DEVASTATING Ground ATTACK Exercises of US Air Forces NATO and Slovak Military

LEAKED Clips Of US Military SECRET WEAPONS

DEADLY FUTURE ATTACK Helicopter of US Military Boeing Sikorsky SB-1 Defiant

Subscribe For More - MilitaryTiger

                    

SHARE this video on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google+

○○○ Stay Tuned and Enjoy ○○○

Efes-2016 Combined Joint Military Exercise, Turkey

Subscribe For More - MilitaryTiger

                    

SHARE this video on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google+

○○○ Stay Tuned and Enjoy ○○○

Efes-2016 Combined Joint Military Exercise, Turkey

Subscribe For More - MilitaryTiger

                    

SHARE this video on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google+

○○○ Stay Tuned and Enjoy ○○○

Bell-Lockheed Martin JV's V-280 Valor Upraising for US Military's FVL Program

As the Pentagon considers the future of military vertical lift, Bell Helicopter is talking with the US services about designing a next-generation tiltrotor solution that could begin low-rate production in the mid-2020s, one company official said.

Bell Helicopter's V-280 Valor concept

Bell is partnered with Lockheed Martin to build a rotorcraft flight demonstrator as part of the US Army’s Joint Multi-Role program, which will gauge the art of the possible for the path ahead. The demonstrator program will inform the Army’s Future Vertical Lift effort to buy a new state-of-the-art family of helicopters in the 2030s.

The demonstration effort may have implications beyond the Army. The Pentagon has indicated that FVL may eventually replace the Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force military helicopters as well. But for now, Bell is working with the Army and Marine Corps to shorten the time line for fielding the aircraft, the V-280, program manager Chris Gehler told the media on Nov. 16.

“Bell Helicopter is working closely with the Army and the Marine Corps on informing the requirements of FVL, exploring the options for shortening the time required to field this aircraft,” Gehler said. “We’ll work with our primary customers in the Army and Marine Corps to explore different ways to enter into a low rate production by the mid 2020’s. We are in close communication with the DOD to bring the V-280 onboard as soon as possible with limited risk to better take advantage of the industry and DOD investment.”

The Bell-Lockheed team is offering its V-280 Valor tiltrotor, which builds on the technology developed for Bell-Boeing’s V-22. The competing team, made up of Sikorsky Aircraft and Boeing, is working on a coaxial helicopter known as the SB-1 Defiant for the demonstrator effort.

Although the demonstrator prototypes will fly in 2017, the Army is currently not planning a contract award until the late 2020s, Richard Harris, Bell’s vice president for international military business sales, said in an interview with Defense News. But he stressed that company officials believe the Bell-Lockheed team could achieve initial operational capability by 2025.

“The Army and DOD are exploring options for shortening the V-280 development timeframe, given the significant investment by DOD and industry,” Gehler said. “The Army intends to enter a technology maturation and risk review (TMRR) phase around 2020. We feel a case could be made to instead jump ahead to the Engineering Manufacturing and Development (EMD) phase, given the technology readiness levels we will demonstrate. This has the potential to move the entire timeline up, and deliver this leap-ahead capability to the warfighters years earlier.”

Bell’s goal is ultimately to replace all the Pentagon’s helicopters with the V-280, Harris said, touting the plane’s speed and flexibility. The Valor will have twice the speed and range of the Army’s UH-60 Black Hawk, more than doubling operational reach, according to Bell’s website. The future plane will also outperform the V-22, Harris said, with a combat radius of 1,200 nautical miles compared to the Osprey’s 900 nautical miles.

In one major difference between the two tiltrotors, the Valor’s engines remain in place for transition to forward-flying position, while the rotors and drive shafts tilt, Harris explained. The V-280 will also build on the V-22’s offensive capability. Unlike the Osprey, the Valor will have a forward-firing capability, likely achieved by integrating Hellfire missiles into the plane’s side panels, he said.

While the new aircraft’s cabin will look much like a Black Hawk’s, the advanced glass cockpit uses similar technology to the F-35, Harris said, touting the plane’s fly-by-wire flight control system.

Bell just received the first cabin, and is getting ready to integrate the wings and engine onto the plane, Harris said, adding that “it went together like Lego blocks.”

“When you take a look at the dynamic world that we live in these days and how fast things happen and how far away things happen, a conventional helicopter just does not meet the requirements of all the services,” Harris said. “We are trying to define the standard for what future vertical lift is based upon [Bell’s] legacy and the fact that we are the ones that developed the secret sauce for the V-22.”

US Army Lost Track of27 Ballistic Missiles LeftOver from Cold War-Era

The US Army retired its Cold War-era Lance ballistic missiles in 1992 after 30 years of deploying the weapons to Europe. Since then, the Army somehow lost track of 27 of the 20-foot-long missiles.

More than 20 years after the Army retired its last Lances, 27 of the 1.5-ton missiles were discovered last year at Redstone Arsenal, in Alabama, where they had been stored unbeknownst to anyone at the Army post.

Local ABC affiliate WAAY-TV reports: "[Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command] officials say they did not even know the missiles were on post, stored inside igloos on the south side of the arsenal, until AMCOM did a thorough counting of all weapons in 2014. That's when the missiles were discovered.

"The Lance Missiles have been stored in the igloos for an unknown amount of time but it could have been decades."

The Lance was most notorious for its association with the so-called "neutron bomb" warhead.

The warhead was designed to be fatal, but cause minimal destruction to infrastructure. It released great quantities of neutrons which attacked the central nervous system. The warhead also reduced the heat and blast effects of conventional nuclear warheads.

Congress approved production funds for the new warhead in 1977, but it was deferred the following year by President Jimmy Carter.

After 1992, the US military used Lances as targets for missile-interceptors, finally expending the last viable Lances in July 2015, according to the Army.

The last of the 27 lost Lances were demilitarized in September and the metal will be recycled. The project was dangerous, because of the Lance's "hypergolic" liquid propulsion, which mixes nitric acid with hydrazine, chemicals that spontaneously ignite when they come into contact.

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

Boeing has patented a plasma ‘force field’ to protect against shock waves

If it’s ever realised, it could protect military vehicles from energy emitted by nearby blasts. 

 

As weapons get more sophisticated, researchers are trying to build defence systems that can keep pace, and what’s better than a force field?

Aerospace and defence giant Boeing has been awarded a patent to develop a force field-like system that could protect military vehicles from shockwaves following explosions from missiles or improvised explosive devices.

Boeing’s proposed system involves using a combination of lasers, electricity and microwaves to rapidly heat up the air between the vehicle and a blast. This heat creates a plasma shield that's denser than the surrounding air and able to deflect or absorb the energy from the incoming shockwave.

Unlike the impenetrable force fields of science fiction movies, the system is not designed to prevent direct impacts or shrapnel. Instead, Boeing’s system is designed to protect a target - which could be a vehicle carrying troops, or a building such as a command centre or a hospital - from the after-effects of nearby explosions.

The system, which would likely be mounted on a military vehicle, or some other target, would have sensors that can detect the velocity and shape of an incoming threat. The system would also be able to determine the size and force of the resulting explosion.

Its sensors and computers would be able to calculate the time it would take the shock wave from an explosion to reach the target, and from what direction. This is important, as the generated force field would only protect a small region of the target, rather than enveloping the entire thing.

Once it has determined the timing of the shock wave, the system’s objective is to somehow heat the air around the target, generating what Boeing terms a “transient medium” that intercepts the shock wave and reduces the energy density. 

 

As Evan Ackerman from IEEE Spectrum explains:

"The general concept is to use an electromagnetic arc to create this intermediate medium in mid-air on very short notice by using a stupendous amount of energy to heat the air into a plasma.“

The plasma, which is much hotter than the surrounding air, also has a different density and composition. Boeing believes this plasma field is enough to divert, reflect or absorb the energy passing through.

In its application, Boeing outlines several different embodiments of the systems, with different methods for detecting threats, and for rapidly creating the plasma field.

One option uses converging lasers or microwave beams to generate a spherical region of plasma. Alternatively, the force field could be generated by firing lasers that induce plasma channels in the air, which provide a path for an electric discharge to create the plasma shield. These same pathways could be created by launching metal pellets that leave conductive trails as they fly.

However they decide to make it work, it's a pretty cool idea. We'll be waiting for the first the prototype, which may or may not be able to defend against shock waves from this crazy new weapon.

Source: IEEE Spectrum

General Raheel Sharif At Stanford University

General Raheel Sharif spoke at the Stanford University to a committee including scholars and academia like Dr Kiron Skinner and Dr Abraham Sofaer among others. 

 

 

He highlighted Pakistan's role in combating globalized terror and asserted that Pakistan is a nation of resilient people who have defended themselves at great cost.

That Must've Suck

U.S. Service members stand by a Patriot missile battery in Gaziantep, Turkey

U.S. Service members stand by a Patriot missile battery in Gaziantep, Turkey, Feb. 4, 2013, during a visit from U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter, not shown. U.S. and NATO Patriot missile batteries and personnel deployed to Turkey in support of NATO's commitment to defending Turkey's security during a period of regional instability.

Some of Syria's chemical weapons will be destroyed on US vessel - OPCW

The most dangerous types of toxic substances from Syria's chemical weapons arsenals will be removed from the country by December 31 and destroyed on a vessel provided by the United States, Ahmet Uzumcu, director-general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said in a statement.

"The United States has offered to contribute a destruction technology, full operational support and financing to neutralize Syria's priority chemicals, which are to be removed from the country by 31 December," the statement says.

"The neutralization operations will be conducted on a US vessel at sea using hydrolysis," the statement says.

Uzumcu also reiterated that 35 commercial companies have expressed on interest in participating in the destruction of Syrian chemical weapons. These offers will now undergo evaluation, he said.

The US government has begun outfitting a ship in its reserve ready force with equipment to enable it to destroy some of Syria's chemical weapons at sea in the event Washington is asked to assist in the effort, a defense official said on Sunday.

The Maritime Administration vessel MV Cape Ray is being equipped with the newly developed Field Deployable Hydrolysis System, which was designed by the Defense Department to neutralize components used in chemical weapons, a defense official said on condition of anonymity.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which supervising the disposal of Syria's chemical arms, said last week the United States had offered to destroy some of the components on a US ship and was looking for a Mediterranean port where the work could be carried out.

"The United States is committed to supporting the international community's efforts to destroy Syria's chemical weapons in the safest, most efficient and effective means possible," Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, said in an email on Sunday.

"We have offered and are currently outfitting a US vessel with field deployable hydrolysis system technology to support the OPCW's efforts," she said, adding the US remained "confident that we can meet the milestones for destruction set out by the OPCW."

The OPCW aims to remove the most critical chemicals out of Syria by the end of December, with the remainder due out by Feb. 5.

The Cape Ray, a 648-foot (198-meter) vessel with built-in ramps to enable cargo to be efficiently rolled on and rolled off, is part of the Maritime Administration's ready reserve force of 46 ships.

The force was organized to provide strategic sealift for US military forces, but it is part of the Transportation Department. The Pentagon would lease the Cape Ray if it participates in the Syrian chemical weapons destruction, the defense official said.

The OPCW said last week 35 firms had expressed an interest in bidding for commercial contracts to dispose of some 800 tonnes (1 tonne = 1.102 metric tons) of bulk industrial chemicals that are safe to destroy in commercial incinerators.

Another 500 tonnes of chemicals, including nerve agents, were seen as too dangerous to import into a country or to process commercially. The OPCW was considering the US offer to neutralize those chemical agents on a vessel at sea.

The United States has offered to destroy Syria's priority chemicals on a US vessel at sea using hydrolysis, adding that a naval vessel was undergoing modifications to support the operation, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) said.

The OPCW also said it had received expressions of interest from 35 firms for the safe disposal of Syria's chemical stockpile.

"The United States has offered to contribute destruction technology, full operational support and financing to neutralise Syria's priority chemicals," the organisation said in a statement.

The United States has offered to destroy Syria's chemical stockpile and plns to do so at sea, the world's chemical watchdog said on Saturday.

"The Director-General stated that the neutralisation operation will be conducted on a US vessel at sea using hydrolysis," the Hague-based Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons said in a statement.

The Obama administration is offering to destroy some of Syria’s chemical weapons in international waters on one of its ships, Itar-Tass reports.

The destruction would likely be on the MV Cape Ray, a US government-owned ship, in the Mediterranean Sea, with US Navy warships patrolling nearby. The US would use what it calls a mobile Field Deployable Hydrolysis System to neutralize the chemical material, making it unusable in weapons.

This approach would avoid the vexing diplomatic, environmental and security problems posed by disposing of the materials on any nation’s soil. The plan still needs final approval by the UN chemical watchdog, the OPCW.

Jonathan Lalley, a spokesman for the president's National Security Council, stressed that no decisions had been made regarding destroying chemicals outside of Syria.

"We and our international partners are pursuing alternative means of destruction, and we will continue discussing with other countries how they might best contribute to that effort," Lalley said in a statement.

"We remain confident that we will complete elimination of the program within the milestones agreed upon."

Ranking Serials And Insignias of US Armed Forces