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.
sum
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9973
Joined: 08 May 2007 17:04
Location: (IT-vity && DRDO) nagar

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby sum » 24 Mar 2010 18:45


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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby abhishek_sharma » 25 Mar 2010 08:22


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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby abhishek_sharma » 25 Mar 2010 08:55

Russia and U.S. Report Breakthrough on Arms Pact

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/world/europe/25start.html


The United States and Russia have broken a logjam in arms control negotiations and expect to sign a treaty next month to slash their nuclear arsenals to the lowest levels in half a century, officials in both nations said Wednesday.

...

The new 10-year pact would replace the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 1991, or Start, which expired in December, and further extend cuts negotiated in 2002 by Mr. Bush in the Treaty of Moscow. Under the new pact, according to people briefed on it in Washington and Moscow, within seven years each side would have to cut its deployed strategic warheads to 1,550 from the 2,200 now allowed. Each side would cut the total number of launchers to 800 from 1,600 now permitted. The number of nuclear-armed missiles and heavy bombers would be capped at 700 each.

Neither the White House nor the Kremlin formally announced the agreement on Wednesday, pending the final telephone call between the presidents. A Kremlin official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said there was an agreement on the text of the pact, although not all the wording had been given final approval. Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said, “We’re very close.”

...

The breakthrough ended nearly a year of tumultuous negotiations that dragged on far longer than anticipated. The two sides quarreled over verifying compliance, sharing telemetry and limiting missile defense programs. Mr. Obama restructured Mr. Bush’s plans for an antimissile shield in Europe, but Moscow objected to the new version as well and wanted restrictions. Mr. Obama refused. The two presidents cut through disagreements during a telephone call on March 13.

The treaty will go for ratification to the legislatures in both countries, and the politics of Senate ratification could be tricky, coming at a polarized moment with a midterm election on the horizon. Republican senators have already expressed concern that Mr. Obama might make unacceptable concessions. Ratification in the Senate requires 67 votes, meaning Mr. Obama would need support from Republicans.

...

Americans and Russians briefed on the treaty said that its preamble recognized the relationship between offensive weapons and missile defense, but that the language was not binding. The treaty establishes a new regime of inspections, but the American monitoring team that was based at the Votkinsk missile production factory until Start expired would not be allowed to return on a permanent basis.

Russian analysts said Moscow was happy to have reduced what it saw as the overly intrusive inspection regime mandated by Start but disappointed not to have secured restrictions on missile defense. The military was pressuring the Kremlin not to agree to arms reductions without limits on the American missile shield, even though both Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama have described it as aimed at Iran, not Russia. In the end, the Kremlin overruled the military because it wanted a foreign policy achievement. “The military does not have the influence that it did during Soviet times,” said Anton V. Khlopkov, director of the Center for Energy and Security Studies in Moscow. “Back then, the military people, if they didn’t run, they were among those who led the arms control negotiations from the Soviet side. Now, they have less of a role.”

Vladimir Z. Dvorkin, a retired major general and arms control adviser, said Moscow would retain the ability to scrap the new treaty if American missile defenses became a threat. “If, for example, the U.S. unilaterally deploys considerable amounts of missile defense, then Russia has the right to withdraw from the agreement because the spirit of the preamble has been violated,” he said.

...


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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 26 Mar 2010 20:42

a south korean OPV with 104 sailors has sunk near the maritime border, from a suspected torpedo hit to the stern. rescue ops is said to be on for the sailors.

another RoKN ship is said to have fired on 'unidentified vessels' in that general yellow sea
area.

----
will the RoK swallow yet one more insult or as Zeus said "Unleash the Kraken...er KDX3" and sink a half dozen in retaliation if the torpedo theory is proven?

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 26 Mar 2010 22:23

Russian blackjack bombers paying bi-monthly visits to near UK airspace 8)

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/03 ... /?hpt=Sbin

beautiful photos taken by shadowing tornado adv's

shynee
BRFite
Posts: 550
Joined: 21 Oct 2003 11:31
Location: US

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby shynee » 26 Mar 2010 23:46


Shameek
BRFite
Posts: 770
Joined: 02 Jan 2009 20:44
Location: Ionosphere

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Shameek » 27 Mar 2010 21:18

FWIW a very interesting timeline on US, Pak and Afghanistan occupation/policies since the Soviets left in the 80s.

http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=afghanwar_tmln&afghanwar_tmln_us_invasion__occupation

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby abhishek_sharma » 28 Mar 2010 10:37


Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7770
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Gerard » 28 Mar 2010 21:14



Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16859
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: Skies over BRFATA
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 28 Mar 2010 22:17

abhishek_sharma wrote:Imagining an Israeli Strike on Iran

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/weekinreview/28sangerintro.html

interesting ! similar methodology to leila-1.

sawant
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 97
Joined: 16 Sep 2009 23:04
Location: Sunshine state

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby sawant » 28 Mar 2010 23:01



It's interesting that one of the first episodes of the TV comedy "Yes Minister" was devoted to the Trident missile programme... that the British were unnecessarily spending on the Trident ... the Russians knew it was hopeless neway ;-) ... that debate is still raging on ...

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 01 Apr 2010 19:30

Russia's Medvedev promises 'crueler' measures
MAKHACHKALA, Russia – President Dmitry Medvedev made a surprise visit Thursday to the violence-wracked southern province of Dagestan, telling police and security forces to use tougher, "more cruel" measures to fight the "scum" responsible for terrorist attacks.

In his dress — a black T-shirt under a black suit coat — and rough language, Medvedev was following the lead of Russia's powerful prime minister, Vladimir Putin.

Twin suicide bombings this week in Moscow — which Islamic militants from the North Caucasus claim to have carried out — has refocused attention on the violence that for years has been confined to the predominantly Muslim republics in Russia's southern corner.

....................
"We know the personalities of organizers," he said in televised remarks. "We have detained a number of people, conducted interrogations, got evidence."

Medvedev said much more needed to be done to stop the attacks.

"The measures to fight terrorism should be expanded, they should be more effective, more harsh, more cruel," he said during a televised meeting with local officials.

In recent months, police and security forces have killed at least two high-profile Islamic militants, but they have been unable to capture the veteran Chechen militant Doku Umarov, who has claimed responsibility for the Moscow subway attacks.

"We have torn of the heads of the most notorious bandits, but clearly this was not enough. In any case, we will find them all and punish them," Medvedev said.


Manmohan needs to grow balls like this, and go after the culprits involoved in 26/11! Sardar should show why the Singh Is KING!

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 01 Apr 2010 20:22

Putin is reportedly furious and has asked police that inspite of the planners hiding in deep places,
to "scrape them from the bottom of the sewer if need be".

money is surely changing hands in an effort to find double agents and fence sitters who will
provide leads to the planning cells. beat cops must be coming down hard on petty criminals
and informers to squeeze out tidbits of info.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 02 Apr 2010 04:05

Request for Information (RFI) on Deployable Reactor Technologies for Generating Power and Logistic Fuels
Solicitation Number:
DARPA-SN-10-37
Notice Type:
Special Notice
Synopsis:
Added: Mar 30, 2010 2:46 pm
Request for Information (RFI) on Deployable Reactor Technologies for Generating Power and Logistic Fuels

Description

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Strategic Technology Office (STO) is requesting information on innovative technologies and approaches that may enable the development of deployable nuclear reactor technologies for the generation of electrical power and military logistic fuels (JP-8) in forward land based and maritime military operations.

Recent advances in high temperature materials science suggest that an investigation of compact, deployable nuclear reactor technologies may be timely. The goal would be to create a fieldable design that could be deployed to maritime and/or ground based forward operations to provide on-site power and fuel production capability in regions not connected to a robust grid and/or not easily accessible for fuel resupply. Preferred reactor designs would allow for several years of operation without refueling. Technical approaches to fuel production should accommodate a broad range of hydrogen and carbon feedstocks (water/seawater, biomass, waste materials, etc.). Concepts that involve carbon capture or sequestration should be well justified in terms of technical feasibility given known carbon concentrations in the proposed carrier stream.

DARPA/STO is interested in design concepts that are inherently safe (negative temperature coefficient), do not produce waste products which would contribute to proliferation problems, and which could be readily deployed for power generation and fuel production using available indigenous feedstocks.

Currently, electrical power generation in ground based forward operating bases is primarily provided by fuel burning generators. Delivering fuel to these bases can be a significant logistics challenge and may place military personnel and/or defense contractors at risk. For maritime applications the ability to recharge and refuel various Naval platforms could greatly extend mission range and duration. The goal of this RFI is to identify and preliminarily assess the feasibility of providing U.S. military forward operations an unprecedented self sufficiency in terms of electricity and mobility fuel production.

For the purposes of this RFI, DARPA/STO is interested in nuclear powered generator design concepts that produce both electricity and mobility fuel. The total energy output of the generator design should support an electrical load of 5 to 10 MW in addition to producing 15,000 gallons/day of fuel from indigenous hydrogen and carbon feedstocks. It may be assumed that the desired fuel end product is JP-8; however, responders should discuss the degree to which their fuel production technology could be used to produce other mobility fuels including gasoline and diesel fuels.


.......................................

This is definitely something that IA can look into as well, as in Areas like Kargil, the NE and AP sector, where electricity is scarce, the use of these Portable Nuke reactors can do wonders for the Jawans, It can even be used in LEH help fight the winter, or in Kargil to help fight the Summer...

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 03 Apr 2010 23:51

Russia to have full gamut of air, outer space defenses by 2015

"By 2015, we will have Morfei short-range air-defense complexes, Vityaz, Favorit and S-500 medium-range systems, and something else," said Igor Ashurbeili, general director of the Almaz-Antei concern's design bureau.

"In this way, Russia will have the complete array of military-space defense capabilities," he said.

He said the 2015 deadline was linked to the fact that by that time S-300 PS antiaircraft complexes, the first in the S-300 series, would have been taken out of service.

He also said Antei was currently developing six new types of air-defense/missile defense systems, of which he only named the Vityaz medium-range antiaircraft missile complex.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 04 Apr 2010 20:12

Beijing and Shanghai will protect Russian S-300

Russia completed the delivery of China 15 battalions of antiaircraft missile systems S-300PMU2 Favorit "and the four management systems 83M6E2.

P-300PMU2 was developed in 1997 as a modernized C-300PMU1. Range of the complex was increased to 195 kilometers. The upgraded S-300 can affect short-range ballistic missiles, tactical ballistic missiles of intermediate range, as well as ground targets with known coordinates.

bhavani
BRFite
Posts: 439
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby bhavani » 05 Apr 2010 01:23

i was going over the IMINT blogs and the world wide distribution of SAM's and damn the Amrikhan has more target range SAM's than our entire SAM network. They have the whole series of SA-2, SA-3, SA-4, SA-5, SA-6 and S-300p missiles and corresponing radars. The American wild weasal guys must be really well acquanited with all these SAM's . I Think in any future war KHan is simply going to JAm all these SAM's pretty easily

caesar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 42
Joined: 18 Mar 2009 14:57
Location: gurgaon

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby caesar » 05 Apr 2010 15:12

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 086688.ece
Interesting news about China/Israel/Iran
according to this article on times online, the Israelis actually made the unprecedented move to come to China to try to persuade Chinese support for sanctions. That in itself is nothing new, but the Israelis are basically saying that they will attack Iran's nuclear facilities and that all hell with break loose if they do. According to the article, they have even let a Chinese general to inspect their strike force to show that they are capable of accomplishing this mission. Basically if you've followed the commentaries of Robert Baer, the Israelis will move to take out the nuclear facilities if UN doesn't deliver on further sanction. Clearly, Israel regards this as existential threat (this entry is not to agree or disagree that point). Even so, it is still a curious strategy to straight out tell China that "you better help us, because we are so desperate that we will do something so dramatic that you will get hurt in the process and we don't care what anyone else thinks about it". It amounts to basically blackmailing the world's leading creditor. :lol: :lol:

SRay
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 67
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby SRay » 05 Apr 2010 23:49


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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 06 Apr 2010 03:46

Russia eyes $5 billion in arms sales to Venezuela: Putin
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian may sell $5 billion worth of weapons to Venezuela, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Monday after a visit to the South American nation.

Putin met Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in Caracas on Friday to discuss oil, defense and nuclear energy cooperation, although no new no arms agreements were signed.
.............................
Putin said the figure included $2.2 billion in credit lines for Russian arms received by Chavez during his eighth visit to Moscow in September, including T-72 tanks and the S-300 advanced anti-aircraft missile system, RIA news agency reported.
.................
In recent years, Venezuela has bought more than $4 billion worth of weapons from Russia, from Sukhoi jet fighters to Kalashnikov assault rifles.

During his Moscow visit in September, Chavez recognized the independence of two pro-Russian rebel territories in Georgia. President Dmitry Medvedev said then that Russia would supply Venezuela with all the arms it asked for.

Chavez wants to reinforce the Venezuelan military with Russian missiles, tanks and diesel submarines. He says he wants to resist what he calls U.S. imperialism in Latin America.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 06 Apr 2010 03:50

Algerian Arms Deal Brings Russia $7.5 billion, Gas Market Leverage
In an earlier February 1, 2006 report, DID noted that a $4 billion arms sale was brewing between Algeria and Russia involving fighter aircraft, tanks, and air defense systems, with the possibility of additional equipment. Those options would appear to have come through, as numerous sources are now reporting that a high-level Russian delegation in Algeria has closed $7.5 billion worth of arms contracts. The Algerian package would be post-Soviet Russia’s largest ever single arms deal, and compares to annual Russian weapons exports to all customers of $5-6 billion per year over the last couple of years.
April 5/10: Looks like the always-slim Algerian opportunity for Rafale has vanished. RIA Novosti reports that Algeria will replace its rejected MiG-29s with SU-30MKI-A aircraft, to complement 28 less-sophisticated SU-30MKs it has received under a 2006 deal.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby abhishek_sharma » 07 Apr 2010 08:13

Gen. George Casey: girding for a long war, and more

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/06/my_dinner_with_gen_george_casey_girding_for_a_long_war_and_more

The other night CNAS threw a dinner for Gen. George Casey, chief of staff of the U.S. Army. I went but didn't expect much because in my experience Casey has been pretty cautious, even dull, in his public comments. But I guess as he sees the end of his term approaching he is loosening up a bit, because I found the conversation surprisingly forthright. More enlightening than yesterday's interview with Gen. Petraeus, I'd say.

He took a pretty hard line on combat incidents such as Wanat, in which the Army has conducted inquiries that faulted front-line commanders. At first he said he couldn't discuss specifics. But he went on to reject the suggestion that such inquiries discourage risk-taking. Rather, he said, the issue, is that some officers were "not executing to standard." He indicated that he has been discussing this with platoon leaders and company commanders, and concluded, "This is something we need to talk about as an Army."

...

He indicated he believes that President Obama is going to be a war president, like it or not. "We believe this is a long-term ideological struggle," that "this enemy is not going to quit," and that existing global trends are "like to exacerbate" the situation. "We are in for a decade or more of persistent conflict."

He thinks future warfare will resemble the fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon in 2006, in which "a non-state actor has the instruments of state power." That means, he said, that the organizing principle for training and educating the force must be "versatility."

He conceded that in 2009 more soldiers died of suicide than of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Another Defense official present noted that this is in part because of the decline in combat losses in Iraq.)

...

He was almost snarky about NATO, saying, twice saying "Good luck" in getting more help from them. But he went out of his way to praise the British army, saying that, "It's nice to have another country that can put a division into the field." (Until I had that, it hadn't occurred to me that division commanders with full headquarters may be one of the world's scarcest resources.)

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 07 Apr 2010 17:53

Leaked video shows civilian killings in Iraq, signifies growing power of independent Web journalism
When a nonprofit group this week released video footage, leaked via a source in the Pentagon, showing a 2007 U.S. helicopter attack on a group of civilians in Baghdad, the clip unleashed a viral online sensation and ignited an intense debate about the conduct of U.S. forces in Iraq.

But the simple fact of the video's release also reflects the ongoing revolution in how news gets produced and published.

The group, called WikiLeaks, released the Pentagon video on Monday. Less than 24 hours later, the clip had netted more than 1.3 million viewers on YouTube alone.

.......................
Seven noncombatants were killed in the Baghdad attack — among them a driver (Saeed Chmagh) and photographer (Namir Noor-Eldeen) employed by the Reuters news service. Reuters, indeed, had been seeking to obtain internal Pentagon materials pertaining to the attack — including the footage that went online yesterday — for the past three years, using the Freedom of Information Act. The agency's efforts had so far proved fruitless.

......................

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby abhishek_sharma » 08 Apr 2010 08:38

Psychologists Explain Iraq Airstrike Video

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/08/world/08psych.html

In recent days, many veterans have made the point that fighters cannot do their jobs without creating psychological distance from the enemy. One reason that the soldiers seemed as if they were playing a video game is that, in a morbid but necessary sense, they were.


I guess all rules and regulations are for third world countries.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby abhishek_sharma » 08 Apr 2010 08:42

On that viral video from Baghdad

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/04/07/on_that_viral_video_from_baghdad_0


...

But you should watch it anyway, if you want to understand why many Iraqis now want us out of their country and why the United States is less popular than its citizens and leaders think it ought to be. For me, the most remarkable thing about the video is the business-as-usual dialogue between the pilots and crew of the Apache and the ground controllers that are guiding their actions. Although they clearly perceive this as a combat situation -- and there were insurgents operating in their vicinity -- nothing in their exchange suggests that the situation is unusual or that they were in imminent danger themselves. The tone is calm, with occasional moments of frustration at not having a clear shot and elation after the targets are hit.

It is the "banality of combat." The crew followed normal procedures, obtained authorization to shoot before firing, maneuvered to get a clean line of fire, and then unleashed a devastating fusillade. (If you're unfamiliar with the firepower of modern weaponry, the video is graphic and revealing). The self-congratulatory banter and occasional laughter following the attack -- after the violent death of fellow human beings -- is downright chilling.

This tells me that this incident wasn't unusual, which is of course why no disciplinary action was taken against the personnel involved. What is different in this case is that two Reuters journalists got killed, and eventually a video got leaked and put on the internet. And if this particular episode is just one among many, there must be plenty of Iraqis who lost relatives to American firepower or at least had reason to fear and resent it. Not too hard to figure out why pressing for a rapid U.S. withdrawal now wins votes there.

...

Rather, what bothers me is that they were clearly trying to operate within the rules, and still made a tragic error. It reminds us that this sort of mistake is inevitable in this sort of war, especially when we rely on overwhelming firepower to wage it. When we intervene in other countries, this is what we should expect.

One last point: one of the fundamental problems for a country with an interventionist foreign policy is that it frequently does things that others don't like and sometimes resist. If U.S. citizens do not know what their own government is doing, however, they won't understand exactly where that hostility is coming from. Instead of recognizing it as a reaction to their own policies, they will tend to assume that foreign opposition is irrational, a reflection of deep ideological antipathies, or based on some sort of weird hostility to our "values." Believing ourselves to be blameless, and motivated only by noble aims, we will misread the sources of anti-Americanism and overlook opportunities to reduce it by adjusting our own behavior.

It is therefore vital for American citizens to know about the various things that are being done in the name of our national security. We need to know about drone strikes, targeted assassinations, civilians killed by mistake, support for corrupt or vicious warlords, "covert" actions against foreign regimes, etc., as well as similar activities undertaken by allies with whom we are closely identified. Whether those various policies are still justifiable and/or effective is a separate issue (i.e., the benefits may be worth the price of greater hostility, though I am personally skeptical) but at least we won't be surprised when those who have experienced the sharp end of American power are angry at us, and we won't be as likely to misinterpret it.

...


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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 09 Apr 2010 19:16

ISAF: 4 killed in U.S. aircraft crash in Afghanistan
Image
(CNN) -- A U.S. aircraft crashed in southern Afghanistan, killing three U.S. service members and one civilian employee, a statement from NATO-led forces said Friday.

The cause of the crash of the Air Force CV-22 Osprey was not known, said the International Security Assistance Force statement. Several other service members were injured in the crash late Thursday night.

The CV-22, which conducts long-range infiltration and resupply operations for the U.S. military, went down seven miles west of the city of Qalat, the capital of Zabul province.

Zabiullah Mujahid, spokesman for the Taliban in the region, said Taliban fighters shot down the aircraft. Another spokesman, Qari Yoseph, also claimed responsibility and said that 30 Americans had been killed.


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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 10 Apr 2010 13:55

New START Treaty based on mutual Russian-U.S. concessions

Under the treaty, "each Party shall reduce and limit its ICBMs and ICBM launchers, SLBMs and SLBM launchers, heavy bombers so that the aggregate numbers do not exceed 700, for deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers; 800, for deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, deployed and non-deployed SLBM launchers, and deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers."

A study of the treaty's text makes it possible to single out the following aspects determining the new configuration of the strategic nuclear balance:

1. Unlike the START-I agreement, the new document stipulates no restrictions on the area and number of basing areas of land-mobile ICBM systems of the RT-2PM Topol (SS-25 Sickle), RT-2UTTKh Topol-M (SS-27 Sickle B) and RS-24 Yars (SS-X-29) class.

2. The Treaty sets tough limits on non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, non-deployed ICBMs and non-deployed SLBMs, and seriously reduces overall delivery vehicle ceilings. This largely evens out the difference between U.S. and Russian capabilities for maintaining their respective nuclear potentials.

3. The Treaty sets no limits on the development of U.S. missile defense systems but notes the link between defensive and offensive arms.

Under a special statement signed together with the Treaty, Russia reserves the right to exit from the treaty in case it feels threatened by the development of U.S. missile defense systems. The parties have also agreed that existing missile defense systems do not undermine the effectiveness of strategic offensive arms.

It should also be noted that the lack of restrictions on basing areas of land-mobile ICBM systems virtually rules out the creation of an effective missile defense system capable of intercepting such ICBMs in the foreseeable future.

4. The parties are free to determine the structure of their respective nuclear triads comprising aerial, naval and ground-based delivery vehicles. In this situation, Russia is free to resume construction of ICBM trains.

5. The Treaty sets no limits on the deployment of ground-based ICBMs with multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs). Consequently, Russia will be able to retain its ICBMs of the RS-20 Voyevoda (SS-18 Satan) and RS-18 (SS-19 Stiletto) type and to develop new types of MIRVed ICBMs.

6. Under the document, strategic offensive arms subject to this Treaty shall not be based outside the national territory of each party. This caveat rules out any incidents similar to the 1962 Cuban missile crisis and considerably simplifies mutual verification of strategic offensive arms.

7. The 1,550 warhead ceiling does not mean that each party will have the same number of nuclear warheads. Under the Treaty, one nuclear warhead will be counted for each deployed heavy bomber which can carry 12-24 missiles or bombs, depending on its type. Consequently, Russia will retain 2,100 warheads and the United States, which has more heavy bombers, will have about 2,400. This gap will be reduced as the United States decommissions B-1B bombers serving with its strategic nuclear forces and converts them into conventional bombers, which are unable to launch nuclear warheads unless subjected to lengthy refitting.

D Roy
BRFite
Posts: 1176
Joined: 08 Oct 2009 17:28

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby D Roy » 10 Apr 2010 17:34

For reference and to avoid the unnecessary T-95/ Black eagle confusion.
Main Battle Tanks
Object 195 "T-95"
Developer: Uralvagonzavod (UVZ) at Nizny Tagil
Weight: 50 tons
Height: 1800 mm
Crew: 3
Engine: 1500 hp Diesel/2000 hp gas turbine
Maximum Road Speed: 100 km/h
Maximum Off-road Speed: 50 km/h
Ground Pressure: 0.9 kg/m2
Main Gun: 152 mm
Ammunition: 36 rounds
Auxiliary Armament: 7.62 mm
Self-Protection Systems: Shtora-1, Drodz-2/Arena
Armour: Relikt
Stage: Trials

Development of the Object 195 next generation MBT began in 1988-1989 by a team led by V. Potkin. It represents the "high-end" component, with Object 640 being the "middle-end" component of future Soviet tanks. It was originally planned to be ready in 1994. However, the collapse of the USSR considerably slowed down development, and prototype tests began only in 1997. Several prototypes have been constructed, and the tank is now planned for production in 2007.

The three-man crew is seated in an armoured capsule inside the hull of the tank. This arrangement with an unmanned turret improves crew safety and allows reducing the height of the vehicle. A fourth crew member is located in the battalion support company. The crew can enter the tank from the back. The tank features an automatic self-diagnosis system. Outside view is provided by three sets of periscopes in front hull and three optical sensors on top of the turret. The fire-control system includes optical, imaging infrared and radar channels and a laser rangefinder. An IFF system is also included. Ammo is carried in the turret bustle and loaded by a new type of autoloader. The completely new rear mounted X-shaped Diesel engine delivers 1500 hp to a new transmission system. An unique drive train suspension system helps improve ride smoothness and the noise levels are lower than on previous Russian tanks. Measures for signature reduction (LO) have been incorporated into the design of the tank.

The Relikt defense suite is five times more effective than Kaktus. It detonates on command before the round hits based on information from radar. It can be installed on T-72B and T-90 tanks and is being tested in the Leningrad Military District.
Object 230
Developer: OAO "Spetzmash" at Leningrad
Weight: 50 tons
Height: 2000 mm
Crew: 2
Engine: 1800 hp gas turbine
Maximum Road Speed: 95 km/h
Maximum Off-road Speed: 60 km/h
Main Gun: 152 mm
Stage: Chassis tested in 1992

The crew of two is seated in a capsule in the middle of the hull, with supplies and lavatory for 72 hours of combat operations. The sighting system includes periscopes and optical sensors, imaging infrared sight, and a laser range finder. Each crew member has three LCD displays in front of him. The engine is mounted in the front of the vehicle and the suspension is hydropneumatic. The base chassis can be used for self-propelled artillery, anti-tank missile launcher, reconnaissance, re-supply, and unmanned combat vehicles. The Ladoga reconnaissance and command and control vehicle based on the same chassis is in limited production. Chief designer N.S. Popov.
Object 477 "Molot"
Developer: Kharkov KB at Kharkov
Weight: 50 tons
Crew: 3
Engine: 1500 hp Diesel 6TD
Maximum Road Speed: 75 km/h
Maximum Off-road Speed: 50 km/h
Ground Pressure: 0.8 kg/m2
Main Gun: 152 mm 2A83
Ammunition: 34 rounds
Auxiliary Armament: 7.62 mm
Self-Protection Systems: Shtora-1, Arena
Stage: Trials

Design work of the Object 477 next generation MBT with an unmanned turret began in 1981. Draft design was completed in 1984, technical design in 1985, and the first prototype (mock-up) was constructed in 1987. The vehicles were handed over to Russia, where trials continued through the 1990s. The Argus sight combines LLTV and imaging infrared channels, and a radar system is located on top of the turret. The crew is seated in the hull of the tank. The 152 mm gun with an autoloader can reach a rate of fire of 14 shots per minute. The basic loading module contains 10 rounds, and it can be supplemented by two 12 round modules. The Object 477 represents what was known as FST-2 in the West during the late 1980s/early 1990s.
Object 640 "Black Eagle"
Developer: Design Bureau of Transport Machine-building (Transmash) at Omsk
Weight: 48 tons
Crew: 3
Engine: 1200 hp Diesel/1500 hp gas turbine
Maximum Road Speed: 75 km/h
Maximum Off-road Speed: 50 km/h
Ground Pressure: 0.9 kg/m2
Main Gun: 125 mm 2A46M/152 mm
Ammunition: 40 rounds
Auxiliary Armament: 7.62 mm coaxial, 12.7 mm Kord AA
Self-Protection Systems: Shtora-1, Drodz-2
Armour: Kaktus
Stage: Prototype

The Object 640 is being developed by a team led by Alexander Morozov. It was first unveiled in September 1997 at Omsk. The turret and gun of the first prototype that had been completed in 1994 were shrouded with camouflage netting. The vehicle was based on a T-80UM chassis with 6 road wheels and a mock-up of the turret. The second prototype completed in 1998 used a new chassis with 7 road wheels and had a 125 mm gun. It was unveiled in 1999, also at Omsk.

The driver is seated in the hull to the rear of the entry hatch, the commander and gunner being seated in the turret. The gunner has an optical sight and a laser rangefinder and the commander a panoramic thermal imaging sight. The front 120 degrees of the turret are protected by reactive armour. The turret bustle is a detachable Transport-Loading Module (TZM) that contains the horizontally stored ammunition and is separated from the crew by an armoured bulkhead. It can be replaced by a transloader without the crew having to exit the tank. Rate of fire is 10-12 rounds per minute. The hydropneumatic suspension is similar to the T-80UM, but the tracks are slightly wider. The "Black Eagle" is planned only for export. A new turret based on the Object 640 design is offered as an upgrade to older tanks.



http://personal.inet.fi/cool/foxfour/ussr92/tanks.html

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 14 Apr 2010 05:00

First Live Warhead Flight For Lockheed Martin’s Multi-Purpose Hellfire II Missile
Image
ORLANDO, FL, April 8th, 2010 -- Lockheed Martin’s [NYSE: LMT] multi-purpose AGM 114R HELLFIRE II missile scored another success in its second proof-of-principle (POP) flight test, the first armed with a live warhead. The R model, or “Romeo” missile, features a multi-purpose warhead that enables a single HELLFIRE missile to cover all of the target sets of the currently fielded laser-guided variants.

The POP 2 flight test, conducted at Eglin Air Force Base, FL, featured a lock-on-after-launch engagement of a stationary target board at 1.6 miles (2.5 km). The team used a ground-based laser designator to illuminate the target. The multi-purpose warhead was set with a delayed fuze that allows the missile to penetrate the target before detonating.

The missile was launched with a low trajectory suitable for a military operation in urban terrain scenario and struck the target board precisely designated by the laser aimpoint. The precursor warhead detonated on impact, while the primary warhead successfully detonated a short distance beyond the target.

“This test successfully demonstrates the Romeo’s multi-purpose warhead and electronic safe, arm and fire, or ESAF, module, which provides the pilot-programmable delayed fuzing function,” said Ken Musculus, director of Air-to-Ground Missile System programs at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control. “It’s an important milestone for the HELLFIRE program, bringing us one step closer to providing the Warfighter with one missile that can defeat hard, soft and enclosed targets. In this case, we tested the Romeo’s ability to penetrate and then detonate within a target vehicle or structure, a critical capability against today’s threats.”

“Both the multi-purpose warhead and ESAF module are new to the HELLFIRE,” Musculus said. “Video imagery of the test clearly shows these systems functioned exactly as designed.”

The multi-purpose HELLFIRE II missile can be carried on both rotary-wing and UAV platforms, can be launched from higher altitudes—increasing the impact angle and enhancing stealth and lethality—and provides a wide engagement zone to properly equipped platforms, enabling them to target and fire upon targets to the side and behind them.

With more than 26,000 rounds produced for the U.S. and 15 international customers, HELLFIRE II has been successfully integrated with attack helicopters in the U.S. and many Allied fleets. It is also capable of surface launch from ground vehicles, tripods and small vessels. More than 10,000 HELLFIRE missiles have been successfully fired in combat.

Lockheed Martin performs all work on behalf of the HELLFIRE Systems, Limited Liability Company and will produce the missiles at its manufacturing facilities in Troy, AL, and Ocala, FL.

Headquartered in Bethesda, Md., Lockheed Martin is a global security company that employs about 140,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment of advanced technology systems, products and services. The Corporation reported 2009 sales of $45.2 billion.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 17 Apr 2010 17:49

Video: Kola Peninsula air-defense Ex

It took the Kola Peninsula air-defense unit’s surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems only a few minutes to shoot down “enemy” ballistic and cruise missiles at the Ashuluk missile test range in Russia’s Astrakhan Region during military drills. S-300 SAMs are launched against dummies during an exercise at the Ashuluk range. The Ashuluk range is 120 km by 38 km. In all, 23 missiles were launched to intercept 10 dummy rockets. Representatives from the air defense forces in Kazakhstan and Belarus watched the exercise.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20311
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 18 Apr 2010 11:02

TRuth starnger than fiction.James Bond and many of his escapades were based upon actual missions in WW2.Here is one such true mission which was used in one of his films and a Dutch spy whose wartime exploits resembled that of Bond.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... scene.html

The secret war mission that inspired Goldfinger scene
The opening sequence of James Bond film Goldfinger was inspired by a real mission carried out by MI6 during the Second World War and written into the script by an expert on secret wartime operations.

Excerpt:
It is one of James Bond's most famous scenes, showing the agent at his deadliest – and most dapper.

Emerging from the water in a wetsuit, he knocks out a sentry and plants explosives before unzipping his suit to reveal a pristine dinner jacket underneath. He then walks into the nearest bar, glances at his watch and nonchalantly lights a cigarette just as the storage tanks erupt into flames behind him.

Jeremy Duns, a British author researching his new book, has discovered that a Dutch spy used an almost identical technique to get into Nazi-occupied Netherlands.

Peter Tazelaar was under orders from the exiled Dutch queen, Wilhelmina, to slip into the country to extract two fellow countrymen to join the government-in-exile in Britain.

He and his fellow secret agents – Eric Hazelhoff Roelfzema and Bob Van der Stok – had often spent time at the seaside resort of Scheveningen, near The Hague, and knew that the Palace hotel there had been taken over by the Germans as a headquarters, and that every Friday night they held large and boisterous parties there.

Their plan was simple but audacious – approach Scheveningen in darkness by boat, and take Mr Tazelaar into the surf by dinghy, from where he could scramble ashore. Once there, he would strip off his wetsuit, to reveal his evening clothes underneath, to enable him to pose as a partygoer and slip past the sentries.

The scene it inspired, in the opening sequence of the 1964 film, was not in Ian Fleming's book, on which it is based, and the original draft screenplay began with Bond, played by Sean Connery, already in a bar.

But Mr Duns believes that Paul Dehn, a British scriptwriter and former senior intelligence officer during the Second World War who was called in to polish the screenplay, knew about the Dutch operation and wrote in the scene to give the film a powerful, dramatic opening.

"Dehn was steeped in the world of intelligence and special operations and his senior position meant he would certainly have been aware of the amazing Dutch operation, and he decided to use in the screenplay," Mr Duns said.

"It's just too much of a coincidence because it was such an extraordinary operation. Dehn used his knowledge and experience in the intelligence world to embellish Fleming's work to great artistic effect."

The real operation itself proved harder to pull off than expected, because of bad weather and the difficulties of finding Scheveningen's promenade in the dark.

But just after 4.30am on November 23 1941, after several false starts, Mr Tazelaar, Mr Hazelhoff Roelfzema, and another Dutchman, Chris Krediet, and Lieutenant Bob Goodfellow, disembarked from a British Motor Gun Boat into a small dinghy.

Once they neared the surf, Mr Hazelhoff Roelfzema and Mr Tazelaar slipped off the boat and waded onto the beach. Mr Hazelhoff Roelfzema then helped his comrade unzip his specially designed wetsuit to reveal his immaculate evening clothes.

Mr Hazelhoff Roelfzema then poured a generous measure of Hennessy XO – Mr Tazelaar's favourite – from a hip flask over his friend, and returned to the dinghy. Reeking of brandy, Mr Tazelaar managed to stagger convincingly past the sentries stationed around the hotel.

Mr Duns discovered the story when he was researching a trilogy of spy novels, the first of which, Free Agent, comes out in paperback next month.



The Tazelaar operation was something of a cause célèbre in British intelligence circles and Mr Dehn, a former Secret Operations Executive (SOE) agent, was an expert on espionage: he wrote the training manual for SOE agents.'

Mr Dehn also took part in SOE missions in France and Norway. There is no evidence that Mr Dehn met Mr Tazelaar – who worked for SOE later on in the war – but Mr Duns believes Mr Dehn would have heard about the Scheveningen mission from colleagues during or after the war.

Unlike the Goldfinger mission, which began with James Bond rising from the sea with a fake duck on his head to disguise his underwater breathing apparatus, Mr Tazelaar's operation did not run smoothly after the initial success.

On 18 January 1942, another party night, he was supposed to meet Mr Hazelhoff Roelfzema on the beach to collect two radio transmitters. But on his way to the rendezvous he was picked up by the Gestapo and taken away for questioning.

He managed to bluff his way out, however, by sticking to his story of being a drunken reveller and offering his interrogators a drink from a bottle of genever, or Holland gin, which he had taken with him. A local policeman, luckily also a member of the Resistance, vouched for him, and the Germans let him go.

But the Dutch Resistance was betrayed soon afterwards and he was unable to extract the two men he had been sent to rescue, although he was able to escape from the country himself.

Later in the war, he went to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) to help in the struggle in the region against the Japanese. After the end of the war, he served with the military police during the Dutch colonial war in Indonesia, and became a CIA agent, carrying out missions in eastern and central Europe during the 1950s. He died in 1993.

Victor Laurentius, author of a recently published biography, De Grote Tazelaar, Ridder en Rebel ('The Great Tazelaar: Knight and Rebel'), said that, like Bond, Mr Tazelaar was an inveterate daredevil who, during his missions, spent a lot of time in casinos and other places crowded by German officers.

"He had a lot in common with James Bond," Mr Laurentius said. "He was good-looking, a cool womaniser, and in many ways an atypical spy."


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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby abhishek_sharma » 22 Apr 2010 08:56



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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 26 Apr 2010 02:53

Qatari Emiri Navy Selects Latest Generation Missile from Exocet Family
(April 22, 2010) -- MBDA is pleased to announce that the Qatari Emiri Navy will procure a batch of Exocet MM40 Block 3 missiles to equip its fleet of four Vita class Patrol Boats.

This latest generation of naval superiority missile has a significantly extended range thanks to its turbojet propulsion. And thanks to its GPS navigation, the new Exocet MM40 Block 3 is able to strike a target designated by its geographical coordinates, while remaining compatible with existing MM40 launchers.

The Commander of the Qatari Emiri Naval Forces (QENF), Staff Brigadier (SEA) Mohammed Bin Nasser Al Mohannadi, said "The missile development project is in line with our development plan to update the Qatari Emiri Naval Forces. It is an integrated project which includes training officers and other navy personnel to deal with modernised missile systems, the development of missile launcher systems and updating with the latest technology in the field".

Antoine Bouvier, CEO of MBDA, stated: "I am honoured that the Qatari Emiri Navy, one of the region's most demanding armed forces, has decided to prolong its partnership with MBDA which already dates back several decades. In choosing Exocet MM40 Block 3, the Qatari Emiri Navy is not only opting for the most modern of anti-ship capabilities it is also maximising its past investment in the Exocet family, as well as benefiting from all the advantages associated with a weapon series that has achieved sales of 3,500 units around the world".

The EXOCET family has an OTH (Over The Horizon) firing capability and a range of other operational benefits including :
-- low radar signature
-- late seeker activation
-- sea-skimming at very low altitude
-- enhanced target selection and ECCM (Electronic counter-countermeasures)
-- high penetration capability against modern naval air defences

Since entering service in 1972, 3,500 EXOCET missiles, in all configurations, have been sold to 35 countries.

MM40 Block3 has been ordered by the French Navy and will equip its variant of the Franco-Italian FREMM frigate. It has also been ordered by several other export customers. In March 2010, the French navy carried out an operational firing of an Exocet MM40 Block3 from its Horizon class Chevalier Paul frigate.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 26 Apr 2010 21:09


Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Sanjay M » 27 Apr 2010 18:10

New Russian Cruise Missile Hides in Shipping Container:

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/04/ ... eapon.html


Is this a terrorist's dream weapon?

I'm sure Prabhakaran would have loved it, anyway. Maybe AlQaeda will yet get to use it.

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

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Craig Alpert » 28 Apr 2010 04:40

BAYERN-CHEMIE SUCCESSFULLY CARRIES OUT TWO GEL DEMONSTRATOR TEST FLIGHTS
Image
As secure and easy to handle as solid propulsion, this unique technology from Bayern-Chemie permits modulating thrust to maximize weapon endurance.


Bayern-Chemie, a fully owned (100%) subsidiary of MBDA Deutschland, successfully carried out two gel demonstrator test flights at the German Armed Forces Test Range in Meppen in December 2009. Following several years of intensive R&D, the results of these flights prove that all functions of this gelled propellant propulsion technology have reached the TRL 6 (Technology Readiness Level 6). Essentially, the gel feeding system and the thrust modulation device worked as predicted during the relevant flight phases.

Propulsion systems using gelled propellants combine the advantages of systems using solid propellants (readiness for immediate use, safe and easy handling) with the advantages of systems using liquid propellants (variable thrust). Whilst in the missile fuel tank, the gelled propellant behaves like a solid propellant therefore damage to the missile’s mechanical structure will not result in the propellant leaking. In addition, vapour pressure is very low, hence eliminating the “fireball” risk.

On being injected into the combustor, the propellant looses its gelled structure and transforms into a liquid. Propellant feed is carried out using a solid gas generator or pressurized gas.

The benefits of this propulsion technology are the variability of thrust for mission adapted thrust profiles, the very high degree of insensitivity (no reaction at fast and slow cook-off), low smoke and low signature, an environmentally friendly propellant and exhaust gas (green propellant) and easy handling regarding the logistics chain.

Gelled propulsion technology is now ready for use within certain applications. The first candidates will be reusable start boosters as used in drones, cruise missiles and aircraft. The full advantages of gelled propellant propulsion systems will be realised when they are integrated within air-to-ground or surface-to-surface missiles.

The development of this technology was funded by the German BWB (the Federal Office of Defence Technology and Procurement) and carried out by Bayern-Chemie in close cooperation with the BWB’s various institutes and departments.


NICE! A lot of potential benefits from Space, to Missiles. Hope others follow pursuit!

negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13099
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby negi » 28 Apr 2010 06:03

They are the one working on Meteor's throttle-able ducted propulsion system. Hence the emphasis on GEL based propellants.

Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Airavat » 28 Apr 2010 07:23

Exercise Bersama Shield 2010

Warships, combat aircraft, and soldiers from the Australian Defence Force (ADF) will join the armed forces of Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and the United Kingdom in a major military exercise focussed on enhancing regional security. Exercise BERSAMA SHIELD 2010 will be conducted under the auspices of the Five Power Defence Arrangement (FPDA) in various locations on the Malaysian Peninsula and in the South China Sea between 26 April and 7 May 2010.

The ADF assets involved in this exercise include HMA Ships Anzac and Success, eight F/A-18 combat aircraft from 75 Squadron and an AP-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft from 92 Squadron.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aarvee and 56 guests