International Military Discussion

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 22 Jun 2008 11:22

Third-generation command and control system

Speaking at the graduation ceremony at the Rocket Forces Academy, Nikolai Solovtsov, the commander of the Rocket Forces, mentioned that the Rocket Forces are completing an upgrade of the command and control system. According to Solovtsov, this system, which he called a "third-generation system", provides "traditional" capabilities of sending launch orders, receiving reports, and monitoring status of individual missiles. It also apparently provides the Rocket Forces with the "automated" capability to change attack options and re-target missiles. Solovtsov underscored that the command and control system includes a number of redundant relay, radio, and satellite communication channels that allow to deliver a launch order directly to missiles silos.

Pavels Comment

Most of these capabilities existed before. As I understand, the ability to deliver launch orders to individual silos was one of the central features of the Signal-A system that was deployed in the 1980s (Signal-A or its modification Signal-M may be the "second-generation" systems that the new one is replacing). At the same time, the flexible targeting capability appears to be new.

shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6881
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby shyamd » 24 Jun 2008 16:36

Image
A general view shows fake mosques and buildings at the Urban Warfare Training Centre in Tse'elim camp, southern Israel, on June 19, 2008. The Urban Warfare Training Centre is designed to train combat units for urban warfare by replicating a real urban environment and simulating a variety of battlefield scenarios. A fragile truce between Israel and the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas came into force in the Gaza Strip on Thursday amid scepticism over how long the Egyptian-brokered deal would hold
[img]http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0gaHgrv7MG1rj/610x.jpg[/img]
[img]http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/05mR8BK0AX7tt/610x.jpg[/img]

shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6881
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby shyamd » 27 Jun 2008 17:07

France has turned its attention to selling warships and land armaments to Riyadh after losing out in a bid to persuade Saudi Arabia to buy the Rafale fighter; the contract went instead to the Typhoon. The French arms package presented to king Abdullah and the crown prince Sultan, focused on land armaments as well as four FREMM multi-mission frigates equipped with Scalp Naval cruise missiles and three Merlin submarines.The contracts are being negotiated on France’s side by a new armaments office, ODAS, that deals exclusively with defence eqpt for Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan’s choices of military equipment, and particularly naval hardware, are closely watched in the Gulf and, more broadly, throughout the Middle East. Despite active backing from former French president Jacques Chirac at the time, the first bid by Armaris was rejected by the Pakistani general staff. The French firm subsequently came through last spring with a second offer that was reportedly 15% below that of its German rival HDW. However, HDWs U-214 boat finally won the nod from Pakistan at the end of last year. The setback for the French stemmed undoubtedly in part from the French had already sold 6 Scorpenes to India. At any rate, it broke with a long pattern of French submarine sales to Islamabad, for years France sold Daphne and Augusta class submarines to the Paki's. However, the fallout from the loss of the Paki contract has not only been felt in Riyadh but also in Turkey. DCNS has offered Scorpene to the Turkish Navy but finds itself once again running behind HDW for the contract. The French group is said to be maintaining its bid merely in order to reduce the profit margin of its German rival in the event it wins the deal.

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby ranganathan » 27 Jun 2008 17:48

The article is patent rubbish. Riyad has never had any submarines and turkey has been with germans since WW-II. Turks have T-209 subs for a long while and there was no chance of france breaking the monopoly. Anyway sale of FREMM to Saudi makes no difference as long as P-17a is only based on it and has MF-STAR/ Barak-2/1 combo along with Brahmos.

Kakarat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2082
Joined: 26 Jan 2005 13:59

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Kakarat » 27 Jun 2008 22:39

An Interesting Missile
Interactive Defence and Attack System for Submarines(IDAS)

Submerged IDAS Missile Firing
Image
The IDAS missile breaking the surface, seen from the U33's periscope

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 28 Jun 2008 12:43

Interesting Capability , give a sub a real possibility of defending herself against ASW helos and aircraft when cornered , this will be the last of the last ditch measures which a sub would like to take.

There was this experment carried by USN where they tested the possibility of submerged sub guiding a UAV for Intel mission , i believe they were resonably sucessful with that.

In the future I see a possibility of sub firing a torpedo wich just hovers and has AESA type radar and then the same or different sub firing a series of MSAM against a potential enemy Airborne target and that being guided by the hovering AESA radar initially and then by the MSAM active radar.

