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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby PaulJI » 07 Oct 2008 13:58



Page 14. Fascinating article on Russian AESA. The company making T/R modules for Phazotron says "We are not in the final production stage, but we have no doubt we can do that. We are close to a final production configuration".

I think all those claiming that the MiG-35 has a fully-developed, production-ready AESA radar need to read that article.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3948
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby kit » 07 Oct 2008 21:20

A must read

A new dossier on the (im)precision of U.S. bombing and the (under)valuation of Afghan lives

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/stories/20081024252100400.htm

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20719
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 08 Oct 2008 12:08

DARPa's new "flying sub".

http://www.slashgear.com/darpa-submersi ... e-0718439/

New details about UFOs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3155580 ... -1947.html

UFOs 'have been here since 1947'
UFOs exist and have been here since 1947, according to a British expert.

By Chris Irvine
Last Updated: 6:34AM BST 08 Oct 2008

The US Air Force released this 1972 photo of a Viking space probe awaiting recovery at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico as part of its report on the 'Roswell Incident' of 1947 Photo: REUTERS
Editor of UFO Data Magazine Philip Mantle is set to unveil his findings at an international conference this month.

He investigated the site in Roswell, New Mexico where many people believe there was an alien crash landing. He analysed rock, earth and vegetation.

The area is surrounded by charred trees and bushes and a mysterious blue substance that dribbles down rocks.

US physician Dr Ronald Rau said in the 1940s high levels of radiation pointed to a ship landing there in the 1940s.

The area in the Nogal Canyon is close to the well-known Socorro desert site where experts say another object appeared to have landed in 1964.

Mr Mantle said: "A good friend of mine Ed Gerham first found the site and I flew over as soon as I could.

"It was a real find and as soon as I arrived there I knew what a special and peculiar place it was. There is nothing around it for around 70 miles, it is literally in the middle of nowhere.

"Us Brits really have beaten the Americans at their own game and it is really great that we have done that. It really is revolutionary for the UFO world."

Mr Mantle is set to reveal his full findings at the UFO Data Annual Conference later this month in Leeds.

PS:One big Q.Why was in the recent report in the media about India being integrated with the world community,nuclear deal,blah,blah,to join with it in space,etc., and "fighting off an alien invasion",or words to that effect? It has completely been missed by the media experts.It is also a historical fact that part of Reagan's speech to Gorbachev,emphasised the fact that henceforth the US and Russia would work together to ward off an "alien attack".

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 08 Oct 2008 20:37

New AH-6 Pitched For International Market


Bettina H. Chavanne chavanne@aviationweek.com

Boeing is dusting off its failed bid for the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH), its so-called AH-6 Light Attack/Reconnaissance Helicopter, in a bid for a burgeoning international market, the company declared Oct. 7.

The massive defense contractor announced the new rotorcraft program, based on the platform it built to bid on ARH in 2005, at the Association of the U.S. Army show in Washington, D.C. While executives stressed the helicopter is being geared strictly to an international market, the announcement comes in the shadow of a still unresolved Nunn-McCurdy breach on Bell's ARH.

At an earlier roundtable, Army aviation officials said four separate Defense Department teams are examining different aspects of ARH capability. "We're still under contract with Bell," said Paul Bogosian, the Army's program executive officer for aviation. "Either we'll be re-certified...or the next step would be to present a strategy that conforms with the [office of the Secretary of Defense]."

Since the Army requirement will not disappear even if Bell's ARH does - which is not planned - Boeing is well-positioned to re-sell its AH-6. Asked to comment on whether it could replace Bell, Boeing's director of rotorcraft, Mike Burke, said: "It might be premature [to say anything] because of the sensitivity of where they are...But as the aircraft sits on the ramp today, it will meet all of the key performance parameters (KPP) of the Army's capabilities document for an ARH."

Features of the AH-6 include a six-blade rotor system and four-blade rotor, which allows increase payload and maneuverability. It will be powered by Rolls Royce's C30R/3M engine with 850 shaft horsepower.

Boeing's goal is a first international order of 18 to 24 aircraft in the early part of 2009.

Image
Aircraft would be similar to Boeing's Little Bird, shown above. Photo: Boeing

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 08 Oct 2008 20:39

Murtha Predicts Defense Budget Squeeze

Oct 8, 2008

John M. Doyle

In the competition for defense funding sought by the next administration, only two U.S. Air Force production lines are likely to remain in operation – the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the replacement refueling tanker – a top congressional appropriator says.

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, thinks the F-22 Raptor will “fall by the wayside,” as will the C-17 cargo lifter.

In an Oct. 5 interview with a Washington, D.C., television program, Murtha said that no matter who wins the White House, weapons systems programs are going to face stiff competition from demands to restore equipment depleted by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, expand the size of the Army and Marine Corps and increase nonmilitary spending on social programs such as health care.

“The pressure on us is going to be so great,” Murtha said, adding “the new president is going to be forced to look at health care for everyone, Medicare, Social Security, and the military – as we wind down from Iraq – is going to be off the front page.”

Murtha said he’s trying to convince the Defense Department and industry to decide “what weapons systems we need, how we’re going to look at them and let’s buy them up in a quantity that we save some money.” Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said Oct. 6 that he’s ordered his staff to examine all Army proposed procurement programs and study what size force it would need in the future.

Murtha said during WUSA’s “This Week in Defense News” broadcast that “our big problem” is the $160 billion U.S. Army Future Combat Systems (FCS) modernization effort. He predicted that outside pressures will force the Army to reduce FCS spending. “What you’re going to see, instead of buying the vehicles, they’re going to upgrade the equipment that we have now – reset and rehabilitate the equipment – and I don’t think you’ll see them buying much, even though there’s less maintenance costs. The money just won’t be there to do it. I don’t see it.”

POM plans

Murtha’s observations run contrary to the Army’s Aug. 5 Program Objective Memorandum (POM) for fiscal 2010-2015, which proposes cutting procurement funding for the Stryker M113 and Abrams tank by more than $3 billion to increase spending on FCS by $45 billion between fiscal 2010 and 2013. But the POM still must be approved by Pentagon leadership, as well as the White House and Congress (Aerospace DAILY, Oct. 1)

Murtha said military health care and mental health, as well as physical therapy, is going to eat up a big part of the Defense budget in coming years. “We need to decide is there a real threat. Do we need to sustain this large Army? Can we put more emphasis on the National Guard?”

Because the all-volunteer force is so expensive, Murtha said he favored restoring the military draft. The commanding general of Force Command, Gen. Charles Campbell, says increasing the size of the Army through full mobilization and return to the draft are “not politically supportable.” Campbell told an Association of the U.S. Army dinner Oct. 4 that he favored increasing the size of all force components, including the Guard and Army Reserve.

Even though he thinks the F-22’s U.S. production days are numbered, Murtha opposes selling the stealth fighter’s technology to allies like Japan or Israel. But he believes in the future the U.S. will sell “a lot” of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, as many as 3,000.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 08 Oct 2008 20:41

France Increases Defense Spending in 2009

Sep 29, 2008

Robert Wall

PARIS — France has released its latest defense budget, which includes a boost for modernization spending to €17 billion from €15.4 billion in the current fiscal year.

The budget provides for delivery of 14 Rafale fighters and 8 Tiger attack helicopters. Also due to be handed over are the second Horizon air defense frigate and 96 Véhicule Blindé de Combat d’Infanterie (VBCI) armed vehicles.

In terms of new orders, the budget also provides for orders for 60 more Rafale fighters, 22 NH90s transport helicopters and 332 VBCI vehicles, three frigates and the second Barracuda attack submarine, with deliveries unfolding over the next 10 years.

Also on the agenda is a mid-life update for France’s E-3 AWACS fleet, upgrade of five Cougar helicopters, and purchase of 1,000 Armament Air-Sol Modulaire (AASM) precision bombs.

The topline is €32 billion for defense, a 5.4 percent boost over the current year. With troops deployed to various locations, including Afghanistan and Africa, France also has boosted maintenance spending by around 8 percent or €2.9 billion.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby rkhanna » 08 Oct 2008 23:31

New AH-6 Pitched For International Market


I have actually had a Flight of 3 Little Birds fly right over my campsite (treetops) and they are quiet as hell. Didnt hear them till they were right above me. OTOH Apaches scared the living crap out of me..lol.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3948
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby kit » 11 Oct 2008 14:35


Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20719
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 11 Oct 2008 14:51

Interesting piece on Japanese monitoring of Chinese sub activity.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/ ... 011a1.html

A secret kind of control

The Defense Ministry on Oct. 2 dismissed a 50-year-old colonel of the Air Self-Defense Force for allegedly passing a "defense secret" to a Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper reporter more than three years ago. The information was about a Chinese submarine that had surfaced in the South China Sea and was adrift. The investigative unit of the Self-Defense Forces sent allegations against the officer to the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office some six months ago, but the office has not yet taken any action.

