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: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 14 Mar 2017 18:30

So in the last 40 years man has made advances in the accuracy and potency of strategic weapons. Who would've thunk!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 15 Mar 2017 00:50

Both Lockheed and Raytheon presented models/mockups of their Long Range Precision Fires Missile (499 km range/INF) at AUSA -

Image

Image

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Neshant » 15 Mar 2017 09:06

China already has a counter to India's missile shield

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-1 ... ile-shield

China is set to deploy anti-radar countermeasures which will neutralize the South Korean THAAD. The THAAD system consists of a sophisticated radar and interceptor missiles designed to spot and knock out incoming ballistic missiles.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 15 Mar 2017 14:55

At least that takes care of the Chinese concerns with regards to the deployment of TPY-2's. I guess TBM or FBM, they won't be bothered now since it wouldn't stress or impact their test ranges, or anything connecting to their deterrent since they have "neutralized" it. They also now have no reason to be concerned if the current TPY-2 destined for SoKo is converted to FBM if and when SoKo acquires its own battery. Same for the two sites in Japan and one in Guam.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 22 Mar 2017 22:22

Iran's Sayyad 2 ADS destroys KARRAR Target Drone


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 22 Mar 2017 22:23

Not unusual for Iran , Testing a modified S-200 Missile on the final day of the five-day war games entitled Defenders of the Skies of Velayat 3.


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 01 Apr 2017 22:19

Russian New Military Base in Arctic


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 03 Apr 2017 08:05

Poland poised to buy Patriot, months of negotiations ahead

8 Batteries including possibly 6 (or all 8 ) equipped with Northrop Grumman's IBCS, 2 batteries configuration 3+ (currently most modern patriot configuration fielded) and 6 batteries with IBCS+ new Gallium Nitride AESA (3 faced configuration). They will also be the first Patriot operator to integrate and operate the Stunner/Skyceptor which even the US Army intends to eventually absorb into its Patriot batteries as a low cost interceptor.

Image

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15820
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 03 Apr 2017 20:26

Very interesting.

GM's super-quiet, super-cool military 4X4

Vid:
http://ht3.cdn.turner.com/money/big/new ... 24x576.mp4

When an enemy is looking for you, especially an enemy with night vision technology, you want to keep cool and quiet. That's why General Motors and the United States Army developed the hydrogen-powered Chevrolet ZH2 off-road truck.

The 6½-foot tall ZH2 doesn't burn hydrogen. Instead, it pumps hydrogen into a fuel cell where it's combined with oxygen. That creates water (H2O) while, at same time, releasing a stream of electrical energy to power the vehicle.

The truck was developed by GM (GM) in cooperation with the United States Army's Tank Automotive Research and Development Center (TARDEC), headquartered near Detroit. Underneath its camouflaged Kevlar-reinforced carbon fiber skin, the ZH2 is based on the GM's Chevrolet Colorado mid-sized pickup.

The big ZH2 is very quiet, but it's not completely silent. When it starts up there is a whoosh of air being sucked in. When it's moving, as it did recently through an off-road course at GM's Milford Proving Grounds, there is some noise from the tires, suspension, electric motors and splashing mud. But, compared to a rumbling diesel truck, it's nearly silent. In military parlance, there is minimal "accoustic signature."

Since the truck isn't burning any fuel, it doesn't give off much heat that could be picked up by heat-sensing night vision cameras. In other words, there's not much of a "thermal signature" either.

Added bonus: Soldiers can drink the exhaust.

Image

"We're not doing it in this vehicle, but it is possible for us to take the exhaust gas from the engine, or the fuel cell, and actually create potable water," said Brian Butrico, with the U.S. Army's Research and Development and Engineering Command. "The soldiers can actually create their own drinking water as they're operating the vehicle."

Refueling the truck will be different from refueling a truck with liquid fuel. The ZH2's thick-walled storage tank -- GM engineers went through 38 saw blades trying to cut one in half for a display -- is filled with compressed hydrogen gas.

Although hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, it doesn't ordinarily exist as a free-floating gas. It has to be extracted from substances that contain hydrogen, like water or hydrocarbon fuels. That can be done using portable devices that can run on solar or battery power or that plug in to a local electrical grid.

"Our machine will take JP8, which is the common military fuel, and convert it right into hydrogen," said Butrico. Where ever it goes, it can make its own fuel.

