Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

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.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5401
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Jun 2016 23:10

Since we were discussing the seat on the F-35, and the light weight pilot (60 kg) restriction that was strapped last year.


Exclusive: USAF Weighing Replacement F-35 Ejection Seat

As I had explained earlier, this was a USAF issue, being dealt with by them appropriately. As the earlier links have shown, there are a total of 11 tests to be performed between march of 2016 and November 2016, and only after these would the 136 pound weight restrictions be lifted. As if those 11 tests (planned before Gilmore’s rant) weren’t enough, the USAF is now actively introducing an alternative into the mix in case the fixes Martin Baker has designed for the seat do not work out or incase Martin Baker is unable to go back, and re-design changes in order to meet the 136 pound pilot requirement. Keep in mind however that the safety boards do not find the risk above the weight restriction to be significant enough to warrant any restrictions, that still stands even with the standard seat and would obviously still stand even if the three fixes identified do not work exactly as planned.

To recap some points from the previous discussions and background –

- During testing the ITT found unacceptable risk for neck injury during the escape process for pilots weighing below 136 pounds (60kg).

-The risk of injury to pilots above 136 pounds was found to be acceptable by the ari worthiness authorities – Keep in mind that with the heavier helmets there is always a HIGHER risk compared to non HMS escape scenarios – USAF’s own expereince with ACESII and the F-16 proves that, including fatalities. Therefore, there is elevated risk of neck injury even on the upgraded f16s with the JHMCS compared to pre-upgraded f-16Cs.

- At the moment the F-35A (USAF) is restricted to pilots weighing 61.7 kg to 111.1 kg

-The current ACES II ejection seat, along with the current standard HMS (JHMCS) has 60 kg as its lower limit when it comes to pilot weights when the heavier HMS’s are involved

-The USN’s NACES has a pilot nude weight range of 61.7kg to 96.6 kg so they are not affected by the restrictions


-The US16E seat on the F-35 was/is EXPECTED to sustain the widest range ever asked for in an ejection seat + HMS scenario by a US service - between 46.7 kg and 111.1 kg

-Despite having this wide range, apart from the USAF, the other two services were to continue to maintain their existing weight ranges (61.7 kg to 96.6 kg for the USN and USMC)

- It is unclear what the international customers are planning, but its quite likely that they will keep their institutional status-quo (mostly built around the F-16+ACESII+JHMCS combo)

- The USAF is still STICKING to its weight range, and EXPECTS Martin Baker to fulfill its contractual agreement to fix the seat using its own money

- There are three fixes planned to open up the 46.7 kg to 60 kg envelope. All three of these fixes have begun testing and 11 tests through the differnet weight classes are to be pefromed till november to confirm that the fixes are suffiecient to open up the envelpoe, and reduce overall risk fo death or serious injury during escale.

There are three primary solutions, he says. The first is to add a “heavy/light” switch to the seat that will delay deployment of the main parachute for lightweight pilots. “We plan to begin modifying seats by the end of the year,” Babione says.

The second fix is to reduce the weight of the Gen 3 helmet-mounted display, developed by Rockwell Collins ESA Vision Systems. The third is to add a fabric mesh between the parachute risers to capture the pilot’s head during ejection


To compare weights of helmets. The original JHMCS I was a 4.5+ pound setup. The JHMCS II is a 4.3 pound system, while the Gen III HMD for the F-35 weighs 5.2 pounds. The re-designed, lightweight helmet weighs in between 4.6-4.8 pounds so is fairly close to the JHMCS I which is the most widely used HMS between the USAF and USN (JHMCS II hasn’t yet been adopted by a US customer, only Saudi’s).

The USAF is sticking to its guns, and Martin Baker is being asked to act, act fast or face the chance of loosing out on what is likely to be the company’s largest ejection seat contract for the forceeable future.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18950
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby Austin » 25 Jun 2016 17:17

Lockheed Martin: Israel F-35 Rollout Celebration 22/6/16 P.7 ET 11:00 AM


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18950
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby Austin » 26 Jun 2016 11:10

Proton-Light proposed

Image

Proton "light" concept

In 2016, Russian space officials announced plans to develop a smaller version of the nation's venerable Proton launch vehicle. The head of Roskosmos Igor Komarov, speaking to the radio station Ekho Moskvy on June 18 said that the Proton-Light variant would be narrowly aimed at particular demands of the commercial market. According to Komarov, an extra variant would make the Proton family more effective and reduce per-kilogram cost of payload delivered into orbit.

Komarov stressed that the Proton would remain in operation for at least seven or nine years, before being replaced with the Angara family.

On June 23, the head of GKNPTs Khrunichev Andrei Kalinovsky announced that the company had been preparing a new addition to the Proton family for a different type of commercial spacecraft, allowing various Proton variants to have their own individual price offers on the market. Kalinovsky did not provide technical details on the new Proton variant, but mentioned that it would not be a drastically new vehicle.

Around the same time, various industry sources revealed the most likely architecture of the Proton-Light rocket. The key change included the removal of the second stage from the standard Proton-M rocket. Instead, the traditional third stage of the Proton-M would be "stretched" to accommodate more propellant and used as the second stage on the Proton-Light. According to some reports, the propulsion system on the second stage could be modified to re-start its engine and boost its payload from an initial parking orbit to a geostationary transfer orbit, GTO. Some estimates showed that under such a scenario, the vehicle could deliver up to five tons of cargo to the GTO after launch from Baikonur.

Another configuration could use a Briz-M space tug as the third stage of the rocket.

In its new configuration, Proton-Light could fill the gap in the payload range left by the Zenit rocket, which itself fell victim to Russia's conflict with Ukraine. The new Proton variant would also be well positioned on the international market, which saw more competition with the arrival of the American Falcon-9 rocket.

