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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 28 Apr 2019 06:21

Who wants to fill this potential vacuum?

Austerity-Battered U.K. ‘Retreating Behind a Nuclear Shield’

NARVA, Estonia — On NATO’s border with Russia, soldiers with Britain’s Yorkshire Regiment recently joined Estonians in a celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Royal Navy’s critical intervention in the country’s battle for independence against the Bolsheviks. Schoolchildren clambered over a huge Challenger 2 battle tank, an AS-90 artillery gun and an armored personnel carrier.

To all appearances, it was a stirring reminder of Britain’s commitment to European defense, Brexit or no Brexit.

But the battalion, based in Estonia as a critical part of NATO’s response to Russia’s invasion of Crimea in 2014, is the polished surface of a hollow shell — a British military that has been badly damaged by austerity and political choices that have consistently favored symbol over substance in a struggle to remain a global power.

For a military that once spanned the globe, this squad of some 1,000 troops and assorted armor represents the largest British battle group deployed anywhere in the world. Budget cuts have led to sharp reductions in troops, equipment and investment, and analysts warn that Britain is no longer capable of defending its homeland by itself.

Britain remains a nuclear power and a member of the United Nations Security Council. It is one of the few countries able to fight on land, sea and air, and its intelligence capability is world class. In a post-Brexit world, should that come about, Britain’s role as a military power will be vital to its self-image, its geopolitical clout and its relationship with the United States.

But the budget cutbacks have contributed to growing doubts in Washington about whether Britain remains capable of fighting a war alongside the American military. The British House of Commons Library assessed that in real terms, between 2010 and 2015, Britain’s defense budget fell by 8 billion pounds, or $10.5 billion, a cut of 18 percent compared with the 2009-10 budget. The budget has stabilized since then, but has not grown significantly.

Experts say that France is gradually supplanting Britain as the leading European military ally of the United States, further weakening the “special relationship” between Britain and America — a deep concern at a time when both Brexit and the isolationism of President Trump are weighing on British security officials.

“Over the last 10 years, there is a steady decline of Britain as the partner of first choice for the U.S. military,” said Derek Chollet, the former United States assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs. “Libya in 2011 was really the last gasp of Britain as a leading military power. Brexit is just a continuation and acceleration of the extended existential crisis.”

Britain has fought alongside American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and joined the fight against the Islamic State. But “the forever wars” have badly sapped British equipment and morale, and have deeply damaged faith in the judgment of the United States. There is waning public appetite for military adventures, and the leader of the opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, is an old lefty who spent decades opposing nuclear weapons and NATO itself.

Perhaps most telling of Britain’s lower military status, the last three formal defense reviews have been predicated on the assumption that Britain will never again fight a war without the United States.

“That’s a big concession to make,” especially in the time of Mr. Trump, said Kori Schake, a former Pentagon official who is now deputy director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. When it triggered Brexit, she added, “Britain made a big bet on the U.S. relationship, so that explains a lot of the jangled nerves now.”

Oddly, the problems with the British military echo the debate over Brexit. “What does Britain actually want to be in the world?” Ms. Schake said. “They don’t know the answer.”

For Julian Lindley-French, a defense analyst and senior fellow at the Institute of Statecraft in London, austerity-shrunken Britain is “retreating behind a nuclear shield, no longer with the popular will or the capacity to defend the Continent.” The British, he added, “want the symbols of power — the nuclear deterrent and the ensign on the aircraft carrier.”

In an interview, the British defense minister, Gavin Williamson, spoke proudly of securing another £1 billion or $1.3 billion over the next two years for a military budget that would total £38.4 billion in fiscal year 2019-20, or about $50 billion. That represents 2.1 percent of gross domestic product, just over NATO’s guideline of 2 percent, although since 2015 it includes spending for military pensions and intelligence.

Britain cannot have “the scale or the mass” of the United States, he said. “But we are the only other country in NATO that can lead the way the U.S. can lead, the only country in Europe that has the full range of capabilities.”

