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.
Post Reply
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Kanson »

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.
Considering that it is those nations which are developing the ABMs are possesing BM and as per you understanding they are not revealing the tricks employed in their BM, how diffifcult it is to believe that there could be tricks that are not revealed for their ABM too ?

BTW, it is not the russians which revealed the trajectories of the Topol-M but the Japan/US which watched the entire profile of the Topol-M testing using their X-band radars which tracked the entire trajectory from end to end. As you know this is mouse and cat game, as russians try to counter the ABM, americans will try to counter the Topol-M. Anyway i dont have much to talk abt Americans.

If you are interested to see which way the industry and the research on this is heading pls watch the various proceeding/publications/seminars on this. As far as India is concerned, we have this tech to defeat Manoeuvering RVs - we are having. Simple. As Mrinal pointed out Americans too might have realised this counter tech in their THAAD.

BTW, Is 'lighting bolts' deals with ABMs ?
Or it is just only abt RVs?
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

Kanson wrote: :D Considering that it is those nations which are developing the ABMs are possesing BM and as per you understanding they are not revealing the tricks employed in their BM, how diffifcult it is to understand that there could be tricks that are not revealed for their ABM too ?
Well a simple math if you want your interceptor to intercept a target travelling at 5 km/sec which can keep changing direction and can be accompanied by large number of decoys , plus to achieve hit at a single target with high probability you need for fire 3 interceptor per target , then assuming a 100 % sucessful hit too makes a exchange ratio highly unfavorable and expensive.

Considering US is in a far better position to track and discriminate the target due to multi layer sensor ( EW/Sats/GBR/ ) yet it had to downgrade the target and keep it simple ( no decoys , no MRV ) to show success proves the point that it is a very difficult objective to achieve unless you script it.

William too admits the fact that the maneuverable RV of Topol-M can penetrate the US NMD
BTW, it is not the russians which revealed the trajectories of the Topol-M but the Japan/US which watched the entire profile of the Topol-M testing using their X-band radars which tracked the entire trajectory from end to end. As you know this is mouse and cat game, as russians try to counter the ABM, americans will try to counter the Topol-M. Anyway i dont have much to talk abt Americans.
The picture of Topol-M trajectory I had put up was officially reveled by the Russians.

Yes US too have their own assest to monitor missile test.
If you are interested to see which way the industry and the research on this is heading pls watch the various proceeding/publications/seminars on this. As far as India is concerned, we have this tech to defeat Manoeuvering RVs - we are having. Simple. As Mrinal pointed out Americans too might have realised this counter tech in their THAAD.
I would be interested in knowning what tech DRDO has in defeating MRV , they would have rather used a Agni-1/2 RV to test ( 1 - 2 m ) if they think they could do it.

Instead DRDO built a 10m/1m dia single stage target missile ( quite big by any modern RV standards , except old single stage Scud types ) and intercepted the target which was using pure BM trajectory with no decoys or MRV capability something our enemy has it.

Its quite clear that in future test DRDO would rather test using the same target at higher atmosphere and keep the target simple to get the desired result it wants.
BTW, Is 'lighting bolts' deals with ABMs ?
Or it is just only abt RVs?
It deals mainly with RV but the ABM context is there since it deals with different type of RV and shows how some of the development was impacted by ABM , its quite surprising the kind of test US has done with different RV in 60-70', some of which we are achieving with our own A-3 type RV.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by darshhan »

for countering MIRVs and maneuverable warheads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Kill_Vehicle

Check out the video.

http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-F ... wsNum=2037

even the kill vehicle is maneuverable in order to counter maneuverable warheads

This is a cat and mouse game although missile defense will continue to play catch up due to technology and funding issues for the forseeable future.For example the MKV has already been terminated according to the wikipedia link.But the technology exists to counter such kind of threats.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Kanson »

Well a simple math if you want your interceptor to intercept a target travelling at 5 km/sec which can keep changing direction and can be accompanied by large number of decoys , plus to achieve hit at a single target with high probability you need for fire 3 interceptor per target , then assuming a 100 % sucessful hit too makes a exchange ratio highly unfavorable and expensive.
So you are accepting Topol-M type can be intercepted. Americans too are saying they need 2 interceptors per target to get 100%.
Considering US is in a far better position to track and discriminate the target due to multi layer sensor ( EW/Sats/GBR/ ) yet it had to downgrade the target and keep it simple ( no decoys , no MRV ) to show success proves the point that it is a very difficult objective to achieve unless you script it.
This statement has too many fallacies so i dont take it as starting point for coming to any conclusion.
William too admits the fact that the maneuverable RV of Topol-M can penetrate the US NMD
I too said, Topol-M can able to defeat ABM ver 1.0. But world is not stagnant, ABM tech too is undergoing changes and improvement.
The picture of Topol-M trajectory I had put up was officially reveled by the Russians.
Yes US too have their own assest to monitor missile test.
Nice to know that. It was americans who first revealed the trajectories. Is it possible to the link the russian article, i missed your post on that.
I would be interested in knowning what tech DRDO has in defeating MRV , they would have rather used a Agni-1/2 RV to test ( 1 - 2 m ) if they think they could do it.

Instead DRDO built a 10m/1m dia single stage target missile ( quite big by any modern RV standards , except old single stage Scud types ) and intercepted the target which was using pure BM trajectory with no decoys or MRV capability something our enemy has it.

Its quite clear that in future test DRDO would rather test using the same target at higher atmosphere and keep the target simple to get the desired result it wants.
:) They wont be using the Agni missile becoz when they infact test it as target, they are telling the nation and armed forces and enemies that it can be defeated and it creates psychological effect. Even US uses the retired missles as targets. Have they ever used Trident in service for the ABM test. If you watched the news items at least there is one instance where it was reported the use of PAD as target. PAD is a 2 stage missile as you know and it can create different trajectories and profiles. And the Prithvi that was used as target was a modified one, they didnt reveal what the modifications were about. Secondly, the physical size is unrelated to the RCS as you know RCS can be altered. Taking the precedence of Sagarika missile testing which was done without any annoucement and fanfare, there is reasonble doubt to believe that apart from official tests for ABM there could be some more unofficial tests too. So going by one offical test doesnt tell you what they are doing is simple or complex. As you very well know, critical defence rests on these tests and drdo is not a PR organization or it has any compulsion to do simple tricks to say we have enough defence against Pak type missiles and dont have to mislead the nation in the vital defence. Why i say drdo can do it ? One of the reason i feel it is due to computing. Why they say, Python-5 is the deadliest missle in that class. Becoz, along with hardware, it has the power of supercomputer as missile brain. Actually it is adaptive computing. And there are some improvements in the hardware too. Apart from the information about the kill vehicle as solid fueled/vernier thrusters do we have any other information like performance characteristics, speed, range, Gs, etc? So what we know is very little. Next time, you are going to see the same target but what is under the hood we may not know.
It deals mainly with RV but the ABM context is there since it deals with different type of RV and shows how some of the development was impacted by ABM , its quite surprising the kind of test US has done with different RV in 60-70', some of which we are achieving with our own A-3 type RV.
Shhhh..pls dont say it loud, people going to say we are copying US tech.... If you have time, pls share the interesting points/excerpts that you consider interesting from this. Thanks.
Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3065
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Kanson »

darshhan wrote:This is a cat and mouse game although missile defense will continue to play catch up due to technology and funding issues for the forseeable future.For example the MKV has already been terminated according to the wikipedia link.But the technology exists to counter such kind of threats.
When you say cat & mouse game, when one tech attains dominance other alwasy tries to catch up. We are develooping MKV. Pls check the Saraswat statement on this. You can search that in the archives.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by darshhan »

Kanson wrote:
darshhan wrote:This is a cat and mouse game although missile defense will continue to play catch up due to technology and funding issues for the forseeable future.For example the MKV has already been terminated according to the wikipedia link.But the technology exists to counter such kind of threats.
When you say cat & mouse game, when one tech attains dominance other alwasy tries to catch up. We are develooping MKV. Pls check the Saraswat statement on this. You can search that in the archives.
I certainly hope that they are developing such capabilities.Also adequate funds should be made available to DRDO for achieving their objectives.

However I would like to point out any nation which depends only on BMD to neutralise missile threats(whether its India,US or Israel) is following a wrong path.When there is a limited threat and there is a sudden attack then a BMD might work.However in full scale war scenario where the enemy has a respectable arsenal of missiles , some missiles might get past the BMD net.

The best way to after enemy missiles is to destroy them before they are launched.For missiles which manage to get launched we should try to destroy them in the boost phase.The small no. of missiles which finally escape the above 2 scenarios will then be hopefully be neutralised by the BMD.

To implement the above scenario one needs the following.
1.Extremely capable Intelligence agency(which can give real time intelligence)
2.Highly trained and robust special forces which are capable of operating deep behind enemy lines.By deep I
mean hundreds of kms.
3.Complete air superiority.UCAVs and UAVs with persistence are especially welcome.
4.An effective and redundant C5ISR(Command, Control, Communications, Computers,Combat Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) network.
5.And ofcourse a reliable BMD system

In nutshell we will have to master a complete range of technologies and tactics if we are ever going to counter the missile threat successfully.Just depending on one aspect i.e BMD will not be good enough.Remember a chain is only as good as its weakest link.

Austin,Kanson and other forum members.We can discuss the above points if you want at ABM thread.Let me know what you think.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20845
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Karan M »

Mrinal I am not speculating but the pro and cons in present ABM structure is well documented ,
Where are they well documented please? Can you show me one architecture diagram of the Indian ABM system for example? I would like to see the following details if anything of the sort has been released
- Max speed achieved of the local target
- Fuel composition
- Trajectory followed
- Slant engagement range of the AAD
- Number of targets simultaneously engaged

In fact - none of these details are available explicitly. You are speculating based on conjecture.

In 2001, the US was already looking at engaging TBMs with maneuvering capability:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2001sbac/sanders.pdf

That is nine years back.

Document from 1998:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/de.htm

THAAD’s high altitude intercepts will effectively defend against maneuvering RVs and greatly reduce the probability that debris and chemical or biological agents from a TBM warhead will reach the ground.

Ok, thats the US, what of Israel, with which India cooperates so much?

Here is a Sparrow family brochure.
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_S ... /2/622.pdf

Look at page 2 and the trajectory paths for IRBM class targets.

Still confident that you/any non developer will know all the inner details of all ABM systems out there and "no ABM system can engage maneuvering RVs"?

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
I am sorry but here you are mixing up multiple things. The US failures have been due to a variety of reasons, one of them being poor quality control from vendors and haste to test - political pressure given the fiscal pressures on the multiple competing programs.

So a lesson the Indian guys have learnt is to have a proper, iterative test process. Furthermore, you claim India took assistance from Israel, France, Russia?

Worldwide, manufacturers cooperate on designs and systems. A key German AD system is currently in development as a JV between the US and Germany. Boeing and other companies work as subcontractors on the Arrow missile program, with its IIR seeker sourced from the United States. There are a handful of manufacturers in the world who have invested in certain capabilities, it makes absolute sense to acquire what you can from them and build on it. That is what Israel has done throughout its history.

Furthermore, you yourself quote the evidence in front of you, but choose not to see it. India went to great pains, avoidable pains to choose best in class systems from the world over. They worked in secret for a decade on this. In 2007-10, after trials validate their assumptions, the MOD carefully vets information that notes that Phase 1 takes care of Pak specific threats. And we (or anyone else not involved in the program) have information to say otherwise?

If a simple intercept a target on a ballistic path solution was sought, they would have taken their earlier solutions, moved on to TVM solutions, not even bothered with seekers or gimbal warheads and called it a day, let alone develop datalinks, high speed computing and other systems (why even discuss?) that have no requirement for a middle of the road "engage x target only" ABM.

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.
Again conjecture. This is why I asked you whether you are a developer or have inside information or a professional tracking these things. If none of the above apply, then none here can make pronouncements as you are doing with an air of finality.

The information above itself should show that you need to revisit your assumptions!

The entire point of a layered defense system is to intercept the harder targets! Why else would so much effort, time and money be spent on long range missiles with fast reaction time, and high speed computing so as to acquire, detect and track in real time! The entire aim is to extend the intercept bubble as much as possible, so that missiles can be taken out before they begin their complex maneuvers and if even otherwise, options remain for further attempt!
I would suggest you read William Yengst Lightning Bolts on why it is difficult to deal with such RV.
Does it provide the inner details of every ABM system? According to this forum the book even uses open webpages from the net! That just shows that the author has limited access to details! Besides which, if he is a US citizen, he will not even mention certain aspects if he knows otherwise!! Why would he give his countrys opponents insights into their ABM and what they can or cannot do! Talk about landing in trouble!

The same holds true for Israel and India.

On this basis, how can you jump to conclusions?

Yes, certain targets are hard to intercept. But there is nothing saying they cannot and wont be! And nobody is going to provide these details openly, unless they no longer care if we know, which means they have moved far past. It is not in Indias interest to tom tom all this either! And why should they!

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 )
Sorry, again - how do you know what the target signature is? Has anyone from DRDO ever released this data? The answer is no.

Which is why I asked you whether you had access to or insider information (non classified) stating the target characteristics.

You are just going by appearances and assuming that the target chosen is not representative.
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.
Exactly. "We" - you & I, the lay person on the internet. DRDO has no business coming out and telling us either of what they have done or not done, unless they are at a stage with capabilities that releasing this info does not even matter.
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.
Images "they have released".

Have they released images of the actual combat management software which first decides whether the target is to be engaged or not, and classifies the target? Have they released images of any information or documentation pointing out the accuracy of the guidance system which btw in the Green Pine itself is sufficient to act as a FCR (and India adds a further MFCR for terminal interception). Have they revealed all the signal processing techniques they do to classify the different vehicles they expect to encounter?

Without any of this information, but much information besides that points to a huge effort being put in place which would otherwise be unnecessary for a "simple ABM", you come to the conclusion, it is simple!

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
The point is you (or anyone else apart from the core team who is involved in these activities) does not know about what has been done already or been tested, which is where making categorical pronouncements, can be totally misleading!

Heres another bit of info - just so as to reiterate the point about the gaps in your analysis, thanks to the lack of primary corroboration - the biggest challenge for ABM systems is not to intercept in high altitudes unlike what you claim, where sensor systems and even propulsion gain significant advantages, but within the atmosphere. The AAD in several ways is a bigger challenge for DRDO or any peer than the PAD.
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.
There goes the speculation again. Nobody has any detailed specifications of any of these systems, nor are is there a developer or insider to make objective comparisons based on technology which one may have access to, yet one comes to such conclusions. Simply put, they are not justifiable.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20845
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Karan M »

Austin wrote: William too admits the fact that the maneuverable RV of Topol-M can penetrate the US NMD
He "admits" it? A book on RV, available on Amazon where a US author admits things and it is to be taken as gospel..come on...!!

The US may or may not be able to do many things but the manner in which you are drawing such conclusions is simply unbelievable! Everything in that book or any book which is allowed to be exported to other nations has been vetted! And what has been vetted is not necessarily accurate!
The picture of Topol-M trajectory I had put up was officially reveled by the Russians.
Where the Russians would be kind enough to detail the exact trajectory so that the US/Europe knew what was possible and could benchmark their systems. Nice people indeed.
I would be interested in knowning what tech DRDO has in defeating MRV ,
Why? What does one gain from knowing this?
they would have rather used a Agni-1/2 RV to test ( 1 - 2 m ) if they think they could do it.
Again, conjecture. There are many ways to skin a cat.
Instead DRDO built a 10m/1m dia single stage target missile ( quite big by any modern RV standards , except old single stage Scud types ) and intercepted the target which was using pure BM trajectory with no decoys or MRV capability something our enemy has it.
And we were right there at the test site, had access to all the target details to know all these details, I presume! If not, how can you even claim the kind of things you are doing. This is getting to be weird beyond measure.

Till date - there is NO information - on the target missile. None whatsoever about its internal schema and what it has and what it does not!
Its quite clear that in future test DRDO would rather test using the same target at higher atmosphere and keep the target simple to get the desired result it wants.
"Quite clear" - quite clear to whom?

The problem here is you see fit to play judge and jury with no primary data on hand, or even accurate secondary data. Based on conjecture, you have made jumps to conclusions which can not even be justified.
It deals mainly with RV but the ABM context is there since it deals with different type of RV and shows how some of the development was impacted by ABM , its quite surprising the kind of test US has done with different RV in 60-70', some of which we are achieving with our own A-3 type RV.
"Some of which we are achieving with our own A-3 RV" - and where does Yengst get this information about what India is or is not doing with its RVs?

There we go again with the conjecture.
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by abhishek_sharma »

Helmand: anatomy of a disaster

http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/20 ... a_disaster
The shake-up of NATO command structures in Afghanistan -- which spins off a new divisional headquarters, Regional Command South West -- from the British-led Regional Command South in Kandahar, now places almost all of Britain's combat troops in Afghanistan rather uneasily under the leadership of an American.

...

For the British, it is a matter of national reputation. Not is only is there a small matter of the British Empire's three previous Afghan wars thought (wrongly, as it happens) to have been disastrous failures. There is also the widespread view, shared by a majority of the British Army itself, that the U.K. tarnished its reputation for counterinsurgency operations by getting wrong its campaign in Basra, Iraq, and requiring an embarrassing bail-out by the Americans in Operation Charge of the Knights in 2008.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

Kanson wrote:So you are accepting Topol-M type can be intercepted. Americans too are saying they need 2 interceptors per target to get 100%.
Where did I say that ? I just pointed that William in his book mentions that BGRV plus LLRI capability of Topol-M RV can effectively deal with US NMD.

100 % is something no one can ever claim , forget the Americans

VKS says 3 interceptor per target for high probability of intercept for Indian PAD.
This statement has too many fallacies so i dont take it as starting point for coming to any conclusion.
I was just pointing to the fact that US has too many overlapping Sensors grid to discriminate the targets , yet it chooses simplistic test to define success.

In our case there is no overlapping sensor grid , too short distance , warning time and just LRTR to monitor the target.

Fact or Fallacy you can figure out well.
I too said, Topol-M can able to defeat ABM ver 1.0. But world is not stagnant, ABM tech too is undergoing changes and improvement.


I am not sure if there is ABM 1.0,2.0 or 3.0 in development , US ABM program is quite well known and if any thing else Obama has cancelled quite a few program including MKV.
Nice to know that. It was americans who first revealed the trajectories. Is it possible to the link the russian article, i missed your post on that.
The trajectory illustration was reveled by Russians MOD published by Novye Izvestiya daily news and then present in US by Nikolai Sokov of Center for Non Proliferation Studies
:) They wont be using the Agni missile becoz when they infact test it as target, they are telling the nation and armed forces and enemies that it can be defeated and it creates psychological effect. Even US uses the retired missles as targets. Have they ever used Trident in service for the ABM test. If you watched the news items at least there is one instance where it was reported the use of PAD as target. PAD is a 2 stage missile as you know and it can create different trajectories and profiles. And the Prithvi that was used as target was a modified one, they didnt reveal what the modifications were about. Secondly, the physical size is unrelated to the RCS as you know RCS can be altered.
Well neither the US or India will ever use their own missile or specifically the RV , but would rather develop a target that suites their need to show scripted sucessful test.

PAD creating different trajectory or profile has nothing to do with its ability to discriminate decoys or its ability to track small real RV , it is primarily the capability of LRTR.

Yes they created the best possible target by modifying prithvi with its size of 10m L /1m dia and then they managed to reduce its RCS of real RV of ~ 2m/0.3 m , sure DRDO has some tricks to reduce RCS :wink:
Taking the precedence of Sagarika missile testing which was done without any annoucement and fanfare, there is reasonble doubt to believe that apart from official tests for ABM there could be some more unofficial tests too. So going by one offical test doesnt tell you what they are doing is simple or complex. As you very well know, critical defence rests on these tests and drdo is not a PR organization or it has any compulsion to do simple tricks to say we have enough defence against Pak type missiles and dont have to mislead the nation in the vital defence. Why i say drdo can do it ? One of the reason i feel it is due to computing. Why they say, Python-5 is the deadliest missle in that class. Becoz, along with hardware, it has the power of supercomputer as missile brain. Actually it is adaptive computing. And there are some improvements in the hardware too. Apart from the information about the kill vehicle as solid fueled/vernier thrusters do we have any other information like performance characteristics, speed, range, Gs, etc? So what we know is very little. Next time, you are going to see the same target but what is under the hood we may not know.
Nice argument but it does not say much on Indian ABM test.

If it is a question of putting blind faith in DRDO , well we have seen that with Nuke test :wink:

Atleast in US they tend to have scientist/critics who would postmortem ABM test and then point out how they were manipulated and scripted to achieve success point the pros and cons.

In India we are suppose to just put blind faith in DRDO ABM program , the rest can easily be hidden with the argument its secret and DRDO knows what it is doing.
Shhhh..pls dont say it loud, people going to say we are copying US tech.... If you have time, pls share the interesting points/excerpts that you consider interesting from this. Thanks.
You probaby wont enjoy selected excerpts since its more of a continuation of RV program mainly of US and covers India,China , Russia ...If you can get your hands on it I would suggest read the whole stuff its quite interesting.

I dont think we copied US program but have carefully studied programs like Perishing and others and came with our own solution no harm in that,No scientific organisation works in Vacuum even US and others have built their program from German scientist plus they experimented and proof tested many different RV with various outcomes to come to where they are , just the question of time , money , industry and scientific capability and military/political will to back it up.
Last edited by Austin on 16 Jun 2010 10:32, edited 2 times in total.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

Mrinal wrote:Where are they well documented please? Can you show me one architecture diagram of the Indian ABM system for example? I would like to see the following details if anything of the sort has been released
- Max speed achieved of the local target
- Fuel composition
- Trajectory followed
- Slant engagement range of the AAD
- Number of targets simultaneously engaged

In fact - none of these details are available explicitly. You are speculating based on conjecture.
Can you show me some evidence or statements from DRDO or reliable source which proves

- Indian ABM is capable of engaging manouvering warhead or has intercepted in ABM test
- A 10 m/1 m Target missile has RCS equal to ~ 2 - 3 m RV or DRDO managed to reduce the RCS of that huge target missile
- Is capable of discriminating RV among decoys
- All the intercept have hit the warhead and not the body of target missile
- Can prove that the target actually tried to maneuver or performs anti-ABM manouver in all the intercept so far.
In 2001, the US was already looking at engaging TBMs with maneuvering capability:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2001sbac/sanders.pdf

That is nine years back.

Document from 1998:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp98/de.htm

THAAD’s high altitude intercepts will effectively defend against maneuvering RVs and greatly reduce the probability that debris and chemical or biological agents from a TBM warhead will reach the ground.

Ok, thats the US, what of Israel, with which India cooperates so much?

Here is a Sparrow family brochure.
http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_S ... /2/622.pdf

Look at page 2 and the trajectory paths for IRBM class targets.

Still confident that you/any non developer will know all the inner details of all ABM systems out there and "no ABM system can engage maneuvering RVs"?
Asking BMDO or Rafael/IAI to prove something is like asking like asking pope if he was catholic.

Have you read a recent independent study by MIT that shows the success rate of ABM was nearly 10 - 20 % and how they scripted the test to prove it a success
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/world ... ef=science
So a lesson the Indian guys have learnt is to have a proper, iterative test process. Furthermore, you claim India took assistance from Israel, France, Russia?
Well isnt that a fact that Indian BMD has critical components from Israel , French and Russia ?
Worldwide, manufacturers cooperate on designs and systems. A key German AD system is currently in development as a JV between the US and Germany. Boeing and other companies work as subcontractors on the Arrow missile program, with its IIR seeker sourced from the United States. There are a handful of manufacturers in the world who have invested in certain capabilities, it makes absolute sense to acquire what you can from them and build on it. That is what Israel has done throughout its history.
And I can agree with you on that , our industry/DRDO really has no capability to make those stuff , so they import it or TOT it from countries who have it or co-develop it , just pay and get it and I see nothing wrong with that
Furthermore, you yourself quote the evidence in front of you, but choose not to see it. India went to great pains, avoidable pains to choose best in class systems from the world over. They worked in secret for a decade on this. In 2007-10, after trials validate their assumptions, the MOD carefully vets information that notes that Phase 1 takes care of Pak specific threats. And we (or anyone else not involved in the program) have information to say otherwise?
Which is fine , every country does that for their own strategic project

How does Phase 1 take care of Pak specific threat , Can you show some document which can shows Phase 1 BMD can take care of Ghauri and MRV Shaheen ?
If a simple intercept a target on a ballistic path solution was sought, they would have taken their earlier solutions, moved on to TVM solutions, not even bothered with seekers or gimbal warheads and called it a day, let alone develop datalinks, high speed computing and other systems (why even discuss?) that have no requirement for a middle of the road "engage x target only" ABM.
Having a seeker improves end game accuracy and gimbal warhead improves performance of warhead in general . it has nothing to do with intercepting a MRV or BM. Even newer Anti-aircraft missile like 9M96E and 9M96E2 have seeker and gimballed warhead , does not mean they can intercept a IRBM or MRV

Again conjecture. This is why I asked you whether you are a developer or have inside information or a professional tracking these things. If none of the above apply, then none here can make pronouncements as you are doing with an air of finality.

The information above itself should show that you need to revisit your assumptions!
If you can prove it other wise based on inside information or some evidence you have , I will accept your argument.
Sorry, again - how do you know what the target signature is? Has anyone from DRDO ever released this data? The answer is no.

Which is why I asked you whether you had access to or insider information (non classified) stating the target characteristics.

You are just going by appearances and assuming that the target chosen is not representative.
If I go just by appearance a 10m/1m target with huge clipped Wings has an RCS far bigger then a real conical RV with ~ 2-3 m in length

Can you prove that the target we choose is representative of Paki missile ? Or provide some DRDO document that says so ? Or are these test just validating some basic concept without actually looking into actual RV right now ?
Exactly. "We" - you & I, the lay person on the internet. DRDO has no business coming out and telling us either of what they have done or not done, unless they are at a stage with capabilities that releasing this info does not even matter.
Which makes easier for DRDO to script the result and prove it success or vulnerable to such charges , unless they can release some non classified information.
Images "they have released".

Have they released images of the actual combat management software which first decides whether the target is to be engaged or not, and classifies the target? Have they released images of any information or documentation pointing out the accuracy of the guidance system which btw in the Green Pine itself is sufficient to act as a FCR (and India adds a further MFCR for terminal interception). Have they revealed all the signal processing techniques they do to classify the different vehicles they expect to encounter?

Without any of this information, but much information besides that points to a huge effort being put in place which would otherwise be unnecessary for a "simple ABM", you come to the conclusion, it is simple!
Unless they release those information , there is no evidence to believe that it is not a simple ABM but a very sophisticated ones which were intercepted.
The point is you (or anyone else apart from the core team who is involved in these activities) does not know about what has been done already or been tested, which is where making categorical pronouncements, can be totally misleading!
Equally misleading will be claims from DRDO unless they can come with non classified info on the test.
Heres another bit of info - just so as to reiterate the point about the gaps in your analysis, thanks to the lack of primary corroboration - the biggest challenge for ABM systems is not to intercept in high altitudes unlike what you claim, where sensor systems and even propulsion gain significant advantages, but within the atmosphere. The AAD in several ways is a bigger challenge for DRDO or any peer than the PAD.
Both are quite challenging , since higher altitude intercept can also be accompained by Decoys which makes discriminating the real RV amongst decoys very challenging , at lower altitudes all but the most sophisticated decoys exist ,which leaves only the RV , which makes target discrimination easier but interception becomes challenging as the time to target gets shrinked.
There goes the speculation again. Nobody has any detailed specifications of any of these systems, nor are is there a developer or insider to make objective comparisons based on technology which one may have access to, yet one comes to such conclusions. Simply put, they are not justifiable.
Much of what DRDO has shown in the test can be summarised as below ( i.e. IMHO )

- ABM test proves that a target with velocity corresponding to MRBM/IRBM may/can be intercepted in low to medium altitudes which is a commendable effort by us as only few selected countries have attained such capability

What still needs some answer

- Does the Target represent a real RV with its size and signature ?
- If these are just initial test to validate basic capability , will DRDO conduct test with a real Agni type RV or Sparrow or someting similar ?
- If the target capable of performing anti-ABM manouvering and if it does can those targets be intercepted?
- Is LRTR/MFCR and Interceptor capable of discriminating RV amongst simple and sophisticated decoys ?
- Have all the test done so far actually managed to hit the warhead or body of missile ?
- What kind of Early Warning do these systems provide considering the short time of flight between India and Pakistan ?
- What if Pakistan fires IRBM/MRBM in a depressed trajectory , is the EW time sufficient and can ABM intercept those as well ?
- Is the exchange ratio in present ABM even assuming its intercepting conventional BM favourable one ?
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19338
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by NRao »

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3288
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by VinodTK »

Arms spending: India grows as west shrinks
Linking defence spending to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) prediction that India’s economy will grow in real terms by 7.5 per cent from 2010 to 2014, the Deloitte-CII report says that India’s current defence expenditure of $32.03 billion will rise to an estimated $42 billion by 2015. The capital expenditure on new weapons platforms will rise from the current $13.04 billion to $19.2 billion in 2015.
Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1438
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Craig Alpert »

South Korea as a Global Arms Developer

After reading this, all the SDRE's would be left BROWN FACED :oops:
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19338
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by NRao »

Thanks for that post, it is very heartening to see progress being made. Specially by a nation of such a small population.
Karan M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 20845
Joined: 19 Mar 2010 00:58

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Karan M »

Austin wrote: Where did I say that ? I just pointed that William in his book mentions that BGRV plus LLRI capability of Topol-M RV can effectively deal with US NMD.
And does Williams know of US NMD? Is he a developer of those systems? What can he know of their growth potential or what is planned as via their block upgrades. And if he does, can he even share this? Nope..
I was just pointing to the fact that US has too many overlapping Sensors grid to discriminate the targets , yet it chooses simplistic test to define success.
Sorry, the real answer is NOBODY apart from the US development team knows the level and depth of US test results. They are classified. There is a good reason however, why Russia is publicly and repeatedly confrontational about the US NMD, knowing that what is public and revealed publicly is but the tip of the iceberg for programs of this nature. Defining tests which involve high resolution sensors in real time, discriminating & identifying different bodies to engage in a variety of conditions is "simplistic" ?
In our case there is no overlapping sensor grid , too short distance , warning time and just LRTR to monitor the target.
Our ABM program is built around terminal engagement portion. The US is aiming for all three segments, boost, midcourse and terminal. As such they need a far larger sensor footprint. For our current system LRTR & MFCR are more than enough...considering the grid that is being built up which is more than just these 2 sensors, look beyond this & what the IAF & IA have purchased already..
I am not sure if there is ABM 1.0,2.0 or 3.0 in development , US ABM program is quite well known and if any thing else Obama has cancelled quite a few program including MKV.
Not even the most experienced aviation journalist would make these claims! The details revealed so far are only the outer program management and base technology details.
Well neither the US or India will ever use their own missile or specifically the RV , but would rather develop a target that suites their need to show scripted sucessful test.

PAD creating different trajectory or profile has nothing to do with its ability to discriminate decoys or its ability to track small real RV , it is primarily the capability of LRTR.

Yes they created the best possible target by modifying prithvi with its size of 10m L /1m dia and then they managed to reduce its RCS of real RV of ~ 2m/0.3 m , sure DRDO has some tricks to reduce RCS :wink:
Again, sorry , what do you/anyone non developer/non insider know of current, real world RCS reduction techniques or methods, as achieved in India to note these statements.
If it is a question of putting blind faith in DRDO , well we have seen that with Nuke test :wink:
What does the nuke test have to do with this? The so called whistle blower on the program was a DRDO guy. The Chiefs of the Services are on the other fully confident that the deterrent works and is sufficient. This tangent is irrelevant.
Atleast in US they tend to have scientist/critics who would postmortem ABM test and then point out how they were manipulated and scripted to achieve success point the pros and cons.

In India we are suppose to just put blind faith in DRDO ABM program , the rest can easily be hidden with the argument its secret and DRDO knows what it is doing.
Indian missile programs are vetted by an interdisciplinary team of experts from academia, other agencies apart from the developer. What you have posted is flawed.
Can you show me some evidence or statements from DRDO or reliable source which proves

- Indian ABM is capable of engaging manouvering warhead or has intercepted in ABM test
........ far.
First, why do we need this data? And clearly nor should it be my business to poke my nose into all this.

Second, the entire purpose of that list, was to show that your statement the Indian program is "well documented" was wrong. If it was, you wouldnt even have those questions! A strategic program of this nature has many crucial capabilities hidden so as to not give the opponent enough leeway to develop countermeasures.
Asking BMDO or Rafael/IAI to prove something is like asking like asking pope if he was catholic.

Have you read a recent independent study by MIT that shows the success rate of ABM was nearly 10 - 20 % and how they scripted the test to prove it a success
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/18/world ... ef=science
Yes, I & others have read those studies by MIT & others. Many other programs have been similarly savaged by open source experts at assorted think tanks, educational institutes et al. That does not stop the US from proceeding further. I can sincerely tell you that most of the stuff posted is either fairly out of date, or moonshine. And often a mix of both.

However, it remains your implied claim that "no ABM system can tackle MARV etc" and that such a possibility could not even occur, is incorrect. Test targets for the MARV scenario have been around for a while. And that these were in specific developed for a real world program namely the Green Pine. Bottomline, the reality is that multiple ABM programs across the world are well aware of the MARV threat and have taken it into account during development. Nor did you consider the purpose of THAAD and why the US is pursuing a layered umbrella.

Since you are so interested in Russia, consider why they have been protesting so vociferously about the US NMD program, when current public plans pose little threat to their overwhelming arsenal. They know the difference about whats revealed and whats vetted and noted to the press for think tanks to analyse. Stop arguing for a second, and dont look at the obvious about this treaty, that treaty & you'll have the answer.

Well isnt that a fact that Indian BMD has critical components from Israel , French and Russia ?
So? Whats the point? Does the rest of the world operate in a vacuum? Clearly not..open up a Litening pod and see Carl Zeiss optics..open up a Thales jammer and see US microelectronics made in a fab in Taiwan..

And I can agree with you on that , our industry/DRDO really has no capability to make those stuff , so they import it or TOT it from countries who have it or co-develop it , just pay and get it and I see nothing wrong with that
How do you know they have no capability? Again, are you working in the domain or do you have insider knowledge?

There are many reasons why imports/JVs are done. The simplest reason is often the most crucial, which is time! These procurement methods are often resorted from third party nations both for benchmarking and validating prototype systems, while series production systems end up using something different.
Which is fine , every country does that for their own strategic project
Yes. Which is why they are taken seriously.
How does Phase 1 take care of Pak specific threat , Can you show some document which can shows Phase 1 BMD can take care of Ghauri and MRV Shaheen ?
You can search for it using specific keywords released at the time - in particular try for the second series of tests, if you have a web archive tool. If I find it I will post it. However, to be clear, Phase 1 takes care of all missiles in the 2K Km class, which comprise the bulk of threats from Pak.

If a simple intercept a target on a ballistic path solution was sought, they would have taken their earlier solutions, moved on to TVM solutions, not even bothered with seekers or gimbal warheads and called it a day, let alone develop datalinks, high speed computing and other systems (why even discuss?) that have no requirement for a middle of the road "engage x target only" ABM.
Having a seeker improves end game accuracy and gimbal warhead improves performance of warhead in general . it has nothing to do with intercepting a MRV or BM. Even newer Anti-aircraft missile like 9M96E and 9M96E2 have seeker and gimballed warhead , does not mean they can intercept a IRBM or MRV
Taking only two points out of all 4 mentioned in parallel, leads to something out of context.

The point that you missed, is that an ARH seeker was not necessarily required for achieving the desired accuracy, for a standard ballistic merge as you implied. We could have managed with simpler seekers and datalinked the info back to the radar for correction. Nor was there a need to mirror the Israeli program and set up an expensive real time computation engine far more than your scenario would call for, nor would they be attention paid to all sorts of features such as multiple communication links. To anyone, who investigates, this is far more complex than the scenario you claim the ABM is for. It is a scalable system designed for far more than a simple(r) ballistic merge, considering multiple options in parallel and not just missile attacks! Just look at the Israeli scenario, and the kind of options they consider, and note the fact that we actually scaled up the system before them, which they followed with their own Super Green Pine et al for a similar threat. Development does not take place in an ideological vacuum where we are unaware of what certain country/s in similar programs are doing and vice versa.

Apart from this why discuss all this on an open board.
If you can prove it other wise based on inside information or some evidence you have , I will accept your argument.
How can anyone post anything of this sort? All this talk of what an ABM system can and cannot do itself is worth avoided, given the fact that India's opponents too would be interested in the exact same discussion.
If I go just by appearance a 10m/1m target with huge clipped Wings has an RCS far bigger then a real conical RV with ~ 2-3 m in length
Yes, the critical point being if we just go by appearance and assume that the LRTR/MFCR have not been used on any other test elsewhere for any other target even if it was not part of the ABM system.
Can you prove that the target we choose is representative of Paki missile ? Or provide some DRDO document that says so ? Or are these test just validating some basic concept without actually looking into actual RV right now ?
Again, how can one possess any internal DRDO document or otherwise...

Lets just say that from what has been noted so far, publicly and not in press releases alone, the system can handle targets representative of what we face. And the tests that established the performance of the ABM system have been rigorous & assume far more than what is released to the media & via sanitized press releases and there is a well planned and in progress roadmap to keep the system relevant. Please look at a certain journalists story on a system that was recently denied as being in existence & then correlate. Things are not "as is" and are always in a state of flux, with development kept apace.
Which makes easier for DRDO to script the result and prove it success or vulnerable to such charges , unless they can release some non classified information.
DRDO cannot script the result because there are several people, non DRDO & otherwise involved in the program. Its keenly vetted and watched.
Unless they release those information , there is no evidence to believe that it is not a simple ABM but a very sophisticated ones which were intercepted.
First rule - please always consider this "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Second, I have already posted what details one can theoretically discuss/speculate on above - these are more than sufficient to understand (even in a speculative manner etc) of whats going on.

They simply cannot and will not release ANY such data as you want in an explicit manner above till they are working on something far ahead. They have and will however, release a lot of data that clearly indicates where they are going, but these things are not worth talking about.
Equally misleading will be claims from DRDO unless they can come with non classified info on the test.
Hardly! They have released enough info that all the squawkers from the non prolif institutes who were claiming a simple ABM merge test etc have now gone silent. And that info is vetted. Everyone who has domain expertise amongst the squawkers, understands the scale of India's ambitions and what has been achieved so far. The rest, we really dont care about so far.
Both are quite challenging , since higher altitude intercept can also be accompained by Decoys which makes discriminating the real RV amongst decoys very challenging , at lower altitudes all but the most sophisticated decoys exist ,which leaves only the RV , which makes target discrimination easier but interception becomes challenging as the time to target gets shrinked.
Again - missed the point. You mentioned interception in space etc vis a vis sensors and KV. For that, space is easier than endo thermic conditions.
Much of what DRDO has shown in the test can be summarised as below ( i.e. IMHO )

- ABM test proves that a target with velocity corresponding to MRBM/IRBM may/can be intercepted in low to medium altitudes which is a commendable effort by us as only few selected countries have attained such capability
Its more than just that..
What still needs some answer

- Does ....

..... present ABM even assuming its intercepting conventional BM favourable one ?
These things should not be discussed on any open board.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by darshhan »

Counter IED technology.Has great potential.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... s?click=pp
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by darshhan »

abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by abhishek_sharma »

The Pentagon's Own Private Welfare State

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... fare_state
In 1985, during the peak of the Reagan defense buildup, the Pentagon bought 338 new tactical fighter aircraft and 23 new warships, among other items. In 2008, procurement spending was 33 percent higher after adjusting for inflation, yet the department could afford only 56 new airplanes and 7 new warships. One wonders whether the increases in weapons quality have been worth the inflation in unit costs.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by darshhan »

Advances in military medicine.Soldier survives and is being rehabilitated after losing all four limbs.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/soldi ... gain-35427
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14222
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by svinayak »

Image

Growth of lethality
Gerard
Forum Moderator
Posts: 8012
Joined: 15 Nov 1999 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Gerard »

French Army manual Doctrine for Counterinsurgency at the Tactical Level, dated April 2010.
- Lieutenant Colonel François de Jaburn, Troupes de Marine.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/f ... ctrine.pdf
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by abhishek_sharma »

Life by a Thousand Cuts
The United States' defense-spending habit has been out of control for years. Will it ever change?

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... usand_cuts
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by darshhan »

Military medicine : Manufacturing blood for battlefield injuries

Darpa’s Genetically Engineered Blood Starts Pumping.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07 ... t-pumping/

Without involving private sector in R&D progress on such concepts is very difficult.There is so much activity going around the world(primarily countries like USA,Israel,singapore etc) that Govt agencies in India which monopolize everything from R&D to manufacturing will likely be overwhelmed if they try to attempt everything.

Otherwise we involve private sector for defense R&D and manufacturing we will be left behind and be dependent on imports in the future as well.
Last edited by darshhan on 09 Jul 2010 12:57, edited 1 time in total.
darshhan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2937
Joined: 12 Dec 2008 11:52

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by darshhan »

Advances in Submarine communication.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/07 ... line/all/1
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Singha »

WSJ

The Submarine Deals That Helped Sink Greece


By CHRISTOPHER RHOADS

ATHENS—As Greece slashes spending to avoid default, it hasn't moved to skimp on one area: defense.

The deeply indebted Mediterranean nation, whose financial crisis roiled the global financial system this year, is spending more than a billion euros on two submarines from Germany.

It's also looking to spend big on six frigates and 15 search-and-rescue helicopters from France. In recent years, Greece has bought more than two dozen F16 fighter jets from the U.S. at a cost of more than €1.5 billion.


Much of the equipment comes from Germany, the country that has had to shoulder most of the burden of bailing out Greece and has been loudest in condemning Athens for living beyond its means. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has admonished the Greek government "to do its homework" on debt reduction.

The military deals illustrate how Germany and other creditors have in some ways benefited from Greece's profligacy, and how that is coming back to haunt them.

Greece, with a population of just 11 million, is the largest importer of conventional weapons in Europe—and ranks fifth in the world behind China, India, the United Arab Emirates and South Korea. Its military spending is the highest in the European Union as a percentage of gross domestic product. That spending was one of the factors behind Greece's stratospheric national debt.

The German submarine deal in particular, announced in March as the country lurched toward bankruptcy, has cast a spotlight on the Greek military budget and on the foreign vendors supplying the hardware. The deal includes a total of six subs in a complicated transaction that began a decade ago with German firms.

The arms sales are drawing heat from Turkey, Greece's neighbor and arch-rival. "Even those countries trying to help Greece at this time of difficulty are offering to sell them new military equipment," said Egemen Bagis, Turkey's top European Union negotiator, shortly after the sub deal was announced. "Greece doesn't need new tanks or missiles or submarines or fighter planes, neither does Turkey."

Greece's deputy prime minister, Theodore Pangalos, said during an Athens visit in May by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that he felt "forced to buy weapons we do not need," and that the deals made him feel "national shame."

Other European officials have charged France and Germany with making their military dealings with Greece a condition of their participation in the country's huge financial rescue. French and German officials deny the accusations.

A spokesman for German Chancellor Merkel says the submarine transaction was the culmination of an old contract signed long before Greece's debt crisis. In May, France's defense ministry said Greek authorities have confirmed their willingness to pursue talks on several arm-procurement deals.

In May, Greece's economic crimes unit began investigating all weapons deals of the past decade—totaling about €16 billion—to determine if Greece overpaid or bought unnecessary hardware.


Prime Minister George Papandreou and his government have been chided over spending by Germany's Angela Merkel.


German prosecutors are investigating whether millions of euros in bribes were paid to Greek officials in connection with the sub deal. In May, the chief executive of one of the German companies helping to build the submarines, called Ferrostaal AG, resigned amid the probe.

For some prominent Greeks, the latest submarine deal was the last straw. In late April, Stelios Fenekos, a 52-year-old vice admiral of the 22,000-person strong Greek Navy, resigned his position, bringing a three-decade Navy career to an end. He says he did so to protest the Greek defense minister's decision to purchase the subs, as well as other decisions taken in recent months that Mr. Fenekos considers "politically motivated."

"How can you say to people we are buying more subs at the same time we want you to cut your salaries and pensions?" says Adm. Fenekos, in his first interview with a reporter. He was referring to the government's 5% cut in most pensions and even deeper slashes to public-sector wages enacted in response to the crisis. The Greek Navy, he says, cannot afford to maintain the additional submarines. It currently has eight subs.

A spokesman for the Greek Ministry of Defense said Mr. Fenekos' resignation was accepted. In stepping down, "Mr. Fenekos did not refer to the submarine deal," he said.

Greece became the first battleground in the Cold War, with the U.S. backing anti-Communists in the Greek civil war in the late-1940s against Communist insurgents. The conflict led U.S. President Harry Truman, in 1947, to pledge unlimited military support for nations under Communist threat, known as the Truman Doctrine.

While the rest of Western Europe used U.S. aid to rebuild its economy from the second World War, in Greece, the emphasis was on building up the military.

"Greece became the front line in the Cold War, and that began, right then and there, the Greek economic crisis of today," says Andre Gerolymatos, a professor of Hellenic studies at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver.

By the mid-1950s, the U.S. pulled back aid, much of which had been in the form of military hardware, shifting much of the burden for Greek military spending to Athens.
[SPARTAP1]

By this time, Greece's worsening relations with Turkey led to yet more arms spending. Despite being fellow members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the two nations are bitter rivals. The discovery of oil in the northern Aegean Sea and disagreements over territorial waters and airspace became the source of numerous—and expensive—altercations between the two countries.

An incident in 1996, involving a Turkish ship running aground on a rocky, uninhabited Greek islet, almost led to war. Greece later that year announced a 10-year modernization program of its armed services, costing nearly $17 billion.

The U.S. over the years catered to the two NATO members under a 7:10 ratio, meaning for every $7 million dollars of equipment it sold to Greece it sold $10 million to the more populous Turkey.

It was in that environment that Greece in 1998 went shopping for submarines. It decided on three German-built class-214 submarines, a state-of-the-art diesel-electric powered vessel, with the option of buying a fourth—for a total of €1.8 billion. The first was to be built at the Kiel headquarters of Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft GmbH, with the others built at the affiliated Hellenic Shipyards SA, in Skaramangas, Greece.

The arrangement, called the Archimedes Program, would preserve thousands of jobs at the Greek shipyard.

Greek officials in 2002 expanded it to include the modernization of three older class-209 submarines—work to be done at the Skaramangas shipyard using materials and help from the Germans. The increase would cost another €985 million.

The German side consisted of a company owned by German truckmaker MAN SE, called Ferrostaal, and Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft, now owned by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems AG. (MAN has since reduced its stake in Ferrostaal to 30%.)

The total cost of the new and renovated subs: €2.84 billion.

As the military expenditures rose, Greece's two main political parties used them as a political football, each trying to make the budget deficit figures look worse when the other was in charge.

When the Socialist government first bought the submarines, it post-dated the accounting for them to the day when the vessels were to be delivered, rather than when they were purchased.

The government at the time was struggling to meet budget criteria for entry into the euro zone, which it joined a year behind other members in 2001. Pushing back the expenses saddled the bill with the Socialists' successors, the conservative New Democracy party, which came to power in March 2004.

The New Democracy government that year then used a similar tactic, by retroactively accounting for the expenditures on the date of purchase. That inflated the budget deficits of the previous government—while making it easier for the New Democracy government to meet its own deficit goals.

Both accounting methods at the time were allowed by the European Union. The resulting massive deficit revisions made in 2004 for the previous years—4.6% of gross domestic product versus 1.7% for 2003—triggered an investigation in 2004 by Eurostat, the European Union's statistics agency, to understand what caused the revisions. The findings did not result in any sanctions.

Military spending accounted for nearly a quarter of the difference in the 2003 figures, and even more in revisions made on the deficits for preceding years.

After the Socialist party, PASOK, returned to power in October 2009, it made a similar maneuver: It announced the federal deficit was much worse than the outgoing government had let on, mainly due to public hospital debts, setting in motion the financial crisis.

Meanwhile, not one of the subs had been delivered. When Greek officials traveled to Kiel to test the first sub, called the Papanikolis, they said that they found that in certain sea conditions the submarine listed to the right. "The Navy said we cannot accept this sub," said Mr. Fenekos, the admiral who recently resigned. "But the politicians did not want to stop it because they needed the production for the workers in the shipyard here."

ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems said the criticism was baseless and was made to delay payment.

By last fall, Greece had paid €2.032 billion, about 70% of the total owed. With the deal at an impasse, the German companies cancelled the contract.

Finally, in March, the two sides announced they had begun negotiating a new deal. Instead of having three older subs modernized, just one would be modernized, and Greece would buy two additional new ones, bringing the total to six new submarines—costing a total of €1.3 billion.

Abu Dhabi MAR LLC, a shipbuilding company in Abu Dhabi, would buy 75.1% of the Greek shipyard, with the expanded submarine deal a condition of the sale. The Greek government finally accepted the sub, with the understanding it would immediately resell it. No deal has been finalized.

Greece's defense minister, Evangelos Venizelos, speaking to the Greek parliament in March, explained that the deal was an attempt to end the mess, to "sever the Gordian knot" that the new government had inherited.

With 1,200 shipyard jobs at stake, Germany demanding concessions on the complex deal, and Greece having already paid two billion euros without receiving a single sub, the new arrangement was necessary, he said.

But in February, just as a solution appeared to be at hand, German prosecutors in Munich began turning up evidence of unsavory dealings, according to records of their investigation.

Ferrostaal executives authorized payments worth millions of euros to politicians to win the initial deal in 2000, through a Greek company called Marine Industrial Enterprises, according to the Munich prosecutor's records.

To do this, Ferrostaal used sham consulting contracts, according to the records. That company then distributed payments to "officials and decision-makers" in Greece, according to the records. The investigation is ongoing. No charges have been filed.

Adamos Seraphides, chairman of MIE Group Limited, a successor company to a division of Marine Industrial Enterprises, said he doesn't believe that the company's prior leadership was involved in bribery.

In March, police searched Ferrostaal offices, in Essen, seeking evidence of bribe payments. In May, several executives stepped down.

"Ferrostaal will continue to pursue the intensive dialogue with the state prosecutor's office in Munich and has pledged full and comprehensive support and cooperation," says a Ferrostaal spokesman.

A ThyssenKrupp spokesperson says the company got into the business only in 2005, when it bought Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft.

Despite the tortuous, decade-long journey of the submarine deal—and Greece's precarious financial standing—Germany stands ready for more business.

Guido Westerwelle, the German foreign minister, in February told a Greek newspaper that Germany doesn't want to force Greece to buy anything.

But "whenever it comes to the point when it's ready to buy fighter planes," a European fighter-plane consortium, which Germany represents in Greece, "wants to be considered in the decision."

A spokesman for Mr. Westerwelle says the minister didn't discuss fighter sales with the Greek government during the visit.
VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3288
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by VinodTK »

“Flying” Russian battle tank can penetrate all types of armor
Analysts say the T-90S has proven itself in high temperatures both in the Indian desert and in Malayan jungles.
The video is pretty good
Ambar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3257
Joined: 12 Jun 2010 09:56
Location: Weak meek unkil Sam!

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Ambar »

Sorry if this has been posted earlier.

Silent Eagle aircraft debuts in US.

The Israel Air Force closely followed the maiden flight of the F-15 Silent Eagle, which took to the skies over the weekend in the US. Debate continued within the Defense Ministry over whether it should buy the aircraft in the face of expected additional delays in the development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The flight took place over St. Louis, headquarters of the plane’s developer, Boeing Co.

During the 80-minute flight, the plane, called the F-15E1, opened and closed its left-side conformal weapons bay, which contained an AIM-120 Instrumented Test Vehicle (ITV) missile that was not launched.

“The Silent Eagle demonstration flight validated our initial engineering design approach,” said Boeing F-15 Development Programs Director Brad Jones. “Our intent was to verify all systems are operational in a flight environment. This flawless flight allows us to move into the next phase. In the next couple of weeks, we will ferry F-15E1 to the test range and launch an AIM- 120.”

Boeing unveiled the F-15 Silent Eagle (F-15SE) last March as a new configuration of the F-15 that had undergone improvements and modifications, reportedly providing the plane with a stealth capability that is effective in evading radars on enemy aircraft but not against ground-based radar systems.

Improvements in stealth include coatings and treatments to the aircraft, as well as a new design for the conformal fuel tanks that includes the possibility of carrying weapons inside them instead of fuel. Israel operates several squadrons of F-15s, including one of 25 F-15Is, the aircraft with the longest range in the IAF.

While Boeing is still reportedly awaiting Pentagon approval to export the plane, Israel has already held a number of initial discussions regarding the plane and its capabilities.

The maiden flight comes as the Defense Ministry is holding a series of consultations aimed at reaching a decision on which aircraft to buy and how many by the end of the summer.

Israel would like to buy the JSF fifthgeneration fighter jet manufactured by Lockheed Martin, but is concerned with expected delays and the soaring price of the plane, now estimated at close to $150 million. In comparison, the F-15SE will reportedly cost around $100m.

Source : jpost
Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 1878
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Lisa »

Last in the 3 episode series. An interesting episode on R&D in a variety of
fields. Not as interesting as the fist 2 episodes, it nevertheless a good
watch. The first 2 programs are a must watch for those who have an
interest in submarine and jet engine design, development and construction.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... Engineers/
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Singha »

if the Taranis really cost that high in production, it would be tough for anyone to field large numbers of it.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Austin »

Russian state arms procurement program increased 'almost twofold' - official
The Russian Defense Ministry has almost doubled allocations for the 2011-2020 state arms procurement program, a senior official said on Monday.

Vladimir Popovkin, deputy defense minister for arms procurement, said that while the original allocations amounted to 13 trillion rubles, they would be raised to 20 trillion. { $ 656 billon }

Popovkin added that Russian would purchase up to one thousand helicopters of various types in the framework of the state arms procurement program.

"The Vostok-2010 military exercises showed the need to use helicopters in combat conditions," he said, adding that "special emphasis will be laid on heavy transport helicopters."
Kailash
BRFite
Posts: 1118
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 02:32

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Kailash »

MiG-29K sales might tip scales for Fulcrum
Meanwhile, the Russian navy has decided to buy 26 MiG-29K/KUBs to replace its Sukhoi Su-33s.

.....

In the early 1990s, the initial MiG-29K version lost out to the Sukhoi Su-33 to provide the Russian navy with a carrier-borne fighter. But as the service looks to a new generation of STOBAR vessels, the MiG-29K has come back into favor, following successful trials aboard the current carrier Admiral Kuznetsov last fall.


Russian navy chief Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky said the service will acquire three to six new carriers, the design of which should be finalized by the end of this year. This is very good news for MiG, which expects to provide the fighter force for all of them.
Indeed great news for the Migs !!!
Craig Alpert
BRFite
Posts: 1438
Joined: 09 Oct 2009 17:36
Location: Behind Enemy Lines

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Craig Alpert »

chackojoseph
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4297
Joined: 01 Mar 2010 22:42
Location: From Frontier India
Contact:

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by chackojoseph »

Israeli Elisra says that it has a game changer a unified infrared-based missile warning system

Elisra says it usses an IR based MWS (Missile Warning System). It centrally and fundamentally enhances a variety of airborne missions such as navigation, threat reconnaissance , and piloting. IR-CENTRIC optimizes DIRCM/Flares cuing and control and provides full protection including missile defense capabilities, situation awareness, i.e, presenting a full panoramic battlefield picture, collision avoidance, and damage assessment onboard both airborne and land based platforms.

IR-CENTRIC 's full and accurate, real-time situation awareness, and panoramic (360 degrees) Geo-location provides a comprehensive battlefield picture. It enables a flexibility to redefine and reconfigure missions, on-the-fly, while operating within a hostile environment. The system makes for a synchronized infrastructure of integrated EO/IR solutions enabling ongoing system-to-system coordination, adaptability, and compatibility, while affording complete operational independence for each platform. Each IR-CENTRIC hence becomes a battlefield force multiplier.
Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66589
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Singha »

amazingly advanced concept for its time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229
Kartik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5875
Joined: 04 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by Kartik »

Chinese built K-8 trainer crashed in Venezuela.

A Chinese-made K-8 military plane crashed in Venezuela during a training flight Wednesday, but officials said both people on board ejected and survived.


One fractured his hip and will undergo surgery, air force commander Maj. Gen. Jorge Arevalo Oropeza said. A flight instructor also on board was not hurt.

The plane crashed Wednesday morning on the outskirts of Barquisimeto in western Lara state, local emergency management director Hector Vargas told TV channel Globovision.
article link
abhishek_sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9664
Joined: 19 Nov 2009 03:27

Re: International Military Discussion

Post by abhishek_sharma »

Pentagon Faces Intensifying Pressures to Trim Budget

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/23/us/po ... udget.html
Post Reply