International Military Discussion

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Jun 2011 10:41

MBDA Unveils Perseus, the Multirole Land and Naval Strike Concept Missile System

Perseus features multiple operating modes against a wide land and maritime target set with the added capability of being able to overcome the most effective of enemy missile defences. It is designed to be a tactical weapon system operated through an advanced Operations & Mission Planning System at the crossroads of naval, land and air warfare. The advanced supersonic (up to Mach 3), agile and stealthy airframe is powered by a revolutionary ramjet motor built around a highly compact Continuous Detonation Wave Engine. This revolutionary solution, at the very edge of propulsion technology, opens up the possibility of developing a smaller airframe with more energetic efficiency. This airframe will make Perseus an unrivalled penetrator of enemy defences and an effective weapon for use against fast moving, relocatable targets that it will be able to reach in a matter of minutes even at ranges of up to 300 km.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Jun 2011 10:50

so they are planning for a micro-brahmos two decades from now per a google on this topic.

by that time we (India and Rus) will have hypersonic scramjet brahmos and so will sher khan in some format.

SKrishna · Post by **SKrishna** » 22 Jun 2011 12:28

^^^ Th difference is they want to research some futuristic propulsion to make weigh only 800 kg while having the same payload and range.... (not to forget the submunition strategy...)

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 22 Jun 2011 13:07

Perseus with ramjet and CD engine is much effecient and smaller then Brahmos engine , the sensor fusion includes AESA and LIDAR , it has stealth shape and modular warhead , all in all this looks to me 2Gen ahead of what Brahmos is today.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 22 Jun 2011 14:48

this is a vision of 20 yrs ahead. brahmos will evolve too as anything else.

bart · Post by **bart** » 22 Jun 2011 15:12

Remember how Pakis claim JF-Bandar to be an indigenous aircraft, and talk about Chinese vapourware as if it were real hardware that they already have? Here is where they got their genes from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... apons.html

Title:

New British missile three times as fast as current weapons
Travelling at three times the speed of sound and skimming the sea at wave top enemy sailors will have just three seconds to react before they are hit by the latest British-designed missile.

And tucked away at the end of the article is:

It is being developed by the part-British owned MBDA defence company which supplies two-thirds of missiles dropped by the RAF in Libya and Afghanistan including the dual mode Brimstone anti-tank device.

Next steps would be for the latest Dong Long Feng March 2 hypersonic missile (developed using advanced rapid-prototyping tools from Adobe) to be announced by Chinese military forums, a lot of gloating by Pakis, followed by picture of bearded PA/PAF abduls checking it out.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 23 Jun 2011 08:44

With No Fish In Afghanistan, Osprey Eats Engines

aniket · Post by **aniket** » 24 Jun 2011 20:01

These are the pictures from my trip to Virgina's naval base.
http://s1229.photobucket.com/albums/ee4 ... 520Base%2F

UBanerjee · Post by **UBanerjee** » 26 Jun 2011 10:42

^ link does not work

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 26 Jun 2011 11:55

aniket wrote:These are the pictures from my trip to Virgina's naval base.
http://s1229.photobucket.com/albums/ee4 ... 520Base%2F

there is something wrong with this link, brings one back to the same page...

Manish_P · Post by **Manish_P** » 26 Jun 2011 16:54

^

Correct link seems to be -http://s1229.photobucket.com/albums/ee4 ... al%20Base/

aniket · Post by **aniket** » 27 Jun 2011 10:04

Thanks

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 28 Jun 2011 21:31

Iran shows its strength by launching 14 missiles during maneuvers "defensive"

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Jun 2011 23:30

Iran secretly tested 'nuclear-capable missiles'

(AFP) – 6 hours ago

LONDON — Iran has carried out secret tests of ballistic missiles capable of delivering a nuclear payload in breach of UN resolutions, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said Wednesday.

Hague's comments came a day after Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards said they had fired 14 missiles in an exercise, one of them a medium-range weapon capable of striking Israel or US targets in the Gulf.