Britain is making difficult spending choices, Mr. Williamson said. “How we use our technology and new ideas to improve the lethality we have on the battlefield” in the face of new threats. As for NATO, he said, “I struggle to think of a request from NATO that Britain hasn’t met.”

Another billion helps, but in June, the House of Commons Defense Committee called for an extra £20 billion in military spending, about $26 billion, up to 3 percent of G.D.P., a recommendation unlikely to be met.

It is not just the level of spending, however, that is hurting the British military. More important is how the money is being spent.

The expenditures focus on two projects: replacing four aging nuclear missile submarines and building two world-class aircraft carriers, with all the ships, planes and submarines required to protect them and the F-35B fighter jets to put on them.

The nuclear program alone is costing £5 billion a year, or $6.5 billion, about 14 percent of the annual defense budget, with total costs for the new subs estimated at £31 billion to £41 billion, or $40 billion to $53 billion. Throw in the cost of attack submarines to protect the nuclear subs and total spending on the nuclear enterprise rises to around £70 billion, or more than $90 billion, over the next decade, said Malcolm Chalmers, deputy director general of RUSI, a military research center. That comes to nearly 18 percent at today’s budget and G.D.P. levels.

While capital costs on the two carriers are coming down, with the second due to enter sea trials, the question remains how much of the Navy and the Air Force — submarines, destroyers, frigates, maritime patrol aircraft and F-35s — will be committed to just the nuclear deterrent and the carriers.

While it is hard to put an exact number on all that, Britain plans to spend some £186 billion (about $240 billion) on new equipment and support over the next decade, but the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee called the plan incoherent and estimated a significant shortfall.

Presuming the annual defense budget remains more or less the same as a percentage of G.D.P., that spending on equipment and support will represent at least 40 percent of the budget. Submarines alone represent a quarter of that spending, with an additional 22 percent going to aircraft and its various support systems and platforms.

The combined impact of austerity-era cutbacks and spending choices has hit the British Army the hardest of all the services. Now smaller than at any time since Waterloo, it has failed to meet even modest recruitment goals, in part because of an embarrassing effort at outsourcing. It is still several thousands short of its goal of 82,000 “fully trained regular army soldiers,” despite downgrading what it means to be “fully trained,” as well as falling short of its goal of 30,000 in the army reserve.

In other areas of modern warfare, however, Britain’s capacities are more highly regarded, especially in cyberdefense and cyberoffense, intelligence and space.

Tom Tugendhat, a lieutenant colonel in the army reserves who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now chairman of Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, said: “The fundamental problem in defense is always personnel. Our army and navy are too small, and our reserves are not even vaguely close to being fully manned,” partly because of the new carriers and nuclear submarines.

But the big-ticket items are a measure of British resolve, he said. “The U.K. will be the only European country with two aircraft carriers, the ability to deploy force and the willingness to do it,” he added. Island Britain “has always used a heavy navy to project a light army,” while Continental forces usually have the reverse.

But the big-ticket items are a measure of British resolve, he said. “The U.K. will be the only European country with two aircraft carriers, the ability to deploy force and the willingness to do it,” he added. Island Britain “has always used a heavy navy to project a light army,” while Continental forces usually have the reverse.

NATO may complain about Britain’s not providing territorial forces to deter Russia, “but it’s Germany that should be providing them,” he said.

In Tallinn, the Estonian capital, the defense minister, Juri Luik, praised the British presence as a symbol of solidarity. Estonian troops fought in a British brigade in Afghanistan, he said, “so it’s a close relationship.”

Whatever their current shortcomings, Mr. Luik said, “the British have a real military culture. They understand a battle is a battle. And they can take casualties.”

Laura Boushnak contributed reporting and research from Molde, Norway, and Milan Schreuer and David A. Shimer from Brussels.


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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 29 Apr 2019 22:03


Rishi_Tri
BRFite
Posts: 453
Joined: 13 Feb 2017 14:49

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Rishi_Tri » 22 May 2019 01:53

Defense procurement processes across the globe are as complicated as Indian. Sample this ..

Seoul advances maritime helicopter procurement
Jon Grevatt, Bangkok - Jane's Defence Industry
20 May 2019

South Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) has issued a tender to procure a second batch of anti-submarine warfare (ASW) helicopters for the Republic of Korea Navy (RoKN), it has been confirmed to Jane's .

The programme - the Maritime Operation Helicopter (MOH) batch-two procurement - features the acquisition of 12 helicopters for about KRW900 billion (USD804 million). Under the MOH batch-one programme, Leonardo delivered eight AW159 Wildcat twin-engine multimission helicopters to the RoKN in 2016.

The new tender, in the form of a Request for Proposals (RFP), comes after Leonardo emerged as the sole vendor for the batch-two programme in early 2018 after other bidders, including the US government, declined to respond to an RFP because of concerns about the value of the deal.

The acquisition was then restarted in line with DAPA's procurement rules that state a single-source contract is only permissible after two failed open tenders. In a subsequent tender later in 2018, Leonardo emerged again as the sole bidder, although the US government retabled an offer at a late stage in mid-November 2018, prompting DAPA to restart the competitive bidding process.


Leonardo's offer is a direct commercial sale, while the US is looking to secure a deal through its Foreign Military Sale (FMS) mechanism.

On 20 May both Leonardo and Lockheed Martin confirmed to Jane's that they will bid for the MOH batch-two programme. Leonardo said it will again bid with its AW159 while Lockheed Martin confirmed that it will position its MH-60R Seahawk Romeo maritime multimission helicopter for the RoKN requirement.


https://www.janes.com/article/88659/seo ... rocurement

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8772
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 31 Jul 2019 09:44

Is Israel Flying F-35s In Iraq To Hit Iran Missile Shipments?

Reports are emerging of Israeli strikes inside Iraq targeting Iranian ballistic missile shipments. If true, the reported F-35Is missions targeting two Iranian bases would represent a sharp escalation of Israeli attacks on Iranian forces operating in the region, and mark the first Israeli strikes in Iraq since the bold 1981 bombing that destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nascent nuclear program.

The London-based Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported that Israel attacked one camp in Salah-Din Province in northwestern Iraq using F-35I aircraft, contradicting initial reports which claimed an unmanned aircraft carried out the strike. Adding to that report, Al-Arabiya said the bombing killed several Hezbollah officers along with members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Reports indicate that the target was home to Iranian-produced ballistic missiles concealed in food refrigeration trucks.

Major Gen. (ret.) Amos Yadlin, former head of the IDF’s military intelligence arm told Breaking Defense that Iraq is a logistical artery for Iran, allowing Tehran to ship weapons and forces to Syria and Lebanon....

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8772
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 01 Aug 2019 22:55

Another peril of taking FMS notifications as unit price (they are not contracts, just estimates for 100% product and services that are approved [ seldom do customers buy 100% of what is approved or at a price that is estimated]) –

Lockheed contract $800 Million for 14 aircraft ($57 Million). Add about $10 Million in additional cost and that will be the current best guess for fly-away price of the F-16V at a new site and at low volume. Roughly comparable to Boeing’s SH URF at its legacy St Louis site at a 24-36 annual production volumes

Lockheed Martin Corp., doing business as Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, Fort Worth, Texas, has been awarded a $799,955,939 firm-fixed-price incentive contract for F-16 aircraft production. This contract provides for the production and support of 14 Slovak Republic F-16 block 70 aircraft. Work will be performed at Greenville, South Carolina, and is expected to be completed by Jan. 31, 2024. This contract award involves 100% foreign military sales to the Slovak Republic. This award is the result of a Slovak Republic conducted competition. Foreign Military Sales funds in the amount of $799,955,939 are being obligated at time of award. The Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity (FA8615-19-C-6053).


https://dod.defense.gov/News/Contracts/ ... e/1922486/

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 02 Aug 2019 07:19

In a naval confrontation with Iran, Great Britain can find neither ships nor friends

WASHINGTON – It was a knife-twist that originated in Florida, but it was felt across the Atlantic.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, appearing Monday on Fox News via a live feed from the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Orlando, was asked by anchor Brian Kilmeade what the United States’ role was in helping the United Kingdom get its tanker back, which was seized by Iran in a tit-for-tat raid at sea after the U.K. seized an Iranian tanker suspected of smuggling oil to Syria.

"The responsibility ... falls to the United Kingdom to take care of their ships," Pompeo said.

America’s top diplomat went on to say that the U.S. had a role in policing the Strait of Hormuz, but that “the world has a big role in this, too, to keep these sea lanes open,” he continued. “I’m convinced we’ll do that.”

It was a loaded answer, and the subtext wasn’t missed in the United Kingdom: The U.K. has the responsibility to protect its own ships, but doesn’t have the Navy it needs to do it.

Like the U.S. Navy, the Royal Navy has seen a decline in the size of its fleet since the 1980s, only in the case of the Royal Navy, it had fewer ships to lose to start with. The U.S. Navy has struggled to maintain its global commitments with a fleet of 290 ships, and it has seen a 52 percent decrease from its 1987 peak of 594 ships. The U.S. Navy is today pursuing a goal of 355 ships.

But during roughly the same time period the Royal Navy has lost more than 40 percent of its fleet, that stood at more than 130 ships. Today’s Royal Navy numbers fewer than 80 ships.

Both fleets made similar decisions to focus on high-end capabilities to the detriment of good-old fashioned capacity, trusting to allies and partners to help make up shortfalls where necessary. But the U.S. is tied up on other missions, is renewing its focus on fighting big powers like Russia and China, and is hoping against hope to get itself disentangled from Middle East conflicts. So Iran’s seizure of a British tanker, with no Royal Navy assets close enough to stop it, has exposed the shortcomings of a capability over capacity trades that Britain made since the end of the Cold War, experts said.

“About $88 trillion of global [gross domestic product] is being borne by seaborne assets, and they are being protected by fewer than 1,000 gray hulls in the world – talking about the United States and its allies and partners,” said Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain and analyst with Telemus Group. “And those who would align themselves against us – Iran, Russia, China – they are choosing to interpret the global international system differently.

“The British pulled back in order to consolidate their resources on the high end. And now they have tankers that are being taken at sea. So you can't have it both ways. That's why I've been arguing for a balance between war-winning capabilities and peace-preserving capacity.”

The draw-down was a deliberate strategy that bet a lot on the U.K.’s relationship with the United States, said Bryan Clark, a retired U.S. Navy submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

“The UK’s strategy, if you look at their most recent [Strategic Defense and Security Review], they say is that ‘Our job is to plug into a U.S.-led force in support of some larger operation, whether that is against a great power or against someone like a Libya,’” Clark said.

“And they’ve designed a Navy and a force that’s like a small version of the U.S. Military, with the idea that they plug that in to the US military. And that led them to pursue those two aircraft carriers, submarines, and if you look on the ground, they’ve got some really high-end units, but they’re really small. They are designed to plug in.”

The primary focus for the Royal Navy is to build its two new aircraft carriers, along with the escorts necessary to defend it, to augment a US force in a large-scale operation. The U.K. is also building a new ballistic missile sub to contribute to deterrence patrols. That strategy, however, leaves little for holding down presence in places where the U.K. has national security interests, Clark continued.

“It doesn’t leave a lot of money left over for the low-end capabilities you’d need for maritime security patrol, for example," he said. "They’re not designing a global, full-spectrum military. They’re designing a military that can plug in with the US for large-scale operations.”

That strategy works, however, only if the U.S. is willing to commit forces to help protect British interests. But with the advent of the Trump administration and its “America First” policies that demand a greater share of the burden from allies, the faith that America will always be there may no longer be well founded.

‘Too Small’

Nobody missed the point when Pompeo told Fox News that the U.K. had to look after its own ships.

Immediately when the news broke, U.K. national security Twitter became inundated with grumpy and sarcastic tweets about the “special relationship” between the U.S. and U.K.

But they needn’t have been surprised.

In June, the Pentagon’s number two officer, Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, told a group of reporters that the rising threat to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz was not solely the responsibility of the United States.

“I think there is a military role in defending freedom of navigation,” Selva said. "The question will be to what extent the international community is behind that effort.

“I’m not suggesting for a moment that we don’t have a significant role to play in that space. But it will require an international consensus before force is used with one specific caveat: If the Iranians come after U.S. citizens, U.S. assets or U.S. military, we reserve the right to respond with a military action. They need to know that, it needs to be very clear.”

So far the U.S. offered to provide intelligence for an escort mission but has also said it will only escort U.S. shipping through the straits.

But that the Royal Navy isn’t large enough to hold down such a mission to protect its ships on its own is something even the Ministry of Defense leadership openly acknowledged this week.

“We have three of four vessels going through 100 nautical miles of waterway every single day,” said Tobias Ellwood, the MoD’s personnel and veterans’ chief, in an interview Sunday on Skye News. “It’s not just us, it’s the international community there is well. But it is impossible for us to escort each individual vessel.

“If we want to continue playing a role on the international stage, given that threats are changing, all happening beneath the threshold of all-out war, then we must invest more in our defense, including in the Royal Navy. Our Royal Navy is too small to manage our interests across the globe.”

Little Help?

The talking points from US about the UK needing to protect their own ships have been consistent, even as Pompeo and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joe Dunford have tried with middling to no success to piece together a coalition of willing partners to patrol the straits, being dubbed “Operation Sentinel.”

The U.K. has had its own issues finding a little help from their friends. A United Kingdom-led effort to organize a European mission to defend shipping in the Gulf has so-far fallen on deaf ears, with both France and Germany demurring when asked to pony up some assets for the mission, according to a Wednesday report in the Financial Times. Both Germany and France have cited concerns about escalating the situation.

So far, both efforts have been a relative debacle.

The U.S. position to date is in line not just with the Pentagon’s messaging, but with the Trump administration’s America First policies.

“It seems consistent with this idea that we want NATO to take responsibility for its own defense,” said Clark, the CSBA analyst. “In that view, this is an example of a country with far-flung interests that has failed to invest adequately in their defense. It fits perfectly in with that argument.

“It’s consistent also with Mike Pompeo’s effort on Operation Sentinel: It’s a way to pressure other countries like Britain and Japan and even potentially China and India to fork over some capabilities to help defend their shipping.”

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 02 Aug 2019 08:10

Wary of Trump’s Hard Line on Iran, Europeans Decline to Join Escorts in Gulf

Aug. 1, 2019

BRUSSELS — With tensions rising with Iran, the United States and Britain have been shopping for European support to bolster patrols in the Persian Gulf around the Strait of Hormuz, a vital passage way for global oil supplies.

But so far the American requests for help to escort shipping in the Gulf have been met with silence or rejection, including a blunt “no” on Wednesday from Germany.

Nor have nations like France, Germany, Italy or Sweden yet responded favorably to Britain’s suggestion of a European escort force, separate from the Americans, even after Iran seized a British-flagged tanker in the gulf.

The refusals have underscored the divergent policies toward Iran and are aggravating distrust and resentment on both sides: Washington accuses its European allies of free-riding on its efforts to secure the Persian Gulf, while the Europeans argue that Washington created the problem in the first place by trying to kill off Iran’s oil exports.

Many European leaders have worked to keep their distance from President Trump and his policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran to avoid being seen as aiding that policy. Nor do they see the logic of imposing sanctions on the Iranian foreign minister, who presumably would be Iran’s representative in any new negotiations — though Washington has done so.

On Wednesday, senior American officials described the foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif — who defends his government’s policies as zealously as does his American counterpart, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo — as being a “propaganda arm” of Tehran.

The Europeans are unlikely to move unless Iran takes more provocative action. European nations with navies understand that shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is a strategic interest, but they are reluctant to join the United States in patrolling the waterway, wary of being drawn into someone else’s war.

“In ordinary times there would have been a positive response,” said Robert Malley, the director of the International Crisis Group and a former member of the National Security Council under President Barack Obama. “But now there is a fear of being seen as too closely associated with the United States.’’

The Europeans support the 2015 deal that was intended to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and have been working to salvage it since Mr. Trump abandoned the agreement last year. Tensions have escalated as Tehran presses for relief from new American sanctions.

‘‘Whatever efforts Europeans make, even if parallel efforts, in Iranian minds it will look like two pieces of one move,’’ he said. ‘‘So it’s hard to disentangle themselves from a U.S. policy they see as having provoked this crisis.”

That much was clear late Wednesday, when the German foreign minister, Heiko Maas, a Social Democratic member of the shaky governing coalition, said that his country would not be joining the Americans.

The Social Democrats, junior members of the coalition led by Chancellor Angela Merkel, have been particularly critical of American policy toward Iran. That includes Mr. Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal as well as his efforts to force new concessions from Iran by trying to cut off its oil exports.

“Germany will not take part in the naval mission proposed and planned by the United States,” Mr. Maas said. “We are in close coordination with our French partners. We consider the ‘maximum pressure’ strategy to be wrong. We do not want a further military escalation; we will continue to focus on diplomacy.”

Germany’s refusal was criticized by the American ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, who is known for being blunt and undiplomatic. Mr. Grenell said that as a leading international economic power, Germany should want to secure one of the world’s most important shipping corridors.

“With global success comes responsibility,” Mr. Grenell told the regional daily Augsburger Allgemeine. He added: “America has given a lot to help Germany remain part of the West.”

Some in Germany share that view, and it was indicative of the strains in the governing coalition that Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, a Christian Democrat viewed as a likely successor to Ms. Merkel, had said earlier on Wednesday that the American request was being “reviewed.”

Jan Techau, an analyst with the German Marshall Fund, called the German decision and the shallow debate behind it a case of ducking responsibility.

“First, for us it’s the classic reluctance to get involved militarily,’’ Mr. Techau said. ‘‘But then there’s the argument that the Americans caused this and destroyed the Iran deal and we’re not going to go out there to alleviate the problems they created.”

Also troubling, he said, was the silence on the British request for a European convoy. “On the one hand we say with Trump that it’s a European moment and we must take our own fate in our hands,” Mr. Techau said. “Yet now when there is a clear issue of interests there is nothing.”

Volker Perthes, director of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs in Berlin, said he agreed with the German decision.

“The Trump administration has put us in a situation where everybody is talking of a risk of war, of creeping escalation,” Mr. Perthes said. “Now the Trump administration is trying to send a military signal and wants its allies to get into the act. It is only right for Germany to say no.’’

“We cannot be part — should not be part — of a U.S. mission that couldn’t be seen other than being an escalatory move,” he added.

France has been cautious for similar reasons.

“All our actions only have one aim: to de-escalate and to lower tensions,” said an adviser to the French defense minister. “We won’t do anything that doesn’t go in that direction. A coalition that would look like it was directed against Iran would not be likely to reduce tensions.”

A senior French official was blunt: “We have intense military cooperation with the Americans. But on Iran, we won’t follow automatically.”

Jean-Yves Le Drian, the French foreign minister, told lawmakers last week that France was working with Britain and Germany on a “mission for monitoring and observing maritime security in the gulf” — something less kinetic than naval escorts.

“This vision is at the opposite of the American initiative, which is the choice of maximum pressure to make Iran go back on a certain number of its objectives,” Mr. Le Drian said.

Italian officials said that they had not received a direct request for naval help in the Persian Gulf, and European Union officials said that there had not been a request for force generation from any member country.

The same goes for its frustration with the largely successful American effort to cut off its oil exports.

Mr. Malley of the International Crisis Group said Iran might now be exporting only 100,000 barrels of oil a day. “That’s very hard for Iran to continue living with, and it will react in ways that could provoke the war President Trump doesn’t want,” he said.

Iran announced small breaches in its compliance with the nuclear deal and seized the British-flagged tanker, arguing that Britain had seized an Iranian tanker near Gibraltar in violation of the nuclear deal.

Tehran is also trying to separate the Europeans from the United States.

But if Iran were to seize more tankers, Mr. Malley said, the Europeans might join a naval escort group, whether it aids the Americans or not.

“Further military buildup in the region would increase the risk of miscalculation,” said Ali Vaez, Iran project director of the Crisis Group.

“The reality is that there is no military solution,’’ Mr. Vaez said. ‘‘Having escorts for the ships would address the symptom of this crisis, not the root causes.”



Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2306
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 15 Oct 2019 14:11

Question to the knowledgeable. Is the 'Strix' in development? How effective would it be against a MBT (especially a moving target), given that the least armored part is the top.

Image

Wickberg
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 01 Jul 2008 18:45

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Wickberg » 17 Oct 2019 23:15

Manish_P wrote:Question to the knowledgeable. Is the 'Strix' in development? How effective would it be against a MBT (especially a moving target), given that the least armored part is the top.

Image


Strix has been in service for 25 years and is pretty effective.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 14 Dec 2019 00:26

"AI is making it easier to kill (you)"

NYT:

https://nyti.ms/2PUeyRZ

Shwetank
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 91
Joined: 12 Aug 2004 01:28

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Shwetank » 09 Jan 2020 09:15


More balanced view than the Greek jingoistic viewpoint common in west, wasn't simply quality vs quantity.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5252
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Kartik » 22 Jan 2020 01:45

Image

Ukraine trials 2S22 Bogdana wheeled 155mm artillery

The Ukrainian Ministry of Defence (MoD) has started trials of the 2S22 Bogdana, a wheeled self-propelled howitzer (SPH) armed with a 155 mm ordnance. The first trials were conducted with wooden blocks, as opposed to a munition, which is designed to test whether the barrel can handle the necessary pressures.

The first trials are expected to be completed by mid-2020, at which point there will be state-run tests. Adoption within the Ukrainian Army is not expected until 2021-22, according to Ukrinform, Ukraine's national news agency.

Development was initiated following the combat experienced by Ukrainian units facing separatists and Russian forces in 2015.


Watch this development closely going ahead. Pakistan has been trying to get closer to Ukraine for weapons programs with their price points being rather affordable. If this Bogdana 155mm wheeled SPH works out, it will likely be evaluated by PA too.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5252
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Kartik » 29 Jan 2020 05:03

France orders Griffon self propelled 120 mm mortars

Image

The Direction générale de l'armement (DGA), the French armaments procurement agency, on 30 December awarded a contract to a consortium composed of Nexter, Arquus, and Thales for 54 MEPAC 120 mm self-propelled mortar carrier versions of the Griffon 8×8 multirole heavy armoured vehicle, Thales announced in a press release on 24 January.

MEPAC will be equipped with the Thales Rifled, Recoiled, Mounted Mortar (2R2M) system. The company said the mortar, which features a semi-automatic loading system and rifled barrel, would increase the mobility, precision, and protection of the French Army.

The DGA and the three companies have been working on the design of MEPAC since November 2018. Thales said the rear compartment of the Griffon will be modified to accommodate the 2R2M, its crew, and mortar rounds. In addition, roof hatches will be installed so the top of the vehicle can be opened and closed as need be. A joint French Ministry of Defence-army-DGA fact sheet on MEPAC said the mortar could be operated under armour and placed in and out of battery nearly immediately.

After qualification of MEPAC, the first vehicles are scheduled to be delivered to the DGA by the end of 2023, with deliveries continuing until 2027.

Shwetank
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 91
Joined: 12 Aug 2004 01:28

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Shwetank » 14 Apr 2020 05:48


Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 807
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Shameek » 19 May 2020 00:39

Found this channel recently. He makes videos summarizing special operations with some footage and pictures as well. Apologies if posted earlier.

YouTube Link


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: milindc, mody and 30 guests