Since the potential ASW operation against a sub from airborne target will most likely happen in a radius of 30 km and less the MSAM should really be more than a last ditch attempt of a sub fighting its number one enemy in the air.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Gerard » 30 Jun 2008 05:17


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 30 Jun 2008 09:36

Airbus Unveils Military Transport Plane

The public got a sneak peak at the much-delayed A400M at an elaborate ceremony in Spain Thursday. Over 190 orders are already on the books

At an elaborate unveiling ceremony in Spain Thursday, Airbus held a public viewing of the A400M, its multi-purpose military transport plane that it hopes will replace the aging workhorses of many militaries across the world.

At the same time, however, the company announced the airplane still faces six-to-12 month delays in deliveries caused by problems encountered in engine production. The first test flight is tentatively scheduled for September or October.

The company currently has 192 orders for the plane on the books—each of which costs €100 million ($156.6 million)—to seven European countries in addition to South Africa and Malaysia.

The plane is meant to replace the aging fleets of C-130 Hercules cargo aircrafts produced by Lockheed Martin Corp. as well as the C-160 that was developed by a French and German corporation. With twice the capacity and payload of the planes it will replace, the A400M will fulfill numerous roles from aerial refueling to dropping supplies during humanitarian relief operations.

"Our transport fleet is becoming obsolete," Major Fabrice Balayn from the French Air Force's logistics division told Reuters. "We need to increase our transport capacity in order to meet the requirements of the new missions all over the world."

France is scheduled to take delivery of the first four-engine plane in 2010, a year behind schedule, followed by Germany a year later. The company has been troubled by similar delays in delivering its A380 superjumbo and the NH90 military helicopter.

Airbus' parent company EADS has also had more recent causes for worry. Late last week, a US congressional watchdog ruled that "significant errors" had been made in the bidding process for 179 aerial refueling tankers that EADS had won in March with Northrop Grumman. The US Air Force now has 60 days to respond to the complaints, which might reopen the $35-billion competition.

The A400M has been developed since 2003 at a cost of €20 billion ($31 billion), which represents Europe's largest military procurement program ever. EADS CEO Louis Gallois told the 2,700 people gathered for the ceremony that the project has represented "a big moment for European integration."

The lavish unveiling ceremony was held in Seville, where the final assembly plant is located. It had more flair than the typical Airbus ceremony, with blaring techno music, a flamenco show, aerial gymnasts, a light display, and Spain's King Juan Carlos sitting in the plane's cockpit.

PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby PaulJI » 30 Jun 2008 17:25

Singha wrote:...The A400M has been developed since 2003 at a cost of €20 billion ($31 billion), ...


That's the contract price for 180 aircraft, including development & construction. It isn't the cost of development.

Nayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2553
Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Nayak » 01 Jul 2008 08:40

17 injured during shooting demonstration in France

Monday, June 30, 2008

Up to 17 people have been injured, four of them seriously, after a French soldier involved in a military demonstration used live ammunition instead of blanks.

The incident happened during a military show at a barracks in the south-east of the country.

One of the soldiers involved in demonstrating hostage-freeing techniques used live bullets in what officials say was almost certainly an " unintentional fault".

The injured include five children.

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby ranganathan » 01 Jul 2008 08:45

PaulJI wrote:
Singha wrote:...The A400M has been developed since 2003 at a cost of €20 billion ($31 billion), ...


That's the contract price for 180 aircraft, including development & construction. It isn't the cost of development.

No it is not. The fixed price for the first 192 aircrafts is 100 mil Euros. Which I believe is a loss for EADS but is stipulated under contract. Just the price of the 192 aircrafts is 19.2 billion Euros, there is no way EADS managed the R&D in a mere 800 mil Euros.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 03 Jul 2008 19:39

£3.2bn giant carrier deals signed

The Ministry of Defence has signed contracts worth £3.2bn to build the UK's biggest ever aircraft carriers.

The 280-metre-long HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales will be capable of carrying up to 40 aircraft.

The contracts will create or secure 3,000 jobs at Govan, in Glasgow, 1,600 at Rosyth, in Fife, 1,200 in Portsmouth and 400 in Barrow in Furness.

The defence secretary said the vessels were needed to launch military strikes and humanitarian operations.

Peace-keeping role

HMS Queen Elizabeth will come into service in 2014 and HMS Prince of Wales in 2016. The total cost of both vessels, including additional features like electronics, will be almost £4bn.

Each ship will be a similar size to the ocean liner, the QE2, with a flight deck the size of three football pitches.

This will make them more than three times the size of the existing Invincible-class carriers.

Each 65,000-tonne vessel will be crewed by 1,450 sailors and airmen.

The building of the two aircraft carriers is expected to create or secure a total of 10,000 jobs across the UK.

The project is going ahead despite serious misgivings among some in the military about the huge financial burden it will place on a defence budget already under severe pressure.
HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales

The Army and RAF are already expecting cuts to equipment funds and defence analyst Andrew Brookes told the BBC that Britain could not afford the contracts.

"We can't afford the cost of the aircraft carriers, the cost of the Joint Strike fighters to go on them, and all the replenishment, escort and protecting vessels," he said.

"We can't afford that without a major increase in funding which I can't see coming."

But Defence Secretary Des Browne said the carriers were "an affordable expenditure" and were not being purchased at the expense of other areas.

"The two aircraft carriers will provide our forces with the world-class capabilities they will need over the coming decades," he said.

"They will support peace-keeping and conflict prevention, as well as our strategic operational priorities."

Speaking in Govan, Mr Browne said the carriers would provide "very large floating bases for the Navy and the RAF", entirely under "sovereign control".

"They will allow us to project force," he said. "But they will also allow us to make a contribution to the protection of the sea lanes of the world, because as a trading nation we rely on those being secure."

'Bigger punch'

Although both will eventually carry the new Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, those will not be ready on time for when the ships enter service.

This means that at first, the ships will carry the ageing Harrier aircraft instead The First Sea Lord, Adm Sir Jonathon Band, told the BBC: "The reason for the size is that we've determined that we need to be able to put a weight of airpower on them from strike aeroplanes, and that has therefore determined their tonnage and their size.

"Basically, they'll be able to pack a bigger punch, whether it be on a humanitarian operation or whether it be a full-blown strike operation."

Construction of the ships' hulls will be split between Govan, Portsmouth and Barrow in Furness. Construction of the bow sections and the final assembly of all the parts will take place in Rosyth.

If it wasn't for this then the dockyard would be on the rundown to closure
Raymond Duguid, Rosyth dockyard

A further 145 jobs will be needed at BAE Systems at Frimley, Surrey and 250 at Thales UK in Bristol and Crawley to provide design, engineering and missions systems for the vessels.

Many more jobs will be created or secured elsewhere in related industries, and contracts have already been awarded to supply diesel generators, electronics and the steel for the ships.

Chairman of the Rosyth shipyard industrial joint council Raymond Duguid: said "If it wasn't for this then the dockyard would be on the rundown to closure, it would be that stark."

BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt said the Navy sees the new carriers as its future flagships to replace Ark Royal and Illustrious, transforming Britain's ability to operate in hostile waters.

Janet Lowrie's son is currently serving in Iraq, but she is part of an organisation called Military Families Against The War. She told the BBC the money would be better spent on frontline equipment.

"Our vehicles are not worthy, they break down all the time, so replace them - save lives," she said.


Image
Displacement: 65,000 tonnes
Length: 280m (920ft)
Width (at flight-deck level): 70m (230ft)
Keel to masthead: 56m (184ft)
Nine decks (plus flight deck)
Speed: 25+ knots
Range: 8,000-10,000 miles
Aircraft: 36 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and four Airborne Early Warning aircraft, plus EH 101 Merlin helicopters
Crew: 1,450 (including air crew)
Weapons: Phalanx close-in weapon systems; 30mm and mini-guns
Source: Ministry of Defence

shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6881
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby shyamd » 10 Jul 2008 09:21

BASIC, a new American spy satellite system, will enable U.S. forces in foreign theatres to gain immediate access to satellite imagery.

PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby PaulJI » 10 Jul 2008 21:09

ranganathan wrote:
PaulJI wrote:
Singha wrote:...The A400M has been developed since 2003 at a cost of €20 billion ($31 billion), ...


That's the contract price for 180 aircraft, including development & construction. It isn't the cost of development.

No it is not. The fixed price for the first 192 aircrafts is 100 mil Euros. Which I believe is a loss for EADS but is stipulated under contract. Just the price of the 192 aircrafts is 19.2 billion Euros, there is no way EADS managed the R&D in a mere 800 mil Euros.


There's no fixed €100 mn price for 192 aircraft. There is a €20 bn contract for 180 aircraft, for the original consortium members, signed in May 2003. The customers for numbers 181 to 192 (South Africa, Malaysia) may be getting them for €100 mn, but that is additional to the original €20 bn, not included in it, & can be expected to include an element of development costs, as is normal with exports.

South Africa didn't decide to buy the A400M until December 2004, & didn't sign a contract until April 2005.

South African air force website - http://www.af.mil.za/equip/aircraft/A400M.htm

Malaysia signed up on 8th December 2005.

And a report dated several months before South Africa announced its intention to buy, mentioning the €20 bn fixed-price contract -
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/ ... R0403d.htm

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 11 Jul 2008 22:44

Tests show US shield 'not needed'

Very interesting:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said the results of Iran's missile tests prove that US plans for a defence shield in Europe are unnecessary.

Mr Lavrov said the tests confirmed Tehran had missiles with a limited range of up to 2,000km (1,240 miles).

The US says it wants shield sites in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend it and its allies from rogue states.

Meanwhile, Iraqi and Israeli officials denied media reports that Israeli air force jets trained in Iraqi airspace.

The reports said Israeli aircraft had used Iraqi airspace - and US bases in Iraq - to practice for a potential strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.


Iran has denied Western assertions that it is developing nuclear weapons and insisted its nuclear programme is intended for peaceful purposes.

Following widespread condemnation over the recent ballistic missile tests, Iran said it was open to talks about its nuclear programme.


The official news agency, Irna, said the chief Iranian nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, would meet the European Union's envoy, Javier Solana, on 19 July in Geneva - although this has not yet been confirmed by Mr Solana's office.

The BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran says that although Iran seems willing to talk, it is unclear whether it is willing to give any ground.


A missile defence shield with these parameters is not needed to monitor or react to such threats
Sergei Lavrov
Russian Foreign Minister


Iran denies Western assertions that it is developing nuclear weapons and insists its nuclear programme is intended for peaceful purposes.

Some analysts saw this week's missile tests as an attempt by hardliners to discourage compromise.

The EU urged Iran to suspend uranium enrichment within its nuclear programme, saying that the missile tests "can only reinforce the international community's concerns".

"The EU calls on Iran to respond to the demands of the entire international community... and achieve a negotiated solution to the nuclear issue," a statement issued in Paris said.

The tests are said to have included the Shahab-3 missile, which is capable of reaching Israel and a number of US allies in the region, but not the proposed US shield bases in Poland and the Czech Republic.


Earlier this week, the US signed an agreement with the Czech Republic which would allow the Americans to build a tracking radar station there as part of the system they hope will be operational by 2012.

Washington also hopes to place 10 interceptor missiles in Poland but has yet to reach agreement with the government there.

'Imagined' threat

The BBC's James Rodgers, in Moscow, says repeated assurances from senior figures in Washington have failed to convince Moscow that the proposed shield represents no danger to Russia.

Mr Lavrov told reporters on Friday the tests showed that "a missile defence shield with these parameters is not needed to monitor or react to such threats".

He said Moscow was convinced that what he called the imagined nature of the Iranian missile threat was a pretext for the missile shield.

"We believe that any issue related to Iran should be resolved through negotiation, through political-diplomatic means... and not through threats," he said.

Moscow fears locating the system near its borders could weaken its own defences or be used to spy on Russia. It has previously threatened to aim its own missiles at any eventual base in Poland or the Czech Republic.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 11 Jul 2008 23:01

Certainly Moscow is fishing in troubled water , it knows it cant stop US building ABM system , what best it is trying to achieve is delay it by few years , may be the new democratic regime will help.

In the mean while it gets time to build a qualitative offensive system and an integrated air and space defence system S-500.

The idea is to delay it by making statements and putting diplomatic pressure on nations which are hosting such systems

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby ranganathan » 11 Jul 2008 23:08

They have every right to do so. after all only an idiot would buy the "Its for Iran" explanation. Russia needs to get the S-500 and 400 systems up and running ASAP and provide S-300s to iran.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 11 Jul 2008 23:19

S-300 for Iran ? I doubt they need that , taking put S-300 SAM has been extensively practiced by IAF and USAF , As long as Iran does not develop N weapons and does not ejaculate every 3 month with slogan like " we will destroy israel " it is fine else with what they do , no one wants a war with Iran .

ranganathan
BRFite
Posts: 277
Joined: 06 Feb 2008 23:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby ranganathan » 12 Jul 2008 00:01

They already have upgraded S-200's. I won't be surprised if they acquire S-300's. Its logical that they perceive a threat from US or Israel. Irrespective of ahmed-is-a-jokes statements Israel will try its best to take out Irans nukes. Its only a matter of time.

