International Military Discussion

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 28 Apr 2010 09:25

the Klub-K is definitely a good weapon for a weak country facing superior conventional enemy. unlike big missile TELs this thing will be invisible among 100s of container trucks in the highway system.

look for the chinese to package the Babur missile similarly to help the munna - soon.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 Apr 2010 17:16

Klub-K Container Missile System

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 Apr 2010 17:30

a brillant example of the stuff Russia/China uses to keep sher khan off-balance.

the Klub was already done and its control console and box modular to fit on ships, so fitting it inside a container needed very cheap
and minimal work plus paying the sw firm to make this film.

Klub + container + ship - gets sher khan's panties in a knot and likely the Rus will squeeze some favourable deal or concession
from sher khan using the threat of exporting it to Iran and other 'rogues'

the chinese DF-21 carrier killer also seems to be in that zone.

K_Rohit · Post by **K_Rohit** » 29 Apr 2010 17:53

Singha wrote:a brillant example of the stuff Russia/China uses to keep sher khan off-balance.

the Klub was already done and its control console and box modular to fit on ships, so fitting it inside a container needed very cheap
and minimal work plus paying the sw firm to make this film.

Klub + container + ship - gets sher khan's panties in a knot and likely the Rus will squeeze some favourable deal or concession
from sher khan using the threat of exporting it to Iran and other 'rogues'

the chinese DF-21 carrier killer also seems to be in that zone.

I can understand stationary targets. How realistic is targeting moving ships with satellite tracking and guidance?

Vivek Raghuvanshi · Post by **Vivek Raghuvanshi** » 30 Apr 2010 15:54

http://corporaterisks.info/blog/?p=343

HOW TO NEUTRALIZE CONTAINER MISSILE?

Vivek Raghuvanshi · Post by **Vivek Raghuvanshi** » 30 Apr 2010 16:03

http://corporaterisks.info/blog/?p=350

NK – Unit 586 location!

The coordinates are: 39° 6′28.45″N, 125°43′53.86″E.

Vivek Raghuvanshi · Post by **Vivek Raghuvanshi** » 01 May 2010 10:31

Mr. Al-Awlaki is indeed an Al-Qaeda asset and a U.S. (born in New Mexico)-Yemeni cleric preaching the “jihad” trough the Internet. The U.S. Intel. Agencies have linked Mr. Al-Awlaki to several terrorist plots and a series of attacks included connections with the suicide bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and the US Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Hasan.

Is supposedly in Yemen and due to is past may be one of the Al-Qaeda chiefs at (AQAP) Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

http://corporaterisks.info/blog/?p=358

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 02 May 2010 06:16

Turkmenistan holds Shield-2010 tactical exercise

According to the scenario a conventional enemy assembled troops near the state border posing a real threat to stability in the region. In the border zone local people quickly left their settlements. The aircrafts of the military units violated a conventional air space. According to the reliable information the adversary’s groups were planning to assume the offensive. The military personnel were supplied with arms and food necessary for three days. The progressive communities from all over the world were called upon to settle the conflict by peaceful and diplomatic means. Meanwhile, the armed forces were put on alert. They were taken to the area of active fighting where they launched the necessary preparations to fulfill a designated task. In accordance with the modeled situation the armed forces were brought to operational readiness. They marched at quick time to defend the settlements.

At the beginning of military operations the enemy landed the troops and reconnaissance and subversive groups which would fight against the reserve forces as well as advance deep into the rear, search for and destroy command posts, communications units, passages, report on the location of artillery and air defence facilities and other important facilities within the combat zone. These groups occupied a chemical plant located near the settlement, took several hostages and prepared to blow the plant up. Under the cover of a Mi-24 helicopter gunship the emergency forces made a landing from the Mi-17 and Mi-8 helicopters. Fighting their way forward in BTR-80 armoured personnel carriers and Land rover 110 jeeps they liquidated an enemy subversive-and-terrorist group which had occupied the settlement, took captive several group members and released the hostages.

