Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

The 15 countries with the highest military expenditure Annually

Discussion in 'Modern Warfare' started by sunny_10, Jun 15, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sachin2020

    sachin2020 FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2013
    Messages:
    40
    Likes Received:
    2
    what is the ppp spend for pakistan? and over $100 b is too much for us.
     
  2. Picard

    Picard Lt. Colonel RESEARCHER

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Messages:
    5,865
    Likes Received:
    3,024
    AFAIK, F-16s AoA limit is not aerodynamical, but rather to avoid high drag.
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    Comparative Effectiveness of "Super Sukhoi" SU30mki/ SU35BM with F35/F15SE :tup:

     
  4. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    India's elusive nuclear triad will be operational soon: Navy chief
    Aug 8, 2012

    NEW DELHI: India's nuclear triad - the ability to fire nukes from land, air and sea - will soon be in place. After some delays and hiccups, the country's first nuclear submarine INS Arihant is getting ready "to go to sea" within the next few months. :tup:

    "INS Arihant is steadily progressing towards becoming operational...we are pretty close to putting it to sea (for extensive trials and missile firings)," announced Navy chief Admiral Nirmal Verma on Tuesday.

    "Navy is poised to complete the triad, and our maritime and nuclear doctrines will then be aligned to ensure our nuclear insurance comes from the sea. Given our unequivocal 'no first-use commitment', a retaliatory strike capability that is credible and invulnerable is an imperative," he added.

    The Navy chief's emphatic statement comes a week after DRDO officially declared the country's first-ever SLBM (submarine-launched ballistic missile) or the K-15 missile, with a strike range of 750-km, was "ready for induction".

    India has for some time possessed the Agni series of ballistic missiles as well as fighter-bombers to constitute the land and air-based legs of the triad. The long-elusive underwater leg, considered the most effective for both pre-emptive as well as retaliatory strikes, now finally seems to be taking shape with INS Arihant and its two follow-on SSBNs (nuclear-powered submarines armed with ballistic nuclear-tipped missiles).

    The 6,000-tonne submarine, which has four missile silos on its hump to carry either 12 K-15s or four of the under-development 3,500-km range K-4 missiles :thumb:, will head for sea only after its 83 MW pressurized light-water reactor goes "critical". So far, it has been undergoing systematic checks of all its sub-systems as well as "harbour-acceptance trials" on shore-based steam at Vizag.

    With 46 warships and submarines being constructed, and another 49 in the pipeline under overall plans worth Rs 2.73 lakh crore, Admiral Verma said, "Today, I am confident we do not suffer asymmetries with anyone. We have the wherewithal to defend our maritime interests." :tup:

    Brushing aside questions on the new US strategy to "rebalance" forces towards the Asia-Pacific as well as China's growing maritime might and assertiveness, the Navy chief said India's "primary" area of strategic interest lay between the Gulf and Malacca Strait, extending "down south to the Cape of Good Hope".

    While India is not going to "actively deploy" in the contentious South China Sea, where China is enmeshed in territorial disputes with Vietnam, the Philippines and others, he said "all the players" there should ensure hostilities do not erupt in the region and hit global shipping and trade.

    Turning to maritime terrorism, Admiral Verma said both the Navy and Coast Guard were now much better prepared and equipped to tackle 26/11-like attacks from outfits like Lashkar-e-Taiba. "Even before Abu Jundal (key 26/11 handler) said it, we had factored in such possibilities," he said.

    "Terrorism from the sea and terrorism at sea are now realities of our times. In our external environment, one of our core concerns is the coalescing of the 'state' with 'non-state' entities," he added.

    India's elusive nuclear triad will be operational soon: Navy chief - Times Of India

     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2013
  5. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    Exercise Red Flag 2008-4 / Su-30MKI vs F-15, F-16, F-22

    SU30mki Vs F15

    Red Flag 2008-4 : Lecture by USAF Col. Terrence Fornof

    Introduction

    After participating with the USAF in a number of exercises in Cope India and Cope Thunder series, the Indian Air Force sent its top of the line Su-30MKIs to Exercise Red Flag in August 2008. Red Flag is world famous for its complex and realistic war gaming and is a coveted training opportunity for pilots.

    Red Flag 2008 saw USAF’s first encounter with Su-30MKI – the most advanced Su-27 Flanker derivative is service anywhere in the world. The results of the exercise were highly anticipated. Following the exercise, a two part video of a USAF officer delivering a lecture to a knowledgeable, but unknown audience emerged on youtube creating a sensation of sorts among watchers on the internet given that the pilot was sharing firsthand experience unhindered by official rules which limit the detail that is to be shared with media.

    An inexact transcript and the video follows, followed by comments and analysis. Most of the words have been paraphrased so do look at the video as well.



    Discussion on the Su-30MKI. I stands for 'Indian', 'Su-30M' is the Russian designation for theie newest fighter and 'K' means that its an export version. These were version five airplanes, they had vectored thrust, canards, all the advanced weapons the Russians build, including the AMRAAMSKI – their active radar missile, and the R-73 which is there IR missile, which has a 30 mile range on it. Nothing classified, everything I say can be found in Janes website.

    We had them here at Mountain Home for two weeks where we told them how to fly for Red Flag. And a couple of things happened.

    Firstly, the Tumansky engines are very suseptible to FOD (Foreign Object Damage). Now the reason thats a big deal is because they asked for a 1 minute spacing between take offs. At Red Flag with nearly 50-60 aircraft supposed to take off, if you have one person who will wait one minute between each take off to launch these six aircraft... yeah.... right, they can go find some other place to fly. So we trained with them, worked with them, and got them to shorten that down to 45 seconds, still not acceptable. But what we did was send these guys out first and ask them to wait for everyone else, since they had enough gas fuel, they would go up and wait for everyone else. They were very concerned about FOD and how Russian engines are not nearly as reliable as Americans. One of the things the Indians were very disapointed in, if an engine breaks down because of FOD, the Russians make them send the engine back to Russia, then you'll send you back a new one. So its not the ideal situation for them here in the United States because they have no spare engines here.

    How did they Fly? There is a lot of stuff on the subject in the newspapers and magazines about this airplane. There's a great video on youtube, where somebody shows the F-22 flying its demo, and the Su-30MK, side by side, and he does the exact same demonstration, as the F-22. And an airshow, then can do the same demonstration. The reality is, that's about as close as the airplanes ever get. When you compare it with US airplanes; where does it stand up against the F-16 and F-15, it's a tad bit better than we are. And that's pretty impressive, it has better radar, more thrust, vectored thrust, longer ranged weapons, so it's pretty impressive. The Sukhoi is a tad bit better (holds arm at chest level, and the other arm signifying the Sukhoi a wee bit higher). But now compare with the F-22 Raptor, the raptor is here. (holds palm way above his head - signifying that the aircraft is much better). OK, next.

