Sunday, January 31, 2016
This Is China's Master Plan to Destroy the U.S. Navy in Battle ( Source- The National Interest / Author- Harry J. Kazianis)
 |
| Image credits- Wikimedia Commons |
Source- The National Interest
Author- Harry J. Kazianis
When Chinese officers go to bed at night, what do they fear most?
Despite all the hard work, all the billions of dollars spent, no Chinese sailor wants to tangle with the U.S. Navy. As one retired Chinese senior defense official told me in late 2014: “The 3 A.M. crisis ‘call’ I feared the most is that we were at war with your navy.”
While such a statement surely tickles the hearts of Pentagon officials, know this: Fear, when focused properly, can make the mind—and the collective power of nations—help craft solutions to complex military challenges that might at one time have seemed nearly impossible.
For example, during the 1995-1996 Taiwan Crisis, Beijing’s ‘nightmares’ were nearly realized. When faced with a superior military power that could deploy massive amounts of advanced naval assets and project power from multiple domains like no other nation in history, China simply could not compete. Chinese leaders, especially President Jiang Zemin, would fear the power of American Carrier Battle Groups (CBGs) and their ability to negate what little military might Beijing could bring to bear on Taipei. At one point, there is strong evidence to suggest China could not even find the location of U.S. Carriers—a big problem for sure. The crisis would clearly shape Beijing’s thinking on the development of weapons that could provide an asymmetric edge.
So what weapons would China use against the U.S. Navy if combat did ever commence? Some of these weapons, and I am talking to you National Interest readers, you know--and know well. Others, such as one or two of the three platforms I would like to focus on for this blog post, are not as well known, and yet, could give the U.S. Navy the greatest of fits. In a Taiwan crisis scenario—a scenario in which Beijing to this day still sees as the greatest possible military challenge—the following listed below are platforms U.S. strategic thinkers truly fear (and arguably don’t have exact solutions to mitigate at the moment):
Sea Mines (Lots of Sea Mines):
A not-so-fun fact you may not know: China has the world’s largest collection of sea mines. Just how many you ask? Estimates vary; however, some see Beijing holding 80,000-100,000 sea mines. Now, to be fair, China does not have the capability to deploy all of these mines at once, and would have to be fairly creative in deploying them in contested seas around say Taiwan or in the South China Sea—like using civilian vessels in small numbers to ensure a lower probability of detection. Yet, as history shows us, it does not take an advanced mine or a lot of them to do tremendous damage, and Beijing knows that history all too well, as TNI author Lyle Goldstein reminds us:
“A fascinating interview appeared several years ago in the Chinese military magazine 兵工科技 [Ordnance Science and Technology]...The professor goes on to cite [the] example of a U.S. Navy ship, the frigate Samuel B. Roberts, holed by an Iranian mine back in 1988.”
The mine, by the way, was “a cheap, Russian-designed Iranian mine” that “shattered the keel and knocked out the power. Within 90 seconds, the frigate had taken on nearly half its total displacement in water — two main spaces completely flooded.” Yikes.
Missiles (Lots Of Missiles):
Let’s not go down the road of gushing over various Chinese missiles with their ranges and capabilities. While important, it’s the amount of missiles that could be aimed at the U.S. Navy in a Taiwan scenario that is the real threat. Even the best missile defenses in the world, which the United States holds in its possession (and I am a big supporter of), might just not be enough.
The challenge itself is not an easy one to overcome. All China would have to do is send out a massive barrage of missiles—and forget for a moment the type (cruise or ballistic) or domain they are launched from (land, sea or air)—with the goal of overwhelming U.S. naval defenses. Even assuming American missile defenses could stop every single one it could engage, the number of available interceptors on ship to respond to such an attack would be fixed and is easily known—and easy to overwhelm.
Put another way, as noted for The Diplomat a few years back (and have opined on several occasions now), simple math is the problem here:
“Think about it — could we someday see a scenario where American forces at sea with a fixed amount of defensive countermeasures facing an enemy with large numbers of cruise and ballistic weapons that have the potential to simply overwhelm them? Could a potential adversary fire off older weapons that are not as accurate, causing a defensive response that exhausts all available missile interceptors so more advanced weapons with better accuracy can deliver the crushing blow?
Simply put: does math win?”
Can America’s Navy Fight With a ‘Blindfold’ On?
Ok, so to be fair, this topic—China possibly using anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons on U.S. assets—is getting a lot more attention thanks to outlets like 60 Minutes and others bringing the topic to light. And it would not just impact the U.S. Navy for sure. However, imagine for a second if China unleashed its missiles skyward, attacking and destroying American satellites in orbit. Could America really wage an effective counter attack without modern systems such as GPS and communications to guide a counter-strike? This why so many people are commenting about the danger of Chinese anti-satellite weapons.
While America also has such a capability, it creates for an interesting escalation dynamic: what happens if tensions are rising, say in a Taiwan scenario, and a decisive advantage is gained by striking your adversaries satellites in space. At what point is the risk of conflict great enough that you attack? What is the tipping point for China or America? How will your foe, potentially being dealt a devastating blow, respond? Keep in mind; China and America both have nuclear weapons.
Let’s Close on a Positive Note:
Thankfully, even though there are many pressure points that could create possible conflict between Washington and its allies and Beijing, the chances of actually war seem pretty low—for now. However, if China keeps pushing in the East and South China Seas, or if President Xi decides the Taiwan question must be settled all bets are off. Even more of a reason why policy planners and national security minded folks need to beef up on Beijing’s military arsenal. Let’s just hope such knowledge never comes in handy.
About the author- Harry Kazianis (@grecianformula) is the former Executive Editor of The National Interest. Mr. Kazianis presently serves as Senior Fellow (non-resident) for Defense Policy at the Center for the National Interest as well as a Fellow for National Security Affairs at The Potomac Foundation. All opinions are his own.
Original link to the article- http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-master-plan-destroy-the-us-navy-battle-15068
Return of the FONOP: US Navy Destroyer Asserts Freedom of Navigation in Paracel Islands ( Source- The Diplomat / Author- Ankit Panda)
 |
| USS Curtis Wilbur underway ( Image credits- Wikimedia Commons / US Navy) |
Source- The Diplomat
Author- Ankit Panda
On Saturday, a U.S. Navy guided-missile destroyer, the USS Curtis Wilbur, sailed within 12 nautical miles of Triton Island in the disputed Paracel Islands in the South China Sea. Triton Island is claimed by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and is administered by China. The Curtis Wilbur‘s passage near Triton Island marks the first freedom of navigation patrol in the South China Sea since the U.S. Navy sailed the USS Lassen within 12 nautical miles of Subi Reef in the Spratly Islands, marking 95 days between the two operations. Triton Island is not among the features where China has built artificial islands and constructed military and civilian features.
According to Captain Jeff Davis, a spokesperson for the Pentagon, no Chinese People’s Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN) vessels attempted to inhibit the Curtis Wilbur‘s passage unlike during the October freedom of navigation patrol in the Spratlys, when PLAN vessels escorted the Lassen out of the 12 nautical mile zone around Subi Reef. “This operation challenged attempts by the three claimants — China, Taiwan and Vietnam — to restrict navigation rights and freedoms,” Davis added.
Davis clarified that the latest freedom of navigation patrol was an “innocent passage,” intended to challenge policies by both China and Vietnam that require vessels transiting the 12 nautical mile territorial waters of features in the Paracels to first notify maritime authorities. The United States rejects prior notification and sees these waters as open for lawful navigation compliant with the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea (UNCLOS). “No claimants were notified prior to the transit, which is consistent with our normal process and international law,” Davis added.
The Chinese foreign ministry protested the freedom of navigation patrol. “The American warship has violated relevant Chinese laws by entering Chinese territorial waters without prior permission, and the Chinese side has taken relevant measures including monitoring and admonishments,” it said in a statement. “We urge the US side to respect [and] abide by relevant Chinese laws, to do more things conducive to Sino-US mutual trust and regional peace and stability,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying added in the statement.
Notably, the statement asserts that the Curtis Wilbur entered “Chinese territorial waters.” In October, after the Lassen‘s freedom of navigation operation, the Chinese foreign ministry preserved a degree of ambiguity about its maritime claims in the Spratlys by noting that the Lassen‘s passage “threatened China’s sovereignty and security interests.” China has described its claims in the Spratlys as a “military alert zone” at times–a designation that has no particular meaning in international law.
Saturday’s freedom of navigation operation comes shortly after the heads of both the Chinese and U.S. navies consulted about unplanned encounters at sea between the two sides. Additionally, speaking last week, the commander of U.S. military forces in the Asia-Pacific, Admiral Harry Harris, said that U.S. freedom of navigation patrols would intensify and grow more complex this year. Saturday’s freedom of navigation operation remains consistent with the precedent set in October in that it challenges excessive claims by multiple claimants. October’s freedom of navigation drew attention for challenging Chinese claims near Subi Reef, where China has built an artificial island with military applications, but it also involved the Lassen transiting within 12 nautical miles of Northeast Cay, Southwest Cay, South Reef, and Sandy Cay.
About the author- Ankit Panda is an editor at The Diplomat. He writes on security, politics, economics, and culture.
Follow Ankit on Twitter, Google+, and LinkedIn, or get in touch via email.
Original link to the article- http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/return-of-the-fonop-us-navy-destroyer-asserts-freedom-of-navigation-in-paracel-islands/
Saturday, January 30, 2016
South Korea Eyes THAAD, China Urges ‘Caution’ ( Source- The Diplomat / Author- Shannon Tiezzi)
 |
| United States THAAD launcher ( Image credits- Wikimedia Commons / United States Army) |
Source- The Diplomat
Author- Shannon Tiezzi
A U.S. missile defense system would be helpful for South Korean security if deployed on the peninsula, a defense official from Seoul said on Friday. The comments are the latest sign that Seoul is again considering allowing the U.S.-made Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to be deployed on its soil.
Defense Ministry spokesperson Kim Min-seok said on Friday that the Korean government “will consider every measure to prepare against North Korea’s missile threats.” He added, “If U.S. Forces Korea deploys THAAD, it will help our national security and defense.”
However, Kim also refuted media reports that South Korea and the United States had begun negotiations on the subject next week. He said that the “South Korean government has not been offered negotiations by the U.S. government,” meaning no decision on the issue should be expected in the near future. Right now, he explained, both sides are discussing it internally – with South Korea in particular looking at how effective THAAD would be.
Media sources rumored that South Korea was moving forward on THAAD, pointing to numerous visits to the country by officials from Lockheed Martin, the U.S. defense company that manufactures the THAAD system, Yonhap News reports.
Those reports come a few weeks after South Korean President Park Geun-hye told reporters that South Korea would review the THAAD system based on its national security interests.
There’s good reason for Seoul to be considering – or at least saying that it is considering – deploying THAAD. North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test on January 6 of this year; satellite imagery suggests Pyongyang might be getting ready to follow that up with a ballistic missile launch. That once again drives home the increasing necessity for South Korea to have a missile defense system in place, to guard against potential North Korean missile strikes.
Just as importantly, however, China – North Korea’s major ally and trading partner – has shown no sign of changing its position toward Pyongyang, despite urging from Seoul. Meanwhile, China has been adamantly against the deployment of THAAD, which it believes is just as likely to be used against Beijing as against Pyongyang. The diplomatic tussle over THAAD led to some sniping back and forth between Seoul and Beijing last year, a rare bump in what has been largely a rosy relationship.
Asked about the recent reports, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying reiterated China’s stance on THAAD, saying that even when pursuing their own security, countries “should take into account others’ security interests as well as regional peace and stability.” Hua added that the “situation on the Korean Peninsula is highly sensitive,” urging “relevant countries” to use “caution.”
Those diplomatic signals (coupled, presumably, with more overt pressure behind the scenes) effectively stonewalled any real discussion of THAAD last year. However, with Seoul frustrated at the limits of Beijing’s response to the recent nuclear test, revisiting THAAD is a way to prove to China that there are serious consequences for North Korea’s actions – consequences that also impact China’s own security interests.
About the author- Shannon Tiezzi is Managing Editor at The Diplomat. Her main focus is on China, and she writes on China’s foreign relations, domestic politics, and economy. Shannon previously served as a research associate at the U.S.-China Policy Foundation, where she hosted the weekly television show China Forum. She received her A.M. from Harvard University and her B.A. from The College of William and Mary. Shannon has also studied at Tsinghua University in Beijing.
Original link to the article- http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/south-korea-eyes-thaad-china-urges-caution/
Friday, January 29, 2016
Japan Unveils New 5th Generation Stealth Fighter Jet ( Source- The Diplomat / Author- Franz Stefan-Gady)
 |
| Japanese ATD-X ( Image credits- Wikimedia Commons / Hunini) |
Source- The Diplomat
Author- Franz Stefan-Gady
This Thursday, Japan’s new Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Agency revealed the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Advanced Technology Demonstrator – Experimental (ATD-X) fifth-generation fighter technology demonstrator, now dubbed X-2 and unofficially named ‘ShinShin,’ to the media at a heavily guarded hangar at a regional airport near the city of Komaki, in Aichi Prefecture. It has previously been showcased once already in May 2014.
The X-2 is the country’s first domestically produced full-scale test model—a technology demonstrator—of a new indigenous stealth fighter jet design, which has been under development at a Mitsubishi Heavy Industries plant in Toyoyama since 2009, with total program costs estimated at 39.4 billion yen (around $331 million).
The aircraft—an “advanced technology demonstration unit,” according to the Defense Technical Research and Development Institute –unveiled to the press will not be armed and is slated to be retired in three years, after having undergone extensive tests of advanced fifth-generation fighter technologies, for which Japan’s Defense Ministry has allocated 2.3 billion yen ($19.3 million) in the next fiscal year alone. It will be a testbed platform for multiple technologies including next generation electronically scanned array radar systems, multi-dimensional 3D thrust vectoring concepts, and fine-tune the aircraft’s stealth capabilities. (The X-2 features a special carbon-fiber composite material that absorbs radar waves.)
As I reported previously (See: “Japan’s 5th Generation Stealth Fighter to Make Maiden Flight in Early 2016”), the X-2 program’s goal is to eventually produce Japan’s first indigenously-designed fifth-generation air superiority fighter, designated F-3, with serial production slated to begin in 2027, although various delays in the development of the X-2 prototype including issues with the engine control software –scheduled to be fully developed by 2018– make a later date more likely.
The X-2 with a length of 14.2 meters and a wingspan of 9.1meters is scheduled to make its maiden flight in February 2016. I explained in my earlier piece:
Prior to its first test-flight, the aircraft will undergo extensive taxiing and ground trials at the Mitsubishi Heavy Industries testing center located in Aichi Prefecture on Japan’s main island of Honshu. From there the fighter prototype is expected to fly to Gifu Air Field, an airbase of the Japan Air Self-Defense Force, situated in the neighboring prefecture of Gifu sometime in February.
Lockheed-Martin is purported involved in the development of the X-2 prototype. The American aircraft maker was prohibited from selling its F-22 Raptor stealth air superiority fighter to Japan in the 2000s, causing Tokyo’s defense industry to kick-start development of the X-2.
The aircraft unveiled this Thursday is the only X-2 prototype constructed so far.
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, BBC News, Foreign Affairs Magazine, 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.
Franz-Stefan also has provided expert commentary for Asia News Weekly, Al Jazeera America, Channel News Asia, CCTV, PBS, Voice of America, Radio France, SCPR, and ORF among others.
Original link to he article- http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/japan-unveils-new-5th-generation-stealth-fighter-jet/
Sorry for the disturbance in reading this blog
To our viewers, we are sorry for the difficulty that you might have encountered while accessing this blog. The same was due to technical reasons. The error has been corrected. Thanks again for bearing with us
Team, Manoj Ambat blog
India: International Fleet Review 2016 – Analysis (Source- Eurasia Review / Author- Commdore RS Vasan IN (Retd) /SAAG)
 |
| Indian navy western fleet ( Source- Wikimedia Commons / Indian navy) |
Source- Eurasia Review
Author- Commdore RS Vasan IN (Retd) /SAAG
The IFR 2016 will indeed be a grand spectacle as more than one hundred ships from the navies of over fifty countries will participate in this exercise that is carried out every five years. The event which in the initial years was mostly limited to the participation of ships from the Indian Navy, Indian Coast Guard and the merchant navy transformed in to an international event with a major maritime event conducted in 2001 under the initiative of then Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Susheel Kumar. The marching of the naval officers and sailors from ships around the world along the marine drive in Mumbai and the presence of many ships from around the world signaled a new era in maritime diplomacy. The intentions of a maritime India to occupy center stage in both regional and global missions by using the Indian Navy as an instrument of national policy were explicit.
As the participants of the IFR then witnessed scores of indigenous ships of the Indian Navy, it was evident that the Indian Navy was in the process of transforming from a buyer’s navy to a builders navy. The process was a prerequisite to assuming greater regional leadership role and responsibilities. This did not escape the attention of the participant nations and motivated them to engage with India at many levels. It is not to be forgotten that this initiative was taken under the leadership of Admiral Susheel Kumar who succeeded Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat. Admiral Bhagwat was relieved of his duties as CNS on 30 December 1998 by the NDA Government under certain debatable circumstances. The Navy’s morale which was dented had to be built up brick by brick and the IFR of 2001 from that point of view provided a launching pad for the navy which was fast becoming a Blue water Navy. The theme ‘Bridges of Friendship’ was very well received and created an environment that facilitated the process of integration of a regional navy in to a global matrix.
While both the Indian Navy and the Indian Coast Guard have conducted the Fleet Reviews on the east coast (The very first Indian Coast Guard Fleet Review by the Raksha Mantri was conducted off the east coast when the author was the Regional Commander of the Indian Coast Guard, Region East); this is the first time that an international fleet review of this scale is being conducted in the Bay of Bengal. By design this also complements the look East policy of the Government of India. It also adds value to other maritime initiatives such as the biannual Milan (which is established as an initiative for meeting of the naval minds in Port Blair), the Indian Ocean Symposium (IONS) which is now a well-established forum amongs Navies of not just the Indian Ocean but also the rest of the world.
By all expectations, China will be a first time participant in the Indian Fleet Review. From the point of view of PLA-Navy; it signals its intention to be a part of the global initiatives in the Indian Ocean in any form. The anti-piracy patrols by PLA-N units which are still underway off the coast of Somalia since 2008 provided ample opportunity to the Chinese Navy to assert its intention to be part of the international mechanisms to combat piracy.
Both Indian Navy and Chinese Navy worked shoulder to shoulder in warding off this threat though India was concerned about the presence of another extra regional player in its traditional back yard. The visit of the Chinese submarines both conventional and nuclear last year again caused ripples in Delhi. There are no doubts that India and China will jostle for power and influence in the Indian Ocean Region. While India does have geography on its side, the surplus funds that can be channeled for initiatives such as the Maritime Silk Road and the One Belt One Road will change the strategic Maritimescape of Indian Ocean Region. The IFR also comes at a time when there are great initiatives being taken by China in Asia, Africa and Europe in terms of connectivity. The fact that it plans to build a naval base in Djibouti and has huge investments in the maritime sector in Sri Lanka, Maldives, Bangladesh, Pakistan are of concern to India which appears to have conceded strategic space to China in its areas of influence.
The presence of INS Vikramaditya and nuclear submarines of Indian Navy would send a message to the observers about the might of the Indian Navy that can be brought to bear as and when required in areas of interest. The P8i surveillance aircraft that would fly past will also generate interest in the capability of this newly acquired platform that will be able to locate and track submarines and other surface assets of extra regional powers in the Indian Ocean. The visiting navies of the world who would have done their homework would have noticed that the Indian Navy is now net centric warfare capable as a result of plenty of indigenous efforts.
Coming back to the IFR 2016, the tradition as for as the Royal Navy is concerned itself is more than seven decades old. The Indian Navy has inherited many of the traditions and practices from the Royal Indian Navy and has added its own local flavor. The President of India by virtue of being the Supreme Commander of the Armed forces has been reviewing the fleet invariably before he or she demits office during the tenure of five years as the President. It is a mega event by any standards and even the state Government has committed more than 83 crores in beautifying the city of Vizag which houses the Eastern Naval Command and important maintenance facilities of the Navy. It is also the base for the nuclear submarines of the Indian Navy including strategic assets.
All the arrangements have been reviewed at the level of the Raksha Mantri and the Navy and Nation are geared up for this event in the first week of February that will showcase the prowess of the Indian Navy. A successful conclusion of the IFR will reinforce the position of Indian Navy as a professional arm that can be used as a powerful instrument of national policy both in war and peace.
The action of the Indian Navy particularly after the spectacular missile attacks on ships and oil tank farms Karachi in 1971 and the role of the only Asian carrier Vikrant at that time in enforcing a blockade off then East Pakistan indicated how it is important to possess and use a strong navy for furthering national objectives. The fact that the Indian Navy was not used at all during the war in 1965 therefore comes as a surprise. The role of Indian Navy during the Tsunami of 2004, evacuation of Indian Nationals from war torn areas, providing of relief and succor to the flood and cyclone affected victims on many occasions and similar acts have brought to fore the strength of the Indian Navy that has proved its mettle.
The Mumbai terror attack in November 2008 changed the way maritime threats were perceived and brought about a paradigm shift in the maritime security architecture (MSA). The Indian Navy was placed at the apex of the MSA and made responsible for both coastal and oceanic security. Without going in to the details, suffice to say that the entire gamut of maritime threats and response mechanisms have undergone a sea change.
It is not out of place to recollect that it was the Indian Navy that first brought out a National Maritime Doctrine in 2004 revised it in 2007, 2009 and has now updated the document last year. Even in terms of indigenization, the Indian Navy is way ahead of its sister services having embarked on indigenization in the late 60s. The first indigenous frigate Nilgiri and the follow ons have provided the nation with options for ship building in both PSUs and private yards. The fact that Indian Navy was able to even design a carrier and is building it in the Cochin Shipyard Limited is a tribute to the leadership, the naval designers and in-house capability to produce war ships of different size. The design of stealth ships such as the Shivalik and the large destroyers such as the INS Kochi, construction of Corvettes, and the completion of the Naval off Shore Vessels are praiseworthy. The most notable feature of the Indian Navys’s indigenization process is in terms of the addition of INS Arihant which provides that strategic deterrence capability that eluded India for many decades. The construction of improved versions of Arihant and also the Indigenous Aircraft Carrier (IAC) are logical conclusion to the aspirations of a blue water navy that has both regional and global roles. However, the dwindling strength of conventional submarines has been a source of great concern to the planners in Delhi. There are some recent efforts to ensure that this serious deficiency is overcome both by accelerating the Scorpene production and also embarking on the indigenous production of project 75A submarines for which more than 60,000 crores has been earmarked.
The shape and size of the Indian Navy is a formidable one as India moves in to the next century. With geography and a growing economy on its side, Indian Navy will continue to complement the ambitions of a maritime India. A powerful Navy will promote maritime safety and security in the Indian Ocean. As a guarantor of net security provider at sea, safeguarding the global commons, maritime interests and the Sea Lines of Communications which are the life lines and arteries of global trade and commerce will be a top priority for the Indian Navy.
India is conscious of the fact that there are rich dividends in forging strategic alliance with other likeminded nations on a case to case basis while retaining its strategic autonomy. The tri-lateral treaty with Sri Lanka and Maldives, Exercise Malabar or other such exercises are all measures to ensure that the maritime domain remains manageable and Indian Navy is in a position to control the happenings in areas of interest. The maritime engagement with Mauritius, Seychelles, Mombasa, Oman and other maritime nations are all significant in ensuring that there is seamless integration of maritime domain and all the maritime nations in the region are under one umbrella to work in unison to serve the interests of the century of the seas. The IFR will be a keenly watched event around the world and the navies who are part of this Indian initiative will carry back cherished memories from this mega event. From the point of Indian Navy it will again provide an opportunity to take the initiative from “Building Bridges of Friendship” in 2001 to an architecture that is “United through Oceans” in 2016 and beyond.
About the author- Commdore RS Vasan IN (Retd) is the Director C3S and Head Strategy and Security Studies CAS
Thursday, January 28, 2016
Japan’s Elite Amphibious Assault Force Trains With US Marines ( Source- The Diplomat / Author- Franz Stefan-gady)
 |
| Image credits- VOA |
Source- The Diplomat
Author- Franz Stefan-Gady
For five weeks, 270 Japanese soldiers from the Ground Self-Defense Force (GSDF) Western Infantry Regiment, along with other units, will participate in an annual, bilateral amphibious training exercise, codenamed Iron Fist, jointly held with the United States Marine Corps (USMC) at Camp Pendleton in southern California.
The goal of the exercise, which will include combat marksmanship, military planning, and fire support operations, is to train the GSDF and USMC in combined amphibious operations, according to a U.S. Department of Defense press release. “Since 2006, Exercise Iron Fist has enabled Japanese soldiers to train with U.S. Marines on American soil to improve the planning, communications, and conducting of combined amphibious operations,” said USMC Colonel Clay C. Tipton, commanding officer of the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit. “In the short span of a decade, this exercise has allowed our two services to come together and practice amphibious operations at the platoon, company and battalion level.”
Japan wants to set up its first Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade by the spring of 2017. The initial size of the brigade will be around 2,000 troops, but this is slated to increase to 3,000 once the force becomes fully operational sometime in 2018. The new brigade’s principal mission will be to defend the 6,000 islands and islets of the Ryukyu Islands chain, which stretches southwest from Kyushu to Taiwan.
The Western Army Infantry Regiment, based in Sasebo in Nagasaki Prefecture, will be the nucleus of this new force. Seven hundred troops of the light infantry regiment are currently charged with defending the remote islands. However, the establishment of the new unit has been plagued by inter-service rivalry, budgetary constraints, and the Japan Self-Defense Force’s traditional problem of a lack of inter-service coordination, which, given that any amphibious warfare operation will require all three services to cooperate, may prove particularly problematic.
“I have been looking forward to this opportunity to train with the Marines here for a long time,” said Japanese Colonel Yoshiyuki Goto, the commander of the Western Army Infantry Regiment. “Marines are very quick to make changes that are necessary to improve the quality of training. I recognize the U.S. Marines’ speed and flexibility is required for amphibious operations to be successfully completed.”
The Japanese soldiers will spend the first couple of weeks at the USMC Base Camp Pendleton, followed by a stint at the USMC Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms,where the soldiers and marines will conduct live-fire ranges and company level bilateral attacks. “The final phase of training will see Japanese soldiers and U.S. Marines embark on the USS Somerset (LPD 25) and conduct ship-to-shore movements, a Supporting Arms Coordinating Center Exercise (SACCEX), and a battalion level Amphibious Landing Exercise (PHIBLEX),” the press release states.
“SACCEX will have our [Japanese] soldiers and [U.S.] Marines executing an amphibious movement to San Clemente Island, then executing fires with rotary wing, fixed wing and indirect fire weapons,” explains Colonel Tipton.
“PHIBLEX is the culminating training evolution,” he added. “This is where the previous four weeks of training will pay dividends. Japanese soldiers and U.S. Marines will be coming off the USS Somerset in Amphibious Assault Vehicles and Landing Craft Air Cushions to conduct an amphibious assault, which will transition to a ground operation to secure an inland objective.”
“We recognize the capabilities for rapid response, emergency situation, and conflict prevention of an amphibious rapid deployment brigade,” emphasized Colonel Goto. “Using the exceptional training environments on Camp Pendleton, it will really enhance our capabilities to conduct amphibious operations with the U.S. Marine Corps.”
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, BBC News, Foreign Affairs Magazine, 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.
Franz-Stefan also has provided expert commentary for Asia News Weekly, Al Jazeera America, Channel News Asia, CCTV, PBS, Voice of America, Radio France, SCPR, and ORF among others.
Original link to the article- http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/japans-elite-amphibious-assault-force-trains-with-us-marines/
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Book Review: Indian Power Projection: Ambition, Arms and Influence ( Source- The Diplomat / Author- Ankit Panda)
 |
| Indian Army Para SF ( Source- Wikimedia Commons) |
Source- The Diplomat
Author- Ankit Panda
Does India project hard power? If it does, what tools does it use? Finally, what are its ambitions for power projection in the future, as it continues to rise and emerge as a world power? These questions are at the center of a new monograph by Shashank Joshi, a senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute. Indian Power Projection: Ambition, Arms and Influence presents, as of 2016, what is perhaps the most up-to-date compendium of information on India’s hard power toolkit and Indian policymaker attitudes toward that toolkit.
Generally, owing to a range of domestic political factors and its security situation vis-a-vis its neighbors, India has been largely uninterested in far-reaching power projection since its independence. Indeed, today as during much of the Cold War, the country’s primary warfighting scenarios are against its neighbor to the west, Pakistan, and its larger neighbor to the north-northeast, China.
However, slowly but surely, New Delhi has and continues to evolve its capabilities and ambitions away from its neighbors. Though India’s priorities have evolved over time as a function of its economic growth and growing ambition, its interest in hard power–the maintenance and application thereof–has been constant since independence. If anything, the land-based rivalries with Pakistan and China made prioritizing hard power a necessity for India.
So what does India have in its hard power toolkit today? An army comprising 1.1 million, a paramilitary force comprising 1.4 million, a navy comprising 180 ships, an air force comprising 880 planes, a hundred-odd nuclear weapons, and a coast guard comprising 90 ships: these are the contours of India’s hard power apparatus. Joshi’s volume contains helpful discussion of the procurement trends, supply shortcomings, and strategic priorities of each of these areas of the Indian military and national security apparatus. Long-time followers of defense and security issues in India will also find welcome discussion of issues that have long vexed Indian thinkers on defense, including the dearth of “jointness” and the shortcomings of country’s defense-industrial base.
Joshi’s volume drives home the point that India’s hard power assets aren’t particularly positioned to avail of any particular strategic outlook. Joshi notes, importantly, that due to its “long mobilization times and small munition stockpiles,” India’s supposed conventional superiority over Pakistan is a myth. Additionally, despite facing immediate land-based threats and a volatile neighborhood, new Delhi is investing in assets more befitting of a state interested in expeditionary power projection, including aircraft carriers, refueling tankers, and landing ships. India’s priorities suggest it wants to project power and knows that it will need to project power, but it will remain reactive instead of proactive.
Reading Joshi’s volume, I was reminded of India’s continued refusal to put anything resembling a White Paper on defense matters as so many other Asian states–notably, China–do. In a way, India’s propensity for ambiguous posturing explains why New Delhi prefers not to outline its defense priorities for the rest of the world to see, but so much of what is written of Indian defense policy is pieced together from frenzied reporting and statements by officials. Without a white paper on defense, well-researched compendiums like Joshi’s become all the more valuable for analysts, scholars, and policy-makers working on India.
India has the misfortune of being located in a complex neighborhood, forcing it to reckon with an uncertain security environment internally and regionally. And while New Delhi might have traditionally lacked an instinct for power projection (with a few exceptions in the Indian Ocean and its immediate neighborhood), it’s need to invest in a robust hard power toolkit has been apparent since independence.
While Indian officials may emphasize diplomacy and political engagement as their preferred means for resolving differences (every problem isn’t a nail, after all), India doesn’t have the luxury of letting hard power and military readiness take a back seat. In this context, understanding what cards New Delhi has up its sleeves and how and when it’ll choose to play them becomes all the more important.
About the author- Ankit Panda is an editor at The Diplomat. He writes on security, politics, economics, and culture.
Follow Ankit on Twitter, Google+, and LinkedIn, or get in touch via email
Original link to the article- http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/book-review-indian-power-projection-ambition-arms-and-influence/
This Could 'Sink' the U.S. Navy: Lethal Stealth Submarines (Source- The National Interest / Author- Harry J. Kazianis)
 |
| Russian LADA class SSK ( Source- Wikimedia Commons / Author- Vitaly V. Kuzmin) |
Source- National Interest
Author- Harry J. Kazianis
There is no force patrolling the world’s oceans more powerful than the mighty U.S. Navy. Washington’s nuclear-powered attack and ballistic submarines, aircraft carriers and surface combatants, all guided by the best trained sailors and professionals in the world, are no match when stacked up on paper one-on-one against the likes of Russia, China, Iran or any other challenger. And as history shows, going to war against Washington in a fair-fight is suicide. However, thanks to advances in modern, ultra-quiet conventional diesel-electric submarines, Washington will need to adjust its tactics if it were to tangle with any nation sporting these increasingly sophisticated weapons of war.
To be fair, the threat of super-stealthy diesel submarines being deployed around the world has been present for decades. Still, newer boats are coming armed with advanced anti-ship weapons and are being combined with new air-independent propulsion systems (AIP) making them near impossible to find in the ocean's depths—a one-two punch that can’t be ignored.
Recent history shows only too clearly the challenge the United States and other modern navies are facing from these heavily armed, ‘stealth’ submarines. Back as far as 2005, the U.S. Navy recognized the challenge and reached out to friends and allies for help. It was that year that the HMS Gotland, a modern AIP submarine serving in the Swedish Navy, made its home in California for a year. The goal was to test the impact of such a boat against U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups and other important vessels. It seems the boats, much cheaper to produce than the standard American nuclear-attack subs, created quite the stir:
“Apparently the Navy got more than they were bargaining for when it came to finding and engaging the stealthy little sub. The Gotland virtually ‘sunk’ many U.S. nuclear fast attack subs, destroyers, frigates, cruisers and even made it into the 'red zone' beyond the last ring of anti-submarine defenses within a carrier strike group. Although it was rumored she got many simulated shots off on various U.S. super-carriers, one large-scale training exercise in particular with the then brand new USS Ronald Reagan ended with the little sub making multiple attack runs on the super-carrier, before slithering away without ever being detected. . . ”
“. . .the little Swedish sub was "so silent it literally did not exist to our sensors."
Thankfully the above were controlled exercises, crafted for America’s ‘silent service’ and surface combatant operators to understand the threat they were dealing with. However, not all encounters with ultra-quiet diesel boats have been as friendly—or just a mere exercise. Back in 2006, a Chinese Song-class attack submarine, created at least partially by Russian and Western technology and likely not nearly as advanced as the Gutland (the Song-class does not have AIP technology, for example) tailed the Japan-based U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk in the East China Sea near Okinawa without being identified. While such a shadowing operation is quite normal, the sub “surfaced within five miles of the carrier, in deep waters off Okinawa, and only then was it spotted, by one of the carrier's planes on a routine surveillance flight.” Such submarines are armed with advanced anti-ship missile and wake-homing torpedoes.
Moving to the present, Russia seems to be doubling down on its development of these important vessels. Moscow is developing an even deadlier class of boats:
“The stealth capabilities of Russia’s new Lada-class diesel-electric submarines far exceed those of their predecessors, Admiraty Shipyard’s CEO Alexander Buzakov told the Russian press.
“According to Buzakov, the new vessels are even stealthier than Russian Kilo-class submarines, thought to be one of the quietest diesel-electric submarine classes in the world and dubbed "black holes" for their ability to "disappear” from sonars.
“The new submarines are able to maintain such a low profile thanks to a clever implementation of a next-generation anti-reflective acoustic coating and a new improved hydro-acoustic system, Buzakov said.
He also added that during the new submarines’ construction and design process, the development team managed to gather a lot of valuable data which, among other things, allowed them to significantly improve the Kilo-class submarines as well.
“The Lada-class submarines are designed to defend coastlines against ships and other submarines, gather intelligence, provide surveillance and reconnaissance missions, and act as a mother ship for special forces. With its new air-independent propulsion plant, a Lada submarine can remain submerged for as many as 25 days. With its vast array of weapon systems, the Lada is also world’s first non-nuclear submarine to be equipped with specialized launchers for cruise missiles.”
So, with all this being said, what should the U.S. Navy do about this challenge? A greater investment in anti-submarine warfare would be a great place to start. New detection methods could also help, although such methods could also be used against Washington’s subs. Here’s an idea: maybe America should get in on the act and get some of its own? Hmmm. . .
About the author- Harry Kazianis (@grecianformula) is the former Executive Editor of The National Interest. Mr. Kazianis presently serves as Senior Fellow (non-resident) for Defense Policy at the Center for the National Interest as well as a Fellow for National Security Affairs at The Potomac Foundation. All opinions are his own.
Original link to the Article- http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-sink-the-us-navy-lethal-stealth-submarines-15034
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Republic Day wishes to all my brothers and sisters
Republic day wishes to all my brothers and sisters of this great country
- Team Manoj Ambat blog
Monday, January 25, 2016
India to Consider French Fighter Jets for Navy’s Newest Aircraft Carrier ( Source- The Diplomat / Author- Franz Stefan-Gady)
 |
| Rafale landing in USS Theodore Roosevelt ( Image credits- Wikimedia Commons/ Matthew DeWitt) |
Source- The Diplomat
Author- Franz Stefan-Gady
Representatives of French aircraft maker Dassault Aviation are slated to meet with senior officials of the Indian Navy to pitch the naval version of the Dassault Rafale twin-engine, fourth generation multirole fighter this week, according to local media reports.
The briefing is scheduled for January 29.
Sources within India’s Defense Ministry said that New Delhi has asked four countries (France, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Russia) for proposals for the design of the country’s first 65,000-ton supercarrier, the INS Vishal, the second ship of the Vikrant-class. The INS Vishal will allegedly feature significant design changes from the lead vessel, the INS Vikrant, including possible nuclear propulsion and Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery (CATOBAR) and Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch Systems (EMALS). The INS Vikrant, by comparison, will feature a Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery (STOBAR) configuration.
While the INS Vikrant will carry MIG 29K fighter aircraft, the Indian Navy is still undecided whether it will stick with the Russian-made aircraft for the INS Vishal, according to sources. The type of aircraft stationed aboard the new supercarrier will heavily influence the new vessel’s design and is thus of critical importance. The Indian Navy is interested in purchasing up to 54 new aircraft.
It is unclear whether the Rafale fighter jet has been shortlisted. Also, France’s competitors are unlikely to give up without putting up a fight.
A spokeswoman of MIG Russian Aircraft Corporation told reporters last week that the company was ready to supply MIG 29K multi-role fighter aircraft for the INS Vishal: “”MiG and India’s Ministry of Defense are long-term partners. We are linked by many years of successful cooperation. We would certainly be ready to supply fighter jets for the new aircraft carrier.”
French President Francois Hollande landed in India yesterday for a three-day state visit, in which he wants to solidify the Indo-French strategic partnership. Among other things, Hollande hopes to finalize the long-awaited $9 billion sale of 36 Rafale fighter jets for the Indian Air Force (See: “What’s on François Hollande’s Agenda in India?”).
Initially, the MMRCA [medium multi-role combat aircraft] project envisioned that India’s Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) would build 108 out of a 126 total Rafale jets locally, with the first batch of 18 fighter jets directly delivered from France in flyaway condition.
However, New Delhi unexpectedly announced in April of this year that it would only purchase 36 French-made Rafale fighters instead of the original 126.(…)
The price tag for the 36 off-the-shelf Rafale will substantially be cheaper since France is no longer obligated to build the planes in India. (…)
However, the current contract under negotiation includes a offset clause which stipulated that France will have to invest 50 percent of the contract value as offsets in India.
The offset clause is one of the politically most important features of the contract for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. “The idea we have in mind is the one of an intergovernmental agreement between the two countries in order to allow the firms involved to go all the way,” Hollande recently told journalists. A memorandum to that effect, along with 13 other agreements, was signed today, according to Indian media reports. ”There are some financial issues that will be sorted out in a couple of days, but the memorandum has been signed,” Hollande announced.
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, BBC News, Foreign Affairs Magazine, 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. Franz-Stefan also has provided expert commentary for Asia News Weekly, Al Jazeera America, Channel News Asia, CCTV, PBS, Voice of America, Radio France, SCPR, and ORF among others.
Follow him on Twitter.
Contact: franz-stefan@thediplomat.com
Original link to the article- http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/india-to-consider-french-fighter-jets-for-navys-newest-aircraft-carrier/
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Monday, January 18, 2016
JF-17 vs HAL Tejas: New Competitors on the Military Block ( Source- The Diplomat / Author- Kabir Taneja)
 |
| HAL Tejas ( Image credits- Wikimedia Commons / Rinju9) |
Source- The Diplomat
Author- Kabir Taneja
The Bahrain International Air Show slated to be held between January 21-23 at the Sakhir Airbase in Bahrain is supposed to be the first international symposium where India will showcase its indigenously built, but much delayed, Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) Tejas light combat aircraft. This move, reportedly taken at a “political level,” could place the Tejas as an export option in the future and will expose it to much wider scrutiny over its performance and offerings in the international market.
However, even though this may become an exciting time for the Tejas as a potential option for foreign militaries for their arsenal, it has an interesting competitor from its own neighborhood. The JF-17 Thunder fighter jet, jointly developed by China’s Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC) and its Pakistani partner, Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC), is also now in the export variety with similar attributes to those of the Tejas. In fact, at the Bahrain air show both the Tejas and the JF-17 are quite literally going to be pitted against each other, as they share parking space on the flight line tarmac right next to each other.
The HAL Tejas is still looking for its “carpe diem” moment, as the Indian Air Force, the project’s main beneficiary, has made no qualms in admitting that it is not pleased about the delays over the Tejas Mk II variant of the model that it urgently wants to induct into its fleet. Meanwhile, manufacturer HAL has offered the IAF a Mk 1A variant instead, saying the Mk II variant is not expected to have its first flight before 2019, or enter series production before 2024. On the other hand, the Block 1 JF-17s have already seen service with the Pakistan Air Force, and are now expected to be upgraded to Block 2 standards (which includes mid-air refuel capabilities and improved avionics).
Both India and Pakistan understand the worth of a fighter jet such as the JF-17 and the Tejas in the specific markets where they are likely to compete. The light, maneuverable, low-maintenance and comparatively cheap offerings represented by both variants could find many takers; however the fact that the JF-17 is available for purchase today has already given it a head start, even if its production output remains sluggish. Other countries such as Myanmar, Nigeria and Azerbaijan are known to have shown interest in the JF-17. Both India and Pakistan themselves have operated the MiG 21 (Pakistan as the Chinese license built version Chengdu F-7), one of the world’s most successful, duplicated, and cost-effective combat jets. Like the MiG 21 during its high-sales days, both the JF-17 and HAL Tejas could build customer bases in financially challenging areas such as Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia, with many states looking for ‘low-end’ solutions to air defense needs.
The JF-17, now a predominantly a “for Pakistan by China” project (China does not operate the type in its military) made recent news after reports suggested that Sri Lanka was interested in purchasing eight JF-17s with further options. News of the deal came as Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif made a state visit to Colombo; however, since the visit Indian apprehensions regarding the deal, attempts to sell the Tejas instead, and a recent quick visit by Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar seem to have stalled any such deal, if indeed one was in the making. Sri Lankan media outlets have said that the JF-17 discussion was “not on the table” with Pakistan, while an Indian defense news website has claimed that New Delhi is considering offering upgraded MiG 27s, a type already operated by Sri Lanka, free of cost to the country’s air force.
Even if India has, or in the future does manage to scuttle Sri Lanka’s attempts to procure the JF-17, the fact that it does not have the appropriate variant ready for IAF’s very own needs, let alone international suitors, is a wake up call to the country’s domestic military complex. India’s previous homegrown success story in military aviation, the HAL Dhruv or the Advanced Light Helicopter, also ran into turbulence with its only international military buyer, the South American nation of Ecuador had purchased seven of HAL’s Dhruv ALHs. However, since its addition to the Ecuadorian forces in 2009, four out of the seven helicopters have crashed. Two of the crashes were attributed to pilot error, but the other two were blamed on mechanical faults. Ecuador in October last year unilaterally cancelled its deal with HAL.
The new initiative by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi under his government’s flagship “Make In India” program, a drive to uplift India’s manufacturing sector, has accorded great importance to military development. India is currently one of the world’s largest importers of weapons despite having many indigenous flagship military programs, specifically in the aviation sector. However, a concoction of poor project execution, stretched resources, political oversight, and lack of culpability over failed programs have stalled or completely cancelled critical projects like the Intermediate Jet Trainer (IJT), forcing the armed forces to look abroad to plug gaps.
For Make In India to be successful, concrete moves to develop India’s R&D sector and involving the private sector heavily into the fold with pro-market policies will be essential. India has huge potential not only to successfully service its own military needs, but to become an exporter of arms in the extremely competitive global military industrial complex, but only if it applies correct policies, political will, and strategic tact.
While the HAL Tejas remains a proud symbol of Indian industry, the fact that it took nearly three decades for the project to get where it is today should be made into a handbook for the government and associated agencies on how not to botch critical national security projects in the future. As of today, the JF-17 with its operational experience makes more sense for potential buyers. India may have had some influence in Sri Lanka’s interests for the JF-17, but it may not have the same leverage if other neighbors such as Myanmar or even Bangladesh consider the same option.
About the author- Kabir Taneja is a journalist and researcher specializing in foreign affairs, energy security and defence.
Original link to the article- http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/jf-17-vs-hal-tejas-new-competitors-on-the-military-block/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Featured Post
-
Boeing P8I of The Indian Navy ( Source- Wikimedia Commons / Credits- Indian Navy) Source- The Diplomat Author- Ankit Panda On ... -
Image source- Wikimedia Commons / Credits- NASA Source- Eurasia Review Author- David C. DeFrieze Space is a contested, congest...
