INS Kochi inducted into the Indian navy

INS Kochi ( Image source- Wikimedia Commons)

Indian navy today inducted it's latest Kolkata class stealth destroyer, INS Kochi by Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar. INS Kochi is the second of the three ship class of destroyers that the state run Mazadon docks is making for the Indian navy. 

She will be packed with advanced and lethal weapon systems like the Brahmos anti ship/ land attack cruise missile, Barak-8 Anti aircraft/ Anti missile defence systems and a whole lot of weapon systems and sensors. The heart of the sensor suit of INS Kochi will be the Israeli sourced IAI EL/M02248 MF-STAR AESA radar systems that is comparable to the American AEGIS system. She will form part of a whole new generation of destroyers that is designed in house by the Indian navy. Kolkata class will be followed by even more lethal Visakhapatinam class destroyers, four of which will be inducted to the Indian navy. She is comparable to the Chinese Type-52D destroyers. 

Overview:

The Kolkata class (Project 15A) are a class of stealth guided missile destroyers constructed for the Indian Navy. The class comprises three ships – Kolkata, Kochi and Chennai, all of which are being built by Mazagon Dock Limited (MDL) in India, and are the largest destroyers to be operated by the Indian Navy. Due to delays in their construction, and a problem found during the sea trials, the initial commissioning date of the first ship of the class has been pushed back from 2010 to 2014.

The destroyers are a follow-on of the Project 15 Delhi-class destroyers, but are considerably more capable due to major improvements in the design, the addition of substantial land-attack capabilities, and the fitting-out of modern sensors and weapons systems. The keel of the first P-15B ship was laid in October 2013

In 1986, the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs (CCPA) approved a follow-on class of the earlier Project 15 Delhi-class destroyers. The aim was that the follow-on class would incorporate a higher level of air-defence, land attack, anti-submarine and anti-ship capabilities than the preceding class. However, the Indian Navy did not initially take up the option. By the year 2000, the Indian Navy had redesigned the follow-on Kolkata class to incorporate even higher levels of technology (including modern stealth characteristics) and in May of that year, approval for the construction was given. Concept and function for Project 15A was framed by the navy's Directorate of Naval Design, while the detailed design was developed by Mazagon Dock Limited.

Construction of three Kolkata-class ships was sanctioned by the Government of India in May 2000, and steel for the lead ship was cut in March 2003. Construction began in September 2003 at Mazagon Docks, Mumbai, with an initial expectation that the first of the class would be handed over to the navy by 2010. However, since then the Kolkata class has suffered consecutive delays, slow construction procedures and technical problems which

IAI ELM 2248 MF-STAR AESA radar ( Image credits- Indian navy)

saw the first ship of the class enter service during mid 2014. The delays in the construction programme have been attributed to persistent design changes made by the Indian Navy to incorporate new weapons systems and sensors, failure by a Ukrainian shipyard to deliver the ship's propellers and shafts and the contract later being awarded to a Russian firm and finally the delay in the delivery of the Barak 8 anti-air missiles, which are still in the final stages of completion with Israel Aerospace Industries and the Defence Research and Development Organisation.

The Kolkata class are the largest destroyers ever to be constructed at Mazagon Docks, and as of 2013, all three ships of the class have been launched and are being fitted out. Technical problems were found during the sea trials of the lead ship Kolkata, which delayed the project by six months to early 2014.

The Kolkata class share similar dimensions to the previous Delhi class, however they have 2,363 modifications which include major upgrades in weaponry, sensors and helicopter systems. With a standard displacement of 6,800 t (6,700 long tons; 7,500 short tons) and a full-load displacement of 7,400 t (7,300 long tons; 8,200 short tons), they are the largest destroyers ever operated by the Indian Navy. Some media reports have even given a full-load displacement of 7,500 t (7,400 long tons; 8,300 short tons). These are the first stealth destroyers being built by India and marked a significant development in India's shipbuilding technology. The ships would incorporate modern weapons and sensors, and will have an advanced information warfare suite, an auxiliary control system with a sophisticated power distribution architecture, and modular crew quarters.

The class have a length of 163 m (535 ft), a beam of 17.4 m (57 ft) and a draught of 6.5 m (21 ft). The ship's power and propulsion features a standard Combined gas and gas system utilizing twin Zorya M36E gas turbine plants and four DT-59 reversible gas turbines. The class also features two KVM diesel engines. On-board Wartsila WCM-1000 generators and Kirloskar AC generators supply the ship's electricity. The two propellers are run via two RG-54 gearboxes. This configuration allows the ship to reach speeds in excess of 30 kn (56 km/h; 35 mph). Aviation facilities include a large flight deck, which was re-designed to handle larger helicopters than the Delhi-class, and an enclosed hangar for up to two maritime helicopters.

The primary radar sensor of the class is the EL/M-2248 MF-STAR multi-mission AESA. It is also equipped with Thales LW-08 long range volume search radar and EL/M-2238 S-band STAR surveillance radar from Israel Aerospace Industries. A Nagin active towed array sonar and a bow-mounted sonar HUMSA-NG (hull-mounted sonar array - new generation) are carried for sub-surface surveillance. To protect against anti-ship missiles coming from multiple directions, the ship carries the Elbit Systems Deseaver MK-II decoy control and launching system.

The ship's main air-defence armament is composed of two 4x8-cell vertical launching systems (VLS) allowing for up to 32 Barak 8 (medium-long range) air-defence missiles. In addition, four AK-630 CIWS are fitted for close-in defence.

The supersonic BrahMos anti-ship and land-attack missiles are the primary offensive armament of the Kolkata-class. The BrahMos missiles are fitted into a 16-cell Universal Vertical Launcher Module (UVLM) allowing one missile per launch silo, and all 16 missiles can be fired in salvo. Perhaps the most distinctive and noticeable armament of the Kolkata class is its 76 mm (3.0 in) naval gun located forward of the bridge. The 76 mm gun provides limited anti-shipping capability and anti-air capability in addition to its naval gun fire-support role for land based operations. For anti-submarine warfare, the Kolkata-class are equipped with a torpedo launching system via four torpedo tubes and two RBU-6000 anti-submarine rocket launchers. BEL's Electronic Modular Command & Control Applications (EMCCA) Mk4 provides combat management.

 May she rule the seven seas bearing the Indian flag with pride. Jai hind. 

Russia, India may develop new generation IFV ( Source- Russia & India Report / Itar Tass)

BMP3 of The Russian Army ( Image source- Wikimedia Commons / Author- Vovan)

Source- Russia & India Report / Itar Tass

Russia and India are considering co-development of a new generation infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) at an Indian enterprise, Albert Bakov, first vice president and co-owner of the Tractor Plants Concern, told TASS on Wednesday.

"There are plans of joint production of a new combat vehicle implying development and manufacture at their plant of a Russo-Indian infantry fighting vehicle. This is quite realistic, but no final decision on this has been made so far," Bakov said.

"Our countries already have experience of joint work, for instance, the fifth generation fighter project," Bakov added.

He said that there are a few more options of cooperating with India. "The Indians would like to launch the production of some vehicles in their country. At issue is the modernization of equipment in service with their armed forces as well as acquisition of equipment we’ve modernized," Bakov said.

Russian Defense Ministry may additionally fund development of BMP-3 Dragoon IFV

According to the company official, the Russian Defense Ministry may allocate extra funding for developing the new version of the BMP-3 Dragoon infantry fighting vehicle.

"The Defense Ministry is interested in those vehicles," Bakov added. "Once we’re through with the trials, we’ll hold talks with them."

He stressed that the Dragoon has no imported components. The newly developed version also differs from the baseline BMP-3 in that its powerplant is located in front and the landing compartment is fitted with a ramp. The Dragoon must receive a combat module armed with 2A70 100mm caliber gun, 2A72 automatic 30mm gun and PKT 7.62mm caliber machinegun.

Bakov said the model demonstrated early in September at the Russia Arms Expo-2015 Defense Exhibition in Nizhny Tagil is not the Dragoon’s final version. What is now mounted on the turret, will be put away, as much as possible, in the body since all "the protruding parts" will become an easy target for enemy’s munitions," he said.

"I think the process will take at least a year," Bakov added.

He also said that NATO specialists "very carefully examined" the BMP-3’s new versions, Dragoon and Derivation, armed with the 57mm gun in Nizhny Tagil. "They did so, however, not because they wanted to buy them, as you well understand," Bakov added.

Russia to develop electric transmission for IFV in 2016

Albert Bakov also told TASS that electric transmission for infantry fighting vehicles will be developed next year.

"We wanted to show it at the exhibition [Russia Arms Expo - 2015] but had no time," the official said. "Everything is being done from scratch, through trial and error, which is why there are so many problems. But these problems can be solved. I think, we’ll build this engine next year," Bakov added.

He previously reported about Tractor Plants’ plan to present the electric transmission prototype in 2015. Bakov explained that the fighting vehicles fitted with it will be less visible to thermal imagers. The electric transmission is going to be optimized in the BMP-3 body with a serious modernization of the vehicle.

First published by TASS.

Original link to the article- http://in.rbth.com/economics/defence/2015/09/30/rusia-india-may-develop-new-generation-ifv_444099

The US-China-India Triangle: A New Tripolar World Order? – Analysis ( Source- Eurasia review / Author- SAAG / Prof B.R Deepak)

Source- Eurasia review

Author- SAAG / Prof B.R Deepak

The September congregation of the two Asian giants in the US has given off a few definite indications about the emerging world order in the new eco system that is witnessing re-globalization after a brief lull or the de-globalization in the wake of 2008-09 financial crises. It appears that Samuel Huntington’s 1999 prophesy of the Uni-multipolarity where the US would be in the core and various other countries extending diplomatic, economic and military support for its initiatives; and India-China’s aspirations about a multi-polar world is fast eroding and paving way for tripolarity centred on the US-China and India.

The US, according to all indications will continue to be a top powerhouse of the military, economic and technological prowess, and China and India closing in the gaps; for example within a decade the respective GDP of the US, China and India at present growth rate will reach to $25 trillion, $19 trillion and $5 trillion respectively. However, if India does well in its infrastructure, education and health sectors, innovation and technology driven India is likely to push the figures for India further more.

Over $40 billion business deals signed between China and the US that include purchase of 300 Boeings; $3 billion deals between India and the US, the meetings of President Xi Jinping and PM Narendera Modi with the top US technology honchos; both promising to deepen the reforms and creating an investment friendly environment, and in turn the US high-tech companies committing to invest in two of the world’s largest markets, is a pointer to this unfolding tripolar symmetry.

This all is taking shape in a new geopolitical and economic eco system, where three unique forces of the US driven re-globalisation, and Chinese and Indian globalization processes are coming into terms with each other. China has been the largest country in the world that has benefitted and uplifted over 600 million people from poverty in the shortest period of time in the history of mankind, implying that it adjusted extremely well to the forces of globalization prior to 2008-09 financial crisis. India on the other hand appears to have muddled through during the deep globalization uplifting over 100 million people from poverty, could have done better but somehow did not make proper adjustments vis-à-vis domestic socio-politico-economic drivers and the globalisation.

The re-globalisation of the US in terms of its New Silk Route strategy, ‘pivot to Asia’ and ‘Trans Pacific Partnership’ (TPP); Chinese globalisation namely ‘One Belt One Road’ Asia-Pacific Free Trade Area (FTAAP) besides various other FTAs, establishment of the AIIB and BRICS New Development Bank; and the Indian globalisation steered by Modi ‘s high profile ‘Make in India’, ‘Start ups in India’, India’s ‘Act East policy’ ‘Bharat Mala and Sagarmala’ projects etc. are trying to adapt amidst various geopolitical pulls and pushes, which at times has heightened the tension in the region. Will these processes accommodate each other or unleash forces of conflict and confrontation?

I believe all three are the defining relationships of this century. As far as bilateral relations between the trios are concerned, all have reached some sort of consensus as to how to handle and take their relationships forward. The consensus between the US and China avoids war, conflict and confrontation; it is the consensus for peace, growth, prosperity, and win-win cooperation. In the same vein, India and China have reached a consensus for economic cooperation and not let the border issue become a hindrance in developing a comprehensive strategic partnership. If the US-China relationship is a hard reality, India developing an increasingly strategic and economic relationship with the US is an aspiration, and there is a consensus for such an aspiration on both the sides.

However, India must be aware that at present there is a huge asymmetry in terms of its economy and military power in this tripolarity. The US and China has a trade volume of over $555 billion, whereas India’s combines trade volume with the US and China is not more than $170 billion. The kind of deep engagement the US and China is having is clear from the hundreds of dialogue mechanisms that exists between the two at various levels cutting across economic and security fields. There are about half a million Chinese students studying in the US, and around 4.3 million Chinese and Americans flying across the Pacific every year. Will India achieve this kind of scale and magnitude in a decade? There are opportunities provided India responds well to the domestic as well as global drivers.

Therefore, if India wishes to be viewed as a pole in this trinity, its role would be determined by domestic economic and political drivers. If PM Modi wishes to become the rock star of the domestic audience as well, he must unflinchingly and rightly diagnose the health of Indian economy. If he wants globalization initiated by India succeed, he needs to put various things in order, e.g. the taxation, bureaucracy, infrastructure, governance and handling of the projects, labour force reforms, capacity and skill development etc.

Various strategic circles have been advocating an ‘arc of containment’ as regards our strategic rivals; I believe it would be too immature to act upon such ideas, for India neither has that raw power nor the economy to support and charter such a course. Moreover, neither the US, nor China considers India a serious geopolitical player at present, in order to have that status it is time for India to implement Deng’s ‘hide your capabilities and bide your time’ dictum, and uplift over 300 million of its people from poverty by becoming the largest beneficiary of the present re-globalisation process.

About the author- B R Deepak is Professor of Chinese and China Studies at the Centre of Chinese and Southeast Asian Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi.

Original link to the article- http://www.eurasiareview.com/30092015-the-us-china-india-triangle-a-new-tripolar-world-order-analysis/

Chinese President’s Visit To United States September 2015 Reviewed – Analysis ( Source- Eurasia Review / Author- SAAG / Dr Subhash Kapila)

Image credits- VOA

Source- Eurasia Review

Author- SAAG / Dr Subhash Kapila

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to the United States last week cannot be said to be all that fruitful, taking place contextually against the backdrop of the large number of divisive issues that divide China and the United States and the ongoing election debate in USA in which India seems to be emerging as the American favourite in United States formulations.

One could straightaway observe initially, that the Chinese President’s visit to USA has taken place at an inauspicious time when chinks have appeared in China’s greatest strength, that is, its powerful economy. The global community was left gaping to witness that the Chinese impregnable economic bubble had eventually burst. China may not be economically down and out but the Chinese economy has lost its momentum and renowned economists opine that the Chinese economy was in for a period of sluggish growth.

The above weakens China’s leverages and bargaining power with the United States when the Chinese President sat down for talks with the US President. In his first stop at Seattle to meet top US business leaders went out of the way to assure US business leaders that China would not indulge in currency manipulation to increase Chinese exports; China would not allow industrial espionage against US companies and open Chinese markets more for US businesses. All of this, indicative of the fact that China feared a blow-back from US businesses in trade with China.

The Chinese President’s visit has come at a time when it is observed in US media that China’s relations with USA are most adversarial. It also came at a time when the Pope’s visit to USA overshadowed the Chinese President’s visit to USA.

Topping the list of the major irritant in US ties with China is the issue of China’s unrestrained cyberespionage against the US Governmental organs and the US leading businesses.

President Obama was constrained to express on this subject to the Chinese President that: “Traditional intelligence gathering…. is fundamentally different from your government and its proxies engaging directly in industrial espionage and stealing trade secrets, stealing proprietary information from companies. That we consider an act of aggression that must stop.”

Strong words by President Obama but they precisely reflect the strong feelings within the US Administration on China’s unrestrained cyberespionage against the United States leave aside the extensive hacking of US official organs all the time.

The next major irritant is China’s lack of restraint in its aggressive initiatives and manoeuvres in the South China Sea in which the United States has repeatedly cautioned China for restraint. The United States had also cautioned China that it must stop the construction of artificial islands for use as naval and air force bases and missiles emplacements. China has constantly defied the United States on this score and the United States is conscious that this is denting its image in Asian capitals to restrain China.

In the ongoing election year political debates in the United States, China is drawing adverse criticism on the issues recounted above. China’s adversarial stances on these issues are providing cannon fodder to the presidential contenders. Since perceptions count heavily today in international relations, the negative perceptions of China will weigh heavily on the American public who are likely to favour the candidate propagating the strongest American stands against China.

The Chinese President in his interactions with business leaders in Seattle declared that “If China and the United States cooperate well, they can become bedrock of global stability. Should they enter into conflict or confrontation, it would lead to disaster for both countries and the world at large.”

The above reveal two Chinese concerns with the first one being that China has strong concerns that all is not well in China-USA relations. The second concern is that confrontation looms over the horizon.

Concluding, one has to observe that during the Chinese President’s visit to United States, no deliverables from either side surfaced despite the visit of the US National Security Adviser to Beijing in August to search for some. On the rebound, it is India that is reaping favourable special references from presidential contenders.

 About the author- Dr Subhash Kapila is a graduate of the Royal British Army Staff College, Camberley and combines a rich experience of Indian Army, Cabinet Secretariat, and diplomatic assignments in Bhutan, Japan, South Korea and USA. Currently, Consultant International Relations & Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. He can be reached at drsubhashkapila.007@gmail.com

Original link to the article- http://www.eurasiareview.com/30092015-chinese-presidents-visit-to-united-states-september-2015-reviewed-analysis/

Revealed: China Can't Build Lethal Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers ( Source- The National Interest / Author- Dave Majumdar)

PLAN Air Craft Carrier Liaoning CV-16 ( Image source- Wikimedia Commons / Author- Voice of America)

Source- The National Interest

Author- Dave Majumdar

China may have started construction on its second aircraft carrier according to new satellite imagery. The images—which were obtained by the British defense trade journal IHS Jane’s from Airbus Defence and Space—shows that a new ship is under construction in the same dry dock that was used to refurbish the former Soviet carrier Varyag during its conversion into China’s Liaoning. This would be China’s first indigenous flattop—if it were indeed a carrier.

The Jane’s analysis indicates that the ship might be between 558ft and 885ft long with a beam greater than 98ft. That’s a little small for a conventional aircraft carrier—and the Jane’s analysts note that they can’t conclusively say the new ship is a carrier. But that length—assuming the Jane’s analysts are correct—would be about the same as India’s Vikramaditya. The beam, however, is somewhat narrow—most carriers are much wider—which means this could be an amphibious assault ship or something else entirely.

It should be no surprise that Beijing might be building new carriers. Indeed, the Pentagon’s 2015 annual report to Congress on Chinese military power states: “China also continues to pursue an indigenous aircraft carrier program and could build multiple aircraft carriers over the next 15 years.” Indeed, Taiwanese and Hong Kong media have reported that China could launch its first indigenous carrier —the Type 001A—on Dec. 26 to mark the 122th anniversary of Mao Zedong’s birthday. Chinese papers have also previously reported that an indigenous carrier is being built in Dalian.

While China might be building a new flattop, the vessel is likely to be much smaller than the U.S. Navy’s 100,000-ton Nimitz or Ford-class nuclear-powered carriers. The Chinese vessels will probably be smaller, conventionally-powered either by steam or diesel propulsion and probably will not have electromagnetic catapults.

The reason is simple—China does not have the experience in designing and building large military vessels the size of a carrier or amphibious assault ship. It lacks the requisite expertise in designing and building the propulsion systems for such a vessel. Further, China is lagging behind on metallurgy for the vessel’s hull. As for catapults—it took the U.S. Navy years to perfect steam catapults and the jury is still out on Ford’s Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS). Stealing technology can get Chinese engineers only so far—practical experience makes a difference.

China simply does not currently have the technology to build nuclear-powered carriers. Right now, the Chinese are struggling to build modern nuclear reactors for their submarine fleet. Indeed, Chinese nuclear submarines are comparable to 1970s vintage Soviet designs. China is nowhere near ready to scale up those designs to be suitable for a carrier.

Truth be told, Beijing seems to be aware of its shortcomings. Beijing-based Chinese naval expert Li Jie acknowledged the problem to the South China Morning Post late last year. “Compared with submarines, a carrier is much bigger,” Li told the Chinese daily. “It will take time for our nuclear engineers to develop a safe and powerful engine capable of driving a huge platform of more than 100,000 tonnes.”

It is conceivable that China might attempt to follow in the footsteps of the recently retired USS Enterprise (CVN-65), which used eight submarine reactors. The United States didn’t have the technology to build reactors suitable for an aircraft carrier when Enterprise was built. Instead the Navy opted for eight smaller reactors, but at the cost of a lot of space. The later Nimitz-class has two large reactors instead.

Meanwhile, China is still well behind the United States and Russia in terms of metallurgy and propulsion technologies. Chinese shipyards have had past issues with poor metallurgy for their earlier naval vessels—but China will probably solve the problem eventually. The Indians, who traditionally imported high-strength steel from Russia, have developed their own indigenous alloys. The Chinese will, no doubt, accomplish that same goal in time.

In terms of propulsion, the Chinese are still well behind the curve but it is one area where they can probably leverage experience with commercial maritime propulsion technologies. But they probably do not have the wherewithal to build propulsion systems that can support a carrier the size of a Nimitz—a smaller ship is thus a more likely prospect. “But as Marine gas turbines, like diesel design, have not been a bright spot in Chinese industry,” as Gabe Collins and Lt Cmdr. Michael Grubb note in a Naval War College study. “Their development has been severely hindered by the slow place of indigenous jet engine development, which is symptomatic of larger issues within the Chinese aerospace industry as a whole.”

As for catapults—the U.S. Navy has had a hard enough time with the EMALS—it is highly dubious that China could master the technology this quickly even if it stole the entirety of Naval Air Systems Command’s data on the program. Stealing technology is easier than truly understanding it from the ground up. It is probably why China has trouble building hardware such as jet engines and gas turbines. Nonetheless, some Chinese officials assert their carrier will have an electromagnetic catapult. Steam catapults are a more likely prospect, but can still be tricky. The smart money is on a pure ski-jump design.

Collins and Grubb accurately sum up the Chinese carrier question in this statement: “The production of [ultralarge crude oil carriers] demonstrates the ability of Chinese shipyards to build hulls of aircraft-carrier size and strength, but their ability to integrate the complex matrix of aircraft, catapults, arresting gear, weapons systems, and large propulsion plants required for an operational aircraft carrier remains in doubt.”

About the author- Dave Majumdar is the defense editor for The National Interest. You can follow him on Twitter: @davemajumdar.

Original link to the article- http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/revealed-china-cant-build-lethal-nuclear-powered-aircraft-13962

India and the US Sign $3 Billion Deal for New Attack Helicopters ( Source- The Diplomat / Author- Franz Stefan-Gady)

Boeing AH-64D Apache Longbow ( Source- Wikimedia Commons / Author- United States Army)

Source- The Diplomat

Author- Franz Stefan-Gady

This week, Indian and U.S. official signed contracts for the procurement of 22 AH-64E Apache attack helicopters and 15 CH-47F Chinook heavy-lift helicopters in a deal estimated to be worth $3 billion the Business Standard reports.

The spokesperson of the Indian Defense Ministry, Sitanshu Kar, tweeted from his account this Monday: “Contracts for purchase of 15 #Chinook and 22 #Apache Helicopters signed.”

India’s Cabinet Committee of Security (CCS), a government body headed by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and responsible for military procurements, approved the purchase in the previous week, after more than ten (some sources say 13) American price validity extensions, which stipulate that the American defense contractor Boeing would sell the military hardware at the price agreed upon in 2013.

Final approval of the purchase had been stalled since that time due to differences over U.S. offset obligations – under India’s Defense Procurement Procedure (DPP) any foreign company has to invest part of the total purchasing price back into the country. The current contract will have a 30 percent offset clause, according to local media reports.

This could indicate that parts of the helicopters will be built in India, although the contract stipulates that the aircraft will be delivered in fly-away condition. The Bangalore-based Dynamatics Technologies Limited company is already building portions of the Chinook in India including the helicopter’s cargo ramp under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “Make in India” initiative.

According to the Business Standard, two of the contracts signed this Monday were for the “direct commercial sale” of the entire fleet of CH-47F Chinook helicopters and the 22 AH-64E Apache helicopters without the engines, as well as logistical support including spare parts and maintenance equipment.

The procurement of the weapon systems of the Apache attack helicopter – including 812 AGM-114L-3 Hellfire Longbow missiles, 542 AGM-114R-3 Hellfire-II missiles, 245 Stinger Block I-92H missiles – as well as the aircraft’s radar equipment (e.g., the AN/APG-78 fire-control radar) was signed under a separate “foreign military sale” agreement. “The FMS [foreign military sale] portion of the sale includes munitions, training, aircraft certification, and components like engines, electro-optical sensors and the radar,” the Business Standard additionally notes.

The contract also includes a clause for a follow-on order of 11 extra Apaches and seven Chinooks. Delivery of the aircraft is slated to be completed over the next three years.

After holding extensive field trials, the Indian Air Force opted for the Apache gunship and the Chinook helicopter– first flown during the Vietnam War – already six years ago. (Both U.S. aircraft outperformed their Russian rivals, the Mi-28 Havoc and Mi-26.) India’s Air Force had been badly looking to replace its aging fleet of 15 Russian-made Mi-35 attack helicopters with a new attack helicopter. The Chinooks are set to replace the Indian military’s four Mi-26 heavy-lift helicopters, only two of two of which are still operational.

About the author- Franz-Stefan Gady is an Associate Editor with The Diplomat. His interests include civil-military relations, revolution in military affairs, and cyber diplomacy. He also is a Senior Fellow with the EastWest Institute. Franz-Stefan has reported from a wide range of countries and conflict zones including Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. His writing and photos have appeared in the International New York Times, Foreign Policy Magazine, The National Interest, Vice News, the Middle East Eye, The Christian Science Monitor, Profil, Der Standard, and Die Presse among other publications.

Original link to the article- http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/india-and-the-us-sign-3-billion-deal-for-new-attack-helicopters/

The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor Challenges ( Source- The Diplomat / Author- Kiyya Baloch)

Gwadar Port ( Image source- Wikimedia Commons / Author- Paranda)

Source- The Diplomat

Author- Kiyya Baloch

The indigenous people of the coastal town of Gwadar – gateway to the much-discussed China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) – very much have their own opinions when it comes to reaping the benefits from this $46 billion project. As such, concern is rising over speculation that the project will benefit only Chinese interests, with little to offer locals.

“It is a conspiracy to convert the local population into a minority, rather than empowering them,” said Syed Essa Noori, a Baloch Nationalist Party legislator in Pakistan’s National Assembly. Noori cited Karachi as an obvious example the local populace being marginalized in the name of economic development.

“At the time of the creation of the country, Karachi was Baloch-majority. Within a decade, it had turned into a city of migrants, from parts of India as well as from other parts of Pakistan.” The Baloch nationalist fears the same will happen with Gwadar unless safeguards are put in place to guarantee the rights of indigenous Balochs before the massive development kicks off under CPEC.

Asked about the future of Gwadar, Lt. Gen. Abdul Qadir Baloch, Minister for States and Frontier Regions, told The Diplomat, “It is uncalled for that Balochs will be converted into a minority when Chinese investment floods the coastal town.” A retired general, Qadir Baloch was elected from Balochistan’s remote Kharan district, representing the center-right Pakistan Muslim League (N). The party, headed by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, is claiming credit for opening the floodgates of Chinese investment in Pakistan since coming into power in May 2013, and insists that Gwadar would be a major beneficiary from CPEC, with radical improvements in the economic and social lives of local residents.

Baloch Militancy

That assumes, of course, that CPEC will be able to overcome the challenges it faces, most notably a lack of political will and a surge in Baloch militancy. In late August, heavily armed militants stormed an airport and destroyed its radar system, killing two engineers in the coastal town of Jiwani in Gwadar district. The airport is located strategically near the Pakistan-Iran coastal border.

Gwadar Deputy Commissioner Abdul Hameed Abro told The Diplomat that a group of around 12 militants, riding motorbikes, launched the pre-dawn attack on Jiwani airport, killing two electronics engineers while kidnapping a third. The Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) has taken responsibility for the attack, adding to its reputation as one of the deadliest militant groups, with regular attacks on Pakistani security forces and installations in the province.

In another assault, this time on the outskirts of Gwadar port, at least four were killed when containers carrying cement were incinerated. The Baloch Republican Army (BRA) claimed responsibility for kidnapping the container crew, and later killing them. Baloch insurgents said the privately owned container was targeted because it was engaged in building a road that is opposed by the militants.

Police Superintendent Imran Qureshi says the militants whisked the container along with its crew, before killing the crew and torching the tanker. The militants sped away on their motorcycles after the incident.

Baloch militants have been attacking key government installations, security forces, multinational companies, gas pipelines, construction companies, and containers for years now. Recently, however, laborers have become their primary target.

A particularly deadly attack took place in April this year, when Baloch militants attacked a labor camp near a dam construction site in Pakistan’s southwestern Balochistan province, killing at least 20 workers and wounding three.

A large number of construction companies are operating between Gwadar and the provincial capital Quetta, working to connect the port city with other parts of Pakistan. The companies have never been secure in Balochistan, partly because of the activities of Baloch militants and partly because of a nationalist insurgency by nationalist and separatist Baloch groups who want complete autonomy from Islamabad.

Who is behind Balochistan’s deadly unrest?

Frontier Corps (FC) Balochistan chief, Major General Sher Afgan and the powerful Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency both blame Indian and Afghan intelligence agencies. At a recent conference in Quetta, Afgan said that India and Afghanistan were behind subversive activities to disrupt peace in the province. He also claimed to have foiled their plots on several occasions. A Foreign Ministry spokesperson said that Pakistan would raise the issue of Indian involvement in terrorism activities in Pakistan at the international level.

Baloch rebel leaders and New Delhi deny the allegations of the Pakistani government. Rebel leader Dr. Allah Nazar, operating in Balochistan, rejects any claim of foreign support for his movement, although he says he will welcome foreign help from any country, whether India or America. Balochistan’s Chief Minister Dr. Abdul Malik Baloch has a somewhat more nuanced stance. He doesn’t completely rule out foreign involvement in his province, but emphasizes that former military ruler Pervez Musharraf is responsible for the current unrest. The minister said that Musharraf’s policies worsened the situation. Malik says the issues cannot now be resolved through investment alone, but will only be resolved when locals are empowered and unemployment as well as poverty ratios are decreased.

Poverty

Indeed, poverty is a root cause of the conflict. Apart from security challenges, Balochistan has been hit by both abject poverty and unemployment. The ratio of poor here is much higher than it is in other parts of Pakistan, despite the fact that Balochistan is endowed with rich reserves of gas, oil, coal, gold and copper.

A 2013 report compiled by the Islamabad non-governmental organization Social Policy and Development Center had Balochistan at the top of the nation’s poverty list, with 45.68 percent of its population living below the poverty line. Another report, “Clustered Deprivation,” published in 2014 by the Sustainable Development Policy Institute had 52 percent of the region’s nine million people living in poverty.

The coastal towns of Gwadar district are among the most deprived places in Pakistan, struggling with high unemployment, poor health, weak infrastructure, a poor education system with just a single college, and rampant crime. The crisis starts from Jiwani and continues through Gwadar city to the towns of Pasini and Ormera.

The $46 billion that China has announced it will invest in the economic corridor will be allocated to projects encompassing mining, infrastructure, textiles, energy, and industry. In the meantime, the people of Gwadar must make do with a single 12-bed hospital and a college with 13 classrooms.

About the author- Kiyya Baloch is a freelance journalist who reports for the leading Pakistani English newspaper Daily Times in Balochistan and other outlets on foreign affairs and the insurgency, militancy and sectarian violence in Balochistan.

Original link to the article- http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/the-china-pakistan-economic-corridor-challenges/

Revealed: Why China Is Selling Submarines to Pakistan ( Source- The Diplomat / Author- Benjamin David Baker)

PLAN Submarine ( Image source- Wikimedia Commons / Author- Darkranch23)

Source- The Diplomat

Author- Benjamin David Baker

As previously covered by The Diplomat, Pakistan announced earlier this year that it has agreed to purchase eight modified Type 41 Yuan-class diesel-electric submarines from China. These boats will provide Islamabad with much-needed Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) capabilities against the Indian Navy in case of war. This would be especially useful in case of an Indian blockade of Pakistan’s coast and could give New Delhi grounds to pause before deploying its planned new aircraft carrier, the INS Vikrant.

A Yuan-class submarine is undoubtedly a great piece of kit. It is China’s first class of submarines to incorporate an indigenously designed- and constructed Air-Independent Propulsion system (AIP), giving it a cruise speed of 18 knots and an operational range of 8,000 nautical miles. Although the export version of the Yuan, named the S-20, does not automatically come fitted with the AIP, Pakistan has apparently been able to secure it for its subs. Furthermore, the Yuan is integrated “with advanced noise reduction techniques including anechoic tiles, passive/active noise reduction and an asymmetrical seven-blade skewed propeller.”

Combined with the AIP, this makes the Yuan-class the quietest non-nuclear sub in the PLAN. Furthermore, the Yuan has an impressive set of teeth. Aside from six tubes firing standard 553mm torpedoes, it is equipped with the YJ-8/8A Anti-Ship Cruise Missile (ASCM). While this weapon only has a maximum range of between 30-42 km, there are plans to equip the Yuans with the YJ-18 ASCM. These missiles have a reported range of 220 km and, represent a real A2/AD “force multiplier” for the Yuan. Whether Pakistan will attempt to acquire these missiles, or opt to go for another option (such as their indigenously produced Hatf VII Babur) is unknown.

The sale raises one crucial question: why is China selling Pakistan these subs?  There is undoubtedly a commercial aspect to this transaction (it is unknown how much Pakistan will pay for these boats, although it is certainly in the multi-billion dollar range). However, one potential reason which is worrying analysts in New Delhi is that this represents a step in China’s possible ambitions to have a toehold in the Indian Ocean. Without opening the can of worms that is the “String of Pearls” debate, it’s worth looking at this possibility.

Here are the facts: Firstly, the Indian Ocean is important for China for a range of reasons. The amount of Chinese sea-borne trade which passes through the Indian Ocean sea-lane is staggering. These sea-lines of communication (SLOCs) represent a lifeline for the Chinese economy, not least in terms of imports of natural resources, especially hybrocarbons, and exports, in terms of manufactured goods. Any naval strategist worth his salt has read Alfred Thayer Mahan, and will immediately recognize the importance of securing a trading state’s SLOCs. China is no exception.

Secondly, China has recently deployed submarines to the Indian Ocean. (This, incidentally, included the visit of a Yuan-class boat to Karachi.) According to Beijing, these are primarily there to participate in the ongoing anti-piracy campaign in the Gulf of Aden. While this is at least partially true, it is also likely that they are conducting exercises, surveys, and perhaps even combat patrols which can be useful for future operations in the Indian Ocean. Thirdly, Beijing does care about its image and is “realistic” about its power-projection capabilities. According to a recent US Naval War College report, it’s unlikely that China will construct overseas bases in the same way that the United States or France have in the near future in fear of alarming other stakeholders and overstretching naval resources needed closer to home. Finally, China is a long way from the Indian Ocean, and Pakistan is its closest partner in the neighborhood.

Even if its subs can stay at sea for months without refueling at a time, its crews can’t. Having a well-fitted anchorage close to a submarine’s intended area of operations makes it much easier to rotate crews, take on fresh supplies, and carry out maintenance. The PLAN has already called on ports in Oman, Djibouti, and Aden during its anti-piracy campaigns in the Gulf of Aden. However, this has so far only included surface vessels. Submarines often require more specialized facilities to function effectively. Locating a resupply place (not base) in the friendliest state in the area makes sense.

A Pakistani naval facility which already berths compatible subs sounds like a good fit for such a “place.” It would remove the need to permanently station a large number of personnel and equipment abroad, while providing adequate maintenance facilities for the sort of routine repairs that submarines unavoidably need in order to function smoothly over long periods of time. This wouldn’t represent the first time this kind of arrangement has occurred. For example, the British Oberon-class was used by several other allied states during the Cold War, including Australia and Canada. The fact that these navies operated the same class of vessels facilitated maintenance during exercises and visits.

About the author- Benjamin David Baker is an editorial assistant at The Diplomat. He is currently serving as a reserve officer in the Norwegian Armed Forces and has previously worked and published at the International Law and Policy Institute and the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment. He received his Master of Arts from the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the School of Oriental and African Studies, where he focused mainly on Chinese Foreign and Security Studies. He writes mainly on military affairs, China, the Indian Ocean, and the Arctic.

Original link to the article- http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/revealed-why-china-is-selling-submarines-to-pakistan/

The Russian Air Force's Fatal Flaw ( Source- The National Interest / Author- David Axe)

Sukhoi SU-30 ( Image source- Wikimedia Commons / Author- Sergey Krivchkov)

Source- The National Interest

Author- David Axe

After two decades of neglect, the Russian air force is enjoying a petrodollar-funded renaissance.

In 2010, the air force and naval aviation bought just 19 new fixed-wing airplanes. The number of new planes swelled to 24 in 2011, 35 in 2012, 51 a year later and a whopping 101 in 2014. This year the Kremlin expects to acquire 91 new fixed-wing aircraft.

But for all this modernization, there’s one big thing the Russian air force still can’t do.

Nearly 30 years after the United States and its closest allies ushered in an era of precision guided munitions, wherein almost every combat plane packs laser-, radar-, infrared- or GPS-guided bombs and missiles, Russia still lags behind in the development, acquisition and employment of such “smart” air-to-ground munitions — especially long-range ones.

“Certain categories are absent completely, such as precision-guided, air-launched stand-off missiles (in the class of the MBDA Storm Shadow and the Raytheon AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon) and satellite-guided bombs, despite the fact that such bombs have been tested successfully by the Russian military,” Alexander Mladenov writes in the current issue of Combat Aircraft.

Along the same lines, Moscow has failed to acquire targeting pods for its warplanes. Many other air forces use these sensor pods to find targets for smart weapons. But not Russia.

Consequently for the Kremlin, “all newly-introduced Russian air force bombers and tactical fighters rely on air-to-surface targeting technologies that are 30 years old,” Mladenov explains.

This piece first appeared in WarIsBoring here

Original link to the article- http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-russian-air-forces-fatal-flaw-13951

The 61-Year-Old 'AK-47' of Tanks: Russia's T-54 and T-55's Keep Fighting ( Source- The National Interest / Author- S.K Au- Yeong)

T-55 Tank ( Image source- Wikimedia Commons / Author- Maher27777) 

Source- The National Interest

Author- S.K Au- Yeong

Like the AK-47 but for tanks, T-54 and T-55s endure on battlefields around the world. Simple to operate and maintain, these decades-old Soviet armored beasts are still popular in small nations and with non-state irregular forces — a true “people’s tank.”

If a coup or fratricidal civil war breaks out in one of Moscow’s current or former beneficiaries, there’s good chances T-54 or T-55s are taking part.

When Afghanistan collapsed in the 1990s, the Taliban and Northern Alliance coalition both inherited T-55s formerly belonging to the communist government. The tanks served in Yugoslavia’s multi-sided civil war during the same decade.

Today, captured Iraqi and Syrian T-55s serve under the black flag of Islamic State and other rebel groups fighting in the region. For these insurgent armies, the 60-year old tanks are just as useful as far more modern designs such as the M1 Abrams.

Because most of the time, tanks don’t need to be complicated. Cheap, uncomplicated and deadly enough is sufficient for most 21st century wars.

History:

At the end of World War II, the Soviet Union’s tank arsenal consisted largely of T-34/85 medium tanks, along with smaller numbers of IS-2 and IS-3 heavy tanks. While the T-34 series had performed outstandingly in the war against Nazi Germany, the Soviets considered its leaf spring suspension and 85-millimeter gun to be outdated.

The later IS-series tanks — standing for Iosif (Joseph) Stalin — had proven themselves more than a match for Germany’s best Panzers. Unfortunately, the crews had to load huge 122-millimeter shells and propellant charges separately into the cannon, giving the vehicle a low rate of fire and ammunition reserve.

The Soviets built the more obscure T-44 — which did not see combat action — in an attempt to reduce the T-34/85’s profile with a squat turret and a sunken hull structure. However, the small size made it impractical for engineers to fit a 100- or 122-millimeter weapon.

The desire for a fresh design led Kremlin weaponeers to create the T-54 and improved T-55 medium tank. Today, these steel monsters remain the most common tanks in the world.

For nearly a decade prior to the more recognizable T-54A’s appearance in 1954, the Soviets had already built predecessor models known as the T-54–1, -2 and -3 in modest numbers. These versions usually had a counterweight on the main gun muzzle rather than the distinctive bore evacuator — a device that keeps noxious fumes from blowing back into the turret.

It’s hard to tell the difference between the different models, but looking for these features is the easiest way. The pre-production turrets had cutaways on their front and rear undersides, but the Soviets gradually eliminated these design quirks, as they could inadvertently deflect incoming rounds into the hull.

In addition to the evacuator on the barrel, the T-54A was the first of the series to have a vertical stabilizer for the main gun. The T-54B went a step further with both horizontal and vertical gun stabilization.

The T-54’s diminutive turret kept the overall height to a mere 2.39 meters, making the tank shorter and harder to hit than the contemporary American M-48 Patton. The curve of the turret also helped to deflect incoming rounds.

Cold War Combat:

T-54s first saw action in 1956 in Hungarian capital of Budapest, when the Soviets used them to crush rebels who had overthrown the local pro-Soviet regime. But the debut took a humiliating turn when Hungarian rebels drove a captured T-54 into the British embassy, giving Western experts an up-close look at its strengths and weaknesses.

In 1972, North Vietnam launched a major invasion of its southern neighbor — eventually leading to South Vietnam’s capitulation. In a tank-on-tank confrontation at the besieged firebase at Dak To II in Kontum, two South Vietnamese M-41 light tanks fired three 76-millimeter rounds each into a single T-54.

The T-54 took some damage, but easily destroyed the lighter U.S.-made vehicles. After the shooting stopped, the NVA crew calmly exited their T-54 and walked away.

Still, it exposed one vulnerability. The hostile turret conditions reduced the T-54’s practical rate of fire to just four rounds a minute. A competent Western tank crew could shoot off the same number of shells in the first 15 seconds of an engagement.

Even before these outings, Soviet designers had already started working on an improved variant — the T-55.

Obviously, from the outside it’s hard to tell it apart from T-54A and B. Externally, the only reliable clue is the absence of a mushroom shaped ventilation fan on the T-55’s roof.

Most of the new tank’s improvements were internal. The T-55’s PAZ overpressure system helped seal tankers inside and could keep out radioactive dust from a nuclear strike. The Soviets stuffed in another nine rounds for the main gun, too.

Engineers replaced the World War II-era SGM machine gun next to the main cannon with the new PKT. In 1961, the further upgraded T-55A received anti-radiation lining, an air filtration system to scrub out chemical and biological agents and it dispensed with the hull-mounted machine gun.

Another reason why it’s so difficult to tell these tanks apart is because older versions were often rebuilt to the same standards as later ones. For instance, the T-55 originally did not feature an external DShKM heavy machine gun on the loader’s hatch, like the T-54. Soviet commanders found the weapon to be useless against jet fighters.

But these massive automatic weapons returned when the tanks underwent depot refurbishment. Unlike fast-moving jets, new attack helicopters were more likely to engage the tanks at closer ranges and at lower speeds.

Still Fighting:

While the T-54/55 has become ubiquitous, the tank has typically been on the losing side when fighting comparable or more advanced Western designs. The T-54/55 suffers from abysmal crew conditions, shoots miserably slow, rides bouncily and has a tendency to throw its tracks.

But lackluster training, tactics and leadership — and the superior standards of their Western-backed enemies in the same skills — were more responsible than design faults for the vehicle’s wartime defeats.

North Vietnamese tank crews were often poorly trained, leading to weak cooperation with infantry — and resulting in unnecessary casualties from South Vietnamese tank-hunters armed with portable M-72 rockets.

Likewise, Syrian T-55s in the 1973 Yom Kippur War greatly outnumbered Israeli tanks — but the Israelis shot the Syrians down in droves from the Golan Heights. As for the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq left its tanks in stationary, dug-in positions in the desert.

Iraq’s tactical blunder turned its tanks into sitting ducks for coalition air strikes and advanced Abrams tanks equipped with thermal sights.

Still, the T-55’s major selling points continue to be simplicity and availability. Factories in the USSR built an estimated 50,000 vehicles and that’s a conservative estimate. Poland and Czechoslovakia assembled thousands more locally. Chinese Type-59 clones only add to the tally.

Specialist T-55 variants with mine-clearing rollers, bridges, flamethrowers and recovery cranes were produced alongside the gun tanks, too. The Soviets used the same chassis for its ZSU-57–2 self-propelled anti-aircraft gun and the newer BTR-T heavy personnel carrier.

In successive wars with its Arab neighbors during the 1960s and 70s, Israel captured hundreds of T-55s. Israeli troops turned the tank — nicknamed Tiran or “dictator” in Hebrew — against its former owners. Engineers eventually swapped out the Soviet main guns with the superior British-designed 105-millimeter L7. With the replacement cannon, the vehicles could use the same ammunition as any other Israeli tank of the day.

When Israel retired its Tirans, some of the hulls became the basis for the Achzarit — literally meaning “cruel” — heavy armored personnel carriers. Other countries added their own indigenously-manufactured components for both domestic and export use. Some of these local variants, such as the Romanian TR-85M, have little resemblance to the Kremlin’s original design.

And Russia has also produced upgraded T-55M and T-55AM tanks incorporating BDD composite armored “eye brows” on the front of the turret and spaced laminate plates to the glacis. The vehicles’ features include updated laser range finders, ballistic computers and sights.

These refurbished T-55s can launch long-range 9M117 Bastion laser-guided missiles on top of their regular anti-tank shells — giving them extra range and punch. Moscow sent these upgraded tanks to fight in the Second Chechen War alongside similarly improved T-62Ms. Russian commanders felt they were more “expendable” in the brutal guerrilla war than more expensive T-72 and T-80s.

So despite the T-54/55’s combat shortcomings, these tanks promise to remain popular for many decades more. The design’s adaptability and a stable market for upgrades contribute to its longevity.

Original link to the article- http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-61-year-old-ak-47-tanks-russias-t-54-t-55s-keep-fighting-13950