Very concerned with development of Indian navy: Pakistan naval chief ( Copy Right @ NDTV)

Indian Navy fleet ( Image Courtesy- Indian Navy)

 Pakistan is "very concerned" with the development of the Indian navy which has emerged as "very powerful", Pakistan naval chief, Admiral Asif Sandila said today.

"The Indian navy is very strong I must say," Admiral Sandila, who is in China for the 65th anniversary celebrations of the Chinese navy told China's state-run Global Times.

"India is a big nation which has over one billion people. It has made a very powerful navy and continues to develop the navy forces," he said in reply to a question about his assessment of the Indian navy.

"On the other hand, Pakistan and India do not have very friendly relations at the moment, which makes people in Pakistan very concerned about the development of the Indian navy," he said.

"At the same time, we would like to do what we want to do if there's any threat to us. I don't want to say the threat can only come from one place, it can come from anywhere, but we want to be ready for that," Admiral Sandila said.

He stressed that the Chinese navy should play a bigger global role including in the Indian Ocean.

"The Chinese navy in my assessment has a very important role to play all over the world, not only in the South China Sea, or the Pacific and the India Ocean. China is a big power now and China has powerful navy forces," he said.

"Today the Chinese navy is operating for international causes. And of course they continue to play a very important role in anti-piracy in the gulf. China is also helping so many countries in Africa and Asia, I don't know how it can become a threat," he said.

Link to the original article: http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/very-concerned-with-development-of-indian-navy-pakistan-naval-chief-515363

New U.S. Stealth Jet Can’t Hide From Russian Radar ( Copy Right @ The daily beast/ Author)

F-35 ( Image Courtesy- Wikimedia commons/ United States Navy)

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—the jet that the Pentagon is counting on to be the stealthy future of its tactical aircraft—is having all sorts of shortcomings. But the most serious may be that the JSF is not, in fact, stealthy in the eyes of a growing number of Russian and Chinese radars. Nor is it particularly good at jamming enemy radar. Which means the Defense Department is committing hundreds of billions of dollars to a fighter that will need the help of specialized jamming aircraft that protect non-stealthy—“radar-shiny,” as some insiders call them—aircraft today.

These problems are not secret at all. The F-35 is susceptible to detection by radars operating in the VHF bands of the spectrum. The fighter’s jamming is mostly confined to the X-band, in the sector covered by its APG-81 radar. These are not criticisms of the program but the result of choices by the customer, the Pentagon.

To suggest that the F-35 is VHF-stealthy is like arguing that the sky is not blue—literally, because both involve the same phenomenon. The late-Victorian physicist Lord Rayleigh gave his name to the way that electromagnetic radiation is scattered by objects that are smaller than its wavelength. This applies to the particles in the air that scatter sunlight, and aircraft stabilizers and wingtips that are about the same meter-class size as VHF waves.

The counter-stealth attributes of VHF have been public knowledge for decades. They were known at the dawn of stealth, in 1983, when the MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory ordered a 150-foot-wide radar to emulate Russia’s P-14 Oborona VHF early-warning system. Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth division—makers of the F-35—should know about that radar: they built it.

Making a plane VHF-stealthy starts with removing the target’s tails, as on the B-2 bombers. But we did not know how to do that on a supersonic, agile airplane (like the F-35 is supposed to be) when the JSF specifications were written.

Neither did the technology to add broadband-active jamming to a stealth aircraft exist in 1995. Not only did stealth advocates expect jamming to fade away, but there was an obvious and (at the time) insoluble problem: To use jamming you have to be certain that the radar has detected you. Otherwise, jamming is going to reveal your presence and identify you as a stealth aircraft, since the adversary can see a signal but not a reflection.

We can be sure that onboard jamming has not been added to the F-35 since. Had the JSF requirements been tightened by one iota since the program started, its advocates would be blaming that for the delays and overruns.

What the JSF does have is a jamming function—also known as “electronic attack,” or EA, in militaryese—in the radar. It also has an expendable radar decoy—BAE Systems’ ALE-70. Both are last-ditch measures to disrupt a missile engagement, not to prevent tracking.

JSF’s planners, in the mid-1990s, were close to correct when they calculated that low-band stealth and limited EA, combined with passive electronic surveillance for situational awareness, would be adequate at service entry. But they expected that the F-35 would reach squadrons in 2010, and China’s military modernization was barely imaginable.

The threats of the late 2010s will be qualitatively different. Old VHF radars could be dealt with by breaking the kill chain between detection and tracking: they did not provide good enough cueing to put analog, mechanically scanned tracking radars on to the target. Active electronically scanned array (AESA), high-power VHF radars and decimeter- and centimeter-wave trackers are more tenacious foes.

Last August, at an air show near Moscow, I talked to designers of a new, highly mobile counter stealth radar system, now being delivered to the Russian armed forces. Its centerpiece was a 100-foot-wide all-digital VHF AESA, but it also incorporated powerful higher-frequency radars that can track small targets once the VHF radar has detected them. More recently, however, it has emerged that the U.S. Navy is worried because new Chinese warships carry the Type 517M VHF search radar, which its maker says is an AESA.

None of this is to say that stealth is dead, but it is not reasonable to expect that the cat-and-mouse game of detection and evasion in air combat has stopped, or that it ever will. EA and stealth still do not coexist very comfortably on the same platform, but offboard EA and stealth are synergistic: the smaller the target, the less jamming power is needed to mask it.

But the threat’s demonstrated agility drives home the lesson that there is no one winning move in the radar game. Excessive reliance on a single-point design is not a good idea, and using fictitious secrecy to quash the debate is an even worse one.

This column also appears in the April 28 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology.

Original link to the above article: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/28/new-u-s-stealth-jet-can-t-hide-from-russian-radar.html

Thirumanthamkunnu Bhagavathy Temple, Angadippuram

Thirumanthamkunnil Temple, Angadipuram ( Pic Courtesy- Wikimedia Commons, Author- Rajakeshav)

Thirumanthamkunnu Temple is situated at Angadipuram in Malappuram District , adjacent to the main National Highway connecting Palakkad with Calicut near to the town of Perinthalmanna. The presiding deity is the Bhagavathy who is also the deity of the entire Valuanaad. For me personally, this temple has special significance as I visit the temple before I take any major  decisions in life along with Manapullikavu Temple. The Bhagavathy in both the temples has always blessed me and given me the courage to face any problems in life and find a solution. I visited this temple today and thought of writing a blog about the history of this temple. I dedicate this blog in the lotus feet of the Thirumanthamkunnu Bhagavathy: 

Thirumandhamkunnu Temple is a historically significant Hindu temple in Angadipuram, which was the capital of Valluvanad Rajavamsham,in Malappuram district, Kerala state, South India.^[1] The temple deity, Thirumandhamkunnilamma, was the para devatha (official goddess) of the kings of Valluvanad, the local feudal kings ruled the area in the Middle Ages. The assassins (called Chavers) of Valluvanad king set out from this temple to Thirunavaya, to participate in the famous Mamankam festival. A memorial structure called thechaver thara ("platform of the assassins") can be found in front of the main entrance of the Thirumanthamkunnu Temple.^[2]

The temple is also an important pilgrim center, especially for the eleven-day long annual festival celebrated in March and April months of theGregorian calendar. The "principle deity" of temple is the Hindu god Shiva. Other deities include goddess Bhagavathi, locally called asThirumandhamkunnilamma and the elephant god Ganesha, for whom the famous Marriage Offering (Mangalya puja) is performed.^[3]Mangalya Puja, Rigveda Laksharchana, Chandattam and Kalampattu are the important religious offerings of the Thirumanthamkunnu Temple.^[4]

There are ceremonies and rituals specific to this Hindu temple that are not carried out at others.^[5] The Thirumanthamkunnu Temple courtyards are on a hilltop that provides a view of the countryside spread out below.

Legends surrounding the Thirumanthamkunnu Temple: 

King Mandhata of Surya dynasty ruled his kingdom for a long period. He then gave away the kingdom to his successors and chose to meditate on Hindu god Shiva and attain the Shiva’s feets at the end. Shiva was pleased with his penance appeared before the king Mandhata and offered him any boon at Mount Kailash. The king prayed to the lord for an idol to worship till his death. Shiva gave him the most holy Shiva Lingam which was too dear to him and which used to be worshipped by Parvati and then the god disappeared.

Carrying the Shiva Lingam on head, King Mandhata started his downward journey from Mount Kailash and reached the hill now known as "Thirumandhamkunnu" in Kerala. A spring with crystal-clear water flowed along the northern slope of the hill. Many beautiful birds chirped in the jungle. Wild animals like lion, tiger, and elephant roamed about in the wilderness in full harmony forgetting their traditional enmity. Different kinds of trees and plants grew in the region and gave out sweet smell into the atmosphere. The surrounding attracted the king. Feelings of idol on his head heavy he placed it on the ground at immediately the Shiva Lingam got stuck into the earth.

Shiva had gifted the Shiva Lingam to the king when his consort Parvati was away for her bath. When Parvati turned up for worship the Shiva Lingam was not there. She got upset on enquiry she know that it was presented to the King Mandhata, by her husband. Being too much attached to it she wanted the Shiva Lingam back. Shiva told her that he had no objection in her trying to get it back. Parvati now offered Bhadrakali and a host of demons to rush up and get back the Shiva Lingam from the King. With the army of demons, Bhadrakali reached the northern slope of Thirumandha hill. The brightness emitted by the Shiva Lingam installed by king Mandhata was so great that it dazzled the eyes of Bhadrakali and demons and they were unable to move up the hills. So they started throwing up the weapons from the foot of the hill. The ascetic attending on Mandhata were unarmed but tried to defend themselves with whatever things they had. These being insufficient to protect them they plucked Attanga nuts from their creeper plants, which were available in plenty and threw them at the enemy. Because of the power of Shivaand the divine power of Mandhata the nuts got changed into arrows instantly. Bhadrakali and her demons could not resist them the fight lasted for fifteen days.

The age-old custom of "Attangayeru" on first of Thulam (the Malayalam month) on the new moon day of the same month in the forenoon before pantheerady pooja refers to the legendary fight between mandhatha and kali.

Expecting defeat Mahamaya took her viswaroopa. She had an elephant in one ear and a lion in the other as earrings. Seeing this form the ascetics fell down senseless. When mahamaya in this form reached the hilltop mandhatha was also helpless. He embraced the sivalinga kali tried to capture it by force. In this struggle that followed the linga got split into two. In the “Jyothis” that arose from it “THRIMOORTHIS” (Brahma, Vishnu and Siva) and Parvathy appeared on the spot.

Parvathy told Mandhatha this idol was very dear to me. Still I do not want to take it away from you against the wishes of my husband. Separation from it is also difficult for me. So I will enter that linga and remain here forever. My daughter kali is not different from me. Actually she came here first. Let her also be installed near me facing north and have all poojas and festival performed. So same parvathy disappeared into the idol. This spot is the “SREEMOOLASTHANAM”. The sivalinga here is still in split condition .Its position is below the “peedam” and “Prabhamandalam” and can be seen only during the abhisheka before the ushapooja and “Malarnivedia” to the deity.

As ordered by Parvathy, Bhagavathy with Sapthamathrukkal, Veerabhadran and Ganapaty were installed facing north. This is called “Mathrusala”. Pooram, Pattu and all such festivals intended for this goddess.

When Sree Parvathy appears infant Ganapathy was also with her. This infant ganapathy also been installed at sreemoolasthanam.

Sree Parvathy appeared facing west. The installations of Sivalinga at Sreemoolasthanam were facing east. It was thus for necessary to have two darshan openings one to the east and the other to west. The family descendants of “Valluva Konathiri” do not generally open the one on the west except for darshan. On either side of the doorway here are two openings through which other worshippers can have darshan of the deity. But in recent past^[when?] the restrictions has been modified. After each pooja, the door is kept open for some time for darshan of the deity by devotees.

Mandhatha spent many years at thirumandhamkunnu in meditation and thapusu. At last he knew it was time for him to leave this world. He was thinking of entrusting the temple to someone for perfect upkeep and maintenance when two Brahmins came there. Mandhatha told them his desire gave them a Grandha containing instructions on the performance of poojas and entrusted the shrine to them. He then retired to the jungle nearby now known as “KUKSHIPPARAKKAD” and freed himself from this world of mortals by his yogic powers. Bhakthas who go round this jungle paying homage pick out a leaf from the growing plants and keep it in hair with at most reverence. This area is still a protected jungle. In the Devaprashna conducted in 1959 it was observed that an idol of mandhatha should be installed here and poojas, performed. The temple priests before pooja every Malayalam month. The annual pooja on Chithra in midhunam on Mandhatha is on special significance.

Two Brahmins entrusted with the upkeep of temple, one cleared the jungle around the idol and hence came to be known as “KATTILLAMUTTAM” .The other prepared pavilion for prathishta and came to be known as “PANTHALAKODE”. The thanthri of thirumandhamkunnu temple is still a descendent from either of these families. The nair karyasthan who was with them was given the title “chathathumarar” and made the blower of holy conch in the temple. The Namboodiri’s informed the news to Vadakkara swaroopam raja that was subordinate chieftain of valluvanadu raja holding the title mannarmala raja. He immediately rushed to the spot (Seeing the over-lord of the hill the goddess got up and paid homage to him. This humility of Devi-the sustainer of three worlds—made the raja blink in shame and) he prayed to the goddess to see him as a son. He then presented an elephant to the goddess and worshipped her from its rear, standing in its shadow. His descendants also followed the same practice. Even now direct darshan of thirumandhamkunnu Bhagavathy is not permissible to mannarmala raja.

The first Vallavaraja who took over the control of the temple entrusted its upkeep and maintenance to the local feudal lords “ETTUVEETIL ACHANS” and made them trusty. Erukalikara nair was made kavudaya nair. Sreemoolasthanam does not have a roof, which is an evidence of it having been a kavu.

The painting on the walls of the mathrusala throws light to this legend. These paintings which are in lying with the wall painting at suchindram, Pundarikkapuram,vaikom and Guruvayoor were executed in 1944.

Info courtesy- Wikipedia 

India: The global arms bazaar’s anchor buyer ( Copy Right @ Russia and India Report)

SU-30 MKI ( Image Courtesy- Wikimedia commons and US Military)

With India set to become the world’s biggest player in the arms bazaar over the next two decades, its acquisition of high-octane military hardware will play a decisive role in the buying decisions of other countries. Take the Sukhoi-30 Flanker. In the spring of 1997 the Indian Air Force (IAF) took delivery of the first batch of these air dominance fighters from Russia, and started assembling them locally. According to Defense Industry Daily, India's expertise in manufacturing and maintaining the aircraft has turned it into "a regional resource for Su-27/30 Flanker family support". The availability of regional expertise has played a key role in deciding which aircraft Malaysia and Indonesia would field as their frontline attack fighter. Today both Southeast Asian countries outsource their pilot training and Flanker maintenance requirements to India. “In August 2003, Malaysia signed a $900 million contract with Irkut Corp for 18 Flankers. Malaysia flies the F/A-18D Hornet and was offered Boeing’s F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet, but instead it chose the Su-30MKM (Modernizirovannyi Kommercheskiy Malaysia – Modernised Export Malaysia) which is strongly similar to India’s Su-30MKI,” says DID. For the Malaysian deal, Irkut was the main contractor, but canards, stabilisers and fins were manufactured by India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd under a $25-30 million value subcontract, and India plays a role in helping the Royal Malaysian Air Force maintain its fleet. India’s order which influenced Malaysia has had a snowballing effect. “The MKM model has become the basis for other customers," says DID. "Indeed, the Su-30MKM/SM appears to be gaining ground on previous Su-30 versions as a preferred baseline for exports and for local production. The Su-30MKAs sold to Algeria are based on the MKM." The Indian Su-30MKI has also become the go-to model for the parent country, with the Russian Defence Ministry ordering 30 heavy Su-30SM fighter planes which are modelled on the IAF version. "The military is attracted by how easy it is to add different weapons and equipment to the Su-30MKI, transforming it into an attack fighter-bomber, a heavy interceptor aircraft or something else," says Russian military analyst Konstantin Bogdanov. Bogdanov explains why the Indian Flanker has become so popular with air forces. “As a basic platform for the multirole heavy fighter aircraft, the Su-30MKI is remarkable primarily for its universality. It boasts a so-called “open architecture”, making it relatively easy to add new systems in the basic electronic equipment and to use advanced guided weapons (supplied by different manufacturers),” he says. Stealth spinoffs: 1000 PAK-FAs :: India’s clout now extends to future aircraft as well. Sukhoi’s PAK-FA stealth fighter, which is set to enter the IAF sometime during the early 2020s, is another Russian aircraft that has received a boost from its No.1 customer. While Russia leads the programme, India is set to provide significant assistance, aiming to have a 25 per cent stake in designing and developing the PAK-FA. Brazil could end up as a major PAK-FA manufacturer if the BRICS member accepts Russia’s offer of joint development along the lines of the Indian model. “India is already onboard with the Russian programme, which it designates the Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA), and with the project in its prototype stage, there is still plenty of scope for Russia to offer development opportunities to Brazil,” says Janes Defence Weekly. Mikhail Pogosyan, General Director of the Sukhoi Design Bureau, calculates there could be a world market for 1,000 PAK FAs in the next 40 years. “I am strongly convinced that our joint project will excel its Western rivals in cost-effectiveness and will not only allow strengthening the defence power of Russian and Indian air forces, but also gain a significant share of the world market,” he says. Potential buyers include current weapons clients such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Venezuela, Algeria, Iran, Syria and Kazakhstan. “America’s oil-rich Arab allies may also order PAK-FA aircraft if Washington refuses, as expected, to sell them F-35s and instead exports up to 100 F-35s to Israel,” says a report by the Heritage Foundation. One likely buyer is China. Although Beijing is developing its own stealth fighter aircraft, the Chinese military could buy up to 250 PAK-FA planes, if its own programmes encounter delays, according to Heritage. Rafale: Re-incarnation in India :: France’s Rafale has virtually come back from the dead because of India. After New Delhi picked the aircraft, there has been renewed interest in the Rafale – from Canada, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Dassault Aviation was prepared to down the shutters of the Rafale plant if it had got shot down during India’s prolonged Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft competition. “We have waited 30 years for this,” said former French President Nicolas Sarkozy after France bagged the 126-plane order. The combat jet is now flying into more markets, with CEO Eric Trappier declaring that India is “not the sole country where we could sell Rafale”. Dassault has answered an RFI from Canada, a country that, according to the Dassault CEO, is studying cancelling its F-35 JSF purchase because of the high cost of the Lockheed Martin fighter. The French are in preliminary talks with Canadian manufacturers so as to be ready to sign an industrial agreement if Canada decides to cancel its 65-aircraft F-35 purchase. In the United Arab Emirates, talks on a 60-Rafale purchase are proceeding with a “new roadmap”. Dassault has answered an RFI issued by Qatar, and has also made a proposal to Malaysia based on the supply of 18 aircraft. Clearly, India is proving to be a game changer in the global arms bazaar. If only the mandarins at South Block could use that leverage to bring down prices and bring home more offset contracts for Indian companies. Original link to the article:   http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2014/04/22/india_the_global_arms_bazaars_anchor_buyer_34709.html

Beijing angered by Obama’s stance on disputed Diaoyu Islands ( Copy Right @ South China Morning Post)

Tokyo Tower showing the Americal Flag ( Image Courtesy- Wikimedia commons/ author) 

US President Barack Obama has angered Beijing by saying the uninhabited Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea, which are claimed by China and Japan, would be covered by the US-Japan security treaty. He is the first US president to spell this out.

He gave the assurance as he began a four-nation Asia tour in Tokyo yesterday.

Watch: Imperial pomp starts Obama’s Japan visit

China was quick to hit back. “The so-called security alliance between the US and Japan is a bilateral arrangement made during the cold war period, and it should not be used to damage China’s sovereignty and legitimate interest,” foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said. “We resolutely oppose applying the Diaoyu Islands to the Japan-US security treaty.”

We resolutely oppose applying the Diaoyu Islands to the Japan-US security treaty

FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESMAN QIN GANG

China and Japan are engaged in a bitter territorial dispute over the Diaoyus, known as Senkakus in Japan. The risks of an unintended conflict were highlighted in January when Tokyo alleged that a Chinese frigate locked its radar on a Japanese destroyer in the East China Sea. In December, the US military cruiser Cowpens had to take evasive action in the South China Sea to avoid hitting a warship supporting China’s first aircraft carrier, Liaoning.

Adding fuel to those fears, both PLA Navy commander Admiral Wu Shengli and Japanese Maritime Self-Defence Force chief of staff Katsutoshi Kawano, attending a defence forum in Qingdao this week, said an accidental conflict between the two militaries could not be ruled out, according to Phoenix TV reports.

In written remarks published by Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbum, Obama said the US alliance with Japan was “stronger than ever”.

“The policy of the United States is clear – the Senkaku Islands are administered by Japan and therefore fall within the scope of Article 5 of the US-Japan Treaty of Mutual Co-operation and Security,” Obama said. “And we oppose any unilateral attempts to undermine Japan’s administration of these islands.”

Article 5 of the treaty, which was signed in 1960, stipulates US defence obligations to Japan, stating that each party recognises that an armed attack against either party in the territories under the administration of Japan would be dangerous to its own peace and safety.

Obama said he had told President Xi Jinping that the territorial disputes should be resolved through dialogue and diplomacy, and also commended Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s efforts to strengthen Japan’s defence forces.

“We believe that it’s in the interest of both our countries for Japanese Self Defence Forces to do more within the framework of our alliances,” he said.

In a sign of the balancing act that the US faces in Asia, Obama said the US and China can work together on issues of mutual interest.

Obama’s tour, which will also take him to South Korea, the Philippines and Malaysia, came as Asian nations fear that US commitment to the region will be lessened, particularly as Obama cancelled his tour last year because of financial problem at home.

In signs that China was keeping a close watch on the tour, Xi had a phone conversation with South Korean President Park Geun-hye, saying bilateral ties enjoyed a “sound momentum”, state-run Xinhua reported.

Xi also told Park that China was committed to the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula.

Shi Yinhong , a US affairs expert at Renmin University, said Obama made the unprecedented assurance because Washington needed Tokyo’s support for the Trans Pacific Partnership, a US-dominated trade pact.

Barack Obama will this weekend become the first US president in nearly 50 years to visit Malaysia, where he will seek to put decades of uneasy bilateral relations behind him as both nations cast wary eyes on a rising China.

Mindful of America’s image problem in the Islamic world, Obama is expected to tout the US friendship with the thriving moderate Muslim nation.

Malaysia is also an important partner in the US “rebalance” of its strategic attention to Asia, where concern is rising over China’s territorial assertiveness.

Obama will “highlight the growing strategic and economic relationship” with Malaysia and its “credentials as a moderate, Muslim-majority state and emerging democracy”, said Joshua Kurlantzick, a fellow at the US Council on Foreign Relations.

Prime Minister Najib Razak, meanwhile, will seek to capitalise on Obama’s expected praise to counter flagging voter support and global criticism over the handling of the loss of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370.

Obama was five years old the last time a serving US leader visited Malaysia. Lyndon Johnson went in 1966 to rally support for the US war in Vietnam.

Tension followed during the 1981-2003 tenure of authoritarian leader Mahathir Mohamad, a harsh critic of US policies.

But ties – especially trade – remained solid, and the more Western-oriented Najib has sought even closer relations.

US deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes this week expressed hope that the visit would “elevate US-Malaysian relations to a new stage”.

Obama postponed a visit last year to deal with the US government shutdown.

Underlining the need for a reintroduction after nearly a half-century, Malaysia is the only stop on Obama’s Asian swing to include a “town-hall meeting”. He also visits close allies Japan, South Korea and the Philippines.

China will loom large. It is Malaysia’s top trade partner and Najib has played down their rival maritime claims. But Malaysian anxieties have grown, particularly after China held naval exercises in disputed waters last year, and the US and Malaysia have moved recently to improve defence ties.

Chinese criticism over MH370 has also left a bitter aftertaste.

“[Najib's government] obviously hopes that Obama’s star effect can rub off on its flagging popularity,” said Dr Oh Ei Sun, senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

“And Malaysia can continue to counterbalance China with the US in its foreign policy – siding with China economically but with the US on security.”

Differences remain, though.

The economic component of Obama’s “rebalance” rests largely on his vision of a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a region-wide trade liberalisation pact bedevilled by rocky negotiations with partners. Malaysia has resisted free-market reforms that clash with its controversial policies reserving economic advantages for majority ethnic Malays.

Obama may also face pressure to address uncomfortable human rights, democracy and religion issues in Malaysia.

Link to the original article: http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1494942/obama-says-disputed-islands-within-scope-us-japan-security-treaty

Why Obama's Asia Tour Is Bad News for China ( Copy Right @ The Diplomat, Author- Shannon Tiezzi)

President Obama in Japan ( Image courtesy- The White House/Chuck Kennedy)

President Barack Obama leaves today for a tour of Asia, with stops in Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, and the Philippines. The trip is Obama’s first to Asia since 2012 — a planned visit to Southeast Asia in the fall of 2013 was cancelled due to the government shutdown in Washington. While Obama will not be visiting China, the trip could have major implications for U.S.-China relations. As former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in his memoir, “On any trip to Asia, even if China isn’t on the itinerary, it is on the agenda.” Beijing will certainly be watching the tour with great interest, trying to gauge U.S. commitment to and intentions for the Asia-Pacific region.

During U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s recent trip to China, Chinese officials made it abundantly clear that they pay close attention to comments made to other Asian officials. Before arriving in Beijing, Hagel met with ASEAN Defense Ministers in Hawaii and visited Tokyo. In both instances, he emphasized the U.S. commitment to military engagement in the region, and spoke of the need for respecting the status quo when it comes to territorial disputes. These speeches did not sit well in Beijing. General Fan Changlong was unusually blunt in telling Hagel that “the Chinese people, including myself, are dissatisfied with such remarks.”

Still, despite China’s complaints, Obama will doubtless echo Hagel’s comments during his own trip to Asia. Both Japan and the Philippines are embroiled in tense territorial disputes with China, and U.S. officials have already made it a habit to express their displeasure at China’s actions in those regions (though they generally avoid calling China out by name). Look for Obama to repeat such remarks while in Tokyo and Manila, where he will doubtless also reiterate the U.S. defense commitments to its allies. Going beyond the normal rhetoric, Obama is expected to formally sign a deal allowing U.S. troops to share military bases in the Philippines, providing a concrete illustration of the rebalance to Asia. Obama may also use his stop in South Korea to publicly pressure China for more action on the North Korea nuclear issue, which is expected to be a major topic of discussion between Obama and South Korean leaders.

China is already preparing itself for a flood of implicit or explicit barbs from the U.S. President. An op-ed by Peking University professor Liang Yunxiang in Global Times noted, “Three of the destinations for Obama’s Asia visit are Washington’s allies. There is no doubt that a certain part of their talks will be directed at China.” In fact, Liang added, none of the topics likely to be discussed during the trip can be separated from concerns over China’s rise and the resulting U.S. rebalance.

An article in People’s Daily [Chinese] asked whether Obama would act as a “firefighter or provocateur” in Asia. This article repeated the Chinese position that Japan and the Philippines are to blame for increased tensions in the East and South China Seas, and accused the U.S. of being “irresponsible” for not appropriately chastising its allies. The article rejected U.S. claims that it is neutral in the territorial disputes, and accused the U.S. of “supporting and encouraging” the provocative actions of Tokyo and Manila. “These irresponsible comments and actions obviously run counter to [the United States’ stated goal of] protecting peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region,” the article said.

China has been wary of the U.S. “pivot to Asia” since before it even had a name. Beijing believes that  an increased U.S. presence in Asia is, at best, designed to counter China’s rise — and, at worst, designed explicitly to “contain” China and prevent it from rising. Recent comments by U.S. officials, especially those made alongside U.S. allies like Japan and the Philippines, have only exacerbated China’s concerns.

Harry Kazianis has dubbed Hagel’s recent visit to Asia and Obama’s upcoming trip “the great reassurance tour.” For China, both trips are anything but reassuring. From Beijing’s point of view, it seems more and more obvious that the rebalance to Asia is only a front for a full-on diplomatic attack on China. Expect Obama’s tour of Asia to solidify this perception. After all, unlike Hagel, Obama will not even be making a cursory stop in China to attempt to explain the comments he made in other capitals.

Article by Shannon Tiezzi. 

Link to the original article: http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/why-obamas-asia-tour-is-bad-news-for-china/

Asia's Changing Naval Landscape ( Copy Right @ The Diplomat)

United States Navy Ship ( Image courtesy- Wikimedia commons and US Navy)

In this week’s podcast for The Diplomat, U.S.-based editors Ankit Panda and Zachary Keck discuss the 2014 Western Pacific Naval Symposium, including the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES) and the brief encounter between top Chinese and Japanese naval officials, Japan’s radar deployment to Yonaguni Island, Taiwan’s plan to build indigenous submarines, and Australia’s decision to purchase additional F-35 fighters.

Original link to the podcast: http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/asias-changing-naval-landscape/

China splurging on military as US pulls back ( Copy Right @ Yahoo News)

Peoples Liberation Army, China ( Image courtesy- Wikimedia commons and US Army)

 China's navy commissioned 17 new warships last year, the most of any nation. In a little more than a decade, it's expected to have three aircraft carriers, giving it more clout than ever in a region of contested seas and festering territorial disputes.

Those numbers testify to huge increases in defense spending that have endowed China with the largest military budget behind the United States and fueled an increasingly large and sophisticated defense industry. While Beijing still lags far behind the U.S. in both funding and technology, its spending boom is attracting new scrutiny at a time of severe cuts in U.S. defense budgets that have some questioning Washington's commitments to its Asian allies, including some who have lingering disputes with China.

Beijing's newfound military clout is one of many issues confronting President Barack Obama as he visits the region this week. Washington is faced with the daunting task of fulfilling its treaty obligations to allies such as Japan and the Philippines, while also maintaining cordial relation with key economic partner and rising regional power China.

China's boosted defense spending this year grew 12.2 percent to $132 billion, continuing more than two decades of nearly unbroken double-digit percentage increases that have afforded Beijing the means to potentially alter the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific. Outside observers put China's actual defense spending significantly higher, although estimates vary widely.

Increases in spending signal "strength and resolve to China's neighbors," requiring other countries to pay close attention to where Beijing is assigning its resources, said China defense expert Abraham Denmark, vice president for political and security affairs at the U.S-based National Bureau of Asian Research.

At the same time, the U.S. military is seeking to redirect resources to the Asia-Pacific as it draws down its defense commitment in Afghanistan, although officers warn that budget cuts could potentially threaten plans to base 60 percent of U.S. naval assets to the region. Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert recently warned that U.S. capabilities to project power "would not stay ahead" of those of potential adversaries, given the fiscal restraints.

Meanwhile, China's navy is rapidly developing into a force to contend with the U.S., long the dominant military player in the Asia-Pacific region.

China commissioned its first aircraft carrier — a refurbished Ukrainian hull — in 2012, and another two indigenous carriers are expected to enter service by 2025, significantly increasing Beijing's ability to project power into the South China Sea that it claims virtually in its entirety.

Analysts say China will have as many as 78 submarines by 2020, part of an expansion that has seen it leap past the U.S. and Russia in numbers of warships delivered annually, according to experts and available figures.

"That's very much in line with the leadership's call for China to become a major military-industrial power," said Tai Ming Cheung, director of the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation at the University of California, San Diego.

By comparison, the U.S. Navy takes on about 10 major vessels per year, while Russia averages slightly less.

Despite the impressive hardware, uncertainty still surrounds the capabilities of China's armed forces, which haven't seen significant combat since the end of the Korean War in 1953. Home-grown technologies have yet to be tested in battle, and training and organization are hampered by a risk-adverse attitude and overemphasis on political indoctrination that reflects the People's Liberation Army's essential role as the defender of the ruling Communist Party.

"Being the world leader is all about software and networking," said Denny Roy, an expert on the Chinese military at the East-West Center in Hawaii, referring to problems with China's command structure and communications.

Concerns about Chinese aggression focus on three scenarios: An attack on self-governing island democracy Taiwan that China claims as its own territory; an attempt to seize uninhabited East China Sea islands controlled by Japan but claimed by China; and a move to drive off claimants to waters and islands claimed by China in the South China Sea.

All those situations pose considerable risks for Beijing, ranging from a lack of transport and resupply capabilities, to the near certainty of the formidable U.S. military responding in defense of its allies. Japan and the Philippines are U.S. treaty partners, while American law requires Washington to respond to threats against Taiwan.

Although tensions with Japan have grown sharper over the islands dispute, Beijing takes great pains to play down the impact its military may have on the region. Its explanations about its military buildup, however, mix a proclaimed desire for closer cooperation with prickly nationalism.

Addressing navy chiefs from two dozen nations gathered at a forum in the eastern Chinese port city of Qingdao on Wednesday, one of China's most powerful generals said China is committed to maintain peace and stability but would never compromise its national interests.

"No country should expect China to swallow the bitter pill of compromising our sovereignty rights, national security and development interests," said Fan Changlong, vice chairman of the Communist Party's Central Military Commission.

http://news.yahoo.com/china-splurging-military-us-pulls-back-092026097.html

Original link to the article- 

Russia to Build 50 GLONASS Stations in 36 Countries ( Copy Right @ Ria Novosti)

GLONASS (Image courtesy- Wikimedia Commons/ Patrick.G/ Pavel Kolothilov)

MOSCOW, April 23 (RIA Novosti) – Russia plans to build 50 stations of Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) in several dozen countries across the world, Russian presidential administration chief told the Navitech 2014 forum for navigation system Wednesday.

“We will continue promoting GLONASS technologies on global markets. We will increase competitiveness of Russian navigation services. To this aim, we will create a ground measuring segment abroad,” Sergei Ivanov said.

“Ideally, in prospect, we would like to have 50 data-collection stations in 36 countries. This guarantees more stable and precise work of GLONASS,” Ivanov said.

Russia also plans to create a single navigation space with Kazakhstan and Belarus, Ivanov said.

The Global Navigation Satellite System, which began operating in 1993, is a Russian equivalent of the US Global Positioning System (GPS). The GLONASS network provides real-time positioning and speed data for surface, sea and airborne objects with an accuracy of one meter (three feet).

Original link to the above article- http://en.ria.ru/russia/20140423/189324812/Russia-to-Build-50-GLONASS-Stations-in-36-Countries.html

Know the Battle Ship- Destroyer

USS Zumwalt ( DD-X Class), Pic courtesy- Wikimedia commons and US Navy

( Today we start a weekly series called Know the battle ship. In each series we focus on a particular class of warships, their evolution and their present and future role. We start with the Destroyers, today considered the most potent surface combatant after Aircraft Carriers)

In naval terminology, a destroyer is a fast and maneuverable yet long-endurance warship intended to escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy or battle group and defend them against smaller, powerful, short-range attackers. The first ship named and classified as a destroyer was the Spanish warship Destructor (1886), designed by Fernando Villaamil and constructed in England in the shipyard of James and George Thomson of Clydebank, near the Yarrow shipyards. By the time of the Russo-Japanese War in 1904, Torpedo Boat Destroyers (TBD) were "large, swift, and powerfully armed torpedo boats designed to destroy other torpedo boats."^[1] Although the term destroyer had been used interchangeably with the terms "TBD" and "torpedo boat destroyer" by navies since 1892, the term torpedo boat destroyer had been generally shortened to simply "destroyer" by nearly all navies by theFirst World War.^[2]

Prior to World War II, destroyers were light vessels with little endurance for unattended ocean operations; typically a number of destroyers and a single destroyer tender operated together. After the war, the advent of the guided missile allowed destroyers to take on the surface combatant roles previously filled by battleships and cruisers. This resulted in larger and more powerful destroyers more capable of independent operation.

At the beginning of the 21st century, destroyers are the heaviest surface combatant ships in general use, with only three nations (the United States,Russia, and Peru) operating the heavier class cruisers and none operating battleships^[3] or true battlecruisers.^[4] Modern destroyers, also known asguided missile destroyers, are equivalent in tonnage but vastly superior in firepower to cruisers of the World War II era, capable of carrying nuclear missiles. Guided missile destroyers such as the Arleigh Burke-class class are actually larger and more heavily armed than most previous ships classified as guided missile cruisers, due to their massive size at 510 feet (160 m) long, displacement (9200 tons) and armament of over 90 missiles

Early history

The emergence and development of the destroyer, up until World War II, was related to the invention of the self-propelled torpedo in the 1860s. A navy now had the potential to destroy a superior enemy battle fleet using steam launches to launch torpedoes. Fast boats armed with torpedoes were built and called torpedo boats. By the 1880s, these had evolved into small ships of 50–100 tons, fast enough to evade enemy picket boats.

At first, the danger to a battle fleet was considered only to exist when at anchor, but as faster and longer-range torpedoes were developed, the threat extended to cruising at sea. In response to this new threat, more heavily gunned picket boats called "catchers" were built which were used to escort the battle fleet at sea. They needed the same seaworthiness and endurance, and as they necessarily became larger, they became officially designated "torpedo boat destroyers", and by the First World War were largely known as "destroyers" in English. The anti-torpedo boat origin of this type of ship is retained in its name in other languages, including French (contre-torpilleur), Italian (cacciatorpediniere), Portuguese (contratorpedeiro), Polish(kontrtorpedowiec), Czech (torpédoborec), Greek (antitorpiliko,αντιτορπιλικό), and Dutch (torpedobootjager).^[6]

Once destroyers became more than just catchers guarding an anchorage, it was realized that they were also ideal to take over the role of torpedo boats themselves, so they were fitted with torpedo tubes as well as guns. At that time, and even into World War I, the only function of destroyers was to protect their own battle fleet from enemy torpedo attacks and to make such attacks on the battleships of the enemy. The task of escorting merchant convoys was still in the future.

An important development came in 1884 with HMS Swift,^[7] a large torpedo boat with six 47 mm quick-firing guns and three torpedo tubes. While still not fast enough to engage torpedo boats reliably, she at least had the armament to deal with them.

The Imperial Japanese Navy'sKotaka (1887)

The Japanese torpedo boat^[8] Kotaka (Falcon) of 1885 was "the forerunner of torpedo boat destroyers that appeared a decade later".^[9] Designed to Japanese specifications and ordered from the London Yarrow shipyards in 1885, she was transported in parts to Japan, where she was assembled and launched in 1887. The 165-foot (50 m) long vessel was armed with four 1-pounder (37 mm) quick-firing guns and six torpedo tubes, reached 19 knots (35 km/h), and at 203 tons, was the largest torpedo boat built to date. In her trials in 1889, Kotaka demonstrated that she could exceed the role of coastal defense, and was capable of accompanying larger warships on the high seas. The Yarrow shipyards, builder of the parts for the Kotaka, "considered Japan to have effectively invented the destroyer".^[10]

The Spanish Navy's Destructor(1886)

Almost immediately after the order of Kotaka was placed, Fernando Villaamil, second officer of the Ministry of the Navy of Spain, was put in charge of developing the concept of a new ship designed to combat boats.^[11] He placed an order for a large gunboat in November 1885, with the British builder James and George Thompson, of Clydebank. The ship, named Destructor (literally Destroyer), was laid down at the end of the year, launched in 1886, and commissioned in 1887. Her displacement was 380 tons, and she was armed with one 90 mm Hontoria gun, four 57 mm Nordenfelt guns, two 37 mm Hotchkiss cannons and three Schwarzkopf tubes. Her complement was 60 men. In terms of gunnery, speed (22.5 knots in trials) and dimensions, the specific design to chase boats and her high seas capabilities, Destructor is widely considered the first boat destroyer ever built.^[12][13]The Destructor is thought to have influenced the concept and designation of destroyers developed by the British Navy shortly after.^[14][15]

The Royal Navy began experiments with the "boat catcher", a class of 17 large boats. In tests, HMS Rattlesnake proved to be marginally faster than boats, but not fast enough to be decisive.

HMS Havock (1893)

The first ships to bear the formal designation "boat destroyer" (TBD) were the Daring class of two ships and Havock class of two ships of the Royal Navy, developed in 1892 under the newly appointed Third Sea Lord Rear Admiral "Jackie" Fisher. The Daring and Decoy were ordered on 27 June 1892 from John I. Thornycroft & Company at Chiswick, while the Havock and Hornet were ordered five days later from Yarrow at Poplar. The Daringand Decoy were completed in 1895^[16] and the Havock and Hornet were completed in 1894.^[17] Each was armed with a single 12-pounder (76 mm) gun, three 6-pounders (57 mm), and three 46 cm tubes. They also had the range and speed to travel effectively with a battle fleet.

The French navy, an extensive user of boats, built its first boat destroyer in 1899, with the Durandal-class 'torpilleur d'escadre'.

The United States commissioned its first boat destroyer, USS Bainbridge, Destroyer No. 1, in 1902 and by 1906 there were 16 destroyers in service with the US Navy.

Early boat destroyer design

Boat-destroyer designs continued to evolve around the turn of the 20th century in several key ways. The first was the introduction of the steam turbine. The spectacular unauthorized demonstration of the turbine powered Turbinia at the 1897 Spithead Navy Review, which, significantly, was of boat size, prompted the Royal Navy to order a prototype turbine powered destroyer, HMS Viper of 1899. This was the first turbine warship of any kind and achieved a remarkable 36 knots (67 km/h) on sea trials. By 1910 the turbine had been widely adopted by all navies for their faster ships.

The second development was the replacement of the boat-style turtleback foredeck by a raised forecastle for the new River-class destroyers built in 1903, which provided better sea-keeping as well as more space below deck.

The British experimented with oil propulsion for the Tribal class of 1905 but switched temporarily back to coal for the later Beagle class in 1909. Other navies also adopted oil, for instance the USN with the Paulding class of 1909. In spite of all this variety, destroyers adopted a largely similar pattern. The hull was long and narrow, with a relatively shallow draft. The bow was either raised in a forecastle or covered under a turtleback; underneath this were the crew spaces, extending 1/4 to 1/3 the way along the hull. Aft of the crew spaces was as much engine space as the technology of the time would allow: several boilers and engines or turbines. Above deck, one or more quick-firing guns were mounted in the bows, in front of the bridge; several more were mounted amidships and astern. Two tube mountings (later on, multiple mountings) were generally found amidships.

Between 1892 and 1914 destroyers became markedly larger: initially 420 tons with a length of 250 feet (76 m) for the US Navy's first Bainbridge class of boat destroyers,^[19] up to the First World War with 300-foot (91 m) long destroyers displacing 1000 tons was not unusual. However, construction remained focused on putting the biggest possible engines into a small hull, resulting in a somewhat flimsy construction. Often hulls were built of steel only 1/8 in thick.

By 1910 the steam-driven displacement (that is, not hydroplaning) boat had become redundant as a separate type. Germany nevertheless continued to build such boats until the end of World War I, although these were effectively small coastal destroyers. In fact Germany never distinguished between the two types, giving them pennant numbers in the same series and never giving names to destroyers. Ultimately the term boat came to be attached to a quite different vessel – the very fast hydroplaning motor driven MTB.Early destroyers were extremely cramped places to live, being "without a doubt magnificent fighting vessels... but unable to stand bad weather."^[20] During the Russo-Japanese War in 1904, the commander of the boat destroyer Akatsuki^[21][22][23] described "being in command of a destroyer for a long period, especially in wartime... is not very good for the health." Stating that he had originally been strong and healthy, he continued, "life on a destroyer in winter, with bad food, no comforts, would sap the powers of the strongest men in the long run. A destroyer is always more uncomfortable than the others, and rain, snow, and sea-water combine to make them damp; in fact, in bad weather there is not a dry spot where one can rest for a moment."^[24]

The Japanese destroyer commander finished with, "Yesterday I looked at myself in a mirror for a long time; I was disagreeably surprised to see my face thin, full of wrinkles, and as old as though I were fifty. My clothes (uniform) cover nothing but a skeleton, and my bones are full of rheumatism."^[24]

Although officially classified as a boat in 1898 by the US Navy, the USS Porter, a 175-foot (53 m) long all steel vessel displacing 165 tons, was described by her commander, LT. John C. Fremont, as "...a compact mass of machinery not meant to keep the sea nor to live in... as five sevenths of the ship are taken up by machinery and fuel, whilst the remaining two sevenths, fore and aft, are the crew's quarters; officers forward and the men placed aft. And even in those spaces are placed anchor engines, steering engines, steam pipes, etc. rendering them unbearably hot in tropical regions.

World War-1

While capital ship engagements were scarce in World War I, destroyer units were almost continually engaged in raiding and patrol actions. The first shot of the war at sea was fired on 5 August 1914 by a destroyer of the 2nd Flotilla, HMS Lance, in an engagement with the German auxiliaryminelayer SS Königin Luise.

Destroyers were involved in the skirmishes that prompted the Battle of Heligoland Bight, and filled a range of roles in the Battle of Gallipoli, acting as troop’s transports and fire support vessels, as well as their fleet-screening role. Over 80 British destroyers and 60 German torpedo-boats took part in the Battle of Jutland, which involved pitched small-boat actions between the main fleets, and several foolhardy attacks by unsupported destroyers on capital ships. Jutland also concluded with a messy night action between the German High Seas Fleet and part of the British destroyer screen.

The threat evolved by World War I with the development of the submarine, or U-boat. The submarine had the potential to hide from gunfire and close underwater to fire torpedoes. Early-war destroyers had the speed and armament to intercept submarines before they submerged, either by gunfire or by ramming. Destroyers also had a shallow enough draft that torpedoes would find it difficult to hit them.

The desire to attack submarines underwater led to rapid destroyer evolution during the war; they were quickly equipped with strengthened bows for ramming, depth charges and hydrophones for identifying submarine targets. The first submarine casualty to a destroyer was the German U-19, rammed by HMS Badger on 29 October 1914. While U-19 was only damaged, the next month Garry successfully sank U-18. The first depth-charge sinking was on 4 December 1916, when UC-19^[29] was sunk by HMS Llewellyn.

The submarine threat meant that many destroyers spent their time on anti-submarine patrol; once Germany adopted unrestricted submarine warfare in January 1917, destroyers were called on to escort merchant convoys. US Navy destroyers were among the first American units to be dispatched upon the American entry to the war, and a squadron of Japanese destroyers even joined Allied patrols in the Mediterranean. Patrol duty was far from safe; of the 67 British destroyers lost in the war, collisions accounted for 18, while 12 were wrecked.

At the end of the war the state-of-the-art was represented by the British W-class.The trend during World War I had been towards larger destroyers with heavier armaments. A number of opportunities to fire at capital ships had been missed during the War, because destroyers had expended all their torpedoes in an initial salvo. The British 'V' & 'W' classes of the late war had sought to address this by mounting six torpedo tubes in two triple mounts, instead of the four or two on earlier models. The 'V' and 'W's set the standard of destroyer building well into the 1920s. The next major innovation came with the Japanese Fubuki class or 'special type', designed in 1923 and delivered in 1928. The design was initially noted for its powerful armament of six five-inch (127 mm) guns and three triple torpedo mounts. The second batch of the class gave the guns high-angle turrets for anti-aircraft warfare, and the 24-inch (61 cm) oxygen-fueled 'Long Lance' Type 93 torpedo. The later Hatsuharu class of 1931 further improved the torpedo armament by storing its reload torpedoes close at hand in the superstructure, allowing reloading within 15 minutes.

Most other nations replied with similar larger ships. The US Porter class adopted twin five-inch (127 mm) guns, and the subsequent Mahan class andGridley class (the latter of 1934) increased the number of torpedo tubes to 12 and 16 respectively. In the Mediterranean, the Italian Navy's building of very fast light cruisers of the Condottieri class prompted the French to produce exceptional destroyer designs. The French had long been keen on large destroyers, with their Chacal class of 1922 displacing over 2,000 tons and carrying 130 mm guns; a further three similar classes were produced around 1930. The Fantasque class of 1935 carried five 138 millimetres (5.4 in) guns and nine torpedo tubes, but could achieve speeds of 45 knots (83 km/h), which remains the record speed for a steamship and for any destroyer.^{[citation needed]} The Italians' own destroyers were almost as swift, most Italian designs of the 1930s being rated at over 38 knots (70 km/h), while carrying torpedoes and either four or six 120 mm guns.

Germany started to build destroyers again during the 1930s as part of Hitler's rearmament program. The Germans were also fond of large destroyers, but while the initial Type 1934 displaced over 3,000 tons, their armament was equal to smaller vessels. This changed from the Type 1936 onwards, which mounted heavy 150 millimetres (5.9 in) guns. German destroyers also used innovative high-pressure steam machinery: while this should have helped their efficiency, it more often resulted in mechanical problems.

Once German and Japanese rearmament became clear, the British and American navies consciously focused on building destroyers that were smaller but more numerous than those used by other nations. The British built a series of destroyers (the A class to I class) which were about 1,400 tons standard displacement, had four 4.7-inch (119 mm) guns and eight torpedo tubes; the American Benson class of 1938 similar in size, but carried five 5-inch (127 mm) guns and ten torpedo tubes. Realizing the need for heavier gun armament, the British built theTribal class of 1936 (sometimes called Afridi after one of two lead ships). These ships displaced 1,850 tons and were armed with eight 4.7-inch (119 mm) guns in four twin turrets and four torpedo tubes. These were followed by the J-class and L-class destroyers, with six 4.7-inch (119 mm) guns in twin turrets and eight torpedo tubes.

Anti-submarine sensors included sonar (or ASDIC), although training in their use was indifferent. Anti-submarine weapons changed little, and ahead-throwing weapons, a need recognized in World War I, had made no progress. During the 1920s and 1930s destroyers were often deployed to areas of diplomatic tension or humanitarian disaster. British and American destroyers were common on the Chinese coast and rivers, even supplying landing parties to protect colonial interests.

World War-2

By World War II the threat had evolved once again. Submarines were more effective, and aircraft had become important weapons of naval warfare; once again the fleet destroyers were ill-equipped for combating these new targets. They were fitted with new anti-aircraft guns, radar, and forward-launched ASW weapons, in addition to their existing light guns, depth charges, and torpedoes. By this time the destroyers had become large, multi-purpose vessels, expensive targets in their own right. As a result, casualties on destroyers were one of the highest. This led to the introduction of smaller and cheaper specialized anti-submarine warships called corvettes and frigates by the Royal Navy and destroyer escorts by the USN. A similar programme was belatedly started by the Japanese (see Matsu-class destroyer). These ships had the size and displacement of the original torpedo boat destroyers that the contemporary destroyer had evolved from.

Post War

Some conventional destroyers were completed in the late 1940s and 1950s which built on wartime experience. These vessels were significantly larger than wartime ships and had fully automatic main guns, unit Machinery, radar, sonar, and antisubmarine weapons such as the Squid mortar. Examples include the British Daring class, US Forrest Sherman class, and the Soviet Kotlin-class destroyers.

Some World War II–vintage ships were modernized for anti-submarine warfare, and to extend their service lives, to avoid having to build (expensive) brand-new ships. Examples include the US FRAM I programme and the British Type 15 frigates converted from fleet destroyers.

The advent of surface-to-air missiles and surface-to-surface missiles, such as the Exocet, in the early 1960s changed naval warfare. Guided missile destroyers (DDG in the US Navy) were developed to carry these weapons and protect the fleet from air, submarine and surface threats. Examples include the Soviet Kashin class, the British County class, and the American Charles F. Adams class.

Modern Destroyers

In the US Navy, fleet destroyers operate in support of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious groups and replenishment groups. The destroyers currently in use by the US Navy are the Arleigh Burke class. Destroyers (with a DD hull classification symbol) primarily perform anti-submarine warfare duty while guided missile destroyers (DDGs) are multi-mission (anti-submarine, anti-aircraft and anti-surface warfare) surface combatants, with an emphasis on anti-surface warfare.

The addition of cruise missile launchers has greatly expanded the role of the destroyer in strike and land-attack warfare. As the expense of heavier surface combatants has generally removed them from the fleet, destroyer tonnage has grown (a modern Arleigh Burke-class destroyer has the same tonnage as a World War II light cruiser).

In October 2013 the first of three U.S. Zumwalt-class class of destroyers left dry dock, the destroyer built with specific structural angles and a superstructure wrapped in a carbon fiber composite canopy to reduce its radar detectability by a factor of 50.^[30] The ship, with 80 missiles and a crew of 150, will include two Advanced Gun Systems (AGS) that can fire rocket-powered, computer-guided shells to destroy targets 63 miles away.^[30]

The Royal Navy operates the Type 45, or Daring class, stealth destroyer which displaces roughly 7,200 tonnes. A class of six ships is envisaged. They are equipped with the UK variant of thePrincipal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS) and BAE Systems SAMPSON radar.

The Italian Navy and the French Navy each operate two Horizon-class destroyers and will soon operate new FREMM destroyers. These stealth ships are armed with anti-ship missiles andAster surface-to-air missiles. The Italian navy also operates two Durand de la Penne-class destroyers. The French navy also operates seven Georges Leygues-class destroyers, twoCassard-class destroyers and one Tourville-class destroyer. The French Navy and the Italian navy apply the term "first-class frigate" to their destroyers in service (under NATO classification).

HMCS Algonquin (DDH 283), anIroquois-class destroyer

The Royal Canadian Navy operates the Iroquois-class destroyers, a class of four helicopter-carrying, anti-aircraft, guided missile destroyers (with three remaining in service). They were originally fitted out for anti-submarine warfare, but the entire class underwent major retrofits in the 1990s which re-purposed the ships as area air-defence destroyers.

Delhi class destroyer

The Indian Navy operates three Delhi-class destroyers. These ships are armed with Kh-35 missiles, which have a range of 130 km, in the anti-ship role. They will be replaced by the Brahmos cruise missiles. Shtil (SA-N-7 Gadfly) system is installed to counter airborne threats. The Barak 1 point-defense missile system has been installed in INS Delhi and will soon be installed in the other two ships of its class. These destroyers also carry anti-submarine rockets and torpedoes. The destroyers have the capability to carry two Sea King helicopters. The Delhi class will be augmented by the new Kolkata-class destroyers, the first of which was launched in March 2006.

Since 2003, the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy has launched the Luyang I, Luyang II and Luzhou classes. The latter two are armed with long range air defense missiles, the indigenous HQ-9 and the Russian S-300 respectively.

Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force "Akizuki"

Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force operates the Atago-class and Kongō-class destroyers which both employ the Aegis combat system.

The Republic of Korea Navy operates several classes of destroyers including the Sejong the Great class (KDX-III), the Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin class (KDX-II) and Gwanggaeto the Great class (KDX-I) of destroyers. The KDX-III is equipped with the Aegis combat system, Goalkeeper CIWS,Hyunmoo cruise missile and the Hae Sung anti-ship missile.

A Russian Navy Udaloy-class destroyer

The Russian Navy and the People's Liberation Army Navy of the People's Republic of China operate theSovremenny class, a class of large multi-purpose missile destroyers. They are powered by pressure-fired boilers, making them capable of speeds in excess of 30 knots (56 km/h). Their armament consists of eight SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship missiles, launchers for SA-N-7 Gadfly anti-air missiles and two AK-130 twin-barreled 130 mm automatic naval guns which can fire laser-guided shells. While they also carry 533 mm torpedo tubes and RBU-6000 rocket launchers for use against submarines, their primary mission is to attack surface ships. Their anti-aircraft missiles have a surface attack mode, and both the 130 mm guns and the torpedoes are useful against ships at close range.

The modern Udaloy-class destroyer destroyers of the Russian Navy can displace about 7,900 tonnes, can travel at 35 knots (65 km/h), and have a maximum range of 10,500 nm (19,450 km) at 14 knots (26 km/h). The original class (Udaloy I) was designed for anti-submarine warfare, which can be seen in their two quadruple launchers of the Metel Anti-Ship Complex (SS-N-14), two quadruple 533 millimetres (21 in) launchers equipped with either the Type 53 torpedo on the Udaloy I class or RPK-2 Viyuga (SS-N-15) on the Udaloy II class, and the two RBU-6000 anti-submarine launchers. The IIclass is Russia's only multipurpose destroyer. The armament of the class has been modified. The Metal Anti-Ship Complex is replaced with eight P-270 Moskit (SS-N-22 Sunburn) supersonicsea-skimming anti-ship missile. For air defense, each Udaloy is armed with four AK-630 CIWSs, mounted parallel to each other mid ship. They also have two Kashtan CIWSs, each capable of engaging six targets automatically by either its armament of two GSh-6-30 Gatling guns or four 9M311 (SA-N-11) surface-to-air missiles. Finally, 64 3K95 Kinzhal (SA-N-9) medium-rangepoint defense SAMs can be fired from vertical launching system.

Future Destroyers

The last US Navy Spruance-class destroyer in service, USS Cushing, was decommissioned on September 21, 2005. The Zumwalt class is planned to replace them; on November 1, 2001, the US Navy announced the issuance of a revised Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Future Surface Combatant Program. Formerly known as DD 21, the program was renamed DD(X) (and later renamed to DDG-1000) to more accurately reflect the program purpose, which is to produce a family of advanced technology surface combatants, not a single ship class. DD(X), also called Zumwalt class, is much larger than traditional destroyers, nearly three thousand tons heavier than a Ticonderoga-class cruiser (15,610 long tons,^[31] larger than mostheavy cruisers from the World War II era). It will potentially employ advanced weaponry and an all-electric Integrated Power System; however, the construction program was subsequently reduced to just two vessels, and there is currently only funding for three in total. With the retirement of theSpruance class, the US Navy began commissioning an advanced variant of the Arleigh Burke class with expanded ASW capabilities, the Arleigh BurkeFlight IIA, beginning with USS Oscar Austin. As of 2012, 34 of these vessels are in service, with more under construction.

New and advanced Destroyers are in the stages of planning world wide. India will have the next generation of Destroyers under the Kolkatta class and the more advanced Project- 15(B). It will incorporate advanced designs and will also incorporate measures to reduce  radar signatures.

Destroyers will be the most valued capital ships of any navy in the future, the Aircraft Carriers being more valuable. These class of ships will be the mainstaly of all the powerful navies of the future. 

We will be back with yet another class next week. 

Info sources- Wikimedia Commons