Nmistry
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 16 Jul 2008 14:53

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Nmistry » 17 Jul 2008 12:55

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20080714.aspx

Russia Touts Secret Super Tank
July 14, 2008: Russian media (mostly state controlled these days) are running stories of a new "super-tank" being developed. No details given, just lots of superlatives. Mentioned was the Uralvagonzavod tank factory, which is known to be developing a "T-95" tank (again, no details). All that is being written about the super-tank is that it can move at a top speed of 60 kilometers an hour, has facilities that enable the crew to stay in the tank for 24 hours at a time, and possesses the ability to destroy any existing tank, while itself having unique protection (this apparently means "active defense" in the form of small missiles that intercept incoming anti-tank missiles, as well as explosive reactive armor).

Currently, the most modern tank Russia has is about 300 relatively new T-90s. The T-90 is a highly evolved T-72. Originally, the T-90 was created as a fall-back design. The T-80 was supposed to be the successor to the T-72. But like the T-62 and T-64 before it, the T-80 didn't quite work out as planned. So the T-72, with a much improved turret and all manner of gadgets, was trotted out as the T-90. Weighting 47 tons, it's 23 feet long, 11 feet wide and 7.5 feet high. Same package, better contents. And with well trained crews, it could be deadly.

The rest of the 20,000 tanks in the Russian army are T-72s and T-80s. Both are mainly target practice for Western tanks (M-1, Leopard, Challenger, Leclerc). The T-90 is a bit better, but the "T-95" will remain a mystery until it actually shows up. Russia plans to replace most of those T-72s and T-80s with T-90s and T-95s, by 2025. After that, the new T-95 super-tank would start replacing the T-90. Or something like that. It appears that the T-95 won't start showing up for another 5-10 years.

Nmistry
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 14
Joined: 16 Jul 2008 14:53

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Nmistry » 17 Jul 2008 13:57

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20080715.aspx

US :Navy Missile With Air Force Eyes
July 15, 2008: The U.S. Navy has developed and tested a new version of its Standard surface-to-air missile, that incorporates the radar seeker of the U.S. Air Force AIM-120 AMRAAM missile. This missile recently had a successful test, and the navy plans on putting the new missile, called the SM-6, into service in three years.

The SM-6 has a range of 180 kilometers, and is designed to take out low flying targets that are over the horizon, and cannot be tracked by the Aegis radar. Other ships, aircraft or satellites that spot such targets enable the SM-6 to be launched and sent to the general area of the approaching missile or aircraft. Then, the SM-6 would use the AMRAMM radar to spot and identify the target, and guide the missile to it, and destroy it.

The SM-6 weighs about the same (1.4 tons) as the normal SM-2 long range surface-to-air missile. The fifteen foot missile fits in the same vertical launching cells as the SM-2, which is guided all the way to its target by the ships Aegis radar.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Jul 2008 22:15


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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 27 Jul 2008 16:29

Russia to have 5-6 aircraft carriers in Northern, Pacific Fleets

This should be a good news to us as well , since this should also serve Russia's keen interest in developing a Naval PAK-FA , India had already expressed interest in developing a naval version of PAK-FA

asbchakri
BRFite
Posts: 260
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 11:20
Location: Chennai
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby asbchakri » 30 Jul 2008 14:07

Austin wrote:Certainly Moscow is fishing in troubled water , it knows it cant stop US building ABM system , what best it is trying to achieve is delay it by few years , may be the new democratic regime will help.

In the mean while it gets time to build a qualitative offensive system and an integrated air and space defence system S-500.

The idea is to delay it by making statements and putting diplomatic pressure on nations which are hosting such systems


Russia Could Deploy Long Range Bombers in Venezuela, Cuba, Algeria

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3929

khukri
BRFite
Posts: 169
Joined: 28 Oct 2002 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby khukri » 30 Jul 2008 23:36


shetty
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 15 Jun 2006 17:09

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby shetty » 02 Aug 2008 02:16

An interesting story of the history of Israeli Areva aircraft.

