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.
rkhanna
BRFite
Posts: 976
Joined: 02 Jul 2006 02:35

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby rkhanna » 27 Jul 2017 15:39

Analysis of Turkish Leo 2 MBT experience (and losses) in hybrid SF and Armored Warfare in Syria


https://misterxanlisis.wordpress.com/ca ... vehiculos/

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19490
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 30 Jul 2017 10:31

Hwasong-14 launch video, July 28, 2017


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5704
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 30 Jul 2017 21:23

Again, something that pre-planned and was known to occur this summer for close to a year now. One consequence of NoKo's latest ICBM test has been that South Korea has now allowed the remaining 4 THAAD Launchers to be deployed which takes would up the number of loaded interceptors to 48 for the battery currently deployed.

U.S. Conducts THAAD Intercept Amid North Korea Tensions


WASHINGTON -- The U.S. has scrambled non-nuclear heavy bombers and conducted another pre-planned Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (Thaad) intercept in the wake of Pyongyang's second successful intercontinental ballistic missile launch.

In an early morning announcement on July 30, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) said it has tested Thaad against an air-launched medium-range ballistic missile target, deployed from the back of a Boeing C-17 Globemaster III.

The Thaad intercept was performed under realistic conditions by U.S. Army soldiers of the 11th Air Defense Artillery "Imperial" Brigade, stationed at Fort Bliss, Texas. The test, designated Flight Experiment Thaad (FET)-01, was a data-gathering exercise to inform future system upgrades, rather any validation of the missile shield's effectiveness against a specific target type.

"In addition to successfully intercepting the target, the data collected will allow MDA to enhance the Thaad weapon system, our modeling and simulation capabilities, and our ability to stay ahead of the evolving threat," MDA Director Lt. Gen. Sam Greaves said in a statement.This was the 15th successful Thaad intercept out of 15 attempts since the program resumed flight testing in 2005. It comes less than one month after Thaad successfully intercepted threat-representative intermediate-range ballistic missile target, also ejected from a C-17 transport aircraft.

"The Thaad system performed exceptionally today and continues to showcase its ability to intercept and destroy many classes of the ballistic missile threat to protect citizens, deployed forces and allies around the globe," manufacturer Lockheed Martin says.Despite being pre-planned, FET-01 coincides with North Korea's second test of the Hwaseong-14 (Mars-14) ICBM on July 28, which the nation's leader Kim Jong-Un claims can strike cities within the U.S. with nuclear warheads.The U.S. Defense Department confirms it detected and tracked a single North Korea ICBM launch from the north-western city of Mup'yong-ni, close to the border with China.

The Pentagon says the missile traveled about 621 mi. (1,000 km) before splashing down in the Sea of Japan, which corroborates North Korea's claims. The state-run Korean Central News Agency says the missile reached a maximum altitude of 2,315 mi. (3,725 km) and range of 620 mi. (998 km) before impacting the ocean. From launch to re-entry, the missile flew for 47 minutes and 12 seconds.

Pyongyang said the test validates the Hwaseong-14's performance, as recorded during the type's first launch on July 3. The two-stage, liquid-fuel rocket is the nation's first nuclear-capable ICBM, introduced to deter future military actions by the U.S.In response to North Korea's July 3 and July 28 ICBM tests and ongoing nuclear weapon development, the U.S. and South Korea have begun discussing "military response options," said U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford.
On July 29, two U.S. Air Force B-1Bs stationed at Andersen AFB, Guam, were scrambled as part of a joint military drill with the South Korea and Japanese air forces.

The two bombers, which have been modified to only carry conventional weapons, flew into Japanese airspace and then over the Korean Peninsula. When near Japan, the bombers were escorted by Japan Air Self-Defense Force (Koku-Jieitai) Mitsubishi F-2 multirole fighters. While over South Korea, the B-1Bs flew alongside Republic of Korea Air Force F-15s. The bombers conducted a low-pass over South Korea's Osan Air Base before returning to Guam, U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) reports.

"North Korea remains the most urgent threat to regional stability," Pacific Air Forces Commander Gen. Terrence O'Shaughnessy said. "Diplomacy remains the lead; however, we have a responsibility to our allies and our nation to showcase our unwavering commitment while planning for the worst-case scenario.

"If called upon, we are ready to respond with rapid, lethal and overwhelming force at a time and place of our choosing."
If a nuclear-armed ICBM were to be launched against the U.S., Washington would attempt to intercept it during the midcourse phase of flight with Ground-based Interceptors positioned at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg AFB, California.
Thaad is designed to intercept short to intermediate-range missiles (621-3,417 mi. / 1,000-5,500 km) in the upper atmosphere during their final phase of flight. The U.S. military recently positioned a Thaad battery inside South Korea, but its deployment has been met with resistance locally and by China.
The U.S.'s first successful attempt at intercepting a North Korea-style ICBM occurred on May 30, when a Ground-Based Interceptor launched from California knocked out a target missile fired from the Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands.



Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5704
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 31 Jul 2017 00:56


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5704
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Aug 2017 18:09

One of the most comprehensive articles on the US Minutemen III Replacement program -

Peacekeeper Missile Design Informed GBSD Bid

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19490
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 11 Aug 2017 21:02

Hans Kristensen‏ @nukestrat 18h18 hours ago

Interesting 2-warhead Trident D5 SLBM payload image from brief to SecDef Mattis during visit to Pacific SSBN base. Annotations by me.


Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19490
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 15 Aug 2017 18:43

North Korea holds off on Guam missile plan


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19490
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 15 Aug 2017 23:03

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19490
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 15 Aug 2017 23:04

So US is saying either they de-nuke else we nuke them and Susan Rice says NoKo nuke tolerable both are Rep ?

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3514
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 15 Aug 2017 23:09

I do not know about the sarin gas, but what in the above that General McMaster said differ that from the erstwhile Communist Russia?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19490
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 15 Aug 2017 23:17

To me the North Korea crisis looks all cooked up by Trump , its not that Trump comes to power and suddenly NoKo becomes a crisis when it was not the case for past 20 years ...His home rating is all time low and MSM is after him unjustly ......He cant Fight with Iran due to P5 nuclear deal even though Israel would like him to do that , that limits his option to North Korea ...He is teasing that chubby boy with strong statement and that Boy has a mind of trump and he is retaliating.

The other country dont want a war and can live with nuclear north korea more or less but Trump is itching for a war and hopes to win it even if it means using Nuke.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19490
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 22 Aug 2017 10:53

The financial cost of 16 years in Afghanistan

The most current estimate pegs the number at $841 billion. That comes from Anthony Cordesman, the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Cordesman, who served as a consultant to the Departments of State and Defense during the Afghan and Iraq wars, says that figure includes President Trump's budget request for next year.

Other estimates place the 16-year cost in the trillions of dollars because they measure a broader range of factors.

For instance, Neta Crawford, a co-director of the Cost of Wars Project at Brown University, has estimated that total war spending in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan since 2001 is approaching $5 trillion. Of that, roughly $2 trillion is attributable to Afghanistan. That includes some future cost obligations.

But even that higher figure leaves out some key expenses, such as the future costs of interest Americans will owe for the money borrowed to finance the war in Afghanistan. That alone could add trillions of dollars to the total tab.


While the United States has a history of wartime taxation to finance military conflicts -- albeit uneven -- that tradition was broken with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, according to tax historian Joe Thorndike. Not only did Congress not pass a tax to finance the efforts, it opted instead to pass the Bush tax cuts.

The $2 trillion also doesn't include future spending on the Department of Veterans Affairs related to Afghanistan or the money paid by states and localities for services provided to returning vets.

Estimates vary widely because there is no clearly delineated, uniform way that money spent on wars is allocated or counted by the White House or Congress.

And, of course, no financial estimate can offer a measure of the true cost of war -- the loss of human life on all sides as well as the physical and psychological disabilities suffered by those who survive -- whether military or civilian.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5704
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 26 Aug 2017 18:53




5kW (Boeing) Laser Weapon on the Stryker is currently being demonstrated so is a 60kW (Lockheed) laser weapon on a HEMTT vehicle. Short term plans call for upping the Stryker weapon to 50KW by 2021, and taking the 60kW laser up to 100kW and shrinking it down so it fits on a Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles. These demonstrations are planned for 2022.

On the US Navy side things are moving faster as one would think given more access to space, weight, power and cooling margins..A 150kW laser weapon is currently being installed on a test ship and will begin demonstrations either late this year, or early next year. This will then be followed by a full fledged procurement program to buy and install a 60-150kW laser weapons on the Flight II DDG-51 destroyers.

Do note that unlike the large mega-watt class COIL that they put up on the 747, these are Solid State / Fiber lasers with operating efficiencies in the 40-50% range so don't require as much power, or heat elimination (and no need to store all that chemical). A 60 kW lasers could cover most of the Low Altitude Counter UAS missions along with a fairly big chunk of the Mortar and Rocket (minus perhaps the most stressing rockets) and even take down gliding PGMs, with a 5-kW weapon focusing on the really cheap Class 1 and 2 UASs. Those are pesky little buggers as one US Army officer recently reminded his USAF counterparts when he said - "below 1000 ft you do not have air-superiority". The 100kW and above systems should be able to handle simpler subsonic weapons and disable systems associated with higher performing manned and unmanned platforms.

Packaging is done depending upon tactical requirements. A 60kW laser weapon may require 150kW of power generation and in such a setup, for larger use requirements, you will integrate on a HEMTT with a 150kW power source whereas on an FMTV you may include a 60KW organic power support and store energy for a finite number of shots or laser_on_time. You would then provide a supporting vehicle with a larger power source if more is required. Same with the Stryker..You will carry a relatively small power source with storage and a shorter magazine but the power delivered would still be 50kW (just for less number of targets before it goes on a recharge).

A 60kW laser weapon running on a 60kW generator for example would require 3 minutes of charging for every 1 minute of operation. Use a 150kW power source you could run it constantly as long as you are able to eliminate heat. Tactically, a 100kW FMTV or HEMTT based system would be used for base protection, and would accompany larger air-defense batteries for protection against the cheap, low altitude C-UAS threats and other lower cost targets for which you do not want to waste interceptors (even at a stinger price point). A 5kW, and a 50kW weapon mounted on an armored Stryker or Bradley would provide C-UAS and Mortar capability to the maneuvering force along with Avenger systems likely mounted on the same platforms.

For protection against challenging subsonic and supersonic cruise missiles (even ARMs) you will likely need a 250-300+ kW class laser weapon and it will likely be possible to put something like that on an HEMTT by the late 2020s. General Atomics is working with DARPA and ONR to get to that 300kW sweet spot you need for Medium Range Air Defense Mission. It is quite likely that the 150kW weapon that goes onto a Navy test ship is the architecture that then scales up to 300kW on platforms and vessels that can carry it. Army HEMTT and Navy DDG-1000 are my likely guesses for that class of weapon.

The Navy is looking to buy a 60-150 kW high energy laser weapon system with an integrated counter intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance laser for non-destructive dazzling capabilities against unmanned aerial vehicle-mounted sensors, according to a Federal Business Opportunities notice.

The High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance project will "prioritize technical maturity and proven laser weapon concepts," the notice said.

The request for proposals seeks two test units to be delivered in fiscal year 2020, one of which is for an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, DDG 51 Flight IIA. The second unit will be delivered to White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico before being transferred to Point Mugu in California, Naval Sea Systems Command spokeswoman Colleen O'Rourke wrote in a Aug. 15 statement to Inside the Navy.

Asked if the Navy will consider equipping Flight III with the laser weapon system, O'Rourke said the service is only targeting Flight IIA.

The RFP also includes options for an additional nine ship-based systems, O'Rourke added.

"The HELIOS Test Units shall include all necessary power, cooling, and processing hardware and software, along with all cables, interfaces, and displays necessary to operate and maintain the system on both a Land Based Test Facility and on a DDG 51 FLT IIA," the notice said.

HELIOS has $63.2 million budgeted for FY-18; $83.8 million for FY-19; $60.2 million for FY-20; $45.9 million for FY-21 and $30 million for FY-22, according to the Navy's budget justification documents. Source - Inside Defense / Inside the Navy


Army: 50 kW Laser Stryker By 2021, 100 kW FMTV Truck By 2022

HUNTSVILLE, ALA.: The Army keeps putting more powerful lasers on smaller vehicles. Battlefield lasers in testing today can shoot down snooping quadcopters and other small drones. By the early 2020s, however vehicles mobile enough to keep up with combat brigades – Strykers and FMTV trucks – will have power in the 50 to 100 kilowatt range. That’s enough not only to kill drones in less time and at longer ranges than today, but also to stop incoming rockets, artillery shells, and mortar rounds.

Army lasers are advancing on two fronts, said Adam Aberle, who heads high energy laser development and demonstration at the Space & Missile Defense Command. Lower-powered lasers go on eight-wheel drive armored vehicles called Strykers. Higher-powered ones go on converted cargo trucks, which have no armor and worse off-road performance than Strykers, but a lot more room.

n 2021, the service will test a 50 kilowatt weapon, the Multi-Mission High Energy Laser, on a Stryker. That’s five times the power of the 10 kW laser being installed on a Stryker for testing this November – which is itself double the 5 kW laser tested on a Stryker this March and five times the 2 kW tested last year. All these lasers are compact enough that the Strykers can still carry gear and troops for other battlefield tasks (hence “multi-mission”), a big plus for combat units. The 50 kW laser is a potential candidate for the Army’s Maneuver Short-Range Air Defense (MSHORAD), effort, which needs vehicles that can move and fight alongside frontline forces.

The Army is putting heavier lasers on cargo trucks. Eventually, such vehicles might be part of the Indirect Fire Protection Capability (IFPC), a truck-mounted system designed to set up behind the front line and defend large areas against incoming fire. In 2022, the Army will test a 100 kW laser on a truck, the High-Energy Laser Tactical Vehicle, based on three-axle, 10-ton FMTV. The FMTV is an unarmored support vehicle, but it’s much smaller and nimbler than the current laser truck, a four-axle, 20-ton HEMTT now being fitted for a 50-kW laser. (IFPC uses the FMTV truck as well).

For comparison, the original HEMTT-mounted laser installed in 2012 was just 10 kW. That’s same firepower that fits on the much smaller Stryker today. The power-to-weight ratio is ramping up radically.

Power matters because every time you double a laser’s output in kilowatts, you halve the time it takes to burn through a specific target at a specific distance, letting you quickly wipe out waves of incoming threats. Or you can double the power, keep the target and time to kill the same, but shoot it down 40 percent farther away. Or you can keep the time and distance the same, but burn through harder targets.

It’s not all about power, however, Aberle emphasized in a roundtable with reporters at the Space & Missile Defense Symposium here. The 100 kW laser on a truck will take a year longer than the 50 kW laser on a Stryker, he said, in large part because its beam control system is more ambitious.

Beam control is about focusing a laser’s power on the target and on a specific spot on the target: A well-built laser can pinpoint a specific weak point, allowing it to have far greater effects than its power alone might indicate. Engineers also need to optimize beam quality so the laser can penetrate the atmosphere without losing power. All lasers also require sophisticated software and powerful optics, which incidentally make great telescopes for surveillance when the laser isn’t firing.

The beam control and quality equations look very different when firing from a ground level in relatively dry air, a naval craft in humid sea air, or an aircraft surrounded by turbulence in the thin upper atmosphere. That is part of the reason the services all have their own programs, though they compare notes all the time, said Aberle.

In the near term, all the services are looking at relatively low-powered defensive laser. Aircraft already use lasers to confuse the sensors of incoming surface to air missiles, while the Navy’s 30 kW laser tested in the Persian Gulf was designed to deal with drones and approaching Iranian attack boats. The near-term lasers in development can burn down dangerous but relatively fragile targets ranging from ISIL drones, to Taliban mortar rounds, to Syrian barrel bombs, to Russian artillery rockets. But in the not too distant future, increasing power and precision could take out incoming cruise missiles, helicopter gunships, and strike aircraft. At that point, modern warfare starts to change dramatically.



Image

Rakesh
Webmaster BR
Posts: 3514
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 30 Aug 2017 05:50


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19490
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 05 Sep 2017 15:47

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19490
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 05 Sep 2017 19:53

Kalbir Launch Today agaist ISIL Targets in Syria




Cosmo_R
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3298
Joined: 24 Apr 2010 01:24

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Cosmo_R » 05 Sep 2017 22:54

In just 11 years the NOKOs have gone from a piffling sub kiloton nuke to a 100KT thermo nuke. All with a tiny scientific and industrial base—a fraction of what India has. The Indian ~45KT thermo nuke in 1998 (much disputed as a failure) took how many years?

You don't think the PRC proliferated do you? A plausibly deniable way to get it into Paki hands without them having to test it.

Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 773
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Lisa » 05 Sep 2017 22:58

^ India developed its bomb and BM's. China did not help us unlike North Korea. (IMHO).

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5704
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Sep 2017 00:06

vasu raya wrote:
brar_w wrote:On cost, yes it is costly ($70-$80 K range). But cost is relative to need, alternatives and other costs not factored into the equation.


Thanks brar, would it be possible to breakdown the cost components?

so, these laser guided or mmW sensors are g rated for an artillery shell, incredible!



Without a BOM, it would not be possible to break the cost down since this is procured as an AUR and not an added kit. The PGK which is procured independently and not as part of an AUR costs approximately $8500 based on 2016 contract awards so there you are probably looking at a sub $10,000 full round including the legacy shell and the kit.

Regardless, when close air support picture doesn't look like the one depicted in the gif below, it is handy to be able to call in field artillery support even if you are in close proximity to the enemy position you want taken out. It as an option is a good thing but naturally, not to be used under all scenarios.

Image

There is also the Precision Extended Range Munition which is a mortar based solution using the concept of the Excalibur but providing precision strike ability to infantry.

Image

so, these laser guided or mmW sensors are g rated for an artillery shell, incredible!


A number of firms have been working on advanced communication and seeker concepts for the HVP. Among the ones that are known to be interested ar BAE, Orbital, Lockheed and General Atomics. GA has advanced so far as to have tested a communication link b/w its munition and the 10 MJ railgun and will actually be doing a surface to air live demonstration (against a cruise missile) in 2018 to validate command guidance. A mmW sensor for an artillery round launched from an army or navy weapons is something likely enabled by that goal.
Last edited by brar_w on 10 Sep 2017 01:03, edited 3 times in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 47339
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby ramana » 10 Sep 2017 07:24

Brar, Diehl was working on a laser guided deployable fin package for 120 mm mortars.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5704
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Aviation - News and Discussion

Postby brar_w » 10 Sep 2017 07:45

ramana wrote:Brar, Diehl was working on a laser guided deployable fin package for 120 mm mortars.


Would that be the same program where they partnered with Lockheed for a US Army program? I believe there GPS or dual mode (GPS/SAL) was preferred over purely laser guided for the APMI program, but I can see advantages of a dual mode weapon if the enemy relocates especially at the higher ends of the range envelope (20km). Lockheed and Diehl team missed out on the APMI where ATK was selected as fielded a GPS weapon for the Army. The PERM is a USMC program, but the US Army has recently launched a program to field a dual mode, high explosive guided mortar with production expected to begin in the 2021 timeframe.

https://www.army.mil/article/183491/arm ... ion_mortar




brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5704
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 11 Sep 2017 05:37

The last quote at the bottom of the slide puts into context the comment from Major General Toney Stricklin I had posted earlier in the Artillery thread
With the M982, ‘danger- close’ is a technique that may be no longer necessary.


Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19490
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 13 Sep 2017 23:06

WikiLeaks‏Verified account @wikileaks https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/907970125910953984

Public records reveal that the Pentagon is shipping billions of dollars of arms to Syrian insurgents

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19490
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 22 Sep 2017 15:03

Russia's Intervention in Syria: Lessons Learned



Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Nitesh and 43 guests