WORLD DEFENSE REVIEW

Why 21st Century won't be peaceful?

2016-12-21T21:46:00.000-08:00

How can we establish the world without armed conflicts ?, It's simple, just end wars and push diplomatic measures.it might Seem as a cake walk, but it's paradoxical, The world without armed conflicts is a distant dream. War was born along with the civilizations. When a group of people with similar interests, ethnic identities, and unity, decides to live together, the grouping gets its own single and a collective identity, and begins to act as a single unit or a person, that person would only look after his own survival and undermines the existence of others. Even though civilizations paved the way towards formations of empires and in turn into nation states, the latter prevailed, the selfishness of groupings.which makes them ignore the right to live by other groupings. As Darwin states, it's a battle for survival of the fittest.

The 20th century was riddled with armed conflicts. Each year small scale conflicts were taking shape abruptly and in the majority of cases, led to major conflicts.Even both World Wars were the product of ultranationalism and the battle for colonies. The global political and mode of communication were primal, and this stage could be regarded as a stage of gradual transformation into more matured beings. The strive for fetching more power by nations led to industrial revolution, expanding Empires and triggered an arms race. The sustainability of resources and climate were not taken into account and the Industries using primitive technologies made our planet a gas chamber. The Invention of nuclear bombs and two world wars caused uttermost destruction. The cold war and the concept of MAD put the world on the verge of apocalypse. The socialist principles were slowly eroded and the capitalist free market concepts began to take shape.

In the 21st century, with the breakthroughs in transportation and communication, the world became much more connected. With the advent of free media and citizen journalism, the barriers for gaining information were collapsed.With the breakthrough in communication technology, the information became easily accessible at any time anywhere around the globe. The affordable air travel connected the world and enabled enhanced people to people relations, unlike the past century. This also enabled more participation of people in decision-making process, and the function of parliament and other establishments are no more confined to brick walls. This changed the way in which government, as well as the military organs, functions. They became more people oriented. and the people began to influence the decision taking of government in every aspect.

The beginning of the 21st century was marked by the increased threat projected by non-state actors.The attack of 09/11 and rise of ISIS, stirred the world against the threat possessed by non-state actors. There were spread of extremist religious ideologies, and the world united to fight against the threat of Terrorism. The ongoing war on terror caused a large number of casualties and made Afghanistan and Iraq much more unstable. The Arab spring, which toppled many authoritarian regimes in the middle east, caused widespread destruction of properties and at the same time enabled the spreading of democratic ideologies along the region.

As resources are becoming scarce and the climate change deals are dwindling the economic progress of developing nations, the world is slowly witnessing a shift in political environment. The Economic and refugee crisis are looming the developed economies and the concept of globalization is slowly fading away. Ultranationalism is slowly sweeping the globe, which in the future further undermine the stability of the geopolitical environment. Ultranationalism could make the nations to ignore the treaties and even to escalate small conflicts into full-scale wars without considering the option of settling the disputes by diplomatic measures. This could further undermine the regional stability. The Russia-US standoff over Syrian civil war and Ukraine, south china sea conflict, the ongoing arms race in the south Asian region, The BREXIT and the civil wars in African nations, indicates that the 21st century won't be a century of tranquility.

Peace is only possible when we agree to work towards a sustainable global growth by shedding regional and ethnic rivalries. But as human can't transform into a species like the one above and the hope for a peaceful world will remain as a distant dream forever!

21ST CENTURY CONFLICTS

1999, 23rd September to 2009

Second Chechen War

Chechen Republic of Ichkeria against Russia

began 2001, 12th September, ongoing

War Against Terror

NATO, the United States, United Kingdom against Taliban, Al-Qaida, ISIL

2001, 7th October to 2015, 13th March

Afghanistan War (Part of the War Against Terror)

USA, Afghanistan, UK, Australia, France, Canada against Taliban, Al-Qaida

2003, 20th March to 2011, 11th December

Iraq War

The USA, the UK, (multi-national forces withdrawn before end of conflict) against Iraq

began 2004, 16th March, ongoing

War in North-West Pakistan (Part of the War Against Terror)

The USA, Pakistan against Taliban, Al-Qaida, ISIL

2008, 7th August to 2008, 16th August

Russia–Georgia war

Georgia against Russia, South Ossetia

2008, December 28th to 2009, January 18th

Gaza War (Part of the Arab-Israeli Conflict)

Gaza Strip against Israel

began 2009, 31st January, ongoing

War in Somalia (Part of the War Against Terror) (Part of the Somalian Civil War)

Somalia, Ethiopia against Al-Qaida, Mujahedeen

2010, 18th December to 2011, 14th January

Tunisian Revolution (Part of the Arab Spring)

Ben Ali government against Popular protests, demonstrations, strikes, self-immolation

2011, 25th January to 2011, 11th February

Egyptian Revolution (Part of the Arab Spring)

Hosni Mubarak government against Popular protests, demonstrations, strikes, self-immolation

2011, 27th January to 2012, 27th February

Yemeni Revolution (Part of the Arab Spring)

Saleh government against Popular protests, demonstrations, strikes, self-immolation

2011, 15th February to 2011, 23rd October

Libyan Civil War (Part of the Arab Spring)

Pro-Gaddafi Forces against National Liberation Army, Qatar, NATO

began 2011, 15th March, ongoing

Syrian Civil War

Bashar al-Assad government against Rebel forces including ISIS

2012, 14th November to 2012, 21st November

Gaza War (Part of the Arab-Israeli Conflict)

Gaza Strip against Israel

began 2014, 6th April, ongoing

War in Ukraine/Donbass War

Ukraine against Russia, Donetsk, Luhansk

Table of conflicts and more can be viewed on:http://www.totallytimelines.com/wars-20th-century/

Content from Totally Timelines, only for educational purpose, and not being used for commercial purpose

Sources:

http://www.iwm.org.uk/history/timeline-of-20th-and-21st-century-wars

http://www.historyguy.com/21st_century_wars.html

http://www.totallytimelines.com/wars-21st-century/

http://www.totallytimelines.com/wars-20th-century/

Image source : https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d4/1a/9d/d41a9db2976d5ded494bc87f065732d2.jpg

The Cold War 2.0: A brief Outlook

2016-11-27T08:36:00.002-08:00

After decades of peace,and short wars,the world is slowly entering the next phase were multipolarity would challenge the security scenario by military standoffs and arms race. After the collapse of the soviet union back in 1991,the unipolar world under united states witnessed the spread of capitalism and globalization. It enabled more countries to lift their population out of poverty and to build strong economy and military might that began to challenge the dominance of United States on international stages. The players such as India,China and Russia began to get special attention in international politics and US policies started to revolve around these nations.

The Chinese higher trajectory of growth rate enabled them to build a strong industrial base and became the 2nd largest economy in the world. The expansionist policies of the communist regime reflected the differences between the western bloc and short military standoffs are already taking place on high seas of south china sea. Being a communist nation,China will continue to put aggressive policies to counter US dominance in the region. The USA operates an array of warships and aircraft in the region,which often makes the standoffs much difficult.

The successor of Soviet union,Russia,which has 50% of world nuclear stockpile ,continue to posses a serious threat to western interests in Europe and Central Asia. Russia was humiliated by west during the economic crisis of 1998,and after Putin came to power in 2000,both sides bricked many peaceful ties. The NATO plan to establish military bases in Central Asia and Europe and annexation of Crimea back in 2014 ,derailed the talks and tensions are mounting days by day.

The NATO plans to deploy more than 4000 troops ,trained in special warfare and equipped with modern arms ,in Central Asia and Europe. The Russia already deployed more than 200000 soldiers across the border and are using its hard power strategies to curb any western dominion in the region. The annexation of Crimea and a brief war with Georgia in 2008,indicates the ambitious plan of Russia to get pre-cold war status as a super power.

Both US and Russian economies are worst hit by the recession. Russia a country whose exports solely depend on Oil and Natural gas is struggling to get on track after a series of sanctions put by the west ,following the annexation of Crimea. Russian political system is getting much more rigid and human rights are largely curtailed. Russia believes that west is responsible for their economic downfall and people still, thinks they are at a war like situation with the western bloc.
The deployment of missile shields in Romania and ongoing plan to deploy the missile shield in Poland by 2018,further deteriorated Russian ties with the west. Russian president Vladimir Putin accused the west of raising the tensions and believes that it threatens their ICBMS and missile delivering capabilities. The entry of Russia into Syrian civil war and activation of soviet era bases in Vietnam further signal Russian ambitions to raise their global status as a super power.

Since the Ukraine, conflict nationalism thrives strongly in Russia. The people chose think they are at a war with the west and Russia is planning to raise 10 more divisions along it's Europian borders to counter NATO military build-up. As more central Asian countries are into joining the NATO,Russia is most likely use it's hard power influence to curb any plans of those Baltic nations.

To Be Continued..........
fc37896da8e4f79310719fe39eca6b4b43efaf27200f309e28

Baluchistan:Why India must Internationalize the issue?

2016-09-27T09:03:00.002-07:00

After Uri attack,India at UNGA publically condemned Human rights violations of Pakistan army in Balochistan. Balochistan constitutes 40% of Pakistan's physical area and has abundant deposition of minerals and natural gas. The terrain is so rugged and basically regarded as inhabitable, It's home to one of the ethnic minorities in Pakistan,called Balochs.

Their origin can be traced back to Aleppo in Syria,a breakaway faction from Kurds. After migrating to various regions such as Turkey and Iraq,they settled down in western parts of Pakistan. They were ruled by Khans of Kalat and had enjoyed a well structured ruling mechanisms and an army. After British occupation,Baloch territory underwent various administrative changes. They trifurcated between Iran,British and Afghanistan in the name of settling borders. Though they demanded a separate country after partition,Pakistan by force annexed the region. Since then thousands of people were killed and 'disappeared' from Baluchistan.

The region is strategically important to Pakistan. The region is rich in minerals and as most of the region is infertile and inhabitable,it's said to be home to Pakistani nuclear missiles. Balochistan is also part of CPEC and recently China started upgrading Gwadar port,which makes the region important for China as well. By winning minds of Baloch people ,India can have an indirect control over Pakistani nuclear weapons. At the same time, India can stall the progress of CPEC and upgradations of strategically important Gwadar port. At International forums by stressing Human rights violations in the region,India can subvert Pakistani efforts to Internationalize Kashmir issue

Why India should reconsider F-16IN?

2016-08-03T04:58:00.000-07:00

The MMRCA deal was officially ended by the Indian government in 2015.The deal which was supposed to purchase 126 Aircrafts to fill the gap between Light Combat Aircraft and Sukhoi 30 MKI Air priority fighter was the only hope to reach minimum sanctioned strength of 39.5 SQNs by 2017. As Airforce war waging capabilities are shrinking,this would posses a serious threat to the security of the nation in coming years. Indian Airforce Achieved sanctioned strength only during 1980's following the purchase of Mirage-2000 and Mig-29s. As the majority of the aircraft are well beyond life cycle,due to sluggish procurement processes and due to economic constraints,they were never replaced.Although a majority of them were upgraded and overhauled to extend the service life,repeated snags, and shortage of components,further undermines capabilities of Air force.

Although India agreed to purchase 36 Dassault Rafales from France,the negotiations are in a limbo after France refused to agree with the proposals put forward by Indian officials. As France is not ready to take responsibility of Rafales that would be manufactured in India,uncertainty in the price of the fighter,further making the negotiations more complex.

With the launch of Make in India program, major companies such as Lockheed Martin and EADS are once again back with their fighters with lower price tag and more offers in manufacturing and technology transfer.

Why India choose Dassault rafale ?

MMRCA was officially started in 2007 for finding a suitable replacement of aging fighter aircraft. The five competitors were Saab Gripen,an indigenous fighter from Sweden,F/A-18 Super Hornet,a newly revamped fighter customized to meet Indian standards,F-16 IN super viper of Lockheed martin,which regarded as most advanced F-16 ever,Mikoyan Mig-35 of Russia and Eurofighter Typhoon designed and built by a consortium of European aerospace manufacturers through Eurofighter GmbH

The tests were conducted at high altitudes,desert, and high humid conditions.At the end, two favorable bidders were selected,Dassault Rafale from France and Eurofighter typhoon.Here we will discuss the decision taking in political dimension,rather than technology. Sweden and India relations were bit strained after Bofors scandal,At the same time, the neutrality of Sweden at times of war is well known.This made the political leadership to not to consider Sweden as spot to purchase the fighter that would become backbone of Indian defense

Eurofighter Typhoon

India-US relations were normalized during the Bush administration. Though the leniency of US towards Pakistan alarmed the Indian policymakers,India purchased second aircrafts such as C-130 J,C-17 and P8-I Posidon from United states. The USA imposed economic and technology sanctions on India post-nuclear tests,which worsened economic conditions of India and further slowed the progress of LCA program,back in 90's. The US also armed Pakistan with F-16 and supplied modern weaponry in the name of fighting the war on terror. This disappointed the Indian leadership,and might have made them not to select US born fighter to fill the gap.