    Now coming to the maneuvering. We did a lot of 1 to 1 fighting with it.... and we were very concerned, because in Cope Indias when we went over to India and fought them, they always had their best pilots. We always fought them at the 'Indian Nellis' and they always had their best pilots flying. We always had our operational unit based out of Kadena where the experience ratio is 80% inexperienced guys with less than 500hrs flying time and 20% experienced. The 20% were fairly experienced but they came back from a staff jobs so they really hadn't had a lot of time flying. Anyway at Cope India, we held our own, but the Indians pounded their chests - they said we beat them more than they beat us – and that was true there. :troll:

    Now they come to Mountain Home, and the Su-30 unit that they bring was a regular operational unit – with an experience mix of about 50-50 (experienced vs inexperienced). Their experienced guys had all come off the MiG-21 Bison.. The MiG-21 bison is a pretty neat airplane. It is based on the MiG-21 as many of you guys know from the Vietnam (War) era, but upgraded with an F-16 radar built by the Israelis in the nose, active radar missile, and they carry an Israeli jammer on it would practically make them invisible to our legacy radar in the F-15 and F-16.

    Remember days in 4477th (4477 Test and Evaluation Squadron)... MiG-21 had the capability to get into the scissors with you, 110 knots, 60 degrees nose high, go from 10,000 feet to 20,000 feet, very manoeuvrable airplane, but it didn't have any good weapons. Now it has high off bore sight Archer missile, helmet mounted sight, active missile, and a jammer that gets it into the merge, good radar, so that's the plane the SU-30 experienced pilots came out of and they were pretty good in the engaged fight.

    Well we get them to Mountain Home and we let the operational guys fight... and then a couple of things happened. Amazingly, we dominated - not with a clean F-15 i.e. Without any wingtanks and other stores, but we dominated with an F-15 in wartime configuration i.e. 4 missiles onboard, wingtanks, and they're sitting there in clean Su-30s except for pylons which did not have anything on it except a ACMI pod. They were amazed, matter of fact they were floored to the point after the first 3 days, they didn't want any more 1 vs 1 stuff. Lets move on the something else (laughs). Funny 'cause in India, they wanted only 1 to 1 - cause they were winning at that. :laugh:

    A quick word on the airplane. Vectored thrust. The Raptor has vectored thrust, but its two dimensional and works only in the pitch mode. When the airplane pulls, and it gets past a certain AoA (Angle of Attack), the vectored thrust kicks in and drives the airplane around. In the Su-30, instead of having it in the pitch, it has TVC in a V. It doesnt have to be in a post stall manoevering.... the TVC would kick in and push the aircraft the direction when the pilot engages the switch on the stick. All this is formidable on paper but what you would know is that with the TVC kicking in, its a huge aircraft, and thrusting such a huge aircraft in that direction creates a lot of drag. It's a biiig airplane. A huge airplane. So what happens is when it moves its nose around, its sinking. We had enough experience with the F-22. which has up/down TVC nozzles.

    What would happen is that the in a merge with the F-22... From our experience, that's the only way you would get the F-22. and the only way - this happens only if there is an inexperienced pilot because the experienced ones never make the mistake. You would be pulling in scissor fight hoping you would get the F-22 in your sights (laughs ). The F22 can sustain a turn rate of 28 deg per second at 20,000 feet while the F-15 can get an instantaneous rate of 21 and a sustained rate of 15-16 degrees. So you are pulling and hoping. Post stall, maneuver, the ass end drops and instead of going up, it just drops in mid air and the airplane will rotate with its nose up. This is where the Eagle or Viper pilot would pull up vertical, switch to guns, then come down and take a shot at the F-22. Of course you have to first get in close to do this, most probably the F-22 will kill you before that.

    The Su-30? No problem. Big airplane. Big cross section. Jamming to get to the merge, so you have to fight close... he has 22 - 23 degrees per second sustained turn rate. We've been fighting the Raptor, so we've been going oh dude, this is easy. So as we're fighting him, all of a sudden you'd see the ass end kick down, going post stall - but now he starts falling from the sky. The F-15 wouldn't even have to pull up. slight pull up on the stick, engage guns, come down and drill his brains out.

    While on paper, he has vectored thrust, all these great weapons and everything, he looks the same as a Raptor, he's nowhere near the same. So that was a really good thing for us to find out, that we really didn't know until this last excercise. Now, what I'm scared of, is congress is going to hear that and go 'great we don't need to buy any more airplanes... no no no, we used to be way ahead of them, now they're right up close to us and just a little bit higher. I say that they're just a little bit better than us, is because when there pilots learn how to fly, they'll be able to beat the F-16 and F-15, on a regular basis. Right now, they use TVC and just go into post stall.... so it's only a matter of time before they learn. :hang2:

    As far as the Red Flag went, we also had the French out here. The French were going to get the Mirage 2000 dash 5, one of their older airplanes, but the moment they knew the Indians were getting the Sukhois they decided to send the Rafales - their latest, advanced jet. 90% of the time, they followed the Indians in, but they never really came into the merge. Like anyone of you who has flown in Desert Storm (Iraq) and Afghanistan, they would do local flights over Bagram, Bahrain and Alseraj and say we participated, but what they were really doing is just sniffing electronically and finding out how our radars work. And that's really all they did out here.... came out here with all the electronic receiving equipments and sucked out all the trons in the air.

    One thing about the IAF - they learnt their lessons very well at Mountain Home, they were extremely professional - they never flew out of the airspace which we were very concerned about. They had zero training rule violations. And that in itself was incredible. We were very impressed and thanked them so much because they were very very professional.

    Where they had problems was they killed a lot of friends. Red Flag has changed now, the first week of Red Flag is basically large force deployment and the second week is about a campaign.... where the surface to air missiles come up. What was happening was that they did not have combat I.D capability.

    The Koreans bought in their brand spankin' new F-15Ks. beautiful aircraft, with AESA radar and all like on the F-22. Had Israeli targeting and jamming pods on them. Incredible airplanes. Very professional also. But they had less than 50 hours total on the F-15 it and none on the airplane, they were still learning the aircraft. So it did not have any significant impact.

    You know what was happening is that they didn't have the datalink with the Awacs. Big internet data links. The Koreans, the French and us could see the complete picture on the HUD, but the IAF had to ask the AWACS. they would ask about a target ahead, "Contact on my nose 22 miles, friendly or hostile?" Awacs would say "No hostile within 40 miles of you" then "Fox2." (laughs) The first two days they got hit bad, they were getting shot down while waiting for answers so they decided to kill the other guy fast without knowing.. better you die than me. So they had a fairly high number of fratricides. But they took the fratricides very seriously.

    So while Nellis is about training with people who we will go to war with, Red Flag Alaska: This is different from Red Flag Nellis. In Alaska we exercise for friendship building. Most countries that fly there are in a conflict with each other. The Indians really wanted to participate in Red Flag Nellis, so they could mix right in and be a part of the coalition, and they learned, in a big way, that, that, wouldn't happen.

    Was the AESA radar in the Indian aircraft...? Well the Indian is PESA which is not active but passive, as opposed to AESA. Huge difference, because and actively scanned AESA pings more, and sees more, and is more accurate, than just a passively scanned radar. PESA is good but ends up having more technical problems in discriminating, and finding the right guy.

    Some guy said F-15 was last dog fighting airplane, he discounted the fact the F-22 was really terrific in the fight...? I think the Raptor is the next great dogfighter we have. Reason is, electronic jamming, and not only electronic jamming, but we don't carry enough missiles. We're going to have to go in with guns. Gonna happen and thank god the Raptor still has a gun on it. It's fast, its manoeuvrable, .... and the Block 50 (and 52 EHRM P&W FTW), is pretty good dogfighter also, so these aircraft, the F-15, Block 50 F-16, and the Raptor, are still very capable aircraft, because when the Bison MiG-21 that gets in unseen with the small RCS and a big jamming pod.... going to need manoeuvrability. :wave:

    What about the F-35? Let's save that for another discussion. We do too much work on it at this moment, but we'll save that for another time.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    About the speaker

    Colonel Terrence Fornof (Colonel is equivalent to a Group Captain in the IAF) is an F-15 pilot and the Director of the Requirements and Testing office at the United States Air Force Warfare Center, Nellis AFB, Nevada. The lecture above is a private briefing in August 2008 to a group called the “Daedalians”. The Daedalians are a local group of retired military pilots.

    Per the press statement handed out by Nellis AFB: “Col. Fornof did not mean to offend any U.S. allied forces, as he knows firsthand the importance of training with allied forces and the awesome firepower they bring to the fight. His comments during this briefing were his personal opinions and not those of U.S. Air Force Warfare Center or of the Air Force."

    Comments and Analysis

    Despite Col. Fornof having observed Red Flag up close, his comments should not be treated as the gospel truth - there is a possibility that he is ‘playing to the gallery’. His comments are noteworthy since he is an operational pilot with the USAF but he certainly cannot cover the entire exercise and has no inside knowledge of the way IAF ‘fought’. The comments initially appear to be negative about the IAF to the uninformed listener; overall he has actually praised the IAF and its performance.

    The Su-30MKI did not use the data link in the exercise unlike the other air forces. The reason being the HAL supplied system is not compatible with NATO data links – neither is the system required to be compatible with NATO. The speaker clearly mentions that the high fratricide ratio in the kills was because of this reason. While NATO air forces are designed to inter operate with each other and carry out joint missions, the IAF is not.

    Su-30MKI is equipped with its own data link which can share target information across multiple fighters. IAF is presently inducting A-50EI Phalcon AEW&C aircraft. Red Flag and other exercises before it have seen IAF working very closely with the AWACS crew of the other air force. Operational Data Link (ODL) will be provided to all fighters in the IAF over the coming years.

    The IFF system used by IAF is not compatible with NATO standard, hence the need for verbal communication with the controller.

    The aircraft were operating their radars on training mode since the actual signals with which the Bars radar operates are kept secret.

    The high mix of highly experienced pilots in Ex Cope India, if true, cannot be consistent across all sqns that were involved in the exercise. During Cope India, the 24 Sqn operating Su-30K/MK was first Flanker unit in the IAF and only one of two Su-30 units in the entire IAF at that time. To find a concentration of senior pilots in these squadrons will not be unexpected given that these units will be forging doctrines and tactics and building up a pool of pilots. Per article on Cope India here; “Nor did U.S. pilots believe they faced only India's top guns. Instead, they said that at least in some units they faced a mix of experienced and relatively new Indian fighter and strike pilots.”. Moreover, the mix of experience needs to be examined for the USAF squadrons as well. The aggressor squadron at Nellis and the F-22 attracts the best in the USA.

    Soviet era aircraft were designed to operate from poorly prepared airfields. For example; MiG-29 closes its intakes during taxi and take-off to avoid ingestion of FOD thrown up by the front wheels. In this state the engines are supplied air thru louvres located on upper surface of the leading edge. This design feature is at the cost of significant internal fuel capacity and hence has been eliminated in newer MiG-29 versions starting with the K/KUB variants. Flanker come with lighter anti-FOD grills in the intakes as well as wheel fenders that catch FOD. IAF has precautions built into their SOPs – which may be overlooked in case of war or any such exigency. Since the deployment was far away from home base in the USA, with no spares support and related infrastructure it was well worth to observe strict adherence to SOPs instead to being stuck with a grounded aircraft!

    This is not the first time the MiG-21 Bison has been praised for successes during dissimilar air combat training (DACT) – even during previous USAF exercise and internal IAF exercises pilots are known to have scored ‘kills’ against more advanced adversaries. The small size (lower visual signature) and inherently small radar cross section coupled with modern avionics, radar, effective jammers, precision guided munitions and missiles (R-73, R-77) make Bison one of the best fighters in IAF after Su-30 and Mirage-2000. IAF’s has had good experience with small jets such as Gnat which earned the reputation of “Sabre Slayer” in the 1965 war with Pakistan. The under-development LCA Tejas promises to carry on this legacy when it replaces the Bison.

    Observations by Vishnu Som

    Mr. Vishnu Som is an Indian journalist who was reporting on the exercise.

    As the only Indian journalist who spent a lengthy period of time at Nellis after being granted permission by both the Indian Air Force and the US Air Force, I was granted access to impeccable sources in both forces.

    Whats more, I was able to independently corroborate this information with reliable, alternative sources.

    For starters ... and this cannot be stressed enough ... the Red Flag exercises were a brilliant learning experience for all the participants, not least of all the Indian Air Force which, over a period of time, has earned the reputation of being one of the world's finest operational air forces.

    This was a reputation which was reinforced at Red Flag 2008, the world's most advanced air combat exercises where the Indian Air Force fielded a number of state of the art Sukhoi 30 MKI jets in addition to IL-76 transports and IL-78 mid air refuellers.

    For other participants at the Red Flag exercises ... namely the South Korean Air Force, French and US Air Force ... the opportunity to train with a platform such as the Sukhoi 30 MKI was an opportunity which just couldn't be missed. This has a lot to do not just with the jet but also with the air force operating the fighter, a force which has made a mark as an innovative operator of fast jets. The US Air Force … the host of these exercises … was singularly gracious in its appreciation for the Indian Air Force contingent which came into Red Flag having trained extensively for the exercises not only back home but also at the Mountain Home Air Force base in the US.

    Contrary to unsolicited remarks by certain serving US personnel not directly linked to day to day operations at the exercises … the Indian Air Force and its Su-30s more than made a mark during their stint in the United States. For starters … not a single Sukhoi 30 MKI fighter was `shot down’ in close air combat missions at the Mountain Home air base. In fact, none of the Sukhois were even close to being shot down in the 10 odd one on one sorties which were planned for the first two days of the exercises at Mountain Home. These one on one engagements featured USAF jets such as the F-15 and F-16 in close air engagements against the Su-30 MKI. The majority of the kills claimed in these engagements were granted to the Indian Air Force with the remainder of these being no-results. Indian Air Force Sukhois did use their famed thrust vectoring in these one on one engagements. Contrary to what may have been reported elsewhere … the Su-30 has a rate of turn of more than 35 degrees when operating in the thrust vector mode. In certain circumstances, this goes up substantially.

    By the time the exercises at Mountain Home had matured … the Indian Air Force had graduated to large formation exercises which featured dozens of jets in the sky. In one of these exercises … the blue forces, of which the Indian Air Force was a part … shot down more than 21 of the enemy jets. Most of these `kills’ have been credited to the Indian Air Force. :tup:

    By the time the Indian Air Force was ready for Red Flag, the contingent had successfully worked up using the crawl, walk, run principle. At Red Flag though, they found themselves at a substantial disadvantage vis a vis the other participants since they were not networked with AWACS and other platforms in the same manner in which USAF or other participating jets were. In fact, Indian Air Force Sukhois were not even linked to one another using their Russian built data links since American authorities had asked for specifics of the system before it was cleared to operate in US airspace. The IAF, quite naturally, felt that this would compromise a classified system onboard and decided to go on with the missions without the use of data links between the Sukhois.Neither was the Indian Air Force allowed to use chaff or flares, essential decoys to escape incoming missiles which had been fired by enemy jets. This was because the US FAA had visibility and pollution related concerns in the event that these were used in what is dense, busy air space in the Las Vegas region.

