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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 16 Sep 2008 10:42

here is grainy vympel training video. note the irregular type dress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KQGXf5b7dU

and something interesting right at the end..wearing the white and blue striped
naval commando undershirt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9zcewT7 ... re=related

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 16 Sep 2008 12:09

God article on corvettes and their rising popularity.
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/su ... 104767_ITM

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17003
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 16 Sep 2008 15:50

moved from military acquisitions thread.

renukb wrote:From UPI.com

Poland announces $25B defense spending spree
BRUSSELS, Sept. 15 (UPI) -- Poland announces $25 billion defense spending spree

Polish Defense Minister Bogdan Klich says he is planning to spend $25 billion on modernizing his country's military.

The money will be spent between 2009 and 2018, chiefly on surface-to-air missiles and short- and medium-range missiles, Klich said. He also wants to buy helicopters and ships.

Poland has received growing threats from Russia following its decision to allow the United States to build a ballistic missile defense base on its territory with 10 Ground-based Mid-course Interceptors that could intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles fired by Iran or other rogue states against Western Europe and the United States.

Under the U.S.-Polish agreement concluded in August, Poland also will receive batteries of 96 Patriot PAC-3 anti-ballistic missile interceptors to protect the base and Polish civilian and military centers from Russian intermediate- and short-range ballistic missile attack.
So it is official now, that the missile defense systems in Poland are to counter Russian attack, not Iranian

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 16 Sep 2008 17:06

Here is an interesting site with pics of potential black aviation programs of the US.

http://www.dreamlandresort.com/black_pr ... rcraft.htm

"On this page I will discuss other known Black Projects that may or may not be secretly 'operational'. Due to the lack of open information it is extremely difficult to realize what these aircraft are, whether or not the shape is correct, the speed, the actual name, and of course its origin (developer). Many people have taken photos of very strange aircraft, some triangular, some slender looking aircraft and also some round aircraft even."

Arya Sumantra
BRFite
Posts: 558
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 11:47
Location: Deep Freezer

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Arya Sumantra » 16 Sep 2008 17:12

Philip wrote:Many people have taken photos of very strange aircraft, some triangular, some slender looking aircraft and also some round aircraft even."


May be that explains how the UFO stories came to be created. At least media made a lot of money out of that.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19478
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Raja Bose » 16 Sep 2008 22:09

Singha wrote:Green berets are also active in latin/south america for training
'friendly forces'. I believe they operate in uniform and are not really of the true black ops type.


I remember some obits of Green Berets KIA in one of the latin american countries which suggested they might have also been deployed on deputation out of uniform.

Another country with a long history of black ops is south africa. they could if desired put
together some tough SOBs if the SF were revitalized but its a political issue because their
history is of use against neighbouring black nations.

The South African Recces have a tough reputation but have their share of messes too.

iirc the russian CT groups are now OMON, Alpha and Vympel. training methods are brutal
as per russian philosophy...one test consists of boxing against two guys and every 2 mins
a fresh pair replaces them...this continues for some 5 cycles. you pass if you manage
to last the distance.


OMON is not really special forces. They are more of a paramilitary police and their training and equipment is miles away from Alfa/Vympel type of teams. Victor Suvorov's (Former Spetsnatz officer, defected to UK from GRU) book on Spetsnatz is an interesting read - interesting stuff about their use of the spade in UAC.
Last edited by Raja Bose on 16 Sep 2008 22:26, edited 2 times in total.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19478
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Raja Bose » 16 Sep 2008 22:25

sum wrote:Was under the impression that the Green Berets were the Rambo style "shoot first,ask later" types....Thanks for clearing that misconception...Do they operate with regular uniforms and without the trademark green berets in A'tan/Eye-raq?

Green Berets are the farthest away from Rambo style warfare. In fact no SF takes in Rambo style misfits.

The Green Beret hat (or cover) is for ceremonial purposes onlee. In battle they wear regular helmets (never seen them in pics with those hockey helmets)....usually operate in uniform though out-of-uniform deployments are not unknown.

Also, you mentioned ST-6 being a ultra elite force...what about the other SEAL units?

ST-6 was set up my Dick Marcinko (his book Rogue Warrior is a good read on its origins...just discount the excessive bombastic wild stuff it is laced with). At that time (immediately post Vietnam) I think they had only 2 SEAL Teams but Marcinko claims he named the new team ST-6 to confuse the russkies as to how many teams there were (unlikely such a simple ruse succeeded though!). The other SEAL teams (1,2,3,4,5,7,8,10) - 8 in number are split between East Coast(Little Creek, VA) and West Coast (Coronado, CA). ST-6 was disbanded for a while due to scandal re. team members making money off ammo and stuff (Marcinko went to prison) but is now renamed as DEVGRU (development group).