The military units and equipment affected by toxic chemicals and gases were derived from the battlefield and underwent chemical decontamination and disinfection in the special sections.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 May 2010 10:15

S-400 SAM Russian 9M96 and 48H6DM rocket launches ( via UAZ )

TOR-M2E system shooting down 4 SA-8 missiles (used as targets)

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 05 May 2010 01:59

U.S. Says It Has 5,113 Nukes In Its Arsena

WASHINGTON - The United States revealed for the first time May 3 that it has a total of 5,113 nuclear warheads in its stockpile, saying the move would bolster arms control efforts.

"It is in our national security interest to be as transparent as we can be about the nuclear program of the United States," Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said as the Pentagon unveiled figures long shrouded in secrecy.
Related Topics

"We think that builds confidence, brings more people to an understanding of what President Obama and this administration are trying to do," she said.

Releasing the details of the arsenal would bolster arms control efforts as well as attempts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, she said.

Clinton acknowledged there had been "numerous debates" inside the administration over whether to reveal the figures.

"As of Sept. 30, 2009, the U.S. stockpile of nuclear weapons consisted of 5,113 warheads," the Pentagon said in a statement.

The number included active warheads ready for deployment at short notice and "inactive" warheads maintained at a depot in a "non-operational status," it said
..................................

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 May 2010 07:55

S-500 system to be called Triumphator-M

The development of the S-500 Triumfator-M missile system, capable of performing both anti-aircraft and missile defense functions, is expected to be completed in four years, said Igor Ashurbeili, the general director of the Head System Design Bureau of the Almaz-Antey concern.

“The task set to us under the state armaments program is to develop the Triumfator-M system. It refers to the S-500 project, the project to create a mobile missile defense system by 2015. This new system will be capable of tackling its tasks on the move and advance to any direction that comes under threat, and to any war theater critical at this particular moment,” Ashurbeili said in an interview with the daily Kommersant, published on Friday.

The S-500 is a mobile missile defense system capable of hitting targets at a long range and high altitude. It must have the characteristics of the Moscow missile defense system, but with a mobile capability, Ashurbeili said.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 May 2010 07:58

Details emerge about new Vityaz SAM system

The state testing of the new medium-range missile system Vityaz will be over in 2013, said Igor Ashurbeili, the general director of the Head System Design Bureau of the Almaz-Antey concern.

The project is now at the blue-prints stage. Next year will see the emergence of a trial model, and in 2013 we are expected to end testing,” Ashurbeili said in an interview with the daily Kommersant, published on Friday.

The Russian leadership did not see sense in designing a new and modern medium-range missile system before 2000, he said in remarks about the history of the project. Meanwhile, more than 50 S-300PS missile system will cease to exist by 2015 when their service life expires and they will have to be scrapped, he said.

“After 2000 we defeated the U.S. and France in a tender in South Korea, and we signed an export contract, not without problems, to develop a KM-SAM medium-range missile system for South Korea. We learned to handle imported components, and we have delivered two radars already and are delivering a third to the customer. South Korea conducts range practice already with their missiles at their targets,” Ashurbeili said.

Before shipping the system to the customer the developers invited the Defense Ministry leaders and demonstrated an operating South Korean model, after which a research and development phase was opened for the Russian armed forces. It will be a modified version with improved technical and technical characteristics, he said.

“This work started in 2007 and is proceeding at an accelerated pace. We were set the task to make a new system available in five years, starting from scratch,” Ashurbeili said.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 13 May 2010 06:52

What Gates's program cuts tell us about Gates

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2 ... bout_gates

Pratik_S · Post by **Pratik_S** » 13 May 2010 19:55

Russia plans to develop 5th-generation 'stealth' helicopters
http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20100513/159005699.html

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 May 2010 06:57

5th Gen Helicopter proposal from Kamov and Mil ( Helirussia 2008 )

Ka-90

Ka-92

Mi-X1

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 25 May 2010 20:04

NYT: U.S. said to order secret military action

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 25 May 2010 21:13

Good to see the RUians moving with newer models

jimit · Post by **jimit** » 25 May 2010 21:41

USAF news report - Mach 6 X-51 WaveRider.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_9avKf9 ... embedded#!

Sorry if already posted.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 29 May 2010 11:02

From Asian defence blog:
UAE Orders 40 K11 Airburst Rifles from South Korea

The United Arab Emirates has placed an initial order for 40 K11 dual-caliber air-burst weapon during the Special Operations Forces Exhibition Conference 2010 earlier this month in Jordan. This is first export order for the K11 airburst rifles. Contract for this sale is likely to be signed within next few months. Unit price of K11 dual-caliber air-burst weapon is estimated at $14,000.

K11 dual-caliber air-burst weapon is proposed for infantry squad support role, multiplying soldiers capabilities to engage enemy personnel in defilade and soft-skinned vehicles and equipment, using 20mm air-burst grenades with pre-programmed fuse and 5.56mm ammunition for short- to medium range direct fire. K11’s 20mm grenade launcher weapon carries a 5-round magazine. K11’s 20mm round can track its target and explode three to four meters above it by using a self-detonation system.

* 20mm multi-shot grenade launcher which is a manually operated and is fed from detachable box magazines. It is built in bullpup layout. K167 HE air-burst grenade and K168 TP target practice grenade can be fired from the grenade launcher.

* 5.56mm automatic rifle component is similar to US-made M16 or Korean-made K2 rifles which allows it to use NATO-standard 5.56mm ammunition.

* Eelectronic fire control unit includes laser rangefinder, environmental sensors, ballistic computer, and day (optical) and night (IR) sighting channels.

Caliber: 5.56x45mm NATO + 20 mm
Action: Gas operated, rotating bolt for 5.56mm and manually operated for 20mm
Overall length: 860 mm
Barrel length: 310 mm (5.56mm); 405 mm (20mm)
Weight: 6.1 kg (with optics and battery but less magazines)

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 29 May 2010 17:17

seems to be a group of sharp and capable lads in daewoo. SK is closing the gap on western cos day after day. this airburst grenade thing was supposed to be a geewhiz feature in the now cancelled OICW program of us army.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 29 May 2010 22:22

Singha wrote:seems to be a group of sharp and capable lads in daewoo. SK is closing the gap on western cos day after day. this airburst grenade thing was supposed to be a geewhiz feature in the now cancelled OICW program of us army.

the airburst feature of oicw was seperated into a new program xm-25 which is already in trial phase.it is already seeing action in afghanistan.instead of korean version which uses 20mm smart grenade it uses 25mm for a bigger bang.However I do agree that south koreans are doing a great job.for more info check out the following link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25_Indiv ... pon_System

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 29 May 2010 22:35

Prototype AK-200

Legendary Kalashnikov assault rifle: History and prospects

Until recently, the sights were fitted to Kalashnikovs using a bracket on the left side of the receiver, significantly limiting the range of sights that could be used. The Picatinny gas tube attachment was introduced for the AK-200 series to solve this problem and the receiver cover was also improved. It is hinged to the receiver at the front and flips up, increasing its overall rigidity. Picatinny rails compatible with a range of optical and collimator sights can be installed on the rigid receiver.

Many professionals recognize the Kalashnikov's original open barrel sight as obsolete. Other experts argue that it is quite effective in open combat and only requires minor improvements.

Overall, the AK-200 series is a significant upgrade of the basic rifle, and the improvements made have not required a dramatic upgrade in production lines.

Brando · Post by **Brando** » 29 May 2010 23:47

Singha wrote:seems to be a group of sharp and capable lads in daewoo. SK is closing the gap on western cos day after day. this airburst grenade thing was supposed to be a geewhiz feature in the now cancelled OICW program of us army.

The Americans canceled the OICW program because the practical use was limited and the performance was sub par. Just because the South Koreans also have a system that uses smart airburst 25 mm grenades doesn't mean it is anywhere close to the kind of weapon the US Army is looking at in the XM25 .

At the end of the day, a true battle rifle is first and foremost-simple to use, maintain and repair- like the AK/M16 series. The K11 looks like a rifle designed by somebody who has never actually been in combat but rather by some engineers.

I'm surprised the Israeli's haven't come out with their own smart airburst grenade launcher since this kind of weapon would be most effective in urban combat settings like GAZA and the West Bank and even in Southern Lebanon, where there is a lot of cover/blind spots and obstacles for the enemy to crawl out of. Maybe India and Israel can make a shotgun cum smart grenade launcher as some kind of mixed thermobaric/breaching weapon.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 May 2010 00:53

I'm surprised the Israeli's haven't come out with their own smart airburst grenade launcher since this kind of weapon would be most effective in urban combat settings like GAZA and the West Bank and even in Southern Lebanon, where there is a lot of cover/blind spots and obstacles for the enemy to crawl out of. Maybe India and Israel can make a shotgun cum smart grenade launcher as some kind of mixed thermobaric/breaching weapon.

I do not expect such things to happen.

"Collateral damage". "CD".

Some of the newer GPS based ammo from the US, as the story goes, has the ability to not to explode IF the ammo looses sight of the GPS sats (it then goes on to self destruct).

The latest concern is PC: "CD".

Thus the Israeli effort: Trophy and the like.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 30 May 2010 08:58

Boeing's X-51A Waverider unmanned scramjet aircraft achieves Mach5

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 03 Jun 2010 21:10

Russian defense spending to grow as proportion of GDP in 2011

"Defense spending in 2010 was 2.6% [of GDP], in 2011 the volume of funding will be 2.9%, in 2012 3% and then 3.2%," Anton Siluanov told the lower house of the Russian parliament.

State Duma Defense Committee head Viktor Zavarzin told RIA Novosti Russia's defense industry had yet to emerge from the ongoing crisis.

"Despite the measures taken by the government, the military-industrial complex as a whole has not overcome the state of financial, structural, technological, and personnel crisis," he said.

He said as a result of that, the cost of military products was constantly growing while their quality was declining.

Lt. Gen. Oleg Frolov, acting head of the Defense Ministry Arms Procurement Directorate, told the State Duma that more than 13 trillion rubles ($420 billion) would be allocated under a new state arms program for 2011-2020.

He said, however, that almost three times as much - 36 trillion rubles - would be needed to completely rearm and modernize the Russian military in the next decade.

He said the current figure would ensure the modernization of the Strategic Nuclear Forces and the Air Defense Forces, but leave little for the Ground Forces, the Navy, the Air Force, the Military Space Forces, and other branches of the military.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 04 Jun 2010 14:55

This is from "Lightning Bolts" by William Yengest , the author has appreciated and used information from Arun Missile Page and acknowledged the same , the book is worth every penny.

It has some good information on the RV of Topol-M here is what William has to say

In the above figure solid line is for Topol-M MRV and dashed line for BM trajectory

Careful consideration of the figures trajectory revels that powered flight follows a ballistic path and ejects MRV onto a Hypersonic-Glide path similar to BGRV trajectory . However the terminal phase of flight shows a distinct dive to low altitude and ram jet sustained low-level-run-in ( LLRI ) maneuver to the target. This is remarkable but not unexpected, maneuver designed to penetrate enemy defenses at altitudes below radar detection horizons.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 04 Jun 2010 22:50

Navy Laser Destroys Unmanned Aerial Vehicle in a Maritime Environment

WASHINGTON - Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), with support from Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC) Dahlgren, for the second time successfully tracked, engaged, and destroyed a threat representative Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) while in flight, May 24, at San Nicholas Island, Calif.

This marks the first Detect-Thru-Engage laser shoot-down of a threat representative target in an over-the-water, combat representative scenario.

A total of two UAV targets were engaged and destroyed in a maritime environment during the testing, the second series of successes for the U.S. Navy's Laser Weapon System (LaWS) Program. Members of NAVSEA's Directed Energy and Electric Weapon Systems (DE&EWS) Program Office (PMS 405), Program Executive Office for Integrated Warfare Systems (PEO IWS), Raytheon Missile Systems, and NSWC Dahlgren fired a laser through a beam director on a KINETO Tracking Mount, controlled by a MK 15 Close In Weapon System (CIWS). This brings to a total of seven UAVs destroyed by the Surface Navy's first tactical development for fielding a Directed Energy weapon system.

...

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 05 Jun 2010 11:51

Neglecting the Navy could threaten Russia's sovereignty

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 07 Jun 2010 06:18

Troops use green laser to warn, not harm

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 08 Jun 2010 09:05

How did North Korea get its missiles?

http://hoffman.foreignpolicy.com/posts/ ... s_missiles

PratikDas · Post by **PratikDas** » 12 Jun 2010 22:47

Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites
June 12, 2010

Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.

In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran. To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.
.....
In 2007 Israel was reported to have used Turkish air space to attack a suspected nuclear reactor being built by Iran’s main regional ally, Syria. Although Turkey publicly protested against the “violation” of its air space, it is thought to have turned a blind eye in what many saw as a dry run for a strike on Iran’s far more substantial — and better-defended — nuclear sites.
....

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 13 Jun 2010 08:43

Austin wrote:This is from "Lightning Bolts" by William Yengest , the author has appreciated and used information from Arun Missile Page and acknowledged the same , the book is worth every penny.

It has some good information on the RV of Topol-M here is what William has to say

In the above figure solid line is for Topol-M MRV and dashed line for BM trajectory

Careful consideration of the figures trajectory revels that powered flight follows a ballistic path and ejects MRV onto a Hypersonic-Glide path similar to BGRV trajectory . However the terminal phase of flight shows a distinct dive to low altitude and ram jet sustained low-level-run-in ( LLRI ) maneuver to the target. This is remarkable but not unexpected, maneuver designed to penetrate enemy defenses at altitudes below radar detection horizons.

I remeber your previous post on the topic on Topol-M, their trajectories and the evasive manouevers for the penetration which was vivid, but this carries pictorial representation. Ofcourse what the russians designed could able to defeat ABM Ver 1.0. If anyone watching the ABM scene, the industry is gearing towards to meet this kind of threat. And that industry is small and they are interacting. As ABM aspiring nations are collobarating, there is threat of proliferation of such penetrating tech from Russia & China to Noko, Iran and probably to Pak. As matter of proof, Iranians and Pak are designing such RV. Speaking of India, Indians are very much aware of such type of threats. When they design their own missile to take evasive manouevers, they very well know the limitations of such system and their ABM is designed to meet such threats from the word go. Though we wont be advertising these things.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 13 Jun 2010 21:03

The current ABM system are designed to defeat RV based on predicted trajectory , the problem with evasive RV is even if the RV evades by say just 10 degree , the interception of RV by interceptor shift by many kilometer , the interceptor has to compute and recompute the interception point , considering the RV is travelling at a speed of ~ 5 km/sec more for ICBM , you had another dimension of time.

Even a very simplistic view of this scenario show how difficult it would be to intercept a manouvering RV , a BM has far more tricks at their disposal many of which will be a classified by most nation.

Topol-M RV takes the RV design further where it uses a combination of BGRV and then Low Level Run IN (LLRI) Manouver using ramjet propulsion to deal with US ABM

Speaking of Indian ABM the scientist knows how complicated it would be to intercept such RV from their own Agni experience , hence they resort to very simplistic interception test as possible where they intercept a single stage Missile with bigger RCS then they would experiences with a real RV , the BM target whose characteristics are well known to DRDO and that does not use any kind of anti-ABM capability , they prove a point that a target with IRBM reentry interception speed can be intercepted at different altitudes , but in the real world they wont get a big target whose characteristics are known , the Shaheen incorporates anti-ABM capability and is a two stage missile making it a smaller manouvering RV.

If DRDO continues with such simplistic test as possible that favours them heavily in their (ABM) interception , any one seriously watching that space wont be surprised that DRDO continues to intercept successfully and keeps claiming its ABM has 100 % interception record in all test.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 14 Jun 2010 04:21

Austin writes:

Speaking of Indian ABM the scientist knows how complicated it would be to intercept such RV from their own Agni experience , hence they resort to very simplistic interception test as possible where they intercept a single stage Missile with bigger RCS then they would experiences with a real RV , the BM target whose characteristics are well known to DRDO and that does not use any kind of anti-ABM capability , they prove a point that a target with IRBM reentry interception speed can be intercepted at different altitudes , but in the real world they wont get a big target whose characteristics are known , the Shaheen incorporates anti-ABM capability and is a two stage missile making it a smaller manouvering RV.

If DRDO continues with such simplistic test as possible that favours them heavily in their (ABM) interception , any one seriously watching that space wont be surprised that DRDO continues to intercept successfully and keeps claiming its ABM has 100 % interception record in all test.

Austin, with due respect, this is just bunkum. Are you involved with the BM program to make such comments as "the scientist knows..." to categorically state, as an insider about the intricacies of what the scientists thought and ergo, the intricacies of what has been done or not done so far?

Furthermore, your comment that all ABM systems worldwide are based on predicted trajectory and do not take maneuvering RVs into account is also wrong. The development of THAAD and similar systems was driven in part by these threats which have long been known.

You make a unfounded assertion that the tests so far in India, are "simplistic" tests which favour the ABM program, which is a complete misreading of both the technology involved & the intent.

Anyone who has even cursorily followed the program would know the effort being put in to accurately track the entire missile trajectory in real time and intercept it with interceptors capable of taking those changes into account. If your claim was correct, there would be no effort put into real time trajectory tracking using high power systems which can dwell & yet multi task but just go for predicted impact trajectories and be done with it.

Incidentally, this was the same unsupported claim made by some non proliferation houses which thought India had done a ballistic merge test when the first news of the ABM test came out. After it came to their attention this was a full blown ABM program, they have been silent.

Furthermore, the reason the missile intercept envelope is being extended as far as possible is to take them out before rapid maneuvering comes into play.

There are multiple approaches built into the ABM program, not just India's but several others. It's to nobody's benefit, including mine & yours to discuss these in detail, so a silent tongue is best rewarded. That apart, its not in anybody's benefit either to make misleading claims either.

Furthermore, intercepting any BM is hard enough as it is, with the US which has led the way, suffering several failures. The 100% success rate in India for the three tests that did take place comes because of thorough theory mapped to design, with no shortcuts taken in between. Most ABM & other missile failures worldwide have invariably been linked to shortcuts taken either in aims, or design or engineering and even production by production agencies. Even so, there is always the occasional misfire as the recent aborted target test.

Fact of life is the maneuvering RV threat is well known & technology development for ABM programs in certain nations take all sorts of mission profiles & trajectories into account.

You furthermore make a comment about RCS. Again, with due respect, may I ask are you a RCS test engineer currently involved with the program with an idea of what facilities exist and dont exist in India, and the specific test article in question, to make a confident prediction about the RCS of the test platforms that have been used so far? The kind of comments you have made are absolutely unsupported otherwise.

Why exactly do you think the ABM program makes use of a highly expensive long range sensor, if not the need to detect low RCS targets at range.

Quite frankly, its one thing to speculate- but please mark them as such.

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 14 Jun 2010 06:47

Mrinal I am not speculating but the pro and cons in present ABM structure is well documented , As you have rightly said even US suffered failures but that was because as they tried to make these test more complicated by using decoys and trying to distinguish between RV and decoys they could not cut through , hence they resorted to more simplistic test. US had to develop and test a lot of hardware , where as India took assistance from Israel , France and Russia for some of the hardware for their ABM .There are other issue with US ABM system

Manouvering RV , BGRV is a problem that is very difficult to deal with and the present ABM is really not capable of dealing with it be it THAAD , Arrow or Indian ABM they have their inherent limitations in dealing with such targets.

I would suggest you read William Yengst Lightning Bolts on why it is difficult to deal with such RV.

Coming back to Indian ABM I really do not have any classified information from DRDO , but looking at the test they have done so far my opinion is

1 ) DRDO is conducting ABM with a fairly big target ( by real RV standards ) to simulate reentry velocity for BM targets and intercepting the same at different altitudes ( ~ 50 - 80 km )

Even with these hits we are not in the know if the interceptor hits the RV or the body of the missile they have their own implications.

2 ) The images they have released of previous test it is clear the target ( a single stage Prithvi like Missile ) follows a pure BM trajectory with no real capability to manouver or decoy the ABM , a fairly simple target much like Scud that US faced in GW 1 , well even they couldn't intercept that when target broke up.

I am fairly certain if DRDO uses the same benchmark to test in near future at high altitudes ( ~ 100 with PDV ) it would suceed in all these test because of many factors that favours favourable result for ABM

Well this is not a comment against DRDO but if the same benchmark for test is used even Israel Arrow and Russia S-400 would succeed with equal effect if these interceptor is capable of IRBM interception which AFAIK they are.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 15 Jun 2010 04:17

Russia to test Bulava missile in 3rd quarter - top general

Russia will carry out its next test launch of the troubled Bulava ballistic missile in the third quarter of the year, a deputy defense minister said on Monday.

"In the third quarter launches will resume. The first will be from the nuclear Dmitry Donskoy submarine. From which vessel the next launch will come depends on the first launch," said Col. Gen. Dmitry Popovkin, who is also a member of the Russian General Staff.

Russia hopes the Bulava will be a key element of its nuclear forces. The missile has been specifically designed for Russia's new Borey class nuclear submarines, the first of which, the Yury Dolgoruky, is currently undergoing sea trials.

Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov said in May that Bulava test launches had been postponed until November.

Only five of 12 Bulava launches have been officially reported as being successful and late last month a special commission sent the government the results of its investigation into the latest failure, a launch from the Dmitry Donskoy in the White Sea in early December 2009.

The Russian Navy earlier planned at least four new test launches of the missile at the end of June, but defense industry experts suggested they would need to build three missiles under identical conditions to establish the causes of the failures.

The Bulava (SS-NX-30) is a three-stage liquid and solid-propellant submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). It carries up to 10 MIRV warheads and has a range of over 8,000 kilometers (5,000 miles).

The future development of Bulava has been questioned by some lawmakers and defense industry officials who suggest that the Russian Navy should keep using the more reliable Sineva SLBM.

The Russian military has insisted that there is no alternative to the Bulava and pledged to continue testing the missile until it is ready to be deployed with the Navy.

Craig Alpert · Post by **Craig Alpert** » 15 Jun 2010 04:24

Goin’ to Kathmandu: Nepal Army conducts military training with participants from India, China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka.

KATHMANDU, June 14: The 17th Command and Staff Training course of the Nepal Army kicked off amidst a function at NA´s Shivapuri Military Command and Staff College on Monday.

There are 36 participants including 28 majors from NA, one DSP from Armed Police Force, one National Vigilance Centre officer and security officials from India, China, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Speaking on the occasion, Lieutenant General Toran Jung Bahadur Singh said that the training will offer unique opportunity to share experiences and knowledge between Nepali security personnel and foreign trainees.

This is the first time that NA invited foreign nationals to the training.

So far 557 officials have received this training.

HMMMM... Looks like Nepal is going to be the next HOTBED for ALL it's neighboring countries and a vital state for National security!!!!

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Jun 2010 15:12

Iranian Warhead Evolution

Interestingly Shahab 3 New RV looks so much like our own Agni-3

Austin · Post by **Austin** » 15 Jun 2010 15:45

The difference in Iraq and Iran Missile program is the former just modified the scud by increasing the length of booster to get a longer range but did not paid much attention to RV enhancement , as a result of this many of RV would just tumble during reentry and due to poor workman ship just broke up in mid air since the accuracy of Scud was not great it did no harm.

Iran on the contrary have been working on improved RV for their new gen of IRBM including MRV and RV with high beta for different reentry velocity , perhaps the new RV could also carry some form of RF guidance.

I think they are probably developing such RV for conventional warhead with high accuracy with the ability to defeat ABM systems.Not sure how far they would have progressed in developing simple fission weapons they might just be there.

It wont be a easy for Israel to attack Iran and get away , considering the hype that Israel is generating on the planned strike at Iran Nuclear facility.