However given the extended length of time required for even less radical upgrades of Proton and the official Russian strategy to phase out the vehicle in favor of Angara-5, it is unclear whether it would be possible to justify the Proton-Light development effort. A number of previous proposals to change the shape and size of the Proton-M rocket were deemed too expensive more than a decade earlier in the rocket's operational career.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5401
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military & Space Discussion

Postby brar_w » 27 Jun 2016 13:48

Japan Issues Request For Information On Fighter Options

Japan’s defense ministry is requesting information for its next fighter program, taking an early step toward an acquisition that will shape the country’s air force in the middle of the century and perhaps result in a domestic development effort.

The ministry is seeking information on three alternatives: creating a new fighter type, modifying an existing one or importing. The aim is to replace the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. (MHI) F-2.

There are strong reasons to suspect that the ministry would only be satisfied with a new type, since no fighter now in production comes close to concept designs of the past few years that likely show what it really wants: a large, twin-engine aircraft with long endurance and internal carriage of six big air-to-air missiles.

That does not necessarily mean foreign companies will be wasting their time by responding, however. Even a domestic program led by MHI and engine builder IHI Corp., if affordable, would benefit from foreign guidance and technology.

For new designs, the ministry’s acquisition, technology and logistics agency has requested information on respondents’ capabilities and latest technology. For upgrades and straight imports, it wants to know about the current aircraft. In seeking the data, it is not using the conventional term “request for information,” but that is clearly what the exercise amounts to. Responses are due by July 5.

Four categories of companies have been invited to respond: those that have built airframes or engines, those that can show they have knowledge of developing and building them, trading companies and consultancies. The first group, manufacturers, most obviously includes MHI and IHI—and maybe such suppliers as Boeing, BAE Systems, Dassault and Saab, if they are not expected to go through trading companies. The second category appears to create an opening for such companies as Israel Aerospace Industries, which have not built fighters of entirely their own design but know a thing or two about the technology.The trading companies have been invited because they are a routine and peculiar element of Japanese defense equipment importation, acting as local intermediaries. In the F-X program that Lockheed Martin secured in 2011 with the F-35 Lightning, for example, the winning bid’s Japanese trading company was Mitsubishi Corp., while Itochu represented Boeing and the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Sumitomo Corp. represented Eurofighter and the Typhoon.

The Japanese government is due to decide by the fiscal year beginning April 2018 how to replace the F-2. A new type’s entry into service around 2030 has been expected, so the chosen type will serve well into the second half of the century.

MHI, IHI and other Japanese companies have been working on laying the technical foundation for a domestic type that would closely fit the ministry’s requirements. That or a gross modification of a foreign aircraft would be called the F-3.

The government would have to vastly increase its defense research and development budget to create an all-new F-3. In no year since 1988 has the country spent more than ¥173 billion ($1.64 billion at today’s exchange rates) on military R&D (see chart). Peak annual spending on F-2 development was about ¥100 billion. The F-3’s expected development cost is unknown, but the U.S. spent $30.4 billion on developing the Lockheed Martin F-22, which is quite comparable to concept designs of the F-3 published by the ministry’s Technical Research and Development Institute (TRDI). On the other hand, the F-2, based on—but larger than—the Lockheed Martin F-16, cost only ¥360 billion to develop more than two decades ago.

The F-2 is a strike fighter, but Japan clearly does not want to buy another. TRDI’s concept designs unambiguously emphasize the counterair role. The institute calculates that fighters with long endurance and therefore greater numbers on station would be more useful than those with better flight performance in battle. They would engage targets at great range with internally stowed missiles that, low-resolution drawings suggest, would be ramjet-powered.

TRDI’s concepts also include stealthy airframes.

Among the politically and technically acceptable aircraft that could conceivably be updated or imported unchanged to replace the F-2, the Boeing F-15 has been in Japanese service since the 1980s. It may offer the endurance Japan wants, but it lacks weapon bays and the most demanding stealth features. So does the F/A-18E/F, though limited internal missile capacity in pods has been proposed for both types. The Typhoon, Dassault Rafale and Saab Gripen E/F have similar limitations and probably fall short of Japan’s endurance requirement. The stealthy F-35 has only limited internal weapon stowage and is probably also too short-legged.

No foreign development program has a concrete schedule that would supply Japan with an acceptable aircraft, though the U.S. Navy and Air Force have requirements that may approximately match Tokyo’s targeted timing and performance.


Major dilemma :

- F-15SE falls short on missile load in its internal bay, plus lacks comprehensive LO features. Has the range in counter air
- F-18E/F Adv. - falls short on missile load, and lacks very long range in counter air
- F-22 - Not in production, but even if it were lacks the range
- F-35 - Only fighter that packs LO, and has been designed for 6 x internal missiles (Block 4.3) but is not twin engined, and probably they want even longer range
- Typhoon, good counter air, but no weapons bay, LO and probably short on range minus bags

Their only options are to either go for a very highly modified F-35 (new wing) or follow through on the Shin Shin and develop something from scratch. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The advantage being, revival of their own aerospace defense sector, the disadvantage being cost. They could probably field all F-35ADV's with the money required to design and develop the Shin Shin follow on. The F-35 currently has a 1100 or so km combat radius with internal load (For the A its calculated with 2 JDAM's and 2 missiles so it could be more with just internal missiles) so to go even farther they would require essentially a new wing or conformal tanks. They are willing to trade away performance for sheer TOS and range so could possibly explore this as an AOA.