    The Red Flag exercises themselves were based on large force engagements and did not see the Indian Air Force deploy thrust vectoring at all on any of the Sukhoi 30 jets not that this was required since the engagements were at long ranges. Though it is true that there were 4-5 incidents of fratricides involving the Indian Air Force at Red Flag … it is important to point out the following: In the debriefs that followed the exercises … responsibility for the fratricides were always put on the fighter controllers not the pilots. Its also important to point that unlike in Mountain Home, none of the Indian Air Force’s own fighter controllers were allowed to participate since there was classified equipment at Nellis used for monitoring the exercises. The lack of adequate controlling and the fact that Nellis fighter controllers often had problems understanding Indian accents (they had problems understanding French accents as well) resulted in a lack of adequate controlling in situations. Whats more … given the fact that the availability of AWACS was often low … the bulk of fratricides took place on days when the AWACS jet was not deployed. Whats important to remember though is that US participants in these exercises had a similar number of fratricides despite being fully linked in with data links and the latest IFF systems.

    So was the Indian Air Force invincible at Red Flag. In a word … no. So yes, there were certainly days in which several Sukhoi jets were shot down. And there were others when they shot down many opposing jets. Ultimately though … the success of the Indian Air Force at Red Flag lay in the fact that they could meet their mission objectives as well, if not better, than any other participant. Despite the hot weather conditions, the IAF had a 95 per cent mission launch ratio, far better than some of the participants. And no one went into the exercises thinking the score line would be a perfect one in favour of the IAF. In fact … the IAF went into these exercises with an open mind and with full admiration of the world beating range at Nellis with an unmatched system of calibrating engagement results.Perhaps the most encouraging part of these exercises comes from the fact that the Indian Air Force’s young pilots … learnt from their mistakes, analysed, appreciated and came back strong. Mistakes were not repeated. In fact … the missions where the IAF did not fare well turned out to be immense learning experiences. At the end of the exercises … its more than clear that the IAF’s Su-30s were more than a match for the variants of the jets participating at the Red Flag exercises. Considering the fact that the central sensor of the Sukhoi, its radar … held up just fine in training mode …despite the barrage of electronic jamming augurs well for the Indian Air Force.

    The complete article is available here.

    Observations by Pushpindar Singh Chopra.

    Mr. PS Chopra is the Editor of Vayu Aerospace Review.

    The IAF did not undertake any IvIs at Nellis during Red Flag, nor did they engage thrust vectoring during the Exercise. IvIs were flown only at Mountain Home AFB. In none of the IvIs were the Su-30MKIs ever vulnerable, let alone shot down. As all exercises were flown with ACMI, the situations are recorded and available to substantiate this aspect. Additionally, the MKI's behaviour with thrust vectoring is dramatically different from that described by the Colonel. F-15 and F-16 aircrew were well appreciative of IAF manoeuvres with thrust vectoring.

    Colonel Fornof's statement on Su-30MKI rates of turn with thrust vectoring (20o/ sec) is grossly 'out' but apparently gives away actual F-22 performance (28o/sec). Pitch of the talk seemed as to whether thrust vectoring was important or not. As all sorties were with ACMI, entire profiles are recorded, can be analysed and surely would have been replayed to drive the point home and make the 'chest thumping' sound more real. Apparently this was not done. Perhaps, as the Colonel is aware of F-22 data, he has tried to down play the Su-30MKI in comparison. Surprisingly, while there was no systems / avionics / comparison between the two types or with any other type of 'legacy' aircraft, the speaker does admit that radar of the MKI is 'superior' to that of the F-15 and F-16, however 'inferior' to AESA of the F-22 (a correct assessment). However, the IAF used the Su-30's radar in the training mode, with downgraded performance vis-à-vis operational mode, as they could hardly participate without this primary sensor

    Fratricide by IAF fighters : this is correct, the IAF did 'shoot down' some 'friendlies' and that was assessed and attributed to the IAF not being networked. However, what the Colonel did not bring out were the two essential reasons for this. Firstly, this occurred mainly when the AWACS was not available (unserviceable) and controlling was done by GCI. More significantly it happened during extremely poor controlling by their operators, this fact being acknowledged during debriefs and the controllers being admonished accordingly. 'Accents' were perhaps the main culprit here, which very often led to American controllers not being able to understand Indian calls.

    Now hear this : the F-15C and other USAF fighters had the same number of fratricides as the IAF ! Considering they are well networked, yet their pilots shot down the same number of 'friendlies'. This was not only a major concern but also turned out to be a major source of embarrassment as the USAF had everything -- Link 16, IFF Mode 4 etc and the IAF had nothing. Under the Rules of Engagement, they did not even permit the IAF to use data link within themselves. All cases of USAF fratricide were covered in the next day's mass briefing as lessons learnt by concerned aircrew. In the IAF, the incidents were covered by concerned controllers, and attributed to lack of adequate integration, excessive R/T congestion and poor controlling. Gloating on cases of IAF fratricide is frivolous and unprofessional.

    However, Colonel Fornof did appreciate IAF 'professionalism' and that the IAF were able to dovetail with USAF procedures within short time. There was not a single training rule / airspace violation. This is a most important aspect.

    Since the Colonel could hardly tell his audience that the IAF had given the USAF good run for their money, they downplayed the Su-30's capability. It is correct that the IAF aircrew included some very young pilots -- nearly 70 percent - but they adapted rapidly to the environment (totally alien), training rules (significantly different), airspace regulations etc but to say that they were unable to handle the Su-30 in its envelope (something that they have been practicing to do for four to five years) is just not credible ! If young pilots can adapt to new rules and environment within a short span of two weeks, it is because they are extremely comfortable and confident of their aircraft.

    The IAF's all round performance was publicly acknowledged during, and at end of the Exercise, specifically by those involved. Not a single TR / airspace violation was acknowledged. Mission achievement rate was in excess of 90%. The drop out / mission success rates of all others, inclusive of USAF, were significantly lower. This is of major significance considering the fact that IAF was sustaining operations 20,000 km away from home base while the USAF were at home base. (The 8 Su-30s flew some 850 hrs during the deployment, which is equivalent to four months of flying task in India over 75 days). IAF's performance at Mountain Home AFB was even better that that at Nellis AFB.

    FOD : At Mountain Home, IAF had reduced departure intervals from the very beginning (30" seconds) considering that operating surfaces were very clean. However, a few minor nicks were encountered and it was decided to revert to 60 seconds rather than undertake engine changes. This was communicated by the IAF at the very start (IPC itself).

    There is no need to go in for 'kill ratios' as that would be demeaning. However, the IAF had significant edge throughout and retained it. In fact the true lesson for the USAF should be : 'do not field low value legacy equipment against the Su-30MKI' !. (demeaning or otherwise, it is understood that the kill ratio (at Mountain Home AFB) was 21 : 1, in favour of the Su-30MKIs). :tup:

    Exercise Red Flag 2008-4 / Su-30MKI vs F-15, F-16, F-22
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2014
    1 person likes this.
  6. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,359
    Likes Received:
    2,378
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Indian Air Force lost 30 fighter aircraft, 10 choppers in three years

    Indian Air Force (IAF) has lost a total 30 fighter aircraft and 10 helicopters in crashes in last three years which left 26 defence personnel including 13 pilots dead, government told the Lok Sabha today.

    Indian Air Force lost 30 fighter aircraft, 10 choppers in three years

    That's very high by U.S. standards. The new F-22 has an accident rate is about 6 per 100,000 hours, mainly because it's new. F-15s and F-16s have an accident rate of 3-4 per 100,000 flight hours. India, using mostly Russian aircraft, has an accident rate of 6-7 per 100,000 hours flown (compared to 4-5 for all NATO air forces.) The B-52 has the lowest accident rate of (less than 1.5 per 100,000 flying hours) of all American heavy bombers. The B-1s rate is 3.48. Compared to the supersonic B-1 and high-tech B-2, the B-52 is a flying truck. Thus the B-52, despite its age, was the cheapest, safest and most reliable way to deliver smart bombs.

    Remember a couple things about Red Flag 2008-4 1. We are talking about dog fighting which is not going to happen in modern warfare.
    2. The USA Planes used much less experienced fighters 70 percent. 3. US Planes were outnumbered 5 to one in engagementts. 4. USA allways structures such exercise as to given foreign countries the advantage.

    But then we dont expect much in terms of quality from the Russians.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2013
  7. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence: Star Wars over India
    1st Dec 12

    At the missile test range in Chandipur, where the Bay of Bengal laps the Orissa coast, the massive, 5-tonne, 9-metre-long Prithvi ballistic missile readied for a mission for which it had never been designed. Fitted with a special rocket motor, the Prithvi --- which normally climbs 40 kilometres to the edge of space on its journey to a ground target some 350 kilometres away --- would today rocket up 110 kilometres, mimicking the flight path of a larger enemy ballistic missile with a range of 600 kilometres. Hurtling back into the atmosphere and poised above its target, the Prithvi would itself be targeted by the Defence R&D Organisation’s (DRDO’s) new Advanced Air Defence (AAD) interceptor. The hunter would become the hunted.

    70 kilometers away, on picturesque Wheeler’s Island across the bay from Chandipur, the AAD missile battery was on full operational alert. Its Long Range Tracking Radar (LRTR), tactically deployed near the temple town of Konark, systematically swept the horizon, reporting every flying object within 500 kilometres to a Launch Control Centre on Wheeler’s Island. There was no missing the Prithvi as it climbed above the horizon after lifting off from Chandipur. The radar reported the contact to the Mission Control Centre, which assigned the target to a particular AAD launcher which was grouped with a Multi-Function Control Radar (MFCR) deployed at Paradip. The Prithvi intruder was now on everyone’s scanner, computers analyzing its flight path in real time to identify it as an incoming ballistic missile, presumably armed with a nuclear warhead; in 300 seconds it would strike Wheeler’s Island.

    A high-tech aerial duel had begun as the AAD interceptor began preparing for launch. In minutes, the AAD would be launched at the Prithvi, by then screaming down through the upper atmosphere; a bullet fired at a bullet.

    Watching the drama unfold was a knot of DRDO officials, gathered around the Test Control Centre’s radar screens and computer terminals on Wheeler’s Island. For the DRDO chief, Dr VK Saraswat; Dr Avinash Chander, the DRDO’s missile chief; and other scientists there who had nurtured India’s anti-ballistic missile (ABM) programme, it was an important day at the office. Talking to this correspondent in Jan 2008, Saraswat had described the ABM programme’s start in 1995-96, when a worried New Delhi had called on the DRDO chief at that time, APJ Abdul Kalam, to develop a counter to Pakistan’s acquisition of nuclear-capable M-9 and M-11 missiles from China.

    India’s own Prithvi short range ballistic missile was then coming into its own, and Saraswat, who Kalam charged with this responsibility, decided to use a modified Prithvi as an interceptor missile to shoot down incoming missiles. Working through stiff technology denial regimes imposed after India’s nuclear tests in 1998, the DRDO developed the LRTR in partnership with Israeli company, ELTA, which had already developed the Green Pine Radar for Israel’s Arrow anti-missile system. The MFCR was developed along with French company, Thales. Quickly, the DRDO absorbed the technology and established production units, in case the technology pipe was shut off.

    The interceptor missiles that formed the ABM system --- the Prithvi based PAD (Prithvi Air Defence) and the AAD --- were built entirely in India by Saraswat and his scientists, a task he continued as he rose from project director, to missile chief, to his current job as DRDO chief and Scientific Advisor to the Defence Minister. This involved work at the frontiers of missile technology --- developing a solid rocket motor, jet vane controls, initial inertial system for mid course guidance and a seeker for homing onto a target.

    These systems, developed during those 15 years as part of the Rs 6500 crore programme, were coming into play at the Orissa coast as the Prithvi intruder, now entering the earth’s atmosphere some 30 kilometers above the Bay of Bengal, began slowing due to friction. The LRTR and MFCR radars --- which were monitoring the intruder’s descent --- continuously predicted its trajectory. The AAD interceptor completed its launch sequence, 24 seconds of checks and operations, and roared off its launcher, as both radars guided it with real-time updates of the Prithvi’s position.

    Reaching within 10 kilometres of the intruder, the AAD interceptor switched on its radio seeker, which quickly picked up the Prithvi. The seeker now started guiding the interceptor, its accuracy improving as the two missiles came towards each other at a combined speed of 2 kilometres per second. When intruder was just 100 metres away, the interceptor’s Radio Proximity Fuze took charge, detonating an explosive warhead when the Prithvi came within 10 metres.

    This was the moment of truth for Saraswat and his scientists, watching tensely in the Control Centre. On the radar and electro-optical monitoring screens before them, the two tracks --- of the target and the interceptor --- dissolved in a flash into multiple tracks, the debris from the shattered missiles now clearly visible on the screens. It had been less than six minutes since the Prithvi intruder had taken off from Chandipur, and barely 23 seconds since the AAD interceptor blasted off from Wheeler’s Island.

    Even as the live test was underway a second test was conducted in which an electronically simulated intruder missile fired from 1500 kilometres was shot down by an electronically simulated AAD interceptor, this, says the DRDO, validated its ability to take on two intruder missiles simultaneously.

    * * * *

    India’s anti-ballistic missile (ABM) programme is a waste of time, says strategist Bharat Karnad of the New Delhi based Centre for Policy Research. He argues that the laws of physics heavily favour the attacker and that, even if an ABM shield shoots down a couple of intruding missiles, the defensive system can be easily swamped by firing a salvo of missiles simultaneously.

    “How can an ABM system intercept a ballistic missile that is travelling at several kilometres per second? Look at the US history of ABM systems development; they have all consistently failed tests in operational conditions. They only hit targets in coordinated and orchestrated tests, when one knows where the target is coming from. But in realistic conditions, even contemporary US systems have failed,†avers Karnad.

    Karnad also argues that an ABM shield compels adversaries to build more and more missiles in order to swamp the defence. Pakistan, which is widely estimated to be spending $2.5 billion each year to expand its 100-warhead nuclear arsenal (already marginally larger than India’s) has often proclaimed, through trusted pro-establishment writers, that India’s growing ABM capabilities are responsible for Pakistan’s expanding missile arsenal.

    Maleeha Lodhi, Pakistan’s former envoy to Washington and London, complaining about India’s ABM shield in Pakistani daily, The News, on Feb 7, 2012, said: “its consequence will be to oblige Pakistan to multiply its missile capabilities to penetrate the missile shield in order to maintain deterrent credibility. Pakistan has long advocated the non-induction of anti-ballistic missile systems into the region and reiterated this in talks on nuclear CBMs with India in December. But this has elicited no support either from Delhi or any western country.â€

    Strategists across the world allege that India’s ABM programme gives Pakistan a legitimate excuse to expand its arsenal. Karnad says that, instead of chasing the chimera of an ABM shield, India should just build a larger stockpile of nuclear weapons, including massive thermo-nuclear bombs, to deter Pakistan.

    India’s security czars clearly do not agree. The DRDO is going ahead with building a comprehensive ABM shield, that intercepts incoming ballistic missiles at altitudes of up 110-120 kilometers (through exo-atmospheric, or “outside-the-atmosphereâ€, interceptors) and has a second layer of endo-atmospheric (“inside-the-atmosphereâ€) interceptors like the AAD that destroy incoming missiles when they are still 15 kilometres above the earth.

    The exo-atmospheric part of the system is provided by a Prithvi-missile based interceptor, which has been successfully tested twice and is going in for a third test early next year.

    “We should go in for deployment of the first phase of the ABM system in the National Capital Region by late 2013, or early 2014. In parallel, we will work on Phase 2 of our programme, in which we are developing longer-range radars and interceptors for ballistic missiles that are fired from up to 5000 km away. Phase 2 is in an advanced stage; we are integrating the radar and the interceptors and will demonstrate that by 2016,†says Saraswat, the DRDO chief.

    After covering Delhi, the first phase of the ABM system will then be rolled out to other large cities. Saraswat confidently claims this will provide real protection: “If you deploy an adequate number of radars and interceptor batteries --- obviously, I can’t give you the numbers because they are classified --- but if we deploy in adequate numbers, we can give the National Capital Region an assurance level of 98.8% or better,†he says. :tup:

    To critics of ABM systems, Saraswat cites the growing success of the US System. After President Reagan galvanized the “Star Wars†initiative, the Missile Defence Agency (MDA) has declared an official policy “to deploy as soon as it is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defence system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate)…â€

    The MDA last month announced success in the largest ABM test ever carried out, in which five incoming ballistic and cruise missiles were simultaneously engaged and shot down by the three elements of America’s integrated ABM system: the ship-borne Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), the Theatre High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD), and the land-based Patriot PAC-3.

    Washington claims that ballistic missile defence systems have completed 56 successful hit-to-kill intercepts in 71 flight test attempts since 2001. As a missile defence system the Israeli Iron Dome has also proved itself, although it only guards against much shorter range missiles fired from 70-100 kilometres.

    Saraswat does not deny that the DRDO’s current system is well short of what the US has achieved, but he dismisses sceptics like Karnad who say that an Indian ABM shield would lack credibility and should, therefore, not be deployed.

    “The world over, the philosophy of developing ABM systems has been: develop-deploy, develop-deploy. The US develops a system up to a particular level, deploys it operationally, and then improves it based on feedback and on how the threat profile changes. We too should keep on developing and deploying, operationally exploiting our system on a real-time basis to get used to it. Only by practical deployment can you develop a system that is operationally ready 24 x 7,†says the DRDO chief.

    DRDO scientists tell Business Standard that India’s programme benefits greatly from being a late starter. “These naysayers forget that we benefit from the experience of others, avoiding the pitfalls that slowed them down,†says one top scientist closely involved with the project.

    When asked why India should not continue to work towards a viable ABM capability, since the technology would only emerge from continuous research, Karnad concedes that the DRDO should continue developing an ABM system as a technology programme, but definitely not operationalise it.

    “The frontier-edge technologies that go into such a system may one day prove successful. But that day has not yet come. Nuclear deterrence is a mind-game, but it must be backed by credible weapons systems. You can’t play mind-games with a system that has no credibility,†he says.

    Along with the arguments, development continues on India’s ABM system. For New Delhi, the stakes remain high. Along with two live frontiers, Iran’s emerging capability presents a new challenge. And the prospect of radicalized jehadis in Pakistan getting their hands on one or more nuclear weapons is a growing possibility that no government in New Delhi can possibly ignore.

    Broadsword: Anti-Ballistic Missile Defence: Star Wars over India

     
  8. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    India reins in defence spending

    NEW DELHI: India hiked its defence spending by only five per cent on Thursday for the next financial year, far below previous increases with the military one of the apparent losers in the 2013/2014 budget.

    Finance Minister P Chidambaram raised defence spending to 2.03 trillion Indian rupees ($37.45 billion) for the fiscal year starting April 1, up 5.2 per cent from 2012-13 when the budget stood at 1.93 trillion Indian rupees.

    In 2012-13, the increase had been 17 per cent and the year before that spending was bumped up by 12 per cent to fund a modernisation programme that has turned India into the world’s biggest arms importer.

    Overall budget spending for next year was increased by 16 per cent, with funds focused on rural development, health and education as well as infrastructure ahead of national elections in 2014.

    “I assure the house that (defence spending) constraints will not come in the way of providing any additional requirement for the security of the nation,” Chidambaram told parliament.

    The minister earmarked $16 billion as “capital expenditure” – meaning spending on hardware.

    Domestic security experts warned India’s annualised inflation rate of at least 6.0 per cent meant the million-plus military gained little from the modest increase.

    “The condition of India’s defence services will remain the same and the step will slow down the modernisation process of the military,” said Afsir Karim, a retired general, told AFP.

    India hiked its military spending by a huge 34 per cent in 2009-2010 over the previous year after the 2008 attacks in Mumbai left 166 people dead and revealed gaping holes in the country’s security setup.

    Mrinal Suman, who heads the military unit of Confederation of Indian Industries national trade lobby, highlighted how the defence ministry often struggled to spend the money allocated to it.

    “Budgetary allocation is not really our concern because funds can be made available when needed, but the defence ministry must spend the money given to it,” said Suman, one of India’s top procurement specialists.

    He said a string of scandals involving defence contracts – most recently involving AgustaWestland helicopters bought from Italy – had slowed arms purchases because policy-makers were reluctant to take risks on new ventures.

    India’s former chief V.K. Singh in a letter to Premier Manmohan Singh that was leaked to the press warned last March that the condition of the military’s combat units was “alarming” because of equipment deficiencies.

    India is negotiating a series of huge procurement contracts, including for 126 French Rafale fighter jets, 400 combat helicopters, as well as artillery, drones and electronic warfare systems.

    India reins in defence spending | World | DAWN.COM
     
  9. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    Lowest Defence Budget increase in over 30 years
    Mar 01 2013

    India will spend its lowest on defence expenditure in over three decades with several major modernisation projects set to be affected after the Union government proposed a modest hike in the annual Budget that amounts to just over 5 per cent over the last year.

    As the government scrambles to cut costs given the dismal growth rate, defence spending is one of the hardest hit with the projected Budget of Rs 2.03 lakh crore coming up to barely 1.79 per cent of the Gross Domestic Product. This is a record low for India in at least three decades, with the figure dropping considerably from 3.16 per cent of the GDP in 1987.

    The expenditure Budget has also revealed that the Defence Ministry suffered a Budget cut of over Rs 14,000 crore last year, a majority of which — over Rs 10,000 crore — had been marked for procurement of new defence systems.

    While Finance Minister P Chidambaram promised that extra funds will be made available for the defence of the nation if the need arises, the amount allocated for purchase of new equipment is marked as Rs 86,740 crore, an 8.2 per cent hike from last year.

    Modernisation of the naval fleet is set to be the hardest hit, with a cut of over 13 per cent from what was allocated last year, throwing questions on several acquisitions, including new generation conventional submarines.

    The modest hike is likely to hit the acquisition of air systems hard, given the large number of aircraft purchase proposals that have been floated by all three forces and the minimal hike proposed under this subhead in the Budget. The biggest being the multi-billion dollar contract to procure 126 new fighter aircraft for which French fighter Rafale has been shortlisted.

    The capital Budget for acquisition of new aircraft for the three forces is Rs 33,776 crore, a hike of just over Rs 1,000 crore from the last year. It remains to be seen whether this would cater to the first few payments that India will need to make if it signs the contract for the new generation of fighters. By conservative estimates, the first tranche of payments could come out to be over Rs 5,000 crore. The Army's much delayed hunt for 197 new light helicopters to replace the Cheetah fleet also seems to be heading for a cancellation with the allocation for aircraft for the land force being cut drastically from Rs 3,052 crore in the last financial to Rs 1527 crore in the Budget, leaving minimal scope for new acquisitions.

    Despite the dismal Budget, Defence Minister A K Antony put up a brave front by saying it is the best possible, taking into account the "difficult economic situation both at home and abroad". "Factoring the current economic scenario, he (Chidambaram) has been fair to the defence sector also by increasing the Budget and assuring that should there be any urgent need in future the same would be provided," he said.

    However, as the records show, not only is this year's allocation the lowest in over three decades in terms of ratio to the GDP, it is also the lowest in terms of percentage of the total annual government expenditure. This year's defence budget is 12.23 per cent of the estimated spending of the government in the upcoming financial year, considerably down from the 15.79 per cent in 1999 as well as lower from last year's 12.97 per cent.

    A surprise revelation in the Budget is that the Defence Ministry's much valued funding for prototype manufacturing of defence systems under the 'Make' category of procurement has failed to make a mark. The Budget document indicates that none of the Rs 89 crore earmarked for prototype development was spent, forcing a cut in this year's allocation to a symbolic Rs 1 crore. -

    Lowest Defence Budget increase in over 30 years - Indian Express
     
  10. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978

    BRIC MILITARY MODERNIZATION AND THE NEW GLOBAL DEFENSE BALANCE

    The message promoted by foreign policy gurus in recent years is that the American moment is over and a new global balance is emerging; one where power is no longer concentrated in Washington but spread among several different countries. The U.S. will continue to retain a prominent position at the top of the global food chain we are told, but no longer will there be the sense of American worldwide hegemony. Instead the emerging nations of Brazil, Russia, India and China (the so-called “BRICs”) will assume their rightful place as great powers and in the process create a new multi-polar world. :tup:

    This is not, perhaps, what European proponents of a multi-polar world may have had in mind when they advocated for global power to be diffused shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. But despite its modern weaponry, two million combined soldiers and its overall economic wealth, Europe suffers from several mitigating factors, not least of which is the lack of a unified army that appears no closer today than it did in 1998 when Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair reached an agreement at St. Malo creating a path towards pan-European defense.

    The BRICs have three things in common. Each is large both in terms of size and population; each has an expanding economy; and each is undergoing a military modernization effort aimed at preserving their strategic interests. While Europe’s strongest nations are cutting defense spending and the U.S. defense budget is set to flat-line in the coming years, these four countries are seeking to assert themselves on the global stage and are willing and able to invest in improving the capabilities of their armed forces.

    Brazil’s economy has continued to grow and despite a small hiccup during the global economic slowdown of 2009 is expected to expand by 7.5 percent this year. As its economy has grown so too has the recognition by government officials that a major military modernization is in order if Brazil is to underwrite its claim to hydrocarbon deposits outside its traditional offshore border and gain a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. Flexing its muscles as the preeminent power in South America - both diplomatically and in a benign show of military strength - may go a long way towards achieving the latter for Brasilia.

    Since 2005 the Brazilian defense budget has grown by 5 percent per year and the government approved a new national defense policy in 2008 that set aside $70 billion for reequipping the army. New items are to include 50 Eurocopter Cougar (EC-725) medium-lift helicopters, unmanned aerial vehicles, anti-tank weaponry and a new family of armored vehicles from IVECO (referred to asUrutu III).

    There is also a long-term naval expansion that has attracted much interest from the French and British defense industries. The French are selling Brazil four Scorpene-type conventional submarines, while the British are eager to gain access to one of the world’s fastest growing military markets by inking deals with Brasilia for its purchase of BAE Systems’ design-phase Type-26 frigate. An impending decision on the winner in the multibillion F-X2 new-generation jet fighter competition will pave the way for the Brazilian Air Force to acquire 36-plus modern combat aircraft, most likely the French-made Dassault Rafale.

    All of these improvements are of course expensive and Brazil has planned accordingly, figuring that its annual share of defense expenditure will rise from the current 1.5 percent of GDP to 2.2 percent by 2030.

    Russia presents a different case than Brazil in that unlike the economically ascendant South American nation it is used to being considered a global power and expects to be defined as such. While Brazil’s military modernization effort comes as the country seeks acceptance among the global elite, Russia aims to retain and improve those defense capabilities that once enabled it to be seen as a first-tier military power alongside the U.S. :tup:

    The breakup of Russia’s former Soviet empire afforded the country the opportunity to shift to a market-based economy, but also left enduring scars stemming from a lost sense of prestige as one of the world’s two former superpowers. The Russian leadership of Vladimir Putin and Dmitri Medvedev has sought to rectify this by reasserting the country’s presence throughout its former Soviet domain and utilizing its energy resources to wield influence further afield.

    While Russian military aircraft have repeatedly penetrated the air space of NATO member countries during exercises in recent years, it was Moscow’s military incursion into Georgia in August 2008 that signaled that Russia would willingly lean on its hard power to preserve its position in its post-Soviet near abroad. :coffee:

    Though the brief war may have seen the Russian Goliath overwhelm the Georgian David, it also exposed a slew of Russian Army shortcomings in terms of training, equipment, reconnaissance, logistics support and real-time battlefield coordination.

    The performance of Russian forces in Georgia ultimately proved to be a catalyst in the Kremlin’s decision to launch a comprehensive, 12-year military reform effort in October 2008. This reform and modernization plan laid out by Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov seeks to transform the heavy, mass-mobilization Russian military into a smaller high-readiness force better able to support the Kremlin’s strategic objectives and tackle events along the country’s periphery on short notice.

    As part of the new plan a special emphasis has been placed on weeding out the aging Soviet-legacy hardware and acquiring more modern equipment. What is eye-opening in this regard is the willingness of the Russian leadership to embark on purchases of foreign-produced armaments - in particular the possibility that one of those suppliers may include the U.S. Moscow is already locked in negotiations with France over the purchase of Mistral-class helicopter-carrying amphibious assault ships and is still hoping to clinch a deal with Israel for the launch of a $300 million joint venture involving the manufacture of unmanned aerial systems in Russia.

    It is estimated that only 10 percent of Russian military hardware meets modern standards. The new defense plan aims to amend that situation by tripling the ratio of new-generation equipment to 30 percent by 2015, then 70 percent by 2020. All this - plus the need to recruit high-caliber officers and soldiers for the new army - comes with a high price tag. The Kremlin plans on boosting its 2011-2020 arms budget accordingly by 46 percent, from 13 trillion rubles to 19 trillion ($620 billion). :tup:

    Whether the government’s efforts at transforming the military and resuscitating Russia’s once-dynamic defense industry through greater investment, foreign technology transfer and the creation of a Russian version of the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Products Agency (DARPA) pan out, there can be little doubt as to Moscow’s commitment and level of ambition. Its latest plan indicates that the Kremlin has little interest in managing Russia’s decline and instead figures to continue competing for influence in the emerging multi-polar world order.

    BRIC Military Modernization and the New Global Defense Balance (Part 1 of 2) | European Dialogue

     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 12, 2014
  11. Mahesh Alkunte

    Mahesh Alkunte 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    74
    F 22 will never crash as it will be never used..... :pleasantry:
     
  12. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    F22 is for Strategic Defence Purpose only, and there is a clear logic behind this argument. that is, even if it is said to be "expansive" at the price $300mil each, we now find F35/JSF price tag $200mil+ to date too. but keeping its number around 186 only, as compare to too many 4th generation aircraft tells us a clear sense that F22 is not worth having more than 186, which may be used for only those operations where a true stealth feature is the key, but its certainly can't work as a 4th generation aircraft, which US has in a big number, obviously?????

    and one more logic tells us that F22 was in fact a failed project, which US kept for special operations only, while giving reference of the key issues US face with F35/JSF right now as below...... F22 and F35 both are the 5th generation aircrafts, first one is twin engine and second one is singe engine, but F22 was developed in 90s while even if US has spent over a trillion dollar and 15+ years, its still not enough to be inducted, the minimum expected performance couldn't be achieved yet as below. then what the reason to believe that F22 might have achieved the same performance level in 90s?????


     
  13. Mahesh Alkunte

    Mahesh Alkunte 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    336
    Likes Received:
    74
    Do you know what is the per hour coast to operate both time on ground and monitory?
    as I say it will be used in Star Wars episode 7 final scene if movie is produced.....
     
  14. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978


    The new arms race in Asia

    Two recent studies have shown that, essentially, an arms race is in full swing in Asia - cause for serious concern, considering the number of simmering conflicts in the region.

    The national interests of Asian countries are growing along with their economic clout and affluence, prompting governments in the region to protect their spheres of influence with a wide array of weapons purchases.

    Two trends in the international arms trade, in particular, have caught the attention of Western governments. For one, for the first time since the Cold War, the ranking of the world's five largest arms exporters has changed.

    China has pushed Britain out of the Top Five. And secondly, military expenditures in Asia in 2012 exceeded those of the European Union for the first time ever.

    "The global shift in military power is continuing," concluded the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in its annual "Military Balance" report issued last week (March 14, 2013).

    The Stockholm-based International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) arrived at the same conclusion in a study publish Monday, March 18. The balance is clearly shifting toward Asia, SIPRI noted in its report, "Trends in International Arms Trading."

    Conflict and escalation potential

    The world's biggest arms importers over the last five years are all in Asia, the SIPRI report emphasized: India, China, Pakistan, South Korea and Singapore.

    The reason for the rapidly rising arms purchases in Asia, says SIPRI's Asia expert, Siemon Wezeman, is that "there are quite a lot of threats in Asia. There are territorial disagreements, so there is an uncertain situation in most of Asia," he said, pointing to the enmity between India and Pakistan, the ever-more strident threats from North Korea and the territorial disputes in the East China and South China Seas.

    The new and extensive purchases of weapons, however, have not made the region any safer, the IISS said in its report last week. "The purchase of advanced military systems in East Asia - a region lacking established security mechanisms - raises the risk of inadvertent conflicts and escalations."

    Aside from the insecure geopolitical situation, the economic circumstances are the key, Wezeman says. "The growing economies are making it possible to buy arms in the first place."

    A weak West is Asia's strength

    What's more, the fact that Asia has overtaken Europe in military spending has to do with both increased expenditures in Asia and reduced spending in Europe. The trend over the last few years, according to the IISS report, is continuing with North America and Europe, whose economies are stuttering, reducing military budgets, while Asia is spending more. In pure numbers, Asia (including Australia) accounts for 19.9 percent of worldwide military expenditures. Europe accounts for 17.6 percent and North America for 42 percent.

    The rise of China to the world's 5th largest weapons exporter, with five percent of the global arms trade (an industry still dominated by the US and Russia), has mostly to do with arms purchases by Pakistan. Some 55 percent of all Chinese arms sales go to Pakistan.

    Since Asian countries - with the exception of China - have no arms industry to speak of, they depend on weapons imports, Wezeman emphasizes. India, which buys mostly from Russia, has imported more weapons in the last five years than any other country in the world.

    Farooq Hameed Khan, a retired Pakistani brigadier, says Pakistan's arms purchases have to do with its archrival, India. "India is a constant threat to Pakistan," he told DW, adding that China had replaced the US as Pakistan's most important arms supplier because "Pakistan views the US as an unreliable partner."

    China, in turn, has an interest in supplying Pakistan with weapons "to keep India in check," according to Wezeman, and to have a partner that gives China access to the strategically important Gulf region.

    Modernization and expansion

    "These countries are not only modernizing, but in many cases are also expanding their armed forces," notes Wezeman, "so there is a very strong emphasis on the air force and the navy."

    All the while, China is blazing the trail, according to the IISS. "China's capabilities to independently develop advanced military technologies are transforming the People's Liberation Army bit by bit."

    As examples, the report not only names the country's first aircraft carrier, whose operational possibilities are still limited, but also the development of the new Type 0562D naval destroyer, which is expected to improve China's capabilities in air-sea warfare. It is indicative of how quickly China is moving to modernize its naval forces, according to the report.

    The SIPRI study, however, points out that "new Chinese weapons systems still depend to a large extent on foreign components." Beijing's aircraft carrier, for example, is built from a refurbished Ukrainian ship and China's most important fighter jets, the J-10 and J-11, use Russian AL-31FN engine parts.

    But many countries, like Pakistan, are benefiting from China's efforts to modernize its arms industry, since the US refuses to share key technologies with its allies. Former Brigadier Khan regrets that the US has not shared its drone technology with Pakistan, but is certain that China will fill the gap.

    The new arms race in Asia | Asia | DW.DE | 18.03.2013
     
  15. sunny_10

    sunny_10 BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    May 18, 2012
    Messages:
    2,085
    Likes Received:
    978
    duplicate post
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page