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.


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 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.
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2051
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby chola » 24 Jan 2018 17:18

^^^ Yah, I checked out the wiki too because I was intrigued. The graphics is a wee bit wrong but for a P5 it still seems pretty light even with 146 EFs.

The IAF has 700 fighters.

Time for a switcheroo! :)

Yes indeed. The Royal Navy has practically no surface combatants at the moment.

But Singha ji is right. Their power comes from their financial and cultural muscle.

And also from being the little gorilla sitting on top of the big (American) gorilla as Singha so aptly pointed out:

BRF Oldie
Posts: 6289
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Jan 2018 17:20

They are a NATO member so it is logical that they won't invest in their National Defense by totally neglecting the security that comes from the alliance. They don't need 700 fighters but 2-3% GDP funding should get them pretty much where they need to be. Their long term problem is A&D design and manufacturing base erosion.
Last edited by brar_w on 24 Jan 2018 18:58, edited 1 time in total.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 6289
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Jan 2018 17:36

JayS wrote:
Very true. The other day I read or saw somewhere how the UASF already started asking question to industry on 'what next' even before one of the teens was yet to even fly for the first time and other was only undergoing flight testing. Once I collected all the airplane documentaries that I could find and went through them. Recurring theme was how the next plane was always next in line when the current one was barely inducted. The cycle time has elongated over the decades for various reasons but the cycle goes on still. This is true to large extent for other nations such as Russia or France or UK as well. But due to ease of finding information and sheer vastness of efforts, its easiest to notice the continuation in US Aviation history.

Jay, if you go through the book on the F-22 written by its program manager you'll see that the long lead technology investments in support of the ATF actually date back to late 1970s (I have a post quoting directly form the book here somewhere) and by the mid 1980s this was a formal program with fairly large contract awards. Same now. Last month , GE was expected to complete their design review of the XA100 (definitive designation if selected will be A-100) and expect to have the first of the three prototypes begin ground testing by the end of 2019. P&W have been less forthcoming on their prototype but they wouldn't be that far behind with their progress on their engine either given that their contract was for similar timelines. This at a time when the F119 and F135 are amongst the most advanced military engines in the world.

By 2021 they should begin flight testing of one or both engines if they want to proceed with that (as opposed to further EMD awards). Propulsion has traditionally taken the longest time especially if you are looking at a leap ahead capability and not re-purposing existing propulsion solutions. Same with other areas of investments that are at low technology readiness such as directed energy weapons which will also be demonstrated on an F-15E in a couple of years time. The fact that you invest in these capabilities isn't proof that you are not satisfied with the capability you are fielding at the moment but rather indicative that you are actively pursuing a strategy to have things ready for the next replacement cycle which for the USN is to replace its substantial Super Hornet and Growler fleet and for the USAF to field a new Penetrating Counter Air aircraft to complement its long range strike and ISR fleet.

The Soviets did it the same way as they were locked in a cold war with the US and NATO and the Europeans too until the peace dividend and the downsizing which meant that they did not take the higher risk and fielding a Low Observable, 5th generation program.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 20253
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 03 Feb 2018 12:36

Global Nuclear Capability Modernisation


BRF Oldie
Posts: 61197
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 04 Feb 2018 11:55

abm radar north of moscow

Posts: 1385
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Zynda » 04 Feb 2018 18:42

A major milestone in the #CR929 program as manufacturing tests of full-scale 15 x 6 meter composite fuselage panels were successfully completed, with follow-up tests showing good results. These composite components will enable the CR929 to reduce weight and increase efficiency.


Unlike our MTA or now FGFA, which are/were stuck in endless cycles of negotiations & ppts, C929 program seems to be actually moving forward. Guess Russia depends on China more than it leads the rest of the world to believe :)

BRF Oldie
Posts: 6289
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 07 Feb 2018 18:16

These Marines in Syria fired more artillery than any battalion since Vietnam

A small Marine artillery battalion fired more rounds than any artillery battalion since Vietnam.

“They fired more rounds in five months in Raqqa, Syria, than any other Marine artillery battalion, or any Marine or Army battalion, since the Vietnam war,” said Army Sgt. Major. John Wayne Troxell, the senior enlisted adviser to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.It’s an explosive revelation that sheds light on the immense level of lethal force brought to Raqqa and northern Syria in support of U.S. counter-ISIS operations.“In five months they fired 35,000 artillery rounds on ISIS targets, killing ISIS fighters by the dozens,” Troxell told Marine Corps Times during a roundtable discussion Jan. 23. “We needed them to put pressure on ISIS and we needed them to kill ISIS.”To put the numbers in context: During all of Operation Desert Storm, both the Marines and the Army fired a little more than 60,000 artillery rounds.

In the invasion of Iraq, just over 34,000 rounds were fired.These figures are supported by documents provided to Marine Corps Times by Luke O’Brien, a former Army artillery officer and now historian, who acquired them from an Army historian at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.The Marines brought the M777 howitzers ― a 155mm gun. A standard artillery battery has roughly six guns and up to 150 Marines; a battalion would include up to 18 guns or three firing batteries.

There were more than 730 howitzers supporting Operation Desert Storm.

In November, Marine Corps Times reported that the Marines supporting the Syrian Defense Forces managed to burn out a couple howitzer barrels ― an extremely rare feat.“Because of all these rounds they were firing, we had to continue to recycle new artillery pieces in there because they were firing so much ammunition,” Troxell said.In spring 2017, the small Marine artillery battalion for the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit deployed to northern Syria to support America’s partner force Syrian Democratic Forces with 24-hour, all-weather fire support.

That unit was eventually replaced in April with another group of about 400 Marines.

In mid-October, just prior to the liberation of Raqqa, Troxell visited with the Marine unit for a period of roughly four hours.

“Every minute we were there we were putting some kind of ordnance or some kind of attack on ISIS,” Troxell told Marine Corps Times. “I couldn’t believe ISIS was still holding out.”

From June 2017 until Raqqa’s liberation in October, U.S. aircraft dropped just under 20,000 total munitions. Those numbers, from U.S. Air Forces Central Command, reflect strikes in Iraq as well.Coalition aircraft supporting the liberation of Mosul and Raqqa still managed to drop less munitions than the 18 guns fired by the Marines in northern Syria.

“That’s a lot of rounds. Even on a daily average basis that’s a lot,” O’Brien said. “It certainly speaks to demand.”

The Corps’ mission to support the SDF with fires support ended shortly after Raqqa’s liberation. Those Marines have since returned home.

But the region’s fight against ISIS is still ongoing. The terror group has lost 95 percent of its held territory, but is still clinging on to remote villages along the middle Euphrates River valley.

Forum Moderator
Posts: 48801
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby ramana » 13 Feb 2018 07:56

Thai Military handbook

Royal Thai Military handbook

BRF Oldie
Posts: 34447
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby shiv » 13 Feb 2018 08:20

Interesting but I must point out that this is a US specific statistic because: ... 216559.cms
The Indian artillery fired over 2,50,000 shells, bombs and rockets during the Kargil conflict. Approximately 5,000 artillery sheels, mortar bombs and rockets were fired daily from 300 guns, mortars and MBRLs while 9,000 shells were fired the day Tiger Hill was regained. During the peak period of assaults, on an average, each artillery battery fired over one round per minute for 17 days continuously. Such high rates of fire over long periods had not been witnessed anywhere in the world since the ..

BRF Oldie
Posts: 6289
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Feb 2018 16:04

^ Yes, this is mentioned at the very beginning of the article in bold.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 2134
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 18 Feb 2018 22:51

Indonesia inks $1.1 bn deal with Russia to buy 11 jets
Indonesia has inked a billion-dollar deal to buy 11 Sukhoi Su-35 jets from Russia, an official said Saturday.

The contract, signed by both countries' representatives in Jakarta on Wednesday, is worth a total $1.14 billion, Indonesia defence ministry spokesman Totok Sugiharto said.

"Two units of Sukhoi jets will be delivered in August 2018," he told AFP.

Another six jets would be delivered 18 months after the contract comes into effect, and the final three a further five months later, he said.

The deal comes after Indonesia said in August that it would seek to trade palm oil, coffee and tea for Russian fighter jets, saying it wanted to capitalise on international sanctions on Moscow.

The EU and US have targeted Russia with sanctions for alleged meddling in the US presidential election and its annexation of Crimea.

However, Indonesia's trade minister said the sanctions could be good news for his country as Russia is forced to seek new markets to import from.

Indonesia and Russia signed a memorandum of understanding to exchange 11 Russian-made Sukhoi fighters for key commodities in Moscow early August.

It was not announced Saturday in what form payment would be made.

Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aditya G, Avinash Rav, Jaeger, kvraghav, morem, ravikr and 50 guests