There is a UDT/SEAL museum in FL if you are interested. One of Marcinko's old mates used to be the curator before.

Wonder which was this SF(rip van winkle) that you were referring to? :wink: :lol:

A number of pure armies come to mind....you definitely know of one of them :wink:

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby KiranM » 18 Sep 2008 12:48

Raja Bose wrote:ST-6 was disbanded for a while due to scandal re. team members making money off ammo and stuff (Marcinko went to prison) but is now renamed as DEVGRU (development group).

IIRC it was not ST-6 but Red Cell.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 18 Sep 2008 22:08

U.S. to Expand Drone Use, Other Surveillance in Afghanistan

By YOCHI J. DREAZEN

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Army is preparing to deploy a network of drones and other surveillance aircraft to Afghanistan in an expanding effort to defeat the resurgent Taliban and reverse a downward spiral in the country.

The effort, known as Task Force ODIN-A, is set to begin early next year and will coincide with the planned deployments of thousands of American troop reinforcements to Afghanistan, senior U.S. military officials said.

The officials said drones -- remotely piloted aircraft -- and manned surveillance aircraft will be deployed to identify insurgent targets inside Afghanistan, including on the Afghan side of the border with Pakistan. The military will use the information to launch airstrikes and ground attacks on militants.

Drones are already used widely in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but the new aircraft should significantly boost the Army's ability to track insurgents and quickly funnel usable intelligence to individual units, officials said.

The initiative comes as Afghanistan's security situation continues to deteriorate. Gen. David McKiernan, the top American commander there, said this week that insurgent attacks in the country have increased 30% from last year. The number of U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan in 2008, at 122, has already exceeded the 117 fatalities in 2007.

Gen. McKiernan and other senior commanders said Pakistan has failed to crack down on militants operating in its border regions, allowing the insurgents to create safe havens where they can train recruits and plan attacks inside Afghanistan. U.S. intelligence officials believe high-ranking al Qaeda figures, including Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, are hiding in remote parts of Pakistan.

Pakistan's military said Tuesday its soldiers had orders to fire at any American troops raiding across the border. Pakistani officials were responding to a U.S. cross-border commando raid on Sept. 3, and to revelations the Bush administration had cleared the way for U.S. forces to strike targets in Pakistan without first alerting Islamabad and had authorized an increase in the number of U.S. missile strikes on targets inside Pakistan.

On Wednesday, the top American military officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, visited Pakistan to reassure the nation's leaders that the U.S. respects its sovereignty.

Predator drones operated by the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Special Operations Command have been firing missiles at targets inside Pakistan almost daily for the past several weeks, killing dozens of Pakistanis, according to Pakistani officials. On Wednesday, a U.S. missile hit a suspected Taliban ammunition depot in South Waziristan, killing five people, Pakistani officials said.

Pakistani security officials said the U.S. gave them advance notice of Wednesday's missile strike. A senior Pakistani official said as a result of the meetings with Adm. Mullen, Pakistan didn't expect more U.S. cross-border raids. A U.S. official disputed that account but said Adm. Mullen is "well aware of Pakistani sensitivities" about raids and missile strikes.

The drones that will be deployed to Afghanistan are unlikely to carry missiles or other weaponry, the senior U.S. officials said. They are designed to give lower-ranking Army commanders access to the real-time surveillance feeds that are usually reserved for senior officers.

The initiative is modeled on an effort in Iraq, where the Army last year began flying drones and piloted planes, including a modified version of the C-12, a small civilian plane, for surveillance and reconnaissance purposes.

In Iraq, the Army aircraft fed data on insurgent positions to Apache attack helicopters and ground forces. U.S. commanders said the effort has contributed to the deaths of more than 3,000 suspected insurgents.

The expansion of the program into Afghanistan hasn't been formally announced, but Defense Secretary Robert Gates alluded to the plan during a congressional hearing last week. Mr. Gates told lawmakers from the House Armed Services Committee that he was going to "re-create" the Iraq effort and "replicate it in Afghanistan with additional assets."

In Kabul, Afghanistan, on Wednesday, Mr. Gates expressed "personal regret" for recent U.S. airstrikes that killed Afghan civilians and pledged more accurate targeting in the future, the Associated Press reported.

Lt. Col. Lee Packnett, an Army spokesman, said Task Force ODIN-A would begin operating in Afghanistan next year but declined to be more specific. The name is an acronym for "Observe, Detect, Identify and Neutralize."

Last week, the Bush administration announced plans to send 4,500 more troops to Afghanistan by early next year.

Gen. McKiernan said this week he will need an additional three combat brigades, or 10,500 to 14,000 personnel, on top of the extra troops bound for the country. There are 34,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

—Zahid Hussain contributed to this article.
Write to Yochi J. Dreazen at yochi.dreazen@wsj.com

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 19 Sep 2008 00:09

Pakistan to Test Mirage Air Refueling
Posted by Graham Warwick at 9/18/2008 9:49 AM CDT

Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC) has completed the modification of two air force Dassault Mirage IIIs with aerial refuelling probes, says Haris Khan of pakdef.info.

Image
blog post photo
Photo via www.pakdef.info

The two Mirages are part of a pilot program, Haris says, along with four Ukranian-supplied Ilyushin Il-78 Midas tankers. The first Midas is due to arrive in Pakistan in October, and the two Mirages will be used as testbeds. If the project is successful, he says, then PAC and the Pakistan Air Force plan to equip another 30 Mirage III/Vs with refueling probes.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19478
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Raja Bose » 19 Sep 2008 00:28

KiranM wrote:
Raja Bose wrote:ST-6 was disbanded for a while due to scandal re. team members making money off ammo and stuff (Marcinko went to prison) but is now renamed as DEVGRU (development group).

IIRC it was not ST-6 but Red Cell.


Actually it was ST6. Red Call was a separate and much smaller entity.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1160
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby rkhanna » 19 Sep 2008 02:30

ST-6 was set up my Dick Marcinko (his book Rogue Warrior is a good read on its origins...just discount the excessive bombastic wild stuff it is laced with). At that time (immediately post Vietnam) I think they had only 2 SEAL Teams but Marcinko claims he named the new team ST-6 to confuse the russkies as to how many teams there were (unlikely such a simple ruse succeeded though!).


Actually ST-6 is not a SEAL team. Its operators are drawn from the SEALs but the Unit is called Development Group (DevGru). SEAL TEAM Tag was given to confuse the soviets. DevGru comes under JSOC of SOCCOM.
DevGru is the Direct Counter part to Armys SFOD-D (Delta) and is the Navies Counter Terrorism Unit.

Apart from Marchinko's book another good book is Dennis Chalkers "One Perfect Op". Red Cell was started as a project for testing Naval Installations Security against terrorist action. Again Red Cell had nothing todo with the SEALs or DevGru. But the operators were all drawn from the SEALs (one of them was an Ex Force Recon Marine).

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19478
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Raja Bose » 19 Sep 2008 03:15

rkhanna,

I think what you mean is Seal Team 6/DEVGRU is not one of the regular East/West Coast SEAL Teams which operators join after BUD/S and continuation training. DEVGRU however is still a US Navy SEAL Team (organization-wise) and is part of NAVSPECWARGRU.

Delta/SFOD-D/D-Boys etc. are also known in US military as CAG (Combat Applications Group).

Also unlike NSG-MARCOS history of establishment where both units were born at the same time as direct counterparts, Delta and ST6 were born independently at different periods of time though both started by 'crazy' people....Charlie Beckwith and Dick Marcinko respectively. Beckwith ofcourse suffered big-time for the Eagle Claw fiasco and was hung out to dry by the babus.

Red Cell was a mixed ad-hoc unit, was disbanded but allegedly exists in other avatars now.

rkhanna wrote:
ST-6 was set up my Dick Marcinko (his book Rogue Warrior is a good read on its origins...just discount the excessive bombastic wild stuff it is laced with). At that time (immediately post Vietnam) I think they had only 2 SEAL Teams but Marcinko claims he named the new team ST-6 to confuse the russkies as to how many teams there were (unlikely such a simple ruse succeeded though!).


Actually ST-6 is not a SEAL team. Its operators are drawn from the SEALs but the Unit is called Development Group (DevGru). SEAL TEAM Tag was given to confuse the soviets. DevGru comes under JSOC of SOCCOM.
DevGru is the Direct Counter part to Armys SFOD-D (Delta) and is the Navies Counter Terrorism Unit.