In the medium term (10-12 years) the F-135 engine upgrade path will probably get them between 5-10% improvements in fuel consumption. More if additional VAATE technology is incorporated into it so thats an option as well.

Image

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16635
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 08 Sep 2016 20:15

http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003191193
How capable are N. Korea’s subs, missiles?

2:13 pm, September 08, 2016
The Yomiuri Shimbun
North Korea has been repeatedly test-firing submarine-launched ballistic missiles, or SLBMs (see below). On Aug. 24, an SLBM launched off Sinpo, a city in northeast North Korea, flew for about 500 kilometers. If fully deployed, these missiles pose a serious security threat to Japan, the United States and South Korea. The Yomiuri Shimbun interviewed experts on North Korea’s SLBMs.

(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Aug. 28, 2016)

===

Concerns over nuclear umbrella’s credibility

Toshiyuki Ito / Former Commandant of Maritime Self-Defense Force’s Kure District

North Korea’s SLBM program is steadily progressing. Looking at footage released by North Korea, a missile ignited the moment it cleared the water and flew smoothly. This was the most difficult part, and probably relied on technology provided by the former Soviet Union. North Korea is now able to reproduce that technology.

The SLBM may be the same type as a Musudan medium-range ballistic missile. The Musudan is widely believed to be a variant of the R-27 SLBM purchased from Russia that has been modified for land-based launches. A series of launches have been carried out since spring, and a missile reached an altitude of 1,000 kilometers for the first time in June.

North Korea’s SLBM was launched from a Sinpo-class submarine. Although it was modeled on a Golf-class submarine made in the Soviet Union, the crucial launch equipment was removed prior to purchase. According to U.S. reports, North Korea later purchased missile launch equipment and modified the submarine so that equipment could be installed, creating the Sinpo class.

The submarine’s hull is roughly six meters in diameter, and the bridge is about six meters high. As the Musudan is about 12 meters long, it can be installed vertically. Therefore, the recently launched SLBM was also likely fired from a Sinpo-class submarine.

Submarine construction is not easy. One of the most important factors is resistance to water pressure. In order to make the hull withstand extreme water pressure, steel plates must be molded into a true circle and welded to avoid leaving any gaps. Only a few countries, including Japan, are capable of building submarines on their own.

The Sinpo class is most likely a battery-powered submarine of about 2,000 tons. It can only dive to shallow depths and operate in coastal waters. I believe it is incapable of venturing far into the Sea of Japan, let alone the Pacific.

Technically speaking, it is virtually impossible for North Korea to send its submarines into the Pacific and approach the U.S. mainland in the near future.

What North Korea wants most is to develop the KN-08 intercontinental ballistic missile, which uses improved technologies from its advanced Taepodong-2 long-range ballistic missile and is capable of reaching the U.S. mainland. If it can do this, North Korea believes it will be on an equal footing with the United States in terms of nuclear deterrence.

With Musudans and SLBMs, which are still in an experimental stage, the objective is to achieve a range of 4,000 kilometers. The intended target is not Japan or South Korea, but rather Guam, a strategic base for the U.S. military. It will be sufficient if SLBMs launched off the coast of Sinpo — like the most recent launch — could reach Guam.

In terms of nuclear deterrence, the significance of SLBMs lies in their second-strike capability. In other words, even if a country’s ground-based nuclear capabilities are destroyed in a first nuclear strike, nuclear weapons at sea can be used in a second strike against the enemy. Theoretically, this is how they work as a mutual nuclear deterrent.

If North Korea’s SLBMs were to achieve full combat capability, the credibility of the U.S. nuclear umbrella could be undermined. This is because it could lead to such doubts as, “Will the United States really carry out a nuclear strike against North Korea in order to defend Japan?” or “Will the United States hesitate to carry out a nuclear strike against North Korea out of fear that Guam will be hit by a second strike?”

For Japan, the prospect of the nuclear umbrella being disregarded can be considered a threat.

(Taken from an interview conducted by Yomiuri Shimbun Senior Writer Tatsuya Fukumoto)

■ Ito’s profile

After serving as captain of the MSDF submarine Hayashio, Toshiyuki Ito retired as a vice admiral and commandant of the MSDF Kure District in August 2015. He is now a professor at the K.I.T. Toranomon Graduate School and a visiting research fellow at the Canon Institute for Global Studies. He is 58.

Keep focus on submarine developments 

Yang Uk / South Korean commentator on military affairs

To determine whether the recent SLBM launched by North Korea was a “success,” the weapons system and the missile launch need to be evaluated separately.

Regarding the missile launch, great obstacles have been overcome and it can be said with near certainty to have been a “success.” However, its success as a weapons system is another matter.

Three criteria must be met in order to have SLBMs. These are (1) the missile launch, (2) the nuclear warheads, and (3) the submarines from which to launch the missiles. Currently, it is fair to conclude North Korea has succeeded in completing (1) and could probably be said to have successfully met the criteria for (2), with four nuclear tests.

Although the SLBM launches in April and July are widely regarded as “failures,” this is not necessarily the case. It is possible that the April and July launches were experiments in which the missiles were intentionally exploded at certain altitudes, as was done with Scud and Rodong launches.

The problem for North Korea now is (3), submarines. In order for SLBMs to work as a deterrent, submarines need to be capable of remaining submerged for long periods of time.

Although North Korea possesses a large number of submersibles and submarines for landing and launching anti-ship torpedoes, when it comes to submarines capable of launching missiles it only has one outdated submarine that can remain at sea for only two to three days. It will, therefore, likely be some time before they are capable of building a successful weapons system.