It is extraordinary that the investigative unit, which is directly under the defense minister's control, made efforts to pinpoint a news source who provided the recipient with the information and that the ministry dismissed the ASDF officer before public prosecutors took action. It is the first time that defense authorities have dismissed an SDF member for giving information to a reporter.

The Defense Ministry obviously aims to control the flow of information from the SDF to the outside by slapping tight restrictions on SDF members likely to be approached by reporters. This will intimidate SDF members and, possibly, even reporters trying to carry out their normal news-gathering duties. Thus it carries the danger of limiting people's right to know.

The ASDF colonel was head of the Russian section in the electronic waves department at the then Defense Agency's Defense Intelligence Headquarters. According to the Defense Ministry, the officer's position allowed him access to information from U.S. spy satellites, and it was he who approached the Yomiuri reporter.

The ministry says that on May 30, 2005, the officer told the reporter that a fire was thought to have occurred inside a Chinese submarine while submerged. The ministry insists that this information, which concerned the behavior of a foreign submarine, constituted a "defense secret." It quotes the officer as admitting that he was aware the information was a "defense secret" when he conveyed it to an outside person.

In its May 31, 2005, edition, the Yomiuri Shimbun carried a front-page article headlined "A fire in a Chinese submarine?" It reported that a Chinese submarine was being towed toward Hainan Island, which is Chinese territory. It identified the submarine as a Ming-class diesel-powered attack submarine and said that Japanese and U.S. defense sources had confirmed the submarine's hull number. It quoted the defense sources as saying they suspected that a fire of accidental origin had occurred inside the submarine several days earlier in international waters between Taiwan and Hainan.

In October 2005, the then Defense Agency filed a criminal accusation with the SDF's investigative unit against an unnamed suspect in connection with the leak. In January 2007, the unit searched the ASDF officer's home and workplace. In March 2008, the investigative unit sent a paper on him to the public prosecutors office.

The investigative unit acted under the 2001 revision of the SDF Law that created a "defense secret" category. Not only SDF members but also other public servants and private-sector workers under contract with the SDF face imprisonment of up to five years if they disclose "defense secrets."

Those who persuade SDF members to disclose such secrets face up to three years' imprisonment. The Yomiuri reporter obtained the information as part of his usual news-gathering beat. In announcing its in-house investigation, the Yomiuri Shimbun announced in February 2007 that the reporter had done his job properly. The SDF investigative unit did not question or take legal action against the reporter.

The case in question does not involve a leak of details on U.S.-supplied weapons and other equipment or of defense plans to cope with an emergency situation. Convictions on such disclosures carry imprisonment of up to 10 years. One wonders why information on an adrift Chinese submarine should constitute a "defense secret." It seems more like the kind of information that should be shared with the public.

As the Yomiuri Shimbun said after the ASDF officer was dismissed, the Defense Ministry's "extraordinary" action will intimidate public servants approached by reporters, make news gathering more difficult and restrict the functions of the mass media whose duty is to inform people of important events.

The Defense Ministry took tough action against the officer apparently because the U.S. had supplied the information to the SDF. There are no clear standards for which information should be classified as secret. If the Defense Ministry classifies one piece of information after another as secret, civilian control of the SDF will be lost. The SDF will become closed to an open society. To prevent this, it is all the more important for the mass media to vigorously adhere to journalistic principles, including protection of a news source, when carrying out their activities.

vishal
BRFite
Posts: 336
Joined: 27 Feb 2002 12:31
Location: BOM/SIN

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby vishal » 13 Oct 2008 14:43

How Technology Won Sadr City Battle
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/ ... age2.shtml

Excerpt: In the battle for Sadr City, they used two different UAVs. One was the "Shadow" drone. Twenty or thirty seconds after a militia team fired a rocket, the Shadow locked on them, shadowed them, watched them move, and set up for their next shot.

Then an armed UAV, the "Predator," was activated. Actual pictures of a battle on the streets of Sadr City were captured: on the video, one can see a group of militia fighters rushing to a car that had just been hit by a U.S. Hellfire missile. They remove a mortar tube from the trunk and load it into a second car which they drive through the streets to an open field. At that point the Predator locks its sights onto the vehicle and fires off another missile. According to the Army, this killed two fighters inside the car, and destroyed the mortar tube.
::
::
"They went from 20 to 30-man groups down to 5, 4, and in some cases only one or two," Hort explained. "The Predator and the Shadow were just phenomenal in their ability to see the enemy, particularly after he shot a rocket."
::
::
With the help of the drones and their high-powered cameras, Army commanders were able to see or "map" the entire theater of operations, and figure out the enemy's tactics and patterns with so-called "persistent surveillance.”

"In some cases we would wait four, six, even ten hours to do the engagement because we didn't want to kill the guy. We wanted to go after the whole group, you know, the company chain of command as you want to call it that."
::
::
This was the first time UAVs were used this way at the brigade level, allowing soldiers on the ground to manage and synchronize the information themselves. They call it "find, fix and finish."

"All of this was pushed down to the brigade commander and used in this fight, primarily focused north against the rocket teams," Hort said.
::
::
Hort told Stahl the number of attacks dropped from 60 to three or four a day.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20719
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 15 Oct 2008 18:59

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/a ... rcID=37449

Russia Makes an Extraordinary Show of Missile Force
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
By Sergei Blagov

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev seen in front of a transporter with a mobile version of the Topol ICBM before its launch from the Plesetsk space center in northern Russia, Sunday, Oct. 12, 2008. (AP Photo/RIA-Novosti)Moscow (CNSNews.com) – At the height of the Cold War, Nikita Khrushchev claimed that Soviet factories were turning out intercontinental strategic missiles "like sausages from an automatic machine, rocket after rocket.”

Five decades later, amid uneasy relations between Russia and the West, Moscow has given an unprecedented demonstration of its strategic missile prowess. The weekend show of force was extraordinary even by Cold War standards.

The show began Saturday with the firing of a Sineva ballistic missile from a submarine in the Barents Sea, achieving what Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said was an all-time record flight of more than 7,100 miles before landing in the Pacific Ocean. Medvedev observed the missile firing from the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov.

Also on Saturday, Russian Tu-95MS strategic bombers launched cruise missiles in war-games unseen since the Soviet era. And on Sunday, Russia fired three more long-range missiles, including one from a submarine in the Barents Sea, one from a submarine in the Sea of Okhotsk north of Japan, and a Topol ICBM from a space center at Plesetsk, north-east of Moscow.




Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, flanked by Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov, aboard the cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov in the Barents Sea, Saturday, Oct. 11, 2008. (AP Photo/RIA-Novosti)Medvedev, after observing the tests, said that Russia’s nuclear deterrent and missile defense system were strong. He also pledged that Russia would launch a large-scale construction of aircraft carriers within the next two years. The Admiral Kuznetsov is currently the only carrier in the Russian Navy.

The tests form part of a month-long strategic drill called Stability-2008, the biggest exercise of its kind since the Cold War.

The Sineva has a maximum range of around 5,300 miles when carrying 10 warheads totaling 2.8 tons. It can carry a single warhead up to its maximum range, which in the weekend test exceeded 7,100 miles.

The Nyezavisimaya Gazeta daily noted that Russia stopped Sineva production back in 1996, but said its upgrade could extend the weapon’s life-span. It said the tests were probably intended to demonstrate that the missile could offer an “asymmetric” response to the proposed U.S. ballistic missile defense shield in Europe.

Russia’s new Bulava strategic missile has a maximum range of 5,000 miles and can carry up to six warheads. One was successfully tested last month, fired from a submarine in the White Sea.

Moscow says the Bulava is designed to overcome missile defenses like those the U.S. plans to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic.

The U.S. says the shield aims to protect the U.S. and allies from missile attack by countries like Iran, not Russia, but Russia remains strongly opposed to the plan.

The Nyezavisimaya Gazeta also commented that while missile defense facilities protect the U.S. mainland well from the east, west and north, it is not well defended from the south, speculating that the deployment of long-range missiles in Latin America could be a strategic deterrent.

During the Soviet era, missile demonstrations were largely limited to towing dummy rockets during Red Square military parades. Actual tests were marked by brief announcements on back pages of official newspapers, basically warning seamen against entering certain areas in the oceans.

While Khrushchev was known for his verbal rhetoric, other Soviet-era leaders were more reserved, with none publicly overseeing missile tests.

And Khrushchev’s boast of missiles being made “like sausages” turned out to be a bluff, it later emerged.

Warnings to the West against pressuring Russia also came from the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, who said in an interview published Sunday that the West should not try to teach Russia any lessons, adding that its advice in the past had not been much help.