Hydrogen gas could also be made form any sources on hand wherever the truck happens to be, he said. It takes about 3 minutes to fill the fuel tank, according to GM. With five to six kilograms of hydrogen -- about 12 pounds -- the ZH2 can go about 200 to 300 miles, said Charlie Freese, executive director for GM's fuel cell business. It could go as far as 400 miles with a hydrogen tank optimized for longer range, he explained.

Prior to creating the ZH2, GM and the military had been experimenting with hydrogen fuel cells in strictly road-going crossover SUVs. Today, Toyota (TM), Honda (HMC) and Hyundai (HYMTF) have fuel cell vehicles available for lease or sale to the general public in California.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 04 Apr 2017 10:52

New START March 2017 numbers
The U.S. State Department released aggregate New START numbers from the 1 March 2017 data exchange. Russia declared 1765 deployed warheads, 523 deployed launchers, and 816 total launchers. In September 2016 the numbers were 1796, 508, and 847 respectively.

The U.S. numbers in March 2017 were 1411 warheads, 673 deployed and 820 total launchers (1367, 681, and 848 in September 2016).

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 35358
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby SaiK » 04 Apr 2017 20:44

^^ here is the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=860SGNO4Sp4 - just view that freaking fuel tank design. out of the world cross cutting view. fantastic ! very impressive!

=========
http://www.airforce-technology.com/proj ... k-munition

what makes it most affordable?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Apr 2017 21:13

SaiK wrote:^^ here is the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=860SGNO4Sp4 - just view that freaking fuel tank design. out of the world cross cutting view. fantastic ! very impressive!


The HMMWV replacement is JLTV (uses a GM Duramax Diesel engine) and it is already in production. This is just GM marketing.


On the Munition, I think they demonstrated that they were able to take some cost out of their manufacturing process while also adding capability. Other than that I don't think it has any significant cost advantage that may come through things like 3D printed parts etc. It is an added capability and is earlier known as the dual mode plus.

Each kit consists of: a Weapon Guidance Unit (WGU) Paveway II Plus LGB computer control group (CCG) upgraded to include an INS/GPS guidance subsystem (for dual mode capability); an Air Foil Group (AFG), which is a tail-mounted assembly to add stability to the fully configured weapon and is identical to that used in the standard Paveway II LGBs; and an Adapter Group (ADG), which is a warhead-mounted connector, cable, and conduit assembly that provides the electrical connection between the WGU and the aircraft, according to Lockheed Martin.

The airframe incorporates the WGU and AFG configurations compatible with Mk-80 series 500 lb (226.7 kg), 1,000 lb, and 2,000 lb warheads.

Integrating a GPS/INS will enable the bomb to work in three different modes, Joe Serra, precision guided systems director for Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, told IHS Jane's on 9 August.

The system can guide to a target just like an LGB with semi-active laser guidance; it can guide to the target with GPS co-ordinates or it can utilise both, Serra said.

"It will use GPS until a point where the reflective laser energy is detected and then transition over to laser guidance to the target," he said.

Lockheed Martin conducted two bomb drops from an F/A-18 in May at the US Navy's Naval Air Weapons Station (NAWS) China Lake in California.

The tests were to verify the modifications, which included new linear optics, GPS/INS guidance subsystem, and the control actuation system.

The new linear optics will improve the bomb's accuracy and precision, Serra noted.

"You need a way to differentiate the [laser] spot, to better refine where the laser energy is on the detector in order to improve overall accuracy of the system; in particular, for moving and manoeuvring targets," he said.

A baseline LGB can be used for moving targets, but the whole point of Lockheed Martin's efforts is to expand that capability, Serra said.

The control actuation system is an upgrade of what is in the basic LGB to more smoothly control the intercept flight when guiding to the target, he added.

A standard LGB receives laser energy and depending on where the spot is it will make a hard command (known as 'bang bang' guidance).

"The control actuation system will make a hard command to counter where the [bomb's] position is on the spot and move towards line of sight centre," Serra said. "With dual mode plus we can refine that control authority so instead of doing a complete 'bang bang' [we can do] what we call semi-proportional control."


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 05 Apr 2017 11:46

NEW START DATA 2017

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Apr 2017 15:13

NASAMS Solution for Australian Army Ground Based Air Defence

The Australian Government has announced that a National Advanced Surface to Air Missile System (NASAMS) solution will be developed for the Land 19 Phase 7B project – the Ground Based Air and Missile Defence capability for the Australian Army through a Single Supplier Limited Tender process to Raytheon Australia.
Raytheon Australia has been identified as the Prime System Integrator and KONGSBERG will be a major sub-contractor in the program. NASAMS is a proven and fielded mobile air defence system in service with seven nations today, including Norway and the United States.

“We are pleased to see that NASAMS is recognized as the preferred ground based air defence capability solution for the Australian Army and we are looking forward to the process leading to a contract”, says Eirik Lie, President of Kongsberg Defence Systems.

The inherent flexibility and modularity of NASAMS makes it a world leading solution with unique capabilities to combat modern airborne threats, as well as having the ability to integrate with networks and a variety of different sensors and weapons.

“NASAMS is one of the most successful KONGSBERG products internationally and we are proud to be part of the Raytheon Australia team for delivery of this capability to the Australian Army”, Lie said.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Apr 2017 15:10

Analysis: Satellite imagery refutes Russian claims about Tomahawk strike - Sean O'Connor - Jane's Defense Weekly



Image


Satellite imagery obtained by Jane's , combined with analysis of video footage released by the Russian Ministry of Defence (MoD), disproves the MoD's assertion that fewer than half the cruise missiles that the United States launched at Syria's Al-Shayrat Air Base on 7 April reached their targets.

The US Department of Defense (DoD) announced that 59 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs) targeted Al-Shayrat, which it identified as the base from which Syrian aircraft carried out a chemical weapons attack on 4 April. It said the targets included aircraft, hardened aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistics storage, ammunition bunkers, radar, and air defences.

Later that day, the Russian MoD held a press conference in which spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov said, "according to objective monitoring, 23 missiles reached the Syrian airbase" destroying six MiG-23 ground-attack aircraft, an equipment depot, a training building, a mess, and a radar station. "Therefore, the combat effectiveness of the American massive missile strike on the Syrian airbase is extremely low," he concluded.

Maj Gen Konashenkov then contradicted this assertion by playing unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) footage of Al-Shayrat showing more than 27 fires at the base after the strike.

Airbus Defence and Space satellite imagery of Al-Shayrat on 8 and 9 April shows 40 TLAM impact locations at the base, another 4 locations where the level of damage prevented an accurate estimation of the number of weapons involved, and 9 additional possible impact locations.

If the latter were missile impact locations and two missiles were used against each significantly damaged site, the total number of TLAM hits rises to 57.


Many of these impacts are corroborated by the Russian UAV footage, but the satellite imagery also contradicts Maj Gen Konashenkov's assertion that specific aircraft shelters were undamaged, as it clearly shows these structures had been hit with penetrating warheads.

The MoD spokesperson also claimed the UAV footage showed aircraft that were left undamaged by the strike. However, satellite imagery indicates that all these aircraft have not moved for at least 13 years, presumably because they are derelict.

Some aircraft may have survived in the 12 shelters that were not targeted, probably because of their proximity to the part of the base used by Russian helicopters, or at a hangar at a maintenance area that survived the strike.

The three L-39 jets and single Su-22 that had appeared in the open by the time the satellite imagery was taken on 9 April may have been in these shelters and the hangar at the time of the TLAM strike. Alternatively, because the US military decided not to crater Al-Shayrat's runway, they could have been flown in from other bases to give the impression that the cruise missiles only had a limited impact.

Either way, Russian television news footage showing an Su-22 taking off from Al-Shayrat prompted questions about the effectiveness of the strike.

The US DoD tried to dismiss these questions in a 10 April statement, saying it had assessed that the Syrian Air Force had lost 20% of its operational aircraft as well as the ability to re-fuel and re-arm surviving ones at Al-Shayrat. "At this point, use of the runway is of idle military interest," it said.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 13 Apr 2017 16:50

^^ I doubt any article will pass Janes or Defence News Editors desk that would even be mildly critical to Western Military Combat equipment and its use in a war like situation , Expecting them to put an unbiased view is a long shot.

The said the rest of the article reads more like He Said , She Said.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 13 Apr 2017 17:27

Austin wrote:^^ I doubt.


Of course you do . Meanwhile we wait for the CEP error theory to be proven and three dozen missing missiles to show up on social media or in Tehran or wherever the latest theory has them at this time (North Korea? Floating around at sea, Belgium, Norway, Turkey, Yemen etc etc)

Sean is an accomplished imagery analyst and he first shared his preliminary thoughts on SPF and cited his methodology. If you or anyone else has any issue with his analysis you can use the same imagery that he has used to disputed it or to show that there is no damage to a site which he claims is damaged etc.

ricky_v
BRFite
Posts: 183
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby ricky_v » 14 Apr 2017 09:12

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/04/12/un-peacekeepers-child-sex-ring-left-victims-but-no-arrests.html
The AP found that some 150 allegations of abuse and exploitation by UN peacekeepers and other personnel were reported in Haiti alone between 2004 and 2016, out of the worldwide total of nearly 2,000. Aside from the Sri Lankan sex ring in Haiti, some perpetrators were jailed for other cases.
Alleged abusers came from Bangladesh, Brazil, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Uruguay and Sri Lanka, according to UN data and interviews. More countries may have been involved, but the United Nations only started disclosing alleged perpetrators’ nationalities after 2015.

arun
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9194
Joined: 28 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby arun » 16 Apr 2017 08:57

Uniformed Jihadi’s of the Punjabi dominated military of the Mohammadden Terrorism fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan should note the following in relation to their North Korean sourced ballistic missile inventory ……..

North Korea conducts failed missle launch today i.e. Sunday April 16, 2017.

The Test Missile “blew up almost immediately”. Missle type is not known:

North Korea missile test: Latest launch 'blew up almost immediately'

A North Korean missile fired from the east coast of the country Sunday “blew up almost immediately,” officials said.

The U.S. Pacific Command said the missile, which came near the city of Sinpo, “blew up almost immediately,” but the type of missile was still being assessed.

The failure came one day after Pyongyang celebrated one of the biggest propaganda events of the year – the 105th birthday of the late North Korea founder Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Un’s grandfather. ……………………..


This is not the only missile test failure Nort Korea has faced in the recent past. Missile test conducted just before US President Donald Trump's first meeting with Peoples Republic of China’s leader Xi Jinping i.e. Wednesday April 5, 2017, was also a failure. There however was some confusion on what missile was tested with initial claims of it being a KN-15 medium-range ballistic missile changing to it being an extended range Scud:

North Korea fires ballistic missile as Trump, Xi prepare to meet

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3326
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 17 Apr 2017 00:38

^^^"A North Korean missile fired from the east coast of the country Sunday “blew up almost immediately,” officials said."

Gives the Chinese enough wiggle room to tell T-Rump: "see we told you, they are nowhere near any nuke capability." Don't worry, we're in control."
:)

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4071
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Neshant » 17 Apr 2017 01:31

Trump is going to look like a clown if he does not invade North Korea soon.
Sailing a large armada there only to sail it back will look silly.

China wants Japan to declare itself a nuclear power with an n-weapon test.
It breaks the need for a Japan-US alliance which is centered around the US nuclear umbrella.

At the same time, if US manages to pull off a regime change in North Korea, China will invade from across the Yalu river to ensure it has control over what govt gets installed in power.

Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3326
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 17 Apr 2017 02:08

OTOH, the CT du jour is that the US did a left of launch electronic scramble to destroy the missile:

"North Korea's unsuccessful missile launch 'may have been thwarted by US cyber attack' "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04 ... sive-show/

Mihaylo
BRFite
Posts: 698
Joined: 09 Nov 2007 21:10

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Mihaylo » 17 Apr 2017 02:22

arun wrote:Uniformed Jihadi’s of the Punjabi dominated military of the Mohammadden Terrorism fomenting Islamic Republic of Pakistan should note the following in relation to their North Korean sourced ballistic missile inventory ……..


Doesn't matter, as long as they can conduct the next failed test, it is a victory for the Pakis.

-M

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 17 Apr 2017 11:43

Likely the test failed as any first few would do , noko has some past experience with failed test .

It is also possible it may not be a full fledge test just dummy trials involving first stage booster that didn't go well or went as programmed to.

All smoke and mirror onleee

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 17 Apr 2017 11:49

Neshant wrote:Trump is going to look like a clown if he does not invade North Korea soon.
Sailing a large armada there only to sail it back will look silly.

China wants Japan to declare itself a nuclear power with an n-weapon test.
It breaks the need for a Japan-US alliance which is centered around the US nuclear umbrella.

At the same time, if US manages to pull off a regime change in North Korea, China will invade from across the Yalu river to ensure it has control over what govt gets installed in power.


More like posturing backed by strong rhetoric.

To invade a country like north Korea they would need logistics backed by manpower and invading a country with nuclear weapon ruled by fanaticism stronger than Islam would be a sight behold.

DT is just doing this dog and pony show to boost his all time low poll number .

China trade with noko in 2016 is 40% more than previous year

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9157
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Yagnasri » 17 Apr 2017 12:12

Golden Monkey may not want a real war. But monkey dance may actually result in one by accident or stupidity.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 17 Apr 2017 17:39

Yagnasri wrote:Golden Monkey may not want a real war. But monkey dance may actually result in one by accident or stupidity.


An act of stupidity may lead to a war is another issue , There has been instances in past where such has happened.

Right now ALL parties are sizing each other with high pitch Rhetoric and Posturing

If war would have solved NK crisis , Bushes and Obama would have done that long back when NK neither had a capable Missile program nor a Nuclear deterrent.

If there is war Korea , China and Russia will face a massive proportion refugee crisis , something these countries want to avoid at every cost. US wont have to loose any thing or face post war issues.

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9157
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Yagnasri » 17 Apr 2017 18:06

Once war happens most of the things will not be in control. I am not sure if neocons will allow any restricted war limited to the Korean peninsula. Escalations will be there and they will drag china and Russian into that.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60359
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 18 Apr 2017 20:46

australia hobart class destroyer sea trials . big sleek ship.


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60359
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 18 Apr 2017 21:06

Foxnews excerpt - funny

A pair of Russian nuclear-capable bombers flew near Alaska Monday night, two U.S. officials told Fox News, coming as close as 100 miles from Kodiak Island -- the first time since President Trump took office that Moscow has sent bombers so close to the U.S.

The two Russian Tu-95 “Bear” bombers flew roughly 280 miles southwest of Elmendorf Air Force Base, within the Air Defense Identification Zone of the United States.

The U.S. Air Force scrambled two F-22 stealth fighter jets and an E-3 airborne early warning plane to intercept the Russian bombers.

The American jets flew alongside the Russian bombers for 12 minutes, before the Russian bombers reversed course and headed back to their base in eastern Russia.

< snip snip >

The last time Russian bombers flew near the U.S. was July 4, 2015, when a pair of Russian bombers flew off the coasts of Alaska and California, coming as close as 40 miles to Mendocino, Calif.

Russian President Vladimir Putin called then-President Barack Obama to wish him a happy Independence Day while the bombers cruised the California coastline :rotfl:

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19750
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 18 Apr 2017 22:48

Iran Showcases Long-Range Sayyad-3 Missiles at Military Parade in Tehran

Image
Image
Image
According to the Tasnim news agency, apart from Sayyad-3 missiles, S-300 air defense systems, personnel carriers, missile defense systems, torpedoes and a wide range of other military equipment were showcased at the parade held on the occasion of the National Army Day.

The Sayyad-3 high-altitude missiles are part of the Talaash air defense system and are designed to track as many as 30 targets and intercept 12 of them simultaneously at the range of up to 150 kilometers (93 miles).

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Apr 2017 19:10

Liteye, Orbital ATK Turn Apache Gun Against UAVs


Liteye Systems and Orbital ATK are pairing their technologies to turn the Boeing AH-64 Apache’s 30-mm chaingun against unfriendly UAVs.
Capable of firing 200 rounds per minute, the Orbital ATK M230 cannon would be paired on ground vehicles with Liteye Systems’ Anti-UAV Defense System (AUDS), which currently takes down unmanned aircraft using a non-lethal radio frequency inhibitor.


Centennial, Colorado-based Liteye is one of the dozens of companies trying to solve the U.S. government’s UAV problem, both military and civil. The Defense Department faces threats from low-cost UAVs operated by adversaries for surveillance, targeting and even strikes with tiny free-fall bombs. At home, sensitive government facilities are concerned about unwelcome intrusions and espionage and from inexpensive remotely controlled aircraft being widely sold on the commercial market.

Liteye co-founder Kenneth Geyer and David Dorman, Orbital ATK’s vice president of defense and government relations, said in a recent interview that AUDS has been purchased by the DOD and is now deployed to Iraq as an urgent operational need. Incorporating machine guns and other weapons such as missiles and lasers would meet other capability needs, like the U.S. Army’s Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense (M-Shorad) requirement.

Liteye’s device uses the UK-made Blighter A400 radar, Chess Dynamics’ electro-optical/infrared sensor and Enterprise Control Systems’ RF inhibitor to detect, track, identify and then disable unwanted UAVs by jamming their control links or overpowering their electronics. UAVs are detected by the radar, optically observed with the sensor turret, and then targeted by the high-gain, quad-band antenna, which sends out bursts of energy on specific wavelengths within a 20-deg. field of regard. The power levels can be throttled up and down for range and effect, or to avoid disrupting friendly electronics in the background.

This method is described as a “soft kill” because the UAV is grounded but not destroyed. Orbital ATK’s Apache gun and specialized ammunition would add a “hard kill” option, shooting UAVs out of the sky.

The chaingun has an effective range out to 2 km and new ammunition can self-destruct at certain ranges to prevent collateral damage. Orbital ATK believes it can achieve single-round, single-hit accuracy. The company is also considering a 30-mm version of the 25-mm grenade designed for the laser-ranging XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement, or “Punisher” gun.

Dorman says the M230 is widely used by all of the U.S. military services and the Army is now deciding how to best proliferate these large-caliber weapons to maneuver brigades, specifically the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle and M113 armored personnel carrier. AUDS would allow them to target UAVs on the move.

The M-Shorad requirement is specifically seeking counter-UAV systems able to shoot down UAVs from 0-15 km.

“A chaingun with an affordable projectile makes a lot of sense for Class 1 and Class 2 UASs,” Dorman says. “Lighteye’s radar and EO/IR tracker provide the cueing.”

The first couple of AUDS systems were delivered to the Pentagon in September 2016 and were deployed overseas a month later. The sale resulted from a 31-day trial called “Desert Chance Three” in which AUDS defeated “over 470 drone sorties,” Geyer says.

AUDS is being pitched to meet various urgent operational needs by U.S. Central Command, European Command and Strategic Command, as well as non-military federal government agencies and airports. It can be used on land or at sea against electronically controlled aircraft, vehicles and boats.

“There are lots of civilian and government agencies still trying to figure out their counter-UAS path, but the urgent need is the military,” Geyer says. “Every service and every government facility at any sensitive fixed-site location has a drone problem.”



Image

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 22 Apr 2017 21:01

if they have laser tracking integrated with a CIWS, will accuracy go up while wastage goes down? making it usable in the land based context

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Apr 2017 21:09

CIWS systems such as Phalynx are already used for ground applications using their organic fire control, but those are heavy non mobile systems and are better used against the CRAM mission as they currently are. Class 1 and 2 UAV's are extremely cheap mostly commercially derived systems so you need a mobile, cheap deployable system that can keep up with the troops..

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 22 Apr 2017 21:53

Second batch of F-35I Adir's en route to Israel


vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1459
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby vasu raya » 23 Apr 2017 07:08

the rail gun,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i737rM6FxqE

seems like the shape needed to accelerate by the electric circuit is not the same as the aerodynamic shape required in flight, so they put cladding around the projectile to jettison upon release

some people might consider having the cladding on every shot is a non-starter in developing such guns :roll:

anyways, its probably getting closer to C-130 deployment as well...as the weight gets reduced and the recoil is not there unlike the traditional 105mm

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5895
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 23 Apr 2017 07:24

The concept for the "Blitzer" mentioned in the video is now actually a Rapid program of record that creates the entire system but minus the Railgun. It uses the same hypervelocity projectile, an X-Band radar (derived from a fighter AESA, most likely the AN/APG-79) and a battle management system that uses elements of IBCS. The system will have drop in replacement with Army guns firing the hypervelocity projectile with first firings expected in about 24 months time-frame. The mission is Integrated Air and Missile Defense. Once the railgun technology is mature and small enough it will be dropped into the system. I've posted details here earlier. It was a part of a classified program the SCO was working on which was revealed by Ashton Carter last year (or late 2015).

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15820
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 23 Apr 2017 07:31

vasu raya wrote:the rail gun,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i737rM6FxqE

seems like the shape needed to accelerate by the electric circuit is not the same as the aerodynamic shape required in flight, so they put cladding around the projectile to jettison upon release

some people might consider having the cladding on every shot is a non-starter in developing such guns :roll:

anyways, its probably getting closer to C-130 deployment as well...as the weight gets reduced and the recoil is not there unlike the traditional 105mm


General Atomics, in 2014, had retained Vivek Lal, with the hope of manufacturing the electric rail gun in India.

No idea where all that stands right now. But, EMALS is a done deal.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher and 40 guests