Apart from Marchinko's book another good book is Dennis Chalkers "One Perfect Op". Red Cell was started as a project for testing Naval Installations Security against terrorist action. Again Red Cell had nothing todo with the SEALs or DevGru. But the operators were all drawn from the SEALs (one of them was an Ex Force Recon Marine).

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 19 Sep 2008 07:43

so it seems the Ukrainians do not have a probe type AAR retrofit for the Midas and F-solah
cannot hence be fed by these birds. so bandar and MirageIII would be it for now.

IL78 being made in Tatarstan under Russian control, are these Midas tankers from stuff
Ukraine inherited after ussr breakup? must say they display a tendency to sell anything
they can to make some money. were peddling a KH55 derivative called Korshun to PRC
which no doubt chipanda has gotten full TOT on and repainted as HN-x.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby PaulJI » 19 Sep 2008 15:01

Singha wrote:so it seems the Ukrainians do not have a probe type AAR retrofit for the Midas and F-solah cannot hence be fed by these birds. so bandar and MirageIII would be it for now.

There is at least one US-made probe retrofit designed (but not, AFAIK, in production) for the F-16, & an Israeli (obviously difficult for Pakistan to get, but it would be extremely simple for a firm like Cobham to build their own equivalent) refuelling probe fitted to an external fuel tank, which enables F-15s & F-16s to refuel from hose & drogue-equipped tankers.

All NATO probes & drogues are compatible, so anything which can refuel a Mirage can refuel a probe-equipped US aircraft.

There's also a rumour (I have no idea of its veracity) that Pakistan is considering having some A310s (ex-PIA?) converted by EADS to dual boom/hose & drogue tankers. That's an off the shelf solution: all components already designed, & tested on an A310.

Not to say that any of these option will actually be taken up by Pakistan, but they're all possibilities.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 19 Sep 2008 15:25

Russian Navy to adopt new Bulava ballistic missile in 2009

MOSCOW, September 19 (RIA Novosti) - Russia will adopt new Bulava-M submarine-based ballistic missiles for service with the Navy and commission the first Borey-class strategic nuclear submarine in 2009, a senior Navy official said on Friday.

The Navy on Thursday conducted a scheduled launch of the Bulava missile from the submerged Dmitry Donskoi, a Typhoon-class ballistic missile nuclear submarine, in northern Russia's White Sea, and the missile reached its target at the Kura testing grounds on the Kamchatka Peninsula, about 6,700 kilometers (4,200 miles) east of Moscow.

"The successful launch of the ballistic missile allows us to assert with certainty that both the Bulava missile and the Yury Dolgoruky submarine will be put into service in 2009," the official said.

The Bulava (SS-NX-30), developed by the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology, is designed for deployment on Borey-class Project 955 nuclear-powered submarines.

The first submarine in the series, the Yury Dolgoruky (Image gallery), was built at the Sevmash plant in the northern Arkhangelsk Region and is currently undergoing sea trials.

The submarine has a length of 170 meters (580 feet), a body diameter of around 13 meters (42 feet), and a submerged speed of about 29 knots.

It will be equipped with 16 Bulava ballistic missiles, each carrying up to 10 nuclear warheads and having a range of 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles).

Two other Borey-class nuclear submarines, the Alexander Nevsky and the Vladimir Monomakh, are currently under construction at the Sevmash plant.

Fourth-generation Borey-class nuclear-powered submarines armed with Bulava missiles will form the core of Russia's fleet of modern strategic submarines.

Russia plans to build at least seven $890-million submarines of this class by 2015.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10031
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby sum » 19 Sep 2008 19:11

I think what you mean is Seal Team 6/DEVGRU is not one of the regular East/West Coast SEAL Teams which operators join after BUD/S and continuation training.

But,its very weird(for me atleast) to see non-DEVGRU SEAL teams with their ranks being chief sonar officer etc being involved in fierce land battles deep in the hinterland far away from the oceans for which they are tasked...

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 19 Sep 2008 20:14

well they are available and they need to stay sharp, so given the assignment. they would be in east africa also
based on USN ships. there's nothing much happening elsewhere that needs their presence. maybe in philipines but
Gberets are already onsite.
just like Delta morphed from a CT force into a warfighting at some point, the SEALS are perhaps branching
out from a purely from-the-sea approach to a zone that overlaps the delta and green berets.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19478
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Raja Bose » 19 Sep 2008 20:21

It is inevitable that such specialized forces will get used for more 'conventional special ops' during some point coz these are expensive forces to maintain but their specialization is rarely called for utilization. The entire ammo budget of ST6/DEVGRU allegedly at some point used to be more than the entire USMC! :shock: Forces like NSG/MARCOS probably fire more rounds in a year than a whole regiment of regular soldiers.