It won't fly - By Kobi Ben-Simhon


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 02 Aug 2008 10:08

SM6 a 1.2t missile with 180km range and active radar.
how does this miraculous propulsion take place?
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rt ... asheet.pdf

PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby PaulJI » 03 Aug 2008 01:49

Singha wrote:SM6 a 1.2t missile with 180km range and active radar.
how does this miraculous propulsion take place?
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rt ... asheet.pdf

Miraculous? Aster 30 achieves >100km & weighs 450 kg at launch. The US navy says SM-6 weighs ca 3300 lbs (1500 kg) at launch.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_displ ... =1200&ct=2
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/d ... ster30.pdf

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 03 Aug 2008 09:57

ok ok it seems the 120k 9m96e2 weighs around 600kg.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 05 Aug 2008 17:32

Russian new Optical Spy Satellite designated as Cosmos 2441 was launched recently, it has a resolution of 30 cm.

Click on this link http://satcom.website.orange.co.uk/
and click on Persona for more details

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 05 Aug 2008 17:39

asbchakri wrote:Russia Could Deploy Long Range Bombers in Venezuela, Cuba, Algeria

http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3929


Oh yes now we have to depend on india-defence intel report on what Moscow will do.

Moscow has clearly denied the report the next day that it wants to deploy aircraft in any foreign country.

Frankly speaking they need not as well , they have ICBM which covers every thing on this planet , if there is a nuclear war the ICBM will reach the target faster than an aircraft can prepare and take off.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Gerard » 06 Aug 2008 18:44


kshirin
BRFite
Posts: 382
Joined: 18 Sep 2006 19:45

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby kshirin » 06 Aug 2008 19:19

http://www.deccan.com/chennaichronicle/ ... ldNews.asp

Frightening, has anyone seen the Terminator series?

Pentagon plans for robotic force by ’20
Washington, Aug. 5: Pentagon is planning to replace by 2020 some 30 per cent of its soldiery with robots, which are quietly transiting from the realm of science fiction to the actual battlefield.
Robots are increasingly taking over from soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. For example, there are unmanned aerial vehicles and ground robots for explosives detection. A report by Erin Fults quoted Doug Few and Bill Smart of Washington University, who are leading this cutting edge innovation, as saying that machines still need the human touch. The Pentagon’s robotic force is operated by someone from a remote location, possibly with a joystick and a computer screen. While this may seem like a caveat in plans to add robots to the military, it is actually very important to keep humans involved in the robotic operations.
"When the military says ‘robot’ they mean everything from self-driving trucks up to what you would conventionally think of as a robot. You would more accurately call them autonomous systems rather than robots," said Mr Smart, assistant professor of computer science and engineering.
Robotics advancements do, however, raise new ethical questions, such as where to place the blame if a robot kills someone. Nevertheless, as the technology progresses, more robots are being sent into battle first.
"It’s a chain of command thing. You don’t want to give autonomy to a weapons delivery system. You want to have a human hit the button," said Mr Smart. "You don’t want the robot to make the wrong decision. You want to have a human to make all of the important decisions."
While movies display robots as intelligent beings, Mr Smart and Mr Few aren’t necessarily looking for intelligent decision-making in their robots. Instead, they are working to develop an improved, "intelligent" functioning of the robot.
"It’s oftentimes like the difference between the adverb and noun. You can act intelligently or you can be intelligent. I’m much more interested in the adverb for my robots," said Mr Few. —IANS

KiranM
BRFite
Posts: 575
Joined: 17 Dec 2006 16:48
Location: Bangalore

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby KiranM » 06 Aug 2008 20:47



There is something fundamentally wrong with that report in my opinion. It talks about DDG not handling missile threats because of its combat system not being able to guide the SAMs. But aren't the combat system more to do with the software and elctronic hardware? If they failed to develop a new generation system then they can surely use the current system. Then how does that make DDG 'incapable of defending itself'?

shetty
BRFite
Posts: 147
Joined: 15 Jun 2006 17:09

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby shetty » 07 Aug 2008 19:18

I have read several reports about US cancelling DDG 1000 Zumwalt class of advanced destroyers but this is the first time I am reading why with concerns about China's ballistic missle with terminal cruise missile charateristics. I have never heard anything like this before.