The Eurofighter Typhoon is manufactured by Eurofighter GmbH,which is a consortium of 4 European nations,Germany,Spain,Italy and United Kingdom. The German policy hinders supply of equipment to other nations in case of conflict,a policy which shaped after Two world wars. India does not have any military industrial relationships with Spain,and after Augusta Westland corruption scam the relationship between Italy and India are not in good shape.This made Indian leadership not to consider Eurofighter at the end
.
Russia has been the hotspot for Indian defense purchases since the cold war period. Though Indian leadership doesn't want to depend on a single nation for arming itself. The main reason for rejection of Mikoyan Mig-35 would be the deepening relationship between Russia and China. It's been unclear that what would be Russian stand in case of conflict between India and China. At the same time, the maintainability of Russian fighters is a herculean task. Repeated snags and shortage of spares made the Indian leadership to not opt for another Russian-made aircraft.

France and India enjoy strong economic and military ties since independence. France was the only western nation,that not imposed sanctions post-nuclear tests. France also ascertains Indian position inKashmir issue. The French-made Mirages played a decisive role in Kargil conflict with Pakistan. The easier maintainability of French fighters as well as the easier supply of spare parts,along with lower lifecycle cost of Rafale,makes it favorable for Indian needs.

F-16 IN Technology and Specifications

With APG-80 AESA Radar,Advanced EW suit,Modern full-color digital cockpit,and Net-centric warfare capability,F-16IN is the most advanced F-16 ever produced. F-16 evolved from USAF program to find a dedicated dogfighter to counter Russian MiGs. The F-16 is famed for its dogfighting capabilities. It had highest mid-air victories (72-0) and has flown over 100000 combat missions.It completed one million combat sorties and delivered more than 2,200,00 ordinances.

F-16IN is evolved from F-16C/D Block 52+ and F-16E/F Block 60 Desert Falcon.The MIL-STD-1773 data bus used on fighter gives it higher data handling and flawless performance. The Northrop Grumman AN/APG-80 AESA radar provides outstanding situational awareness. The APG-80 is designed to search continuously for and track multiple targets within the forward hemisphere of the aircraft. As a result of increased operational flexibility, pilots will be able to simultaneously perform air-to-air search-and-track, air-to-ground targeting and aircraft terrain-following.Additional advances of the APG-80 agile beam radar include much greater detection range, high-resolution synthetic aperture radar imagery, and a two-fold increase in reliability compared to conventional, mechanically scanned radars.

F-16IN will feature a conformal fuel tank which will give more range and weapon carrying capability. Though when empty it might create unnecessary drag and g-force,but won't have much impact on overall performance of aircraft. Aircraft will also be equipped with An advanced EW suit and Infrared Search and track (IRST) system. Coupled with advanced avionics,Helmet-mounted cueing system, and advanced survivability features,making it one of the most advanced 4.5 generation fighters in the market.

GE-F-110-132 Engine

GE-F 110-132A is the one of the latest engine developed by General Dynamics. It's FADEC operated and has higher safety and maintainability compared to no-FADEC engines. The F-110-132 A has fewer rotating parts and has an advanced augmentor designed for improved maintainability and lower life cycle cost.

FEATURES AT A GLANCE:

Most advanced F-16 ever produced
Equipped with AN/APG-80 AESA radar
Advanced EW suit and Infrared Search and Track (IRST) system
GE-F-110-132A ,FADEC controlled engine
Net-Centric warfare capability
Advanced survivability features
Modern Full-color ,All digital glass cockpit

Lockheed Martin offers to India

After negotiations with France failing to reach any progress,Lockheed Marti offered India an option to produce F-16 in India under Make in India program.In April 2016 ,Lockheed offered to shift whole production assemblies to India,along with options for manufacturing Helicopters and UAVs in India. If India accepts the offer,India will become a global hub for manufacturing F-16s. If production assembly shifted to India it would bring down the cost of fighter considerably,which may attract other countries to purchase the system. At the same time, India will have a clear voice in selling the jets to countries that might undermine Indian security. As spare parts are manufactured in multiple nations,India cannot assure, the easier supply of spares in the timer of conflict. But if India could persuade them to produce critical spares in India under Make In India programme,it will further boost Indian aircraft industry through technology transfers and at the same time ensures supply of critical spares in the time of conflict.

CONCLUSION

F-16 is one of the most advanced 4th gen aircraft in the market. But the on par with technology,political relationships with the United States must be taken into account.Dassault rafale is much more capable than F-16,but comparing the price as well as offers by Lockheed and Dassault,India has more advantageous if opting for F-16. It will help India to become a global player in fighter manufacturing and at the same time will give the ability to block the supply of fighters to its rivals. It will also enable India in establishing a sound Military Industrial base in the future,as well as to manufacture advanced indigenous fighters.

Sources:

http://i1.wp.com/www.defenceupdate.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/F-16-2.jpg?resize=559,419
http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article827.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/lockheed-martin-offers-to-site-f-16-fighter-jet-production-in-india-part-of-us-campaign-to-make-india-a-frontline-state/5519737
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-25/lockheed-eyes-tata-as-f-16-partner-for-next-big-india-jet-deal
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-15/french-fighter-jets-show-modi-can-t-make-everything-in-india
http://www.livefistdefence.com/2009/06/mmrca.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-16in.htm
http://thediplomat.com/2016/07/why-india-should-consider-lockheed-martins-f-16-offer/
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/not-your-fathers-f-16-take-a-tour-of-the-f-16in-super-1676745840

Massive search ops on for missing Indian Air Force An-32

2016-07-22T02:09:00.002-07:00

IAF in along with navy and coast guard launched a massive rescue operation to find missing An-32,which was Enroute from Chennai to Port Blair. With 29 passengers including 6 crews on board it would be one of the biggest military aviation mishaps the country faced. According to ANI one P8 I & one Dornier aircraft were launched. and 4 Indian Navy ships diverted to join in Search & Rescue operations. The aircraft left Tambaram air base at 0730 am with 29 passengers on board. The ATC lost contact 16 minutes after the take off. According to sources,the aircraft was last seen on radar at 0812am. AN-32 known to its reliablity under all conditions. Indian Airforce operates close to 100 AN-32 as of 2016.
For more updates:

https://twitter.com/ANI_news
http://www.firstpost.com/india/iaf-aircraft-with-29-on-board-goes-missing-2908558.html

Picture source:airline-pictures.net

INDIAN ARMED FORCES: MODERNIZATION PART I

2016-03-18T09:37:00.003-07:00

PART-I

(i)Introduction

(ii)Threat perception& Doctrines

PART II

(iii)Indian modernization process: History

(iv)Manpower and Equipment crisis

(v)Planned projects

PART III

(vi)Indian Procurement policy

(vii)The way ahead

(viii)Conclusion

PART I

INTRODUCTION

Modernisation of armed forces on par with varying threat perceptions and technological innovation is essential to have a phenomenal war waging capabilities. In the 21st century, it would be difficult for a manpower oriented army to win a major conflict with an enemy who is technologically superior. Both Afghan war and Iraq war demonstrated that it’s difficult to have a victory under asymmetric warfare conditions, were enemy movements are largely unpredictable. As countries tend to use asymmetrical warfare to weaken adversaries, without technological superiority, it would be difficult to attain total superiority against enemy forces.

India is the 7th largest country in the world. Its economy is flourishing at an astonishing rate of 7.2% per annum. But still its 1.2 million armed forces are yet to undergo modernization process. The restraint policies followed by the government of India forced armed forces to remain as a force, only are to be used as a last resort. From 1947 Kashmir War to 1999 Kargil war this restraint attitude of political leadership made the conflicts difficult to resolve and often failed to utilize the dominance that they had during course of war.

Indian armed forces are lacking an array of equipment. The army’s critical shortages involve 155 mm howitzers, attack helicopters, air defense assets, various ammunition and missile systems, close quarter battle carbines, assault rifles, machine guns, and sniper rifles. Moreover, it also lacks some basic gears such as modular bullet-proof jackets, lightweight ballistic helmets, and high ankle boots. Air force and Navy also have a chunk of equipment on the wish list. Prominent among them are 126 MMRCA, Medium Range Transport Aircraft, Tankers, submarines, and destroyers. Moreover majority of Tanks and Vehicles with army became obsolete and some of them are only exciting on papers. Indian procurement policy is burdened with lack of clarity and a big chain of the approval process. The ambiguity in GSQRs (General Staff Qualitative Requirements) and the sluggish bureaucratic system makes the process painful and time taking.

THREAT PERCEPTION AND DOCTRINES

After liberation from British, Indian policy makers decided to stick to the defense policies laid down by Field Marshal Claude Auchinleck, who emphasized the need for keeping force level of 2 million men, a 20 squadron air force and a navy with 69 capital ships and 2 aircraft carrier task forces. But the financial burden followed by 1947 Kashmir war, forced the government to cut down defense expenditure and the Auchinleck policies were never implemented. India is sitting in a hostile neighborhood and prone to attack from three or more fronts. It shares the border with two nuclear-armed nations, Pakistan and China, with whom she fought wars in the past. India also has indigenous Left wing extremist and separatist forces, which may grow into full-fledged militia groups, if necessary, actions were not taken.

India-Pakistan ties after independence are strained and it’s arduous to resolve as it involves a large strategically important territories being claimed by both sides. After the partition, Pakistan forcefully occupied a large chunk of territory in Kashmir with irregular troops. The restraint response from Indian leadership made the loss cumulative and put India into a disadvantageous position. Though India managed to limit the two front threat projected by Pakistan by liberating Bangladesh in 1971, Political leadership failed to utilize the opportunity to force a settlement on Kashmir issue. Though some argue that India was under intense International pressure, it was obvious that it’s the restraint attitude from the government made the countries reach an early cease-fire agreement as the shortage of ammunition and the threat posed by US carrier battle groups could have been snubbed by Soviet help. Kargil conflict divulged that Pakistan is ready to go any extent to occupy Kashmir by force. Though the attempt was futile, it was a wake-up call for the Indian government and questioned the military preparedness of the nation.

The Sunderjee doctrine which was being pursued from 1981, proved to be inefficient during the operation Parakram, which was launched as a response to Dec 13, 2001, parliament attacks. The Sunderjee doctrine limited armed forces role to largely defensive and offensive capability was limited to three strike corps stationed at central India far from borders. The doctrine divided armed forces into two parts;

• Holding Corps: Comprised of 7 divisions, deployed alongside the border. It consisted of Infantry divisions for static defense, mobile mechanized divisions that could respond to enemy penetrations, and a small number of armored units.
• Strike Corps: Consisted of armored divisions, mechanized infantry and had extensive artillery support. It was based in central India far from borders and expected to mobilize once holding corps successfully repels enemy invasions.

The plan was largely defensive and more concentration was given to holding corps which was ill equipped for an offensive operation. This made the entire offensive operations depend on the mobilization of large strike corps. During operation Parakram, Strike corps took three weeks to reach the borders. If India wants a swift and limited offensive against Pakistan, without escalating it into the nuclear dimension, they need to have a force which can be mobilized at short notice and could penetrate deep into enemy territory, in limited time frame. This will enable Indian leadership to have an advantageous position, and henceforth limiting conflict to conventional means. The slow pace of mobilization during operation Parakram enabled the United States to exert pressure on our leadership to withdraw the forces. So any limited offensive that army wants to undertake should be commenced within a stipulated time frame, which will, in turn, prevent any international pressure.

The cold start doctrine is designed specifically for this purpose. An entire mobilization of military assets is not feasible for a limited offensive. A massive column will invite a lot of attention, and it would alert enemy forces, which will, in turn, drive out the opportunity for a surprise attack.

The cold start doctrine is built around 8 small division sized Integrated Battle Groups (IBGs).They are supported by artillery, mechanized forces and would have Air force and naval support. The IGBs will cross through different parts through forward positions of Rajasthan and Punjab, which will make enemy decision making more complicated and challenging. The IBGs are smaller in size compared to Strike corps, this will enable them to avoid attention from foreign spies and satellites during mobilization. Apart from this, the holding corps is now redesigned as pivotal corps and is having the capability for limited offensive operations.

