Military Talk





From the article:

On January 1st China’s first aircraft carrier (the Liaoning) and its escort group returned to base after 37 days at sea.
A day later the Chinese Navy announced that Liaoning had successfully completed its sea trials.
...
The Chinese apparently plan to station up to 24 jet fighters and 26 helicopters on the Liaoning.
But the carrier will also be used to train Chinese officers and sailors to operate as a carrier task force as the Americans and some other Western navies have been doing for over 80 years.
...
During the final month of sea trials, held far out to sea in international waters China aggressively confronted American ships and aircraft that come close to the Liaoning task force.
The worst incident occurred on December 5th when a 7,000 ton Chinese destroyer cut in front of a 10,000 ton American cruiser (the USS Cowpens) which was observing the new Chinese carrier from a distance of over 40 kilometers.
...
The Liaoning task force employed China’s latest warship designs in their first combat exercise similar to what the Americans have been doing for over 60 years.
The escort vessels consisted of Type 51C destroyers, which are 7,100 ton ships optimized for anti-aircraft defense.
...
China is using its new Type 903 replenishment ships for its most important missions, like the Liaoning escort group.
...
China needs more replenishment ships now because it is more frequently sending warships long distances, not just to the Somali coast but also far into the Pacific.
The last month of Liaoning trials was the first time China had ever sent a carrier task force out onto the high seas to train. It was a historic moment and the American didn’t want to miss it.



Reference: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htnavai/articles/20140107.aspx
 
stinkin' Americans ...

now it appears the Chinese tinkertoy has been very visible , so unlike the X-51 Waverider or something . ı thought the only hazard with the Chinese toys was that their industry tend to average rather poor quality control when it comes to lead content in paints .

the thing is there was this article in the Air International back in the day . At the times it was more authorative than the Bible . Some trait lost as the Defence industry contracted and AI , too , had to become a marketing tool . ı remember hating every item by Jon Lake , but as said it was inevitable. Anyhow this article was written by David Baker , if ı remember his name correctly and it won him an award , the best Aviation journalist of 1996 or something .

with the feel good tendencies of the day people would soon develop hypersonics and that would make one Aerospace Power and its peer competitor would wet the pants and talk loudly of its nuke arsenal : Banging the chest to hide the fear as things appeared to look like shaped like a pear ... Which would soon result in a slap across the face by the Aerospace Power to bring some sense into the WMD power . Soon leading to all kinds of demands for kinky stuff , for you know the Aerospace Power could and the WMD Power could not . This was a time when Russians were regularly crashing in trade shows making nice fireballs with Fulcrums and Flankers ; they were done for . Hence the WMD Power was supposed to be somewhat more coloured in complexion .

sooo , the 2014 comes and we learn American nuke men are dope junkies , cheats and liars . And this American General appears with his arm in a sling to explain it all . Man , why does America fail to follow its own script ?

what next ? Uncle Sam sez "Gee, it's a joke. We won't bomb Turkey sky high this year" ? Friends of America who were promised the moon and the world right after Dabya took over the White House : Always trust there's no trusting USAF ... They can chat with Norman Augustine back in the 90s on which particular Chinese actress would look better as a dominatrix before being abused and direct the question first up to the Secretary of Defence to filter down to be asked to the "Foreigners" at the "monthly insult trading" . Ask Bill or Hillary Clinton -if you can ...
 



From the Article:
European Union foreign ministers are expected to approve a military mission to protect civilians in the Central African Republic at their meeting on Jan. 20 here.
For an EU mission to be launched, all 28 member countries must agree, which an EU official said is “very likely.”


Source: http://www.defensenews.com/article/...ree-Military-Mission-Central-African-Republic


From what I can see in the article, the EU members may or may not all agree on the issue.
If they don’t all agree, the ‘EU’ mission does not happen.
The individual members are still free to do it on their own, or in a separate joint operation.

Even if they all do agree, the individual members can still decide whether to send their troops, provide support, or cash, or just sit this one out.

EU. The standard of fence sitting to the world.:crazyeye:
 
From what I can see in the article, the EU members may or may not all agree on the issue.
If they don’t all agree, the ‘EU’ mission does not happen.
The individual members are still free to do it on their own, or in a separate joint operation.

Even if they all do agree, the individual members can still decide whether to send their troops, provide support, or cash, or just sit this one out.

EU. The standard of fence sitting to the world.:crazyeye:

Heh, you trying getting 28 countries to agree on something :p.
 

Link to video.


From the article:

On January 3rd Israel carried out another successful test of its Arrow 3 anti-missile system.
Thus Arrow 3 remains on track to enter service in 2015.
This version of Arrow can destroy missiles at higher altitudes (over 100 kilometers) and farther away.
...
The existence of Arrow means that the only way Iran could successfully hit Israel with a nuke via missile would be to simultaneously (or nearly so) launch several dozen missiles each equipped with a nuclear warhead.
Most of these would be shot down by Arrow but at least one would probably land in Israel and detonate.
This would be foolhardy because Israel has over a hundred nukes that can be delivered to Iran by ballistic missile, aircraft and submarine launched cruise missile.
The Iranians tend to be sensible, but the rhetoric coming from senior Iranian leaders is anything but when it comes to attacking Israel with nukes.
In the 1930s the world thought the Germans were sensible people, and Jews everywhere still remember how that turned out.
So Israel is ready to defend itself and retaliate.


Source: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/20140125.aspx

Arrow 3 Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_3
Arrow 3 Model: http://www.flatpyramid.com/3d-models/israeli-arrow-3-missile-caligari-object-cob
 
http://www.defensenews.com/article/...my-Studying-Replacing-Thousands-Grunts-Robots

WASHINGTON — The postwar, sequestration-era US Army is working on becoming “a smaller, more lethal, deployable and agile force,” according to Gen. Robert Cone, head of the service’s Training and Doctrine Command.

But just how much smaller might come as a surprise.

During remarks at the Army Aviation Symposium in Arlington, Va., on Jan. 15, Cone quietly dropped a bomb. The Army, he said, is considering the feasibility of shrinking the size of the brigade combat team from about 4,000 soldiers to 3,000 over the coming years, and replacing the lost soldiers with robots and unmanned platforms.

“I’ve got clear guidance to think about what if you could robotically perform some of the tasks in terms of maneuverability, in terms of the future of the force,” he said, adding that he also has “clear guidance to rethink” the size of the nine-man infantry squad.

He mentioned using unmanned ground vehicles that would follow manned platforms, which would require less armor and protection, thereby reducing the weight of a brigade combat team.

Over the past 12 years of war, “in favor of force protection we’ve sacrificed a lot of things,” he said. “I think we’ve also lost a lot in lethality.” And the Army wants that maneuverability, deployability and firepower back.

The Army is already on a path to shrink from 540,000 soldiers to about 490,000 by the end of 2015, and will likely slide further to 420,000 by 2019, according to reports.

Cone said his staff is putting together an advisory panel to look at those issues, including fielding a smaller brigade.

“Don’t you think 3,000 people is probably enough probably to get by” with increased technological capabilities, he asked.

It’s hard to see such a radical change to the makeup of the brigage combat team as anything else than a budget move, borne out of the necessity of cutting the personnel costs that eat up almost half of the service’s total budget.

Cone used the Navy as an example of what the Army is trying to do.

“When you see the success, frankly, that the Navy has had in terms of lowering the numbers of people on ships, are there functions in the brigade that we could automate — robots or manned/unmanned teaming — and lower the number of people that are involved given the fact that people are our major cost,” he said.

Some of Cone’s blue-sky thinking was echoed by Lt. Gen. Keith Walker in a Jan. 6 interview with Defense News.

In what Walker called the “deep future” — about the 2030 to 2040 time frame — he said that “we’ll need to fundamentally change the nature of the force, and that would require a breakthrough in science and technology.”

While Walker, the commander of the Army Capabilities Integration Center, which oversees much of the Army’s modernization and doctrinal changes, didn’t talk about replacing soldiers with robots, he did say the Army wants to revamp its “tooth-to-tail” ratio, or the number of soldiers performing support functions versus those who actually pull triggers.

“Right now our force is roughly two-third tooth and one-third tail, so as we decrease the size of the Army you may end up reducing one-third tooth and two-third tail, but what if you could slide that fulcrum? Maybe it’s one-half to one-half. The point is you get to keep more tooth, more folks that actually conduct operations on the ground and less supporting structure.”

The Army is already heading down that path in the structure of its brigade combat teams, announcing last year that it was adding a third maneuver battalion to each brigade, along with engineering and fires capabilities. It is adding more punch to its brigade combat teams while reducing the number of teams it fields from 45 to 33 by the end of fiscal 2017, while transferring some of those soldiers to the existing brigades. ■

I am very interested in how the future of this will play out. My high school was very robotics oriented and now I am studying IT/CS and these things make me feel giddy inside. I hope one day I will contribute to the robot apocalypse somehow.
 


From the article:

The reality of finalizing the fiscal 2015 budget submission is driving top US defense officials and the White House to quickly make major decisions, and indications are growing that the elimination of one carrier and one carrier air wing could be among the defense request’s key features.
...
The carrier most often targeted is the Japan-based George Washington. Commissioned in 1992, GW is scheduled in 2016 to begin a three-year midlife refueling and complex overhaul at Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia — where all active carriers were built — that is expected to cost well over $3 billion.
...
The report noted the Navy could save “about $7 billion over the 2012-2021 period,” when GW would be returned to service.
The report did not include anticipated savings over the 2021-2042 period, during which a refueled George Washington would be operating.
Decommissioning GW would cost about $2 billion, CBO estimated, although those costs would be spread out at least through 2021.



Source: http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140126/DEFREG02/301270019/Carrier-Cut-Could-Back-Table
 
Let 'em put her in dock in Norfolk as a museum ship. We have enough super carriers.
 
Let 'em put her in dock in Norfolk as a museum ship. We have enough super carriers.

We could just sell it to the Chinese for a profit. They already hacked the blueprints for it out of various Lockheed contractor's databases. :mischief:
 
Sell it to the Japanese complete with planes. That would allow the GW to stay on station, on mission, and enable Abe to increase the Japanese capability in one huge jump.
 
I want to see the Chinese reaction to that.
 
You joke, right?

The only people who don't think Taiwan is part of China are the ethnic Taiwanese (and they are a minority on the island).

Some of the Han Chinese on the island might be warming up to idea of declaring independence. But that doesn't mean that they don't think Taiwan is and has been an integral part of China.
 
The only people who don't think Taiwan is part of China are the ethnic Taiwanese (and they are a minority on the island).

Some of the Han Chinese on the island might be warming up to idea of declaring independence. But that doesn't mean that they don't think Taiwan is and has been an integral part of China.

Chinese? Yes. PRC? No.
 
The only people who don't think Taiwan is part of China are the ethnic Taiwanese (and they are a minority on the island).

Some of the Han Chinese on the island might be warming up to idea of declaring independence. But that doesn't mean that they don't think Taiwan is and has been an integral part of China.

they are two distinct countries
 
USS Cape Ray

Video: Cape Ray Deploys to Destroy Chemical Weapons

MV Cape Ray (T-AKR-9679) — a ship in the U.S. Maritime Administration’s (MARAD)Ready Reserve Force — will be leased by the Navy through U.S. Military Sea Lift Command to field a chemical weapon disposal package, according to the official.

Plans call for the ship to field the U.S. Army’s Field Deployable Hydrolysis System (FDHS), a system on the ship to destroy chemical weapons into materials that can’t be used again as weapons.




The Field Deployable Hydrolysis System was built by the U.S. military and went through final testing this summer. It is designed to be portable and can be deployed and begin operations anywhere in the world within 10 days.

It neutralizes bulk amounts of chemical warfare agents and their precursors using reagents like water, sodium hydroxide and sodium hypochlorite, according to the U.S. Army's Edgewood Chemical Biological Center.
 
Top Bottom