International Military Discussion

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2835
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby chola » 24 Jan 2018 17:18

^^^ Yah, I checked out the wiki too because I was intrigued. The graphics is a wee bit wrong but for a P5 it still seems pretty light even with 146 EFs.

The IAF has 700 fighters.

Time for a switcheroo! :)


Yes indeed. The Royal Navy has practically no surface combatants at the moment.

But Singha ji is right. Their power comes from their financial and cultural muscle.

And also from being the little gorilla sitting on top of the big (American) gorilla as Singha so aptly pointed out:
Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6797
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Jan 2018 17:20

They are a NATO member so it is logical that they won't invest in their National Defense by totally neglecting the security that comes from the alliance. They don't need 700 fighters but 2-3% GDP funding should get them pretty much where they need to be. Their long term problem is A&D design and manufacturing base erosion.
Last edited by brar_w on 24 Jan 2018 18:58, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6797
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Jan 2018 17:36

JayS wrote:
Very true. The other day I read or saw somewhere how the UASF already started asking question to industry on 'what next' even before one of the teens was yet to even fly for the first time and other was only undergoing flight testing. Once I collected all the airplane documentaries that I could find and went through them. Recurring theme was how the next plane was always next in line when the current one was barely inducted. The cycle time has elongated over the decades for various reasons but the cycle goes on still. This is true to large extent for other nations such as Russia or France or UK as well. But due to ease of finding information and sheer vastness of efforts, its easiest to notice the continuation in US Aviation history.



Jay, if you go through the book on the F-22 written by its program manager you'll see that the long lead technology investments in support of the ATF actually date back to late 1970s (I have a post quoting directly form the book here somewhere) and by the mid 1980s this was a formal program with fairly large contract awards. Same now. Last month , GE was expected to complete their design review of the XA100 (definitive designation if selected will be A-100) and expect to have the first of the three prototypes begin ground testing by the end of 2019. P&W have been less forthcoming on their prototype but they wouldn't be that far behind with their progress on their engine either given that their contract was for similar timelines. This at a time when the F119 and F135 are amongst the most advanced military engines in the world.

By 2021 they should begin flight testing of one or both engines if they want to proceed with that (as opposed to further EMD awards). Propulsion has traditionally taken the longest time especially if you are looking at a leap ahead capability and not re-purposing existing propulsion solutions. Same with other areas of investments that are at low technology readiness such as directed energy weapons which will also be demonstrated on an F-15E in a couple of years time. The fact that you invest in these capabilities isn't proof that you are not satisfied with the capability you are fielding at the moment but rather indicative that you are actively pursuing a strategy to have things ready for the next replacement cycle which for the USN is to replace its substantial Super Hornet and Growler fleet and for the USAF to field a new Penetrating Counter Air aircraft to complement its long range strike and ISR fleet.

The Soviets did it the same way as they were locked in a cold war with the US and NATO and the Europeans too until the peace dividend and the downsizing which meant that they did not take the higher risk and fielding a Low Observable, 5th generation program.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22038
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 03 Feb 2018 12:36

Global Nuclear Capability Modernisation

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63626
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 04 Feb 2018 11:55



abm radar north of moscow

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1480
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Zynda » 04 Feb 2018 18:42

A major milestone in the #CR929 program as manufacturing tests of full-scale 15 x 6 meter composite fuselage panels were successfully completed, with follow-up tests showing good results. These composite components will enable the CR929 to reduce weight and increase efficiency.


Image
Image

Unlike our MTA or now FGFA, which are/were stuck in endless cycles of negotiations & ppts, C929 program seems to be actually moving forward. Guess Russia depends on China more than it leads the rest of the world to believe :)

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6797
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Feb 2018 18:16

These Marines in Syria fired more artillery than any battalion since Vietnam


A small Marine artillery battalion fired more rounds than any artillery battalion since Vietnam.

“They fired more rounds in five months in Raqqa, Syria, than any other Marine artillery battalion, or any Marine or Army battalion, since the Vietnam war,” said Army Sgt. Major. John Wayne Troxell, the senior enlisted adviser to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.It’s an explosive revelation that sheds light on the immense level of lethal force brought to Raqqa and northern Syria in support of U.S. counter-ISIS operations.“In five months they fired 35,000 artillery rounds on ISIS targets, killing ISIS fighters by the dozens,” Troxell told Marine Corps Times during a roundtable discussion Jan. 23. “We needed them to put pressure on ISIS and we needed them to kill ISIS.”To put the numbers in context: During all of Operation Desert Storm, both the Marines and the Army fired a little more than 60,000 artillery rounds.

In the invasion of Iraq, just over 34,000 rounds were fired.These figures are supported by documents provided to Marine Corps Times by Luke O’Brien, a former Army artillery officer and now historian, who acquired them from an Army historian at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.The Marines brought the M777 howitzers ― a 155mm gun. A standard artillery battery has roughly six guns and up to 150 Marines; a battalion would include up to 18 guns or three firing batteries.

There were more than 730 howitzers supporting Operation Desert Storm.

In November, Marine Corps Times reported that the Marines supporting the Syrian Defense Forces managed to burn out a couple howitzer barrels ― an extremely rare feat.“Because of all these rounds they were firing, we had to continue to recycle new artillery pieces in there because they were firing so much ammunition,” Troxell said.In spring 2017, the small Marine artillery battalion for the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit deployed to northern Syria to support America’s partner force Syrian Democratic Forces with 24-hour, all-weather fire support.

That unit was eventually replaced in April with another group of about 400 Marines.

In mid-October, just prior to the liberation of Raqqa, Troxell visited with the Marine unit for a period of roughly four hours.

“Every minute we were there we were putting some kind of ordnance or some kind of attack on ISIS,” Troxell told Marine Corps Times. “I couldn’t believe ISIS was still holding out.”

From June 2017 until Raqqa’s liberation in October, U.S. aircraft dropped just under 20,000 total munitions. Those numbers, from U.S. Air Forces Central Command, reflect strikes in Iraq as well.Coalition aircraft supporting the liberation of Mosul and Raqqa still managed to drop less munitions than the 18 guns fired by the Marines in northern Syria.

“That’s a lot of rounds. Even on a daily average basis that’s a lot,” O’Brien said. “It certainly speaks to demand.”

The Corps’ mission to support the SDF with fires support ended shortly after Raqqa’s liberation. Those Marines have since returned home.

But the region’s fight against ISIS is still ongoing. The terror group has lost 95 percent of its held territory, but is still clinging on to remote villages along the middle Euphrates River valley.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50759
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby ramana » 13 Feb 2018 07:56

Thai Military handbook

Royal Thai Military handbook

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35041
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby shiv » 13 Feb 2018 08:20



Interesting but I must point out that this is a US specific statistic because:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 216559.cms
The Indian artillery fired over 2,50,000 shells, bombs and rockets during the Kargil conflict. Approximately 5,000 artillery sheels, mortar bombs and rockets were fired daily from 300 guns, mortars and MBRLs while 9,000 shells were fired the day Tiger Hill was regained. During the peak period of assaults, on an average, each artillery battery fired over one round per minute for 17 days continuously. Such high rates of fire over long periods had not been witnessed anywhere in the world since the ..

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6797
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Feb 2018 16:04

^ Yes, this is mentioned at the very beginning of the article in bold.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2172
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 18 Feb 2018 22:51

Indonesia inks $1.1 bn deal with Russia to buy 11 jets
Indonesia has inked a billion-dollar deal to buy 11 Sukhoi Su-35 jets from Russia, an official said Saturday.

The contract, signed by both countries' representatives in Jakarta on Wednesday, is worth a total $1.14 billion, Indonesia defence ministry spokesman Totok Sugiharto said.

"Two units of Sukhoi jets will be delivered in August 2018," he told AFP.

Another six jets would be delivered 18 months after the contract comes into effect, and the final three a further five months later, he said.

The deal comes after Indonesia said in August that it would seek to trade palm oil, coffee and tea for Russian fighter jets, saying it wanted to capitalise on international sanctions on Moscow.

The EU and US have targeted Russia with sanctions for alleged meddling in the US presidential election and its annexation of Crimea.

However, Indonesia's trade minister said the sanctions could be good news for his country as Russia is forced to seek new markets to import from.

Indonesia and Russia signed a memorandum of understanding to exchange 11 Russian-made Sukhoi fighters for key commodities in Moscow early August.

It was not announced Saturday in what form payment would be made.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 1078
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby rkhanna » 28 Feb 2018 10:49

Dont Know where to post this. But looks like recent news coming out of Syria seems like to indicate that the Russians (Through a Proxy PMC) have lost almost a battalion sized formation to American Fire.

"A battalion worth a Russian mercenaries have been killed in Syria by the United States military during a large offensive maneuver to capture the U.S.-held oil refinery in the city of Deir el-Zour. The events happened on February 7-8, the following is a transmission from one of the Mercenaries who survived the Slaughter. The whole ordeal serves as a shining example as to why you should not mess with the United States military. The mercenaries were supposedly part of an illegal Russian private military company, ChVK Vagner.

The clips translated to English are, “The reports that are on TV about … well, you know, about Syria and the 25 people that are wounded there from the Syrian f*** Army and — well … to make it short, we’ve had our asses f*** kicked. So, one squadron f**** lost 200 people …right away, another one lost 10 people… and I don’t know about the third squadron but it got torn up pretty badly, too… So three squadrons took a beating… The Yankees attacked… first they blasted the f*** out of us by artillery and then they took four helicopters up and pushed us in a f*** merry-go-round with heavy caliber machine guns….They were all shelling the holy f*** out of it and our guys didn’t have anything besides the assault rifles… nothing at all, not even mentioning shoulder-fired SAMs or anything like that…So they tore us to pieces for sure, put us through hell, and the Yankees knew for sure that the Russians were coming, that it was us, f*** Russians… Our guys were going to commandeer an oil refinery and the Yankees were holding it… We got our f**** asses beat rough, my men called me… They’re there drinking now… many have gone missing… it’s a total f***-up, it sucks, another takedown….Everybody, you know, treats us like pieces of sh*** … They beat our asses like we were little pieces of sh***… but our f*** government will go in reverse now and nobody will respond or anything and nobody will punish anyone for this… So these are our casualties…”

The second part was, “Out of all vehicles only one tank survived and one BRDM (Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle) after the attack, all other BRDMs and tanks were destroyed in the first minutes of the fight, right away.”

The last transmission was, “Just had a call with a guy; so they basically formed a convoy, but did not get to their f*** positions by some three hundred meters. One unit moved forward, the convoy remained in place, about 300 meters from the others. The others raised the American f*** flag and their artillery started f*** ours really hard. Then their f*** choppers flew in and starter f*** everybody. Ours just running around. Just got a call from a pal, so there are about 215 f*** killed. They simply rolled ours out f*** hard. Made their point. What the f*** ours were hoping for in there?! That they will f*** run away themselves? Hoped to f*** scare them away? Lots of people f*** so bad [they] can’t be f*** ID-d. There was no foot soldiers [on the American side]; they simply f*** our convoy with artillery.”

Press Secretary for the Foreign Ministry of Russia, Maria Zakharova, stated, “Material about the deaths of dozens and hundreds of Russian citizens – it is classic disinformation. It was not 400, not 200, not 100 and not 10. Preliminary figures indicate that as a result of the armed clash that took place, the causes of which are now being investigated, we can talk about the deaths of five people, presumably citizens of Russia. There are also wounded, but all this needs to be verified – in particular, and first and foremost, [their] citizenship; whether they are citizens of Russia or other countries.”

https://sofrep.com/100127/russian-merce ... -military/

Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 932
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Lisa » 28 Feb 2018 15:15

shiv wrote:


Interesting but I must point out that this is a US specific statistic because:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 216559.cms
The Indian artillery fired over 2,50,000 shells, bombs and rockets during the Kargil conflict. Approximately 5,000 artillery sheels, mortar bombs and rockets were fired daily from 300 guns, mortars and MBRLs while 9,000 shells were fired the day Tiger Hill was regained. During the peak period of assaults, on an average, each artillery battery fired over one round per minute for 17 days continuously. Such high rates of fire over long periods had not been witnessed anywhere in the world since the ..


Slightly off tropic and forgive the one upmanship. In the siege of Ampil in 85, the Vietnamese were putting in close to 20,000 a day to back a force of just 5,000 men. Battle lasted just 2 days. Eye witnesses said that over 10 rounds a minute were witnessed at the start of the battle.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6797
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Mar 2018 18:51

Latvia receives first of 3 L/Band TPS-77 Multi Mission GaN Radars from Lockheed. They were the first global customer to order the mobile variant of the radar family with the GaN upgrades.

Image

The TPS-77 MRR is designed for ultra-low power consumption and is the most transportable version of Lockheed Martin’s successful TPS-77 product line. Latvia’s variant of this high-performing radar can be truck mounted for operation at unprepared sites or dismounted for use at fixed sites.

The radar’s multi-role single scan technology allows operators to select specific roles for the radar such as long range or medium range low-level flight surveillance (including helicopter detection) in specific sectors. As the radar rotates through each 360 degree scan, the system automatically adjusts to the operator selected mission. Changes can be easily made if the system is moved or mission is changed. Once set, no further operator inputs are required.

As with current production TPS-77s and other next generation Lockheed Martin radars, the TPS-77 MRR uses Gallium Nitride (GaN) technology in its design. The GaN technology has already been installed and tested in operational radars. Utilizing GaN, the radars high power amplifiers consume much less power, ultimately increasing reliability, lowering life-cycle costs and extending the useful life of the radar. The Latvia TPS-77 MRRs will be delivered with a complete suite of GaN technology.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/ ... artin.html

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1582
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby nam » 04 Mar 2018 20:15

Lisa wrote:
shiv wrote:
Interesting but I must point out that this is a US specific statistic because:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 216559.cms


Slightly off tropic and forgive the one upmanship. In the siege of Ampil in 85, the Vietnamese were putting in close to 20,000 a day to back a force of just 5,000 men. Battle lasted just 2 days. Eye witnesses said that over 10 rounds a minute were witnessed at the start of the battle.


The volume of fire is of course determined by the target area.

In tiger hill all the 9k rounds were on a single peak. Don't think there is enough space for even 5k men to stand on the target area!

Of course all this is nothing compared to what the Russians rained on the Germans.



brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6797
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Mar 2018 15:39

Here’s South Korea’s First F-35A Lightning II Stealth Aircraft During Its Maiden Flight

Image

South Korea will become the third FMS customer, behind Israel and Japan, to receive its first aircraft and begin pilot training.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6797
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 21 Mar 2018 16:12

USMC to upgrade Hornets with new AESA radar



The US Marine Corps (USMC) is to replace the radars of its Boeing F/A-18 legacy Hornets with a new active electronically scanned array (AESA) system.A request for information (RFI) issued by the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) on 20 March calls for a new AESA system to replace the incumbent Raytheon AN/APG-73 radar on the USMC’s fleet of F/A-18C/D aircraft.

“The AN/APG-73 has been subject to ongoing maintainability, supportability, and readiness issues,” the RFI noted, adding, “AESA solutions are required due to the increased reliability and sustainability requirements, as well as the associated capability improvements.”

According to NAVAIR, the contract will begin on 1 October of this year with retrofits commencing in the fourth quarter of 2020 and running through to the fourth quarter of 2022. A total of 98 AESAs are to be procured to cover seven fleet squadrons of 12 aircraft each plus 14 spare systems. In its list of requirements, NAVAIR states that the new AESA should require no changes to the current radar-aircraft interfaces.

As the incumbent radar provider, Raytheon is likely to pitch its Raytheon Advanced Capability Radar (RACR) that has been adapted from the AN/APG-79 as fitted to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler, and is scaled to be compatible with the legacy Hornet and the Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon.

As the other prime radar provider to the US military, Northrop Grumman is expected to compete with its Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR) that is also compatible with the legacy Hornet and F-16.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6797
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 28 Mar 2018 23:39

Zynda wrote:USN clocks around an average 300 hrs per year of flight time on their Hornets? That would give 30 years of life by the time 9000 hrs is up...not bad. Complete OT...brar_w, what is the rated life for F-35?


Number of hours are not fixed but dynamic and the air-frame health is a function of how hard they are pushed and where they spend that time flying. Constant deployments, and greater than modeled at sea time or combat useage can wreck havoc on your fleet health and you will begin to run into issues with sustainement a lot earlier. The Super Hornets are getting a SLEP to take them to 9000 hours as part of Block III upgrades. However, some USN units have flown a lot as is evident from the facts that the first Super Hornets are already approaching 6000 hours and heading to the depot to get a life extension which would be iirc around the 24 or 25th year mark from when they were received.

The F-35, unlike the Super Hornet is designed for air-frame life of 8000 hr from the outset and has completed its third lifetime testing (except for the B ) which is more than its legacy counterparts had done at this stage of their development. In fact, the F-16 didn't do its third lifetime testing until decades later.

Equivalent flight hours are the actual accounting of structural degradation that is determined from damage index data stored in the individual aircraft-tracking database, which is part of the aircraft structural integrity program. LINK

Chinmay
BRFite
Posts: 168
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 07:25

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Chinmay » 29 Mar 2018 09:55

Patriots don't work

The point is there is no evidence that Saudi Arabia has intercepted any Houthi missiles during the Yemen conflict. And that raises a disquieting thought: Is there any reason to think the Patriot system even works?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6797
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 29 Mar 2018 14:56

^^ Nice to see the Arms Control mafia at work here once again showing and working with evidence that if presented by the other side (as in claims that we are intercepting each and every missile etc) would immediately lead them to shout "we need more data/declassify everything" at the top of their voices. The Saudis have claimed over 50 Ballistic Missile attacks over the last 3 years and there is no real way to analyze the performance of ballistic missile defenses in intercepting them unless one has unrestricted access to the data. The US Army Patriot units during OIF disposed off the Ballistic Missiles launched at their base in Qatar easily given the nature of the weapon. They had the PAC-3s there for longer ranged missiles and GEM/Ts for shorter ranged and Air-Defense. The MSE itself has only IOCd a year or so ago in the US so it will take time for the Saudi's to field that capability.

That said, the one thing we know is that they are trying to intercept jerry rigged ballistic missiles that are launched at ranges of 900 km or more, using PAC-2 missiles, fielded during the 1990s, which are really only ideal for something like 500-600 km ranged ballistic missiles and rockets at best given they are primarily Air Defense interceptors (i.e. originally designed as anti-aircraft systems, and later upgraded for missile defense). Satellite pictures have not yet picked up a single modified Saudi PAC-3 battery at any Saudi Air Base or major city which probably means that they have not yet fielded a fully trained and converted PAC-3 Unit. In the US this conversion requires roughly 8 weeks of training and about 3-4 months of modifications to the radar, launcher and the command and control unit so it is likely that they have not taken their primary units out of service in order to do those conversions yet. This is understandable as their main units are likely on alert. The converted units are easy to spot using Satellite imagery as you can look at the launcher and see the 16 missile set up of the PAC-3 vs the 4 missile set up of the PAC-2.

Even with the baseline PAC-3, you would still be pushing the limits given the ranges of these missiles. For TBM's approaching 1000 km, you ideally need the PAC-3 MSE which is designed for the 1000-1500 km ranged weapons. Any attack on Riyadh from virtually anywhere in Yemen will involve those sort of ranges so what they need urgently is a PAC-3 converted unit at a minimum around their capital if not THAAD which will provide an upper tier capability and layered defense.

The point is that the Saudi's, despite their massive recent orders, are using a mid to late 1990s Patriot configuration that is even behind what the US Army fielded in OIF 15+ years ago. Since then the system has been upgraded, and new capability added, so that it can better discriminate against separating targets (which would occur when TBM ranges approach 1000 km), and has the interceptors with the kinetic performance to intercept 800+ km TBMs at higher altitudes. The ERINT program which became the PAC-3 and now the PAC-3 MSE solves that problem along with a new radar signals processor, better software, and active Ku band seekers (The PAC-2s in comparison use the ancient TVM). The Saudi batteries in question do not field any of that capability and are therefore only really optimized against the shorter ranged Scud missiles launched at ranges around 500-600 km. The US Army as a reference has converted, or funded for conversion, nearly 100% of its Patriot batteries to carry the PAC-3 or mixed use and the only few remaining exclusively PAC-2 batteries (with reserve units iirc) are now tasked with Air Defense.

The U.S. Army announced today its investigation into the Patriot Missile System’s performance in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), which found the system was successful in performing its mission protecting troops and assets against enemy tactical ballistic missiles (TBM).

Patriot systems intercepted all nine Iraqi TBM missiles they engaged, with nine of nine intercepts resulting in destruction of the incoming enemy missile. The Patriot system undoubtedly saved many lives and prevented significant damage or destruction of millions of dollars of coalition property or to neighboring countries.

Patriot missile operations were conducted on an extremely dense and complex battlefield where more than 41,000 sorties were flown by coalition air forces. Forty-one active duty Army and 13 coalition Patriot batteries were deployed to OIF, serving in 8 countries.

Two unfortunate incidents of fratricide or “friendly fire,” involving U.S. Navy F/A-18 and British Royal Air Force Tornado aircraft resulted in three fatalities. The U.S. Army regrets the loss of life and expresses condolences to the family members.

In a third incident a U.S. Air Force F-16 fired on a Patriot battery but there were no deaths or injuries.

United States Central Command (USCENTCOM) concluded their investigations into these incidents and results are posted on the CENTCOM web site at http://www.centcom.mil. Application of lessons learned in OIF has already improved upon Patriot’s performance and the system will be continuously refined. Improvements include combinations of hardware modifications, software changes and updates to tactics, techniques and procedures.

Some changes include the integration of satellite radio technology at the Battalion Information Coordination Central which provides improved situational awareness through voice and data connectivity with higher headquarters Identification and Engagement Authority as well as enhanced command and control; and software improvements that enable better identification, classification and correlation of airborne objects. In addition the Army continues to explore and evaluate new opportunities to improve performance and reduce the risk of fratricide.

Patriot remains an important part of an integrated joint air defense system and its Soldier operator’s receive extensive training in a highly realistic, joint service environment. The system is a unique and viable weapon that is continuously being upgraded and improved to defend against rapidly evolving threats to the U.S. and its allies. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... q-(dec.-14).html

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22038
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 30 Mar 2018 22:25

MBDA SAMP/T anti-air system with Aster 30 missiles - Why is it better than Patriot?


Bob V
BRFite
Posts: 387
Joined: 26 Jul 2009 04:29
Location: Out at the sea
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Bob V » 11 May 2018 14:26

Hope this is the correct thread.

A good read into the conflicts that exist within the SF community.
The Navy Seals allegedly left behind a man in Afghanistan. Did they also try to block his Medal of Honor ?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22038
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 31 May 2018 15:52

SANDCAT STORMER SPIKE NLOS MLS


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22038
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 25 Jun 2018 20:42

The Russian Air Campaign in Syria A Preliminary Analysis

Anton Lavrov Associate Fellow, Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies,
Moscow

https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/COP-2 ... -Final.pdf

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1059
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby dinesha » 04 Jul 2018 13:25

Military capability and international status
https://www.iiss.org/blogs/military-bal ... nal-status

dinesha
BRFite
Posts: 1059
Joined: 01 Aug 2004 11:42
Location: Delhi

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby dinesha » 11 Jul 2018 12:10

IBD unveils SMART PROTech active armour solution
http://www.janes.com/article/81581/ibd- ... r-solution
Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22038
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 09 Aug 2018 10:52

Russia & China ‘can’t be our friends as they develop hypersonic weapons’ – US general

https://www.rt.com/usa/435431-us-russia ... s-weapons/

Russia and China are not eligible for friendship with the United States because the two nations are developing hypersonic weapons that the US has no defense against, a top American general has declared.

“You can’t call them [Russia and China] our friends if they’re building weapons that can destroy the United States of America, and, therefore, we have to develop the capability to respond,” Air Force General John Hyten, commander of US Strategic Command, said at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama.

Hyten went on to reassure his audience that the Pentagon has close to a dozen programs aimed at developing and defending against hypersonic weapons. He also expressed regret that the US hadn’t started working on such weapon systems “five years ago or ten years ago, because then we wouldn’t be worried.”

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36074
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby SaiK » 09 Aug 2018 20:12

While taking part in a routine training maneuver over the southeast Estonian town of Pangodi, the Typhoon accidentally triggered an AMRAAM — an advanced medium range air-to-air missile. It was engaged in a mock dogfight involving another Spanish Typhoon and two French Mirage 2000 fighters.

https://nypost.com/2018/08/08/nato-figh ... an-border/


I'm like here going ... WTF?

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36074
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby SaiK » 17 Aug 2018 08:04

A recent Mitchell Institute paper, titled “Manned-Unmanned Aircraft Teaming: Taking Combat Airpower to the Next Level,” cites Distributed Battle Management software as a “system-of-systems future landscape for warfare, in which networks of manned and unmanned platforms, weapons, sensors and electronic warfare systems interact.”

Air launched drones!
>>>>>>
For instance, real-time video feeds from the electro-optical/infrared sensors on board an Air Force Predator, Reaper or Global Hawk drone could go directly into an F-15, F-22 or F-35 cockpit, without needing to go to a ground control station.
<<<<<<

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... page=0%2C2

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 247
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby souravB » 18 Aug 2018 17:18

Nice comparative article on World's best 5 anti-ship missiles
Comparison of Different Anti-Ship missile systems

Note: Always the first name comes to mind is Bramhos

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19640
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 20 Aug 2018 14:32

http://www.defencenews.in/article/The-g ... ice-570097
The global arms trade is booming. Buyers are spoiled for choice
Sunday, August 19, 2018
By: Economist

ONLY a few months ago, Canadians were earnestly debating whether or not the country’s Liberal administration was right to go ahead with executing a $12bn contract to deliver armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia. The government said it would, but acknowledged its critics’ concerns by agreeing to adopt a version of an international treaty that limits arms sales to rogues (see article).

However, things took a different turn. It was the Saudis who plunged the deal into uncertainty. After Canada’s foreign minister urged the release of some political prisoners on Twitter, the Saudi government declared that all new business with Canada was suspended. This left Canadians unsure if the kingdom still wants the arms deal. And if the Saudis do walk away, plenty of other countries will be happy to supply armoured cars. “They could get their combat vehicles from Turkey, South Korea or Brazil,” says Pieter Wezeman, a researcher at SIPRI, a Stockholm-based think-tank.

In the United States, meanwhile, Congress has been pressing the administration to implement the letter of a law that would force countries to make a hard, instant choice between buying American or Russian weapons. But the Pentagon is hinting that America’s huge diplomatic power does not quite stretch that far. Defence officials argue it would be better to accept that some countries will go on buying Russian weapons for a while, in the hope they will gradually kick the habit.

Both these developments reflect the volatile (and from a Western viewpoint, barely controllable) state of the global arms market. Total demand is growing, the number of sellers is rising and the Western countries that have dominated the business are less confident of shaping the playing field. Above all, buyers are becoming more insistent on their right to shop around. For the likes of India, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates, “this is a buyer’s market,” says Lucie Béraud-Sudreau of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London-based think-tank.

Speak softly and sell a big stick ::

The numbers show that the global commerce in conventional weapons is still dominated by the United States. But America feels strangely nervous about maintaining that role, and this year it has adopted a more aggressive sales posture. Under a policy proclaimed in April and mapped out in more detail last month, American diplomats have been told to promote weapons sales more actively and speed up procedures for approving them.

At first sight, American apprehensions seem puzzling. There are several ways to measure the arms market, but America comes out on top of all of them. SIPRI has studied the volume of cross-border weapon transfers over the five years to December and compared them with the previous five years (see chart).

The size of the world market rose by 10% between the two periods. In the more recent one, America’s slice of this expanding pie was 34%, up from 30% in the previous five years. America and its five nearest rivals (in descending order Russia, France, Germany, China and Britain), account for nearly 80% of total transfers.

Britain, meanwhile, claims that last year it jumped to third place among global arms exporters, as measured by the value of their sales. According to the Defence and Security Organisation, a government body, America bagged 53% of the global business, its “highest-ever market share”. This left 16% for Russia and 12% for Britain, double the share taken by France.

In part, the jumpiness in Washington, DC, stems from the entry to the market of new competitors, especially China. In part it reflects new products and technologies where America will struggle to keep its lead. Both these challenges were highlighted by the appearance at last year’s Paris Air Show of a Chinese military drone that looked very like the American unmanned aircraft that have been used for assassinations, for example in Pakistan. Hitherto, America has been willing to share these powerful drones only with close European allies. A new policy will broaden the range of customers and thus lessen the risk that China will dominate a market that could soon be worth $50bn a year.

China has long been better known as a buyer of arms, mainly from Russia, than as a seller. A big share of its arms deliveries have gone to close allies such as Pakistan. But it has enormously increased its capacity to make and sell its own weapons, including ships and submarines.

Meanwhile, American arms-export policy has been a delicate balance between, on the one hand, seizing economic and geopolitical opportunity and, on the other, being careful not to share technologies which could destabilise war zones or be used against the United States.

But such caution can be counter-productive. At a panel discussion in Washington this month, a defence-industry advocate lamented that, because of America’s technology-transfer curbs, France had won from it a contract to sell airborne radar to India. “I like the French, but I like American industry even more,” he grumbled.

In another Franco-American contest over technology, France is finding it hard to sell more Rafale combat aircraft to its prize arms customer, Egypt, because the accompanying Scalp cruise missile incorporates American know-how, the transfer of which to third parties is barred. France has promised to develop its own technology, but Egypt may not have the patience to wait. Egypt’s government has also been a keen purchaser of Russian equipment, including aircraft and attack helicopters.

For defence-equipment manufacturers such as Britain and France, export sales matter ever more as a way to maintain their own industries. Britain’s edge in military aviation may depend on its sales to Saudi Arabia. And the Royal Navy’s ambitious building programme got a boost when Australia said it would buy British for a new range of frigates. France wants to develop a new air-to-air missile, but only, as Florence Parly, the defence minister, put it, if it can get foreign customers.

Such desperation adds to the frenzy of market competition. So does the utter indifference Russia and China display towards their customers’ human-rights policies. So too does the growth in the number of countries that have graduated from being mainly buyers of weapons and knowhow to sellers—Turkey, the Emirates and South Korea, for example.

Japan, which boasts a huge defence industry, is entirely new to the market. It plunged in when the government lifted restrictions on arms exports in 2014. It competes, albeit from a fairly weak position, with China for Asia-Pacific customers.

As for Russia, SIPRI calculates that its share of the global market has slipped (to about 22% in 2013-17). But it offers a blend of tried-and-tested hardware and, to a few customers, superb know-how, especially in air defence.

That creates a dilemma for America, which hopes soon to sell weapons worth $6bn to India, but is dismayed by that country’s determination to acquire S-400 air-defence systems from Russia: missiles that could ward off potential threats from China or Pakistan. Other countries intent on continuing to buy Russian include Indonesia and Vietnam.

Jim Mattis, America’s defence secretary, has implored Congress not to be too harsh with Russia’s customers, so long as they pledge gradually to reduce their reliance. In a letter leaked in July to Breaking Defense, a specialist news service, he told a congressman: “We are faced with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to decrease Russia’s dominance in key regions.” But that could only happen if America were free to sell its own weapons. For customers, that means that for the foreseeable future they can keep both American and Russian weapons in their arsenals.

It is telling that India has recently been admitted to the Missile Technology Control Regime, a group of countries which promises not to help pariah states obtain ballistic missiles. That will make it easier for both America and Russia to sell long-range rockets to India. The two arms-sales giants, who do not agree on much else, have welcomed India into the club.


SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36074
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby SaiK » 31 Aug 2018 14:56


Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1597
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 08 Sep 2018 10:27

Quite an interesting article

How Russia stole the night

Night-vision technology, which allows the wearer to see in almost total darkness, dates to World War II. The devices intensify images through collecting ambient light, like that from the moon and stars; other, newer related technologies track thermal, or heat-based, emissions, which are invisible to the naked eye. After the Vietnam War, where night-vision devices were first used widely, the United States invested heavily in the technology, believing it would allow the U.S. military to “own the night,” that is, to possess an overwhelming tactical edge in darkness.

The United States maintained a solid lead for many years, but the Soviets worked hard to develop their own technology. “It was just a matter of time before Russians knew they had a problem, and started to catch up,” said James Tegnelia, a former Pentagon official who helped field U.S. night-vision technology during the Vietnam War. “They did it through their own development, but also by getting our stuff and copying what we did,” he added.


Since the early days of the Cold War, Russia has tried to blunt the U.S. military’s edge through the theft or illegal procurement of sensitive technologies. “The Soviets and Russians seemed to always have thermal imagery or advanced night-vision systems on their shopping list” says Christopher Burgess, a 30-year CIA veteran. “In the mid-1970s, according to public reports, the KGB ran an asset in California, code-named ‘Sprinter,’ who provided intelligence specific to thermal and infrared technologies.”


The reason Russia has fallen behind the United States has to do with the way night-vision technology has evolved. The newest generation of devices relies on two classes of thermal imagers: a cryogenically cooled version that uses photosensitive crystals to convert photons to electrons, and an uncooled version that uses what’s known as bolometric focal plane array technology, which measure heat or radiation. That’s where the problems for Russia come in: bolometric arrays use advanced silicon lithography, the same basic technology used in computer chips. “If they’re not into silicon lithography, the way China or Japan or Taiwan, or the United States is, they will have trouble making uncooled focal plane arrays in particular,” says Jasper Lupo, a physicist who has worked extensively on military night vision technology for the U.S. military. “Russia to my knowledge does not have a silicon industry to speak of.”

souravB
BRFite
Posts: 247
Joined: 07 Jun 2018 13:52

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby souravB » 08 Sep 2018 17:29

Manish_P wrote:Quite an interesting article

How Russia stole the night

very interesting article Manishji. Also shades a light on the weird request of FLIR to ask our company to sign an agreement that their latest LWIR camera which can be operated in radiometric mode would not move outside the country. :D

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19640
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 08 Sep 2018 17:32

Huge reform in the IA." Leaner, meaner and swifter".
DG of Mil.Training; to be downsized.1.5 L jobs to be shed.
More details awaited.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5984
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 08 Sep 2018 20:35

https://twitter.com/shatrujeet009/statu ... 9772093440 ---> Snow camoflauge of French 13th Para Special Recon Regt.

Image

AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1854
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby AdityaM » 09 Sep 2018 15:40

This video of Russian Tor missile.

At 49 seconds the missile manoeuvres into position almost as soon as it exists.

https://twitter.com/rt_doc/status/10369 ... 40481?s=21

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63626
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 10 Sep 2018 12:34

Image
Image


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bala Vignesh, gaurav.p, Google [Bot], Yagnasri and 33 guests