Enlisted personnel in USN SEALs have the traditional navy ranks like Machinist's mate, torpedoman 2nd class etc. etc....might be the rank they came with from the fleet when they joined the SEALs. Dunno if this is the same tradition followed in SBS/MARCOS etc.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby KiranM » 19 Sep 2008 20:49

sum wrote:But,its very weird(for me atleast) to see non-DEVGRU SEAL teams with their ranks being chief sonar officer etc being involved in fierce land battles deep in the hinterland far away from the oceans for which they are tasked...

SEALs' main mandate might be infiltration/ exfiltration from sea. But they are trained for all kinds of terrain. If we look at the world map, all kinda terrain are accessible from sea or rivers (yes, they also have a riverine mandate - their crowning glory in Mekong delta, Vietnam). Hence, when not needed for action from sea, it makes sense to use their skills deep in the hinterland.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 19 Sep 2008 20:58

Indus is also a river they could work in later. :mrgreen:

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10031
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby sum » 19 Sep 2008 21:59

the SEALS are perhaps branching
out from a purely from-the-sea approach to a zone that overlaps the delta and green berets.

Precisely, thats what got me wondering as to how come this doesnt cause serious turf wars/bad blood between the multiple SFs since these guys are usually very territorial when it comes to their jurisdiction...

Or is it that the SF force is stretched so thin with all over the world deployments that units are forced to take up roles outside their mandate?

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby KiranM » 19 Sep 2008 22:43

sum wrote:Precisely, thats what got me wondering as to how come this doesnt cause serious turf wars/bad blood between the multiple SFs since these guys are usually very territorial when it comes to their jurisdiction...


Under SOCOM, they are not technically under Navy or Army direct control. The precise reason for existence of SOCOM. Their usage depends on what kinda SF personnel required in which theatre and the availabilty of the same in that theatre. JSOC is a setup inside SOCOM that directly controls Deltas and SEAL DevGru. So JSOC is responsible for hush hush stuff, counter-terror and direct action. Wider SOCOM just acts as an agent for effective utilization of Green Berets, Rangers and rest of SEAL teams by Conventional forces theatre commanders.

sum wrote:Or is it that the SF force is stretched so thin with all over the world deployments that units are forced to take up roles outside their mandate?


You are bang on target, last heard they dont have sufficient numbers for even a couple of missions in Iran. That is why we didnt see any fireworks there. They are stretched in Afghanistan, Iraq, Philippines. For VBSS missions in high seas US increasingly rely on fellow NATO countries' SF or USMC units.

viveks
BRFite
Posts: 249
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 06:01

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby viveks » 19 Sep 2008 23:32

puki dudes...seem to matching each of our steps. The airforce should up the training levels. I am really surprised that uncle sam throws money to them...and that ends up going the wrong places.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19478
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Raja Bose » 20 Sep 2008 01:13

KiranM wrote:You are bang on target, last heard they dont have sufficient numbers for even a couple of missions in Iran. That is why we didnt see any fireworks there. They are stretched in Afghanistan, Iraq, Philippines. For VBSS missions in high seas US increasingly rely on fellow NATO countries' SF or USMC units.


My question is, are VBSS teams even in IN always composed solely of MARCOS coz I remember pics on B-R for the Malabar exercises where some of the members of the VBSS teams (the ones doing the boarding) seemed to be regular fleet sailors (perhaps with some Naval Infantry training?).

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 20 Sep 2008 20:10

Reports: Russia test-fires strategic missile from submarine

MOSCOW, Sept. 18 (Xinhua) -- The Russian Navy Thursday test launched a Bulava ballistic missile, a spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry said.

The Bulava missile was launched from a submerged submarine cruiser Dmitry Donskoi and its warheads hit targets at the Kura testing ground on the Kamchatka peninsula in Russia's far east.

The telemetric information on the launch and missile flight was still being processed, but even the early data indicated that the mission had performed in the scheduled mode, the official was quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency as saying.

The Bulava, designed by the Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology, is carried by Borey-class Project 955 nuclear-powered submarines.

Fourth-generation Borey-class nuclear-powered submarines armed with Bulava missiles will form the core of Russia's fleet of modern strategic submarines.