In a statement to lawmakers, Hague said: "Iran has also been carrying out covert ballistic missile tests and rocket launches, including testing missiles capable of delivering a nuclear payload in contravention of UN resolution 1929."

He said Iran had also announced plans to triple its capacity to produce 20 percent enriched uranium, adding: "These are enrichment levels far greater than is needed for peaceful nuclear energy.

"We will maintain and continue to increase pressure on Iran to negotiate an agreement on their nuclear programme," including sanctions, he said.

There was no immediate reaction from Tehran, which denies Western claims that it is pursuing nuclear weapons under the guise of its civil atomic programme.

On Tuesday Iranian state media said the Revolutionary Guards fired nine Zelzal missiles, two Shahab-1s, two Shahab-2s and a single medium-range Ghadr on the second day of their Great Prophet-6 exercise.

On the first day of the exercise on Monday, the Guards unveiled an "underground missile silo" which they said was designed for launching their medium-range missiles, state television reported.

The Guards' aerospace commander Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh insisted Iran's missile programme posed no threat to European nations but was intended to provide defence against "US targets in the region and the Zionist regime."

Iran has said that its latest exercise is not aimed at any country but carries "a message of peace and friendship."

On Tuesday US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said Iran was "bragging" about its assets, but did not specify whether Washington thought the tested missiles were nuclear-capable.

Iran's missile programme, which is under the control of the powerful Guards along with its space projects, has been a mounting source of concern in the West.

Western governments fear Tehran is seeking to develop a ballistic capability to enable it to launch atomic warheads under cover of its civil nuclear programme.

Hague meanwhile reiterated accusations that Iran was backing the violent suppression of pro-democracy protests in neighbouring Syria.

Earlier this month the British envoy in Tehran was summoned to the foreign ministry over the claims.

"Iran continues to connive in the suppression of legitimate protest in Syria and to suppress protests at home," Hague said.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 30 Jun 2011 17:07

Second Life For Humvees

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 01 Jul 2011 09:37

Iran War Games Warn West

Has footage of Iran BM silos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8NLN4A3GG4

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Jul 2011 08:02

BBC

1 July 2011 Last updated at 21:39 GMT

Russia plans Arctic army brigades
Arctic icebergs in Greenland Warmer temperatures are making access to the Arctic easier

Russia's defence minister has said he plans to create two specialist army brigades to be based in the Arctic.

The announcement comes days after Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Russia would strongly defend its interests in the region.

The brigades could be based in Murmansk, Arkhangelsk or other areas, Russian news agencies reported.

Anatoly Serdyukov said Russia had studied the specialist Arctic troops in Finland, Norway and Sweden.

The BBC's Daniel Sandford, in Moscow, said Russia's plans to increase the number of troops stationed in the Arctic still seem to be at an early stage though earlier announcements had mentioned only one brigade.

"The General Staff is currently working on plans to create two such units," Mr Serdyukov was quoted as telling media by state news agency Itar-Tass.

He said his ministry was still in the process of working out specifics, such as troops numbers, weapons and bases, but a brigade includes a few thousand soldiers.

Just this week, Mr Putin said that Russia would "expand its presence in the Arctic" and "strongly and persistently" defend its interests.

At the same time he promised to look after the region's vulnerable ecology.

It is believed that there are substantial unexploited reserves of gas and oil under the Arctic Ocean.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 02 Jul 2011 08:40

A Perfect Storm over Nuclear Weapons
Air & Space Power Journal - Fall 2009
VADM Robert R. Monroe, USN, Retired

America faces a critical decision point in history. The nuclear deterrent that kept us safe for the past half century has deteriorated to the point of near failure, and we face a confluence of dangers—a “perfect storm”—that threatens our very existence as a nation. Our nuclear perfect storm is far more complex and dangerous than the meteorological perfect storm of 1991, which added this term to our vocabulary. Ours has been building for two decades since the Cold War ended, and today we are engulfed in the convergence of five immense challenges:

• Rapidly increasing nuclear threats of new and different types

• A lapsed and totally out-of-date strategy of nuclear deterrence

• An old, virtually irrelevant, and dying nuclear-weapons capability

• Unchecked nuclear proliferation on the verge of triggering a cascade

• Ill-advised and dangerous disarmament proposals designed to implement the vision of “a world without nuclear weapons”

Our overarching need, of course, is to meet all the interlocked challenges effectively. This article addresses each of these five and then suggests an integrated approach whereby national leadership can realize a successful outcome for all.

...

koti · Post by **koti** » 03 Jul 2011 08:21

The US war on terror status report.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/ar ... c6f679.b11

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 Jul 2011 08:06

The Atomic Bombings of Japan: A 50-Year Retrospective
Col Ralph J. Capio, USAF
Airpower Journal - Summer 1995

No doubt, 6 August 1945 began as any other day. Before it ended, something dramatic occurred that would change the way nations dealt with each other-perhaps for all time. On this day at 8:15 A.M., the Enola Gay-a B-29 Superfortress named after its pilot's mother-opened its bomb-bay doors over Hiroshima-at the time, a military center and the seventh largest city in Japan5-and dropped a single weapon with a destructive capacity of biblical proportions. The crew on board and the team of scientists who developed the bomb were not sure whether the weapon would detonate. Nor were they sure what would happen if it did. In the split second in which a blinding flash of light told the crew of its success, approximately 70,000 souls-who, until that fateful moment, had been going about their normal, everyday lives-perished, and the world changed:

It was a kind of hell on earth, and those who died instantly were among the more fortunate. Thousands died-vaporized, crushed, or burned. But there were tens of thousands more who were still alive and those who could move began to mill about the city, seeking relief from shock, fire, and pain. Thousands threw themselves into the Ota River, which would be awash with corpses by the end of the day.

...

The single weapon ultimately dropped on Hiroshima, nicknamed Little Boy, produced a yield of approximately 20,000 tons of TNT-roughly seven times greater than all of the bombs dropped by all of the Allies on all of Germany in 1942. It produced an airburst approximately 1,000 feet above the city, creating a fireball with a diameter greater than the length of three football fields. The temperature at ground zero reached 5,000 degrees centigrade. The shock wave and its reverse effect reached speeds close to the speed of sound. A mushroom cloud rose to 20,000 feet in the air, and 60 percent of the city was destroyed. Three days later, on 9 August, the United States dropped a second atomic bomb. Its target, Nagasaki-a port city in southern Japan-was 30 percent destroyed, and approximately 40,000 of its citizens were killed. On 15 August, Japan surrendered-unconditionally-thus ending a world conflagration in which 50 million people died.

One of the threshold issues presented by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the nature of the target itself. Many people have asked how it came to be that whole civilian populations could become the proper object of direct and purposeful military action. That is, the target at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was principally the civilian population itself.14 There was no "militarily" significant target to speak of beyond that, although Hiroshima did support an army headquarters. The answer has to do, in part, with the changing concept of modern warfare:

World War I ushered in the period of total war, a type of war consisting of the combination of many allies, enormous cost, unlimited use of highly destructive weapons, and unlimited war aims. Hostilities were conducted over greater territory . . . than ever before. More troops were employed, supported by the home front population.

As a consequence, the age-old distinction between enemy combatants and noncombatants began to blur. It became clear that the civilian population was absolutely necessary if a nation were to successfully prosecute a total war effort. Without economic and war-production aid from the "civilian front," military war fighters would be less able to continue their efforts.17 Thus, a gradual escalation of war fighting occurred, which included a nation's war-fighting sustainment capability and its civilian population. This trend manifested itself in the firebombing attacks on Dresden and Tokyo, the V-weapon attacks against London, and-eventually-the atomic attacks at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The rationale most often proffered to justify the use of such awesome weapons is "military necessity." That is, dropping the bombs actually served to save lives. One must consider that the immediate military context of the decision to use atomic weapons was the Okinawa campaign-the last major battle of the war. Located 350 miles off the coast of mainland Japan, Okinawa "was to be used as a jumping-off place for the long-anticipated invasion of Japan." During the Okinawa campaign, 49,151 US servicemen were killed or wounded.

Okinawa was the first campaign in which the notorious kamikaze appeared. Over 5,000 American sailors died20 as a result of approximately 350 kamikaze missions-the heaviest toll the US Navy had suffered in any episode of the war, including Pearl Harbor. More than just militarily significant, the kamikaze represented the totally committed enemy-even to the point of fanaticism. If a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands became necessary, the kamikaze was a harbinger of the degree of military difficulty that, in all likelihood, awaited an invasion force.

In the aftermath of the bitterly fought Okinawa campaign, the president was clearly concerned that an invasion of the well-defended Japanese homeland could give rise to an "Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other."23 Years later, in his memoirs, Truman cited Gen George C. Marshall's observation that approximately 1.5 million soldiers would have been required to invade Japan. Of this number, 250,000 would likely have been casualties, and an equal number of Japanese would have died. However, some people suggest that recently declassified documents indicate that no such "official" estimate existed and that estimations of casualties ranged from a low of about 25,000 to a high of 46,000. If true, this would make the figure of 250,000 nothing more than a "postwar creation"-an effort to justify, in some measure, the use of this weapon on the grounds of military necessity. Truman also went on to say, perhaps tellingly, that "the need for such a fateful decision never would have arisen had we not been shot in the back by Japan at Pearl Harbor in December 1941."26 Moreover, it has been further suggested that American citizens recognize that pre- and post-Hiroshima dissent was rare in 1945. Indeed, few then asked why the United States used the atomic bomb on Japan. But had the bomb not been used, many more, including numerous outraged American citizens, would have bitterly asked that question of the Truman administration.27

Was the decision militarily justifiable as a "numbers" analysis? By this time, was the world so numbed to killing that the bombings were just one more step in an ongoing process? Or was the decision militarily unnecessary?

...

Most of the Manhattan Project scientists, including J. Robert Oppenheimer, director of the Los Alamos laboratory, tended to favor use of the bomb. But as the war drew to a close, a growing minority questioned whether Japan should be the target of the terrible weapon that had been developed-they felt-mainly as insurance against a Nazi bomb.

Leo Szilard was this group's most emphatic dissenter. To his credit, he continued expressing his concerns about the morality of using such indiscriminate weapons long after the end of the war. After Japan's surrender, even Oppenheimer became well aware of the implications for mankind:

Today . . . pride must be tempered with a profound concern. If atomic bombs are to be added as new weapons to the arsenals of . . . [the] world . . . then the time will come when mankind will curse the names of Los Alamos and Hiroshima.

The peoples of this world must unite, or they will perish. This war, that has ravaged so much of the earth, has written these words. The atomic bomb has spelled them out for all men to understand.

From the perspective of US government officials who made decisions regarding the development and use of atomic weapons, the bombings aided in bringing about the surrender ceremony aboard the USS Missouri.37 While he was still at the Potsdam Conference with Churchill and Stalin, President Truman found out that that the atomic bomb had been successfully detonated at Alamogordo, New Mexico. The conference itself was a difficult give-and-take among the Allies over the terms upon which the war should be ended and the conditions for the postwar peace. Buoyed by the Alamogordo success, Truman had decided upon and issued a harsh ultimatum-the Potsdam Declaration-that called upon Japan to surrender unconditionally or face "prompt and utter destruction." Japan had been subjected to overwhelming aerial bombardment, including firebombing and carpet bombing of most of its cities and civilian population, as well as devastating naval blockades by long-range submarines and surface vessels. Consequently, despite opposition from the imperial army, Japan began to realize that it had lost the war. Clearly defeated, the Japanese made peace overtures through the Russians, who had not yet entered the Pacific war. Their only request was that they be allowed to keep their emperor.

The Japanese were ready to surrender. However, they hesitated in accepting Truman's Potsdam Declaration because it was silent-or, at least, ambiguous-on the subject of the emperor's status. Indeed, many people think that the United States's insistence on unconditional surrender amounted to "the chief obstacle to an early Japanese surrender," which then rose to the level of "tragedy." In response to the Potsdam Declaration, the Japanese government issued a statement to its people, which led to one of history's most consequential "failures to communicate." While posturing with the Russians, the Japanese suggested that they were "withholding comment" on the Potsdam Declaration. From reports in Japanese newspapers, the United States concluded that the Japanese believed that the declaration was of "no great value" and was being "ignored." Taking this response to be a rejection, Truman ordered that the atomic bombs be dropped as a means of ending the war promptly (and on favorable terms) and of "influencing" Stalin.

Was this an honest misunderstanding? Did we explore adequately the diplomatic channels that were clearly open to us? Did we hear only what we, for some reason or another, wanted to hear? Were we so concerned about Russia and the postwar peace that we were willing to sacrifice thousands of Japanese men, women, and children to this awful weapon? Was our insistence on unconditional surrender driven only by some vague domestic notion-inherited from our own Civil War,44 perhaps-that this was the only true end to a war of this magnitude? Certainly, these are difficult questions. But some things seem clear: we did achieve a quick end to the war on favorable terms; an invasion of Japan was unnecessary; President Truman never publicly regretted his fateful decision; and the United States and the Soviet Union were thrust into what was to become the cold war:

...

As the 50th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Japan approaches, the debate over whether or not the Japanese somehow qualify as "victims" of the war has already begun. The Smithsonian Institute announced plans to commemorate the event by holding a special exhibition, including the display of the Enola Gay. Plans for the exhibition were circulated for public comment and drew an immediate and adverse reaction, principally from US veterans groups who felt that the Japanese, by being cast as victims, were escaping from their responsibility for waging aggressive war and that such an exhibition amounted to revisionist history. The Smithsonian took these comments under advisement and cancelled its originally planned exhibit. It now intends simply to exhibit a portion of the fuselage of the Enola Gay and write a brief explanatory text.

Clearly, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has had a profound effect-not only on Japan, but on mankind. Although it stands as historic testament to our intellectual capacity to discover and harness immense power, it also demonstrates the fragility of life. We can no longer be certain that such forces could never destroy us. In exhibiting our willingness to use such power in war, we have shown a capacity towards self-destruction that bears constant vigilance. Thus, the advent of the nuclear age forever changed the relationship among nation-states. Hiroshima and Nagasaki have shown us that there is, ostensibly, a point beyond which we will not allow ourselves to be pushed without exhausting all military resources available to us and that, no matter how costly the consequences, we are prepared to justify those actions accordingly. Therefore, we now have "no more important challenge . . . than how to prevent the unprecedented catastrophe of nuclear war."54 It is critically important that US military officers carefully consider the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jul 2011 07:40

Shrinivasan wrote:
Singha wrote:what do you think about the spanish juan carlos class?
In the Indian context, would a Mistral Class ship be better than a Jalashwa class LPD?

definitely. austin is a much older design not to mention much smaller. it is a LPD while mistral is an amphib assault ship. given that we already have 5 LST's and do not need long range sealift for the moment, an AAS with its more well rounded capabilities (air and amphib assault) is a better choice than an LPD with amphib only capability.

here's the IN tender on LPD
http://www.tenders.gov.in/viewtenddoc.a ... no=1&td=TD

note that although it calls it LPD the requirement is for a much larger ship than jalashwa. (200 m length, jalashwa is ~ 170 m)
since it also calls for the design to based upon an existing ship, I wonder if they will end up with a LPH (i.e AAS), since no existing LPD matches the requirement AFAIK.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2011 08:04

The fun never stops.

German Leader Criticized for Report of Tank Deal

Chancellor Angela Merkel is facing growing criticism from across the political spectrum here after news of a multibillion-dollar deal for the secret sale of 200 tanks to Saudi Arabia leaked from the national security council that approved it.

The government has responded with what the German news media have called an “iron silence,” which has fueled rather than dampened the furor over a sale that experts estimate would be worth roughly $2.5 billion.

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

How do you hide 200 tanks while shipping? In the hold of ship carrying cotton?

According to the Web site of Krauss-Maffei Wegmann, which produces the tank, the latest version, the Leopard 2A7+, includes “nonlethal capabilities” and an “obstacle clearance blade” almost like a plow in the front that can clear debris and roadblocks.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 07 Jul 2011 09:19

Gemany exposed^^^
While lecturing secular democratic India about human rights and denying India guns for so called human rights violation, Germany has no shame in supplying Battle tanks to an Autocratic religious fundamentalist nation where there exists no human rights. Shame on Germany.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 07 Jul 2011 09:24

Obama’s Nuclear Upgrade

To many, the Obama administration's nuclear weapons policy appears to be schizophrenic. In April 2009, in Prague, President Barack Obama pledged to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security policy and to work toward global nuclear disarmament. His aspirations have been reflected in the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia and in a new strategic review, ongoing this summer, that is intended to pave the way for further U.S. nuclear cuts.

But even as the administration cuts the force and talks about a world free of nuclear weapons, it has proposed a major multi-year campaign to replace aging weapons and modernize the U.S. arsenal. The plan calls for a new class of nuclear submarines, new nuclear-capable bomber and fighter aircraft, and updated nuclear bombs, warheads, and missiles. The price tag for this nuclear overhaul is estimated at $185 billion over the coming decade, but the actual cost will no doubt be higher.

Is there a sensible strategy behind these proposals? Does nuclear modernization contribute to deterrence, which the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review called "the fundamental role" of the U.S. nuclear arsenal?

In "The Nukes We Need" (November/December 2009), we described the deterrence challenges that the United States will likely face in the coming years and the nuclear capabilities that might mitigate them. First, we argued that the United States is likely to face tougher deterrence problems in the coming years than it did during the Cold War. Specifically, as nuclear weapons proliferate, it becomes increasingly likely that the United States will find itself in conventional conflicts with nuclear-armed adversaries. Those adversaries have witnessed the catastrophic consequences of losing a war to the United States -- regime change, with prison or death the frequent fate of enemy leaders. Coercive nuclear escalation is one of the only trump cards that countries fighting the United States hold, offering the prospect of a battlefield stalemate and keeping existing regimes in power. For the United States, deterring weak, desperate adversaries from using their nuclear trump card will be a major challenge -- especially as these weapons spread.

Second, we argued that retaining the right mix of capabilities in the U.S. nuclear arsenal is vital for deterring -- or responding to -- an adversary engaging in coercive nuclear escalation. The foundation of a credible deterrent is maintaining the capability and the will to carry out one's threats. But most of the nuclear weapons in the current U.S. arsenal, including all the land- and submarine-based ballistic missiles, have such enormous explosive yields that using them would spread radioactive fallout across vast regions and almost certainly kill large numbers of noncombatants. Threatening to use such indiscriminate weapons would simply not be credible, at least in any scenario short of a nuclear attack on the U.S. homeland. To retain a credible deterrent, the United States must possess nuclear weapons that a president might actually use if U.S. allies, military forces, or territory suffered a nuclear attack. We therefore argued that Washington, as it reduces the size of its nuclear arsenal, must retain and modernize its lowest-yield and most accurate weapons.

So what has happened in the past 18 months? After substantial internal deliberation and input from Congress, the Obama administration has settled on a pragmatic approach to the U.S. nuclear arsenal. That approach balances the administration's two principal goals: reducing the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and retaining a robust deterrent for the foreseeable future. Toward the first goal, the administration successfully negotiated and secured the ratification of New START, which caps U.S. and Russian deployed strategic forces at roughly 1,550 warheads -- about 20 percent lower than the previous cap. (All told, the number of deployed U.S. strategic weapons has now been reduced by 85 percent since the end of the Cold War.) The administration is seeking a new round of cuts to further reduce the arsenal.

...

For example, the administration wants to retain and modernize the lowest-yield nuclear options in the force --the bombs and cruise missiles delivered by aircraft. The White House is seeking funding for a nuclear-capable version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and a nuclear-capable long-range bomber to replace the B-52 and B-2 bombers. Most noteworthy, the administration supports a modernization plan that would convert all remaining B-61 nuclear bombs into a single, low-yield version with increased accuracy. The plan also calls for a new air-launched cruise missile that will probably combine lower weapon yield with higher accuracy.

In addition to preserving the low-yield options in the current force, the modernization plan also calls for building a new generation of ballistic missile submarines to replace the Ohio-class fleet -- a step that is essential for retaining the smaller U.S. arsenal's survivability. There also appear to be plans to increase the accuracy of the missiles that these submarines will carry. If so, the missiles could eventually be armed with much lower-yield warheads than those on current submarines.

...

Moreover, within Washington's bureaucracies, there is little support for nuclear weapons. Those outside the national security community might imagine that the so-called military industrial complex is bent on upgrading the nuclear arsenal, but the reality is far different. The Army and the Marine Corps are out of the nuclear business altogether. And although the Air Force refocused itself on the nuclear mission after recent embarrassing incidents of mishandling warheads and components, its attention is focused much more on stockpile safety and reliability than on nuclear deterrence -- and the military capabilities that support it. In fact, the Air Force has not made a strong public case for retaining the air leg of the nuclear triad, even though that leg is uniquely suited to the flexible, low-yield, high-accuracy requirements of an effective deterrent force.

Defense contractors around Washington, meanwhile, perceive the conventional realm to be more profitable than the nuclear realm. Major aircraft manufacturers, for example, strongly support the procurement of a next generation bomber but have questioned whether it should be made nuclear-capable. Their reluctance is understandable: a non-nuclear capable bomber would be unconstrained by New START, and the Pentagon could buy more of them.

...

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 07 Jul 2011 10:16

Rahul M wrote:...given that we already have 5 LST's and do not need long range sealift for the moment, an AAS with its more well rounded capabilities is a better choice than an LPD with amphib only capability.
note that although it calls it LPD the requirement is for a much larger ship than jalashwa.

Rahul, You got it spot with your deduction of IN requiring an Mistral/AAS class vessel eventhough it STATES LPD in the RFI. Desh classifies based on purpose rather than tonnage or size (RN's legacy).
But I have a problem with your conclusion of "do not need long range sealift"...based on my research for my forthcoming article on Indian Marine Expeditionary force i calculated out sea-lift capacity. If all our sealift capacity is utilized we can hardly transport 4000 troops to a battlezone. This is precisely the NAVY has sort of taken over the Nicobar Class Troop Carriers which were Passenger Transport Ships to the Andamans from the mainland. Even with these old ships, we can manage a Brigade strength.
Also some of our LSTs are old (including Jalashwa which is factored for 1K troops) and hence this RFI for 4 LPDs. India could have acquired one more LPD of the Austin Class from Khan but declined it due to its age. If we can get couple of San Antonio class LPDs, it would be good as they are larger, better and above all newer. IN acquired USS Trenton primarily t familiarize itself with the operation of a large LPD.

The RFI does look IN has a Mistral class in its sights...

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jul 2011 11:56

you misunderstood my comment. we do not need long range sealift, the operative phrase being long range because are potential targets are not very far away. LPH does have its own sealift capability but it also has an air assault component. while we do need sealift capability it is not at the expense of other requirements.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 07 Jul 2011 13:14

Rahul M wrote:you misunderstood my comment. we do not need long range sealift, the operative phrase being long range because are potential targets are not very far away. LPH does have its own sealift capability but it also has an air assault component. while we do need sealift capability it is not at the expense of other requirements.

I got it, We need to increase Sealift capacity but don't need the long range...but Range comes handy. Imagine we need to move a brigade to ANC... or to take over G$$$$$R. The ability to launch a good # of helos apart from landing crafts to transport 1K troops would be a good feature to have. Coupled with couple of Frigates, Destroyers, fleet tankers etc, we should have a Marine Brigade. We should have the capability to position 2 Brigades (1 in east and another in west). A Marine brigade is 4K troops i presume...

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jul 2011 17:02

Laser weapons take aim at the tactical level

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 07 Jul 2011 17:19

if the idea is quick resupply of A&N islands without the need for onboard helicopters why not expore an options like HMAS Jervis Bay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Jervi ... 8AKR_45%29

ofcourse nowhere near a Mistral in capability but for most conditions and situations quite adequate .

these could imo replace whatever ancient assortment of ships we use on the A&N milk run now, while the new LPD(s) would take up the "proper" naval role.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 07 Jul 2011 18:02

Onleee LHDeeee LHDeee LHDee LHDe LHD is worth buyiiiing.

Need both well deck and flat top.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 07 Jul 2011 18:13

Shrini, IN wants 4 mistral sized ships, that's enough for the moment given that we already have a bde and a couple of LST's stationed in A&N. more can be added as IN expands. for further movement of troops IN can commandeer civilian oceanliners for the job.

the marine brigades' size would depend on what you want you want them for. if it's just putting a brigade sized infantry force then the number shouldn't be much more than 3000. if it is a self contained combined arms unit, as it should be against pakistan (say) the number can easily go up to 6-7,000 or more.

the USMC MEU is the marine equivalent of a single battalion. the marine exp bde has about 14,000 men.
this is what is required to support a single MEU.

the amphibs being : 1 tarawa class LHA, 1 austin class LPD & 1 dock landing ship.

Onleee LHDeeee LHDeee LHDee LHDe LHD is worth buyiiiing.

Need both well deck and flat top.

+1

p.s. RAN is building two juan carlos class LHD's.

Shrinivasan · Post by **Shrinivasan** » 07 Jul 2011 19:33

D Roy wrote:Onleee LHDeeee LHDeee LHDee LHDe LHD is worth buyiiiing.
Need both well deck and flat top.

+1000, Even IN's RFI looks tailored to a Mistral class vessel...I'm all for it...by the time these 4 pit-bulls get commissioned, IN would be ready to decommission some of those older LSTs.
Coupled with these ship acquisition, we should acquire sea-king class helos like what we have on INS Jalashwa.

D Roy · Post by **D Roy** » 08 Jul 2011 11:08

'RAN is building two juan carlos class LHD's'

But optimized for over the horizon amphibious assault. the Spaniards want their's to have that ski jump of course.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 09 Jul 2011 10:22

On Russia's technological base

Rumsfeld wins the doctrine war

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 12 Jul 2011 08:22

U.S.-Russia strategic arms limitation treaty: Sleepwalking into the future

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 14 Jul 2011 05:02

Article on NATO AWACS mission over libya

http://www.worldcrunch.com/eyes-over-li ... holds/3439

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Jul 2011 09:35

U.S. Navy could face $10 billion in budget cuts

chackojoseph · Post by **chackojoseph** » 15 Jul 2011 11:23

US releases unclassified version of DoD Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace

Aditya_V · Post by **Aditya_V** » 15 Jul 2011 11:45

abhishek_sharma wrote:U.S. Navy could face $10 billion in budget cuts

They can easily save money my making sure none of thier reconnasance assets do not cover India and then providing the info to other parties in the region

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 15 Jul 2011 12:14

abhishek_sharma wrote:U.S. Navy could face $10 billion in budget cuts

This news is for the masses. Just to put into perspective, US spends 20 Billion on AC a year in Iraq and Afganistan.