Even as Russia flexed its muscles at home, it presented an obliging face in Washington, where Russia’s deputy prime minister and finance minister Alexey Kudrin attended a meeting of G7 finance ministers and pledged to cooperate with the West to tackle the global financial crisis.

After the meeting, Kudrin conceded that Russia’s economic growth could slow next year as the crisis pushes down oil prices. He said Moscow was prepared for oil to drop to $50 a barrel and promised that Russia, the world’s second biggest oil exporter, would not cut production to prop up prices.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3948
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby kit » 16 Oct 2008 07:30

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i= ... =FEA&s=SPE

The United States is being rocked by mortgage foreclosures, collapsing financial institutions, plummeting stocks, frozen credit, rising unemployment and by fear itself. But defense spending, at least, is going up.

The economy of defence budgets !

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20719
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 16 Oct 2008 16:01

Qantas Plunge Investigators to Examine Naval Base Transmissions

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?
pid=20601080&sid=aqAyz3Iex8qY&refer=asia

By Ed Johnson

Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Australian air safety investigators will examine whether radio transmissions from a naval base interfered with a Qantas Airways Ltd. jet's computers and caused the aircraft to nosedive last week.

Officials will probe whether the radio tower at the base in Exmouth, Western Australia, ``had any influence,'' David Hope of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said by telephone today.

The Airbus A330-300, flying from Singapore to Perth, plunged 650 feet (198 meters) in seconds before the pilots regained control and made an emergency landing at an airfield near Exmouth on Oct. 7. A computer fault on the jet switched off the autopilot and generated false data, causing the aircraft to suddenly lose altitude, the safety bureau said this week.

The Naval Communication Station Harold E. Holt, established by the U.S. in the 1960s, uses very low frequency transmissions to relay communications between Australian and American submarines. The U.S. Navy left the base in 1992 and it is now owned by the Australian Department of Defence.

Boeing Australia Ltd., which operates and maintains the base for the Australian government, referred a call for comment to the defense department. Defense officials in Canberra didn't immediately respond to an e-mailed request for comment.

More than 40 passengers and crew on Qantas flight QF 72 needed hospital treatment for spinal injuries, broken bones, cuts or concussion.

Airbus SAS, the world's largest maker of commercial aircraft, issued an alert earlier this week to airlines that fly A330s and A340s to advise them of the safety bureau's preliminary findings.

To contact the reporter on this story: Ed Johnson in Sydney at ejohnson28@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: October 16, 2008 00:03 EDT

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3948
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby kit » 16 Oct 2008 18:11

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... plans.html

Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV)-2 demonstrators.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20719
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 16 Oct 2008 18:35

View of recent Russian strategic forces exercises.It is intersting that the same yardstick applies to India which has yet to perfect its strategic delivery systems,especially the sub-leg of the triad.

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=2777

Military Exercises Showcase Russian Power, and Its Limits
Richard Weitz | Bio | 15 Oct 2008
World Politics Review

The Russian government may not yet describe itself as a superpower, but its latest military exercise, "Stability 2008," clearly aims to affirm Russia's global military reach. The exercise's hypothetical scenario posited a local conflict (e.g., over Georgia) that escalates into a world war, pitting Russia and its ally, Belarus, in a conflict with the West in which both sides employ land, air, maritime, and eventually nuclear forces. All three components of Russia's strategic nuclear deterrent (bombers, submarines, and land forces) participated in the maneuvers, which were the largest conducted on Russian territory since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. One Russian commentary on the month-long exercise, which began on Sept. 21, described it as an opportunity for Russia to "prove its Major League status."

Although the Georgia War has brought the issue to the forefront, Russia's military activities expanded well before this summer's conflict. For several years, Russia's Strategic Missile Forces (SMF) have engaged in an enlarged testing program of the country's land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The launches aim both to confirm existing missiles' reliability, and to develop new missile and warhead technologies. In August, for instance, the SMF test-launched Russia's main intercontinental ballistic missile, the RS-12M Topol ICBM (NATO codenamed SS-25 Sickle), with a new warhead designed to overcome U.S. missile defenses. Spokesperson Alexander Vovk declared, "An experimental warhead hit a target at a testing range on the Kamchatka peninsula with high precision, demonstrating its capability to deliver pinpoint strikes on well-defended targets."

In addition to its ICBM deterrent, Russia has been reinvigorating its air-based deterrent recently as well. Since last year, Russian strategic bombers have resumed global patrols, simulating nuclear attacks against the United States and its allies.

During the Stability 2008 exercises, Russian strategic bombers conducted their first live-fire exercises since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In northern Russia, the Tu-160 White Swan (NATO codename Blackjack) and Tu-95MS Bear-H strategic bombers deployed and launched their maximum combat payload of cruise missiles. Additional Russian combat and support warplanes also participated in the exercise.

And on Sept. 10, two Russian Tu-160 Blackjack supersonic strategic bombers flew to Venezuela, where they conducted a week of highly publicized exercises before returning to their home base of Engels in central Russia on Sept. 19. Their 16-hour flights were the longest in the history of Russian strategic aviation. The planes carried only dummy warheads on this deployment, as Russian warplanes usually do on exercises.

Perhaps the most interesting component of Russia's military resurgence, though, is the return of the Russian Navy, which in recent months has conducted exercises in maritime regions unvisited by Russian sailors since Soviet times. During the Georgia War, warships from Russia's Black Sea fleet, based at the Ukrainian port of Sevastopol, deployed along the coast of Georgia's breakaway province of Abkhazia to support Russian ground and air operations. After NATO warships entered the Black Sea to provide humanitarian assistance to the Georgian government, Russian Adm. Eduard Baltin boasted that the Russian Navy could destroy the NATO naval contingent within 20 minutes. President Dmitry Medvedev, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, and other Russian leaders expressed concerns that the NATO ships were actually delivering weapons to Georgia under the guise of providing humanitarian assistance.

Following Ukrainian protests and a reaffirmation of Ukraine's intent to end Russia's lease on its Sevastopol naval base in 2017, a Russian Navy commander expressed interest in acquiring new bases in the Mediterranean Sea. Those would more than compensate for the loss of the Sevastopol base by providing the Russian fleet with a new presence in an important region of the world. The Soviet Navy had a limited flotilla in the Mediterranean, but Russian Federation warships have rarely deployed there. In addition to the Black Sea Fleet, the Russian Navy comprises the Northern Fleet, the Pacific Fleet, the Baltic Fleet, the Caspian Flotilla, Naval Aviation, Naval Infantry (marines), and coastal artillery.

On Sept. 22, meanwhile, two of the Russian Navy's newest warships -- the Pyotr Veliky ("Peter the Great"), a nuclear-powered guided missile heavy cruiser, and the Admiral Chabanenko, an anti-submarine warfare ship -- ostentatiously left their base in northern Russia, along with several escort ships. The task force is spending several weeks in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean before engaging in joint military exercises with the Venezuelan Navy from Nov. 10-14. In describing the deployment, spokesman Igor Dygalo affirmed that, "The Navy remains a serious deterrent prepared to thwart any threat to Russia's national security, and if necessary provide an adequate response to any act of aggression." Capt. Dygalo added that, "The return of the Russian Navy to global oceans is an accomplished fact, whether you accept it or not."

The Baltic Fleet subsequently dispatched the Neustrashimy (Fearless) frigate from the port of Kaliningrad to confront Somali pirates who had seized a Ukrainian-owned ship whose captured crew included several Russians. The UN Security Council enacted a resolution authorizing countries to use force in Somalia's territorial waters against the pirates. Russian policy makers see the ship's deployment as both a means to reaffirm Russia's commitment to uphold international security and an opportunity to underscore their capacity for independent military action. "We are planning to participate in international efforts to fight piracy off the Somalia coast," observed Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, "but the Russian warships will conduct operations on their own."

Russia's fleet of strategic missile submarines has also shown renewed activity. On Oct. 12, the Russian armed forces fired three long-range ballistic missiles nearly simultaneously from separate launch platforms located thousands of miles apart -- a truck-mounted Topol missile from the Plesetsk cosmodrome in northwest Russia and ballistic missiles from submarines deployed in both the Barents Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk in the Pacific Ocean. The day before, a Russian submarine had launched a Sineva ballistic missile from the Barents Sea. The missile traveled a record distance of more than 11,500 kilometers to a target in the equatorial region of the Pacific Ocean. President Dmitry Medvedev, who observed the submarine launch on Saturday and the ground launch on Sunday, said that the exercise "shows that our deterrent is in order."

Until recently, the priority placed on reviving Russia's ground and air forces has meant that the Russian fleet has been declining in size due to the need to decommission ships that have reached the end of their operational lifespan. The current Russian rearmament program, which will provide the Russian military with 4.9 trillion rubles ($192.16 billion) until 2015, allocates 25% to constructing new warships.

Medvedev has stated that the government would give priority to "nuclear submarines with cruise missiles, and multi-purpose attack submarines." Russia's existing non-strategic submarines will soon reach the end of their designated lifespan since they were constructed during the 1980s and 1990s.

In July, Adm. Vysotsky, stated that Russia intended to eventually deploy five or six aircraft carrier task forces, which would be more useful than submarines for reestablishing Russia's global maritime presence. The current plan is to start building the carriers in 2012. Observers question, however, whether the Russian defense industry still has the capacity to construct such a large and complex weapons system as a modern aircraft carrier and its associated warplanes. Russia's only remaining aircraft carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, has repeatedly gone out of service since its commissioning in the early 1990s to undergo essential repairs. Russia does not now have a shipyard designed to construct aircraft carriers; the Kuznetsov was built in Ukraine during the 1980s, when Ukraine's defense industries were part of the integrated Soviet military-industrial complex.

Perhaps the most serious concern of the Russian Navy, though, is whether it can fulfill its important role in Russia's nuclear strategy. The critical uncertainties relate to Russia's new Bulava Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile (SLBM), which is designed to carry ten nuclear warheads a maximum range of 8,000 kilometers. A variety of developmental problems, including an unprecedented three successive failed launches, have delayed the Bulava's entry into service until at least 2009, which is already three years behind schedule.

On Sept. 18, the Dmitry Donskoi launched a Bulava from a submerged position in the White Sea at a target in the Kura testing grounds on the Kamchatka Peninsula. According to a Russian Navy spokesman, "It can be said that the launch and flight proceeded without a hitch." Nevertheless, some Russian sources subsequently claimed that the missile's multiple warheads failed to separate properly from the carrier bus and missed their targets. The Russian Navy is counting on the Bulava to equip its next generation Borey-class nuclear-power submarines, which is the only strategic submarine still under production in Russia.

The problems with the Bulava underscore the fragility of Russia's military revival. Despite the unprecedented scale of the recent military maneuvers, the Russian armed forces, especially the non-nuclear branches, have yet to acquire the robust range of military platforms and technologies required of a military superpower.

Richard Weitz is asenior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a World Politics Reviewcontributing editor. His weekly WPR column appears every Tuesday.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3948
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby kit » 19 Oct 2008 18:18

China’s Military Employment of American Dual-Use Technologies

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/ ... detail.asp

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3948
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby kit » 19 Oct 2008 18:23

China Debuts Aegis-type radars

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... _n21376644

In the same article
The Soviets seem to have had considerable trouble in exercises with their Gorshkov phased array radar :?:

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20719
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 21 Oct 2008 15:18

Details about the US's latest Virginia class subs and their advanced technology.

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/ ... S-81020028

asbchakri
BRFite
Posts: 250
Joined: 14 Sep 2007 11:20
Location: Chennai
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby asbchakri » 21 Oct 2008 15:51

kit wrote:China Debuts Aegis-type radars

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... _n21376644

In the same article
The Soviets seem to have had considerable trouble in exercises with their Gorshkov phased array radar :?:


Do we have any such system in production or development phase :?: Or do we have any plans to do so

vavinash
BRFite
Posts: 556
Joined: 27 Sep 2008 22:06

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby vavinash » 21 Oct 2008 16:12

THe article from strategypage is patent rubbish. Its high time people stopped posting links to that site. Its even worse than Prasun.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20719
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 25 Oct 2008 12:42

Tempted to put this in the aerospace page!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_worl ... nchin.html
Look out James Bond, US military launching high-tech flying submarine
By BARRY KEEVINS and CORKY SIEMASZKO

Thursday, October 23rd 2008, 12:31 PM


Click to see schematic plans of the high-tech flying sub
The U.S. Military is seeking designs for a new weapon that could be in a James Bond movie - a flying submarine.

While Bond drove a Lotus that turned into a sub when it hit the water in "The Spy Who Loved Me," what the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, wants is far more ambitious.

Their specs call for a submersible flying machine capable of carrying eight men and their equipment a combination of 1,150 miles by air, 115 miles by sea, or 22 miles underwater - in less than eight hours.

NAVY CONFIRMS SUNKEN SUB IS WWII VESSEL
It must have the "stealth of a submarine" and be able to hide beneath the water's surface for up to three days to pick up the men after their "coastal insertion" mission is completed.

"We are open to submissions from anywhere," DARPA spokeswoman Jan Walker said. "DARPA has a budget of $3 billion."

Previous attempts to come up with such a craft failed because "the design requirements for a submersible and an aircraft are diametrically opposed," according to the specs.

COPS GO HIGH-TECH IN SCAM BUST
The Soviets tried to come up with one during World War II. And in the 1960's, the Navy doled out thousands to weapons contractors to come up with new flying sub designs.

Flying subs were featured on the TV series, "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea."

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby neerajb » 25 Oct 2008 22:46

Starstreak is a British short range surface-to-air missile manufactured by Thales Air Defence Limited (originally Shorts Missile Systems), in Belfast. It is also known as Starstreak HVM where HVM stands for "High Velocity Missile". After launch the missile accelerates to approximately Mach 3.5, at which point it launches three laser beam riding submunitions. The use of three submunitions increases the likelihood of a successful hit on the target. Starstreak has been in service with the British Army since 1997.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak_missile

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQgSxpy5Wyw&feature=related[/youtube]


I don't understand what's the need of such a complex system with 3 submunition darts with such a complex guidance system of their own. On top of all this it utilises LASER beam riding guidance which is not an all weather solution. What's the point behind such a radical approach towards an AD system whereas most other designs use either SACLOS AND/OR IR guidance? Does this configuration provides some exceptional hit probability that British are willing to sacrifice the all weather capability?

Cheers....

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 17005
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 25 Oct 2008 23:24

FWIW, I saw a programme on this missile on discovery future weapons in which the designer claims that 3 missiles ensure at least two hits for flying targets while one is usually enough to incapacitate the a/c.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby renukb » 26 Oct 2008 10:08

Russia's nuclear cruiser to let off steam
Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:27:32 GMT


New-generation nuclear submarine, Yuri Dolgoruky
A new nuclear-propelled Russian submarine is to undergo sea trial in line with the country's decision to renovate its nuclear deterrent.


http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=73 ... =351020602

Installations and systems of the fourth-generation head strategic missile submarine, Yuri Dolgoruky "are being checked and it is being prepared for the first trials," Mikhail Starozhilov, the spokesman for the Sevmash shipyard at which the submarine is being built, was quoted by ITAR-TASS as saying on Friday.

Yuri Dolgoruky and its sister submarines form the Borei-class which is looked upon as the centerpiece of the Russian strategic nuclear forces in the current century. They will have 12 intercontinental solid fuel ballistic missiles.

The submarines are, as well, optimal for stealth operations boasting the cutting-edge naval radio electronics which has reduced their noise to the minimum.

Named after a Russian duke, Yuri Dolgoruky is equipped with Bulava-M missile, which is capable of reaching targets at a distance of up to 8,000 kilometers.

Bulava missiles are as well said to be able to rip through 'any' missile defense barrier.

Last month, Medvedev ordered renovation of Russia's nuclear deterrent.
Nukes have been given undivided attention following presidential orders for refurbishment of the country's nuclear deterrent. The orders were moved by the recent upheavals in Russia's backyard namely the war in Georgia and Washington's plan to set up a missile shield in Europe.

"A guaranteed nuclear deterrent system for various military and political circumstances must be provided by 2020," said President Dmitry Medvedev last month.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 29 Oct 2008 02:28

The decision on this topic could impact Indian M/MRCA, which could become a fairly large player in the financial sheets of some companies.

Will Obama Gut Defense?

Barney Frank will not soon be named secretary of defense or, insha'Allah, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. So there's really no reason to fear that his recent call to cut defense spending by 25% is a harbinger of what to expect in an Obama administration.

Then again, maybe there is.

When it comes to defense, there are two Barack Obamas in this race. There is the candidate who insists, as he did last year in an article in Foreign Affairs, that "a strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace"; pledges to increase the size of our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines while providing them with "first-rate equipment, armor, incentives and training"; and seems to be as gung-ho for a surge in Afghanistan as he was opposed to the one in Iraq.

And then there is the candidate who early this year recorded an ad for Caucus for Priorities, a far-left outfit that wants to cut 15% of the Pentagon's budget in favor of "education, healthcare, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger [and] deficit reduction."

"Thanks so much for the Caucus for Priorities for the great work you've been doing," says Mr. Obama in the ad, before promising to "cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending . . . slow our development of future combat systems . . . not develop new nuclear weapons."

Joe Biden also cut an ad for the group that was even more emphatic: "I'll tell you what we cannot afford . . . a trillion-dollar commitment to 'Star Wars,' new nuclear weapons, a thousand-ship Navy, the F-22 Raptor."

