padvaralli

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by ManjaM »

[youtube]gFYMiAgrCUE&feature=player_embedded#![/youtube]

Domino at a military parade in Belarus
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

Pantsir-S1 seen with new Janus Faced Radar

Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Gerard »

US Army ditches failed combat uniform that put a target on grunts’ backs for 8 years
Over the next year, America’s largest fighting force is swapping its camouflage pattern. The move is a quiet admission that the last uniform — a pixelated design that debuted in 2004 at a cost of $5 billion — was a colossal mistake.

Soldiers have roundly criticized the gray-green uniform for standing out almost everywhere it’s been worn. Industry insiders have called the financial mess surrounding the pattern a “fiasco.”
“Essentially, the Army designed a universal uniform that universally failed in every environment,” said an Army specialist who served two tours in Iraq, wearing UCP in Baghdad and the deserts outside Basra. “The only time I have ever seen it work well was in a gravel pit.”
Avinandan
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 12 Jun 2005 12:29
Location: Pune

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Avinandan »

I must admit, I was very much fascinated with these uniforms and wanted the Indian Army to adopt that. This contradicts the common man's view that all US stuff are gold standard.

I am just wondering how PLA would react to this report. They too have adopted this pattern.
Additionally,what about the LCH TD2 , should we change the colour scheme ?
http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2011/07/he ... -td-2.html
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Singha »

why couldnt they just have used the USMC camo which presumably works and is in use ?
Virupaksha
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3110
Joined: 28 Jun 2007 06:36

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Virupaksha »

Singha wrote:why couldnt they just have used the USMC camo which presumably works and is in use ?
Their TFPE pride, I kid you not. :rotfl:
From the article posted abvoe
‘We can’t allow the Marine Corps to look more cool than the Army.’
and ofcourse that particular design was copyrighted by USMC :mrgreen:
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by svinayak »

Avinandan wrote:
I am just wondering how PLA would react to this report. They too have adopted this pattern.
Additionally,what about the LCH TD2 , should we change the colour scheme ?
http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2011/07/he ... -td-2.html
What is strange is that helmet and outfit for PLA matches the US army and marines

It looks like they may sync up later against a common enemy
nakul
BRFite
Posts: 1251
Joined: 31 Aug 2011 10:39

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by nakul »

Acharya wrote:
Avinandan wrote:
I am just wondering how PLA would react to this report. They too have adopted this pattern.
Additionally,what about the LCH TD2 , should we change the colour scheme ?
http://tarmak007.blogspot.in/2011/07/he ... -td-2.html
What is strange is that helmet and outfit for PLA matches the US army and marines

It looks like they may sync up later against a common enemy

Nice try but this is Lahori Logic :mrgreen:
Post Reply