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.
JayS
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3396
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby JayS » 04 Nov 2017 15:35

brar_w wrote:
Kartik wrote:New long range AIM-120D replacement program has been in the works for the past 2 years



Its been ongoing for years with both Boeing and Raytheon working hard at both internal bay carriage, range and speed challenges. They even developed and tested VFDR configurations that would solve the Meteor's biggest shortcoming (lack of super-packing on aircraft like F-22 and F-35)

The current line item cited by Flight, and the misleading headline posted by Pirate (that the blogosphere is now running with) isn't/wasn't the biggest spend as there were other larger investments that involved flight demonstrations and even seeker and warhead concepts being tested. In fact, all this program does is study an architectural makeup of the concept so that the individual services can use it to inform their internal or joint decision making. It is not a weapons program.

A medium term weapon will likely complement the AMRAAM-D since it isn't going anywhere but a new program only emerges this year (FY18) and is exploratory in nature. The Next Gen. platform and its CONEMP need to be defined first if a "True" next gen. AMRAAM replacement is to be pursued, or they both need to be studied concurrently. It doesn't help to define the weapon first since so much would be dependent upon how they will C2 in the post 2030 time-frame (USAF is loosing interest in a true AWACS replacement for the offenisve m) and how the weapons systems on its next gen. platforms will be configured.

Until then they would need to optimize missiles for 5th gen. carriage and that means concurrent production of AMRAAM and SACM/CUDA like concepts.

Image

They have mature, off the shelf solutions for longer/extended range needs for legacy F-15Cs and Es if anything over and above the Aim-120D is needed on those fighters.



Its been reported that this new Long range missile will be two stage. Brar sahab, any more info of the propulsion config that you have seen perhaps..?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 04 Nov 2017 15:51

JayS wrote:Its been reported that this new Long range missile will be two stage. Brar sahab, any more info of the propulsion config that you have seen perhaps..?


Ignore the reports in the media. Sensationalism aside, this is an architectural study focusing on the entire kill chain for long range intercepts with the result of the study being passed on to the individual services for them to pursue if and when required. The USAF in its budget for 2018 launched a new air-air weapon program (which is likely informed by this study among others in the recent past) that is distinct for the S&T one they launched for the Small Advanced Capability Missile. You can't really define and begin to pursue a next-gen. missile until you are fairly certain about the nature and CONEMP of your future fighter would be hence these two programs are moving along together with the fighter AOA likely leading into a similar analysis for a weapon.

The last time the US flight tested long range air-air interceptors was in late 2013 when they launched ramjet powered (VFDR) missiles at UAVs, cruise missiles and ground based radar targets. From known data, it appears that the VFDR configuration pursued solved the Meteor's shortcomings vis-a-vis super packing in internal bays. But that may not be a focus area going forward given where the missions and overall performance could lead them. As I had mentioned, if the problem is to give long range engagement weapon to the legacy fleet then low risk solutions already exist in the AMRAAM-ER, and ESSM Blk. II. If the idea is to produce a longer ranged AMRAAM then also, various other propulsion solutions can be brought in via the "E" upgrade. If they wan't to make the AMRAAM more smarter they can look at a seeker upgrade after they are done replacing the signals processors..Specific to the 5th gen. fleet the idea is to look beyond 6 MRAAM's per bay which is the maximum capacity on the F-22, and which is also the max the F-35 can take.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 08 Nov 2017 21:04

Sweden seeks to buy $1 billion U.S. Patriot air defense missile system

STOCKHOLM/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sweden will start negotiations on a $1.2 billion Raytheon Co Patriot air defense missile system, as interest in missile defense systems strengthens amid heightened regional tensions and ballistic missile technology improves globally...


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 30 Nov 2017 05:20


Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21824
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 01 Dec 2017 11:35

Russia negotiates deal for its warplanes to use Egypt bases
MOSCOW — Russia has approved a draft agreement with Egypt for Russian warplanes to use Egyptian military bases, according to a document released Thursday. Such a deal would allow Moscow to further increase its military footprint in the Middle East.

The directive, signed by Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and published on the official portal of legal information, endorses the draft prepared by the Russian Defence Ministry and instructs it to sign the deal with Egypt when it’s ready.

The Russia-Egypt deal, which would allow each country’s warplanes to use air bases of the other, is to last five years and could be extended further if agreed.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 01 Dec 2017 17:07

Romania signs on for the Patriot. Will be the third export country to purchase the PAC-3 MSE Missile as part of its mix. Appears they are looking at a 2+2 configuration with the PAC-3 MSE (24 missiles in two launchers per battery) and PAC-2 GEM/T (2 launcher with 8 missiles per battery) so around 32 ready-to-launch missiles per battery.

It’s official: Romania signs deal to buy US missile defense system



WASHINGTON — Romania announced it wanted to buy Raytheon-made Patriot air and missile defense systems from the U.S. government in April and has been on the fast track to getting those systems, signing an agreement to make the purchase Wednesday.

Romania signed a letter of offer and acceptance, which, according to Raytheon, “paves the way for Romania’s Patriot force to rapidly reach Initial Operational Capability, and sets the stage for the U.S. government to begin contract negotiations with Raytheon.”

Romania will be the 14th Patriot customer worldwide.

According to a Defense Security Cooperation Agency notification of the possible sale to Romania, the country wants seven Patriot Configuration 3+ units, complete with radars, a control station, antennas, launching stations and power plants. Also included are 56 Patriot MIM-104E Guidance Enhanced Missile TBM (GEM-T) missiles and 168 Patriot Advanced Capability — 3 Missile Segment Enhancement missiles.

The sale, according to the notice, could be worth up to $3.9 billion.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 04 Dec 2017 14:27

Future wars may depend as much on algorithms as on ammunition, report says.

Image
A man walks by a poster depicting a version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at the Berlin Security Conference in Germany last month. Experts call Lockheed Martin’s combat aircraft a “flying computer,” saying it is as much a sensor in the skies as it is a fighter jet. (John MacDougall/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images)

The Pentagon is increasingly focused on the notion that the might of U.S. forces will be measured as much by the advancement of their algorithms as by the ammunition in their arsenals. And so as it seeks to develop the technologies of the next war amid a technological arms race with China, the Defense Department has steadily increased spending in three key areas: artificial intelligence, big data and cloud computing, according to a recent report.

Investment in those areas increased to $7.4 billion last year, up from $5.6 billion five years ago, according to Govini, a data science and analytics firm, and it appears likely to grow as the armed services look to transform how they train, plan and fight.

“Rapid advances in artificial intelligence — and the vastly improved autonomous systems and operations they will enable — are pointing toward new and more novel warfighting applications involving human-machine collaboration and combat teaming,” Robert Work, the former deputy secretary of defense, wrote in an introduction to the report. “These new applications will be the primary drivers of an emerging military-technical revolution.”

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

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 06 Dec 2017 04:13

ShauryaT wrote:What is the view on this Quantum thingie?

https://jamestown.org/program/disruptio ... m-sensing/


Foundation articles:

Quantum Leap (Part 1): China’s Advances in Quantum Information Science

Quantum Leap (Part 2): The Strategic Implications of Quantum Technologies

From Part 2:

The Military Applications of Quantum Technologies

Quantum Cryptography and Quantum Communications

The employment of quantum cryptography enables unbreakable, almost unhackable quantum communications networks that may have particular utility in a military context. Currently, China is in the process of constructing these networks at a national and even global scale for government and military purposes (see part 1). The PLA may already employ quantum communications networks in a limited capacity for the transmission of particularly sensitive information. By contrast, the U.S. military has not yet chosen to invest extensively in building a quantum communications infrastructure. For instance, the Air Force has concluded that the technique of quantum key distribution “significantly increases system complexity but is unlikely to provide an overall improvement in communication security” (USAF Scientific Advisory Board). For the PLA, however, existing communications systems are presumably relatively insecure, such that the value-added of state-of-the-art quantum communications may be higher. The construction of a national quantum communications backbone network (国家量子通信骨干网) has been characterized as a form of military-civil fusion (MCF, 军民融合), consistent with a national strategy for MCF and a tradition of building infrastructure optimized for such dual uses (Xinhua, November 21).

Looking forward, the PLA will likely use increasingly sophisticated quantum communications networks not only to ensure the integrity of sensitive communications during peacetime but also to seek an asymmetric information advantage in a conflict scenario. As China’s concern about the security of military and civilian information systems has intensified, the employment of quantum cryptography has come to be seen as a critical “shield” for information security (信息安全之“盾”) (USTC, August 16). In one early application of this technology, in 2009, a team of scientists under the leadership of Pan Jianwei constructed a quantum network to secure communication between government officials coordinating the military parade that celebrated the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China (Caixin, February 6, 2015). Although it is difficult to verify the current status of the PLA’s quantum communications capabilities, Pan Jianwei claimed in an interview last year, “China is completely capable of making full use of quantum communications in a local war. The direction of development in the future calls for using relay satellites to realize quantum communications and control that covers the entire army” (Caixin, February 6, 2015). This is why China’s quantum satellite, Micius (墨子), is so important, since it enables the testing of this methodology, while also advancing progress toward a future “quantum Internet.” By 2030, China intends to possess a network of quantum satellites, which could potentially also be employed not only to enable secure military communications but also to enhance the PLA’s command and control capabilities, including perhaps the secure transmission of the targeting data necessary to enable long-range precision strike (e.g., PLA Daily, September 27).

PLA academics have highlighted the multiple applications and potential advantages of quantum communications in a military context. According to National Defense University professor Li Daguang (李大光), quantum communication could contribute to ensuring information security, enhancing information confrontation capabilities, and enabling superluminal (i.e., faster than the speed of light) communication (PLA Daily, March 24). As a result, multiple nations are “racing to control the strategic commanding heights of quantum communication.” Influential PLA information warfare theorist Ye Zheng (叶征) has also characterized quantum cryptography as one of the emerging technologies that have “infused information operations with new vitality, promoting the development of information operations.” [1] According to An Weiping (安卫平), deputy chief of staff of the PLA’s new Northern Theater Command, quantum communication is anticipated to have a dramatic impact on the future evolution of the form of warfare and the international military balance, including because it is anticipated to enhance battlefield information processing facilities, enabling the construction of a more robust combat system (PLA Daily, September 27).

Although the value of quantum cryptography is debatable, recent Chinese advances in quantum key distribution do constitute significant steps toward the development of even more secure quantum communications networks optimized for wartime use. [2] In November, a paper co-authored by Pan Jianwei described recent advances in measurement-device-independent quantum key distribution, which overcomes potential security vulnerabilities, including through detecting attempted eavesdropping (Phys. Rev. Lett., November 2). Notably, their research broke records through secure transmission over 404 kilometers of optical fiber, while concurrently demonstrating a 500-fold increase in speed, sufficient to enable encrypted voice transmission via telephone (Physics, November 2). While this demonstration is only experimental at this point, continued advances in quantum communications could further increase its utility for the PLA.


Combine this with the AI (NOT Data Sciences) effort. It is formidable. Goes beyond "5th Gen" air craft.

Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3891
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Kartik » 09 Dec 2017 03:48

Sticker price shock!

Poland surprised by high price tag for its long await Patroit purchase



WASHINGTON — Poland has been pushing toward a purchase of a medium-range air-and-missile defense system for many years, settling on an unprecedented configuration of the Patriot system, but was surprised by the high price tag presented when the U.S. State Department cleared the sale of half of the Patriots Poland plans to buy.

According to the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, when it notified Congress last month of the potential sale, the deal could cost the country $10.5 billion for four systems — that is roughly 37 billion zloties — which already exceeds by 7 billion zloties what Poland has said it would spend on the entire program.


The DSCA announcement only marks the progress in the first phase of the acquisition. Poland would like to see a second round of Patriot systems with a 360-degree detection capability and the first four retrofitted with the new radar in a subsequent deal.

“The high cost came as a surprise for us,” Bartosz Kownacki, secretary of state in Poland’s Ministry of National Defense, told Defense News in a Dec. 5 interview in Washington.

“The price is indeed unacceptable for us even in the view of the significant financial assets that we allocated for the technical modernization of the Polish Armed Forces,” he said through a translator. “We cannot simply afford to spend that much money on the procurement of two batteries and [Patriot Advanced Capability]-3 missiles for such an amount of money.”

The offer from the U.S. included 16 missile launchers, four sector radars and 208 PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) missiles.

The possible sale is a long time coming with Poland and the U.S. struggling through complicated negotiations over the past several years.

Poland began its “Wisla” competition to procure a medium-range air-and-missile defense system many years ago, ultimately choosing Patriot in 2014 but, instead of simply buying what Raytheon had at the ready, the country decided it wanted a command-and-control system for Patriot that is still in development by the U.S. Army and Northrop Grumman called the Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS) along with a new radar down the road.

Instead of opting for a simple foreign military sale like Romania did recently when purchasing Patriot, Poland is, in a sense, creating its own integrated air-and-missile defense program.

Poland has also been adamant about creating quality defense work for its industrial base and has demanded certain offsets to ensure growth in its defense industry.

“We will be doing thorough analyses of the draft Letter of Agreement once it is sent to us,” Kownacki said. Looking at his watch, he said he expected the draft LOA could be sent at anytime and could even be delivered during the interview.

The cost estimate for the Patriot deal was the topic of discussions held this week during Kownacki’s trip to Washington. “We simply cannot accept such financial conditions, we will be working hard on reducing it, we will be conducting a line-by-line review,” he said. “We understand to reduce it more than one meeting will be required, maybe two or three meetings will be required to negotiate an acceptable, reasonable price.”

Kownacki added that there are other elements of the deal that came as a surprise as well. “For instance, the price of offset,” he said. While some companies involved with the deal gave reasonable prices for offset, “there is one company which presented an unacceptable offset for us and conditions we cannot accept,” he said.

And even with the companies that offered reasonable deals, Kownacki said, there will still be an effort to negotiate the price down further.

Kownacki added it’s possible that over the course of the negotiations it will turn out that some of the high prices were presented to the country due to a misunderstanding of its offset regulations. Poland changed its offset regulations and there are a number of elements that may not be understood, he said.

While the price tag for the first round of Patriots should be higher because of some up-front costs that cover the program as a whole, it should still be proportionately smaller than what Poland plans to spend over the entire life-cycle of the program, Kownacki said.

“Of course we can’t foresee by how much we will manage to lower the price, nonetheless, the U.S. Administration as well as the companies are aware that we need to reduce this price,” he added. “I am confident that we will manage to reach our goal, our objective, and we are currently finalizing the project so we are in the last stage of negotiations.”

Some analysts in Poland are more than skeptical that the price tag can be reduced enough so the country doesn’t exceed the 30 billion zloties for which its has budgeted to cover the entire program.

The U.S. cost estimate already exceeds the limit set by Poland by 20 percent, Marek Swierczynski, of Poland’s Polityka Insight, points out in a recent report. “So it will be good if the first phase negotiations will end at 30 billion zloties,” he writes.

He calculates that if the second phase of the program reflects the first phase in numbers, the costs could be “colossal.” For example, the price of one Lockheed Martin-manufactured PAC-3 MSE for the U.S. Army is $5.7 million and, with the offset Poland wants, the cost could rise to $8 million, Swierczynski notes. The PAC-3 order is already reduced to a minimum so there is little wiggle room for price there. And he also writes the low-cost SkyCeptor missile that Poland wants to manufacture as part of the program is currently a wild card, falling in the second phase of the procurement.

Swierczynski suggests that if Poland wants to get the cost down significantly “it has to say goodbye to the prospect of technological leaps in radar or rockets. And that was the most important thing in the industrial part of the Wisla program.”

The future 360-degree radar’s cost is also an unknown because Poland won’t know what it is buying for some time.

And adding IBCS to the Patriot system is an additional cost, yet it doesn’t appear to be the reason for the enormous cost of the first phase of the program. Northrop Grumman confirmed to Defense News that IBCS actually makes up less than 15 percent of the total acquisition cost for the Wisla FMS acquisition.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 09 Dec 2017 05:00



The author fails to mention a couple of things. The program was to take place in two phases with I following the more ambitious second phase that included the 360 degree GaN AESA radar (first export customer), IBCS (first export customer), a new missile, launcher and fire-control network integrated on the Patriot (First customer anywhere in the world to do so) in the Stunner/Skyceptor etc. The Phase I will now carry costs associated with Phase II since it is required for long lead integration. Phase-1 cost is around $7 Billion and this now includes IBCS (whereas earlier it was not supposed to show up till phase-ii) and the added costs in the notification are for phase-II activity.

AIN and Jane's have a better, more detailed coverage. -


The Polish deal has a "ceiling" price of $10.5 billion, but both U.S. and Raytheon officials have explained that this figure accounts for the possibility of follow-on buys and other options that could be exercised in "phase two" of the program. The overall cost of "phase one" is expected to be approximately $7.6 billion (U.S.).https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... iot-system


Jane's article (behind a paywall) :

Poland’s intended procurement of a Patriot solution was initially divided into two phases. Phase I included an acquisition of two Patriot batteries in the latest available configuration, and the Phase II a purchase of six batteries in a final configuration, which includes Raytheon’s SkyCeptor low cost interceptor (LCI), its latest 360° Gallium Nitride (GaN) powered active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar solution, and additional indigenous Polish equipment: air surveillance radars, vehicles and chassis for the launchers, and auxiliary devices.

The DSCA notification indicates that some Phase II elements were combined with Phase I, including the IBCS, for which an initial operational capability is timetabled in 2022, which is also the date Poland expected to receive the first two Patriot batteries. The IBCS will integrate air and missile defence systems in an open architecture, enabling users to employ a range of sensors and weapons.

The DSCA also noted that Poland requested an offset deal: Warsaw expected that Polish defence industry participation in the WISLA programme would be of at least 50 per cent of the programme.

The offset requirements defined 69 critical commitments to protect the essential interests of Polish state security, and were grouped into six areas of offset liabilities, including achieving capability for: A) centralized administration and production management, development, and servicing of the WISLA system; B) service, repair, production of selected control, steering and sensing elements, their modernization and modification; C) service, repair, manufacture, and upgrade of the communications subsystem components; D) service, repair, and production of selected components of the launching subsystem, together with modules of ammunition reloading components their upgrade; E) service, repair and manufacture of selected ammunition subsystem components and their upgrade; and F) industrial cooperation for military equipment for other air defence upgrade programmes. From the Polish perspective, of particular importance in the offset deal are the technical maintenance of the WISLA system by Polish industry, the acquisition of the SkyCeptor LCI, the 360° GaN AESA radar, and the IBCS software and hardware.


Poland did not want the current state of the art Patriot configuration 3+. They wanted a mid 2020s US Army configuration which is still in development. This would include a new GaN radar, a totally new Command and Control system (no longer made by Raytheon), a completely new missile that now needs a new C/X band data-link (Israel uses S band data-link with the Stunner).

On top of these in development systems they wanted to be the first export customer for, they also wanted TOT so that they can use the Command and Control system to integrate it with their NAREW short-range air defense program and their UHF/VHF surveillance radars that are locally produced. On top of this they wanted offsets.

This is the most bespoke IADS the US has ever exported to the best of my knowledge. They want the Raytheon GaN AESA which is one of the 4 radars the US would have to choose from for its own future upgrade path. If the US Army chooses another radar Poland will have to move the entire procurement over to that sensor.

For all practical purposes, Poland is looking to place orders for 6-8 Patriot batteries, in a configuration that the US Army is unlikely to reach till mid-late next decade (Incorporating a new interceptor) and doing so at a rate faster than it. They are in effect paying a development and integration cost as any developmental partner would but w/o being a formal development partner.

A more pragmatic approach would have been to buy the latest configuration 3+, and then upgrade systems in phases as the US Army itself is doing. The US Army upgraded and is upgrading its patriots in 4 main phases (First a new missile, then a new C2 system, then a new radar, and finally new missiles and new launchers) and it would have been smart for Poland to have done the same.

Romania for example is doing it this way i.e. buying a mature version and then over the years upgrading it. They are paying a far more reasonable cost for the same.

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/ro ... -equipment

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21824
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 12 Dec 2017 18:11

The End of Russian Military Operation in Syria

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21824
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 17 Dec 2017 11:50

Bangladesh Victory Day Military Parade 2017


ashishvikas
BRFite
Posts: 296
Joined: 17 Oct 2016 14:18

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby ashishvikas » 17 Dec 2017 13:12

Ground force: Half of France's military planes 'unfit to fly'

Rafale availability 44% onlee.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12 ... ssion=true

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19532
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Philip » 18 Dec 2017 13:10

Pentagon admits it ran secret multimillion-dollar UFO programme between 2007 and 2012
‘The truth is out there

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 15136.html

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2164
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby VinodTK » 24 Dec 2017 01:29

Pentagon Develops Autonomous Robotic Cruise Missiles That Talk Amongst Themselves
"Swarms of autonomous cruise missiles ... that use collaborative networking" to wreak "havoc on enemy air defenses."

That's how Aviation Week describes the U.S. Air Force's new "Gray Wolf" project, an effort to develop advanced technology that will enable cruise missiles to act in concert, independent of human control, to seek out and destroy targets hundreds of miles distant from their launchers.

What is Gray Wolf?

Details on the Gray Wolf project are few and hard to come by, with AW describing Gray Wolf as a "secretive project" in general, and one that defense contractors are "reluctant to comment" about "publicly." In the course of describing two new contract awards last week, though, the Pentagon let on that Gray Wolf is only a "science and technology demonstration effort" at this stage. What the Air Force intends to find out is if its designated contractors can design, develop, manufacture and test an "affordable ... networked" cruise missile.

AW adds that the cruise missiles in question will be "long range," "low-cost,""subsonic," and designed for "enhanced navigation, survivability and attack of particular targets."

In all likelihood, the missiles will be designed as air-to-surface munitions, to be deployed from Air Force bombers. Other potential platforms for deploying Gray Wolf might include a yet-to-be-designed "arsenal plane" (also colloquially known as a "bomb truck"), an un-stealthy but heavily armed missile carrier whose sole purpose would be to shoot at targets detected by F-35 fighter jets operating in full stealth mode.

Who will build Gray Wolf?

The Pentagon picked two contractors from a field of seven contenders to work on the Gray Wolf project. Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) and Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC) were awarded twin $110 million development contracts last week to try to bring Gray Wolf to life. Lockheed's work will wrap up soonest, by mid-December 2022. Northrop will get to work on Gray Wolf a bit longer -- through December 2024.

So to start off at least, Gray Wolf is looking like a lucrative project for these manufacturers -- but perhaps not for long. One key objective of Gray Wolf, it is becoming apparent, is to develop a pseudo-smart missile with very low unit costs. This would be achieved by delegating the "intelligence" of multiple missiles to other, smarter missiles from which they would take orders.

Rather than building sophisticated (and expensive) guidance systems into each individual weapon, Gray Wolf missiles might instead play "follow the leader" to their target. For example, a Lockheed-designed Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) smart cruise missile, which costs the Air Force about $1 million to buy from Lockheed, could provide the brains of the operation, and multiple cheaper Gray Wolf missiles would simply tag along to their collective target. This suggests that when finalized, Gray Wolf might actually lower the unit cost of munitions procurement for the Air Force -- meaning that defense contractors' profits will depend on building missiles in quantity.

If Gray Wolf lives up to expectations, maybe they'll get that chance.


Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62928
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 24 Dec 2017 09:47

ashishvikas wrote:Ground force: Half of France's military planes 'unfit to fly'

Rafale availability 44% onlee.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12 ... ssion=true


the link has vanished but so much for the omnirole 90% fleetwide claims :lol: 44% is in same range as Tu22M backfire probably.

none of these gori chamri imported silver bullets really slay the devil as they claim to. there is always some catch - usually involving vast sums of money, begging the OEM and our own toil to fix.

in contrast to getting involved with domestic R&D, writing the document from ground up and make it work in our conditions exactly as we want, with friendly developers who do not want a suite in the Leela & a sauvignon blanc wine bottle everytime they have to change 10 lines of code or debug a field issue in the hot sun

slowly Buddhi is dawning on those who took leave of that Goddess :twisted:

we are our own best friends ...

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Dec 2017 09:59

Ground force: Half of France's military planes 'unfit to fly'

French warplanes and helicopters may be battling jihadists in the deserts of Africa and the Middle East, but the French Air Force on the whole is in a disastrous state, with 56 per cent of all its aircraft unfit to fly at any given moment, according to a senior minister.

“If I compare the current situation … of our planes with a car, it is as if I wanted to have a car every morning that works, I would have to own four cars,” Florence Parly, the armed forces minister, said during a visit to an air base in Evreux in Normandy.

She made the remark in a scathing speech about the state of the French fleet, where aircraft availability has gone from bad to worse despite a 25 per cent boost to the maintenance budget over the past five years that brought the total to €4 billion (£3.5 billion) in 2017.

Ms Parly went to Evreux last week to announce wide-ranging plans to cut soaring costs and free up more aircraft by streamlining the current maintenance programme, which is so complex that it can take 30 different contracts to get a helicopter repaired.

Britain’s Royal Air Force, whose aircraft have been in constant use for many years in Afghanistan and Iraq, was criticised earlier this year when it was revealed that on average one in three of its multi-role Typhoon fighters and Tornado combat jets was unfit to fly.

Overall figures for the air readiness of the RAF fleet are not publicly available, but the figures for its fighter jets suggest that it is in far better shape than its French counterpart. Eighty per cent of the French fleet is operational in the battle zones of west Africa, Iraq and the Middle East, according to official figures, but in bases in France the figure plummets to 30 per cent.

The overall figure for aircraft ready to fly is now 44 per cent, down from 55 per cent in 2000.

On average, just one Caracal - a long-range tactical transport helicopter - in four is ready for action, while just one or two A400M turboprop transport planes out of a total of twelve are ready to take to the air.

The Rafale, which is seen as one of the best multi-purpose fighter jets in the world, scores a respectable 49 per cent availability.

But the figures for a range of other aircraft are disastrous: 22 per cent for the C-130 transport plane, 25 per cent for the Tiger attack and reconnaissance helicopter, and 26 per cent for the Lynx helicopter.

“The consequences of this are that (flight) teams train less … and the cost of an hour of flight time has gone up,” Ms Parly said.

An hour of flight time for a Caracal, for example, rose from €19,000 in 2012 to €34,000 in 2016.

“This situation is no longer tenable, and I have therefore made it a personal priority,” said the minister.

She announced that a new aeronautic maintenance department would be set up next March but that there would be no increase in the maintenance budget as it was deemed sufficient if the process was properly reorganised.

The planned department, whose boss will report to the joint chief of staff, would make the company that makes the aircraft responsible for their maintenance “from start to finish,” Ms Parly said.

The aim is to avoid the case of the Tiger helicopter, whose maintenance is currently split between so many different firms or military offices that it requires more than 30 separate contracts.

Pierre Tran, a specialist on French military issues, said that in theory the minister’s plans were sound but that in practice there was a high risk.

“They (defence contractors) will likely be thinking that Christmas came early this year,” he said, noting that the huge sums involved meant that there was a high risk of taxpayers’ money being wasted.

The key to success for the government is to exercise extreme caution when negotiating the new maintenance contracts with the firms involved, which include Airbus, Dassault, Thales and Air France Industries, said Mr Tran.

In a message clearly directed at aircraft makers, the Armed Forces Minister said she wanted results by 2020.

“We buy to fly, not to stock planes in hangars or parking spots,” said Ms Parly.


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 24 Dec 2017 10:02

One must separate mission and system reliability from readiness. You can have an extremely reliable system with components with best in class life and MTBF rates but readiness will always dependent upon how much you put in. If you aren't adequately readiness as in maintaining a healthy stock of spares (or associated sustainment contract), an adequate depot capacity and the adjusting all this to the overall health and life of your fleet then a reliable system will only get you so far. If you don't fund it you won't get those numbers. A lot of the issues with many western air-forces is readiness related as in not an adequate funding to sustain force wide readiness forcing operators to tier it with a subset of the fleet that is likely to deploy at high readiness and the remaining dialing back.

There aren't reports of Rafale's components breaking down more than what was asked for, or its engines failing before their expected component life or major critical flaws preventing sorties. This has a lot to do with the state of the defense funding on readiness more than anything else. Same with the USN, where depot capacity is handicapped by sequestration imposed by the budget control act and restrictions on civilian workforce which is what makes the depots tick.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 26 Dec 2017 01:05

Potential defense shift may see Japan arm helicopter carriers with F-35B stealth jets


In what could be a major change in Japan’s policy on aircraft carriers, the Defense Ministry is mulling a plan to buy F-35B stealth fighter jets for use on its helicopter carriers, government sources said.

The introduction of F-35Bs, which have short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) capability, will be useful in countering China’s growing maritime assertiveness. They are expected to bolster Japan’s ability to defend far-flung islands in the southwest, where only short runways exist, the sources said Sunday.

The move, however, is likely to trigger a backlash from China and Japan’s other neighbors because it could be viewed as contradicting Japan’s so-called “exclusively defense-oriented policy” under the pacifist Constitution.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government has altered the nation’s postwar security policy over the past few years, most notably through new security laws that largely expand the range of activities permissible by the Self-Defense Forces.

Under its strictly defense-oriented policy, Japan has maintained that it cannot possess “attack aircraft carriers,” saying the vessels can be deemed offensive weapons that exceed the minimum capacity Japan needs for self-defense in light of the Constitution.

The Maritime Self-Defense Force has a fleet of flat-topped destroyers known as helicopter carriers. Its largest Izumo-class carriers are 248 meters long and can carry up to 14 helicopters.

F-35Bs can operate from existing helicopter carriers once modifications are made to the bow, deck and other areas, the sources said. These modifications will allow destroyers, new or old, to function as small aircraft carriers.

Japan has purchased F-35As for the Air Self-Defense Force and hopes to acquire 42 units. But the Defense Ministry is considering including F-35Bs in the purchase, or adding them onto the deal for the 42 F-35As.

The F-35B is the U.S. Marines variant of the F-35 multi-role fighter made by Lockheed Martin Corp. The F-35A has conventional takeoff and landing capability requiring a runway.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20851
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Prem » 27 Dec 2017 04:37

https://www.stripes.com/japan-eyes-conv ... e-1.504067
Japan eyes converting destroyer to aircraft carrier, the 1st for Self-Defense Force

TOKYO — Japan is considering remodeling the Maritime Self-Defense Force's largest-class destroyer, the Izumo, into an aircraft carrier on which fighter jets can take off and land, The Yomiuri Shimbun has learned. If the plan materializes, it will be the first aircraft carrier to be possessed by the Self-Defense Forces.According to multiple government sources, the government aims to begin operation of the aircraft carrier in the early 2020s, and it intends to maintain its interpretation that Japan cannot possess an aircraft carrier with attack capabilities, by using the envisaged aircraft carrier for defense purposes, such as using it as a refueling base in defending remote islands.The government assumes that the new aircraft carrier will carry U.S. forces' F-35B fighter jets , the sources said. By strengthening Japan-U.S. cooperation, the government aims to prepare for threats posed by North Korea and China.The Izumo is a destroyer with a large deck, and its shape is similar to that of an aircraft carrier. It has an overall length of 248 meters and a full load displacement of about 26,000 tons. It is said that the vessel is capable of carrying 14 helicopters. If it is remodeled into an aircraft carrier, it likely will be able to carry about 10 F-35B fighter jets, according to the sources.In the remodeling, the deck's heat resistance will be enhanced so that it can withstand the heat produced by the jet engine of an F-35B fighter jet, the sources said. A specific remodeling method will be examined going forward, including a plan to build a slope into the deck to assist aircraft in taking off, much like a ski jump.If U.S. military bases in Japan are destroyed in case of a contingency, the aircraft carrier will serve as a substitute runway.
In fact, North Korea has mentioned the possibility of attacking U.S. military bases in Japan with ballistic missiles. In case of an emergency on the Korean Peninsula, runways at the bases could become unusable. At the same time, China is expanding its maritime advances. Given these situations, building up the ability to defend remote islands is an urgent issue facing Japan.The government has cited an aircraft carrier with attack capabilities as an example of armed forces with war potential, the possession of which is prohibited under Paragraph 2 of Article 9 of the Constitution.However, a senior Defense Ministry official said, "If it is used for defense purposes, it will not fall under the category of an aircraft carrier with attack capabilities."

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21824
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Austin » 30 Dec 2017 11:50

Ankara secures S-400 air defense system deal with Russia – Turkish defense minister
Ankara and Moscow have sorted out the remaining details behind the purchase of S-400 air defense missile systems from Russia, Turkish Defense Minister Nurettin Canikli has said.

“Turkey will purchase two systems and four batteries from Russia – an agreement has been reached,” Canikli said, as cited by the Yeni Safak newspaper.

The remaining financial issues have been resolved between the sides, the minister said Wednesday. “Do we use credit? Or finance it ourselves? In the end we settled on covering one part with credit after negotiations,” said Canikli said.

The deal between Moscow and Ankara will be worth $2.5 billion, the head of the Russian state-run Rostec Corporation, Sergey Chemezov, told Kommersant daily. Turkey will pay 45 percent of the cost in advance, with the remaining 55 percent to be covered by Russian loans, he said. Delivery of the S-400 Triumf systems to Turkey is expected to start in late 2019 or early 2020, Chemezov said.

andy B
BRFite
Posts: 1587
Joined: 05 Jun 2008 11:03
Location: Gora Paki

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby andy B » 30 Dec 2017 16:51

JayS wrote:
brar_w wrote:
Its been ongoing for years with both Boeing and Raytheon working hard at both internal bay carriage, range.....

They have mature, off the shelf solutions for longer/extended range needs for legacy F-15Cs and Es if anything over and above the Aim-120D is needed on those fighters.



Its been reported that this new Long range missile will be two stage. Brar sahab, any more info of the propulsion config that you have seen perhaps..?


Brar been meaning to ask you this for a while especially in regards to ESSM blk 2. What you say above is absolutely spot on in terms of OTS solution for longer range engagement. However I wanted to ask you lets assume this is indeed adopted for the blk2 in the AA sphere for legacy fighters. I wonder how the blk 2 would actually perform in a longer range engagement. IIRC essm uses skid to turn with tvc and possibly the tail fins. This is extremely agile for engaging subsonic and supersonic Ashms alcms etc however these would largley be conducted as shoerter range engagements relative to BVR engagements. From memory this type of maneuvering can be highly energy exhaustive which may not matter for shorter engagements as the motor will sustain burn time. But would this adversely affect engagement at proper bvr ranges or would it need a dual pulse motot solution etc....just wondering!!! hope the question makes sense and doesn't sound like fart gas :mrgreen:

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 30 Dec 2017 18:33

There is nothing special in converting ESSM Blk. 2 to an Air to Air missile. It will be a bandaid solution because it really isn't optimized. You can very easily get better range if you just stick to the AMRAAM size as the T3 demonstrators from Raytheon and Boeing did that, both featured a VFDR (rumored to be bay optimized unlike Meteor) and both were multi mission (Air to Air and Air to Ground). The AMRAAM got a pretty significant upgrade to its capabilities with the transition from the C7 to the D, and is getting a seeker upgrade in the coming few years as well. This will hold the fort until they can field something that is far more optimized for the large 5th generation fleet (1000+) that would exist with the US services by the mid to late 2020s.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 16 Jan 2018 07:37

Jan 12, 2018 :: Transferring Defense Manufacturing To India: The Next Step Of Globalization

Summary

>> The U.S. Government wants a defense industrial alliance with India.
>> This will start the globalization of the defense industry from the U.S.
>> Lockheed-Martin has already indicated that it wants to increase defense activity in India.
>> Lockheed-Martin will probably be the first to transfer production.


The U.S. Government wants to create a defense industrial alliance with India. Manufacturing defense equipment in India, also for export markets. Lockheed-Martin (LMT) is the most likely candidate for first transferring production and maintenance to India and thus benefiting most.

U.S. Government Strategy
On January 17th, 2017 the Emerging Powers and Future Threats: Implications for the U.S. and Global Defense Industry report was published by the Strategic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College. The current industrial base and 2 of the 4 recommendations are interesting:

Image

Recommendation 2. Develop Strategic Alliances.
(...)
Alliances also should be constructed with emerging markets where the U.S. shares similar regional security interests. In Asia, these include Japan, South Korea, and India, the first two of which already have strong industrial bases and, combined, are home to 11 of the top 100 global defense companies. (...) It is essential for the U.S. Government, military, and industry to cooperate in seeking foreign markets for defense exports, since governments in other countries are aggressively courting contracts on behalf of their firms. Steep cuts in the UK defense budget, for example, have prompted the British Government to promise that it will help the industry sell its equipment and services abroad, mainly to developing countries such as India and Brazil. While it is difficult to imagine circumstances whereby the United States would want to forge defense industrial alliances with Russia or China, the other four countries would be reasonable options that would further U.S. political, foreign policy, and strategic considerations.

Recommendation 4. Use Weapons Exports to Achieve Political Objectives.
(...)
Likewise, developing closer collaboration with India’s Modi government by encouraging industrial cooperation between U.S. and Indian defense firms may serve to reduce Russian influence in that country, which has been particularly strong with respect to the arms trade.

These recommendations seem to have been adopted. The United States should pursue a strategy to develop India's Defense Industrial Base.

On October 19th, 2017 - during a visit to India - Secretary of State Tillerson said:

The proposals the United States has put forward, including for Guardian UAVs, aircraft carrier technologies, the Future Vertical Lift program, and F-18 and F-16 fighter aircraft, are all potential game changers for our commercial and defense cooperation…
Even as the United States and India grow our own economic and defense cooperation, we must have an eye to including other nations which share our goals. India and the United States should be in the business of equipping other countries to defend their sovereignty, build greater connectivity, and have a louder voice in a regional architecture that promotes their interests and develops their economies. This is a natural complement to India’s “Act East” policy.

The United States Government seems committed to creating a partnership with India. The “equipping other countries” is significant. Foreign Military Sales, paid by the U.S. Government may well be produced in India in the future.

Which companies will benefit?

Indian government’s strategic ‘Make in India’ policy is a good place to start. New defense orders create infrastructure to produce defense equipment.

Source: Confero, using data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute [SIPRI]
Image

Lockheed Martin has repeatedly stated that it is eager to start activities in India. Lockheed-Martin’s CEO is clear about this since 2016. The Trump-election hasn’t changed this position. As published on December 14th, 2017:

Lockheed Martin is excited about the prospect of making F-16 fighter aircraft in India and making India a global manufacturing and supply base for the aircraft

But it is not only the F-16; apparently the C-130 Hercules and helicopters are involved. As published on November 29th, 2017:

Through a joint venture with the Tatas, Lockheed Martin has brought manufacturing of the important tail section of the C-130 Hercules aircraft to its facilities in Adibatla on the outskirts of Hyderabad.
“We have plans to fabricate more components of the cargo aircraft from Hyderabad and integrate them in the U.S. as well,” said Lorraine M Martin, Deputy Vice-President (Rotary and Mission Systems).
Similarly, through the second JV with the Tatas, which makes cabin products for the S-92 Sikorsky1 helicopter, the company is looking to increase the number of components made here in the near future.
Also, the company is in talks for selling its latest helicopters, which have strategic and utility services capabilities.

A large number of F-16 operators in Asia and the Middle East can be maintained, supplied or overhauled in India. These are for example Oman, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Iraq, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore and maybe even Taiwan. The referrals to the “global (…) base” may indicate that all F-16 operators worldwide will be supported from India.

Right or wrong?

Industry cooperation and developing export markets is a strange recommendation for the military to make. Off-shoring (essential) parts of the defense industry is dangerous. When production needs to be scaled up because of war, this is much harder or impossible to do.

Production in India may become a liability with the increasing tension with Pakistan. Trump has stopped aid to Pakistan and Pakistan announced that it will return 1.5 million refugees to Afghanistan. This will heat up the already very hot conflict in Afghanistan, where the U.S. commitment is increasing without an end-date.

However, for the defense industry this will be very profitable. Wages in India are much lower than wages in the United States. Assembly, production and MRO [maintenance, repair, overhaul] in India will increase profits. Lockheed-Martin is most likely the first to go to India. They will benefit most. After them other companies will follow. Boeing, being the largest defense exporter - as the Lockheed-Martin: India Tailwinds shows – could be a possible second since they are the largest exporter to India.

Footnotes

1. The Sikorsky S-92 is a development to watch. This is a Chinese-US Joint Venture. Since China and India have long-lasting conflicts with regard to the borders, it is unlikely that they will agree to this.

Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62928
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 16 Jan 2018 15:05

Image

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 16 Jan 2018 16:15

Lockheed trying to marry the AEGIS combat system with their LRDR which is the second largest S-Band radar in the world. While the concept looks good on paper since the end result will be significantly better than the baseline SPY-1 based AEGIS Ashore it will be quite costly to develop the full Aegis baseline-9 or 10 capability on the LRDR since new users like Japan seem to be interested in full capability including cruise missile defense which seems to suggest that their AEGIS ashore site will house all 3 interceptor types (SM3, SM2/6 and perhaps ESSM). I'd say Raytheon will have edge here since the BL-10 AEGIS capability is fully funded by the USN for the DDG-51 Flt. III and this is 100% of what goes into a future AEGIS ashore. Lockheed will have to demonstrate comparative performance without any significant end user cost.

Lockheed demos Aegis Ashore solution


Lockheed Martin has demonstrated the ability to increase operational performance, efficiency and reliability of Aegis Ashore by connecting key components of Aegis Ashore and Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) technologies.
According to the company, connecting the two systems enables a low risk 'technology refresh' of the legacy SPY-1 antenna. It provides a number of improvements, including the ability to detect targets at longer distances and combat larger numbers of targets simultaneously. It also offers additional target engagement opportunities, higher performance in complicated land environments, minimised interference with civilian or military radio emitters and receivers, and increased use of the new SM-3 Block IIA missile.
Aegis Ashore is a land-based ballistic missile defence system.The LRDR is a long range sensor that forms the backbone of the Missile Defense Agency’s layered defence strategy to protect the US from ballistic missile attack. The LRDR will use Lockheed Martin's Solid State Radar (SSR) scalable Gallium Nitride (GaN)-based radar building blocks to provide enhanced target acquisition, tracking and discrimination data to the Ballistic Missile Defense System.
The demonstration proved that current and future versions of Aegis can simultaneously command tasking of the SSR and receive target tracks from the radar. The next phase of activity will demonstrate simulated missile engagements with live tracking, which is scheduled for the first half of 2018.
These tests build on previous demonstrations in 2015 and 2016, in which Aegis software variant Baseline 9 tracked live targets using a prototype version of SSR hardware powered by Fujitsu GaN from Japan.


Image

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62928
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 16 Jan 2018 16:39

it seems the 3m22 zircon ASM has quietly entered IOC atleast for surface ships with perhaps the smaller ships getting a few while the bigger ones will get it during planned MLU - a mix of yakhont, zircon and kalibr. submarine and air launched versions are under test. proj took off in 2011 and FOC for all variants expected in 2020.

the speed has increased from mach6 to mach8 and range to 1000km at high level and around 250km at low level. I hope our brahmos2 boys are also working on something similar. quite essential to target large LRSAM and radar networks, which would be well guarded by SRSAM and CIWS also. subsonic GLCM is ok for infra targets for not their tier1 hard targets.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2625
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby chola » 16 Jan 2018 16:55

Singha wrote:Image


The UK only has 88 fighters?!

Also no more than 19 available fighting ships.

Cannot find enough crew for QE carrier.

This is a P5? Our military dwarfs it in every way.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62928
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 16 Jan 2018 17:15

but as a financial and wheeling dealing center london dwarfs all else but NYC.
most of turd world elites have their investments and kids parked in london or NYC ecosystem.
even i think Xi jinpings daughter , xi mingze studied in harvard albeit she returned to china. lower level flunkies have moved wealth offshore into anglo ecosystem and are sending kids even at high school level.

this gives the anglo ecosystem a outsize reach and influence beyond just mere military might. US being the spawn & playground of the british-irish is icing on cake.

even the small cub on top can leverage the brute power of the gorilla. :lol:
Image

france might have 3x the raw military power and a more independent deterrent but nowhere near the international influence except in their sandbox francophone former colonies in africa.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 16 Jan 2018 17:24

chola wrote:The UK only has 88 fighters?!


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... s_2017.pdf

It appears that accuracy may not have been a strong suite of those that made the graphic ;). UK much like France and Germany, has most of their national security needs met via NATO so it is the collective capability that matters although much like most of western European users their capability and capacity has atrophied post Soviet Union collapse.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6563
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby brar_w » 16 Jan 2018 19:11

JayS wrote:
Its been reported that this new Long range missile will be two stage. Brar sahab, any more info of the propulsion config that you have seen perhaps..?


Here's more information on another missile which is actually funded in terms of demonstrations - 2 contracts awarded to Lockheed and Raytheon..

Image

abhik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2201
Joined: 02 Feb 2009 17:42

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby abhik » 16 Jan 2018 20:10

Remember reading somewhere that EU countries have about half the defense spending as the US but can muster only a quarter of the combat power.
Re UK's p5 status they might as well rename themselves as Airstrip One.

Ardeshir
BRFite
Posts: 831
Joined: 15 Jan 2008 03:10
Location: Londonistan/Nukkad

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Ardeshir » 17 Jan 2018 00:31


Not sure if this has been posted before, but it should be shown to all DDM and many of the foreign-pasand crowd, as to how even a country with decades of fighter development expertise is taking time (and resources) to build its latest aircraft.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 62928
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Singha » 17 Jan 2018 14:16

Washington (CNN)The US Navy announced Tuesday that the former commanding officers of the USS Fitzgerald and USS John S. McCain -- the ships involved in two deadly 2017 collisions that killed 17 sailors -- will face criminal charges including dereliction of duty, hazarding a vessel and negligent homicide.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1225
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby sudeepj » 18 Jan 2018 00:44

brar_w wrote:
chola wrote:The UK only has 88 fighters?!


https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... s_2017.pdf

It appears that accuracy may not have been a strong suite of those that made the graphic ;). UK much like France and Germany, has most of their national security needs met via NATO so it is the collective capability that matters although much like most of western European users their capability and capacity has atrophied post Soviet Union collapse.


Yes, they have American slaves who feel compelled to defend their izzat even on disreputable fora. :rotfl:

Khalsa
BRFite
Posts: 1301
Joined: 12 Nov 2000 12:31
Location: NZL

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Khalsa » 24 Jan 2018 05:38


NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby NRao » 24 Jan 2018 09:23


Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5577
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby Rakesh » 24 Jan 2018 09:50

chola wrote:The UK only has 88 fighters?!

Also no more than 19 available fighting ships.

Cannot find enough crew for QE carrier.

This is a P5? Our military dwarfs it in every way.

Time for a switcheroo! :)

ArjunPandit
BRFite
Posts: 1222
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: International Military Discussion

Postby ArjunPandit » 24 Jan 2018 10:10

chola wrote:
The UK only has 88 fighters?!

Also no more than 19 available fighting ships.

Cannot find enough crew for QE carrier.

This is a P5? Our military dwarfs it in every way.

While wiki no.s are wiki nos, but seems like the graphic only looked at Tornado no.s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... y_aircraft
They have
Torndao: 81
Typhoon: 146
F35 B:14
For a small island nation thats a bit too much. For a P5 thats too little anyways


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Eric Leiderman, Kanson and 43 guests