Missile Threat Helped Drive DDG Cut

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby svinayak » 08 Aug 2008 12:09

KiranM wrote:


There is something fundamentally wrong with that report in my opinion. It talks about DDG not handling missile threats because of its combat system not being able to guide the SAMs. But aren't the combat system more to do with the software and elctronic hardware? If they failed to develop a new generation system then they can surely use the current system. Then how does that make DDG 'incapable of defending itself'?

One source familiar with the classified briefing said that while anti-ship cruise missiles and other threats were known to exist, those aren't the worst. The new threat, which­ didn't exist a couple years ago, is a land-launched ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile. Other sources confirmed that a new, classified missile threat is being briefed at very high levels. One admiral, said another source, was told his ships should simply ­stay away. There are no options. Information on the new threat remains closely held.

Bramos?

Nitesh
BRFite
Posts: 900
Joined: 23 Mar 2008 22:22
Location: Bangalore
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Nitesh » 08 Aug 2008 12:16

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =AME&s=AIR

U.S.-Israel To Develop David's Sling Missile Defense

TEL AVIV - The United States and Israel have concluded an agreement that officially kicks off the David's Sling development program, the newest bilateral effort to defend against a wide range of rockets, ballistic missiles and air-breathing threats.

Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, director of the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, signed the so-called Project Agreement during a visit here this week.
"We're now out of the starting box. This agreement allows us to participate in a truly joint, co-managed program with the Israelis," Obering said.

Unlike the U.S.-Israel Arrow interceptor, which is managed by Israel, funded jointly by the two countries, but intended only for Israeli defense, David's Sling will be co-managed, co-funded, and optimized to meet operational requirements of both governments.

"We wanted a truly co-managed program because the United States will be very interested in this for our own purposes," Obering said.

In an Aug. 7 interview, Obering described the David's Sling system - and its kinetic energy interceptor developed jointly by Rafael Ltd. and Raytheon Co. - as "an extremely fast reaction system" aimed at intercepting a broad basket of threats.

"We're talking about the very short-range rockets you're seeing coming out of Gaza and longer-range rockets that were fired from Lebanon, all the way to short-range ballistic missiles that can be launched from a distance of several hundred kilometers," Obering said.

The Pentagon missile defense chief confirmed that David's Sling also will be designed to defend against cruise missiles and other air-breathing threats.

"Since the time of flight [of enemy threats] is very short, the ability to very rapidly detect, track and engage different types of threats is of cardinal importance. And given the enemy's variety of munitions, you don't necessarily know what's coming; whether it's a Qassem, a Katyusha or something else entirely. You're not sure, so you have to be ready and able to handle it all," he said.

Obering declined to estimate overall program costs or the percentage that each government will contribute to the joint effort.

"The agreement we just signed allows us to work through specific cost-sharing arrangements and other program parameters," he said.

He said MDA has proposed ramping up funding support in its five-year POM, which has yet to be approved.

Congress already has appropriated about $65 million since 2006 for the Rafael-Raytheon program, while Israeli officials here said MoD has contributed a similar amount over the past four years.

In an interview earlier this year, an Israeli MoD official estimated that it would cost nearly $400 million to conclude development and begin low-rate production of the Stunner interceptor. He noted that MoD aimed to contain unit costs to about $350,000. Initial deployment is targeted for 2011.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1871
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby uddu » 08 Aug 2008 12:27

Acharya wrote:Bramos?


China Wants To Target US Aircraft Carriers With Ballastic Missiles
Link

In the event of conflict in the Taiwan Strait, if the United States were to send an aircraft carrier to the scene, it would likely remain in an area 800-1,000 kilometers from the spot of engagement.

Even if the Chinese missiles could not accurately hit the aircraft carriers, shooting them in their direction would allow the Chinese military forces to impose "coercive isolation" on the U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups, keeping them out of the Taiwan Strait combat theater.

If the ballistic missiles used Russian satellite guidance at the middle course plus a certain kind of terminal guidance system, the threat that a DF-15 could pose to an aircraft carrier is very obvious. Psychologically, this would keep the U.S. aircraft carriers 600 kilometers away from the Taiwan Strait combat theater. And if China chose to launch attacks with DF-21M medium-range ballistic missiles, the so-called "coercive isolation" zone would be much broader. Even if these attacks did not seriously damage the aircraft carrier itself, the sub-munitions assault could destroy the radar, command and communications systems of the aircraft carrier battle group and force it to withdraw from the battle.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests