Why The Holy Places Like "Mosques" Are Targeted?

Why those hellish demons are targeting the holy places, whatever its a Mosque or Tomb/Temple of other religion! Al-Qaeda gone, anti-Bashar elements failed! Now man eater demons are organized behind the form of ISIS, humiliating the religion. Would this bring any scenario in front of world people? Yes! Some analysts and critics showed evidences that ISIS is formed and propagated by the CIA-Mossad joint venture by the full fledged fueling by the Saudi King family! May be its true or not, question is that "why they (world powers) can't stop!

See the brutality below:

Iran Sends Warships To Monitor Yemen’s Coast

Two Iranian vessels have arrived in the Gulf of Aden, off the coast of Yemen, where Saudi Arabia is on a bombing campaign against anti-government Houthi rebels.

Iranian Navy destroyer.

The Alborz destroyer and Bushehr logistics vessel are on a patrol mission in the Gulf of Aden, south of Yemen, and the Red Sea, according to Navy Commander Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari. He says the ships will “provide [safety for] Iran’s shipping lines and protect the Islamic Republic of Iran’s interests in the high seas,” Press TV reports.

According to Tehran officials, the warships will be protecting a crucial trade route against pirates. The Iranian Navy has been conducting such patrols since 2008.

Iran’s fleet is headed into troubled waters, as at the moment Yemen is blockaded off by a Saudi Arabia-led military coalition. They are on a bombing campaign against anti-government Houthi Shia rebels, whose uprising forced Yemen’s President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi to flee the country. He is currently in Saudi Arabia.

Iran has been vocal in calling for an end to the airstrikes against Houthis, which often end up hitting civilians. Saudi and Western officials believe Iran is directly supporting the Houthis with money and weapons, aiming to take control of Yemen’s Red Sea coast – something Tehran denies.

The fierce bombing campaign has led to over 560 deaths in just two weeks, according to the latest World Health Organization estimates. It describes the situation in Yemen as a rapidly-unfolding humanitarian catastrophe, with over 1,700 people wounded and 100,000 displaced.

An international evacuation effort is under way, with India alone rescuing some 4,000 of its citizens from the war zone. Russia is also taking part. So far, it has sent five airplanes to Yemen, rescuing its nationals, as well citizens of 11 other countries.

With the chaos triggered by the Houthi uprising and the airstrikes, militant and terrorist groups are finding it increasingly easy to operate in Yemen. Last week, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) captured the port city of Al Mukalla, seizing an army base and freeing 300 prisoners from a local jail.

On Tuesday, Al-Qaeda militants reportedly attacked an outpost on Yemen’s border with Saudi Arabia, killing several officers and taking over the checkpoint.

China Gifts Three WZ-10 (Wu Zhi-10/WZ-10) Attack Helicopter to Pakistan, Is More To Follow Through Purchase!

Pakistan likely to buy China’s Z10 helicopters.

January 03, 2015, 12:29 am

BEIJING- Pakistan’s closest friend China is expected to give another gift this year, in shape of their famous helicopter Z10. According to reports, three Z10 helicopters are expected to be included in Pakistan Army aviation fleet, which will be helpful in cleaning the terrorism in the county.

Pakistan showed interest in purchasing Z10 helicopters, sources said. The helicopter is capable of targeting the enemy with a range of 3 to 4 kilometers without coming in radar. It is also capable of targeting in the air as well as on ground from air.

China's Z-10 Attack Chopper in a hanger in Pakistan:

With the induction of Z10, Pakistan Army’s capability of targeting the terrorists will increase. Pakistan is already using the helicopters effectively in the war against terrorism.

On the other hand Pakistan is also interested to by Russian’s Mi-35 helicopters as well. This will not only strengthen the defence of the country but also help force to counter-terrorism effectively.

Pakistan - AH-1Z Viper Attack Helicopters and AGM-114R Hellfire II Missiles

Defense Security Cooperation Agency

NEWS RELEASE

On the web: http://www.dsca.mil

A U.S. Marine AH-1Z taking off from the USS Makin Island (LHD-8) in 2010.

WASHINGTON, Apr 6, 2015 – The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to Pakistan for AH-1Z Viper Attack Helicopters and AGM-114R Hellfire II Missiles and associated equipment, parts, training and logistical support for an estimated cost of $952 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale. The Government of Pakistan has requested a possible sale of 15 AH-1Z Viper Attack Helicopters, 32 T-700 GE 401C Engines (30 installed and 2 spares), 1000 AGM-114 R Hellfire II Missiles in containers, 36 H-1 Technical Refresh Mission computers, 17 AN/AAQ-30 Target Sight Systems, 30 629F-23 Ultra High Frequency/Very High Frequency Communication Systems, 19 H-764 Embedded Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation Systems, 32 Helmet Mounted Display/Optimized Top Owl, 17 APX-117A Identification Friend or Foe, 17 AN/AAR-47 Missile Warning Systems, 17 AN/ALE-47 Countermeasure Dispenser Sets, 18 AN/APR-39C(V)2 Radar Warning Receivers, 15 Joint Mission Planning Systems, and 17 M197 20mm Gun Systems. Also included are system integration and testing, software development and integration, aircraft ferry, support equipment, spare and repair parts, tools and test equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistics and program support. The total estimated cost is $952 million. This proposed sale will contribute to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by helping to improve the security of a country vital to U.S. foreign policy and national security goals in South Asia. This proposed sale of helicopters and weapon systems will provide Pakistan with military capabilities in support of its counterterrorism and counter-insurgency operations in South Asia. This proposed sale will provide Pakistan with a precision strike, enhanced survivability aircraft that it can operate at high-altitudes. By acquiring this capability, Pakistan will enhance its ability to conduct operations in North Waziristan Agency (NWA), the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), and other remote and mountainous areas in all-weather, day-and-night environments.

An AH-1Z from HMLAT-303 at Camp Pendleton.

Pakistan will have no difficulty absorbing these helicopters into its armed forces. The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region. The principal contractors will be Bell Helicopter, Textron in Fort Worth, Texas; General Electric in Lynn, Massachusetts; The Boeing Company in Huntsville, Alabama; and Lockheed Martin in Bethesda, Maryland. There are no known offset agreements proposed in conjunction with this potential sale. Implementation of this proposed sale will require multiple trips by U.S. Government and contractor representatives to participate in program and technical reviews, as well as training and maintenance support in country for a period of 66 months. It will also require three contractor representatives to reside in country for a period of three years to support this program. There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale. This notice of a potential sale is required by law and does not mean the sale has been concluded. All questions regarding this proposed Foreign Military Sale should be directed to the State Department's Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, pm-cpa@state.gov.

Questions Which Tangled The Concerns Over Saudi's Proposal To Pakistan For Joining In Yemen Attack

1: Currently FATA, LOC, Indian border, Afghanistan border, Karachi, Siachen & Khuzdar are active fronts which have stretched Pakistan military's capabilities, leading for them to make immense changes in conventional force posture. If the Parliament does approve the deployment of Pakistan Army into either Saudi Arabia or Yemen, it would leave Pakistan Army even more stretched with its resources and manpower. If Pakistan is going to fulfill a capability gap for the Saudi military forces, who will fulfill the gap left by the deployment of Pakistan Army inside Pakistan's own low intensity conflict zones?

Outcome of Saudi Invasion on Yemen: 

2: Would Saudi Arabia and its allies be willing to make a token military contribution to Pakistan's conventional defenses should another war with India breakout?

3: What guarantee there is that India won't take advantage of the Pakistani deployment to the Middle East by being assertive on the border or by teaming up with Iran and Afghanistan to isolate Pakistan as it has always wanted to?

4: What contingency plan does the govt have if such a deployment fuels further sectarianism in Pakistan?

5: What would the govt do if Iran who would be unhappy about such a deployment reactivates its own proxies inside Pakistan to create a situation right here in order to make Pakistan 'pay' for it?

Two non-democratic power grabber. 

6: Why would the govt not specify, in the light of Pakistani national interests what exactly are the objectives for which they want to join this coalition?

7: Why Al-Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula and Daesh haven't yet been targeted in Yemen by the coalition airstrikes?

Indian Air Force's Jaguar Fighter Jet Crashes in Haryana

A Jaguar fighter aircraft of the Indian Air Force crashed close to Shahbad town in Haryana's Kurukshetra district today, with the pilot ejecting safely.

"The fighter aircraft crashed in the fields. According to preliminary information, the pilot ejected from the plane before it fell in the fields. He was reported to have sustained injuries," Kurukshetra's Superintendent of Police, Simardeep Singh said.

Air Force's Jaguar Fighter Jet Crashes in Haryana; Pilot Ejects Safely.

An IAF spokesperson said the pilot gave a distress call before ejection. The pilot is safe, the spokesperson said. The aircraft crashed near Landi village, close to Shahbad town in Kurukshetra, about 65 km from Chandigarh, at 1:15 pm. The pilot had taken off from Ambala Air base in the afternoon, police said.

Mr Singh said that there were no immediate reports of any casualty on the ground where the plane fell. He said besides police, the IAF personnel from Ambala have rushed to the spot. A helicopter from Ambala has taken off to bring the pilot to the city.

China’s Neutron Bomb: An Perspective Analysis Through West Hemisphere's Attitude

Why does China develop weapons systems that it opposes? China criticizes U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems, but conducted three BMD tests of its own from 2010 to 2014. China regularly supports a treaty to ban space weapons, but has repeatedly tested an anti-satellite (ASAT) system. It is also unclear how China’s nascent hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV), reportedly designated the WU-14, might fit into its military doctrine. In general, China’s rapid military modernization and opaque defense budget only exacerbate concerns over the compatibility between China’s stated views and actual practice in developing strategic weapons.

Mushroom cloud of nuke blast.

One way to answer this puzzle is to look at history, specifically the history of China’s neutron bomb program. From 1977 to 1988 China developed a neutron bomb, more formally known as an enhanced radiation weapon. Neutron bombs are specialized tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) with reduced blast effects and enhanced radiation. Similar to the BMD and ASAT puzzles, this weapon appears incompatible with China’s stated nuclear doctrine. China’s no first use doctrine emphasizes strategic forces and responding only to a nuclear attack, whereas a neutron bomb is tactical and ideal for first use against conventional forces.

The puzzle deepens because there is no evidence that China ever deployed a neutron bomb. Declassified U.S. intelligence and Chinese press reports indicate the PRC developed and tested this capability, but give no indication of deployment. The timing is odd too, as China was impoverished in the 1970s but still chose to develop an expensive weapon like the neutron bomb. It waited until 1988 to test a final design, after relations with the Soviet Union (the presumed adversary during the program) had improved.

My new National Defense University monograph uses primary sources such as biographies of Chinese nuclear weapons scientists, press reports, and technical articles to answer these questions. These sources allow us to reconstruct the neutron bomb program’s history and assess what drove decisions throughout the program. As a case study China’s neutron bomb program contributes to broader discussions about China’s weapons development decision making then and now.

Mushroom cloud of Neutron Bomb blast.

The neutron bomb case study suggests a model of a “technology reserve,” in which China develops a weapons technology to match the capabilities of another state, but defers deployment and keeps them in reserve. The longer report also considers how this model might apply to China’s decision-making on BMD, ASAT, and HGV systems. To assess the drivers behind Chinese decisions, the report uses five variables as an analytical framework:

1.     China’s strategic environment – What security concerns drove China’s decision to build a neutron bomb?

2.     The neutron bomb’s strategic value – How did Chinese leaders perceive the neutron bomb’s strategic value against likely threats?

3.     The neutron bomb’s normative value – Would a neutron bomb enhance China’s international prestige, or lead to opprobrium because of a taboo against the weapon?

4.     Resource demands – What were the political, financial, material, and personnel demands for this weapon?

5.     Technological feasibility – What were the challenges for developing and producing a neutron bomb, and how did Chinese scientists address them?

A final intervening variable is coalition politics. Champions and opponents of any weapons program can greatly affect decisions. In the case of China’s neutron bomb, General Zhang Aiping was a key advocate for the weapon. With these variables in mind, China’s neutron bomb program followed three stages.

1977-1980: Decision and Initial Research

In 1977 Chinese media followed the controversy over the U.S. decision to develop and deploy the neutron bomb in Europe. Soviet media denounced the U.S. neutron bomb as the “perfect capitalist weapon,” and pressed China to also condemn it. Instead Chinese media kept a neutral tone, making the Soviets more alarmed over Beijing’s “silence.” On September 21, 1977 Chinese General Zhang Aiping broke the silence with—of all things—a poem in the state-run newspaper People’s Daily:

Steel alloys are not strong, and

Neutron bombs are not difficult.

When heroes study the sciences intensely,

They can storm all earth’s strategic passes.

At this point Chinese leaders had already ordered initial research into the neutron bomb. Regarding their motivations, one scientist recalled Deng’s statement in 1966 “What others have already done, we also must do; what others have not yet done, we certainly must also do.” The message was clear—if other countries had the neutron bomb so should China. Some scientists initially opposed developing a neutron bomb, because they worried such a program would disrupt higher priority work in miniaturizing nuclear warheads for use on missiles. Ultimately they acquiesced, knowing they no longer held the same political clout they once had, and that Chinese leaders were prioritizing conventional instead of nuclear weapons.

1980-1984: Developing “The Second Generation of Light Boats”

In 1980 General Zhang Aiping told a member of a visiting U.S. delegation that China needed the neutron bomb against the Soviets. Chinese media also followed France’s neutron bomb development and considered it a symbol of the country’s “great power status” (大国地位). On a technical level, the weaponeers decided neutron bombs and miniaturized warheads (which they were already working on) shared enough common principles that they could combine the two programs into one. Doing so, they divided the neutron bomb problem into constituent parts, or “principles,” and solved them individually. From 1982 to 1984, China conducted five tests related to the ERW and warhead miniaturization.  These tests culminated in a successful “principles breakthrough” test on December 19, 1984, which one weaponeer described in a poem as “the second generation of light boats has passed the bridge.” It appears the “second generation” referred to neutron bombs and miniaturized warheads.

1985-1988: Pause and Reevaluation

In 1985 China halted nuclear testing for 30 months. The pause coincided with a Soviet moratorium on testing and a leadership reshuffle that neutralized neutron bomb proponent General Zhang Aiping. At this point France had also decided against deploying a neutron bomb, solidifying a taboo against the weapon. Nuclear weapons scientists were aware of the international and domestic political challenges to continuing their work. In 1986 they warned PRC leaders that the United States and Soviet Union could conclude a nuclear test ban treaty that would prevent China from modernizing its nuclear arsenal. They proposed accelerated testing to complete new warhead designs, effectively making a “now or never” argument. If China did not complete new warheads soon, it would be at a long-term disadvantage.

Chinese leaders approved the report, and on September 29, 1988, China successfully tested a neutron bomb design. Before doing so a senior weapons scientist Liu Huaqiu wrote two interesting reports. Liu argued China did not need a neutron bomb, but should test a design anyway to put in China’s “technology reserve.”           

          

Conclusions and Implications for Today

What produced the neutron bomb’s outcome of development without deployment, and to what extent do these variables apply today? Strategic concerns and PRC leaders’ desire to match capabilities were key to the initial decision. Zhang Aiping’s political rise and scientists’ “principles” approach sustained the program, but later a receding Soviet threat and Zhang’s retirement stalled it. Yet despite these setbacks, scientists’ argument of “now or never” compelled Chinese leaders to test a final design to keep in a “technology reserve.” The case study also helps frame analyses of other states’ nuclear weapons programs. For example, the scientists’ “principles” approach demonstrated how a state with limited resources may approach development of a complex weapon system.

This case study’s framework and final model are useful for discussions of China’s current weapons systems under development, such as its HGV. HGVs glide through the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds and could be more survivable against BMD systems. Possible drivers for developing this system include its strategic value if the PRC believes the system can defeat U.S. missile defense systems and the normative value of being first to develop an advanced system. Future analyses could include assessments of coalitions advocating the weapon and its technological principles. An immediate recommendation is that instead of panicking over such systems, such as Soviet media did in reaction to China’s neutron bomb, calmer assessments are more constructive.

The longer report covers in greater detail the variables, program specifics, personnel, and conclusions. A good final note here concerns methodology on two fronts. First, the analytical framework of variables facilitates the systematic assessment of drivers throughout the program, and is useful for contemporary analysis of other advanced weapons programs. Second, Chinese primary sources ranging from biographies to social media can be incredibly valuable for deciphering China’s decisions on weapons programs. These points should be useful for today’s China hands and nuclear wonks tackling other security puzzles.

By: Jonathan Ray

India and Israel's Secret Love Affair

The Indo-Israeli defense relationship is once again in focus following Benjamin Netanyahu's "sky is the limit" comment after meeting Narendra Modi in New York back in September—and especially after the signing of the long-delayed $144 million deal on Barak I missiles in October. Another milestone was crossed in November when New Delhi and Tel Aviv successfully tested the Barak 8 anti-missile system—a joint project developing an aerial defense system for naval vessels. Moreover, since Modi took power this summer, New Delhi has purchased a whopping $662 million worth of Israeli arms.

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu & Indian PM Narendra Modi.

So is the Indo-Israeli strategic relationship likely to be fundamentally different now that Modi is in power?

Although Indo-Israeli ties are undoubtedly on the upswing, history suggests that Modi is not likely to have a fundamental impact on the substance of the bilateral relationship.

During the early part of the Cold War, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru briefly considered inviting Israel to the 1955 Bandung Conference, but eventually decided against doing so in order to appease Arab and Middle Eastern states. While this carved out India’s Cold War foreign policy of opposing Israel and siding with Palestine, New Delhi’s military ties with Tel Aviv, however modest, began by the 1960s. Not only did Israel provide military assistance to India in its wars in 1962, 1965 and 1971, but Tel Aviv was also one of the first countries to recognize Bangladesh following India’s victory in its 1971 war against Pakistan. When the traditionally pro-Israel and Hindu, right-wing, Jan Sangh-led government was briefly in power from 1977 to 1979, Israeli foreign minister Moshe Dayan paid a secret visit to New Delhi in August 1977 to further expand bilateral ties.

While Prime Minister Indira Gandhi mostly maintained her father’s pro-Palestine position, her son and successor Rajiv Gandhi met his Israeli counterpart in September 1985 during the UN General Assembly’s annual meeting, which was the first such open meeting between the prime ministers of the two states. Indian concerns over the fast-advancing Pakistani nuclear program are believed to have facilitated these improved ties. However, it was not until 1992—after the end of the Cold War and India’s 1991 economic liberalization—that New Delhi formally established diplomatic relations with Israel. Nevertheless, it is important to note that even without formal diplomatic relations, Indo-Israeli military ties existed during the Cold War. These ties have certainly increased in volume since the 1990s.

However, a constant theme in the history of Indo-Israeli relations has been that their public visibility has been conditioned on which party holds powers in New Delhi. Specifically, each time a Hindu nationalist coalition led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is in power in New Delhi, the visibility of the bilateral ties increases, but not the substance. On the other hand, the Congress Party has tended to downplay India’s ties to the Jewish state whenever it holds power.

In this sense, the Modi government’s proximity to Israel harkens back to the previous BJP-led National Democratic Alliance. In 2000, for instance, BJP leader L.K. Advani was the first senior Indian minister to visit Israel since the 1992 establishment of diplomatic ties between the two countries. An Indo-Israeli joint working group on terrorism was formed that year, and in 2003, then national security advisor Brajesh Mishra delivered a speech at the American Jewish Committee underlining the potential for cooperation among India, Israel and the United States in fighting Islamist extremism.

Once the Congress Party–led United Progressive Alliance government came to power in 2004, however, Indo-Israeli ties mostly disappeared from the headlines. This was by design; in 2010, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs refused to allow Congress Party MP Mani Shankar Aiyar to ask questions about the Indo-Israeli defense relationship in parliament on the grounds that it pertained to a “state secret.” At other points during the UPA’s tenure, Israel and India openly clashed. This was the case, for instance, when Indian president Pratibha Patil called on Israel to withdraw from Golan Heights as a primary condition for peace. Despite this public bickering, Indo-Israeli strategic ties remained rock solid. In fact, in the wake of the Mumbai attacks, India’s defense purchases from Israel increased so much that Tel Aviv briefly replaced Russia as New Delhi’s largest defense supplier in 2009.

In other words, the key difference between the secular Congress Party-led coalition and the one led by the Hindu nationalist BJP lies in their public-relations management of the bilateral relationship. The former publicly downplays strategic ties between India and Israel, while the latter loudly champions its defense and strategic cooperation with Tel Aviv. Beyond these semantics, however, the Congress Party and the BJP maintain largely similar ties with the Jewish state.

Not surprisingly, then, as Narendra Modi prepared to take office, think tanks in Washington and New Delhi predicted that Indo-Israeli relations would once again become more visible. After all, the Modi government’s anti-Islam, anti-Pakistan, anti-terrorism and pro-business positions are compatible with its public enunciation of deeper defense, strategic and economic ties with Tel Aviv. Furthermore, given his historic win and the weak and fractured nature of the opposition, Narendra Modi is nearly able to single-handedly coordinate the future direction of India’s foreign policy. This allows him and his government to magnify Indo-Israeli relations in public.

Which isn’t to say that Indo-Israeli ties aren’t currently expanding, as they are and are likely to continue to do so for the foreseeable future. New Delhi is currently Israel’s largest arms customer, and talks are underway for the conclusion of a free-trade agreement that would increase bilateral trade many times over.

In addition, Israel has hailed India as a strategic partner in Asia, while China as merely a trading partner. With Modi entrenched in power, and strategic interests aligned, we are poised to see India and Israel expand on their already-strong relationship.

Source: TNI

JF-17 Saudi Export

Royal Saudi Air Force emblem.

Recent reports of Saudi interest into a JF-17 purchase appear to be wide of the mark. Though such a sale is certainly not impossible (and there is strong pressure on Pakistan to secure an export order), it is likely improbable. 

The Saudi air force is currently retiring or has already retired a large number of aircraft as part of its modernisation efforts. The F-5E/F and Tornado ADV fleet have been retired or have been relegated to the training role, and more F-15s and Typhoons ordered in their place as the well funded RSAF can afford such high tech aircraft. Though the JF-17 was designed to replace aircraft such the F-5, of which over a hundred at one time flew in Saudi service, the purchase of advanced western aircraft points to efforts by the Saudis to make a wholesale improvement in their airpower by phasing out lightweight fighters. Even in the training role further Hawk trainers as LIFT and light strike aircraft could easily fill in the second line fighter requirement if there was one. Coupled with upgrades being made to existing F-15S and Tornado IDS strike aircraft, the chances of there being a role for the JF-17 to fill are reduced.

The purchase of advanced western weaponry also buys the Saudis a degree of influence as its multi-billion dollar deals have been instrumental in ensuring the profitability of western arms firms during periods of uncertainty. As was seen with the ending of the British investigations surrounding the Anglo-Saudi Al-Yamamah arms deal in 2006, Saudi influence can be substantial.

A possible JF-17 sale however, could eventuate if negotiations for further Typhoon aircraft for example are not fruitful. With 72 Typhoons on order the negotiations for a further batch of 72 are ongoing. However, the Saudis could at least explore the option of a JF-17 purchase if only to pressure the British into accepting more favourable terms. Considering the strategic logic the Saudis operate by in which they effectively buy influence a possible purchase may also rest on how they view the growing power of China. China has made some progress in penetrating the Saudi market with its commercial goods and has even built a public transit system in Mecca. China was also the country the Saudis turned to when it decided to purchase ballistic missiles in the 1980s. The Chinese could therefore pick up a sale as a vendor of last resort, or as a country that the Saudis believe is now important enough to view as a potentially strong influence in the region. This could be linked to the Saudi view of needing to contain Iran. Therefore purchasing the Sino-Pakistani FC-1/JF-17 could be part of such thinking. However, this is purely speculation and a Saudi purchase is, for the best part, unlikely.

The reports may be yet another example of Pakistani officials feeding such speculation to the local media, which has then reported them as fact. Unnamed US journal that has been quoted in recent reports aside, the likelihood remains slim. This is especially when considering past examples of large scale arms sales to Saudi Arabia. When Saudi Arabia was reportedly interested in purchasing the HIT Saad APC there was considerable speculation a sale would also include the Al-Khalid MBT. Though a Saad sale was a reasonable enough belief, the Al-Khalid sale was unrealistic as the Saudis have the ability to purchase better armoured and armed tanks than the Al-Khalid even in that class of medium MBT.

A Saudi JF-17 purchase therefore is most likely unrealistic.

Source: PakDef Military Consortium

Its Confirmed, Pakistan Navy Acquiring 8 New Type 041 Improved Yuan Class Submarines From China

Pakistan is renewing efforts to modernize its submarine arm with eight submarines from China as well as a search for surplus European submarines.

Navy and Defence Ministry officials revealed the plans to the National Assembly Standing Committee on Defence on Tuesday, with Economic Affairs Secretary Muhammad Saleem Sethi leaving for China to pursue the deal on Wednesday.

 

Improved Type 041 Yuan Class Submarines.

Analysts believe that since the National Security Committee has agreed to the deal in principle, it is likely to go ahead.

The officials also requested US $294 million to upgrade ATR-72 maritime patrol aircraft. Two un-upgraded aircraft are in service, and officials hope to acquire more.

Pakistan operates five French submarines.

Its two Agosta-70s were acquired in 1979 and 1980, respectively, and despite upgrades they are widely acknowledged by analysts to be well past their prime and in need of replacement. Three air-independent propulsion (AIP)-equipped Agosta-90Bs, which are a development of the Agosta-70s, were commissioned from 1999 onward.

The Navy requires 12 submarines laid out in the Armed Forces Development Plan (AFDP) 2015 and a later revised plan.

Tuesday's proceedings created some confusion, however, with officials telling the committee that surplus submarines had been pursued from France, Germany, and the UK, but later acknowledging France had refused Pakistan's approaches with concerns over transfer of technology as one example.

Brian Cloughley, previous Australian defense attache to Islamabad, has said France has simply abandoned the Pakistani defense market to focus on the far more lucrative Indian one.

The mention of the UK was also surprising, considering the UK has not built or operated conventional submarines since the early 1990s, and sold its four Upholder-class subs to Canada where they now serve as the Victoria class.

Cloughley believes the Germans may not be willing or able to supply any surplus submarines either as they do not seem to have any, or at least any that Pakistan would want.

German firms offer new Type-214, Type-209/1400 mod, and Type-210 mod submarines for export.

However, Cloughley said there may be other possibilities.

Germany partnered with Turkey in 2011 to offer Indonesia a lease/new-build deal for Type-209 submarines. Indonesia, however, selected the South Korean improved Chang Bogo, a development of the Type-209/1400.

Turkish industry officials have told Defense News they are ready to offer Pakistan Type-209s if asked.

Turkey, one of Pakistan's closest allies and strongest defense industry partners, shelved its plans to upgrade its six Type-209/1200 Atilay class subs with AIP systems in favor of acquiring the Type-214.

However, Pakistani defense industry officials have said Islamabad would prefer a newer design.

It is uncertain if present circumstances have forced a rethink. "It's all supposition, and I'm afraid there doesn't seem to be an answer," Cloughley said.

Pakistan almost signed a deal for three Type-214 subs in 2008, raises hopes of Pakistan-Turkish submarine cooperation.

However, analyst Haris Khan of the Pakistan Military Consortium think tank said the deal floundered on the issue of financing after the then-Pakistan People's Party-led government signed an IMF loan agreement that derailed the sub acquisition plans.

He said the Type-214 deal was the centerpiece of the naval aspect of the AFDP, and that the first submarine would have been delivered in 2015. The naval aspect of the AFDP especially is in total disarray, he said.

It is unknown if the Type-214 was shelved until finances become available (some industry officials believe this was at least the intention at the time the deal collapsed), but attention subsequently switched to acquiring six AIP-equipped submarines from China.

Due to the need to decommission the Agosta-70s, Khan believes any refurbished submarines will be required to be "sailing under a Pakistani flag within 12 months."

Acquiring Turkish Type-209s remains possible, and despite Pakistan's predicament, Khan says "Under the present circumstances I don't see any collaboration between Pakistan and Turkey since Pakistan will only be locally producing Chinese submarines."

Whether the Chinese submarines are the S-20 export derivative of the Type-039A/Type-041 Yuan-class submarine, or a bespoke design, is unclear. But the Yuan has also been mentioned, and according to government officials the deal was supposed to be secured by the end of 2014.

If the deal transpires, Khan said it will be the largest ever Sino-Pakistani deal. He believes the submarines will each cost $ 250 million to $325 million.

Neither the Ministry of Defence nor the Navy would shed further light when asked. No answers were forthcoming to requests regarding the timeframe of the deal, whether the two Agosta-70s will finally be retired now the number of planned Chinese submarines has increased to eight, clarification on acquiring surplus Western submarines, or the status of the Type-214 acquisition efforts.

Should the Chinese deal go through, it will be a considerable relief, and be especially significant for the nuclear deterrent.

Pakistan inaugurated its Naval Strategic Force Command in 2012 in response to India's rapid nuclearization.

A potential force of 8 AIP-equipped Chinese subs and the three Agosta-90Bs "is a quantum leap in existing capabilities," said Mansoor Ahmed of Quaid-e-Azam University's Department of Defence and Strategic Studies.

Though acknowledging nuclear-powered attack boats are far more capable, he believes "An AIP [diesel-electric submarine] offers Pak the best bang for the buck. But it has to be supplemented with a commensurate investment in [anti-submarine warfare] capabilities to neutralize developments on the Indian side."

He said this will lay the groundwork for having a permanent sea-based deterrent equipped with plutonium-based warheads fitted to cruise missiles, "which is expected to be the next major milestone in Pakistan's development of a triad."

Ahmed acknowledges this "would pose fresh challenges for ensuring effective and secure communications at all times with the submarines for both India and Pak in addition to having a mated-arsenal at sea that would require pre-delegation of launch authority at some level for both countries.

"This would be an altogether new challenge that would have to be addressed for an effective sea-based deterrent."

Nevertheless, AIP-equipped conventional submarines "provide reliable second strike platforms, [and] an assured capability resides with [nuclear-powered attack and nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines], which are technically very complex and challenging to construct and operate compared to SSKs, and also very capital intensive."

World's Most Deadliest Main Battle Tank, Or, First Ever Series Produced Third Generation MBT

Russia will display its newest tank during the Victory Day Parade in Moscow’s Red Square on May 9 this year. 20 units of the world’s first series-produced third generation main battle tank, designated T-14 and based upon the new “Armata” universal chassis system, have recently been delivered to the Russian Armed Forces for training purposes.

By 2020, Uralvagonzavod (UVZ), the largest main battle tank manufacturer in the world, plans to produce 2,300 T-14 Armata models. According to media reports, large deliveries of the tank (around 500 per year) will start in 2017. In total, the Russian Land Forces are scheduled to receive a batch of 32 Armata main battle tanks this year.

The Russian military intends to replace 70 percent of its tank corps with the new tracked vehicle, replacing the older T-72 and T-90 main battle tanks – both of which were also produced by UVZ. The Russian military envisions the universal chassis system as a platform for as many as 13 different tracked vehicles, including a self-propelled artillery platform, an armored military engineering vehicle, and an armored personal carrier.

What are the tank’s technical specifications? According to the Foreign Military Studies Office (FSMO) based at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas:

The tank’s main armament is the 2A82 125-mm smoothbore cannon, capable of firing high-powered munitions,including armor-piercing discarding sabot, guided missile, shaped-charge, and other types of munitions. The T-14 is equipped with the Chelyabinsk A-85-3A X-diesel engine capable of producing up to 1500 hp. It also has a tank information control system (TICS) that monitors all assemblies and components, diagnoses malfunctions, and controls onboard systems.

The muzzle energy of the 2A82 123-mm smoothbore cannon is greater than that of the German Leopard-2 Rheinmetall 120 mm gun, according to media reports. The tank also boasts fully automated ammunition loading and completely computerized targeting systems.

The FSMO report continues:

The T-14 tank will be equipped with an adjustable suspension capable of adapting to varying relief, terrain type, and vehicle speed, resulting in increased speed while moving in columns, as well as over rugged terrain. The suspension system will also alleviate crew fatigue, while assisting the fire control system to deliver accurate fire while on the move.

The article also notes that, “[u]nlike previous Soviet/Russian vehicles, crew safety (survivability) and comfort appear to be a concern. The crew is in an armored capsule that is somewhat roomy compared to other Soviet/Russian tanks.”

According to RT, “the tank’s turret will also carry a 30 mm sub-caliber ranging gun to deal with various targets, including low-flying aerial targets, such as attack planes and helicopters. A 12.5 mm turret-mounted heavy machine gun is reportedly capable of taking out incoming projectiles, such as anti-tank missiles. It’s capable of neutralizing shells approaching at speeds of up to 3,000 meters per second.”

What makes Russia’s new main battle tank so special?

First, the active defense system deserves special attention. It is an individual anti-missile and anti-projectile tank defense system, supposedly capable of intercepting any type of anti-tank ammunition.

“It defends the vehicle from strikes, including those from the air. Thus, even the most modern Apache helicopter will not have a 100 percent chance of destroying a T-14 with its missiles. Active defense is situated along the entire perimeter of the turret at various levels, which ensures complete protection of the tank’s most important elements,” according to the FSMO report.

Second, the location of the crew is also quite unique for a Russian tank (as is the vehicles unmanned remotely controlled turret):

The crew of three men is located in an armored capsule in the forward portion of the hull. According to the specialists, the forward projection has multilayered, combined armor protection which can withstand a direct hit of any type of rounds which exist today, [including] sub-caliber and cumulative rounds.

The German weekly Der Stern notes about the T-14 Armata:

An absolutely new main battle tank is certainly not something most of the world’s exiting armies can boast about. The German Leopard-2 tank was developed 35 years ago, just like the American M1 Abrams. The existing versions of the western tanks feature many improvements, but the basic characteristics do not differ much from the original. The Armata is the first genuinely new [tank] construction since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The Foreign Military Studies Office further underlines:

In order to appreciate the real design and technological breakthrough of the Russian tank builders, a rather recent, but classified story should be remembered. It turned out that it is more difficult to design and manufacture a truly new tank than a new aircraft. Fifth-generation fighters are already flying, but only second-generation tanks are in the inventories throughout the entire world. So the Armata will become the first series-produced third-generation tank (although there are those who will dare to list it as fifth generation).

Of course, all of these reports have to be taken with a grain of salt, and until the tank has been thoroughly examined in action, we will know very little about its genuine capabilities.

Source: Internet

Pakistan Aheading To Purchase 8 Submarines From China

Pakistan‬ will procure eight ‪submarines‬ from ‪China‬ to further strengthen its defence. The National Assembly Standing Committee on Defence was informed today during its meeting in Islamabad that a contact was made with France for the supply of new sub marines which declined their supply while it has already supplied these submarines to ‪India‬. It was informed that contact was also made with countries for the purchase of these sub marines but the Chinese submarines were found more feasible to meet requirements of our Navy.

 

The Committee was also informed that the Government is also in contact with ‪France‬, ‪‎UK‬ and ‪Germany‬ to purchase used sub marines. It was also disclosed in the meeting that contacts have been made with various countries to sale JF-17 Thunder fighter plane besides other defence technology. The committee was also told that defence ties with ‪‎Russia‬ are improving gradually.

Indian Navy's Floating Coffins!

According to the News report by India’s Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) on the submarine fleet revealed that the operational availability of the existing boats was “as low as 48% .The CAG report also warned that more than 50% of submarines have completed three-fourths of their operational life and some are already beyond their maximum service life, compelling the navy to deal with the challenges of handling an increasingly obsolete fleet safely.

 

An Indian navy submarine Sindhurakshak with about 18 sailors on board caught fire after an explosion.While the exact cause of the explosion on-board Sindhurakshak is still to be determined, but it puts a spotlight on the spate of incidents involving naval vessels. Since 2005, at least 10 serious incidents have been reported. Among them five are related to the Sindhughosh-class of submarines, of which Sindhurakshak is the one. Like in April 2006 INS Prahar Naval Patrol vessel, which was on return journey to Mumbai from Goa, sank at a Distance of 20 nautical miles from the coast.

In January 2008 INS Sindhu-gosh, with a large foreign-owned cargo ship in the Arabian Sea last could have meant a cold watery grave for the 53 sailors on board the underwater vessel. The 16-year-old Russian-made submarine, INS Sindhurakshak, also suffered an explosion in 2010 that killed one sailor and injured two others. The Indian navy said that accident was caused by a faulty battery valve that leaked hydrogen, causing an explosion in the vessel’s battery compartment.

While these incidents may reflect training and safety lapses coupled with an ageing fleet. Safety is, doubtless, a paramount concern not only in the running of conventionally armed submarines, which presently operate out of bases surrounded by densely populated cities and even more so in the case of the nuclear-armed submarine. If there were to be a similar incident with the nuclear-tipped missiles, it would be catastrophic not only for the crew but for the nearby population centers as well.