Be that as it may, North Korea first introduced submarines in the 1960s and has produced all of them at its Sinpo submarine base. Over the years, they have accumulated a considerable amount of production technology. The submarine currently installed with missile launch tubes is based on a Golf-class submarine purchased from Russia in the early 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

For SLBM-equipped submarines to be useful in actual combat, they require at least two missile launch tubes and an air-independent propulsion (AIP) system, which enables submarines to continually navigate underwater without surfacing.

It is believed that North Korea is currently constructing a 3,000-ton class submarine equipped with such features. Satellite images show construction of some sort is being carried out at Sinpo’s shipyards.

North Korea has continued to launch land-based missiles and apply those technologies to SLBMs, judging by the fact that the Musudan and SLBM are almost identical in appearance.

The nuclear powers of the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia all possess SLBMs. By completing its own SLBM, North Korea is seeking global recognition as a nuclear power.

If North Korea’s submarines become capable of venturing out into the open seas, constant monitoring patrols will be needed.

Japan has the best patrol capability in Northeast Asia. As South Korea lacks such capabilities, patrols may become the starting point for security cooperation between the two countries.

(Taken from an interview conducted by Yomiuri Shimbun Seoul Correspondent Kentaro Nakajima)

■ Uk’s profile

Yang Uk graduated from Seoul National University and gained a master’s degree from the Korea National Defense University’s Graduate School of Defense Management. Among other positions, he serves as a senior researcher at the Korea Defense and Security Forum, and as a policy advisory committee member of the National Defense Ministry. He has authored a number of books, including on national security and weapons. He is 41.

■ SLBM

Ballistic missiles that can be launched from submerged submarines. They are difficult to detect because they can be launched from below the ocean surface. Speech

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16635
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 09 Sep 2016 13:16

NoKo has just tested its 5th N-device.Along with its successful SLBM test ,NoKo is demonstrating a huge surge in its N-capability that is sending Japan and SoKo the jitters.

Meanwhile,O'Bomber's mil largesse to the Soothi Barbarians. Much of this weaponry would've gotten into the hands of ISIS as well.

Obama administration offered $115b​n in weapons to Saudi Arabia: report
According to a new report, offers over eight years totalled more than any previous administration and were intended to replenish arsenal after war in Yemen
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... bia-report
Saudi Arabia weapons
Members of the activist group CodePink hold a rally to protest US weapons sales to Saudi Arabia in Washington DC on Wednesday. Photograph: UPI /
Julian Borger Washington
Thursday 8 September 2016 18.10 BST Last modified on Friday 9 September 2016 00.55 BST

The Obama administration has offered to sell $115bn worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia over its eight years in office, more than any previous US administration, according to a new report.

The surge in sales is in part to reassure the Saudi monarchy of US backing in the wake of last year’s nuclear deal with Tehran, which raised fears in the Gulf that Washington would tilt more towards Tehran in its foreign policy.

The report’s author, William Hartung of the Centre for International Policy, said another factor was a drive by US arms manufacturers to boost sales to compensate declining procurement by the Pentagon. However, the most recent deals – such as the offer to sell more than 150 M1A2 Abrams battle tanks for an estimated $1.15bn – were principally intended to replenish the Saudi arsenal, depleted in the war in Yemen.

“I think that though the Obama administration is not thrilled about the Yemen episode; it feels it can’t stay out of it, because of the need to reassure the Saudis,” Hartung said.

His report found that since taking office in January 2009, the Obama administration has offered to sell $115bn in weapons to Saudi Arabia, half of which are accounted for by deals that are still in the pipeline.

“There are $57bn in sales in formal agreements so far, which is also head and shoulders above other administrations,” Hartung said.

The report comes as concerns about the UK’s arms sales to Saudi Arabia and their implication in potential war crimes in Yemen have split MPs on parliament’s arms control committee.

Arms sales over the eight years of the Obama administration have also included combat aircraft, attack helicopters, bombs, air-to-ground missiles, warships and military training. A division of Northrop Grumman is involved in a $4bn train-and-equip programme for the Saudi Arabian national guard, which has reportedly played a key role in the Yemen intervention.

The latest tank deal has drawn resistance from congressional Democrats, who have called for a freeze on arms sales to Saudi Arabia, because of its bombing of civilian targets in Yemen. UN officials have estimated that airstrikes by the Saudi-led coalition are responsible for most of the 3,000 civilian casualties in the war so far, twice as many as those caused by Houthi insurgents and other forces in the conflict put together.

Ted Lieu, a Democratic congresman from California, took a leading role in a letter by 64 members of Congress calling for the tank deal to be delayed, given the coalition’s campaign’s “deeply troubling impact on civilians”.

“I do not oppose assisting the country of Saudi Arabia, which has been a longstanding ally of the United States,” Lieu told the Guardian in a written statement. “What I do fundamentally oppose is continuing to sell arms to a military coalition that has repeatedly committed war crimes. The Saudi-led coalition has killed children, patients, doctors and newlyweds. A significant number of the killings of civilians by the Saudi coalition were nowhere near military targets. I will continue to do all that I can to see that the United States offers no support to Saudi Arabia’s operations in Yemen. The letter that 64 Members of the House sent last week shows that there is a growing chorus in Congress that shares these concerns.”

Tom Porteous, deputy programme director for Human Rights Watch, said: “As Human Rights Watch has documented in frequent field missions to bombing sites, US weapons are being used in coalition attacks that violate the laws of war and in some cases may constitute war crimes … To continue to sell arms is to fuel the flames and enable further violations.”

'Why do they target us?' Yemeni civilians pay the price of escalating crisis

The US has made appeals to Riyadh to do more to limit civilian casualties, and pointed to Riyadh’s creation of a committee to investigate incidents like the bombing of hospitals as progress in that direction. But the committee has shared information with the UN but not made its findings public. Hartung argued that such messages are least likely to be taken seriously while arms sales are booming.

“I think the US is such a significant supplier of bombs, ammunition, artillery and tanks and playing such an important role in the prosecution of the war in Yemen that there is signficant leverage,” he said. “If the US were to signal that part of that assistance would be frozen or withdrawn if they don’t show they are implementing measures to limit civilian casualties, that would send an effective message. I haven’t seen evidence that they have really made a convincing threat or statement on the consequences for the Saudis if they don’t stop. And any such message would be more powerful if other suppliers like the UK made similar statements.”

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35251
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby SaiK » 11 Sep 2016 02:10

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016 ... -vstan.cnn
Navy's $3B stealth warship sets sail
The $3 billion USS Zumwalt destroyer has left port in Maine and is on its way to an upcoming commissioning ceremony in Maryland.

rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 962
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby rkhanna » 17 Sep 2016 13:13

Russia building a 400 Hecter Tactical City for Special Operations Training

"The 400-hectare complex will basically be a tactical city for working with all possible terrorist scenarios: liberating hostages in a school, on a bus or plane, in the metro and other public places.

The future elite fighters will also train for combating militants in forests and mountainous areas around the base."


https://sofrep.com/64094/ak-47s-stolen- ... ack-event/

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby shiv » 18 Sep 2016 09:33

http://www.popularmechanics.com/militar ... ce=twitter
100 Years Ago Today, Tanks Changed Warfare Forever
One hundred years ago today, on September 15th 1916, German soldiers looked out over the tops of their trenches and got a tremendous shock. Giant metal-covered vehicles, as large as a barn, were slowly advancing towards their position, moving forward in a caterpillar-like motion and spitting cannon and machine gun fire as they came. It was like nothing they'd ever seen before. This was the battle of Flers-Courcelette, and the age of the tank had arrived.

The tank was invented to break the stalemate of trench warfare on World War I's European battlefields. Artillery and machine guns, plentiful on both sides, were particularly effective against the main form of offense—the infantryman. As a result the defense was stronger than just about anything that could be thrown against it, so much so that infantrymen spent most of their time cowering in trenches and bunkers. When the infantry did attack, they would often outstrip their supporting machine gun fire, leaving them vulnerable to counterattacks.

Enter the tank. Designed to swing the pendulum back, the tank was destined to make the offense stronger than the defense and accompany the infantry in the attack, bringing along protected machine guns and cannons that would later be used to beat back the inevitable enemy counterattack.

The first tank, the British Army's Mark I, had a maximum speed of 3.7 miles an hour, a crew of eight, two six-pounder guns—meaning they fired high explosive shells weighing six pounds—and three Hotchkiss 8mm machine guns. This was enough to support an infantry attack in motion, and then provide a mobile fortification after a successful defense. They were notoriously unreliable, with about half of them breaking down at Flers-Courcelette. And while the finicky new machines of war were not quite enough to help Allies win the day decisively, they were fearsome enough that Allied commanders requested 1,000 more, cementing the tank's place on the battlefield.




--read it all in the link

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 58763
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: X,L,S,VHF band radars fully on

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 18 Sep 2016 12:38

Russia testing new long endurance uuv

https://www.rt.com/news/359648-underwat ... lear-subs/

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15603
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 18 Sep 2016 12:44

Exclusive Look Inside an All-Star Missile Defense Team

Image
Ask any sports fan and they will tell you: Strong teams have a strong defense.

When it comes to high stakes defense, nothing is more critical than missile defense. Destroying an incoming threat with impact from an intercepting missile, akin to a bullet hitting a bullet in mid-air, demands the highest degree of precision.

At Lockheed Martin, ballistic missile defense systems are designed to integrate and work together, layering systems to provide the highest quality of overall protection from any combination of threats. This layered defense keeps citizens, critical assets and deployed forces safe from current and future threats.

Now for the exclusive, let’s meet this all-star lineup!
USING SENSORS AND COMMUNICATIONS TO CONTROL THE OUTCOME
Image

At the heart of our layered defense is the Command and Control, Battle Management and Communications (C2BMC) system. It connects all of the ballistic missile defense elements – across space, air, land and sea – into a single network.

C2BMC receives data and intelligence from hundreds of missile defense sensors, radars and satellites. In fact, the Missile Defense Agency’s newest radar, the Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR), will allow the warfighter to identify threats in flight and determine whether the threat is real or a decoy.

Remote sensing—the monitoring, observing and gathering of information on the Earth and atmosphere from space—can be used to help soldiers on the battlefield by tracking ‘hot spots’ of infrared light. The Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) GEO satellites include a scanning sensor that provides a wide area surveillance of missile launches and natural phenomena across the earth, while the staring sensor can be tasked to observe smaller areas of interest with superior sensitivity

STOPPING A BALLISTIC MISSILE AT ITS PEAK
Image

After a ballistic missile is launched, it travels in a high, arcing path toward its target. The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system, which comprises the SPY-1 radar and MK 41 vertical launching system, can stop these hostile missiles in their tracks as they coast in space, both outside and inside the Earth’s atmosphere.
Aegis BMD also uses the Common Source Library, a system that allows rapid integration of new capabilities and processes across the fleet. And Aegis BMD is not limited to Navy ships – it’s adaptable and performs on land as Aegis Ashore.

Similar to Aegis, the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) relies on its radar and launcher to provide 360-degree air and missile defense from short-and medium-range ballistic missiles, and its open architecture design allows assets from partner nations to integrate into the regional defense systems. Now that is teamwork!

MEETING A THREAT HEAD-ON AT CLOSE RANGE
Image

As a threat begins its descent (or terminal phase), the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) and PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (PAC-3 MSE) missiles cut through the sky to intercept and eliminate the adversary.
THAAD, PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE all use “Hit-to-Kill” (HTK) technology which destroys a threat with body-to-body impact by the interceptor missile – releasing huge amounts of kinetic energy with extreme precision. Previous technology relied on blast fragmentation which often results in dangerous debris and is not lethal against weapons of mass destruction.

Joining the HTK pack, is the Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MTHK) interceptor. Designed for the close range threats of rockets, artillery and mortars, the MHTK uses the same “Hit-to-Kill” technology to destroy a close-range threat without blast fragmentation.

Small and mighty, the two-feet and five pound MHTK provides game-changing protection in this challenging ballistic battlespace.

jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4821
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby jamwal » 23 Oct 2016 22:09

Image

Image

Image
Image
The Kurdish Peshmerga militia is trying to liberate the Iraqi Mosul, captured by Islamic State,


What are these ?

manjgu
BRFite
Posts: 1258
Joined: 11 Aug 2006 10:33

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby manjgu » 23 Oct 2016 22:49

jugadd combat vehicles.. JCV !!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5401
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 26 Oct 2016 18:41

Russian defence budget set to drop by 12%

Russian defence expenditure is set to fall by RUB371 billion (USD6 billion) by 2018 under new spending plans announced by the government. Total spending will fall from RUB3.1 trillion in 2016 to RUB2.728 trillion in 2018, a reduction of 12.0% in nominal terms.

The new spending plans were outlined in "The basic directions of budgetary policy for 2017 and the planning period of 2018 and 2019", published by the Russian Ministry of Finance (MoF) in October 2016. Based on current projections the expenditure on 'National Defence' will fall by 8.5% in 2017 to RUB2.836 trillion, and a further 3.8% to RUB2.728 trillion in 2017. Spending is then expected to begin to increase again in 2019 rising by 3.2% to RUB2.816 trillion. The Ministry of Finance had previously projected in July 2015 that spending would be approved at RUB3.065 trillion for 2017 and 2018. However, a rising budget deficit has prompted the Russian government to consolidate its fiscal position.

Russian defence expenditure will fall under the new budgetary projections from 3.8% of GDP in 2016 to 2.9% in 2019, its lowest level since 2012. The defence budget will also fall as a share of overall government spending from 23.8% in 2016 to 17.6% in 2019, the lowest level seen against this measure since 2013.

The document also suggests that expenditure on defence will eventually reach RUB3.889 trillion in 2016, 25.5% higher than the level currently approved under the 2016 budget. If this upward revision is approved, spending will reach record levels in 2016 representing a 22.5% increase over the previous high of RUB3.188 trillion that was approved in 2015.

As recently as July 2014, Russian budgetary plans had projected that defence expenditure would continue to increase in 2017 to reach a record level of RUB3.523 trillion by that time. The collapse in oil prices between July 2014 and January 2016 has however lead to a gradual deterioration of defence spending plans with Russia's budget deficit expected to grow to around 3.7% of GDP in 2016.

The reduction in spending will place further pressure on the modernisation goals laid out by the 2011-2020 State Armament Programme. Budgetary pressures have already seen the next iteration of the programme pushed back from 2016-2025 to 2018-2025. Furthermore, initial discussions over the level of spending for the new programme have led to inevitable disagreements between the Ministry of Finance (MoF) and the Ministry of Defence, which have proposed spending levels of RUB12 trillion and RUB24 trillion respectively. If approved, the revised spending targets for 2017-2019 will add weight to the MoF's call for a lower level of resourcing.

The significantly higher level of spending projected for 2016 in the MoF's new plans also suggest a major shift in budgetary planning assumptions. Defence ministry officials indicated in March 2016 that the defence budget could be cut by as much as 5% from approved levels in 2016 however planning documents and budget execution figures suggest no such cut will occur. The new figure for defence spending in 2016 is also perhaps indicative of the significant costs of Russian operations in Syria.


jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4821
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby jamwal » 10 Nov 2016 19:37

Image

Image

Image


Apparently, the circuit board in 1st image is Raspberry Pi. I use this thing as a torrent download and seeder box in my home. Ukrainians are using it in some kind of shoulder fired missile. Yellow band looks like a zip tie. Talk about use of off the shelf items and modular design. :D

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32516
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby shiv » 10 Nov 2016 22:46


jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4821
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby jamwal » 11 Nov 2016 19:03

Very interesting. Thanks.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5401
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 12 Nov 2016 17:31

The Avenger ER has now flown. 20 Hour endurance and is now cleared to carry the 2000 lb. JDAM -

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18950
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 01 Dec 2016 22:27

Air Force: Hypersonic Missiles From China, Russia Pose Growing Danger to U.S.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... anger-u-s/

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5401
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 06 Dec 2016 16:37

First Japanese F-35A arrives at Luke

LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. -- The F-35 program hit another milestone Nov. 28 with the arrival of the first Foreign Military Sales F-35 here.

The arrival marked the next step for the international F-35 training program as Japan took ownership of the first FMS aircraft to arrive at Luke.

“Today is a great day for the U.S. Air Force Reserve Command, Luke AFB, the 944th Fighter Wing, and the Japanese Air Self-Defense forces,” said Col. Kurt J. Gallegos, 944 FW commander. “We have a great team of Airmen who have worked hard to set up an outstanding training program and are ready to train our FMS counterparts.”

The aircraft was welcomed by a joint delegation from the 944 FW, 56th Fighter Wing, Lockheed Martin, and Japanese staff.

“Today I am thrilled for the Japan Air Self-Defense Force and Team Luke,” said Lt. Col. Sean Holahan, 944th Operations Group Detachment 2 commander. “The arrival of Japan’s first F-35A marks another important milestone in the steadfast relationship between our two nations, and the beginning of training for an elite cadre of JASDF fighter pilots and maintainers. We put an incredible amount of thought and effort into building the world’s first F-35 Foreign Military Sales training program from the ground up. To see Japan’s first jet on our flightline, surrounded by the men and women who have made this mission possible, is humbling.”

The arrival of the first FMS aircraft is the culmination of years of planning and hard work.

“The jet arrival marks the beginning of a new and exciting mission at Luke AFB to train our allies to fly the F-35A,” explained Lt. Col. Joe Bemis, 944 OG Det. 2 executive officer and resource advisor. “We have been preparing for this program for years. We have remodeled buildings, built a huge team of professional pilots, maintainers, and administration staff, and created specialized syllabus. We are hopeful that this mission will strengthen relationships between the US and nations that participate in the training.”

Over the next several years, Luke AFB will be training FMS pilots from Japan, Israel and South Korea along with partner nations including Australia, Italy, Norway, Turkey, Netherlands, Denmark, and Canada.

“This is such an important time in our wing’s history as we pick up the mission to train all FMS F-35 pilots,” said Gallegos. “It’s been almost 10 years since our wing has seen aircraft on our flightline. It is an amazing feeling to look outside and see the F-35s out there and know that we are playing such an important and critical role as we build relationships that will enhance our future partnership.”

In addition to the Foreign Military Sales mission led by the 944 OG/Det 2 Ninjas, Luke is scheduled to have six fighter squadrons and 144 F-35s.

Image



Nick_S
BRFite
Posts: 518
Joined: 23 Jul 2011 16:05
Location: Abbatabad

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Nick_S » 16 Dec 2016 04:20

V-22 could be a useful refueling tanker & cargo aircraft for IN carriers-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfkDfDhJ_JA



Lifts of Vikramaditya are too small, but might work on Vikrant.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18950
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 25 Dec 2016 16:20

Shot of 2016.

Image

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 651
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Manish_P » 25 Dec 2016 19:47

You mean Photoshop of 2016 ?

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3346
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Kartik » 21 Jan 2017 01:34

Turkish Altay MBT program hit by engine technology transfer issues

Turkey's plans to build its Altay main battle tank (MBT) have hit a snag after Tümosan, the planned engine provider, cancelled a key technical support contract with Austria's AVL List GmbH.

The cancellation comes after Austria's parliament unanimously adopted a non-binding motion that imposed an arms embargo against Turkey in November 2016. As a result conditions were placed on the transfer of technology to Turkey. Austria made the move in response to Turkey's increasing violation of human rights since the failed military coup attempt in July 2016.

Tümosan has been tasked by the Turkish Undersecretariat for Defence Industries (SSM) with developing a local engine for the Altay MBT. The company brought in Austrian firm AVL List in 2015 to provide technology transfer and support in the development and integration of engines into the Altay tank. Due to the imposition of conditions on technology transfer, Tümosan cancelled the contract with AVL List on 17 January...


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18950
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 22 Jan 2017 12:38

French special forces operations in Iraq


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 18950
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 22 Jan 2017 14:44

President Trump, Vice Pres. Pence Review Troops


AdityaM
BRFite
Posts: 1722
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 11:31
Location: New Delhi

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby AdityaM » 22 Jan 2017 18:13

Image

Excellent camouflage

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16635
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 23 Jan 2017 19:03

Great achievement! Our use of MIG-21s into their 6th decade is another shining example. One wonders too how long extra we could've kept our vintage Foxtrots in service too,esp. with the acute sub shrotage,for trg. and recce purposes.Based in the A&N islands,they would be excellent "eyes and ears" to monitor enemy forces transiting the Malacca Straits.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... ears-19150
Taiwan’s Ancient Submarine Will Reach an Astounding 80 Years in Service

Robert Beckhusen
January 22, 2017

Life expectancy varies between ships, but U.S. submarines generally stay in service for around 20 or 30 years or so. Taiwan, however, is planning for one of its submarines to reach age 80.

On Jan. 21, 2017, Taiwan announced that the 72-year-old SS-791 Hai Shih, or Sea Lion, will receive a retrofit allowing it to continue sailing until 2026. The $19 million retrofit will be to improve the hull and the diesel vessel’s “navigational elements,” Taiwan News reported.

Eight-zero. That’s a remarkable lifespan for a submarine, and the Hai Shih is already the oldest submarine still in service with a navy anywhere in the world — she looks like she traveled decades into the future through a wormhole.

Before she was Hai Shih, she was the U.S. Navy submarine USS Cutlass, a 1,570-ton Tench-class vessel that launched on Nov. 5, 1944 during World War II. Her wartime service was brief, and Cutlass didn’t reach her first patrol zone near the Kuril Islands until the day after Japan capitulated.

When the United States sold her to Taiwan in 1974, it sealed up Cutlass’ 10 torpedo tubes — six forward and four aft — and she became the Hai Shih. Very little has changed internally, apparently, but she still works.

A few years ago, researchers with the San Francisco Maritime National Park Association took a tour of the ex-Cutlass. “It was absolutely stunning how little has changed,” they wrote. “Equally stunning, is the high grade of operational condition.”

At the time, the 311-foot-long submarine still had a World War II-era Arma Mk 7 gyrocompass — one of a handful still working anywhere.

“Virtually all examples of these compasses were removed from the boats in the late 1950s and replaced with a smaller, easier to maintain (although less accurate) Sperry Mk 18s or later, modern Mk 19s,” the researchers wrote. “When we entered the control room there was the Arma gyrocompass, right where it should be, spinning, pointing north, and in use.”

“Over and over again this would happen during our time on these boats. We would find equipment running in perfect order that we had not imagined was retained, or maintained.”

It’s unclear if Hai Shih and the almost-as-ancient Hai Pao, Taiwan’s former Balao-class submarine that launched on Nov. 7, 1944 as the USS Tusk, are capable of combat. If the Hai Shih retrofit is successful, then Hai Pao’s service life could also be extended, according to Taiwan News.

Taiwan uses the submarines for training purposes, although sporadic reports citing Taiwanese officials over the years have indicated that their torpedo tubes had been unsealed. They are also capable of laying mines.

“Torpedo rooms forward and aft were operational and both carried test torpedoes,” Jane’s Defense Weekly reported in 2002.

“The Navy command recently took the unprecedented step of telling the media that [Hai Shih] was on an offshore mission, thus dispelling doubts about the World War II-era submarine still being useful and safe the next century,” Taiwan News noted.

But even if Hai Shih and Hai Pao are not combat-capable, the submarines could still be useful as reconnaissance vessels. They certainly would not match the Chinese navy, which could send dozens of submarines into Taiwan’s waters along with sub-hunting destroyers and aircraft.

Then again, if the antiques can still bite, they might pose a threat to some surface ships such as transport vessels.

Two other Taiwanese submarines, both Dutch-built Chien Lung class boats — based on the Zwaardvis class — carry torpedoes. And while those submarines are getting on in years, too, as they date to the mid-1980s, at least they’re not from World War II.

For Taiwan to build its own submarines would be an expensive — although not impossible — proposition requiring hard-to-find foreign assistance, and countries abroad have been wary of damaging relations with China by selling Taiwan modern subs or the technology to build them.

Taiwan has been researching how to do it, but it’s slow going.

So Taiwan, at least right now, doesn’t have many options but to keep its creaky, ancient submarines in service for a little while longer.

This first appeared in WarIsBoring here.

navneeet
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 40
Joined: 19 Jul 2010 22:16

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby navneeet » 24 Jan 2017 12:16

The Trident SLBM also fails.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/23/europe/trident-missile-failure-theresa-may/


Britain's Sunday Times newspaper reported that the missile veered towards the US coast, but the US official told CNN that this trajectory was part of an automatic self-destruct sequence. The official said the missile diverted into the ocean -- an automatic procedure when missile electronics detect an anomaly.

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3058
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 26 Jan 2017 20:48

Rambhas in the link....

Red Flag celebrates 40th anniversary
http://www.defenceaviation.com/2015/03/ ... rsary.html

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15603
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 29 Jan 2017 05:37

The two China policy could possibly start some sort of a conflict. IF the US were to set up a diplomatic presence in Taiwan, then, yes, there is a chance.

I do not think preventing them from the SCS will do much to trigger an armed conflict.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15603
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 29 Jan 2017 05:39


deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3233
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby deejay » 29 Jan 2017 10:54

NRao wrote:...

I do not think preventing them from the SCS will do much to trigger an armed conflict.


You mean Indo China Sea.


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15603
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 29 Jan 2017 20:11

deejay wrote:
NRao wrote:...

I do not think preventing them from the SCS will do much to trigger an armed conflict.


You mean Indo China Sea.


When I want to beat upon China, then it is SCS. When I want to talk of right of passage, it magically becomes the Indo-Pacific.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1805
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby PratikDas » 31 Jan 2017 04:47



The article linked within: Most powerful nuclear mortar, ‘Tulip,’ back in service
The shrapnel cluster from munitions of the 2S4 ‘Tulipan’ mortar is able to hit an area the size of four football fields. One shot from this powerful mortar totally demolished its target, making it inaccessible to any other artillery pieces. A special shell has been created for this powerful self-propelled mine, one that contains a nuclear charge.
:shock:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5401
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 31 Jan 2017 07:57

Singha wrote:this is the CRAM - phalanx on a truck

Image

we need to look into using the AK630 which is already locally made with a suitable radar & EO system that can track low supersonic inbounds and do some closed loop guidance. perhaps the barak1 "STGR" can do it. russians have numerous such systems too


See THIS

and also the MHTK as the Kinetic SRM option (guided) -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v6tVyf1TSI

Lockheed had a full program in place but the US Army went just for the interceptor and will compete both C2 and Radar. It is likely to be an IAMD-IBCS mated to an existing Sentinel (slated to get GaN AESA bump around 2021) or a Lockheed TPQ-53 AESA (Originally planned for the EAPS by Lockheed before the program was broken into parts and competed).

With the Iron Dome launcher dimensions you can pack 80 of these interceptors into one launcher, and with the mobile smaller launcher developed by the US Army (MML), it gets you 60 per for rapid fire. It is still semi-active because of the light weight but their next problem to solve will be to get an active seeker in there within the same SWaP-C footprint. A challenge given that the Interceptor weighs 2-3 Kg.

They've begun test firing the interceptor but guided shots at targets are still some time away -



Initially they wan't to field the MML, and mate it to the C2 and Radar and IOC with an anti cruise missile (saturation) capability leveraging Aim-9 as the weapon of choice. Next will be CRAM.

Lockheed had an even more ambitious plan - http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/lo ... s-for.html

Image

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35251
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby SaiK » 01 Feb 2017 23:02

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/01/ai ... ining.html

what do you call this? friendly fire?

precise munitions i'd say. well targeted. pakistaniyat perhaps

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15603
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 02 Feb 2017 11:24



Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AlapArya, Devendra, shivatar, shravanp and 29 guests