The first submarine in the series, the Yury Dolgoruky, will soon join the Russian Navy. It will be equipped with 16 Bulava ballistic missiles, each carrying up to 10 nuclear warheads and having a range of 8,000 kilometers.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby KiranM » 20 Sep 2008 23:51

Raja Bose wrote:My question is, are VBSS teams even in IN always composed solely of MARCOS coz I remember pics on B-R for the Malabar exercises where some of the members of the VBSS teams (the ones doing the boarding) seemed to be regular fleet sailors (perhaps with some Naval Infantry training?).

Well, depends on the situation. Usually naval personnel with basic infantry skills will suffice for board and search of ships carrying deadly cargo with few or nil capable bad guys guarding the cargo. But consider a scenario where they come across terrorists/ pirates and a fire-fight occurs in the ship. The closed confines of a ship is urban warfare magnified several times. Here a Navy SF will be sorely needed.

Raja Bose
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19478
Joined: 18 Oct 2005 01:38

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Raja Bose » 21 Sep 2008 00:05

KiranM wrote:
Raja Bose wrote:My question is, are VBSS teams even in IN always composed solely of MARCOS coz I remember pics on B-R for the Malabar exercises where some of the members of the VBSS teams (the ones doing the boarding) seemed to be regular fleet sailors (perhaps with some Naval Infantry training?).

Well, depends on the situation. Usually naval personnel with basic infantry skills will suffice for board and search of ships carrying deadly cargo with few or nil capable bad guys guarding the cargo. But consider a scenario where they come across terrorists/ pirates and a fire-fight occurs in the ship. The closed confines of a ship is urban warfare magnified several times. Here a Navy SF will be sorely needed.


Moreover, MARCOS are probably not stationed on all IN ships on the high seas (not that many to go around).

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby KiranM » 21 Sep 2008 00:10

Raja Bose wrote:Moreover, MARCOS are probably not stationed on all IN ships on the high seas (not that many to go around).


I thought atleast a 10 member team is present in a destroyer + ships. If not, personnel who rotate out of MARCOs after the max period of service perhaps are distributed around to form VBSS teams. This is mere speculation.

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17003
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 21 Sep 2008 00:15

AFAIK, all capital ships have a small marcos unit. I guess this would include all ships over and including the frigate designation in IN.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 22 Sep 2008 17:28

Poor French troops.They were ambushed and the "interpreter" allegedly was a Talib informer.The tactics used by the Talibs,picking the French off at long range with specialised ammo,indicates the nature of the enemy and its capabilities,tactics and weaponry.During the last several years in prosecuting the so-called "War on Terror",it has been a rude shock to the US and western forces,including the Israeli's in Lebanon,how supposedly inferior insurgent forces have "levelled the playing field" so to speak,using unorthodox methods and indulging in so-called assymetrical warfare.The IPKF also suffered heavy casualties against the LTTE,who picked off with snipers the officers first,leading our troops to remove/conceal their badges/epaulettes.The ability of such forces to also disable light infantry vehicles like Humvees and other scout vehicles,using rifles and RPGs,makes it imperative that armour improvements are sorely needed .Modern armies are still being equipped with weaponry meant for fighting classic battles of the past,when the enemy today uses more irregular forces and guerilla warfare predominates.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... istan.html

French troops 'ran out of ammunition' in Afghanistan
Ten French soldiers killed by Taliban fighters last month in Afghanistan were woefully ill-equipped, according to a report citing a classified Nato document.

By Henry Samuel in Paris
Last Updated: 4:49PM BST 21 Sep 2008

The "secret" file quoted by a Canadian newspaper said that the French troops ambushed on Aug 18 in a valley east of Kabul did not have enough bullets, radios and other equipment to sustain them through two days of fighting.

The report is likely to fan tensions ahead of a French parliamentary debate over President Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to send extra troops to Afghanistan. It promises to be heated, but Mr Sarkozy's decision will be approved as his ruling centre-right UMP party holds a strong majority.

According to the report cited by the Globe and Mail newspaper, the troops were forced to abandon a counter attack when the weapons on their vehicles ran out of ammunition only 90 minutes into the battle. One French platoon had just one radio, which was quickly knocked out, leaving them powerless to call for reinforcements.

The dead soldiers from that platoon "showed signs of being killed at close range", the report said.

By contrast, it said that the insurgents were well prepared and equipped, with expert snipers who appeared to have used incendiary bullets designed to punch holes in armour.

Nato and the Paris government denied the existence of such a report.

"Neither the secretary general (Jaap de Hoop Scheffer) nor indeed Nato headquarters has any knowledge of such a report's existence. After some research we are still unable to find any evidence of such a report," said a Nato spokesman.

"Nato has 100 percent, full confidence in the capabilities, training and equipment of French forces," he added.

"There was no Nato report," said a French army spokesman, saying such information was based on "rumours" possibly fed by "partial" accounts from soldiers questioned after the attack. He denied that the troops ran out of ammunition quickly and said that radio reception was only lost for a few minutes.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20711
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 22 Sep 2008 17:31

Super Sub!
Super sub: Virginia class on front line in global war on terrorism
Virginia class on front line in global war on terrorism

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/ ... -809210331

Lt. Cmdr. John Thompson, executive officer of the New Hampshire, stands in the area of the weapons launch console of the submarine. Photo of the sub was taken during its rollout in February.
By Deborah McDermott
dmcdermott@seacoastonline.com

September 21, 2008 6:00 AM
It's not your father's Navy any longer.

If proof of that is needed, it is abundant in the new Virginia-class submarines. Gone are the Cold War days when the Navy planned to fight a Soviet enemy. Here are the days of a global war on terrorism, when stealth and covert sea and land operations take precedence.

Uss new hampshire
For more information on the commissioning on Oct. 25 and other celebrations surrounding it, please visit www.ussnewhampshire.org.
Related Stories
Submarine celebration needs cashSub ceremony gets $10K boostTime blamed for spoiled Granite Ghost Ale plansGranite Ghost ale nixed by fedsSubmarine delivered to U.S. NavyNew sub being turned over to Navy Brewery's new ale to honor sub commissioning eventWeb site offers registration for USS New Hampshire submarine commissioningWeb site launched for sub eventsPortsmouth widow of 911 pilot christens submarine The Navy plans to build 30 Virginia-class subs. The fifth to be built was the New Hampshire, which will be commissioned into the fleet at a ceremony at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard on Oct. 25.

The Navy is shifting focus from 20th to 21st century warfare with the Virginia class. The Los Angeles class, the Virginia's predecessor, is considered an "attack" submarine, intended to support surface ships during battle and to attack Soviet submarines, according to Navy information.

The Virginia class is another animal altogether. Since the end of the Cold War, the Navy has expanded its focus from deep-sea warfare to include coastal water domination so as to influence events ashore.

"It's no longer the Soviets versus the United States," said Lt. James Stockman, public affairs officer of Submarine Group Two in Groton, Conn. "In the global war on terrorism, the key words are intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance."

The Virginia class is built to go into shallow water, and from there her abilities are many, based on the needs of the operation. These include land attack, intelligence gathering, mine reconnaissance and support of special forces.

The special forces that will come aboard the submarine will almost always be Navy SEALS, Stockman said. Let's say, for instance, the sub's mission is to travel to the waters off the coast of an enemy country and gather intelligence on a planned amphibious attack. The SEALS would come aboard at the start of the mission, and would likely stay in the torpedo room, which is "reconfigurable," Stockman said.

If the mission is more geared to battle, it can be filled with torpedoes. If the mission is more geared to reconnaissance, half the room can be converted into bunk beds for the SEALS or other special forces. Once the sub is positioned near shore, the SEALS can head to land via a lockout diving chamber on the sub. In most cases, Stockman said, the sub would be close enough to land that they could swim ashore. If not, the chamber can accommodate a mini-sub.

The SEALS would gather their intelligence and come back to the sub, which is so quiet it's been virtually undetectable during the time the SEALS were ashore.

Meanwhile, the submarine will be able to pick up all kinds of signals that even satellites can't detect. It features sonar that enables it to map the ocean floor, ferret out enemy submarines and detect enemy mine fields. An advanced electromagnetic silencing system reduces its vulnerability to magnetic mines while it's in shallow water. There is also a towed array of sonar behind the sub, which up until this class of submarines has been considered vulnerable.

If, however, the mission is not reconnaissance but combat, the Virginia class is also better prepared than its predecessors to respond, Stockman said.

The Virginia class can carry 38 full-sized weapons, including torpedoes, mines and Tomahawk land-attack missiles. This last capability is what sets the Virginia class apart. The Tomahawks are used in the sub's 12 vertical launch tubes. So if the mission is to strike land targets, it's able to get into shallow waters and launch an attack.

The torpedo room that reconfigures to allow room for the SEALS can also be filled floor to ceiling with weapons that can be moved by a system of hydraulics instead of manually as has been the case in the past.

"It's the versatility of the Virginia class that makes it so valuable," Stockman said.

Another major innovation with the Virginia class can be found in the control room — or actually not found. There is no periscope. Instead, images from above water are garnered through use of photonics — similar to but more advanced than fiber optics. A photonics mast can do a 360-degree scan of the surface in five seconds, Stockman said, so the time that the sub is actually in view of an enemy and vulnerable is negligible. Stockman said the photonics mast itself has "great night vision" and infrared capabilities. The images the photonics mast picks up are recorded and sent to a plasma screen to be replayed in the control room — or in the crew's mess or in the officer's mess. Meals are no barrier to getting information during a combat mission.

Meanwhile, there's no separate chart room or sonar room. Both are now on screens in the control room, "so everything the commander needs is all in one space. He's going to have a complete picture of what's going on. He can actually see what the sonar is seeing and see what the photonics picked up."

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 22 Sep 2008 17:51

RU and Ven are becoming quite a team eh?

Russian navy sails to Venezuela

Tho' it is a down grade.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 22 Sep 2008 19:37


sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10031
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby sum » 23 Sep 2008 08:40

Link
Russian warships leave for the Caribbean

Vladimir Radyuhin

First foray into American backyard since the end of Cold War

— Photo: AP

Chugging ahead: Peter the Great, Russian nuclear-powered missile cruiser.

MOSCOW: A squadron of Russian warships set sail to the Caribbean from their base near Murmansk on Monday in the first foray into the backyard of U.S. since the Cold War.

The nuclear-powered missile cruiser Peter the Great, anti-submarine destroyer Admiral Chabanenko and two support ships will take part in war games with Venezuela’s Navy in November. Russian anti-submarine aircraft will also join the manoeuvres. Media reported that the group includes nuclear submarines, but Navy spokesman Igor Dygalo declined to comment on the reports.

The Peter the Great is one of the largest warships of its kind and carries Su-33 jet fighters and helicopters, as well as a variety of weapons systems including Granit long-range cruise missiles that can be armed with nuclear warheads.

Earlier this month Russia sent Tu-160 strategic bombers to Venezuela in the first projection of Russian air power close to the U.S. coast since the breakup of the Soviet Union 17 years ago.

The Caribbean manoeuvres come as Russian-American relations have dipped to their lowest point since the Cold War over Russia’s trouncing of Georgia, Washington’s closest ally in the former Soviet Union.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who will visit Moscow this week, said Latin America needed a strong friendship with Russia to help reduce Washington’s influence in the region.

“We are ridding ourselves from the Gringo empire dominance. We need friends like Russia today,” the firebrand Venezuelan leader told Russian television on Sunday.

On their way to Venezuela, the Russian flotilla is expected to detour through the Gibraltar Strait into the Mediterranean, where the U.S. 6th Fleet is deployed. The Russian warships may visit the strategically located Syrian port of Tartus. Military sources said Russia plans to upgrade its ship maintenance station in Tartus into a full-fledged naval base.

renukb
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 18 Aug 2008 12:18

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby renukb » 23 Sep 2008 21:08

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008 ... 372540.htm

New US-bought Air Force fighters 'inferior'
Posted 1 hour 18 minutes ago

A US think tank has declared the joint strike fighter aircraft that Australia is set to buy is inferior to the Russian made Flanker jets used by China and Indonesia.


The RAND Corporation's experts compared jets in a wargame and the ABC has obtained the results.

In bad news for the Air Force, which is set to buy 100 of the joint strike fighters, the results say the strike fighters have inferior acceleration, climb, turn capacity and a lower top speed than Russian and Chinese fighters.

In short it says the strike fighter can't turn, can't climb and can't run. It says the US fighter which could outdo the Russian made flankers is the F 22 raptor, which the United States bans from foreign sales.

The fighter's defenders argue it is not designed for close combat. But the RAND Corporation says a plan b is necessary and points out that if the strike fighter is seen or has to engage an enemy at close range then it will be no match for the Flankers.

A spokesman for the defence minister says he is convinced the strike fighter is the best aircraft available, but the minister has not released the air combat capability review which studied the options.

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10031
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby sum » 23 Sep 2008 21:35

Since unable to edit my earlier post, a question from the article i earlier posted:
The Peter the Great is one of the largest warships of its kind and carries Su-33 jet fighters and helicopters

A missile frigate carries Su-33?? :eek: :shock:
Googling told me only about the helos but even fighters?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests