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.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63614
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 10 Sep 2018 12:40

airbus 380 manufacturing chain

Image

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4663
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Neshant » 10 Sep 2018 14:30

Singha wrote:Image
Image


^^ They are all relying on the US to come save their ass in the event of a war with Russia.

That's what the low numbers of tanks and planes suggest.

Trump is right to ask them to pay their share of the US defence budget.

The numerous (Soviet origin) tanks in Poland are remanants of the Cold War.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6794
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Sep 2018 16:19

They should not be paying "their share of the US defense budget" whatever that means. This is not how this is supposed to work. The past 3 US presidents have put pressure on NATO partners to establish and then get closer to the desired 2% GDP on defense. More important than this is an outcome and capability-based approach which is currently happening concurrently (define capability gaps and then plug them). As expected, some nations have responded positively and had plans to plug those gaps. France and UK are a perfect example as both have realized that they need to do this. Germany still lags, and despite talk there of being less reliant on the US presence and support, they haven't really backed that up with cold hard cash. Trump is just talking about it loudly compared to Obama and Bush but there should have been no doubt in Europe that they needed to step up once Obama announced that long-term, the US will be pivoting 60% of its presence to the Asia-Pacific (now Indo-Pacific) region of responsibility.

This chart from 2016 is a bit dated, but good indication of where things were then. Last year Greece also achieved the 2% target. This year the NATO Secretary General expects 8 Nations to be at or above 2% adding Lithuania and Latvia and later France as well. Of course the Trade Wars may get a lot more nations closer to 2% GDP by tanking their economies but then that is not the right way to go about it :rotfl:

Image

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4663
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Neshant » 31 Oct 2018 07:08

Documentary from 2000.

Indian army UN "peace keepers" were stationed there but in actual fact were at war with various rebel factions.

Also bunch of mercenary-for-hire organizations operating there.


Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1594
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 08 Nov 2018 09:38

Nice graphic about 'Bunker Busters', depicting range, penetration depth and blast energy

Large size image link - https://i.imgur.com/oxlMbad.jpg

Image

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby SaiK » 16 Nov 2018 22:22



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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby SaiK » 24 Nov 2018 09:57

4. India

Power Index rating: 0.1417
Total population: 1,281,935,911
Total military personnel: 4,207,250
Total aircraft strength: 2,185
Fighter aircraft: 590
Combat tanks: 4,426
Total naval assets: 295 (one aircraft carrier)
Defense budget: $47 billion

3. China

Power Index rating: 0.0852
Total population: 1,379,302,771
Total military personnel: 2,693,000
Total aircraft strength: 3,035
Fighter aircraft: 1,125
Combat tanks: 7,716
Total naval assets: 714 (one aircraft carrier)
Defense budget: $151 billion
https://www.businessinsider.in/These-ar ... 714463.cms


Just for numbers... We need to double up!

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2830
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby chola » 24 Nov 2018 10:30

SaiK wrote:
4. India

Power Index rating: 0.1417
Total population: 1,281,935,911
Total military personnel: 4,207,250
Total aircraft strength: 2,185
Fighter aircraft: 590
Combat tanks: 4,426
Total naval assets: 295 (one aircraft carrier)
Defense budget: $47 billion

3. China

Power Index rating: 0.0852
Total population: 1,379,302,771
Total military personnel: 2,693,000
Total aircraft strength: 3,035
Fighter aircraft: 1,125
Combat tanks: 7,716
Total naval assets: 714 (one aircraft carrier)
Defense budget: $151 billion
https://www.businessinsider.in/These-ar ... 714463.cms


Just for numbers... We need to double up!


We have double the manpower but a third of the budget. Okay, let plan for human wave tactics :roll:

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22037
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 24 Nov 2018 11:37

A lot of man power is involved in COIN ops in Kashmir and NE , chini does not have this issue

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1576
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby nam » 25 Nov 2018 02:51

Recently UK went with Wedgetail for AWACS,against SAAB's on paper A330 offering . There was no competition.

Apparently google tells me Airbus/EADS/Europe does not have a large body AWACS offering!

And the first one actually planned is... surprise surprise our A330 AWACS!

It would have been interesting, if our A330 AWACS was already in testing..

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6794
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Nov 2018 03:24

nam wrote:Recently UK went with Wedgetail for AWACS,against SAAB's offering . There was no competition.


SAAB's offering was a scaled version of their Erieye/Globaleye radar mounted on an A330 host aircraft. One of the biggest things going for the E-7 Wedgetail was the incorporation of threat libraries based on EW data generated by the US which could be shared with five eyes partners one of which is a program founder and already partners with the US on development of threat libraries and programing on other programs like the F-35 and the Next Gen Jammer. This, along with other capabilities, is how the Wedgetail differs from the other E-7 variants.