Mr. Biden is right that we can't afford a thousand-ship Navy, not that anyone has proposed it. Current levels of funding don't quite suffice to operate 300 ships, or about half the number the U.S. had at the end of the Reagan arms buildup. The Navy would be satisfied with 313.

Current funding is also just adequate to purchase about 65 new planes for the Air Force each year, even as the average age of each plane creeps upward to nearly 24 years. Last year, the entire fleet of F-15Cs -- the Air Force's mainstay fighter -- was grounded after one of the planes came apart in midair. Spending on maintenance alone is up more than 80% from a decade ago. Is that another defense item Mr. Biden thinks we can't afford?

(As for nuclear weapons, the U.S. hasn't built a new warhead in decades. Its mainstay, the W76, is widely suspected of being unreliable, yet Congress has resisted funding the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead.)

Maybe it seems odd that the Pentagon, whose budget for 2009 runs to well over $500 billion -- not including the supplemental $165 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan -- should struggle to afford the equipment it needs.

But it's not odd. We've been fighting two wars, straining people and equipment. Weapons have generally become more complex and expensive. President Clinton's "procurement holiday" punted the modernization problems to the present. And even after the Bush buildup, defense spending amounts to just 4% of gross domestic product. By contrast, at the nadir of Cold War defense spending under Jimmy Carter, the figure was 4.7%.

Image

All this should argue for at least a modest recapitalization effort by an Obama administration, assuming it really believes a strong military is "necessary to sustain peace." A study by the Heritage Foundation makes the case that defense spending should rise to close to $800 billion over the next four years in order to stick to the 4% GDP benchmark. That's unrealistic in light of the financial crisis. But holding the line at current levels is doable -- and necessary.

But what if a President Obama doesn't actually believe in the importance of a strong military to keep the peace? Or has an attenuated idea of what qualifies as a "strong" military? Or considers military strength a luxury at a moment of financial crisis? Or thinks now is the moment to smash the Pentagon piggy bank to fund a second Great Society?

Does anyone really know where Mr. Obama's instincts lie? During the third debate, he cited former Marine Gen. James Jones as a member of his wise man's circle -- which was reassuring but odd, given that the general made a point of appearing at a McCain campaign event simply to distance himself from the Democratic candidate.

The Obama campaign has also produced a lengthy defense blueprint on its Web site. It reads more like a social manifesto, promising to "improve transition services," "make mental health a priority," and end "don't-ask, don't-tell." All very well, except the document is notably vague on naming the kinds of weapons systems Mr. Obama would actually support.

And so the question remains: If elected, which Obama do we get? The nuanced centrist or the man from Ben and Jerry's?

Some voters may like answers sometime before next Tuesday. Alternatively, they can click the button called "I'm Feeling Lucky."

Write to bstephens@wsj.com

JaiS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2190
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 12:31
Location: JPEG-jingostan
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby JaiS » 30 Oct 2008 01:51

Interceptors’ missile ‘lock on’ failure jolts SLAF

Tuesday’s failure to shoot down a single LTTE aircraft despite timely detection by radar has jolted the SLAF into investigating its limitations amidst evidence that the enemy has acquired a capability to neutralise the threat of a heat seeking missile attack.

An authoritative source said that Chinese F7s launched from Katunayake air base had failed to zero-in-on the enemy aircraft. "Their (F7s) missile systems failed to ‘lock on with the enemy aircraft," the source said. This would necessitate an overall review of the SLAF’s strategy, the source said. The military asserted that the LTTE could try to exploit the situation.

The initial detection had been made north-east of Mannar at 10.18 p.m. by 2D radar installed by the Government of India at the SLAF base at Vavuniya.

Thaladdi had come under attack within minutes after the detection, the source said.

Both the Indian radar and a Chinese 3D radar station located in the Western Province had detected the enemy aircraft but interceptors failed to carry out a successful missile strike. 2D radar provides direction and the distance of a target whereas the Chinese radar provides even the altitude of a target.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20719
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 30 Oct 2008 12:24

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... -test.html

DATE:29/10/08
SOURCE:Flight International
Raytheon plans submarine-launched UAV test
By Stephen Trimble

Raytheon will soon stage a demonstration of a system for launching an unmanned air vehicle from underwater, moving a step closer to follow-on tests using a submerged submarine.

US Navy submarines move relatively freely under the surface, but have limited vision at periscope height, says Jeff Zerbe, Raytheon programme director for the submarine over the horizon organic capabilities effort. For example, the top masts of an aircraft carrier could probably be detected by periscope from a distance of 20km (10.8nm), but the submarine would be unlikely to positively identify the vessel.

The ability to launch a disposable unmanned aircraft from underwater could dramatically extend a submarine's visual range for surface contacts, says Zerbe, a former USN submarine commander.

About four years ago, Zerbe and Raytheon engineering fellow Dave Bossert proposed how to operate UAVs from a submarine. The small aircraft, equipped with sensors and communications links, are loaded into a waste disposal tube which can be ejected into the water. This floats to the surface and stabilises at a 30° angle before the UAV is launched.

The host submarine could directly control the aircraft from underwater or allow it to fly autonomously, only receiving sensor and communications updates from its free-roaming aerial sensor.

Raytheon has designed the UAV to be a disposable asset, both in terms of engineering and price, Zerbe says.

The first demonstration of the system took place on 10 September, when two surface launch vehicles were submerged to 24m (80ft) and allowed to float to the surface. The next will come within a few weeks, and demonstrate a full-up aircraft launch. After that event, Raytheon plans to reveal the identity of its selected UAV and aircraft supplier. The company confirms the aircraft's ground control system is compatible with the Swift Engineering blended wing Killer Bee design: the Raytheon/Swift team's offering for the proposed USN/US Marine Corps small tactical unmanned aircraft system/Tier II contract.

A follow-on test is planned next year to demonstrate the entire system, including the ejection from the submarine's waste disposal unit. Raytheon expects this to be followed by a series of user assessments, giving the submarine community time to become comfortable with the tactics for operating their own UAVs.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 30 Oct 2008 19:50

Boots on the Ground or Weapons in the Sky?

Budget Crunch Forces U.S. Military to Choose Which Form of Defense to Pursue; This-War-Itis vs. Next-War-Itis

By AUGUST COLE and YOCHI J. DREAZEN

Washington

For years, the military has been roiled by a heated internal debate over what kind of wars it should prepare to fight.

One faction, led by a host of senior officers, favors buying state-of-the-art weapons systems that would be useful in a traditional conflict with a nation like Russia or China. The other side, which includes Defense Secretary Robert Gates, believes the military should prepare for grinding insurgencies that closely resemble the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The dispute has long been largely academic, since the soaring defense budgets in the years since the September 2001 terror attacks left plenty of money for each side's main priorities.

That is beginning to change, a casualty of the widening global financial crisis. With the economy slowing and the tab for the government's bailout of the private sector spiraling higher, Democratic lawmakers are signaling that Pentagon officials will soon have to choose which programs to keep and which to cut. In the long and unresolved debate about the military's future, a clearer vision of how best to defend America will emerge -- but not without one side ceding hard-fought ground.

"The services are used to the old approach, with everyone getting everything. But there's not enough money," says Rep. Neil Abercrombie, the Hawaii Democrat who heads the Air and Land Forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. "The due bill is finally coming in."

The two competing schools of thought each warn that making the wrong decisions now could imperil U.S. national security down the road. The military officials who favor buying advanced weapons believe that failing to invest in those systems today could leave U.S. forces ill-equipped to fight a modernized Russian or Chinese military in the future. Conversely, advocates of expanding the size of the ground forces argue that the military will be unable to meet the troop demands of the ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, to say nothing of conflicts elsewhere in the world, unless the Army and Marines recruit tens of thousands of additional troops.

The final decision will ultimately fall to the next administration, which will have to prioritize how to divvy up what may be a significantly smaller defense budget. Neither the Obama nor the McCain campaign has tipped its hand on whether to focus on asymmetric conflicts like Iraq or possible large-scale conventional wars.

In Congress, however, the wheels are already in motion. Pennsylvania Democratic Rep. John Murtha, who controls the congressional purse strings for defense issues, startled Pentagon officials recently when he said that longstanding plans to recruit more soldiers and Marines would need to be scaled back or canceled.

Mr. Abercrombie, meanwhile, has fought to cut funding from the Army's flagship weapons program, the $160 billion Future Combat Systems initiative, and says he hopes to pare it back next year, even after the program recently received full funding.

"I think we should focus on the troops who are in the field today, not on some Star Wars technology that may never work," he says.

U.S. policy makers have generally preferred to buy advanced weapons, believing that the American technological edge contributed to the U.S. victory in the Cold War and to the speedy defeat of Saddam Hussein's military in the first and second Iraq wars. The approach continues to attract enthusiastic adherents, particularly within the ranks of the various armed services themselves.

Despite terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and insurgency warfare abroad, supporters argue that it is far too soon to conclude that U.S. forces will never fight a conventional war again. They note that China, which has been dramatically expanding its military, still could target Taiwan, a close U.S. ally, if the island declares independence. They also note that Russia's recent invasion of Georgia showed that the U.S. might one day have to fight Moscow on behalf of American allies like Poland and Ukraine.

"Should we simply wish away China's increasing muscle, or a resurgent Russia's plans for a fifth-generation fighter that would surpass our top-of-the-line jet, the F-22 stealth fighter?" Air Force Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap wrote in an op-ed piece this year.

The other side in the debate argues that the enthusiasm for advanced weapons systems is misplaced. This faction, which includes Mr. Gates and many lawmakers, argues that a battery of expensive weapons are useless in counterinsurgency conflicts like Iraq, which pit U.S. forces against lightly armed but dogged foes. They say history is replete with examples of powerful militaries that were ultimately defeated by guerrilla fighters.

"The Chinese, Vietnamese, Sandinistas, Hezbollah, Palestinians and Chechnyans all triumphed over forces with superior military power," retired Marine officer Thomas X. Hammes wrote in "The Sling and the Stone," a 2006 book widely read in military circles. "The superior technology of the losers did not prove to be a magic solution."

The two sides have traded muffled potshots at each other for months. In a speech in May, Mr. Gates accused some military officials of "next-war-itis," which shortchanges current needs in favor of advanced weapons that might never be needed. The comment prompted some in the defense community, especially in the Air Force, to quietly chide Mr. Gates for "this-war-itis," a short-sighted focus on the present that could leave the armed forces dangerously unprepared down the road.

For the most part, soaring defense budgets have long kept Pentagon officials from having to settle the debate. For 2009, the Pentagon's base budget is $512 billion, which is up almost 7% from 2008 and at a historic level. Last year, supplemental spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan added more than $100 billion to the Pentagon's coffers.

With lawmakers talking openly of cutting back the defense budget, however, policy makers may soon have to make some difficult trade-offs.

"A lot of the key problems and questions that were already there had been kicked down the road, and they can't be kicked down the road any further," said Peter Singer, director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative at the Brookings Institution.

One of the thorniest issues is how many ground forces the U.S. military should have. Mr. Gates said last year that he wants to add 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines by 2012. President George W. Bush has endorsed the idea and regularly champions it in public remarks about the military.

But the idea is running into growing resistance on Capitol Hill. Mr. Murtha says the Pentagon won't be able to afford more soldiers and Marines, and needs to take better care of the troops it has.

"This is not academic anymore," he says. "This is the direction the budget is going to have to go."

Mr. Murtha believes that the military needs to focus instead on getting U.S. ground forces back in fighting shape for possible future operations against strategic threats like China and Russia.

"If you want to deter a war, you've got to be prepared," he says.

Replacing the weapons and vehicles that have been worn down after years of service in Iraq and Afghanistan will be expensive. Mr. Murtha, a supporter of some of the military's most advanced weapons, estimates the "reset" cost for the armed forces at $100 billion or more.

Mr. Gates, for his part, believes that curtailing the growth of the ground forces would be a "mistake," according to Pentagon spokesman Greg Morrell.

"Secretary Gates firmly believes that growing the Army and Marine Corps is essential to our national security," Mr. Morrell says. He adds that defense officials acknowledge that the Pentagon has "probably hit our high-water mark" in terms of defense spending, and that some cutbacks are inevitable.

One X-factor is the fate of Mr. Gates himself, who is being actively courted by advisers to both presidential candidates. Mr. Gates, who has a stopwatch in his suitcase ticking down to the end of the Bush administration's tenure, has said he is unlikely to stay on. But the defense chief is always careful to leave himself some wriggle room.

"Well, let me just say that I'm getting a lot more career advice and counseling than I might have anticipated," he told reporters earlier this month, laughing. "I think I'll leave it at that."

If Mr. Gates remains in his job for at least a year, that would leave him in a position to help settle, once and for all, the military's internal debate about its priorities.

Write to August Cole at august.cole@dowjones.com and Yochi J. Dreazen at yochi.dreazen@wsj.com

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Arun_S » 31 Oct 2008 10:49

Interesting article even if one cant read french:
Dossier : La modernisation de la Force océanique stratégique

notice the non-submarine underwater test platform they used.

Sid
BRFite
Posts: 1651
Joined: 19 Mar 2006 13:26

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Sid » 31 Oct 2008 11:51

JaiS wrote:Interceptors’ missile ‘lock on’ failure jolts SLAF

Tuesday’s failure to shoot down a single LTTE aircraft despite timely detection by radar has jolted the SLAF into investigating its limitations amidst evidence that the enemy has acquired a capability to neutralise the threat of a heat seeking missile attack.

......


It is always some equipment failure for SL. Last time Indian radar didnt't worked, now Chinese fighters failed!!

Is there something fundamentally wrong in their operational doctrine or lack of professionalism?


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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 04 Nov 2008 03:42

Pentagon Expects Cuts in Military Spending

By THOM SHANKER and CHRISTOPHER DREW
Published: November 2, 2008

WASHINGTON — After years of unfettered growth in military budgets, Defense Department planners, top commanders and weapons manufacturers now say they are almost certain that the financial meltdown will have a serious impact on future Pentagon spending.

Across the military services, deep apprehension has led to closed-door meetings and detailed calculations in anticipation of potential cuts. Civilian and military budget planners concede that they are already analyzing worst-case contingency spending plans that would freeze or slash their overall budgets.

The obvious targets for savings would be expensive new arms programs, which have racked up cost overruns of at least $300 billion for the top 75 weapons systems, according to the Government Accountability Office. Congressional budget experts say likely targets for reductions are the Army’s plans for fielding advanced combat systems, the Air Force’s Joint Strike Fighter, the Navy’s new destroyer and the ground-based missile defense system.

Even before the crisis on Wall Street, senior Pentagon officials were anticipating little appetite for growth in military spending after seven years of war. But the question of how to pay for national security now looms as a significant challenge for the next president, at a time when the Pentagon’s annual base budget for standard operations has reached more than $500 billion, the highest level since World War II when adjusted for inflation.

On top of that figure, supplemental spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has topped $100 billion each year, frustrating Republicans as well as Democrats in Congress. In all, the Defense Department now accounts for half of the government’s total discretionary spending, and Pentagon and military officials fear it could be the choice for major cuts to pay the rest of the government’s bills.

On the presidential campaign trail, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama have pledged to cut fat without carving into the muscle of national security. Both have said they would protect the overall level of military spending; Mr. McCain has further pledged to add more troops to the roster of the armed services beyond the 92,000 now advocated by the Pentagon, a growth endorsed by Mr. Obama.

Some critics, citing the increase in military spending since Sept. 11, 2001, say it would be much easier to cut military spending than programs like Social Security and Medicare at a time when most people’s retirement savings are dwindling because of the financial crisis. Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has raised the idea of reducing military spending by one-quarter.

At the Pentagon, senior officials have taken up the mission of urging sustained military spending. Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has asked Congress and the nation to pledge at least 4 percent of the gross domestic product to the military. And Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has warned against repeating historic trends, in which the nation cut money for the armed services after a period of warfare.

“We basically gutted our military after World War I, after World War II, in certain ways after Korea, certainly after Vietnam and after the end of the cold war,” Mr. Gates said. “Experience is the ability to recognize a mistake when you make it again.”

Mr. Gates acknowledges that military spending is almost certain to level off, and he expressed a goal that the Pentagon budget at least keep pace with inflation over coming years.

Apprehension over potential budget cuts has trickled down the Pentagon bureaucracy to those who each year draft the military’s spending proposals.

“If that’s what they want, they have to know that we simply cannot do everything we are doing now, but for less money,” said one Pentagon budget officer who was not authorized to speak for attribution. “So if there’s going to be less, it’s up to the president, Congress and the public to tell us what part of our national security mission we should stop carrying out.”

Much of the Pentagon budget pays for personnel costs, which are difficult to cut at any time, and particularly while troops are risking their lives in combat.

Mr. Obama has said his plan to begin drawing down American forces from Iraq would ease a wartime taxpayer burden that now totals over $10 billion a month. But budget analysts at the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill say that even troop reductions in Iraq — whether at the cautious pace laid out by President Bush and endorsed by Mr. McCain or at the more rapid pace prescribed by Mr. Obama — would present little savings in the first years.

Moving tens of thousands of troops and their heavy equipment home from the Persian Gulf region is a costly undertaking. And housing at stateside bases is more expensive than in the war zone, so savings would be seen only in subsequent years.

Calls by both presidential candidates to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan actually would add costs to the Pentagon budget, according to military planners and Congressional budget experts. It is significantly more expensive to sustain each soldier in Afghanistan than in Iraq because of Afghanistan’s landlocked location and primitive road network.