Cold Start doctrine Invited lot of skepticism from International community. A US embassy, a secret letter leaked by Wikileaks, points out that “Indian forces could have significant logistical and reinforcement problems, during the first phase”. The report also questions the will of political leadership to launch a limited offensive following a military or terror strikes, as India didn’t respond militarily to Mumbai attacks of 2008. Some also believe, such a limited offensive would invite widespread agitation from the international community and may lose the favorable status India have over Pakistan. Through the cold start limits offensive strikes to a low scale invasion of enemy territory from 50-70 km, thus limiting the war to conventional level, Experts believes that such a move could be disastrous and would lead to nuclear exchanges. As Pakistan nuclear policy states that, if India occupies large scale of territories or destroys its majority of military assets both on the ground and in air, they would use nuclear assets to protect their interests, cold start style offensive could be misinterpreted and may lead to full-scale nuclear conflict.

The Full-scale implementation of such doctrine would require modern equipment and a robust C4ISR. India already started upgrading its age-old assets and they are regularly practicing the tactics through various exercises like Divyastra and Aswamedh. The doctrine also emphasizes the need for joint operations with other forces and relies largely on airpower. The air force argues that Air power should be used independently and should have a different doctrine to engage with Airborne threats. The navy also has a different doctrine, which involves landing troops through the coasts of enemy territory. As India lacks a Joint Chief of Staffs for better coordination and utilization of forces, full-fledged implementation of cold start is difficult to coalesce.

(To be continued.....)

J-20:A Game changer for PLAAF

2015-12-30T07:55:00.004-08:00

PLA is undergoing swift modernization and structural changes as part of its ambitious plan to become a formidable military power in the region. The push for indigenisation helped PLAAF to become one of the most advanced airpower the world. After closely studying strategies of Falkland wars and Yom-Kippur wars, china made the significant change to combat strategies. They realized the need for building new aircraft that would possess long ranges and larger weapon carrying capacity. The J-20 was developed as part of J-XX program which started at late 1990's.

On 22 December 2010, the first J-20 prototype underwent high-speed taxiing tests outside the Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute.It was first flown on 11 Jan 2011, just 2 days after the US secretary of Defense Robert Gates started visiting China. Although they claimed test was preplanned, most observers believe that China was intended to send a clear message to the west about it's growing military capabilities. In 5 years Chengdu Aerospace Corporation made a total of 9 prototypes with the latest prototype rolled out on Dec 2015. The latest prototype, which marked as 2101 suggests that it would be the first among Low Rate Initial Production airframes (LRIP), which is intended for military use. It signals J-20 may enter service before planned induction date.

J-20 Design is largely based on F-22 and canceled Russian fighter MiG 1.42. The Chinned nose cone and canopy have close resemblance with that of F-22. The fuselage and tail structure is almost similar to that of Mig 1.42 and YF-23 respectively. It was the first stealth aircraft to feature a large dihedral canard and a delta wing configuration. There were lots of debates regarding the use of canards and stealth capabilities of aircraft. Though CAC claims to be using a low RCS canard structure, experts believe that this may result in reduced stealth capabilities. As the material breakdown of J-20 is not available, some studies indicate that it may have titanium body rather than composite materials. The material used plays key in modern fighters as they have to withstand the large heat generated by sustained high-speed operations. At the same time, composite materials and surface coatings help in reducing radar signature.The trapezoidal edge aligned engine inlets are closest to F-22, though appear to be larger and would employ F-35 style Diverterless Supersonic Inlet (DSI), which will improve inlet edge signature. Larger DSI also implies the use of bigger engines.

China faced major setbacks in developing an engine for the J-20 program. As its design demands more thrust to weight ratio, which is around 10:1, the Russian-supplied AL-31 will affect its capabilities. As AL-31 is supposed to power Su-27, the supercruise capabilities of J-20 would be limited. The performance of J-20 will largely depend on future engine developments. They have to develop an engine, which will have similar performance that of Pratt&Wittney F-119/W-15. The Initial production series would be powered with W-10/AL-31F engines and later production series might be powered by W-15 before induction.

The J-20 also carries a powerful active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, nose-mounted infrared search and tracking sensors, and fuselage-mounted cameras to give its pilot a VR 360 degree imaging (similar to the F-35's avionics). For weapons, the J-20 would have long-range missiles like the PL-12, PL-15, and PL-21, and short-ranged infrared-guided PL-8 and PL-10. Networked with other platforms such as the Divine Eagle anti-stealth drone, the J-20's array of sensors will give it the ability to go toe-to-toe with other stealth fighters. China claims that J-20 would be ahead of its Russian counterpart T-50 in terms of Avionics.The aircraft features a glass cockpit, with two main large color liquid crystal displays (LCD), situated side-by-side, three smaller auxiliary displays, and a wide-angle holographic head-up display (HUD).A revised nose section, much similar to that of the much-criticized F-35, with an IRST/EOTS (Infra Red Search and Track / Electro-Optical Tracking System) – used to hunt low observable aircraft and a metal finish that loosely reminds the radar absorbing Haze Paint first used on F-16s

Based on Design and Avionics J-20 could be used as a long-range interceptor and as a strike fighter. As J-20 possesses a larger internal volume, it would have the capability to carry more fuel and an array of weapons.This will enable it to shoot down AWACS and Tankers of enemy forces as well as act as a long range interceptor. The design along with suitable armaments would enable J-20 to function a Theatre Strike Fighter, Electronic attack platform or even as an Anti-Satellite Weapon Launch Platform.

The Induction of J-20 into PLAAF would enable it to have superiority over large island chains in the South China Sea. Unrefuelled combat radius performance for a Hi-Hi-Hi profile in a fighter in the size and weight class of the FB-111A typically falls between 1,000 and 1,500 nautical miles, subject to a range of assumptions and engine TSFC during the profile. As j-20 is having almost similar size that of F--111A, it may possess same combat radius of that of F-111A, which would enable it to operate within second island chain with the assistance of aerial refueling. This would pose a major threat to the US and it allies in the Asia-Pacific.

As Air defense systems of US and it allies in Pacific rim largely depends on Integrated Air Defence Systems (IADS) which primarily using S-band radar systems, J-20 would have a clear advantage.At the same time, Airborne early warning capabilities are also limited as E-3/E-767/APY-2 AWACS (US Air Force, Japan) operating in the S-band and the E-2C/APS-145 (US Navy, Japan, Singapore) and E-2D/APY-9 (US Navy) in the UHF-band. The L-band Radar will perform better in comparison to S-band radars. The E-737 Wedgetail/MESA (South Korea, Australia) and G.550 CAEW / EL/M-2075 (Singapore) are operating in L-band. In strategic terms, J-20 would have a clear advantage over systems possessed by the US and its allies. As of now the refueling capabilities of PLAAF is very much limited. But with induction of more platforms, they may be able to position J-20s deep inside mainland, which would give them a clear advantage.

Characteristics

Length:70.5ft
Height:14.4 ft
Span:42.6ft
S(wet):3025.7ft²
V(fus):2377.3 ft³
Empty weight:34572.2lb
Fuel and Payload:40427.8
CG location(%MAC):20
CG Estimated (Based on Gear position):18.6
Wing Loading(lb/ft²):90.5
Thrust to weight ratio:0.507
Thrust to weight ratio(Afterburners):0.853
M:2.13(shock on nose cone)
M:2.81(shock on probe)
Enough thrust to achieve:m=2.5
Ground roll Req:1398ft
Distance to achieve MIL 50' clearance requirement:144ft
Take off distance:1542ft
Climb angle for best rate of climb:19.2

Sources:

Author: Anoop DK

UN report says Indian peacekeepers face sexual abuse charges

2015-06-24T03:34:00.001-07:00

In recent years, global peacekeeping forces have faced mounting accusations of sexual harassment and abuse of authority, especially in impoverished areas. (http://blogs.cfr.org/patrick/files/2011/08/pk-photo.jpg)

Indian peacekeeping forces were accused of sexual exploitation and abuse in three cases between 2010 and 2013, a recent United Nations report has revealed, embarrassing the army that contributes the third-largest contingent to UN missions.

The allegations bring back memories of a cash-for-sex scandal in the Democratic Republic of Congo involving Indian personnel in 2008, when an investigation found at least 10 soldiers had sex with prostitutes in violation of the UN code of conduct. There were also allegations of some soldiers fathering children.

"Strictest action is taken against soldiers bringing a bad name to the army on foreign soil. The army is also putting in place tougher rules for monitoring conduct and discipline to curb such cases," said a senior army officer.

The United Nations has 125,000 troops, police and civilians deployed in 16 operations across the world to ensure peace and reduce violence in strife-torn regions. Of these, India accounts for about 7,200 soldiers in nine missions, including those in the Congo, South Sudan and Lebanon.

In recent years, global peacekeeping forces have faced mounting accusations of sexual harassment and abuse of authority, especially in impoverished areas. Figures compiled by the powerful UN Office of Internal Oversight Services record 265 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse against international peacekeepers in the last five years.

A draft version of the report accessed by agencies said UN peacekeepers commonly paid for sex with cash, dresses, jewellery, mobile phones and other items with hundreds of women in Haiti and Liberia saying hunger and poverty prompted them to offer sex.

A UN bulletin in 2003 banned transactional sex by peacekeepers because it could compromise the UN's credibility.

The Indian Army has taken several measures to check such cases. For instance, there are flying squads to snoop on men garrisoned in and around the Congo's Goma region.

Raids are regularly conducted at no-go places such as nightclubs, bars and red light areas and troops about to finish their tenure are placed under surveillance because sexual abuse usually occurs in the last two months of duty.

India's South Asian neighbour Bangladesh tops the list of nations contributing to the UN peacekeeping force, followed by Pakistan, which has also faced several allegations of sexual exploitation by its soldiers.

US Army Developing 'Star Wars Hoverbikes'

2015-06-24T03:32:00.003-07:00

Someone in the US Army must have loved Star Wars, because theAmerican military is now on its way towards developing the hoverbikes featured in the sci-fi classic and implementing them in real-world battlefields.

The design of the new vehicle will apparently be taken straight from the scenes of Luke Skywalker and the ewoks hurtling through the forest moon of Endor in the 1983 film Star Wars: Return of the Jedi.

A deal was recently reached by the US Department of Defense that will have engineers in the US and UK combine forces on the project, reports Reuters, with the research and development taking place in Harford County, Maryland.

The floating vehicles will be able to function somewhat similarly to helicopters but allow for greater maneuverability due to their futuristic design, and can be used in both military, as well as emergency aidoperations.

"The Department of Defense is interested in Hoverbike technology because it can support multiple roles," said Mark Butkiewicz, an employee at the US company Survice tasked with developing the new vehicles.

"It can transport troops over difficult terrain and when it's not used in that purpose it can also be used to transport logistics, supplies, and it can operate in both a manned and unmanned asset."

Grant Stapleton of the UK company Malloy Aeronautics discussed the advantage of hoverbikes over helicopters.

"Primarily there's safety," Stapleton told Reuters. "With adducted rotors you immediately not only protect people and property if you were to bump into them, but if you ever were to bump into somebody or property it's going to bring the aircraft out of the air."

As noted the research will be centered in Maryland, where officials are welcoming the project and the jobs it will bring to the state.

"I think there can be a lot of applications, and maybe I'll be the fifth or sixth person to ride it. I'm going to wait until a couple of people ride it before me," Maryland Lieutenant Governor Boyd Rutherford said jokingly.

BrahMos to Boost the Strike Capacity of Indian Air Force

2015-06-24T03:27:00.000-07:00

It’s primed to be a packed year ahead for the Indo-Russian BrahMos supersonic cruise missile with upcoming flight-test of the missile aboard a modified Su-30 MKI of the Air Force and the prospect of the Indian Army raising two more BrahMos missile regiments.

The BrahMos air-launched version will be flight-tested aboard the IAF’s Su-30 MKI fighter in 2015 itself, Sudhir K Mishra, CEO and managing director of Indo-Russian joint venture BrahMos Aerospace Pvt Ltd (BAPL), told ‘Express’ during a recent visit to the company’s Thiruvananthapuram unit.

“The Nasik division of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) has completed the modification of Su-30 MKI for carrying BrahMos missiles. We are planning to test the missile this year itself once it has been integrated to the fighter,” Mishra said. “It will take about four to five months to complete the instrument flight test, the dummy test and the actual flight,” he said.

BAPL has so far handed over more than 100 BrahMos missiles to the 4th BrahMos missile regiment of the Army. “We are also looking at the possibility of raising the 5th and 6th BrahMos regiments,” Mishra said. Other plans, including fitting six ships of the Indian Navy with the 290-km missile, are on the anvil.

In May, the army had successfully tested an advanced version of the missile with steep-diving capability.

On foreign customers lining up for the missile, Mishra said that it was up to the Centre to decide. “The BAPL is ready to meet any production order, subject to the Government of India approval. It is for the government to decide where to export and whom to export it to,” he said. The Russian government has absolutely no problem with such orders, he said.

http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/kerala/BrahMos-to-Boost-the-Strike-Capacity-of-Indian-Air-Force/2015/06/22/article2879636.ece

Servents to Combatants:Story of Indian Soldiers

2015-04-18T10:21:00.002-07:00

Note: This article may sound little bit controversial, Indian army is a great institution and pride of our nation. But still following some colonial traditions that has to be abandoned one of them is the ‘sahayak’ or ‘helper’ assigned to every officers/JCOs as personal servants. This article is for exposing the realities of this shameful tradition(Here the term officers includes both commissioned and Junior Commissioned Officers),Enlisted term refers to all personal below Officers excluding JCOs.Majority of the contents in this are taken from third party sources and links are provided under sources at the end of the article.,Article is yet to be edited .

10^th may 2012 was a rough day for Army. A mutiny took place at 226 Field Artillery Control Unit raised many alarm bells about discipline in armed forces and colonial system named ‘sahayak’. The incident took place during an annual firing exercise at Mahe in Nyoma at the training camp of the unit. It is alleged that a 'sahayak'(orderly) Suman Ghose reportedly misbehaved with a Major's wife at a family picnic party in the officers' mess located at BRO guest house, after which several Majors bashed up the Army jawan. When the CO came to know of it, he reportedly admonished the Major for not providing ambulance for the jawan's treatment. Seeing this, the Major along with five of his officer colleagues beat the Commanding Officer, a Colonel, in front of jawans. This angered the jawans who then went berserk and beat the other officers with sticks^. This is not just one incident, there has been alot of incidents triggered because of the worsening officer-enlisted relationship. The Ladakh incident was an eye opener.

What is shahayak system ?

Orderlies were used by nepolian on battlefields

Sahayak or Batman (Abbreviated form of Battle-men) is a trained soldier assigned to officers as a helper, to assist him during combat, up keeping his uniforms, to act as his radio operater and as a ‘buddy’ in the field. Batmen were extensively used during colonial period, especially in the form of messengers or as runner to convey orders of the officers to men during the combat. But soon after the invention of wireless communication systems ‘messengers’ term is replaced by ‘orderly or batman’. The duties of batman includes

Acting as a “runner” to convey orders from the officers to subordinates (obsolete)
Maintaining officers uniform and personal equipments as a valet
Driving officers vehicle ,sometimes under combat conditions
Acting as officer’s body guard in combat
Digging officer’s foxhole in combat, giving the officer time to direct his unit.
Other miscellaneous tasks the officer does not have time or inclination to do.

Batman system in other countries

A British soldier and US army officer during WW II

Batman system was present in almost all armies of the world until the Worl War II,they were known in different names in different countries and were assigned to do different jobs., Some of them were assigned to do the official duties while others were used as personal servants. But, WW II exposed evil side of the Batman. There were reports of ill-treatment of enlisted by the officers. The later studies revealed that most of the batmen were misused by the officers as their personal servents and this affected fighting morale of men. Soon after the war most of the countries such as France,Germany, Soviet Union,Pakistan(Replaced with non-combatants),Turkey United Kingdom ,Italy and United States abolished this system . Many of them were decided to appoint an enlisted person to senior officers, only to help him with his official duties.

Batman system in Indian army

While most of the modern armies decided to abolish batman system, Indian army continues this system under the label of ‘up keeping tradition’, which led to widespread mistrust between officers and enlisted. Modern day soldiers are well educated and they are having their own aims and passions. Majority of them are against these policies and want to be treated equally. The most astonishing fact is that more than 30,000 of soldiers are assigned as Sahayaks and many of them are doing household works in officer’s houses, while at the same time army reports shortage of 27000 men.So the shortage simply implies army literally needs more ‘sahayaks’ rather than trained combatants.

Mistrust and Lack of morale can have grave effects in battlefield. 21^st century bought new complication in the battlefields. Wars are currently waged indirectly and direct large scale movements are proved to be ineffective. This condition brings in larger role of small strike teams or platoons rather than mobilization of whole infantry unit. For this kind of operations trust and coordination between officers and enlisted are necessary. If the men are demotivated, failure is certain. So keeping this batman system can only bring more mistrust and literally increase the communication gap between officers and enlisted. As most of the enlisted are from poor economic backgrounds, many of them are continuing in the army only for the sake of family. This anger is also fuelled by slow promotion and low- salary.

On the other hand average Indian armed forces officer is overburdened with duties and are not getting enough time to fulfil his personal works. This is one of the major reasons that lead to the misuse of ‘sahayaks’. As separate servants are not provided like that in Air force and Navy they are using the sahayak as their personal servants. Their families are never aware of this and continue to believe them as a perk by the Army. The enlisted are assigned to wash the cloths, cooking, driving their wives to shopping complexes or for sightseeing, and sometimes as waiters. The soldiers are reluctant to report these incidents to higher formations because the fears of slower promotions or hard postings. So the system continued and now it has became a birth right for officers. According to a retired General “A Lt Col who commands 120 people is given one man to help him, while two junior officers may share a sahayak”. He also claims “that nobody questions the system of sahayaks for the police or the administrative services. An IPS officer or an IAS may have a number of sahayaks working for him, but they are not questioned. But anything to do with the Army quickly comes into the limelight”. This is a mere example how the senior officials

Responses of officers and Enlisted

Note: For copyright and identity concerns names are not used in this article, although names are provided in parent websites and can be viewed by opening the links under sources heading.

The enlisted have a common opinion to abolish this system. But the officers found to have a mixed opinion, while some want to put an end to system, other were supporting it by giving mere excuses .

According to a retired Lance Naik it is demeaning for soldiers to serve their officers as domestic help. He describes an incident where he was used as waiter for his officers and friends on the day of Ghandi Jayanthi. “After the party, we washed the dishes and cleaned up the place. When the officers’ party, we get to eat only after 3 am, though we have to wake up again at the crack of dawn. If they get very drunk, we also have to drive them home.” He recollects.

He wishes to give voice to hundreds of his colleagues by volunteering to speak out on the issue. “The Armed Forces Tribunal is out of the ordinary soldier’s reach and we shy away from the media as promotions will get held back or we will be transferred to difficult postings immediately,” He also complaints about the quality of standard-issue items such as shoes and claims that a jawan has to spend more than a month’s salary every year to replace or alter the “substandard items”. “Else, we would look like an army of porters,” he says. In 2008, the parliamentary standing committee on defence had acknowledged that the army loses more soldiers to fratricide and suicide than in internal or external conflict. He believes that the ‘batman’ system and ill-treatment by officers are also factors behind this as they add to the stress that jawans undergo, sometimes leading to suicide.

According to a retired Naval officer sahayaks are more like personal servents and are used for doing household worked.”When i was posted to an training establishment were officers from all branches are treated equally army officers had an extra perk called sahayaks, the army officer stayed next to his house believed it’s the duty of sahayaks to walk the dogs, bathing them and doing some other house hold works “ he recollects. He also asserts need for ending this practice .

Another army pilot also shares the same views. According to him ” When I joined the Army and ended up in an old illustrious Artillery Regiment, the first thing we young officers were told was that we would have to share one batman between three of us and that gone on till I became a young Captain. We were also told what the batman was supposed to do and this was strictly implemented. During the 1971 Indo Pak War, I did get the privilege of a personal batman, though I recall he was more my bodyguard, radio operator and buddy. My stints in training establishments were with no 'orderly' in uniform. The Mess bearer looked after my needs. Subsequent to my joining the flying branch as an AOP pilot I was exposed to the IAF system where civilians did the odd job or two. My wife did the shopping and we had a paid safaiwallah who did the house. Of course a lot of my younger married life was in field or semi field areas. But with wife and son in tow. Was lucky I suppose. When we did return to Peace routine, it was once again sharing of the batman. Never did we ever use the batman as a personal servant. Eventually I ended up in a HQs establishment and found that the ubiquitous “sahayak” was again a far and distant subject. All of us staff officers had a batman who dropped by twice or thrice a week. We never had or used ‘batmen’ for what can now be termed ‘menial’ jobs and are considered humiliating. We did our own shopping, hired the usual maid and odd job help. I do not recall seeing batmen hovering around when I went calling to a senior officers home”, he also says “A lot of officers who used to be single in the old days are now married at an earlier age. Instead of the educating their wives about Service customs and traditions, the modern 21st Century officer likes to consider himself as an equal to his superior. Strange but that’s the honest fact of the matter. And terribly wrong. Leadership suffers. Do remember that there is a very fine dividing line between privilege and misuse. “

In an open letter to Hindu on Ladakh incident an army Major says “I am an officer serving in the Indian Army. In 12 years, I have worked everywhere from mountains to deserts. The army officers are known for looking after their men. The Chetwood credo is ingrained in our blood, and the accusation that the officers use their jawans for domestic help is false. The officers lead the men in every activity of their battalion. Our men have immense faith in us. You need to be in the army to understand the bonding.My sahayak is my buddy; we walk together, play together, I cover him when he is crawling, so does he when I am dashing on the ground. He helps me operate my equipment, cares for me when I am sick and brings me a bottle of homemade pickle when he comes back from leave. Army sahayaks are not comparable to the cooks and orderlies of bureaucrats. My unit is my family. If I have to choose between my family and battalion, it will be my battalion and my men.”. Many officers might be sharing the same views as this major does, but overall result is still the same.

Sahayaks are helpers to the officers, and are a great asset professionally according to a retired General. "In case they are given domestic jobs, then it is wrong, and it is the duty of the commanding officer to ensure that this does not happen," He adds.At the same time another General asserts need for continuing the system and explains it with Sahayaks provided to IAS/IPS officers, He also suggests that women who marry Army officers must be educated in this regard, and must understand that the sahayak is a helper only for the officer.

Air force is not having the system of using combatant as orderlies, they were replaced by Non-Combatants Enrolled (Nc(E))s ,But a Wing commander states "This question keeps coming up, but people who raise these objections are unaware of how the Army functions. The fact remains that the sahayak takes on a lot of minor jobs for the senior officers. When the officers go for field duty, the man is with him all the time." "A better understanding of the do's and don'ts may be required, but it will be a grave mistake to do away with the system altogether. The sahayaks are educated now, and know their rights," he points out. However, a retired Wing Commander admits that often the sahayaks are given menial and demeaning household jobs.

On an open letter to The Hindu an retired Lt.Col says “The Ladakh incident is an aberration (“Wake-up call for the army,” March 26). It is condemnable and definitely calls for corrective and preventive action at all levels. The sahayak or orderly is not meant to be a domestic help. During war, he is supposed to be at call of the officer. There are many stories of sahayaks’ supreme sacrifice in the line of duty. The sahayak also acts as the pulse of an army unit. He forewarns the officer so that untoward incidents do not take place. Some sahayaks become part of their officers’ families. Many officers are known to have visited their sahayaks’ villages to attend their family functions. The officer-sahayak relationship in a regiment is thicker than blood.” While another colonel strongly supports the sahayak system by stating “Having served in the Army for over three decades, I am of the firm opinion that despite cacophony raised by the civilians, the "batman" system MUST continue.Slowly all the privileges of the Armed forces are either being taken away or being usurped.Cars disappeared from CSD,lesser number of items are being supplied to CSD,there is growing demand in different parts of India to "shift" the Forces "out" of the cities and lucrative areas so that the civilians can sell it.For example, in Simla they want Army to vacate an age old area so that it can be sold. There was a time when the lives of Forces personnel were private.It is not so any longer. Civilians-abetted by the media- have intruded upon this once august society. To some extent there has been a lowering of the standards in the Armed forces-which is an to some extent natural since there has been a decline of the society as such.If you give up the "Batman" today, tomorrow they will take away the Messes and officers Institutes as well.The government officials whether at the District/State or Centre, enjoy far more perks..Does anyone question why a freshly recruited DC/DM/SP have a battery of five to ten servants, cooks, waiters, etc? No, the system of combat soldier serving as batman, MUST be continued.”

With this mixed opinions within the serving personals, the government will never get a positive reply on this . While a study conducted by some army officials stressed the need for ending the system under the leadership of Gen. V. K Singh. Still the proposals are yet to be implimented even after years of his retirement.

Conclusion

The army must take necessary steps into abolishing sahayak practice and must replace them with non-combatants, They must learn lessons from other modern armies and sister forces. As this systems gravely affects the morale of men the government must bring new policies for up keeping the status of soldier s and must bring positive changes in the field of welfare of them

Sources:

http://karvediat.blogspot.in/2013/10/the-army-sahayak-batman-anachronism-or.html

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Napoleon_Guard_Artillery_train_and_Foot_artillerist_by_Bellange.jpg

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/wakeup-call-for-the-army/article4548120.ece?ref=relatedNews

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/letters/the-sahayak-debate/article4562555.ece?ref=relatedNews

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/letters/officersahayak-ties/article4559226.ece?ref=relatedNews

http://magnus-thearmedforces.blogspot.in/2012/05/sahayak-system-in-armed-forces.html

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/letters/sahayak-woes/article4567611.ece

http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/-civilians-don-t-understand-how-army-functions-/589873/

http://www.tehelka.com/army-officers-using-jawans-as-domestic-staff/

http://creative.sulekha.com/woes-and-foes-of-our-brave-indian-army-soldiers_558413_blog

http://www.studymode.com/essays/Noncommissioned-Officer-History-Army-1835671.html

http://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/standpoint-here-is-why-india-s-armed-forces-urgently-need-a-complete-overhaul-2039560

http://www.tehelka.com/an-officer-his-men/

http://www.studymode.com/subjects/officer-men-relationship-in-indian-army-page1.html

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=7ARdilr320sC&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=officer+and+men+relationship+in+united+states+army&source=bl&ots=LLL4cvpbJu&sig=4qnf2YYhqZ9SkxLUrU7Bywb20j4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TTQyVaTlA5WWuQSuuoGwBw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=officer%20and%20men%20relationship%20in%20united%20states%20army&f=false

http://regimentalrogue.com/srsub/comrades_in_arms_1942_lecture1.html

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2770822?uid=3738256&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21106048543021

http://www.tehelka.com/no-justice-for-jawans/

Permanent Chairman to COSC: Implications and Analysis

2015-03-22T23:35:00.000-07:00

Indian armed forces are 3 rd largest military force and World’s largest standing volunteer army. But in 21^st century numbers alone doesn't matter, if we need a total supremacy over enemy, we need modern equipment and a robust chain of command. If we are having a strong chain of command and a decision taking body, we will clearly have an advantage over enemy because, this will help us to execute our missions, swiftly and in more organised manner, with the optimum usage of our resources.

The Kargil war reflected the weakness of our decision taking body, which impacted our missions as well as reduced the number of choices we had at that time. Even though we succeeded in foiling Pakistani attempt to internationalize Kashmir issue, it was more a wake up call for the government to restructure our command chain. Kargil review committee submitted their report on Feb 23, 2000.The cabinet committee on security later appointed a group of ministers to study the report. The group of ministers held a total of 27 meetings and in order to facilitate their work, it had set up four task forces, one each on Intelligence apparatus, Internal Security, Border Management and Management of Defence. The group of ministers submitted their report to Prime Minister on Feb 26, 2000.

Arjun Singh committee on Defence management and Naresh Chandra committee recommended creation of Chief of Defence staff with four main functions;

1. Providing single point military advice

2. Administer strategic forces

3. Ensuring Jointness in the armed forces

4. Enhance planning process through Interservice coordination and prioritizing. ^$

CCS considered Group of ministers Report on May 11, 2001 and implemented all recommendations contained except the creation of a Chief of Defence Staffs, Mainly because of the fear that CDS may become more powerful than Cabinet Secretary.

The Kargil Review committee asserted need for establishing a Committee of Chief of Staffs and a permanent chairman to this committee, but the government was reluctant because of the fear of losing political power over the military, which may lead to a possible coup. This lead to the establishment of COSC without a permanent chairman, at present

1. The COSC members include Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Chief of Naval Staff (CNS) and Chief of Integrated Defence Staff (CISC) who is a non-voting member.

2. The position of the chairman devolves on the longest serving chief of staff and rotates amongst the chiefs of service.

3. Currently serves as a advisory board and a forum for service chiefs to discuss matters having a bearing on the activities of the services.

Why We Need a Permanent Chief?

India is situated in a hostile neighbourhood, with possible risk of attack from two or more fronts. As we are having a vast coastline and mountainous terrain,it’s essential to have a good understanding of assets available with three forces and use them wisely in case of conflict to get a desired outcome with usage of optimum resources which will in turn reduce causalities as well as cost of war. For this we need a much deeper understanding and coordination between three forces, which we lacked at the time of Kargil conflict.

Currently the three forces are having three independent decision taking mechanisms, through COSC helped to lay down a platform for discussion and sharing doctrines and strategic views of three service chiefs, lack of a permanent chairman or a independent chief to assess and take further decisions, weakening the purpose of this committee

Some of the roles may give to permanent chairman COSC;

1. Exercise administrative control over nuclear arsenal.

2. Head a separate joint Special Forces command.

3. Ensure Jointness of armed forces.

4. Exercise administrative control over all joint service commands, such as Andaman Nicobar Command; Strategic Forces Command; Cyber Command (when created); Aerospace command (When created).

5. Prioritise allocation of capital budgets for acquiring vital capabilities for armed forces.

6. Prepare annual defence operational status reports.

7. Will be an invitee to Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) and National Security Council (NSC).^{^}

Joint Chiefs of Staffs (United States)

The Joint Chiefs of Staff consist of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau.^*

The collective body of the JCS is headed by the Chairman (or the Vice Chairman in the Chairman's absence), who sets the agenda and presides over JCS meetings. Responsibilities as members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff take precedence over duties as the Chiefs of Military Services. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal military adviser to the President, Secretary of Defense, and the National Security Council (NSC), however, all JCS members are by law military advisers, and they may respond to a request or voluntarily submit, through the Chairman, advice or opinions to the President, the Secretary of Defense, or NSC.

The executive authority of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has changed. In World War II, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff acted as executive agents in dealing with theater and area commanders, but the original National Security Act of 1947 saw the Joint Chiefs of Staff as planners and advisers, not as commanders of combatant commands. In spite of this, the 1948 Key West Agreement allowed members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to serve as executive agents for unified commands, a responsibility that allowed the executive agent to originate direct communication with the combatant command. Congress abolished this authority in a 1953 amendment to the National Security Act.^*

Today, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have no executive authority to command combatant forces. The issue of executive authority was clearly resolved by the Goldwater-Nichols DOD Reorganization Act of 1986: "The Secretaries of the Military Departments shall assign all forces under their jurisdiction to unified and specified combatant commands to perform missions assigned to those commands..."; the chain of command "runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense; and from the Secretary of Defense to the commander of the combatant command."^*

Role of Chairman to JCS

The Goldwater-Nichols DOD Reorganization Act of 1986 identifies the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the senior ranking member of the Armed Forces. As such, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal military adviser to the President. He may seek the advice of and consult with the other JCS members and combatant commanders. When he presents his advice, he presents the range of advice and opinions he has received, along with any individual comments of the other JCS members.^*

Under the DOD Reorganization Act, the Secretaries of the Military Departments assign all forces to combatant commands except those assigned to carry out the mission of the Services, i.e., recruit, organize, supply, equip, train, service, mobilize, demobilize, administer and maintain their respective forces. The chain of command to these combatant commands runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense directly to the commander of the combatant command. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may transmit communications to the commanders of the combatant commands from the President and Secretary of Defense but does not exercise military command over any combatant forces.^*

The Act also gives to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff some of the functions and responsibilities previously assigned to the corporate body of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The broad functions of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are set forth in Title 10, United States Code, and detailed in DOD Directive 5100.1. In carrying out his duties, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff consults with and seeks the advice of the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combatant commanders, as he considers appropriate.^*

Goldwater-Nicolas Act of 1986

The Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 was implemented on 1 October 1986. It has been called the most significant Defense policy change since the National Security Act of 1947. Goldwater-Nichols gave us a globe divided into Combatant Commands, each with a CINC (until 2002, when they became COCOMs). It also made the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff the principle military advisor to the President, whereas previously the Service Chiefs had a much larger role in providing that advice.^#This simplified command chain by giving orders directly to Combatant Commandants

basic structure

According to Goldwater-Nicolas act chairman is the principal military adviser to the President, the National Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense. In carrying out his functions, duties, and responsibilities, the Chairman shall, as he considers appropriate, consult with and seek the advice of the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and the commanders of the unified and specified combatant commands. And it defined the fuction of chairman as follows ^%

(a) Planning; Advice; Policy Formulation. Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the President and the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall be responsible for the following:

(1) Strategic Direction. Assisting the President and the Secretary of Defense in providing for the strategic direction of the armed forces.

(2) Strategic Planning.

(A) Preparing strategic plans, including plans which conform with resource levels projected by the Secretary of Defense to be available for the period of time for which the plans are to be effective.

(B) Preparing joint logistic and mobility plans to support those strategic plans and recommending the assignment of logistic and mobility responsibilities to the armed forces in accordance with those logistic and mobility plans.

(C) Performing net assessments to determine the capabilities of the armed forces of the United States and its allies as compared with those of their potential adversaries.

(3) Contingency Planning; Preparedness.

(A) Providing for the preparation and review of contingency plans which conform to policy guidance from the President and the Secretary of Defense.

(B) Preparing joint logistic and mobility plans to support those contingency plans and recommending the assignment of logistic and mobility responsibilities to the armed forces in accordance with those logistic and mobility plans.

(C) Advising the Secretary on critical deficiencies and strengths in force capabilities (including manpower, logistic, and mobility support) identified during the preparation and review of contingency plans and assessing the effect of such deficiencies and strengths on meeting national security objectives and policy and on strategic plans.

(D) Establishing and maintaining, after consultation with the commanders of the unified and specified combatant commands, a uniform system of evaluating the preparedness of each such command to carry out missions assigned to the command.

(4) Advice on Requirements, Programs, and Budget.

(A) Advising the Secretary, under section 163(b)(2) of this title, on the priorities of the requirements identified by the commanders of the unified and specified combatant commands.

(B) Advising the Secretary on the extent to which the program recommendations and budget proposals of the military departments and other components of the Department of Defence for a fiscal year conform with the priorities established in strategic plans and with the priorities established for the requirements of the unified and specified combatant commands.

(C) Submitting to the Secretary alternative program recommendations and budget proposals, within projected resource levels and guidance provided by the Secretary, in order to achieve greater conformance with the priorities referred to in clause (B).

(D) Recommending to the Secretary, in accordance with section 166 of this title, a budget proposal for activities of each unified and specified combatant command.

(E) Advising the Secretary on the extent to which the major programs and policies of the armed forces in the area of manpower conform with strategic plans.

(F) Assessing military requirements for defence acquisition programs.

(5) Doctrine, Training, and Education.

(A) Developing doctrine for the joint employment of the armed forces.

(B) Formulating policies for the joint training of the armed forces.

(C) Formulating policies for coordinating the military education and training of members of the armed forces.

(6) Other Matters.

(A) Providing for representation of the United States on the Military Staff Committee of the United Nations in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

(B) Performing such other duties as may be prescribed by law or by the President or the Secretary of Defence.%

By limiting service chiefs to advisory role, US government managed to get a tight grip over the military. The Indian government must learn lessons from this model. Sometimes too much political control over military can produce undesired outcomes, to contain it we need to make a balanced plan, with a simple and robust decision taking mechanism and in turn enhance the capability of our armed forces in fighting a war .

Sources:

% http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/congress/title_10.htm

* http://www.jcs.mil/

^ $ http://www.spsmai.com/military/?id=2972&q=A-relook-at-the-Chief-of-Defence-Staff-/-Permanent-Chairman-COSC

http://blog.usni.org/2011/07/14/goldwater-nichols-at-25-success-or-failure

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=15088679

http://ids.nic.in/organisation.htm

http://media.newindianexpress.com/Modi-DefenceLeaders1PTI.jpg/2014/10/17/article2482243.ece/alternates/w620/Modi-DefenceLeaders1PTI.jpg

http://www.mod.nic.in/forms/Sublink1.aspx?lid=1544&Id=56

https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/744b0f7d-4a3f-4473-8a27-c5b444c2ea27/Has-It-Worked--The-Goldwater-Nichols-Reorganizatio

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=goldwater_nichols_defense_reorganization_act_1

South China Sea conflict:Simplified

2015-03-05T04:26:00.002-08:00

The South China Sea encompasses an area of 1.4 million square miles of ocean and several hundread small islads,atolls,rocks and shaols with a cumulative land area of about six square miles.Most of the Islands are inhabitable and submerged even under low tides.The islands have no indegenous population,but now the countries are promoting migration to these islands to extend their claims.The area is rich in natural resources, but most of it is difficult to develop and thus far relatively unexploited.More than half of the world's commerce travels by sea and about half of the world's oil tankers are passing through this waters.This further escalates the conflict.

________________________________________

Countires and Claims
________________________________________

Spartly Islands:China,Taiwan and Vietnam
Parcel Islands:China,Taiwan and Vietnam
Scarborough Reef:China,Phillippines and Taiwan
Pratas Island:Taiwan and China
Macclesfield Bank:China and Taiwan
________________________________________

From above list its clear that China and Taiwan is claiming all islands in south china sea, but the question is under what basis?, Why they are not willing to bring its maritime claims into conformity with UNCLOS and limit its claims to maritime zones measured from islands or the baselines as per international norms?,All other countries (Especially ASEAN) involved in the conflict ,brought their claims conformity with UNCLOS in 2009.Phillippines in 2009 passed a new baseline law,under which it will claim an EEZ from the main archipelagic baselines.The law states that "the offshore islands it claims in south china sea,including Scarborough Shoal ,shall be governed by the regime of islands in Article 121 of UNCLOS. The same approach is taken by both Vietnam and Malaysia and they brought clarity in their claims. As these three nations claimed their EEZ from their mainland baselines, I hope they can reach to a common solution favorable to all. But as China and Taiwan claim the whole South china sea (by nine-dash line). China is now backing their claims with historical rights which have no legal base. The NDL was first put forward by the Republic of China in 1947 and then inherited and endorsed by PRC.

Currently, China controls Parcel islands, But in the spartlys Vietnam occupies most of the islands, about 25 in total, China and Philippines occupies around 6-7 islands ,Malaysia 4 and Taiwan occupies 1 island.

UNCLOS Distinctions between Islands,rocks,low tide elevations and submerged features:

Islands&Rocks
----------------------

#General rule is that every island is entitled to the same maritime zones as land territory,that is to a territorial sea (12nm),an EEZ (200 nm) and a continental shelf.
#An important exception for certain islands provided in Article 121(3) of UNCLOS,"Rocks which cannot sustain human inhabitation or economic life of their own shall have no EEZ or Continental Shelf ",In other words, rocks are only entitled to territorial sea.

Low tide elevations and Submerged features
-------------------------------------------------------------

#Low tide elevations are naturally formed areas of island surrounded by and above water at low-tide,but submerged at high tide.
#They are not islands and are not entitled to any maritime zones.
#However if they are within 12 nm of any land territory ,Including any island,They can be used as points for measuring the baselines of that land territory.But it cannot be subjected to claim sovereignty over those features.But if its located with in its EEZ the costal state will have full sovereignty over it.

So as per UNCLOS current claims of china and Taiwan are base less.As china wants full control over these features,we cannot drive out the possibility of occupying these features by force.If a likely situation arises,no doubt it will escalate to a full scale conflict between claimant countries and may be with other concerned nations like United States.The conflict can be peacefully resolved only if claimant nations explain their claims as conformity with UNCLOS and reach a decision favorable to all.

Sources&More Information:
http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pg.html
www.pvpubs.com/GeomaticsWorld/Home
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2014/12/south-china-sea-impasse-kuok
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2014/02/06-us-china-nine-dash-line-bader
http://www.irasec.com/ouvrage34
http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo50612
http://www.nbr.org/publications/element.aspx?id=522

India should learn from Falkland War

2014-12-16T03:43:00.003-08:00

http://www.mappery.com/maps/The-Falklands-War-1982-Map.jpg

Falkland war was fought between United Kingdom and Argentina over Falkland Islands ,South georgia and South sandwitch islands located in South Atlantic.Even though the war lasted only 10 weeks, It was an eye opener for the majority of modern naval powers around the world. Especially Chinese leaders used the lessons from this war to form a strategy to fight a possible war in the south china sea. China may use the same strategy that of Argentina, occupy the lands by force.

On 2 April 1982 Argentine marines landed on the Falkland Islands in the south Atlantic, seized on behalf of Argentina who renamed them the Malvinas. Despite earnest efforts to solve the crisis diplomatically, Great Britain felt compelled to respond with military force. On June 14 1982 Argentine forces on the Falkland surrendered to the British commander.

The Argentine invasion was considered in their strategy a method of expediting a diplomatic solution. Having occupied with a small force, the argentine leaders felt they could negotiate from a strong position. They never thought that Britain will respond militarily from their mainland.

To reestablish control of the islands, British used for p, ase naval strategy as follows:

1) Enforce a 200 mile maritime exclusion zone with submarine until the arrival of surface forces
2) Establish air and sea superiority in the preparation for landing
3) Establish a beachhead support the forces ashore and protect them from air attacks
4) Support the land war and protect the sea lines of communication (SLOC)

It is an important war for naval planners to study for many reasons, including the following;

-> It saw the first combat use of nuclear powered submarines and V/STOL aircraft
->It was the first time since world war II that the naval forces were subjected to sustained air attack
->Modern cruise missiles were used against warships of a major navy for the first time
->It was a conflict between two western nations using western equipment.

Although Britain failed to achieve a complete dominance , they managed to cause heavy damage to Argentine navy, which forced them to pull back to mainland on the course of the war, which helped in eliminated threats to British surface ships and aircraft,this also helped to gain momentum in land based operations. The war proved how a powerful navy and air force can be used to gain an edge over enemy forces . This is the main reason why Chinese forces now began to modernize their naval forces, especially submarines and aircraft carriers, so that in future conflict in south china sea, they can effectively execute offensive operations and defend their territories with larger naval and air power ,unlike Argentina, who failed to form effective strategies to defend the territories they gained through offensive operations.

India should concentrate on building a strong navy with considerable air power. As we are having territorial disputes with china and as they increased presence in the Indian ocean, we need to be prepared for possible encirclement. Naval aviation and the large submarine force will play crucial role in defending the sea lines.

sources:
The Diplomat
Politics.uk
Reserarch report by Air-war college USA

U.S. Army's Hypersonic Space Weapon Destroyed Seconds After Liftoff

2014-08-30T22:03:00.003-07:00

The U.S. Army had to destroy its futuristic space weapon during a test launch at its remote Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska on Monday.

The Department of Defense says it was conducting a test of its Advanced Hypersonic Weapon when a flight anomaly forced flight engineers to terminate the launch shortly after liftoff.

Defense Department spokesperson Maureen Schumann said the termination was done "to ensure public safety," and that officials were conducting an extensive investigation to determine what caused the launch to go awry.

Shortly after 4 a.m. EDT, the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command, as part of the Defense Department's Conventional Prompt Global Strike technology development program, conducted a flight test of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon from the Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska.

Due to an anomaly, the test was terminated near the launch pad shortly after lift-off to ensure public safety. There were no injuries to any personnel.

Officials are trying to determine what caused the anomaly, but they believe debris fell within the grounds of the commercial spaceport, located about 44 miles south of the city of Kodiak on Kodiak Island, off Alaska's southern coast. The video below shows the aftermath of the explosion:

The Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, named Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 (or HTV-2 for short), is a DARPA project that has been in testing for nearly five years.

It was developed by Sandia National Laboratory — a Lockheed Martin subsidiary — and the U.S. Army as part of the military's "Conventional Prompt Global Strike" technology development program, which aims to build a weapon that can destroy targets anywhere on Earth within one hour.

A presentation created by Sandia National Laboratory's David L. Keese, Director, Integrated Military Systems, details the challenges of creating such a weapon:

A slide from a Sandia National labs presentation details the company's foreseen challenges in creating a precision strike weapon.

According to Lockheed Martin, the HTV-2 is a "multiyear research and development effort to increase the technical knowledge base and advance critical technologies to make long-duration hypersonic flight a reality." It would make the commute between Brooklyn and LA faster than a walk over the Brooklyn Bridge.

Falcon HTV-2 is an unmanned, rocket-launched, maneuverable aircraft that glides through the Earth’s atmosphere at incredibly fast speeds—Mach 20 (approximately 13,000 miles per hour). At HTV-2 speeds, flight time between New York City and Los Angeles would be less than 12 minutes. The HTV-2 vehicle is a “data truck” with numerous sensors that collect data in an uncertain operating envelope.

The agency intends for the HTV-2 to be the fastest aircraft ever built. DARPA says it’s designed to fly anywhere in the world in less than 60 minutes, a capability that requires an aircraft that can fly at 13,000 miles per hour, while experiencing temperatures in excess of 3,500 degrees Fahrenheit.

A Darpa-supplied representation of the HTV-2.

IMAGE: DARPA

"Air doesn’t travel around you — You rip it apart," as DARPA puts it on its website.

On a typical test launch, the HTV-2 travels aboard a launch vehicle, as it reaches near-space heights. It then detaches from the vehicle, re-entering Earth’s upper atmosphere.

IMAGE: DARPA

From there, the aircraft glides along while researchers test its aerodynamic performance before it dives into the ocean.

HTV-2 has been tested several times after its first flight in 2010, during which time it experienced several flight anomalies. Officials continue to adjust the aircraft in an effort to finalize the craft.

There are three technical challenges DARPA lists on its website dedicated to the project: Aerodynamics (it travels 22x faster than a commercial jetliner), Aerothermal Effects (those temperatures are "hotter than a blast furnace capable of melting steel") and Guidance, Navigation & Control. ("Imagine trying to steer around a pothole in the highway while traveling 3.6 miles per second.")

In 2008, a suborbital rocket with two NASA hypersonic experiments on board was similarity destroyed shortly after liftoff. The majority of the debris fell into the Atlantic Ocean but some was reportedly spotted on land. Officials warned civilians not to touch it, stating the debris could be hazardous. "NASA is very disappointed in this failure but has directed its focus on protecting public safety and conducting a routine confirmation of the effectiveness of its range safety operations," NASA said at the time.

US Army Sees 'Megacities' As the Future Battlefield

2014-08-30T21:58:00.000-07:00

City Wars: US soldiers conduct urban training at Camp Blanding, Florida. Army planners believe future battles will be fought in 'megacities' of 20 million or more people. (Sgt. 1st Class Mark Bell/ / US Army)

WASHINGTON — When the US Army looks to the future, it sees cities. Dense, sprawling, congested cities where criminal and extremist groups flourish almost undetected by authorities, but who can influence the lives of the population while undermining the authority of the state.

And the service is convinced that these “megacities” of 20 million or more people will be the battleground of the future.

The problem from a military strategists’ point of view, however, is that no army has ever fought it out in a city of this size. So in thinking through the issue of what to do about the coming age of the megacity, the US Army’s Capabilities Integration Center (ARCIC) got together with US Army Special Operations Command, the chief of staff’s Strategic Studies Group and the UK’s Ministry of Defence in February to explore these types of urban operations.

“There is no historical precedent” for these kinds of operations, Brig. Gen. Christopher McPadden, ARCIC’s director of concept development and learning directorate, said on Aug. 28. “We really have to figure out the scope and scale of the kind of operations we’ll have to participate in.”

But “it’s not about pouring brigade after brigade into a megacity; they’ll just get eaten up,” said Col. Kevin Felix, chief of the Future Warfare Division at ARCIC. While there will be many more than the current 24 megacities in the coming years, “there will be some that we care about and some that we don’t” depending on economic impact, distance and a range of local factors.

The United Nations estimates that such massive cities will increasingly become part of the worldwide landscape by 2030, when the current global urban population of 3.6 billion will likely hit about 5 billion — meaning that 60 percent of all humans will live in cities.

Looking at numbers such as those, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno’s Strategic Studies Group delivered a report to the chief in May claiming that “it is inevitable that at some point the United States Army will be asked to operate in a megacity and currently the Army is ill-prepared to do so.”

The team of Army officers and civilian academics continued that “the problems found in megacities (explosive growth rates, vast and growing income disparity and a security environment that is increasingly attractive to the politically dispossessed) are landpower problems. Solutions, therefore, will require boots on the ground.”

So in its annual Unified Quest war game, the US Army gamed out a scenario in which it would put boots on the ground.

The Army team fought through what it envisions a battle in a massive city would look like around 2030. The impetus for US action was a humanitarian disaster caused in part by the breaking of a dam, which broke down critical parts of the local state apparatus, while armed groups jumped into the fray to further destabilize the situation.

The Red Team representing these groups did several things to test the players representing the US Army, including evading US technological superiority by using anti-access techniques, conducting malware-like and electronic warfare attacks, and “expanding these battlegrounds into other contested spaces like organized crime and politics,” said ARCIC chief Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster.

McMaster said one of the primary aims of the game was to generate ways to “extend the reach of the [infantry] squad so the squad can see and fight over a wider area” than it can now. That tracks with other Odierno initiatives in recent years to make infantry squads more lethal and more autonomous.

McMaster said that by 2030, the Army wants to provide infantry squads “access to aviation and air support and full-motion video, [along with] the ability to overwhelm the enemy during chance contact.” One of the key things is the firepower of the squad, particularly “shoulder-fired weapons capabilities, counter-defilade capabilities, as well as flying munitions and combined arms … mobile protected platforms capable of precision firepower.”

Army gamers also explored potential directed-energy capabilities that “would allow us to have direct-fire capabilities with significant logistics reduction, and to counter enemy long-range missile capability,” McMaster said.

Recent lessons learned in the Israeli fight against Hamas in Gaza and the sweeping advance of the extremist Islamic State group across eastern Syria and northern and western Iraq have also got the Army thinking, and McMaster said there are lessons for the US there, as well.

According to the general, the two fights show that there is only so much that airpower alone can accomplish, and to truly compel an enemy, it takes humans in contact with other humans.

“There’s a belief that complex problems can be solved from standoff range,” he said. “But what you can do from a standoff distance are mainly punitive things, and positive things that have to be done in this environment have to be done on the ground by human beings, to human beings.”

Strikes from the air or from long distances leave “decision making in the hands of the enemy … only on land can you compel an outcome,” McMaster insisted.

And it’s not only the US Army that is convinced these cities represent the battlefields of the future.

In April, the Australian Army released its “Future Land Warfare Report,” which came to many of the same conclusions, and voiced the same concerns, as its American partner.

The Australians wrote that in the future, “the environment in which the land force will operate will most likely be the urban littoral.

“The emergence of unregulated cities, or zones of disadvantage where traditional rule of law models do not apply, within otherwise functional cities, provides a potential haven for organized crime, terrorists and insurgents, from which they can organize and launch operations,” the analysis concluded. ■

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140830/DEFREG02/308300027/US-Army-Sees-Megacities-Future-Battlefield

NATO's Rasmussen: Observing an alarming buildup of Russian ground and air forces near Ukraine

2014-08-25T04:29:00.001-07:00

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Friday the alliance has observed an alarming buildup of Russian ground and air forces in the vicinity of Ukraine.

"We have also seen transfers of large quantities of advanced weapons, including tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery to separatist groups in eastern Ukraine," Rasmussen said in a statement.

Rasmussen said Russia continued to escalate the crisis in eastern Ukraine and that this could lead to further isolation of Moscow.

He also condemned Russia for sending a "so-called humanitarian convoy" into Ukraine without the consent of the Ukrainian authorities and without any involvement of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

"It can only deepen the crisis in the region, which Russia itself has created and has continued to fuel," Rasmussen said in a statement.

He said it was a blatant breach of Russia's international commitments. Russia denies breaching international law.

The United States, meanwhile, is "very concerned" about the movement of the convoy into Ukraine and is calling on Moscow to withdraw its equipment and personnel immediately, according to the Pentagon.

"This is a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity by Russia," Rear Admiral John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said in a Friday briefing. "Russia must remove its vehicles and its personnel from the territory of Ukraine immediately. Failure to do so will result in additional costs and isolation."

Russia Plans to Send Second Aid Convoy to Eastern Ukraine

2014-08-25T04:27:00.000-07:00

Russia plans to send a second convoy loaded with humanitarian aid to Ukraine, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, after the first delivery sparked international condemnation by crossing the border without authorization.

Russia has informed Ukraine of plans to dispatch another column of trucks this week, with the convoy taking the same route through rebel-held territory as the tractor-trailers that returned to Russia two days ago, Lavrov told reporters in Moscow today. The U.S. and the European Union condemned the decision to send the first convoy of about 280 trucks, which the government in Kiev called an “invasion.”

“We want to coordinate our actions with Ukrainian authorities, which are also planning to send additional humanitarian aid to the southeast,” Lavrov said. “We’ll work on ensuring security guarantees from the side of the militias.”

The government in Moscow is maneuvering to avoid the border standoff and uproar that marred its first convoy last week. The leaders of Russia and Ukraine will meet tomorrow for the first time in more than two months in the Belarusian capital of Minsk as the insurgency in the regions of Luhansk and Donetsk shows no signs of abating.

Clashes Continue

Tensions continued to spike in the border areas, with the Ukrainian military saying that Russians disguised as insurgents tried to infiltrate the country and a column of armored vehicles crossed the frontier. Government troops engaged rebels 39 times in the past day as clashes left four soldiers killed and 31 wounded, Ukrainian military spokesman Andriy Lysenko told reporters in Kiev today.

Border troops stopped the advance of the armored column into Ukraine from Russia, blocking the main roads as it tried to move toward the port city of Mariupol in the southern Donetsk region, according to a statement.

Lavrov said he had no information about the incident and accused Ukraine of providing “a lot of disinformation about our invasions.”

Ukraine has said there’s a buildup of Russian military equipment along its border. Ukraine has been fractured by fighting that the United Nations says has left at least 2,000 dead since Russia annexed Crimea in March.

Celebrating the 23rd anniversary of independence from the Soviet Union yesterday, soldiers, armored vehicles and missile launchers passed down the main Khreshchatyk thoroughfare in the Ukrainian capital yesterday, with some sent to the frontline from the parade. Insurgents in Donetsk countered by forcing captured Ukrainian soldiers to walk through the city center at gunpoint and displaying incinerated hardware lost by government troops.

Looming Threat

Speaking at the parade in Kiev, President Petro Poroshenko announced a military spending increase, pledging to allocate more than 40 billion hryvnia ($3 billion) in 2015-2017.

“Unfortunately, there will always be a military threat to Ukraine,” Poroshenko said. “War has come from the side nobody expected.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who met Poroshenko in Kiev two days ago, said a breakthrough is unlikely at talks between him and Russian President Vladimir Putin tomorrow. Lavrov said the talks will focus on economic ties, the humanitarian crisis and the prospects for a political resolution in Ukraine.

The meeting won’t bring about “one big breakthrough” though “you have to talk with each other if you want to find solutions,” Merkel said in an interview with Germany’s ARD television yesterday.

SOURCE:BLOOMBERG

U.S., China clash over ‘dangerous’ jet interception of Navy plane

2014-08-24T03:48:00.001-07:00

This handout photo provided by the Office of the Defense Secretary (OSD), taken Aug. 19, 2014, shows a Chinese fighter jet that the Obama administration said Friday conducted a "dangerous intercept" of a U.S. Navy surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft off the coast of China in international airspace. (AP Photo/OSD)

BEIJING, China (AP) — China's Defense Ministry rejected U.S. accusations that a Chinese fighter jet conducted a "dangerous intercept" of a U.S. Navy surveillance aircraft off the southern Chinese coast.

Ministry spokesman Yang Yujun called the U.S. accusations "groundless" in a statement issued Saturday night. He said the Chinese pilot conducted operations that were "professional and the Chinese jet kept a safe distance from the U.S. planes."

Yang called the Chinese flights "routine identification and verification."

Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby gave a different account Friday of the Aug. 19 encounter about 135 miles (220 kilometers) east of China's Hainan Island. He said the Chinese jet made several close passes by the Navy P-8 Poseidon plane, coming within 30 feet (9 meters) of it at one point.

Kirby said that included the Chinese jet doing a "barrel roll" maneuver over the top of the Poseidon — a modified Boeing 737 — and passing across the nose of the Navy plane apparently to show that it was armed. Kirby said the Chinese jet's maneuvering posed a risk to the safety of the U.S. air crew and was "inconsistent with customary international law."

He said it was the fourth such incident since March of "close intercepts" involving Chinese jets.

The Chinese statement also said that a Navy P-3 Orion, an anti-submarine and surveillance aircraft, flew alongside the Poseidon. The Pentagon did not mention the second aircraft.

Tensions between the two countries have risen in the South China Sea, as China disputes territorial claims with U.S. ally the Philippines, Vietnam and other neighbors.

In 2001, a Chinese jet collided with a U.S. Navy surveillance aircraft off Hainan Island, killing the Chinese pilot and forcing the Navy plane to make an emergency landing on the island. Washington severed military relations with China after that episode.

In the latest encounter, Yang blamed "the large-scale and highly frequent close-in reconnaissance by the U.S. against China" as "the root cause of accidents endangering the sea and air military security between China and the United States."

INS Kamorta a step towards indigenisation of the Indian Navy

2014-08-23T21:08:00.004-07:00

The INS Kamorta.

Visakhapatnam: Union defence minister Arun Jaitley on Saturday commissioned the first indigenously built stealth Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Corvette INS Kamorta at the Naval Dockyard here in Vizag.

Mr Jaitley congratulated the Indian Navy, the Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd, (GRSE), and other industries, which have contributed towards building the ship and hoped that that India transforms from being the biggest buyer to the biggest manufacturer of defence products in the world.

INS Kamorta is the first ever stealth warship built in the country with around 90pc of indigenous content including special grade high-tensile steel produced by Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL).

The hull of the ship encompasses the sensors and weapon systems that are also manufactured and supplied by various Indian industries.

The Union minister said that the induction of INS Kamorta adds thrust to the nation’s ongoing endeavours at indigenisation with Indian Navy being the forerunner.

He also added that out of the 119 warship and submarines in the pipeline, 42 are under the construction in various shipyards in the country.

Speaking at the function Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral R.K. Dhowan, said, that after having made significant progress towards indigenisationin the ‘Move’ component we now need to focus towards indigenisation of the ‘fight component so that weapons and sensors are also made within the country and all future warships can be fully indigenous.

TOP 10 COUNTRIES BY DEFENSE SPENDING

2014-08-23T09:27:00.002-07:00

According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute recession hit western nations are cutting their their defense expenditures, but the rest of the world especially Asian countries reported a 1.8% increase in their defense spending.The conflicts like Militant takeover of Iraq and Russia-Ukraine conflict may drive another arms race in the region which will force countries to increase their defense spending.Military spending in Africa increased by 8.3 per cent in 2013, reaching an estimated $44.9 billion. Over two-thirds of the African countries for which data is available increased military spending in 2013. Algeria became the first country in Africa with military spending over $10 billion, an increase of 8.8 per cent since 2012, and of 176 per cent since 2004. Meanwhile, Angola increased its spending by 36 per cent in 2013, to overtake South Africa as the largest military spender in sub-Saharan Africa, and the second highest on the continent. High oil revenues appear to be a factor driving both Algeria’s and Angola’s military spending increases.Chinese defense spending recorded a growth of 7.4% in 2013 and stood at 126 Billion. This will force neighbouring countries to increase their spending as almost all of them having border disputes withChina.Japan’s concerns over China’s growing military power, combined with the Japanese Government’s own nationalist policies, have led to Japan ending its long, gradual decline in military spending. Nevertheless, the largest increase in the region in 2013 was by Afghanistan, by 77 per cent, as it builds up its security forces in preparation from the withdrawal of most foreign troops at the end of 2014.

10)BRAZIL

Spending($ Bn.):33.1

World share: 2.0%

9)INDIA

Spending($ Bn.):41.9

World share: 2.5%

8)GERMANY

Spending($ Bn.):46.5

World share:2.8%

7)JAPAN

Spending($ Bn): 49.8

World share:3.0%

6)FRANCE

Spending($ Bn): 56.8

World share;3.4%

5)UNITED KINGDOM

Spending($ Bn.):57.5

World share:3.4%

4)SAUDI ARABIA

Spending($ Bn):63.3

World share;3.8%

3)RUSSIA

Spending($ Bn.):78

World share:4.7%

2)CHINA

Spending($ Bn):155.1

World share;9.3%

1)UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Spending($ Bn):620.2

World share:37.11%

Note: The List is prepared on the basis of Annual Spending Reports from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and International Institute for Strategic Studies. We have used average of both data to get figures given below. The list may not be hundred percent accurate

Sources:

SIPRI Reports

IPRS Reports

Wikimedia.org

wikipeadia.org

Written and Published by:Anoop Dk

Heavy shelling by Pakistani Rangers kills two civilians, injure four

2014-08-23T01:54:00.000-07:00

Army troops discover cross-border tunnel dug nearly 50 meters into the Indian territory from Pakistan side. (Source: IE archive)

The Indian army on Friday night discovered a cross-border tunnel dug close to 50 meters into the Indian territory from Pakistan side in Pallanwala sector near Akhnoor in Jammu & Kashmir. Pointing out that the tunnel was big enough for terrorists to sneak into the Indian territory from Pakistan side, sources said that the area was immediately sealed by the troops.

While a similar cross-border tunnel was found by BSF near the international border in Hiranagar area a few years ago, it was the first time that such a tunnel was found in the state.

Meanwhile, in a major ceasefire violation, Pakistani Rangers have targeted 22 border outposts along the international border in Arnia and R S Pura sectors.

On Saturday morning, two members of a family were killed and four others including a BSF jawan injured as Pakistani troops continued unprovoked firing, using for the first time long range mortars, medium and heavy machine guns to target areas on the Indian side along the international border.

The two civilians fell victim to Pakistani firing after a mortar shell landed on their house in R S Pura sector. The firing from across the border had restarted on Friday after three days of ceasefire.

Sources said that the latest round of unprovoked firing from Pakistan came around 12.50 am in Arnia sector. Within a short span, the firing spread to R S Pura sector as well.

The BSF also retaliated and the exchange of fire between the two sides was ongoing in few areas. A BSF jawan and five civilians including a woman sustained splinter injuries.

The mounting tension along the border has forced civilians to migrate from nearly half a dozen villages in R S Pura sector, with nearly 3,000 people taking shelter in a government high school at Rangpur and Government Industrial Training Institute on Friday night. Both these buildings were among various places already identified by the district administration as safe places to accommodate people migrating from border areas.

As there has been no change in the situation for nearly a fortnight, people have started moving to bunkers during night. The police and para military forces, according to sources, have already advised people to switch off their lights after sun set so as to avoid firing from Pakistan army.

Source:http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-others/indian-army-uncover-cross-border-tunnel-pakistani-rangers-kill-two-civilians-injure-four/

POOR MAN'S AIRFORCE

2014-07-21T09:34:00.001-07:00

According to Richard K Belts, author of Cruise missiles : Technology, strategy, politics which published in 1981 " Cruise missiles have evolved without a well defined conception of why they are needed and without an assessment of their full implications ". Up to some extend its true. Nobody expected a movie inspired development will become stand off weapon of future. As of now as many as 130 types of cruise missiles exist today with 75 countries possessing them. And out of these only 14 countries are manufacturers. Approximately 70,000 cruise missiles are in operation today. It's all started with Lawrence sperry's development of aerial torpedo, which carried a small TNT charge and equipped with auto pilot and barometric altitude control in 1916. Soon after this United States so started working on same type of systems and developed their first cruise missiles named keltering bug.
According to Intermediate Range NucleR forces Treaty cruise missiles are "Unmanned, self propelled vehicle that sustains flight through aerodynamic lift over most of its flight". But this definition of also covers UAVs. The cruise missiles are diffent from UAV s s vehicle is always sacrificed in mission. All modern cruise missiles are equipped with flight controls to maneuver missiles to its target accurately. Most of the missiles are falling in the category of 200-3000 km range and are able to carry different types of warheads .
It was the Germans first one used cruise missiles in battlefield during world war 2, The V-1 missile, often reffred as flying bomb contained a gyroscopic guidance system and was powered by pulse jet.Gyroscopic guidance was inaccurate,but as German objective was to ellict maximum damage to London,It wasn't major concern at that time . modern cruise missiles using TERMAC,DSMAC and GPS based guidance systems to reach its target . This helped to increase its accuracy by several meters.
Samuel Penn has categories missiles into 7 categories according to operational attributes,they are

1)Manual
2)Homing missiles
3)Smart missiles
4)Brilliant missiles
5)cleaver missiles
6)genius missiles
7)Intelligent missiles

And are cheap to develop and operate as they are unmanned and easy to develop by using limited resources. As there is no flight crew there is no need for spending money on training of crews. This is the main reason behind development of this platforms by many of developing g and third world countries. During operation Iraqi Freedom, operation Desert storm and operation enduring freedom we saw extensive use of cruise missiles, which clearly indicates these are effective weapon against enemy air defenses and can be used for taking out high value targets with minimal collateral damage. It clearly indicates in future conflicts cruise missiles will be come a serious threat.

Canada: No F-35 Buys Before 2018

2014-04-06T18:51:00.003-07:00

A move by Canada to postpone any F-35 buys until 2018 means decisions will wait until after the next federal election. (US Air Force)

VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA — Canada has told the US government it won’t be in a position to purchase the F-35 fighter jet until 2018, a move that critics of the aircraft say intentionally delays the controversial procurement until after the next federal election.

The decision has a number of ramifications. It will allow the ruling Conservative Party government to claim during the 2015 election campaign that no decision has yet been made on the purchase of a new fighter jet.

But if the Conservatives are defeated in that election, set for October 2015, it could mean further delays or even a cancellation of the proposed buy, since the country’s other political parties have raised concerns about the acquisition. Both the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party favor an open competition for a new fighter jet.

The F-35 Joint Program Office in the US has amended the Canadian “buy profile,” which indicates numbers of aircraft and timelines of the purchase.

“This moves the notional date of first delivery of aircraft from 2017 to 2018,” the Canadian government noted in a statement. No official reason was provided by Canada for the change in dates.

But industry, military and government officials say the change means a final decision won’t need to be made until after 2015.

“This whole thing is designed to delay and to get the Conservatives past the next election so they don’t have to come clean with Canadians about their F-35 plans,” Liberal Party defense critic Joyce Murray said.

Her analysis was echoed by Jack Harris, defense critic with the official opposition New Democratic Party, as well as Alan Williams, the Department of National Defence’s former head of procurement who approved Canada’s participation in the F-35 program.

Canada’s Conservative Party government committed in 2010 to purchasing 65 F-35s, but the acquisition soon became a major political albatross around the neck of Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Opposition MPs alleged his government misled Canadians on the F-35’s price and performance.

In March 2011, the majority of the members of Parliament supported a motion that declared the Conservative government in contempt of Parliament over its withholding of information about the F-35, as well as other key financial documents on other issues. That motion of non-confidence in the government led to the federal election in May 2011, but despite the controversy, the Conservative Party was re-elected.

But in April 2012, Canadian Auditor General Michael Ferguson found Department of National Defence officials had withheld key information from Parliament about the fighter jet, underestimated costs and didn’t follow proper procurement rules.

In December 2012, the government, under continuing fire over the increasing cost of the F-35s, announced it would put the procurement on a temporary hold and examine other aircraft.

That process continues, but senior officers from the Royal Canadian Air Force have publicly stated they are preparing for the eventual delivery of the F-35.

Until the evaluation of other aircraft is complete, the government will not decide on how to proceed, said Pierre-Alain Bujold, a spokesman for Public Works and Government Services Canada. That department handles federal procurements.

Bujold said the “work is being completed as expeditiously as possible,” but the department could not provide any timelines on when it might be finished or a final decision on an acquisition made.

That’s because the process is a public relations exercise, former defense procurement chief Alan Williams alleges.

“It’s all designed to buy the government time so they can pick the opportune moment to announce the purchase of the F-35,” Williams said.

Jack Harris, defense critic with the official opposition New Democratic Party, said the F-35 acquisition has the potential to hurt the Conservative government’s image with voters in the upcoming election.

“They portray themselves as strong fiscal managers, but they have bungled numerous defense procurement files, particularly the F-35,” he said. “They don’t want this mess hanging over their heads during an election campaign.”

In his 2012 examination, Ferguson found that although Department of National Defence officials were publicly claiming the F-35 purchase would cost CAN $14.7 billion (US $13 billion), they had already quietly estimated the actual price tag to be $25 billion.

Mike Barton, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin Canada, said the delay will not affect the F-35 program. When Canada is ready to place its order for the planes, the company will respond, he said.

Canada is still a partner in the program and has not informed the US government or Lockheed Martin of any plans to change that.

Canada operates 78 modernized CF-18 fighters and was planning to replace those with the F-35A, the conventional-takeoff-and-landing version of the F-35. ■

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140406/DEFREG02/304060010/Canada-No-F-35-Buys-Before-2018

US Army, Marines Struggle With Infantry Vehicle Replacements

2014-04-06T18:45:00.001-07:00

An amphibious assault vehicle maneuvers during an amphibious assault exercise off the coast of Del Mar Beach at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Calif. (US Marine Corps)

WASHINGTON — Lessons learned. Tradeoffs. Taking advantage of previous investments. The need for further study.

If there’s one thing the US Army and Marine Corps share, it’s a host of well-worn phrases trotted out at congressional oversight hearings to explain why their latest attempts to build a new combat vehicle will be different from previous failures.

In the midst of fighting two wars, the two services poured billions of dollars into developing, then scrapping, expensive next-generation vehicles. But they both promise the investments haven’t been wasted and that, this time, they have truly learned from the mistakes of the past.

The Marines spent years developing an amphibious ship-to-shore connector program to ferry grunts to the beach, which they eventually dubbed the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV), spending $3 billion on the effort before sinking the massive vehicle due to its ballooning requirements and estimate of budget-devouring sustainment costs in the future.

Likewise, the Army has spent well over $1 billion since 2010 on its Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program in handing out development contracts to General Dynamics and BAE Systems, along with a costly, months-long analysis of alternatives program, in an effort to develop the successor to the Bradley fighting vehicle.

The Army's Vehicle Efforts

The GCV was the latest flameout in a program that actually harkens back to 1999, when then-Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki kicked off the ill-starred Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. It envisioned a family of Manned Ground Vehicles to replace the Bradley, the M1 Abrams tank and the M113 tracked infantry carrier.

Fifteen years later, the Bradley and Abrams are in line for hundreds of millions’ worth of upgrades to remain operational for years — and decades — to come. And BAE and General Dynamics are fighting it out to win the contract for the Amphibious Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV), the M113 replacement.

FCS was, of course, canceled in 2009 after a $20 billion investment, and the Manned Ground Vehicles alone had been funded to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, with more than $300 million in cancellation fees alone.

Despite the GCV’s cancellation in February due to budget pressures and the inability of the Army to keep its weight at a reasonable level while meeting its size, weight and power requirements, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno insisted in a January speech that “I was very pleased with the progress of the Ground Combat Vehicle. I think we have the requirements right. We’re starting to see really good development by the contractors involved with this, so it’s important that we carry that forward, so we’re trying to figure out how to carry that forward.”

Contractors BAE and General Dynamics will each receive about $50 million, according to the fiscal 2015 budget request, to continue development. But they say the Army has yet to explain to them what that development program might look like.

“We have had an ongoing exchange on our thoughts on a follow-on program, but at this point, we haven’t sat down and had anything more than an informal discussion” with the Army, said Mark Signorelli, general manager of combat vehicles at BAE Systems.

That follow-on program, one source said, is being dubbed the Future Fighting Vehicle.

But any future program wouldn’t be production-ready before at least one more round of upgrades and modernization takes place on the Bradley, which is hundreds of millions of dollars on top of whatever the future vehicle program might cost.

So after 15 years and billions in development costs, the Bradley rolls on.

Marines Moving Out

As part of the $2.5 billion Marine Corps unfunded priorities list submitted to Congress last week, the Corps asked for $74 million for equipment modernization, along with $294 million in aviation readiness and $1.4 billion in aviation modernization money over and above the 2015 base budget request.

But one thing was missing from the list: funding for the program that will eventually — and finally — replace its 40-year-old Amphibious Assault Vehicle (AAV) with a new Amphibious Combat Vehicle (ACV).

After the EFV’s cancellation, the Corps followed an unsteady path by announcing upgrades to the AAV and the Marine Personnel Carrier, which itself was mostly defunded in fiscal 2014.

But now there’s a new plan: upgrade about 400 of the 1,000 AAVs while buying several hundred ACVs starting around 2020. A solicitation for that program is expected this spring.

“We have indeed captured the lessons learned both with the AAV and the EFV to make sure that the mistakes that were made are not repeated,” the Corps’ assistant commandant, Gen. John Paxton, assured the Senate Armed Services Committee on April 2 in a familiar refrain.

Lt. Gen. Kenneth Glueck, commanding general of the Corps’ Combat Development Command, called the AAV “the Marine Corps’ number one priority” at the same hearing. He told the panel the modernized AAVs would be “a bridge” to the new ACV, while giving the Corps four battalions’ worth of lift from ship to shore for crisis response forces.

The problem is, however, the new vehicles are not necessarily being designed to kick down the door in the first wave of an amphibious assault. Due to the increasing range and lethality of standoff weapons developed by near-peer competitors and some non-state groups, the Corps’ new operating concept leaked last week concedes these weapons “necessitate standoff range greater than previously considered.”

While the generals only touched on these issues in their testimony, it’s a thorny problem that sent the EFV to the bottom.

In the Corps’ new Expeditionary Force 21 document, service leaders reinforce everything the Corps has been saying over the past several years: The service must become faster, more responsive, and again act as the nation’s expeditionary force in readiness.

But the standoff threat from shore means that under the Corps’ new plan, the beaches will likely have to be gained by other means as the new AAVs will be forced to take some risk in protection, in order to meet the other requirements.

“Once landing sites are controlled,” the paper states, “amphibious ships may close to facilitate speed of build-up ashore. The discharge point for Amphibious Assault Vehicles and other surface connectors may be closer to shore, but generally will remain beyond 12” nautical miles.

The Corps is currently moving out with new special-purpose Marine air-ground task force units that can respond quickly using MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. But Marine leaders are working to ensure they can respond through the surf as well. Just when, and in what vehicle, is still in question. ■

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140406/DEFREG02/304060009/US-Army-Marines-Struggle-Infantry-Vehicle-Replacements