Modern wars

[ManifestedISO]

 

LOOK MA, NO HOOK

 

Miraculous. I had no idea this insane maneuver was even possible or ever took place. 

 

 

 

The aircraft, a KC-130F refueler transport (BuNo 149798), on loan from the U.S. Marines

 

That's why. 

 

Still, though, thirty-foot seas and fifty-knot winds ... even the Distinguished Flying Cross seems like pale reward, wow.   

[obyknven]

Westlings can't into design.

 

Predatory APC of warlike conquerors.

 

 

Toothless design in style of Gypsy wagon

http://youtu.be/zcBYTOp2gfc.

[Walsingham]

Fun fact: those side panels actually taste like daim bars.

[FaustianEchoes]

Future war will be fought with unmanned machines. Followed by the AI uprising and enslavement/utter annihilation of mankind.

Edited April 25, 2015 by FaustianEchoes

[Agiel]

Toothless design in style of Gypsy wagon

 

 

Given that the "only" 25mm APFSDS-T round fired from the Bushmaster autocannon compares extremely favourably to contemporary 30mm rounds fired from the 2A42/2A72 used by today's BTR-90s and BMP-2/3s, and the upgrade proposal entails mounting of the 30mm Bushmaster, I'd hardly call that Gypsy Wagon "toothless".

 

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbwiki/index.php?title=Ammunition_Data#Autocannon

Edited April 26, 2015 by Agiel

[Agiel]

Teal Group's eminent Richard Aboulafia's latest piece on India's MMRCA deal with Dassault almost gave me a chuckle, were it not for HAL raining on Dassault's parade and almost holding the deal hostage:

 

 

Dear Fellow Foreign Film Festival Attendees,

Bollywood romantic comedies often feature a goofy fat guy with lots of eyeliner who constantly gets in the way of the two lovers’ first kiss. At the end of the movie, the romantic couple finds a way to distract him, and finally hook up (off-screen, of course). The intrusive interloper reminds me of India’s national defense prime, HAL. HAL demands a large share of any Indian arms buy, and works to de-rail any deal in which it doesn’t get a major role. Named after the psychotic computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey (actually, it’s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd), HAL is an institutionalized obstacle for a military seeking to buy useful equipment at a reasonable price in a reasonable time frame with few complications. Yet two would-be romantic partners, the Indian Government and Dassault, have found a clever way to circumvent this comical fellow, with big possible implications.

Since 2011, the Indian Air Force (IAF) has wanted to buy 126 Rafales under its Medium Multirole Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) procurement program, one of the largest export fighter contracts in history. Under the original plan, HAL would build 108 of the 126 jets in-country (Dassault wanted to work with Reliance Industries, but HAL inevitably got in the way). But bizarrely, the company found a way to overplay their strong hand, kind of like someone with four aces insisting they had a fifth ace. HAL demanded that Dassault guarantee the work done by HAL on the India production line. Dassault, not being crazy, refused to sign that deal. This helped create a four year MMRCA impasse.

But this month Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said the government would move to buy 36 Rafales off the French line “as quickly as possible.” This government-to-government deal would kill the earlier MMRCA program, but 36 jets is a sweet spot number – enough to be useful and to establish the type as an important part of the IAF’s fleet, but too small to justify an HAL production line.

This deal would remove HAL from one of India’s biggest defense procurement programs, a major problem for them. HAL’s backers may seek to scuttle the new deal; without Rafale procurement, HAL could instead continue building Su-30s under license, guaranteeing lots of work (they break often and need constant care). HAL could also get to build its proposed Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).

AMCA, by the way, would come after HAL’s Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). Just for some perspective, the LCA was launched the same time as Taiwan’s Ching Kuo, another indigenous fighter. AIDC built 121 Ching Kuos, with the last one delivered in 1999. The LCA program, subject to HAL’s bungling, has yet to produce a fully operational jet. It’s coming up on 40 years since the LCA was conceived. And 20 years since it was obsolete.

Indian military procurement practices are bad enough. Layering on HAL’s demands make things much worse, saddling India’s armed forces with one of the least cost-effective arsenals in the world. But the Indian military is taking action. In the past few months, service chiefs have worked to restrict HAL’s role on a variety of procurement programs. Last July, they removed HAL from the Medium Transport Aircraft (MTA), effectively giving the 56-aircraft program to Airbus, which is bidding its C-295 with local assembly by Tata. In March, the IAF boosted Pilatus PC-7 procurement by 38 trainers (to 113 so far), staving off HAL’s predictably dysfunctional alternative, the HTT-40 turboprop. They’ve also moved to restrict HAL’s role in India’s huge 400-helicopter LUH program. India has also increased direct procurements, with no local assembly (C-130Js, C-17s, P-8s, and soon AH-64s and CH-47s).

Before HAL hits rock bottom (and looking at these big Indian military procurement changes, that day is approaching fast), they should remember that almost any anyone can improve themselves. Get serious, lose weight, and wipe off the eyeliner. Any wannabe national defense champion should follow three simple rules:

1. Privatization is essential. Worst thing I’ve heard at an air show: A HAL executive proclaiming “We are the customer.” State ownership produces that kind of complacency. Best illustration of a smart change from public to private: Embraer. Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) is on this path too. If privatization means being taken over by a foreign company (as Portugal’s OGMA was taken over by Embraer), so be it.

2. Competition keeps companies sharp. One of the worst things about HAL’s commanding presence (until recently) is that it has sucked up India’s defense spending while starving more qualified local non-state owned firms, such as Tata, Reliance and Mahindra. Most countries with emerging defense industries can only afford one or two primes, but any competition helps. Brazil has other defense primes than Embraer. In March, South Korea awarded KAI the KF-X fighter contract, but only after securing a competing bid from Korean Air Lines (with Airbus). South Korea’s government mandates at least two bidders for any contract, which guarantees an aggressive bid. By contrast, Turkey is likely heading for trouble with Turkish Aerospace Industries’ sole-source status on the TFX fighter, Hurkus trainer, and other platforms.

3. Exports are essential too. Relying solely on domestic producers (autarky) is bad for a military, and relying solely on a national military customer (a monopsony) is bad for domestic producers. Diversifying through exports ensures that a company’s costs aren’t out of line with international market prices. It also helps companies manage risk. After the Ching Kuo, Taiwan no longer wanted a national defense prime. But AIDC has been able to stay alive through contract work for many international customers. After the Lavi fighter died, Israel Aircraft Industries re-invented itself as Israel Aerospace Industries, with a much greater focus on high-tech exports.

Back to the Rafale. Production has been stuck at 11 per year since 2000, but things are looking up. The recent Egypt sale won’t change output much (the French military is using this sale as an opportunity to defer deliveries). But a 36-plane order is a nice bump, particularly with follow-on buys likely. Still, we’re not changing our forecast yet. After all, it ain’t over until the Bollywood interloper sings. Or at least changes his ways.

We’ve updated our annual business aircraft overview this month. Other updated Teal aircraft reports cover the Eurofighter, C-235/295, Airbus’s H135, and the Mirage 2000. Have a great spring.

Yours, ‘Til Some Bollywood Character Actors Visit Me At Le Bourget,

Richard Aboulafia

Edited April 28, 2015 by Agiel

[Sarex]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32478937

 

The video at the bottom though, lol...

[Agiel]

Submarine recognition guide:

 

 

The Vanguard SSBN is probably the most beautiful of the megadeath machines.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Agiel

[Walsingham]

Submarine recognition guide:

 

 

The Vanguard SSBN is probably the most beautiful of the megadeath machines.

 

At last! I can finally prove that isn't just an unusual Siberian duck, out back of my house. Like it said it was. In heavily accented English.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Walsingham

[obyknven]

Military porn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[obyknven]

New futuristic Russian tanks not only cause hysteria in Pentagon (who suddenly decide buy a hordes of tanks for counter Russian technological superiority),

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1829 

Army Begins Massive Makeover of Combat Vehicle Fleet
The Army has suspended purchases of new combat vehicles for the time being, but it is ploughing ahead with plans to gut aging tanks and equip them with fresh components and electronics, including a new powerful targeting sensor.
More than 1,600 Abrams tanks and 2,500 Bradley infantry combat vehicles would be overhauled over the next decade.

but also cause quite funny ****storm in Western media and in Western internets.

 

[Agiel]

There are some countries which have an existential and contiguous threat (South Korea), have a huge expanse of territory to cover (Russia), or both (Finland) which necessitates national service/conscription, problems and all.

 

The United States isn't one of them:

 

source

 

 

What Americans Don’t Understand About Their Own Military

Reinstating the draft is hardly a realistic solution to bridging the military-civilian gap in the U.S. And here's why.

 

One of the strangest criticisms of US security policy is that it burdens a too-small percentage of the American people, because only about 1% of the adult population serves in the military. Because such a small percent of the population is at risk in American wars, American politicians are said to feel free to send the military to fight wasteful, unwinnable, and costly wars.

 

 

The preference is apparently for conscription, which would put more of the population at risk, and supposedly lead to fewer and wiser wars. “If only the politicians’ sons or daughters were forced to serve!” is the lament.

 

The model is always WWII, when over 12 million Americans were in uniform—more than 15% of the adult population of the time—and a much higher percentage of the adult male population.

 

The burden of fighting then was supposedly widely shared. The contrast: today, fewer than 1.4 million men and women are active-duty military, and another 800,000+ are in the reserves. Given that there are about 200 million Americans between the ages of 18-65, this is just over 1% of the relevant population.

There are several problems with the argument.

 

Fifteen percent of 200 million would produce a military of 30 million—a bit large, one must say, for less than all-out global warfare. But even 2% produces a military of four million people; a third larger than the military on active duty during the 1960s, when the Soviet Union was being confronted globally, while a major war was being fought in Vietnam.

 

Each year, about four million Americans reach the age of 18. Currently, the American military needs fewer than 200,000 of them to volunteer for active duty or the reserves to maintain its numbers. With that pool, the military can insist on a high school education for enlisted personnel, and a college degree for officers. Avoided are the medically unfit, those with serious criminal records, and those who would chafe under the discipline required.

 

Of course, the argument isn’t that all of the age group should serve in the military. Rather it is that some form of public service should be required of all. But what would the government do with four million 18 year-olds each year?

 

Our hospitals, inner-city schools, and Native American reservations already have well-paid employees to do the necessary work. Political correctness would require women to face the same obligations as men. Who would be forced into the military or prison guard jobs? Could it be voluntary? Wouldn’t that be the same system we have now? Wouldn’t the rich and influential always find a way to make the service of their children career-enhancing or at least safe?

 

During the last year of the Second World War, there was a manpower crisis as the US found itself running out of infantry soldiers. The better-educated draftees were used in technical and support functions, or found their way into safe and draft-exempt civilian occupations.

 

During the Vietnam War, the draft—in effect only to feed the infantry fighting the war—was essentially voluntary as those who wanted to avoid fighting joined the Navy, found an easy disqualification, or fled the country. The current all-volunteer force allows people to choose their risk, and compensates them for it. Those who want to be in the most hazardous branches of the armed services are double or triple volunteers, having had to decide to join the military, and then having opted for its most dangerous jobs.

 

Some might say that all who do so are coerced by their poverty to be in the military, making the military a home for black people and others who are economically disadvantaged. African-Americans are indeed over-represented in the American military when compared to their percentage of the general population, but not of the prime relevant age group (18-24).

 

The military is an attractive employer, given its pay structure and post-career benefits. But minorities are over-represented in the non-combat occupations (medical services, transportation, administration, etc.); combat arms are predominantly white, attracting youths who see themselves as spending some post-high school time in an adventure-land with guns and as having no intention of making the military a career.

 

The volunteer military is actually better educated and less poor than the draft military, because it is smaller and more selective than the draft military. One third of American youth, heavily minority, do not complete high school, and thus make themselves largely ineligible for the military even if they wish to serve.

 

In fact, more than 1% of Americans are involved in America’s defense. In addition to the two plus million service personnel—the 1.4 million active duty and 800,000 plus in the reserve components—there are 800,000 plus civil service employees of the Department of Defense—people who work in military depots, defense laboratories, shipyards, and contract management offices—and five to six million (the exact number is not known) contract employees—people who build weapon systems, provide support services, and conduct defense related research.

 

This totals to 3-4% of the adult population. Add spouses and other family members, and you can see that not an insignificant portion of the American population is involved in defense.

 

One percent or eight, the interests of America’s military, defense civil servants, and defense contractors are not ignored by politicians. Bad wars aren’t the product of a military that is too easy to commit and too small to count politically. Rather, the bad wars are the result of America being the global policemen, seeking to guarantee the security of too many others—and creating the expectation that America will intervene in every dispute where force may be involved.

 

It isn’t that soldiers’ lives aren’t valued. Actually, the concern with their casualties has grown with time even after conscription was abolished. It is just that American presidents are expected to act—to do something when trouble starts in the Middle East, when North Korea rattles some sabers and when Russia tries to change its boundaries. Doing something often involves the deployment of ships, the use of soldiers as advisors, a missile strike, and the start of a bombing campaign. One thing leads to another, but rarely to a quick, easy victory.

 

A better criticism is that America has stopped paying for its wars. In the past, wars brought dedicated tax increases, and the sharing of burdens broadly among citizens—taxpayers and voters as well as the soldiers in the fight. But the global war on terror instead gave Americans tax cuts, deficits, and borrowing on a massive scale which was readily obtained from foreigners at low interest rates.

 

The domestic political constraints on the use of force are only casualties, and not a growing financial burden on taxpayers. The costs of wars are passed to future generations, those not yet with a vote. This is not a good development. Few citizens are warriors or need to be, but all should pay for their country’s wars.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Agiel

[Gfted1]

The T-14 is a sweet looking ride.   I wonder what the armor is? Russia usually favors reactive armor but I don't see any strapped on. Probably easy to add.

[Agiel]

Given that the Russian Army now considers ERA to be an integral part of the armour array, it's probably there. It's just that it doesn't look as haphazardly "pasted on" as Kontakt-1 would look on an older tank.

 

Compare how much sleeker a T-90AM with Kontakt-5:

 

 

looks compared to a T-80BV with Kontakt-1:

 

Edited May 8, 2015 by Agiel

[cirdanx]

 

There are some countries which have an existential and contiguous threat (South Korea), have a huge expanse of territory to cover (Russia), or both (Finland) which necessitates national service/conscription, problems and all.

 

South Korea has no threat, the North can´t win and they know it. What Korea needs is a reunification, but the US will never stand for it, because they need a Boogy man, an enemy as an excuse for their military spending. (and to have a foot into the asian sea from south korea) Finland stands pretty well? With them even saying the support Russian friendship, on the other way going for nato....there is pressure from both sides.

[Walsingham]

BBC Radio 4 Extra has a piece on BRIXMIS right now. Go to the BBC iplayer for online access.

 

EDIT: @Cirdansk

 

What precisely about North Korea's gigantic standing army, and all round brutality makes you think they're pussycats?

Edited May 8, 2015 by Walsingham

[Luj1]

I love these new Russian tanks

[Agiel]

Finland stands pretty well? With them even saying the support Russian friendship, on the other way going for nato....there is pressure from both sides.

 

 

Who do you think the "Arctic Challenge" exercises, the 900,000 reservists who got sent letters reminding them of their obligations to the Finnish Defence Force, and the navy's depth charging of a submerged contact off their coast was meant to send a message to? Sweden?

 

Finland's worst kept military secret is that the agreement to join NATO had already already signed, it's just sitting in some Finnish general's drawer somewhere in a glass box with a hammer that says "In case of Russian incursion into the Lapland, break glass and fax to SACEUR".

 

@Walsingham

 

Archive of the segment is now up for the next 30 days: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007nf6t

Edited May 8, 2015 by Agiel

[obyknven]

 

Finland stands pretty well? With them even saying the support Russian friendship, on the other way going for nato....there is pressure from both sides.

 

 

Who do you think the "Arctic Challenge" exercises, the 900,000 reservists who got sent letters reminding them of their obligations to the Finnish Defence Force, and the navy's depth charging of a submerged contact off their coast was meant to send a message to? Sweden?

 

Finland's worst kept military secret is that the agreement to join NATO had already already signed, it's just sitting in some Finnish general's drawer somewhere in a glass box with a hammer that says "In case of Russian incursion into the Lapland, break glass and fax to SACEUR".

 

@Walsingham

 

Archive of the segment is now up for the next 30 days: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007nf6t

 

Yep, Finland and Sweden must pay money to NATO and play role of cannon fodder in Murican colonial wars. Because of it Scandinavian elites perform a hysterical  huntings  of imaginary Russian subs and do other thing for justify joining to NATO (kekeke - looks like Muricans just bribe Scandinavian elites and Swedish/Finnish join to NATO decided long ago... in Murica). 

[Walsingham]

I've got to say, as a fan of George Orwell, you do deliver, Oby.

 

What I find interesting is that oby rarely attempts to justify what Russia is doing. Note how it's always an attack message, shifting the discussion to Western policies, which by tehir very nature seem more real and raw.

 

Depressing that so many people fall for this technique, but still fascinating.

 

Woops! Looks Like I'm using the same approach...

[obyknven]

Actually all photos of new Russian tanks has been heavenly photoshopped. Real photos from Moscow looks like this.

[Gfted1]

@Agiel: If you were facing the front of the T-14, just to the right of the barrel is a strange square-ish cutout. What do you suppose that is?

[Agiel]

@Agiel: If you were facing the front of the T-14, just to the right of the barrel is a strange square-ish cutout. What do you suppose that is?

 

My guess is that that's where the gunner's sight is. Leopard 2A4 has a similar segment that's cut-out for that purpose:

 

 

Or, at least where the gunner's primary sight is supposed to be. It's rather doubtful that the turret we're seeing now will be on the production version (if it comes), so what we're seeing now remains a mock-up, as the common belief is that the turret in its current form barely stands up to 30mm autocannon fire (if that). Supposedly a Russian general expressed some concern that a not insignificant percentage (to the tune of 80%) of the electronics is of western European make, and with the current geopolitical situation further technology transfers will be put into limbo (for instance, the Russian Army currently uses simulators built by, of all people, Rheinmetall, and the 2nd generation TIS for the T-90 is a license built version of the CATHERINE made by Thales).

Edited May 9, 2015 by Agiel

[obyknven]

@Agiel: If you were facing the front of the T-14, just to the right of the barrel is a strange square-ish cutout. What do you suppose that is?

Just typical Russian modular design. Some secreted equipment has been removed from this placement before public demonstration. Usual practice with such class of equipment in Russian military forces. 

[sorophx]

the new tank in all its glory (FFW to the 1-hour mark)