The federal budget is due to Congress in February, but that document is expected to be little more than an outline, arriving soon after Inauguration Day. Congressional officials predict the new president will require several months to put his imprint on a detailed spending plan that would actually be worth debating on Capitol Hill.

On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama has said he would initially maintain overall military spending at current levels.

“Obama has made it very clear that he doesn’t see how the defense budget can be cut now given the commitments we have,” said F. Whitten Peters, a former Air Force secretary now advising Mr. Obama on national security policies. “His sense is that there is not money to be cut from the defense budget in the near term.”

But in looking to future Pentagon budgets, he added, it is clear that “all the weapons programs cannot fit.”

“So,” he continued, “you’re going to have to make some hard decisions.”

Mr. McCain, a former Navy combat pilot who was taken prisoner during the war in Vietnam, is known for taking on what he has seen as wasteful Pentagon spending.

According to one of his advisers on military policy, Mr. McCain “feels very strongly that the whole procurement process is totally dysfunctional.”

“He believes that putting order, discipline and accountability back into the process will stop the gold-plating and bring costs down,” said the adviser, who asked not to be named in order to discuss the candidate’s views frankly.

These budget pressures also seem quite likely to add to the tensions between Congress and the Pentagon over the best balance between supporting the troops fighting insurgencies and developing weapons that might be needed in larger wars.

“I think we need a complete review of this whole thing,” said Representative Neil Abercrombie, a Democrat from Hawaii who is chairman of a House Armed Services subcommittee. “You cannot make a case for undermining the readiness of the Army and the Marines in the circumstances that we face today with a commitment of so much money to weapons systems that are at best abstract and theoretical.”

Executives at the leading defense contractors say they realize that the Pentagon’s spending is likely to be more restrained. Boeing’s chief executive, W. James McNerney Jr., recently wrote in a note to his employees: “No one really yet knows when or to what extent defense spending could be affected. But it’s unrealistic to think there won’t be some measure of impact.”

Ronald D. Sugar, the chief executive of Northrop Grumman, told stock analysts last month that financing for the company’s projects seemed locked in for the coming year. But, Mr. Sugar added, “Clearly the pressures are going to increase in the out years.”

A number of scholars who have examined the subject, including David C. Hendrickson, a political scientist at Colorado College, predict that “defense will not prove to be ‘recession proof.’ ”

“Serious savings could be had by reducing force structure and limiting modernization,” said Professor Hendrickson, who posted a “blogbook” on the financial crisis at pictorial-guide-to-crisis.blogspot.com. “Though American power has weakened on every count, there is no reconsideration of objectives. Defining a coherent philosophy in foreign affairs and defense strategy that is respectful of limits is vital.”

Other analysts, like Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington Institute, a policy research center, say that weapons spending will be fiercely defended by many in Congress and their allies in the weapons industry as a way to stimulate the economy. Buying new armaments and repairing worn-out weapons, Mr. Thompson said, protects jobs and corporate profits, and therefore benefits the economy over all.

vavinash
BRFite
Posts: 556
Joined: 27 Sep 2008 22:06

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby vavinash » 04 Nov 2008 04:53

Ok who among you did this?... :rotfl: :rotfl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22P

The Zulfiqar Class is armed with eight C-802 surface-to-surface and eight FM-90 (improved HQ-7) surface-to-air missiles. However the F-22P uses the Russian AK-176M 76.2 mm as its main gun, instead of the Chinese 100 mm counterpart. Physically, the F-22P has a stealthier platform as it uses many of the Type 054 frigate's Radar Cross Sectional (RCS) reduction concepts. The AK-630 is the only anti-ship missile defence.It is a 30 mm gattling gun. The AK-630M may be used to shoot down aircraft and take out small gunboats and installations. This makes the F22P more deadly. The F22P is very effective in aircraft defence as it has an 8 box Fm-90 surface to air missile(SAM), the launchers and missiles are cheap, which means the Pakistan Navy can buy many of these if Pakistan comes out of the IMF program. If the pakistan navy can manage to fire the babur missile from an F22P it will be effective in taking out land installations, ships, naval platforms and any other target though the accuracy of Babur is still not proven. The C-802 anti-ship missile is claimed to be capable of destroying heavily armored ships, and maybe submarines.

neerajb
BRFite
Posts: 830
Joined: 24 Jun 2008 14:18
Location: Delhi, India.

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby neerajb » 04 Nov 2008 07:58

Sid wrote:
JaiS wrote:Interceptors’ missile ‘lock on’ failure jolts SLAF

Tuesday’s failure to shoot down a single LTTE aircraft despite timely detection by radar has jolted the SLAF into investigating its limitations amidst evidence that the enemy has acquired a capability to neutralise the threat of a heat seeking missile attack.

......


It is always some equipment failure for SL. Last time Indian radar didnt't worked, now Chinese fighters failed!!

Is there something fundamentally wrong in their operational doctrine or lack of professionalism?


The SLAF is pathetic. First they fail to down a LTTE plane and then they complain about failure of equipment and LTTE acquiring countermeasures for heat seekign missiles. If the jet failed to lock on to the target then why didn't it use the cannons.

Cheers....

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20719
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 04 Nov 2008 12:03

The future of the OZ navy and current concerns about falling manpower hitting sub opertaional readiness.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 37,00.html

All hands on deckFont
Cameron Stewart | November 04, 2008

TO listen to the Defence Department spin doctors, the future of the Royal Australian Navy has never looked better. They boast of how during the next 20 years a new fleet of deadly destroyers and futuristic submarines will rule the waves, posing a substantial deterrent to the rising naval powers in the region.

One of the navy's Anzac class frigates, the Arunta, off the coast of Fremantle.
But the navy of tomorrow is a far cry from the navy of today.

What the defence public relations team won't tell you is that these are testing times for the navy. There are not enough sailors to man its fleet, many of its ships and helicopters are ill-equipped for war, half of its submarine fleet lives in dry dock and a new generation of young Australians are baulking at a life on the high seas.

Not surprisingly, morale also is being tested, with squabbles breaking out among overworked sailors and commanders firing off orders telling them to stop complaining about their lot and display greater leadership. The top brass is so concerned about disgruntled sailors talking to the media that it issued a warning that leakers were a betrayal of the "value set" of the RAN.

Last week, Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon declared he was sick of people talking about the future when so much of today's Australian Defence Force was ill-equipped forcombat.

"We spend a lot of time thinking and talking about important capability as we look far out into the future, but we seem to spend much less time talking about the capability we need to do the things we do right now and on a regular basis," Fitzgibbon said.

Naval expert Andrew Davies, of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, says the navy is facing one of its most challenging eras. "They have had a lot of trouble getting war fighting capability on to the frigates, the submarines are undermanned and the helicopters especially, with failure of the (now scrapped) Seasprites, do not provide the capabilities a modern warship needs.

"The navy is at a point now where it really has to step up.

"We know they are going to be getting new submarines of some kind, air warfare destroyers and I think the (forthcoming) defence white paper is also likely to flag new helicopters and new frigates, but the trick will be to get the right balance of capabilities and to get platforms (that) actually deliver the capability that is advertised."

The navy's woes are a combination of bad luck, bad management and bad timing. Mismanagement of important projects has resulted in the planned upgrade of four of the navy's FFG frigates being delayed by almost five years, blowing out the total cost to more than $1.5 billion. The disastrous Kaman Seasprite helicopter project finally was cancelled by Fitzgibbon in April at a cost to the taxpayer of $1.1 billion.

Other weak spots include the abandonment of plans to upgrade the Anzac class frigates into capable air defence platforms and a continuing and alarming shortfall in the navy's anti-submarine warfare capabilities. "The surface fleet is ill-equipped for high-level operations," Davies says.

But the biggest single challenge to the navy today is not its lack of capable equipment but its lack of qualified people to operate it.

The navy, along with the army and air force, was initially slow to respond to the ominous signs early this decade that recruitment was slowing as the economic boom took hold. This boom-bust cycle -- where people leave the navy in boom times and return in hard times -- is familiar to defence planners, which prompts the question why more was not done earlier to tackle what was clearly a looming recruitment crisis.

By the time they realised the gravity of the problem, the mining boom was in full swing, with potential recruits and navy veterans, especially those with technical skills, being lured by better-paid jobs in the private sector.

The navy finds itself in a desperate position. It has only enough crew to man three of its six Collins class submarines, a 36per cent shortfall in required numbers. This is an enormous waste of vital operational capability, not to mention a poor return for taxpayers who sank $6 billion into building this fleet.

In the past four years the navy achieved only between 67 per cent and 79 per cent of its recruitment targets and is now experiencing a shortfall of 13.3 per cent in its overall trained workforce.

In response, the navy has launched an aggressive and dizzying range of emergency measures to win recruits and keep its existing sailors on board.

It has promised what Chief of Navy Rus Crane describes as a wholesale cultural shift in the way the navy treats its people.

"We are working hard at dealing with some of the pressures that our people tell us about," Crane told a Senate estimates committee last month. "That goes to time away from home and programs for our ships and is all part of a cultural shift that we are looking at very closely."

The navy is offering large cash bonuses to sailors with specialist technical skills and is introducing more family-friendly policies such as longer postings, flexible working hours, more time at home and extra allowances for health and housing.

Submariners, who start on a salary of about $76,000 a year, are being offered an extraordinary $60,000 bonus to stay on for an extra 18 months. Initially, the submariner bonus helped stem the tide of resignations.

"I can tell you that on the day that the navy capability allowance was announced, that very morning a number of submariners in Western Australia withdrew their resignations," Crane says.

But he admits the cash bonuses have been less successful in retaining some of the navy's more specialised technical tradespeople.

The rushed implementation of these bonus schemes also has been problematic. That the submarine bonus is paid only to ranks from able seaman to petty officer has meant that some lower ranks of submariners are paid more than officers.

"The navigator is getting less than the able seaman steward," Opposition defence spokesman David Johnston says. "I think this is a very significant blow to morale among officers, particularly in submarines."

The bonus payments also have triggered jealousy and recriminations across other sectors of the navy.

Chief engineer Peter Marshall recently wrote a stinging letter to his sailors, telling them to stop whingeing that not everyone was receiving cash bonuses.

"Together we must all work to lead ourselves out of the situation we currently find ourselves in," he wrote.

"Unless your pay went backwards, then I would prefer you to congratulate those who received the bonuses rather than bemoan the fact that they did not come to you. This is a leadership challenge."

Although Marshall did not mention morale, he implied that officers needed to do more to lift the flagging spirits of their fellowsailors.

"(US) general Colin Powell said: 'Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier', and I am convinced there is much truth in this statement," he says.

"If you don't value and enjoy (the) navy, then why should your subordinates?"

Luckily for the navy, there are higher powers that appear determined to ensure that it comes through this malaise and reclaims its proud tradition.

Kevin Rudd surprised and delighted navy chiefs when he forcefully argued the case for a stronger navy while addressing the RSL national conference in September.

"We need an enhanced naval capability that can protect our sea lines of communication and support our land forces as they deploy," the Prime Minister said.

And just last week, Fitzgibbon allocated about $5 million to planning for the next generation of Australian submarines, which will be the largest defence project undertaken in this country.

This political will to strengthen the navy is driven by the realisation that countries in the region -- especially China and India -- are fast expanding their navies.

For the future, most of the decisions that will shape the navy in the short term have already been made.

Three advanced new multi-role air warfare destroyers will deliver a sizeable capability boost to the surface fleet when they arrive from 2014. Meanwhile, the arrival of two 27,000-tonne amphibious ships from 2013 will together give the navy the ability to embark 2200 troops with vehicles and landing craft.

While defence planners in Canberra are trying to balance the competing wish lists of navy, army and air force, Rudd's strong endorsement of the navy's role has led to quiet confidence in the ranks that the service will be looked after.

"There is no real reason to think the Government is going to shy away from (the) focus on air and maritime approaches that we have seen in previous white papers," Davies says. "So I would expect (the) navy to be right upthere when funds allocations are being announced."

The key naval decisions for the Government will be whether to take up the option of a fourth air warfare destroyer and also how large the next-generation submarine fleet should be.

Many in the navy want to keep the new submarine fleet to a modest six, fearing a larger fleet will take away funds that could be spent on surface units.

But the political support for submarines at this point seems powerful and there is speculation that a fleet of eight or 10 could be ordered, despite the shortage of submariners.

The financial crisis has already put severe strain on the defence budget and, if it continues, the navy may find its shopping list curtailed by economic reality.

"It depends how long the financial crisis lasts," says Davies.

"The only partly comparable set of data is the Asian financial crisis in the late 1990s and their military programs got back on track very quickly after that."

But the flip side of the crisis and the looming slowdown is likely to ease the crew shortage by attracting recruits who are nervous about shrinking job prospects in the private sector.

Navy recruitment websites are targeting 16 to 24-year-olds to an unprecedented degree. The navy's website boasts about the opportunities for travel, friendship, fitness and food.

"Our aim is to shift incorrect, negative misconceptions about the navy, build an emotional connection with the target audience and place navy careers top of mind among the target audience," a navy spokesman says.

The Government knows there is no point harbouring grand ambitions for the navy if there are not enough crew to sail its ships. It has become the navy's greatest challenge.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 07 Nov 2008 20:41

Rafale, and, now these beauties:

The FM400 Frigate:

Image

The Gowind series:

Image

Image

Image


Think India should wind down and hook up with FR.

uddu
BRFite
Posts: 1862
Joined: 15 Aug 2004 17:09

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby uddu » 07 Nov 2008 21:27

No wonder our defense establishment always prefer foreign stuff. Even though other changes is happening the mindset has not changed.
This is from the DCNS website. Check the characteristics.
http://www.dcnsgroup.com/products/fr/1224697203380

Now check our own ships.
http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/NAVY/Project17.html
Kolkata

With the exocets, the French ships don't have the punch. The only problem with our shipyards is the slow shipbuilding process which is getting sorted out. Let's hope to see the new P17A's and P15B's being built at the shipyards faster and in large numbers.

Bharadwaj
BRFite
Posts: 331
Joined: 09 Oct 2006 11:09

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Bharadwaj » 08 Nov 2008 06:53

Flight:US lawmakers warn future F-22 orders at risk

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/20 ... -risk.html

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 08 Nov 2008 08:24

Russia to equip 5 brigades with Iskander missile systems by 2015

Image

MOSCOW, November 7 (RIA Novosti) - At least five missile brigades deployed on Russia's western border will be equipped with new Iskander-M short-range missile systems by 2015, a Defense Ministry source said on Friday.

"By 2015, the Iskander system will be put in service with five missile brigades, primarily near Russia's western border and in the Kaliningrad Region," the source said.

Russia believes that the placement of high-precision tactical missiles near borders with NATO countries would be the best response to U.S. missile defense plans for Europe.

Moscow has repeatedly expressed its opposition to Washington's plans to place 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and an accompanying radar in the Czech Republic, saying they threaten Russia's national security.

The deployment of mobile Iskander-M missile systems with a range of 500 km (310 miles) in the Kaliningrad region would allow Russia to target almost anywhere in Poland and also parts of Germany and the Czech Republic.

The Iskander-M system is equipped with a solid-propellant single-stage guided missile 9M723K1 (SS-26 Stone) controlled throughout the entire flight path and fitted with a non-separable warhead.

The missile follows a non-ballistic "fuzzy" path, which includes such features as violent maneuvers in the terminal phase of flight and the release of decoys.

It is built with elements of "stealth" technology and has a reduced reflective surface. The altitude of its flight trajectory never exceeds 50 kilometers (30 miles), which makes it even harder to detect and intercept.

The source also said Russia will supply Iskander missile systems to Belarus as part of an "asymmetric" response to the U.S. European missile shield.

"Belarus is our ally and we ... will deliver these systems to that country on a priority and most favorable basis," the official said.

Russia and Belarus, which have maintained close political and economic ties since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, have been in talks for several years on the delivery of Iskander-E systems to equip at least one Belarus missile brigade by 2015.

With its maximum range of 280 km (about 180 miles), Iskander-E is likely to target U.S. missile defense facilities in Poland, which shares a border with Belarus.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20719
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 08 Nov 2008 11:57

US/OZ subs, "deadliest force in the world",to curb China.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/us-naval ... -5jfd.html

US naval chief says subs can curb China
Brendan Nicholson, Canberra
November 7, 2008

THE commander of the US nuclear submarine fleet said he believes China's navy is a growing threat and it is vital that American and Australian submarines continue to operate together as "the deadliest force in the world".

Vice-Admiral Jay Donnelly said in Canberra that the biggest security concern in the region was China's increased military spending and arms build-up.

Vice-Admiral Donnelly told a conference of the Submarine Institute of Australia that China was building up to prevent any third party intervening in a conflict with Taiwan.

He said the US was moving 60% of its submarine fleet to the Pacific to respond.

Several weeks ago Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said Australia must develop its armed forces to counter a regional arms build-up — although he did not name China as a threat.

Vice-Admiral Donnelly said Australia's Collins Class submarines could play a crucial role in any future conflict because they were able to operate at very long range without air support in dangerous areas.

He said Chinese defence spending rose by 19% in 2007 and that trend was continuing.

"While the large number of ships being constructed by the Chinese is cause for concern, more important is that we simply don't understand the rationale for many of their activities."

China was developing the ability to disrupt US military satellites and to destroy surface ships far from its shores, he said.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests