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.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20615
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby chetak » 06 Jan 2010 20:57

http://jcbot.com/news/321

KYLIN – K? lân: CHINA’S Operating System
May 13th, 2009 · 1 Comment · Technology, design

China blocks U.S. from cyber warfare

Via washingtontimes



China has developed more secure operating software for its tens of millions of computers and is already installing it on government and military systems, hoping to make Beijing’s networks impenetrable to U.S. military and intelligence agencies.

The secure operating system, known as Kylin, was disclosed to Congress during recent hearings that provided new details on how China’s government is preparing to wage cyberwarfare with the United States.

“We are in the early stages of a cyber arms race and need to respond accordingly,” said Kevin G. Coleman, a private security specialist who advises the government on cybersecurity. He discussed Kylin during a hearing of the U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission on April 30.

The deployment of Kylin is significant, Mr. Coleman said, because the system has “hardened” key Chinese servers. U.S. offensive cyberwar capabilities have been focused on getting into Chinese government and military computers outfitted with less secure operating systems like those made by Microsoft Corp.

“This action also made our offensive cybercapabilities ineffective against them, given the cyberweapons were designed to be used against Linux, UNIX and Windows,” he said.

The secure operating system was disclosed as computer hackers in China – some of them sponsored by the communist government and military – are engaged in aggressive attacks against the United States, said officials and experts who disclosed new details of what was described as a growing war in cyberspace.



These experts say Beijing’s military is recruiting computer hackers for its forces, including one specialist identified in congressional testimony who set up a company that was traced to attacks that penetrated Pentagon computers.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 07 Jan 2010 04:59

Image
An F-22 Raptor flies in the U.S. Air Forces Central area of responsibility Dec. 6, 2009. The F-22s and crews are deployed from the 27th Fighter Squadron at Langley Air Force Base, Va., and participated in a multinational exercise. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Michael B. Keller
Image
An F-22 Raptor is refueled by a KC-10 Extender in the U.S. Air Forces Central area of responsibility Dec. 6, 2009. The F-22s and crews are deployed from the 27th Fighter Squadron at Langley Air Force Base, Va., and participated in a multinational exercise. The KC-10 is assigned to the 908th Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Michael B. Keller)

F-22s complete first Middle East deployment
In addition to the U.S., exercise participants included aircrews from France, Jordan, Pakistan and England.

Although the F-22s weren't participating directly in the exercise WHAT A BUMMER :evil:, they flew alongside crews from the participating nations in training sorties.


VIDEO OF F-22 AT DUBAI INTERNATIONAL AIR SHOW NOV 2009
She's a BEAUTY :lol: hearing her roar!!!

Masaru
BRFite
Posts: 242
Joined: 18 Aug 2009 05:46

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Masaru » 07 Jan 2010 08:51

X-post Geopolitics thread, may be appropriate in the Af-Pak/TSP threads too.

The Soviet Victory That Never Was

excerpts

But the Soviet experience should not be entirely ignored. When Soviet troops pulled out of Afghanistan in February 1989, many in the United States expected to see the mujahideen quickly topple the pro-Moscow government in Kabul. This did not happen. For a moment, it appeared as if the Kremlin had successfully left in power an Afghan government and army that could withstand the Soviet withdrawal.


The Najibullah regime demonstrated its resilience during the ill-advised mujahideen assault on the southern city of Jalalabad in March 1989. Although Pakistani and U.S. military advisers were convinced that much of the Afghan army would defect and the Najibullah government would quickly fold, the mujahideen overestimated their own strength and were forced to retreat. Inflated hopes of success meant the loss rocked the alliance of anti-Najibullah forces; meanwhile, morale inside the government skyrocketed, and Najibullah’s efforts to convince local leaders to back his rule began to bear greater fruit. ...
An August 1989 analysis on the “MacNeil/Lehrer News Newshour” concluded, “The prospect of an outright guerrilla victory in Afghanistan is now receding. Sooner or later, that may prompt a reassessment by the mujahideen and their Western backers.”


The Soviets and their proxy regime in Kabul were hoping for a post-withdrawal settlement under which Pakistan and the United States would stop arming and financing the mujahideen. That did not happen. Some $500 million a year continued to flow to the mujahideen. (In 1991, the United States terminated its aid, while Pakistani and Saudi funding continued.)...
Although Pakistani officials had signaled that they might allow some members of the communist regime in an Afghan coalition government, they were completely opposed to Najibullah, a potentially threatening a figure, remaining in power. Afghanistan was to be run by Pakistan’s protégés, not clients of the Soviets.


Pakistan’s intelligence services probed for weaknesses at the government’s core. They found a vulnerability at the heart of Najibullah’s rule: in March 1990, Defense Minister Shahnawaz Tanai tried to overthrow Najibullah in cooperation with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whom Pakistan preferred as the country’s leader.

Then, in December 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed, taking down with it the gravy train that had enabled Najibullah to buy loyalties across the country. A series of defections followed, most notably that of Dostum, who, in the spring of 1992, joined forces with Ahmed Shah Masoud in an effort to block a Hekmatyar victory. These shifts in allegiance -- not superior tactics or greater popular appeal of the mujahideen -- ultimately brought down Najibullah’s government.

amol.p
BRFite
Posts: 302
Joined: 14 Sep 2006 18:15
Location: pune

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby amol.p » 07 Jan 2010 14:27

Germany to sell Israel another nuclear submarine

Germany starts talks with Israel over the sale of a new submarine, capable of firing nuclear missiles, despite having received no payment for previous deliveries.

The Israeli marine already has three Dolphin submarines that it received from Germany three years ago.

The new submarines have been built at a cost of one-point-three billion euros, with Germany covering one-third of the bill.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=11 ... =351020202

Why is Germany so eager to give nuclear submarines in free to israel...????

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Gagan » 07 Jan 2010 21:16

The Dolphin Class is the precursor to the U-212 class. It is NOT a nuclear powered submarine.
Image

Image

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Gagan » 07 Jan 2010 21:16

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1140862.html
Image

By Amos Harel, Haaretz

The Iron Dome short-range missile defense system passed a series of tests over the last few days with flying colors, successfully shooting down Qassam rockets, Grad rockets and mortar shells one after the other.It even succeeded in determining which missiles to shoot down - those whose trajectory made them likely to land in a populated area - and which to ignore.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 08 Jan 2010 18:29

Vinito wrote:Now this is the pinnacle of the Russian ICBM fleet. I always wondered why the Russians had the need to be scared of anyone when they had this behemoth in their arsenal. The silo based platform may have been one reason for them to decomission most of them and move to a more mobile friendly ICBM e.g. Topol M

This was the only reason that gave NATO nightmares whenever they thought of a all out nuclear war with te USSR. This massive ICBM has been tested with a 25 MT single warhead (although removed after START) and later on modified to carry 10 * 1 MT thermonuclear warheads.

12000 KM with a CEP of 120 m was definitely enough to give any nation hostile to the USSR the jitters when they had this colossus pointed towards them. A true ICBM in every sense.


Well Russians are not scared per say , but it is their arms lobby which is vouching for more goodies and bringing the argument of how American ABM is nullifying their deterrence.

More ever these ICBM are getting old and needs to be replaced by new ones after end of service life .

SS-18 will get replaced by a new Heavy Liquid Fuel ( possibly gel fuel ) ICBM as promised by Medvedev and Putin recently.

Silo ICBM will continue to stay , Topol-M and its MIRV'd brother RS-24 both exist in Silo and Mobile and it will continue in both form as of now most of them deployed are Silo based.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 08 Jan 2010 18:31

Talk about TN warhead design of SU/Russia , here is something I came across in hard figures.

Check this out http://russianforces.org/blog/2007/05/h ... eads.shtml

###########

this is true for a single-warhead Topol, whose warhead is under 500 kg, and for RT-23UTTH (SS-24) - its ten warheads weighed about 2000 kg (declared throw-weight of these missiles is 1000 and 4050 kg respectively). Another half of the payload is probably taken by the bus (for MIRVed missiles), missile defense penetration aids and things like that.


The most lightweight warheads deployed in the Soviet Union and Russia so far were those of R-29R and R-39 missiles, with weights in the 110-130 kg range (this includes reentry vehicle body and electronics) and yields of 50 and 75 kt respectively.

The type deployed on R-23UTTH/SS-24 - at about 200 kg each they would take about half of the throw-weight of the missile. With the yield of 400 kt

############

So it seems the best Warhead ( yeald/weight ratio ) developed by SU/Russia for a Rail Mobile ICBM ( SS-24 ) deployed in 1987 was 200 kg weight includes RV/Electronics and 400 kt yeald not bad for mid 80's TN design

Dmurphy
BRFite
Posts: 1543
Joined: 03 Jun 2008 11:20
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Dmurphy » 08 Jan 2010 19:40

Gagan wrote:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1140862.html
By Amos Harel, Haaretz

The Iron Dome short-range missile defense system passed a series of tests over the last few days with flying colors, successfully shooting down Qassam rockets, Grad rockets and mortar shells one after the other.It even succeeded in determining which missiles to shoot down - those whose trajectory made them likely to land in a populated area - and which to ignore.

Guys, I need to ask you, how worth while is it to shoot down mortar shells using such a sophisticated (and obviously costly) set up where each anti-mortar missile might be costing Israel in upwards of $500 grands.

If you ask me for an alternative, I honestly don't know of any. I could only think of CIWS(?). But this iron dome thing appears to be more of "aamdani athanni, kharcha rupaiyya".

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 08 Jan 2010 20:03

Dmurphy wrote: But this iron dome thing appears to be more of "aamdani athanni, kharcha rupaiyya".


Considering the Israel demography the rocket attack by Hamas/Hizbollah and the loss of life that takes place , no amount is big if once can save life from terrorist attack, atleast they do something about it than sending dosier.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 08 Jan 2010 20:14

if they can live with kassam rockets and mortars falling on relatively unpopulated areas, the towns and industrial areas within range can potentially be cheaply defended by Phalanx and RAM SAMs both of which are capable of tackling more challenging targets like ASMs. these could be sited on towers or on hills.

but I guess there is a grave danger of this firepower falling on people and they want to engage farther out - early as possible.

Marut
BRFite
Posts: 623
Joined: 25 Oct 2009 23:05
Location: The Original West Coast!!

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Marut » 09 Jan 2010 01:56

From the blurb posted by Gagan above, the system can prioritize which rockets to engage based on their trajectory landing in populated areas. So the kharchaa may not be a rupaiyaa always. Sometimes they can let the rockets go untouched if it's going to be 'harmless'. And every life saved is worth the rupaiyaa spent.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 11 Jan 2010 18:35

Image
Military is deluged in intelligence from drones
HAMPTON, Va. - As the military rushes to place more spy drones over Afghanistan, the remote-controlled planes are producing so much video intelligence that analysts are finding it more and more difficult to keep up.

Air Force drones collected nearly three times as much video over Afghanistan and Iraq last year as in 2007 — about 24 years’ worth if watched continuously. That volume is expected to multiply in the coming years as drones are added to the fleet and as some start using multiple cameras to shoot in many directions.

A group of young analysts already watches every second of the footage live as it is streamed to Langley Air Force Base here and to other intelligence centers, and they quickly pass warnings about insurgents and roadside bombs to troops in the field.
..........
The military relies on the video feeds to catch insurgents burying roadside bombs and to find their houses or weapons caches. Most commanders are now reluctant to send a convoy down a road without an armed drone watching over it.

Time for Indian forces to use advantages like these towards themselves when battling insurgents and naxals..

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Brando » 11 Jan 2010 18:45

Austin wrote:So it seems the best Warhead ( yeald/weight ratio ) developed by SU/Russia for a Rail Mobile ICBM ( SS-24 ) deployed in 1987 was 200 kg weight includes RV/Electronics and 400 kt yeald not bad for mid 80's TN design


If only the scientists at BARC could get the design schematics of these warheads then India's nuclear credibility would be solid in the TN arena. Right now, these folks think that a 200kt plutonium device is what they consider a "credible" deterrent! While the PRC, Russia, France, USA all have many warheads that can be dialed all the way to 3MT and take out large cities in a flash.
The guys at BARC should have aimed to creating warheads in the 10-20 MT range when the finally went for the second round of tests.

amol.p
BRFite
Posts: 302
Joined: 14 Sep 2006 18:15
Location: pune

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby amol.p » 12 Jan 2010 15:35

Airbus could scrap giant A400M project: Chief executive

European aircraft maker Airbus may be forced to scrap its multi-billion euro (dollar) A400M military plane project if it does not get more funding from governments, the company's chief executive has said.

"We cannot complete the development of this aircraft without a significant financial contribution," Airbus chief Tom Enders was quoted as saying in an interview with BBC World Business Report late Monday.

"We made a big mistake when we (entered into) contracts for this aircraft six or seven years ago.... We should not again take a decision which would lead us to further problems in the years to come," he added.

Developing the high-tech A400M transport planes has proved much more costly and time-consuming than anticipated when the project was agreed in 2003 by NATO members Germany, Spain, France, Britain, Turkey, Belgium and Luxembourg.

A total of 180 aircraft have been ordered for about 20 billion euros (29 billion dollars) but clients are being asked to plough in more to cover unexpected costs and some countries have voiced unease about the extra costs.

Deliveries are at least three years behind schedule and there have been reports that the company needs another five billion euros to finish the project.

Turkey last week said it did not wish to pour more money into the project.

According to a report in the Financial Times Deutschland also last week, Enders told a group of Airbus directors he "no longer believed in pursuing the programme" and had begun to prepare for it to be terminated.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 436390.cms

Lets see how the Indo-russian transport planes comes out...I am sure we will be facing numerous cost & time lapses.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 13 Jan 2010 15:04

S-400 / SA-21 design analysis
Dr Carlo Kopp PEng

Observations:

The S-400 / SA-21 design analysis is based on translation of a 2008 VKO Russian language paper by Almaz-Antey chief designers on this project, and contains a lot of content never before published in English language literature. It confirms a number of expectations about the system, and expands on the technical description.

Significant is the major effort invested into integration of the SA-21 battle management system, which is designed to control all IADS elements in its footprint. This is a defacto "shrinkwrapped IADS" and Almaz-Antey are offering integration with legacy and third party systems for export clients.

The technology advances in the SA-21 are also important, these include a digital multimode engagement radar with many capabilities typically associated with Western AESA digital radars on fighters, and interesting refinements such as jam, eavesdrop and penetration resistant millimetre wave band pencil beam datalinks for connecting key battle management system components. Key components use the NK Orientir precision geolocation system, which can align battery components with 6 minutes of arc accuracy.

No less interesting is the use of Russian manufactured RISC architecture SPARC technology embedded computers in all core system components - developed by Sun Microsystems in San Jose during the 1990s, these are respectable computing engines - I designed several computers around such CPUs during the 1990s and they clearly have the performance to do the kind of top end functions Almaz-Antey describe. All the software is based on Western COTS standards like C language. This is comparable technology to the US Bold Stroke effort to embed COTS RISC in existing systems.

The SA-21 is clearly a fusion of evolved classical Russian missile and radar designs, with state-of-the-art Western digital computing, networking and software technology. This is not your father's SA-10 Grumble, let alone grandpa's SA-2 Guideline!

The fervently held belief in some circles that the SA-21 is easy to penetrate is clearly absolute nonsense - this is the nastiest SAM system we have seen to date, globally, and the network centric and open system architecture approach taken in its development shows that it will evolve, and do so rapidly. In many key respects the SA-21 is superior in basic technology to the MIM-104 Patriot, and the ICT components of the system are comparable to latest US and EU products.

Late last year the system was cleared for export.

End Note

Carlo

sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9968
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby sum » 13 Jan 2010 22:01

The fervently held belief in some circles that the SA-21 is easy to penetrate is clearly absolute nonsense - this is the nastiest SAM system we have seen to date, globally, and the network centric and open system architecture approach taken in its development shows that it will evolve, and do so rapidly. In many key respects the SA-21 is superior in basic technology to the MIM-104 Patriot, and the ICT components of the system are comparable to latest US and EU products.

Late last year the system was cleared for export.

And China is loading themselves with this system. Dammit!!! :x

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 13 Jan 2010 23:06

sum wrote:And China is loading themselves with this system. Dammit!!! :x


SA-21/S-400 no China does not have it , it has S-300PMU2 and reverse engineered variant of it.

Its seems the first customer of S-400 will be Saudi if deal goes through.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 14 Jan 2010 04:36

‘Know the Enemy’: DARPA Develops Simulation to Thwart Cyber Attacks
Image
The great Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu observed, “If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.”

This appears to the thinking behind the US Defense Advanced Research Agency’s (DARPA) new National Cyber Range (NCR) program.

DARPA is teaming with industry to develop technologies that will enable US personnel to simulate attacks on the USA’s cyber networks, which include most IT and computer systems as well as the infrastructure that depends on those systems, and devise strategies to thwart those attacks. By constructing advanced simulations, DARPA hopes the NCR will enable US defenders to anticipate attackers moves and outthink the enemy.

DARPA began the program in January 2009 with the award of 7 contracts for phase I NCR development; the agency recently awarded contracts for phase II…

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 14 Jan 2010 04:40

Image
GQM-163 SSST: A Tricky Coyote to Match Wits With Defenses
The rocket-boosted, ramjet-powered GQM-163A was developed to simulate supersonic cruise missiles like the SS-N-22 Sunburn, Kh-31 (aka. AS-17 Krypton, which also has an anti-air AWACS-killer version), the Indo-Russian PJ-10 Brahmos, et. al., which are proliferating throughout the world. Their speed and evasive maneuvers compress the amount of time a defense system has to deal with them once they’re detected, and a training target that can simulate their performance is critical to both proper preparedness and pursuant performance.
.....
“The GQM-163A is launched from the ground with the help of a Hercules MK 70 rocket booster (left over from obsolete RIM-67 Standard ER missiles). The MK 70 is externally identical to the older MK 12 booster of the original specification. The sustainer propulsion system consists of an Atlantic Research Corporation (now Aerojet) MARC-R-282 solid-fueled ducted rocket/ramjet engine, which can propel the Coyote to speeds of up to Mach 2.8 at sea level. In the terminal approach phase, the GQM-163A will fly at Mach 2.5 at 5 m (16 ft) altitude. To save costs, the missile’s flight control avionics and its front end structure are taken from the [DID: Beech/Raytheon] AQM-37D target.”

Interesting tidbit to say the least!

ashdivay
BRFite
Posts: 116
Joined: 15 Jan 2005 14:10
Location: India
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby ashdivay » 14 Jan 2010 06:52


Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV)

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 Jan 2010 07:01

I think china has a mix of 300pmu1 and pmu2. around 300 TELARs are said to have been purchased with the associated support vehicles like radars/reloaders/C4i trucks.
then they worked out a "clone" in the Ft2000 and its offshoots.

since they face no real threat on any front other than taiwan, it should be assumed they can deploy around 300 such launchers into tibet by road and railways in a matter of a week say. some units would always be in theater.

we must prepare the necessary resources and strategies to deal with this level of protection.
for certain areas its equivalent or better than the SAM density soviet union put out for vital
areas. khan planned mass strikes by carrier borne ac/B1 preceded by cruise missile attacks.

Ahuja sir's notes always refer to a thick SAM bubble over chinese areas, and extending out into
indian airspace due to long range of the bigger s300 missiles.

need a good mix of both stealthy and high supersonic missiles, SEAD a/c, IMINT updated continuously....

Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1383
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Kersi D » 14 Jan 2010 23:41

Dmurphy wrote:The Iron Dome short-range missile defense system passed a series of tests over the last few days with flying colors, successfully shooting down Qassam rockets, Grad rockets and mortar shells one after the other.It even succeeded in determining which missiles to shoot down - those whose trajectory made them likely to land in a populated area - and which to ignore.
Guys, I need to ask you, how worth while is it to shoot down mortar shells using such a sophisticated (and obviously costly) set up where each anti-mortar missile might be costing Israel in upwards of $500 grands.

If you ask me for an alternative, I honestly don't know of any. I could only think of CIWS(?). But this iron dome thing appears to be more of "aamdani athanni, kharcha rupaiyya".


True a anti mortar missile may be several times costlier than a mortar shell itself but that is nit the question. The question is how much damage can be caused by one mortar

Example
A mortar shell costing say $ 1,000 is fired by A at B. B fires a anti mortar shell missile costing say $ 25,000.

But the $ 1,000 mortar shell destroys say a tank/APC costing $ 1 million plus few lives. You simply cannot grudge about using a $ 25,000 missiles to destroy $ 1,000 mortar shell

K

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11195
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Gagan » 15 Jan 2010 05:20

Bluva missile: The russians claim that the latest failure was caused by a design failure

They describe the low altitude flight path of the Bulava as it being a Quasi-ballistic missile.
That's what we heard of Shaurya's flight path.

http://en.rian.ru/images/15720/41/157204107.jpg

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby abhishek_sharma » 16 Jan 2010 08:42

The six things on General Casey’s mind

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/01/15/the_six_things_on_general_casey_s_mind

Establish an integrated system for Army business operations: The general hinted at a future tightening of appropriations in the wake of OIF winding down which the Army will need more effective management systems to handle, saying "we have to get better value for our money." This will involve improving the equipment requirement process, and managing modular, rotational deployment in a more institutional, less ad-hoc manner.

Leadership Development: Casey here emphasized the need to improve civilian development processes.

Refine the Army of the 21st century: With the conversion to a modular force scheduled for completion in 2011, the forthcoming task for the Army will be to "tie up loose ends," particularly in finding the balance between light and heavy units.

sumeet_s
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 53
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 21:39
Location: Southern Command HQ

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby sumeet_s » 16 Jan 2010 20:04

Each US Soldier in Afghanistan Costs $1 Million.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/229336

Sorry if this was posted earlier....

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby abhishek_sharma » 21 Jan 2010 09:13

Jones, Mullen to Russia to work on nuclear deal

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/20/AR2010012002598.html

U.S. negotiators have resisted Russia's demand to include in the deal a plan for monitoring U.S. missile defense interceptors being deployed in Europe. But Moscow has also been loath to grant U.S. experts access to Russia's data on new missile tests.


But encryption of missile telemetry has proven one of the toughest issues to resolve. Current rules forbid encryption, so experts can freely monitor instructions sent from missile ground controllers. "The Russians were pushing to remove that," said James Collins, a former U.S. ambassador to Moscow who's now at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby RayC » 21 Jan 2010 09:18

Why Russia Still Matters in the Asian Century
John Lee 19 Jan 2010


Toward the end of World War II, the godfather of geopolitics, Nicholas Spykman, offered his famous analysis that was to become a rule of thumb for many strategists ever since: Who controls the Rimland rules Eurasia, and who rules Eurasia controls the destinies of the world. Spykman had a point. The two world wars of the 20th century came about largely due to attempts by European rivals to tilt the Eurasian balance of power in their own favor.

Russia was always a critical component in this balance, but now, due to the country's aging population and infrastructure, the 21st century seems to be leaving Moscow behind. Still, even as economic and political power shifts from the Atlantic to the Pacific, aging and forgotten Russia will not disappear from the Eurasian equation. A game-changing great-power rivalry could be brewing -- not between Russia and the West, but between Russia and China.

The common wisdom is that Russia is moving closer to China in order to counterbalance America and its European and Asian allies and partners. This has been helped along by Russia's membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as well as by trade volumes between the two countries reaching $40 billion in 2009. Moscow and Beijing also signed a document in 2004 ending their 300-year, 2,700-mile border dispute, allowing China to focus its military resources on Taiwan and the South China Sea, and Russia to make up for lost influence in its near-west.

But while Russia is presently preoccupied with regaining its influence in parts of Eastern Europe, Moscow is also warily watching China's unauthorized movements into Siberia and the Far East. Beijing is approximately six times closer to the Russian Far East port city of Vladivostok than is Moscow, which has very weak administrative control over its eastern territories. Already, an estimated 200,000 to 500,000 Chinese nationals have illegally settled in these oil-, gas- and timber-rich areas. Beijing is also tempted by Siberia's fresh-water supply, given that China already has severe shortages throughout the country.

Currently, the Russian Far East is inhabited by only 6 million people, while the three provinces in northeast China have around 110 million Chinese inhabitants. By 2020, over 100 million Chinese will live less than 60 miles to the south of these Russian territories, whose population will then number between 5 million and 10 million. As Russian President Dmitry Medvedev recently admitted, if Russia does not secure its presence in the Far East, it could eventually "lose everything" to the Chinese.

Moscow signed two major agreements with Beijing in 2009 that allowed Chinese state-owned companies to build mining and pipeline infrastructure in undeveloped areas in east Siberia, which will eventually supply northeast China with oil and gas. But there were immediate concerns in Russia that the agreements will result in the overwhelming majority of workers being Chinese. Although Chinese workers will only be issued temporary work visas to develop these parts of east Siberia, the projects are long-term ones that will last at least one or two decades. It is unlikely that Chinese laborers will simply pack up and leave after spending such a long period of time working there. Moscow is well-aware of this possibility, but is in desperate need of capital and feels it has little choice if it is to develop its far-flung eastern territories.

A scenario of increased Chinese incursions into Russia's Far East territories will not, in itself, trigger a major falling-out between Moscow and Beijing. But as the projected imbalance of military and economic power between Russia and China grows wider, Moscow is likely to see its Chinese neighbor as a greater threat and constraint on its ambitions than America and Western Europe. The reason, as Spkyman insisted, is due to the immutable factor of geography. China and Russia will increasingly see their competition for influence in Central Asia and Siberia as a zero-sum game.

So far, China has been relatively accommodating to Russian sensitivities in the Far East. But Moscow suspects this has been primarily due to Beijing's desire to focus its military and strategic attention on Taiwan and the South China Sea. Moreover, China is currently Russia's most lucrative arms market. But Moscow is well-aware that Beijing is currently reverse-engineering Russian designs of its most advanced weaponry, and that Chinese reliance on Russian military hardware and technology will diminish over time. The apparently warm military-to-military relationship between Moscow and Beijing is shallow, and relatively minor disputes between the two will fester rather than evaporate. Many in Moscow believe it is only a matter of time until China looks north again.

Furthermore, any genuine Russia-China strategic cooperation moving forward is limited by the fact that the two countries' strategic planners have enormously different worldviews for the future. China sees the coming world order as a bipolar one defined by U.S.-China competition, with powers such as the EU countries, Japan, India and Russia relegated to the second tier. In contrast, although Russia remains wary of the U.S. and the EU using an expanded NATO to restrict its influence in Eastern Europe, it is determined to remain one of the handful of powers (including China) entrenched just below the American superpower in the global power hierarchy. Therefore, Moscow will seek to position itself as a "middle man" between the U.S. and China, and will become increasingly resentful if Beijing ignores these ambitions -- possibly even moving closer to America as a result.

Even if Russia continues to decline, it will likely remain a great power for decades. The apparent friendship between Moscow and Beijing is pragmatic but superficial. In Chinese strategic circles, there is a nightmare future scenario: strategic cooperation between the U.S., Japan and Russia. China takes this possibility seriously. Washington, Tokyo and Brussels should, too.

Dr. John Lee is the foreign policy fellow at the Center for Independent Studies in Sydney and a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington D.C. He is the author of "Will China Fail?" (CIS: 2009).
[url=http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=4958[/url]

Producing in full as it may not not be available later.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 22 Jan 2010 04:52

Through a Glass, Darkly: Night Vision Gives US Troops Edge
The Rangers found 2 Al-Qaeda suspects who were holding an 11-year-old Iraqi boy hostage. Using their night vision capabilities, they were able to shoot the suspects without harming the boy. After that encounter, a firefight erupted between the Army rangers and Al-Qaeda insurgents, with 10 insurgents killed, including the head of an assassination cell, and no Army ranger losses. As former General Barry McCaffrey, commander of the US Army’s 24th Infantry Division in the 1991 Desert Storm conflict, commented: “Our night vision capability provided the single greatest mismatch of the war.” It still does....

This is why the Indian forces need to induct Nigh Vision AND FAST!!!! more details about night vision and how it has evolved click on the link above..
The night vision industry has evolved through three generations of development. Each generation offers more sensitivity and can operate effectively on less light.

Image

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 22 Jan 2010 23:43

Video: Laser Hummer Blasts 50 Bombs
CHA CHING!! :lol:
Today, when U.S. troops find improvised bombs, they deploy robots to get rid of the weapons — or they call in the bomb squad, which has to handle the explosives by hand. Either way, the process takes hours. And all too often, people get hurt.

But those troops might have a different option, later this decade: frying those bombs with a laser.

In tests conducted this fall, one of those energy weapons — Boeing’s so-called “Laser Avenger” — blasted 50 different improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. The targets “including large-caliber artillery munitions and smaller bomblets and mortar rounds. The system operated at safe distances from the targets and under a variety of conditions, including different angles and ranges,” the company noted in a statement.

The Laser Avenger is a souped-up version of the Air Avenger — a Humvee equipped to shoot down enemy aircraft. In earlier tests, the Laser Avenger zapped one small drone at each event. But observers (like, um, me) were skeptical. The tricked-out Avenger uses a laser that’s only a fraction of what’s considered battlefield strength. Earlier attempts to send a low-powered laser out on bomb-disposal duty flopped.

But this latest trial, sponsored by the Pentagon’s Joint IED Defeat Organization and held at the Army’s Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, featured way more targets. And if the video above is any indication, those targets were fried in a matter of seconds. There could be a future in bomb-zapping, after all.

Masaru
BRFite
Posts: 242
Joined: 18 Aug 2009 05:46

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Masaru » 25 Jan 2010 09:53

Korean fighter and helicopter plans
Excerpts

Exploratory development of the KF-X fighter and the Korea Attack Helicopter (KAH) will begin next year.
The government will develop an aircraft on par with the F-16 Block 50 in cooperation with foreign defense firms, according to officials at the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA). Development for the KF-X will be conducted between 2011 and 2012 with an investment of 4.4 billion won, and full-scale workwill continue until 2021 at a cost of 5 trillion won.

Among potential foreign bidders for the KF-X effort are Boeing and Eurofighter. Boeing is offering to transfer F/A-18 Super Hornet aircraft technology to help build the KF-X, while Eurofighter wants Korea to join its Eurofighter Typhoon program.


The KAH will be a 5 ton light attack helicopter with a seating capacity of six to eight crew members, the spokesman said. Exploratory development will start next year with an estimated budget of 23.2 billion won, he said.

Full-scale development will continue over the next six years with investment of 600 billion won.
Either Korean Air or Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) will develop the KAH with technical assistance from a foreign helicopter maker, the spokesman said. Potential foreign partners for the KAH include AgustaWestland, the U.K.-Italy helicopter maker; Eurocopter, a subsidiary of the European aerospace group EADS; Sikorsky Aircraft; and Boeing.


The AH-X effort calls for buying 36 foreign heavy attack helicopters while the KAH program will build about 270 homegrown aircraft. Both the AH-X and KAH programs are aimed at replacing the Korean Army's aging 500MD TOWs and AH-1Ss. About half of the 500MD TOWs will reach their lifespan of 30 years by 2013, while the AH-1S helicopters have been in operation for more than 16 years.

rajeshks
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 29 Dec 2007 22:43

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby rajeshks » 28 Jan 2010 02:31

All detained Bangabandhu killers executed..
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/latest_news.php?nid=21883
Five detained killers of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman were executed at Dhaka Central Jail shortly after Wednesday midnight.
Mohiuddin Ahmed (artillery) was first to be executed at 12:05am and then four others walked to the gallows one after another.
Four others are Maj (retd) Bazlul Huda, Lt Col (retd) Sultan Shahriar Rashid Khan, Syed Farooq Rahman and Maj (retd) AKM Mohiuddin (lancer).

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby abhishek_sharma » 02 Feb 2010 06:59

Gates Shakes Up Leadership for F-35

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/us/politics/02pentagon.html
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said on Monday that he was replacing the general in charge of the Pentagon’s largest weapons program — the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter — and withholding $614 million in award fees from the contractor, Lockheed Martin.

The surprise announcement came after Mr. Gates had touted the plans for the new plane last year in persuading Congress to kill the more expensive F-22 fighter jet program. But a special Pentagon review team had since projected billions of dollars in cost overruns on the F-35, and Mr. Gates said on Monday that the company needed to absorb some of the extra costs.

...

The Pentagon plans to buy more than 2,400 F-35s over the next 25 years, and the Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps will each have their own versions of the single-engine fighter. Eight allied nations are also investing in the project and could buy hundreds of planes.

President Obama and Mr. Gates praised the F-35 as the new mainstay fighter when they persuaded Congress to halt production of the more sophisticated F-22 last summer. And Mr. Gates recently said he thought “most of the high-risk elements associated with this development program are largely behind us.”

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 03 Feb 2010 02:12

US anti-missile test of 'Iran or N Korea' attack fails
Image
A US missile defence test designed to shoot down long-range missiles was aborted when the radar system failed.

Rick Lehner, a Missile Defense Agency spokesman, said the target missile represented the type of technology that North Korea or Iran might develop.

The target was launched from the Marshall Islands in the Pacific and the interceptor missile from California.

The Pentagon said those two components performed as expected, but the sea-based X-band radar system failed.

The system has been under development for many years at the cost of tens of billions of dollars, and the Pentagon will be embarrassed by the failure, says the BBC security correspondent Nick Childs.

In the exercise on Sunday, a target missile was fired from Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands, and the interceptor from Vandenberg Air Force base in California, the Missile Defense Agency said.

The target represented "the type of technology that a country such as North Korea or Iran might be able to develop in the future that would threaten the United States," Mr Lehner told the French news agency, AFP.

The test came as the Pentagon released a report warning that Iran and North Korea's intermediate and shorter-range missiles posed regional threats to US forces and their allies.

Last week, the US said it was speeding up the deployment of ships off the Iranian coast and Patriot anti-missile systems in several Gulf countries to counter what it sees as a growing Iranian threat.

An investigation would be conducted into the cause of the test failure, US officials said.

Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1440
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 03 Feb 2010 04:47

To take on US, Taliban mix old tactics with new
KARARDAR (AFGHANISTAN): The marine infantry company, accompanied by a squad of Afghan soldiers, set out long before dawn. It walked silently through the dark fields with plans of arriving at a group of mud-walled compounds in Helmand province at sunrise.

The company had received intelligence reports that 40 to 50 Taliban fighters had moved into this village a few days before, and the battalion had set a cordon around it. The marines hoped to surprise any insurgents within.

But as the company moved, shepherds whistled in the darkness, passing warning of the Americans’ approach. Dogs barked themselves hoarse. The din rose in every direction, enveloping the column in noise. And then, as the marines became visible in the bluish twilight, a minivan rumbled out of one compound. Its driver steered ahead of the company, honking the van’s horn, spreading the alarm. Spotters appeared on roofs.

Mixing modern weapons with ancient signaling techniques, the Taliban have developed the habits and tactics to evade capture and to disrupt US and Afghan operations.

Seven months after the marines began flowing forces into Helmand province, clearing territory and trying to establish local Afghan government, such tactics have helped the Taliban transform themselves from the primary provincial

power to a canny but mostly unseen force. “You’ll go to one place, and for some reason there will be a big plume of smoke ahead of you,” said Capt Paul Stubbs, the Weapons Company commander. “As you go to the next place, there will be another.”

amol.p
BRFite
Posts: 302
Joined: 14 Sep 2006 18:15
Location: pune

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby amol.p » 03 Feb 2010 10:35

Gays Should Be Allowed to Serve in U.S. Military, Defense Chief Gates Says
............ :roll:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said openly gay persons should be allowed to serve in the U.S. military and that the Pentagon will conduct a yearlong study of steps it must take to lift its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

“It’s the right thing to do,” .............. :roll: said Admiral Michael Mullen, the military’s top uniformed officer, who testified alongside Gates before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

The policy forced as many as 13,000 service members to leave the military from 1994 to 2008 at a cost of more than $550 million, according to a study by the Williams Institute of the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law.

“I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy that forces young men and women to lie about who they are,” Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs, told the Senate panel. “For me, personally, it comes down to integrity.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... Cc_s&pos=8

bart
BRFite
Posts: 712
Joined: 04 Jan 2008 21:33

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby bart » 03 Feb 2010 11:11

^
Why the :roll:

vishal
BRFite
Posts: 331
Joined: 27 Feb 2002 12:31
Location: BOM/SIN

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby vishal » 03 Feb 2010 12:41

Recieved a trade invitation to the Singapore Air Show. No EF, Gripen, F-18 or Rafale on display though. Let's see what the stalls have to offer.

RayC
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4333
Joined: 16 Jan 2004 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby RayC » 03 Feb 2010 12:44

What's wrong with gays if they are good soldiers?

There are gays everywhere. Hostels, boarding schools and the ragging in colleges.

Why make chaps nude in colleges?

Come on. So long as there is no rape, who cares?

Is any organisation free from such folks?

Is there not sexual harassment of women in the armed forces in the West?

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20177
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 03 Feb 2010 18:59

Alexander the Great was supposedly gay! So what if gays serve in uniform?

New US strategic bomber programme?

Air Force’s Zombie Bomber, Back from the Grave
By Nathan Hodge February 2, 2010

Last year, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates schwacked the Air Force’s plans to develop a new stealth bomber that would enter service in 2018. Now, it looks like the spirit of Gen. Curtis “bombs away” LeMay lives on: Over the next five years, the Pentagon will be pouring $4 billion into “long-range strike” options, including a next-generation bomber.

In a press conference yesterday, Gates said the newly unveiled Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) renewed emphasis on the military’s need to counter “disruptive, high-tech capabilities” developed by future adversaries. Nuclear weapons have long been the primary deterrent against such threats, but the Defense Department also wants non-nuclear options for reaching targets over long distances, and on very short notice.

Gates said investment in a next-gen bomber would be part of a $4 billion package that would also include the development of a conventional, global strike capability – perhaps based on land, or launched from submarines. Briefing reporters after the unveiling of the QDR, Pentagon policy chief Michele Flournoy said the whole thing would begin with a study of options, but cash might start flowing into development as early as Fiscal Year 2012.

“One of the insights that came out of this QDR was that we needed to take a much more in-depth look at the full range of capabilities for long-range ISR [intelligence surveillance reconnaissance] and precision-strike, and the whole question of a follow-on strategic bomber,” Flournoy said. “And so one of the things we decided in the QDR is that we weren’t ready to make definitive long-term programmatic decisions; that we wanted to make some investments that would keep technological opportunities going, but we wanted to take some time to get this right and to study it in much more depth. So you will see that study ongoing this coming year, with the aim of putting real dollars into the program in — starting in ‘12.”

Equipping submarines with new, longer-range conventional missiles might be part of the menu of options. Vice Adm. Steve Stanley, director, force structure, resources and assessment on the Joint Staff, said the department was “considering whether or not submarine-based, initial strike would be appropriate.”

Prompt global strike, Stanley said, was “principally about deterrence.” But nukes, he added, “play a role still. Our ability to defeat ballistic missiles, the ballistic-missile defense capabilities of this department, play a role in deterrence. So all of those things taken together give us a deterrent posture that we can deter an adversary.”

Of course, none of this should be particularly surprising to Danger Room readers. As we noted earlier, the Pentagon has plenty of what we called “zombie weapons projects“: Programs that get terminated, yet never really go away. Last year, for instance, Air Force thinkers forwarded a number of ideas for saving the next-gen bomber, including something called a nuclear-dedicated unmanned combat aerial vehicle, or ND-UCAV, a robotic plane that might be based on the Navy’s X-47B carrier-capable drone, pictured here.


Refitting subs with conventionally-armed Trident missiles for some hot global strike action is another one of those ideas that refuses to go away. Sounds like a nice, practical idea, right? Well, Noah has written extensively about the risks of modifying Tridents for the global strike mission — and the enormous controversy the idea has generated. As he noted, making it easier for the president to launch a (conventional) intercontinental ballistic missile attack is not necessarily a good thing. That’s why Congress has blocked or severely restricted the conventional Trident program, over and over again.

For starters, you had better be sure that no one mistakes it for a nuclear attack. And your intel needs to be rock-solid. “Our ability to nail down that kind of quality information is patchy, at best,” he wrote in Popular Mechanics. “On March 19, 2003, the United States launched 40 cruise missiles at three locations outside Baghdad in hopes of killing Saddam Hussein and other senior military officials. It turned out the former Iraqi leader wasn’t in any of the locations; the strikes killed at least a dozen people, although it’s not clear if they were civilians or leadership targets.”

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02 ... z0eTpW5AOv


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kartik, sgopal and 51 guests