From AviationWeek:

The UK wants to introduce the Wedgetail version of the E-7, also flown by the Royal Australian Air Force, to replace the E-3s as early as 2022-23. The Wedgetail differs from other E-7s as it is equipped with more capable and sensitive systems and operating modes that are only being made available to the so-called Five Eyes intelligence alliance nations, which also include Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the U.S.

http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/wed ... ister-says

Last edited by brar_w on 25 Nov 2018 03:44, edited 1 time in total.

nam
BRFite
Posts: 1576
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby nam » 25 Nov 2018 03:35

I would have expected a European solution being pushed hard. So very surprised to find there isn't one around. EADS would have found lot of European countries wanting to replace/introduce AWACS.

Very weird EADS never thought of it and ours is the first one on order! A330 is huge, lot of endurance and space for a AWACS.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6794
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 25 Nov 2018 03:39

Why would Airbus develop something without an underlying demand for it? The E-7 has pretty much captured most of the market in the west and there does not seem to be any demand in Europe that justifies a very expensive widebody AEW aircraft and the US is not likely to want an AWACS replacement. This leaves the NATO AWACS recap which will likely see nations moving to upgrade E-3 capability through the early to mid 2030s while others perhaps looking to downsize with a few players already in that space of which Boeing has the largest (size) offering.

The reason Boeing was able to put out the E-7 Wedgetail without a US need for such a class of aircraft was because Northrop Grumman had a radar system that had been partially funded by the US government in support of de-risking for another program and they were able to secure business with Australia that ensured enough money to complete development. There was no such program in Europe and no customer was knocking at their doors with upfront money to develop a clean sheet AEW aircraft.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby SaiK » 26 Nov 2018 16:12

While the Raptor would be the most formidable fighter in the world due to its raw performance even without stealth, it’s now clear to me that even the F-35 with its mediocre kinematic performance will be an extremely dangerous foe in the air due to its low radar cross-section and sensors. “If the pilots of both could carry a 9mm and open the canopy inflight, they would have 15 more kills per sortie,” the senior Air Force official told me. “It's like fighting Mr. Invisible.”

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63614
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 27 Nov 2018 09:33

russia has blocked the kerch strait between crimea and mainland (parked a cargo ship and gunboats under the bridge) and deployed Su25 and Ka52 armed with anti ship weapons to enforce its blockade. 3 ukrainian ships have been impounded.

this happened after a skirmish between ukrainian and russian ships

https://theaviationist.com/2018/11/25/r ... licopters/

effectively half of ukrainian coast is in the sea of azov north of the straits and this blocks them.

the breakaway parts of ukraine , ie the donetsk and lugansk peoples republic also have their coastlines on sea of azov but they are anyways linked to the rodina by land and will fly their own flags.

Image

Image

Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63614
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 27 Nov 2018 09:43

Image

earlier this year:
HMS Duncan a type45 DDG leading some nato men-o-war around crimea was buzzed by a formation of *17* russian fighters :)
https://news.sky.com/story/royal-navy-s ... a-11564248

^^^ video of the "flypast" in the link

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3495
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby hnair » 27 Nov 2018 11:18

From that brit story above:

The jets flew so close that their electronics could have been scrambled by the British ship's radar system, which may have caused them to crash.

"I think their tactics are naive," he said. "What they don't know is how capable the ship is.


Isn't this one of those ships that stop moving when weather gets warmer than usual?

The issue with the engine is the ‘intercooler-recuperator’. This should in theory recover heat, making the engine more efficient and crucially, reducing the ship’s thermal signature.

Unfortunately, and there’s no better way of saying this, it doesn’t work properly. When it fails, the diesel generators can ‘trip out’, leaving the ship with no electrical power or prolusion.



Only the brits will get a mijjile-fire out of this:

Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said: "As NATO flagship, she [HMS Duncan] has faced down brazen Russian hostility in the Black Sea with jets buzzing overhead, been stalked by Russian spy ships and played a vital role protecting NATO allies during the British, American and French strikes against Syrian chemical weapons facilities.

"Through her deployment, this world-leading ship and her crew epitomised the nation we are going to be as we exit the EU - a truly global Britain which is outward-looking and engaged on the world stage."


Brazen Russian hostility:

One of the pilots sends a message to the ship, saying: "Good luck, guys."


So this was 1 gimpy ship vs 17 sooty fighters. All that is missing is the theme music:


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63614
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 27 Nov 2018 11:49

per twitter the Su25s flying over the bridge were packing ASMs and the Ka52s were flying with long endurance fuel tanks and a pair of missiles or light torpedoes.

heavier assets would remain on call should the ukrainians attempt to force the fight. sevastopol is the major RuN base on the black sea, nearby.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 22037
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 27 Nov 2018 12:42

March is election and Porshenko chances of winning is quite low , so this adventure should help him with little cost and there is already marshal law in place where he get absolute power.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Lisa » 27 Nov 2018 12:56

The Russians have put too a stop a plan by the Ukrainians to use Treaty obligations to maintain access to the Sea Of Azov. If this had been permitted as per the treaty, then under the rules of freedom of navigation, I personally think American and British warships would have been next and they would have created a precedence and entered the Sea of Azov. They all seem to have underestimated Ivan!

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63614
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 27 Nov 2018 15:05

if I understand correctly, half of ukrainian coastline including mariupol is inside the azov sea. surely during and after the construction of the crimea bridge , they would have been granted access on atleast a humanitarian basis...international straits incl malacca are deemed international water incl those whose two sides are the same country like sunda and lombok straits in indonesia.

but when it comes to nato warships trying to intrude there under the famous "FONOPS" the game changes. the HMS Duncan was showing its flag near crimea onlee.

Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12919
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Lalmohan » 28 Nov 2018 18:31

looks like a re-run of the Crimean war being rebooted... strategic choke points don't change over time
balaclava, sebastapol, the charge of the light brigade...

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Lisa » 29 Nov 2018 14:17

Lisa wrote:The Russians have put to a stop a plan by the Ukrainians to use Treaty obligations to maintain access to the Sea Of Azov. If this had been permitted as per the treaty, then under the rules of freedom of navigation, I personally think American and British warships would have been next and they would have created a precedence and entered the Sea of Azov. They all seem to have underestimated Ivan!


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46381166

Poroshenko urges Nato to send ships

"Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko has urged Nato to send ships to the Sea of Azov following a naval confrontation with Russia off Crimea."

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 63614
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 29 Nov 2018 14:24

someone has gently pointed out that avg depth of azov sea is 7m (its shallowest sea in world) while avg draught of a DDG51/Type45/Orizon is 10m.

so unless marines use hovercraft LCAC , big warships cannot operate there

maybe deep water channels exist for cargo ships to brydansk and mariupol the two ports but rest of it could be shallow.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Chinmay » 29 Nov 2018 15:01

THAAD deal signed with Saudis

The State Department said the Saudis and U.S. officials signed the letters of offer and acceptance documents on Monday, formalizing terms for Saudi’s purchase of 44 Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) launchers, missiles and related equipment.


This was discussed at length last year and brar_w provided great details. This is quite a bit of firepower, given that it is aimed solely at Iran (the piddly Houthis dont really count). Well, if you have money to burn though..

Vips
BRFite
Posts: 1229
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Vips » 29 Nov 2018 18:54

What about the Saudi interest in the S400 system that was floating a couple of months back?

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Lisa » 29 Nov 2018 23:12

Purchase of THADD come with consent to kill one Washington Post journalist per year. S400 does not!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6794
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 29 Nov 2018 23:24

The Saudi THAAD deal has been in the works for years and moved into final negotiations during the Obama administration. The scope of it was described during Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia and it is not unrealistic given the coverage requirements and reserves. The Kashogi incident had nothing to do with it in terms of the timing of the deal. Both Lockheed and Raytheon have referenced the US Government contracts for Saudi THAAD units coming in calendar year 2019 and the most recent statement to that end can be found in the transcripts of Raytheon's Q3 earnings call. A late 2018 state department documentations is consistent with a contract award to the OEMs in 2019.

Vips wrote:What about the Saudi interest in the S400 system that was floating a couple of months back?


These are different systems. THAAD is a dedicated Ballistic Missile Defense system with a dedicated 25,000 T/R Module X-band radar which is one of the best discriminating sensors in the BMD sphere and can operate both in the Terminal and Forward based modes. Moreoever by the time the Saudi's field THAAD they can acquire IFCN nodes and link it with their Patriot batteries allowing their THAAD radars to guide PAC-3 MSE missiles which they are also acquiring. Saudi's will be getting the upgrade AN/TPY-2's with Gallium Nitride T/R modules and the same processor that is being fielded on the US Navy's AMDR radar. This is one of the the most advanced phased array BMD sensors in the world.

viewtopic.php?t=1238&start=1680#p2195760

S-400 may still be acquired but they serve different roles.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests