Chapter 64

End of Age of Sea Powers Aircraft Carriers Tanks - Kalki Gaur

(0)(1041) Chapter 21: End of the Aircraft Carrier Age

(i) Doctrine of Weapon Platforms- Age of Sea Power Ending

LAND POWER CHALLENGES SEA POWER: The recent revolution in war weapon technology, provides land powers a historical opportunity to permanently damage the dominance of the Sea Powers. The technology of precision guided smart missiles, allows land powers to sink US aircraft carriers. Vasca da Gama exploited the Gunboat Ships to sink the coastal merchant fleets and local navies to destroy the Indian Ocean coastal trade. The land powers in the twenty-first century will acquire the missile capability to sink Western merchant marine fleets and fishing fleets. India would be able to sink US Seventh Fleet if it ever threatens India again.

Herbivorous Elephant India

HERBIVORES GEOPOLITICAL ELEPHANT: India is a land power. India is a herbivores geopolitical Elephant. United States is a Sea power. United States is geopolitically a Carnivores Eagle-Crocodile. Elephant can not fight the crocodile in the coastal waters, as crocodile can drown the elephant by dragging it under water. Eagles flying from the back of the crocodile can attack the injured prey. India should use tactical nuclear weapons to sink the American maritime assets so that American Air power may not threaten the coastal areas.

THREAT OF THE US CARRIER FLEETS: The fundamental purpose of Indian nuclear arsenal is to the capability to sink hostile US aircraft carrier fleets, in a future India-United States war. Indira Gandhi decided to exercise India's nuclear option immediately after President Nixon and Henry Kissinger threatened India with nuclear weapons in 1971. Nixon threatened India, in case India decides to occupy Pakistan occupied Kashmir after unconditional surrender of 107,000 Pakistan' troops in East Pakistan in 1971. President Nixon threatened India with nuclear attack, even when India was not at war wit the United States. President Nixon never threatened China with nuclear attack in the Vietnam War, even when China was a belligerent and had caused heavy loss of American lives. While Henry Kissinger humbly petitioned the belligerent nuclear China for a face-saving exit policy in Vietnam War, he threatened non-nuclear India with a nuclear attack.

INDIA IS A LAND POWER: Geopolitically India is a land power. India will never use nuclear weapons in any land war, even if it were to lose a conventional land war. India will exercise its nuclear deterrent to deter the aggression of aircraft carrier fleets in the Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea. India cannot allow any hostile naval fleet to come within 1,000 miles of India's coastline. India should acquire the capability to sink minimum of twelve (12) aircraft carriers worldwide. The number of nuclear weapons and that missiles required to sink twelve (12) hostile aircraft carriers will constitute the minimum size of India's nuclear deterrent. India should not use nuclear weapons against the land-based targets. India Navy should deploy India's nuclear deterrent. India shall make preemptive nuclear strikes against hostile naval fleets that enters Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea during hostilities.

Net Assessment in Weapons

PROBLEM OF NET ASSESSMENT: The recent technological revolution in warfare has strengthened the United States on land in the air. However beneficial the revolution in warfare is to the United States in land and air, it also poses a fundamental threat to American domination of the sea. Paradoxically the same technological revolution in warfare that has increased United States' power on land and air threatens to decrease the power of the United States at sea. India can use the new warfare technology to use precision guided munitions and tactical nuclear weapons to threaten and sink US aircraft carriers. Unfortunately for the Navy, the revolution initiated by US Air Force and the US Army is inevitably sweeping out to sea. The weapons system, that launched precision air strikes against Serb infrastructure as well as against tank weaponry on the ground, are deployed by the navies of the world. It allows other navies to challenge the American dominatiion of the oceans. These technological innovations do not strengthen the strategic position of the United States Navy.

END OF THE AGE OF SEA POWERS: The new US weapons culture of power munitions, strikes at enemy planes, tanks, and strategic sites with stunning accuracy from beyond the range of enemy retaliation. It ransforms the correlation of forces in the air and on the ground.

The powerful precision munitions destroy enemy platforms on the Land and Sea. If India introduces this new weapons culture at sea, against frigates, merchant marine, and US aircraft carriers, the effects will be disastrous for American Navy. The Pax American, in place at sea since 1945, will be increasingly threatened and undermined as American Naval and Maritime systems become more vulnerable, by precision guided munitions (PGMs). The force multiplier that benefited the United States in Eurasia land and air wars has turned against the United States at sea. Romans ruled the Mediterranean Sea by occupying the Mediterranean coastlands. Similarly, India can deny Sea powers access to Asia and Africa by occupying the coastlands.

(ii) End of Carrier Age

SINKING THE US SEVENTH FLEET: Technology exists that would allow Indian Navy, by using missiles, satellite sensors, powerful munitions and nuclear nukes, to sink the US carrier fleets and their support vessels. The US led revolution in precision weapons allows the United States to engage and defeat much larger air forces and land forces. The revolution in precision weapons would also allow India to deny the United States to project its forces across the oceans and supply and sustain them there. Since the revolution in precision weapons makes this impossible, then the United States, which initiated the revolution in military warfare, will turn out to the net strategic loser. Nuclear India should deploy US precision munition technology to sink US carrier fleets in the times of war. It is in the geopolitical interest of India to use smart tactical nuclear weapons to deny the Maritime powers of United States and Britain the control of the seas. Smart weapons can destroy the maritime economic infrastructure by sinking merchant ships.

INDIA’S NUCLEAR DOCTRINE: India’s nuclear forces will base on a triad of aircraft, mobile land-based missiles, and sea based assets. The survivability of the forces will enhance by a combination of multiple redundant systems, mobility, dispersion and deception.

THREAT OF INTELLIGENT ANTI-SHIP PROJECTILES: The threat posed by faster and more efficient projectiles, whose launch sites neither can be located nor destroyed, imposes a tremendous defensive burden on the US carrier fleets. The fiendishly expensive US Navy's Aegis ship-defense system, is designed to destroy every incoming projectile. As the sinking of the USS Stark demonstrated when an Iraqi Mirage attacked it without a warning, a single error would result in catastrophe. This necessitates the diversion of greater and greater resources for the primary naval offensive mission to the task of ship self-defense. The revolution in smart weapons is pushing carrier battle groups, the foundation of the American maritime power, towards geopolitical senility. The cost of merely keeping alive the carrier battle groups will undermine the general capacity of the US Navy to carry out its global strategic offensive missions. Indian nuclear weapons doctrine advocates the preemptive use of tactical nuclear weapons against hostile aircraft carriers after the declaration of war. Smart tactical nuclear weapons make carrier battle group’s geopolitical dinosaurs. No sensible US president should ever dispatch the Seventh Fleet to Bay of Bengal on a hostile mission.

MISSILES THREATEN MARITIME AIRPOWER: The United States was the master of maritime power because of its aircraft carriers. American carrier battle groups and amphibious expeditionary forces sailed the globe at will. US Navy controlled the sea-lanes and landing expeditionary forces wherever they wished. The operational role of the carriers had less to do with sea-lane control than with transporting airpowers to Eurasian shores. Long-range, hypersonic precision missiles pose two threats to the US aircraft carriers. The first threat is that smart missiles will penetrate the carriers' complex and expensive defenses and sink them. The second threat is the smart missiles will do the carriers' job more effectively and more cheaply. This is a classic case of geopolitical senility of weapons systems. On one side, a new weapons system brushes aside the intricate defenses of the older system. On the other side, the same technology that destroys the older system carries out its tasks more efficiently.

MISSION OF CARRIERS: One mission of the aircraft carriers was to secure sea-lanes by destroying enemy warships and threatening enemy merchantmen. The second mission of the aircraft carriers was to bombard enemy territory within the range of its aircraft. Carriers allowed aircraft to operate where there were no airfields. The carrier existed as an intermediate platform for aircraft; bringing carrier based aircrafts within the range of enemy forces, without putting aircraft carriers itself too close to the enemy. The tanks on land, as well as the aircraft carriers at sea, is designed to bring a weapon of limited range into contact with the enemy. The tank brought the gun to within the range of the enemy. The transportation, supply, and self-defense cost of the tank soon dwarfed the cost of offensive mechanism to fire a shell. Similarly expensive aircraft carriers delivers thirty-six (36) to forty (40) manned aircraft’s to within a few hundred miles of a target, so that each aircraft can carry and drop seven or eight tons of ordnance on an enemy. During Desert Storm, in Iraq when the efforts of the US Carrier Air force came to be measured against those of a land based US Air Force, the Navy didn't appear to be quite up to snuff.

It is not true that anti-ship missiles have already made the aircraft carrier obsolete. It is also not true that cruise missiles are now available to take over the carrier mission. However, it is true that anti-ship missiles have made the aircraft carriers vulnerable. The cruise missiles cannot perform the offensive bombing missions of the carrier-based aircraft. Thus India can exploit the strategic vulnerability of the US carrier fleets and the United States would fail to assert domination by using cruise missiles to make up for the shortage of carrier based bombers. India does not need the bombardment role of the cruise missiles. India need to perfect the anti-ship role of the nuclear nuke tipped smart cruise missiles. This is the beginning of the evolution, the offensive capacity of the maritime powers will continue to decline, with the evolution of smarter precision munitions. The geopolitical balance of power shall shift from the maritime powers to favor land powers.

CRUISE MISSILES BETTER THAN AIRCRAFT CARRIER BOMBER: Cruise missiles have advantages over tactical aircraft systems and allow military commanders additional options for precision strike operations. However, aircraft delivered munitions are better suited for conducting large-scale or extended campaigns because of their relatively lower costs. Since Navy warship carrying cruise missiles have shown that they can conduct forward presence missions and crisis response without the presence of carrier-based air forces, they are a viable option for performing those missions. Warships carrying cruise missiles can replace aircraft carriers. India will build a number of Warships carrying tactical nuclear cruise missiles. The limits on an aircraft carrier are indeed inherent; they are the nature of the beast. To launch and land aircraft, a large ship is required with a flat, sharp deck. The carrier’s aircrafts are manned, and they suffer from the limitations of the manned aircraft. Aircraft carriers are costly, and require extremely expensive and uncertain anti-missile defensive systems. Aircraft’s are also costly.

ANTI-SHIP CRUISE MISSILES: Possibly cruise missiles could be shot down, but the aircraft carrier would be the least likely platform for doing so, sitting virtually stationary, reaching out with its own radar, which cruise missiles can lock in. Super-Aegis system could shoot down one or two cruise missiles, but the purely defensive system will be overwhelmed, if the missile calves, splits into two or ten warheads, as the multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV). It is inevitable that there will be more missiles than the ships could intercept.

MISSILE AGE REPLACING CARRIER AGE: The emergence of the cost-effective cruise missiles makes the aircraft carriers so expensive, as its needs to beef up its anti-missile defenses. Smart cruise missiles can also sustain the mission that aircraft carriers currently execute. What we are seeing is the rotation of weapons culture-the end of the carrier age and the genuine beginning of the missile age. In the missile age, the Sea powers do not have any strategic advantages over Land powers. Land power India will effectively compete with Sea power United States in a nuclear age.

SEA-LANE CONTROL: The revolution in war technology is moving into a time when it will be much easier to cut the sea-lanes than to maintain them. Offensive maritime technology is fast becoming overwhelmingly more potent then maritime defensive capabilities. It is very true with the advent of hypersonic ling range missiles. This strategic change comes at a time when global economy is utterly dependent on open sea-lanes. NATO bombing of the Serb civilian economic infrastructure has unleashed the Age of Infrastructure Warfare. It is now legitimate to destroy economic infrastructure in a war. In the even of an all out Indian Navy should target merchant ships. Indian Navy should acquire the capability to cut the sea-lanes to disrupt the sea-trade based global economic system. India should build a number of cheap missile equipped Naval Frigates to sink or capture the enemy merchantmen. German U-boats had come close to cut the line of supply between the Britain and the Empire and between the United States and Britain. Germans failed in both wars because Germany did not have enough U-boats and allied had superior sonar technology. In World War II, the United States showed that the submarines successfully interdict the world's sea-lanes. The United States cut the lines of supply between Japan and its empire, bringing its economy to its knees. Japan could never mount a successful counterattack on the US submarine campaign.

India should build a large number of cheap submarines, equipped with missiles, GPS technology, and Internet linkage. Satellite based sensors would locate and identify enemy targets for the submarines. India can effectively cut the sea-lanes in Persian Gulf, Red Sea, and Arabian Sea, Bay of Bengal, Sunda Sea, and South China Sea. India will sink merchant ships but avoid loaded oil tankers as latter could cause sea pollution.

Submarine was the first systematic attack on the surface warships. Its advantage was its stealth. Had Germans possessed air bases in the Atlantic, in the Azores or Iceland, or if they had had aircraft carriers, they most likely could have could have shut down the Atlantic. In the run to Murmansk where the Germans were able to use both submarines and aircraft, they did manage to shut down the flow of supplies for a period. During the island-hopping campaigns of 1943-44, the United States, using carrier airpowers, managed to seal off the Gilberts, Marshalls and Marianas so completely that the Japanese found it impossible to supply or withdraw. Indian Navy's main strategic offensive role shall be to cut the sea-lanes for maritime commerce, to bring down the global economy in case of NATO invasions of India. Indian Navy should acquire the missile capability to sink, sixty (60) percent of world tonnage of merchant shipping and fishing vessels. Destruction of the enemy maritime economic assets will be more effective than the destruction of naval vessels in the Infrastructure Warfare.

The power to interfere with ocean commerce has been growing faster than the ability to keep it open. Ever since the introduction of the attack submarines and the attack aircraft, it has been easier to close the sea-lanes than to keep them open. Torpedoes homing in on sound or magnetic sources, and missiles homing in on radar images had made it easier to close sea-lanes than keep it open. Traditionally, sea power has provided the preconditions for the projection of power. Sea power by itself has not been the projection of power. Sea-lane control made it possible for the Allies to invade Normandy and impossible for the Germans to invade England. Sea power was the prerequisite - necessary but insufficient. The infantry still had to go in and take the ground.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1042) Chapter 22: Antiship War Ends Age of Sea Powers

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

CIVILIAN INFRASTRUCTURE WARFARE: The NATO bombardment of the Serb civilian, economic infrastructure was a turning point in military history. The Laws of War do not prohibit the destruction of civilian, economic targets. The wars in twenty-first century are fought to destroy the economic infrastructure of the enemy. Western Europe had always fought the economic infrastructure warfare, even as early as 1500 when it used cannons to destroy the coastal maritime trade in the Indian Ocean region.

VASCA DA GAMA DESTROYED ASIAN MERCHANT FLEETS: The Ship carrying guns allowed the Portuguese sailors into the heart of the Indian Ocean basin, sweeping aside opposition. Vasco da Gama entered and dominated the Indian Ocean basin as early as 1502, by the sheer brutality made possible by guns. Vasco da Gama destroyed the ships of the ancient seafaring nations. He burnt the ship and all 380 people on board with gunpowder on October 1, 1502 AD. By the end of voyage he was able to force the local rulers to surrender and left behind a fleet of ships with cannon to enforce the Portuguese domination. The cannon completely tilted the balance of force at sea in 1502 Ships armed with cannon could survive in hostile environments. Ships could project force ashore, both by supporting landing parties with cannon fire and by removing cannon from the ship to the shore. Without equivalent offensive armament, local leaders capitulated and reached some sort of accommodation. The Portuguese and Spaniards were able to impose imperial relationships on a mammoth scale because of new ship-based artillery. Ship-Cannons created European colonial Empires. Maritime infrastructure warfare has been legitimate instrument of warfare since AD 1500.

INDIAN ANTI-MARITIME DOCTRINE: The destruction of civilian economic assets has become legal act in the conduct of warfare. India will exploit the recent revolution in the anti-ship smart missile

Technology to undermine the economic predominance of Western Sea Powers. The land power India, will develop anti-ship missile capability, coupled with light offensive missile equipped gun-boats and torpedo equipped frigates and submarines to sink more than ninety (90) percent of global merchant shipping and fishing fleets. India has been isolated, and kept out of ASEAN and other global economic and financial alliances. Global maritime economy will crash with the destruction of ninety percent of world's merchant ships. It will also preserve the fish resources of the world's oceans and oil reserves. West will take another fifth (50) years to rebuild new ships to replace the present tonnage. Geopolitically the wholesale destruction of world's merchant shipping will reverse the domination of Sea powers. Portuguese and Spaniards destroyed indigenous ships in the Indian Ocean.

DESTROY WORLD’S MERCHANT & FISHING FLEETS: India should plan retaliation for the Colonial era destruction of Indian shipping by Western cannon wielding sea Powers. India should attempt destroying more than ninety (90) percent of global merchant and fishing fleets at the outbreak of a world war. India and China can hope to rule the world by destroying world's merchant fleets. The missile arsenal of 20,000 cruise missiles at the cost of twenty ($20) billion dollars can destroy the ninety (90) percent of world's shipping tonnage, to cause over 20 trillion dollar worth of economic damage in next five years. Thiswar shall push the exchange rate Indian rupee. The exchange value of one Indian rupee will equal that of one US dollar, from the current exchange rate of 40 rupees to one dollar. India should not miss this golden window of opportunity, that has opened for the first time in 2000 years, that can destroy once for all, the economic and military preponderance of the Western Sea Powers. India has nothing to lose with the destruction of the 90 percent of world's shipping tonnage in a war. India will celebrate the 500 years anniversary of the invasions of Vasco da Gama by destroying 90 percent of world's civilian merchant shipping tonnage, if NATO ever attempted to invade India, in their euphoria of victory over helpless Serbs.

THE FUTURE OF WAR: George Friedman can safely be called the finest geopolitical thinker of the twenty century, to match the geopolitical insight of H. J. Mackinder, Admiral A. T. Mahan, Harold J. Spykman, and even Karl von Clausewitz. Indian doctrine should borrow very extensively from his writings. India can emerge as the leading Super Power by deploying the new weapons culture by actively participating in the revolution in war technologies. Naval warfare is experiencing the endgame of the gun-based warfare. The surface ships are becoming most vulnerable by the very same changes that are transforming land-based warfare. In 1340 at about the same time that guns were making their appearance on land, English used them at sea at the Battle of Sluys. Their appearance dramatically changed naval warfare. Cannon made it possible to damage enemy ships, while keeping them at a distance, eliminating the manpower advantage of the coastal land powers, and giving the upper hand to the technically advanced aggressor.

CANNONS DESTROYED COASTAL MARITIME COMMERCE: The ship-cannons permitted the Europeans to go where they wanted and do what they wanted. The introduction of cannon separated ships, much as cannon separated armies on land. Large sailing ships armed with cannons, easily destroyed the older ships, sailing vessels, galleys, of Mediterranean Venice, as well as maritime sea power of India, Arabs and Africa in the Indian Ocean and Bay of Bengal. As a result, India that accounted for over one-fifth of total world manufactured goods till 1840 AD, lost its share of world trade soon. Indian and Arabs had failed to develop long-range sailing ships, because the entire body of water in India Ocean and Mediterranean Sea were enclosed bodies of water. Because the entire body of water is enclosed, and because of the configuration of land forming the enclosure, it was possible to navigate it without leaving coastal waters. More important, nothing outside these basins was as attractive as what was inside. Neither the Atlantic nor Pacific offered appealing alternative to the rich commerce of the Indian Ocean or the Mediterranean Sea. Hinduism and Islam therefore had every reason to remain within its wealthy basins, and little political or economic incentive to risk leaving them.

REVOLUTION IN PRECISION MISSILES: The war revolution in precision smart missiles geopolitically allow Indian Navy to close the Indian Ocean and to sink all merchant ships and empty container ships in the Indian Ocean region. Indian industry can easily build new coastal ships to conduct trade in the Indian Ocean region. The seafaring skills for navigating the northern Indian Ocean are far more modest than necessary for the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean. By embarking upon the global maritime infrastructure warfare, to sink civilian merchant and fishing fleets, India has nothing to lose. Portugal, Spain, Holland, France, and Britain used the Ship-Cannons to destroy the coastal maritime trade in the Indian Ocean, Mediterranean, and South China Sea. It put land powers at a permanent disadvantage against sea powers from the 15th century to 20th century and promoted prosperity in the Western civilization. Similarly, India and China, the dominate Asian land powers, should join forces to sink more than ninety (90) percent of world's merchant ships and fishing fleets. Vulnerable merchant ships and fishing boats are the Western Christendom's Achilles’ Feet of Clay. Tigers and lions target the weakest member of the herds of grazing animals. India and China will be the dominant supper power in the 21st century, after the sinking of over ninety percent of world's merchant ships and fishing boats.

CHEAP GUNBOAT, BOMBERS, SUBMARINE: India should build thousands of cheap fewer than one- (1) million dollar gunboats and equip them with state of art smart missiles. India should also build thousands of cheap bombing aircraft’s, equipped with smart cruise missiles. United States manufactured over 100,000 bombers annually at the end of World War II. The 1960s technology is good enough to mass-produce thousands of low-cost coastal vessels, gunboats, submarines and bombers. The costs of offensive gunboats and offensive bombers can be vastly lowered, by eliminating defensive systems that escalate the costs. India should use the modified versions of gunboats, U-boats submarines, Knat fighter aircraft, and HAL airplane. The mantra is India should mass-produce low-cost offensive weapons, and deploy low-cost gunboats, submarines, bombers for strategic offensive roles by equipping them with smart missiles. The future lies with boats and aircraft having long range and used for offensive operations. Land powers can train seamen and airmen to keep up with the increased losses in the operations. Offensive weapon systems that can be mass produced at lower cost, such as low-cost gun-boats, submarines, fighter planes, bombers will be equipped with high-tech smart precision missiles to cut sea-lanes and to sink the merchant ships and fishing fleets.

LAND POWERS GAIN BY LOSS OF MERCHANT FLEETS: World without the global maritime commerce will bridge the economic disparities between the Maritime West and Continental East. Vasca da Gama ruthlessly destroyed India's maritime and naval capability and destroyed lucrative coastal trade. Unless the West pays India the war reparation for the Colonial era exploitation, India and China should not lose this golden technological opportunity that allows the destruction of the world's entire merchant fleets. India and China would become the richest nations, in the world, that lacks global maritime trade. Since India has been deliberately kept out of the global trading blocks, so India has nothing to lose by the destruction of world's merchant and fishing fleets. By sinking the merchant ships and fishing vessels to the bottom of the sea, Indian economy will compete with US economy on a level playing grounds. India can develop Trans-Asian railways to connect Calcutta to Hong Kong, Calcutta to Kuala Lumpur, Delhi to Tehran, Delhi to Tel Aviv, and Delhi to Moscow. Railways can provide a better alternative to the global trade based on merchant ships.

GEOPOLITICAL PROBLEM OF BATTLESHIPS: The battleship was born to protect colonial coastlines, control sea-lanes, and project power ashore into coastal areas, all without requiring reinforcement. The Colonial era long line of supply was vulnerable to interdiction. The distances involved fast ships. The mission demanded powerful guns, both to enable engagement at a distance beyond the range of other ships, and to penetrate the armored hulls of the enemies. It required large vessels to carry large guns. It required heavily armored hulls to survive the impacts of similar enemy guns. The result was a constant race between speed, armor, and armament. The size of the battleship grew and grew, but the geopolitical effectiveness of the vessels did not increase. The earlier ships had been as effective against merchantmen and contemporary warships as their behemoth descendents. The forced growth of the battleship was simply parasitic. The battleship was deadly to anything that came within its range. The problem was that its range was severely limited. The problem of strategy is that the fleet must expose itself to enemy gunfire. More likely, both fleets will come into the other’s range, and the result will be a brawl, with victory to the quickest and luckiest.

LIGHTER FASTER OFFENSIVE GUNBOATS: Indian Naval Doctrine recommends the smaller lighter faster offensive battleships with light armor, but equipped with smart anti-ship missiles and torpedoes. It will expose itself to enemy fire, and use its quick maneuverability to sink the enemy vessel.

SUPPORT VESSELS: The Attack Submarines and Attack Gun-boats should be low-cost light-weight, light-armor, fast maneuverable offensive weapon systems, made vulnerable by reducing their armor and defensive equipment. They shall be accompanied by the light-armed support vessels, for crews’ living quarters, storage, lifeboats, and backup communications. Light war chariots replaced the heavy war chariots in the history of war. Similarly ocean-going no-frills light-armor smaller submarines and smaller gunboats supported by surface ships, equipped with smart torpedoes and missiles will sink expensive ships. The support vessels will allow the deployment of lethal offensive armament in the space otherwise used for crew quarters. The fighting crews will change shifts with crews from the support vessels. Thus gunboats acquire the attributes of the aircraft carriers as it can bring the firepower of its light submarines and gunboats to the enemy ships and battleships. As with the Goliath’s and Saul’s armor, the light-armor missile equipped submarines and gun-boats cut the Gordian knot with a radically new, simpler technology, the expendable submarine and gunboats, while its crew will be rested and rescued by the support vessels. Like David they will hurl inexpensive projectiles at it. The trick is to use the gunboat and submarine combination, so that the attack submarine remains out of the sight of the battleship, while gunboat and support vessels are the eyes of the submarine.

EXPENSIVE WEAPONS PLATFORMS: The cost escalation of the expensive single weapons platforms outstrips the nations economic growth, as a result it cuts into the strategic and operational strength of the nations. The resources that could be better spent on other purposes are set aside for a decreasing number of more expensive weapons platform, that generates big revenue for selected arms manufacturers. The burden is becoming so great that only great powers can bear it. Indian military doctrine rejects the acquisition of foreign-made weapons platforms. India will develop its own cheaper version of offensive weapon platforms.

DEATH OF BATTLESHIPS: The battleship technology, though cutting edge in the late 1890s, became obsolete in the 1930s. In the twentieth century, the battleship grew into enormous, deadly Goliath. Like the original Goliath, the battleship appeared fearsome, but it had its weaknesses. One threat to battleship came beneath the sea by submarines. But the David that actually slew Goliath Battleship came from the above-the carrier-borne plane. The battleships was not killed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, as Pearl Harbor was not a battle of fleets but an assault on immobilized, virtually undefended ships, by air-attacks. The Pearl Harbor marked the rise of aircraft carrier and the fall of the battleship. The ability of an Iraqi plane to fire an Exocet missile at USS Stark, a well-armed guided-missile cruiser, and hit it dead on at night.

JAPANESE ERROR DURING PEARL HARBOR ATTACK: The Japanese realized that they had committed a potentially fatal error during the attack on Pearl Harbor. While the first two waves of attackers had destroyed the ships and planes, a third wave, designed to obliterate oil tanks and dry docks had not been launched. As a result Pearl Harbor not only remained usable, it was becoming the core of a vast American buildup. At Battle of Midway the well-led Japanese surface fleet built around superb battleships declined to do combat with two US aircraft carriers. Japanese battleships would have to pass through the hundreds of miles of deep kill zone surrounding the carrier, before Japanese Battleships huge guns could come near to the carriers. The range had redefined the correlation of forces. The battleship was at risk from the moment it came into the range of the planes. The carrier was therefore safe from the attack by guns of the battleships. Battleships represented a drain on resources without adding to the combat power. The descendents of da Gama and Drake, Nelson and Farragut, began to pay homage to the mighty aircraft carriers. Few roles remain on the high seas for the warship except to provide support.

SECOND RISE OF GUNBOATS: Along the coasts of Eurasia, surface vessels flourish. One reason is that land-based aircraft can support surface operations along the coast, much as carriers supported surface ships. Another reason is that coastal vessels abandoned their traditional guns and replaced them with surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles. Coastal boats thus became gunboats. Gunboats could carry anti-ship missiles and anti-submarine helicopters.

MISSILE EQUIPPED FAST-ATTACK CRAFTS (FAC): The Soviets pioneered this evolution with the development of the Styx missile, which when fired from Komar class small surface ship, destroyed the Israeli destroyer Eilat in 1967. Israel fitted the French Saar-class fast-attack craft with surface-to-surface Gabriel missile. Fast-attack craft (FAC) and patrol boats are between 90 and 150 feet long, weigh between 150 and 300 tons and can accelerate to speeds in excess of 35 knots. They have a range of 4,000 miles at 17.5 knots.

SWATH PLANE AND STEALTH SHIP: India will design a ship that is both global in reach and survivable. The Sea Shadow was designed to present as small a cross section as possible on enemy radar, by absorbing what radiation it can and deflecting what it cannot. It is an 560-ton, 160-foot long, 70-foot wide ship. SWATH is a small water-plane, area-twin hull. By creating a hull that lifts out of the water, or lowers itself down and which planes across the water as well. The sea-effects ships (SES) and air-cushion vehicles (ACV) solve the high-seas handling problems and will be more suitable for coastal patrol, amphibious warfare, anti-ship warfare than for sea-lane control.

EXPENSIVE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS: The great expense of building aircraft carriers froze virtually all powers other than the United States out of the game. The future of the aircraft carrier will determine the fate of the surface ships. If the aircraft carrier is destroyed, everything will go down with it. If the aircraft carrier can survive, then so other surface warships. Indian Naval doctrine favors the scrapping of US aircraft carriers.

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND PAX AMERICANA: The modern aircraft carrier is the military foundation of today’s Pax Americana. Fist, it serves to guarantee US domination of the sea-lanes. Second, its aircraft support ground operations, cut lines of supply and command, attack command and control centers, and strike at the industrial infrastructure of the enemy. Aircraft carriers began their history as inexpensive alternatives to more costly technology-battleships. Initially they seemed to be much cheaper to produce. Between 1920 and 1940, carriers and their aircraft increased 200 times in unit cost. From 1920 to 1980, it increased two thousand times. To a great extend this price rise was caused by the greater price of aircraft. The value of the aircraft carrier battle group as offensive weapons platform depends upon the numbers and types of aircraft on board. A Nimitz-class carrier has seventy-eight (78) aircraft. Only thirty-six (36) or 46 percent are used for main offensive mission. Others 42 aircraft are essentially part of the ship’s defensive system. The total bombing capability of the Nimitz-class airwing will be 300 tons of ordnance per mission. The Nimitz-class carrier can deliver nine hundred (900) tons of ordnance to targets in each twenty-four (24) hour cycle. The cost of putting six carrier battle groups during Desert Storm dwarfed the amount of damage they did.

STEAM-POWERED CATAPULT: The American innovation, simple in conception, complex in design, and revolutionary in political significance was the steam-powered catapult. Catapult accelerate the aircraft dramatically, so that, with its engine at full throttle, it would be hurled off the end of the end of the carrier deck at a speed sufficient to make it airborne. The stresses involved in takeoff and landing meant that aircraft had to be particularly robust designed to withstand high g’s. This drove up the price of carriers and their planes dramatically.

VSTOL AIRCRAFT CARRIER: British Harrier and Soviet Yak-38 are both ‘Very Short Take Off and Landing’ (VSTOL) aircraft, that could take off from a carrier deck without needing to be accelerated to ordinary takeoff speeds. They land with minimum roll or shorter deck. VSTOL powerful engines deflect thrust downwards, thereby lifting the aircraft off the deck by brute power, then accelerating it to achieve aerodynamic lift. The problem of VSTOL aircraft is that its engine performs less effectively in air-to-air combat than land based aircraft. If VSTOL performs well then aircraft could be distributed throughout the fleet, even abroad merchantmen. India will support the VSTOL innovation.

BATTLESHIP VERSUS CARRIER: The Battleship like Goliath was powerful and deadly, within its range. The aircraft carrier, not nearly so powerful, substituted range and precision. By staying outside the range of the battleship, the carrier, like David, could not lose. All the carrier needed to do was strike home once with its aircraft. A single blow could cripple the battleship, giving the carrier a chance to finish it off at its leisure, as David did with Goliath. The key to the aircraft carrier’s initial success was David-like simplicity. Like David, it overcame the previous generation’s increasing complex defensive methods with more elegant offensive technologies. That re-distilled the essence of strategic offensive. The chief threat to the carrier was from the enemy aircraft. The aircraft carrier was helpless should planes, ships or submarines actually penetrate the defensive screen.

SOVIET ANTI-SHIP MISSILES: Kennel missile AS-1 is a coastal defense system. Missile AS-1 is like a fighter plane loaded with 600 or 1000-kg warheads. Missile AS-4 Kingship uses PGMs. The AS-6 Kingfish increased range to about 350 nautical miles while maintaining supersonic speed. It is able to lock on after the launch. The precise location of the carrier battle group is not required at the launch-time.

Soviet SS-N-22 Moskit is a surface-launched missile mounted on aircraft reaches speed to Mach 6. Moskit is ramjet technology rather than rocket technology. Moskit has substantial standoff range as well as speed. Russian 3M-80 Sunburn, a combination of rocket and ramjet, it cruises at 1,700 miles an hour out to a maximum range of fifty-five (55) miles. Sunburn travels at an altitude of sixty (60) feet and then attacks the ship at twenty feet, reaching its target under two minutes from launch point while skimming the sea. Sunburn is very impressive.

CHINESE ANTI-SHIP MISSILES: The C301 anti-ship missile is a 1,100-pound warhead able to fly at Mach 2 at an altitude of three hundred feet, then dropping down to attack at thirty feet, with a range of eighty miles. New French Exocet missiles are intended to be extremely maneuverable at very low attitudes and to strike at the waterline.

DECLINE OF CARRIER: Carriers ability to survive as a sea-lane control platform is dubious, in face of advanced missiles from enemy aircraft. India can exploit this weakness to cut sea lanes. Aircraft carriers is not the best way to suppress enemy shipping or to combat enemy warships. Coastal fast-attack craft (FAC) and smart missiles, and destroyers and cruisers carrying long-range missiles can do the job better. India can develop fast-attack coastal crafts, destroyers, and cruisers to suppress enemy shipping, better then US aircraft carriers. Carriers fail to move airwing within the range of the enemy, in the coastal regions where the enemy has sophisticated surface-to-surface or air-to-surface antiship missiles. The aircraft carrier is increasingly vulnerable and increasingly ineffective. Its vulnerability derives from the shift in the offense-defense relationship at sea. Where carrier was once a primarily offensive system, it is now increasingly put on the defensive by the antiship missile. The carrier suffers from all defects of the manned aircraft and is on the wrong side of the life-cycle curve, increasingly inefficient because of increasingly efficient threats. In case some future President dispatches Seventh Fleet to Bay of Bengal, as President Nixon did in 1971, then Indian Navy and Indian Air Force will sink the Seventh Fleet to the bottom of Bay of Bengal. It will be a great day for all land powers of the world.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1043) Chapter 23 Depopulation Warfare Doctrine of Neutron Bombs

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

Clean Neutron Bomb

DISCRIMINATE NEUTRON BOMB: United States promoted the Neutron Bombs as a new concept for battlefield nuclear weapons, for use in limited wars against non-nuclear Asian Communist enemies. And for use in pushing back and defeating aggression in such places as Korea and Southeast Asia, where limited wars were anticipated. Neutron Bomb doctrine uses the nuclear radiation, emitted instantaneously at the time of burst to kill and incapacitate enemy personnel. It accepts nuclear radiation as a kill mechanism. Neutron Bomb is a more effective class of battlefield nuclear weapons. N-Bomb can achieve a degree of discrimination not possible with current nuclear stockpile weapons. N-Bomb can achieve a degree of discrimination also not possible with conventional high-explosive weapons.

INDIA’S NUCLEAR DOCTRINE: Indian nuclear weapons doctrine does not rule out the use of neutron bombs.

23 (i) Indian Neutron Bomb Capability:

INDIA CAN MAKE NEUTRON BOMB: India has the capacity to build neutron bombs, said Rajagopala Chidambaram, Chairman, Atomic energy Commission. Indian nuclear scientists after the Pokharan-II tests can design and make nuclear weapons of any type or size. Neutron bomb, which is a battlefield weapon, is essentially a low-yield thermo-nuclear device where the neutron production process dominates over the fission trigger. It is not difficult to build such a device.

Nuclear Weapons Research

INDIAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH: India, which exploded a hydrogen bomb and four fission devices on the Thar desert in May last year and declared a moratorium on further research has not stopped its nuclear weapons research. The research is on. India has not stopped it. India is free to carry out sub-critical tests to keep on refining the weapon codes. The subcritical studies will require expensive facilities.

Indian Hydrogen Bomb

HYDROGEN BOMB TEST: The analysis of rock samples obtained from drilling at all the five holes at the Pokharan test site has now been completed. The analysis has established beyond doubt that the hydrogen bomb did explode producing a yield as per design. There were reports in the West that only the fission trigger worked and that secondary fusion fuel failed to explode. The samples carried evidence of reactions caused by 14 million-volt neutrons. Such high-energy neutrons are produced only in the fusion process. This is a proof that our hydrogen bomb did explode.

Indian Neutron Weapons

INDIA TO DEVELOP PURE-FUSION NEUTRON BOMB: India should develop pure-fusion neutron bomb that does not require fission. Megaton Big H-bombs and Big A-bombs would not serve India’s security needs. India will use neutron bombs to depopulate the aggressor that dare launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against India. Indian nuclear doctrine should be open to suggestion that India can engage into a nuclear exchange and survive the war. Pakistan will threaten to use the nuclear weapons in future conventional confrontations. Perhaps Pakistan should get a taste of the Neutron bomb so that it agrees to sign a no-first-use treaty with India. It is possible that the thermonuclear device that India tested in May 1998 was a version of neutron bomb. Indian peaceful nuclear strategy appears to be the duplication of the Dove project at the Livermore labs.

NEUTRON BOMB AND DNA DOCTRINE: The Neutron Bomb shall be the bedrock of Indian Nuclear Doctrine. India-Pakistan War could escalate into a limited nuclear exchange. India should respond the Pakistan threat to use nuclear weapons by developing a doctrine to use neutron bomb for depopulating the nuclear aggressor. India will use neutron bombs to depopulate the nation that launches a preemptive nuclear strike against India. Neutron Bomb arsenal provides Indian nuclear deterrent a capability that even after the preemptive nuclear strike, India would retain its capability to use depopulate the nuclear aggressor by using its neutron bomb arsenal.

PEACEFUL NUCLEAR EXPLOSION AND DOVE PROJECT: India declared in 1974, after conducting the underground nuclear explosion at Pokharan, that it intends to use nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes only. US Liverpool Labs conducted its research on Neutron Bomb under the project, known as Dove Project. Dr. Homi J. Bhabha during early 1960s headed the Plowshare Project that intended to use the tactical nuclear explosion for digging canals. The technology was similar to that of the fission-fusion neutron bomb technology.

SURVIVABILITY OF NUCLEAR WAR: Indian nuclear doctrine states that India will survive the limited nuclear exchange. India will use neutron bombs to depopulate the nuclear aggressor nation. India will not only survive the preemptive nuclear strikes, it will launch retaliatory neutron bomb strikes to depopulate the entire population of the enemy, and resettle its displaced population in the lands of the enemy lands.

23 (ii) Nature of Neutron Bomb

TACTICAL ATOMIC BOMBS: The tactical battlefield nuclear weapons operate on the same physical principle as the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hiroshima was a uranium fission bomb and Nagasaki was a plutonium fission bomb.

N-bomb is H-bomb

NEUTRON BOMB IS A HYDROGEN BOMB: The concept of the neutron bomb operates on the same principles as the hydrogen bomb. It relies on nuclear fusion. In contrast to fission weapons, most of the fusion energy goes into the neutrons, about eighty (80) percent. The accent on instantaneous nuclear radiation in Hydrogen bomb gives it an antipersonnel effectiveness; twenty times that of the A-bomb. A one-kiloton fusion H-bomb can reach out from ground zero to neutralize enemy soldiers at the same distances, as would a twenty-kiloton A-bomb, but with a sub-kiloton blast and heat power.

N-bomb is 1-Kton

NEUTRON BOMB IS ONE-KILOTON NUCLEAR DEVICE: Neutron Bomb is One-Kiloton standard nuclear device. After detonation the blast/fire radius of the 10-Kiloton standard nuclear device is five times that of a one-Kiloton (1-kt) neutron bomb. Neutron bomb kills all living things with a massive fireball/ shock-wave, but leaves most buildings.

Clean & Precise N-bomb

NEUTRON BOMB IS CLEAN AND PRECISE: The danger of the neutron bomb lies in the temptation to use it at an early stage because it is precise and clean. Neutron bomb is probably the most appalling result of the arms race- a weapon that destroys people but leaves entire cities intact. Once detonated, the blast and the heat are confined to a relatively small area, perhaps no more than a few hundred yards. However, a massive wave of gamma radiation is thrown out, destroying living tissues in its path. This wave penetrates buildings, tanks, and even underground shelters. Those who survive Neutron bomb attack will find the calcium in their bodies replaced by elements including strontium, ensuring that they die of radiation poisoning.

Fission-Fusion Warhead

FISSION-FUSION WARHEAD: It employs a fission trigger to produce the necessary conditions of temperature and pressure to burn the deuterium and tritium in the second stage. This device to have a yield at one-kiloton level.

Pure Fusion Warhead

PURE-FUSION WARHEAD: It is a warhead that contains no fissile material whatsoever. First, such a warhead will not produce any significant levels of long-term radioactivity. Second, this design offers the opportunity to have nuclear weapons whose explosive powers equals to that of large high-explosive bombs-like the blockbusters used in the World War II. Third, unlike high-explosive bombs they destroy enemy forces without destroying large areas of urban property. Fourth, the pure-fusion weapon will require an extremely small amount of costly nuclear material. Therefore, the cost constraint associated with weapons that use fissile materials almost disappears. Fifth, we can organize very high production levels of these weapons for extensive battlefield use. Sixth, tactical neutron bombs will be far more effective than high-explosive weapons, but the cost of production of these pure-fusion weapons will be far below those required for high-explosive conventional warfare,

1-Kt Fision-Fusion N-bomb

ONE-KILOTON FISSION-FUSION BOMB: When a 1-kiloton H-bomb is exploded close to the surface, high enough to avoid forming a crater, its blast reaches to 600 yards, and radiation to 1000 yards. The 20-kiloton A-bomb explosion blast reaches 1500 yards and radiation 1000 yards. For one-twentieth the explosive power of the bomb that destroyed Nagasaki, this weapon allows the same military effectiveness. It reduces the blast-destruction radius by two-thirds (2/3) and the area of destruction by ninety (90) percent.

0.01 Kt Pure Fusion N-bomb

0.01-KT PURE-FUSION NEUTRON BOMB: The 0.01KT Pure-Fusion N-Bomb will have a blast radius of 100 yards and radiation radius of 500 yards. Indian should deploy a very large number of pure-fusion N-bombs, each with very low explosive power.

Destroy the Enemy not the City

DESTROY THE ENEMY NOT THE CITY: Neutron bomb can flood much of the city area with radiation that will knock out the enemy troops, but will not knock out the city itself. It is so because destructive blast pressures will not reach down that far. With N-bomb concept we India achieve a new dimension for ground warfare. For the first time we have a weapon that will remove a scourge of the past, the wholesale devastation of populated areas. Being able to kill enemy soldiers without destroying civilian property adds a new dimension to ground warfare that civilized nations have sought over the ages but could not achieve. The civilian population escapes decimation. It deters the enemy from taking a city, because he would become a neutron bomb target. Thus enemy can no longer take a city and exploit it militarily and politically without becoming a neutron bomb target. If enemy insists upon occupying the city, there will be no need to defend it in a classical way, thereby inviting urban destruction. Rather the ploy will be to let him go right ahead, keep your forces away, and nuke him with neutron bombs. Had Saddam Hussain not vacated Kuwait, then United States had onluy two choices, either the use of neutron bombs, or the bloody door to door battle.

N-bomb Shelters

NEUTRON BOMB SHELTERS: Since there is no blast in N-bombs, the shelter designs should pile several feet of earth over the shelter. The enemy can also dig in and render N-bomb ineffective. Neutron bombs can cover a large area of the battlefield with instantaneous nuclear radiation that will quickly incapacitate enemy soldiers but spare civilians if they are sheltered, and spare their property. Theoretically, if neutron bomb is properly used, they do not mutilate the enemy persons they affect, nor do they produce a huge incidence of cancer or genetic damage in those affected. Neutron bomb does not contaminate the attack-zone making it uninhabitable with long-term radioactive contamination. In comparison with other nuclear weapons and conventional high-explosive weapons, neutron bombs do seem praiseworthy.

Henry's Sunlamp

HENRY’S SUNLAMP: What will be the neutron effect from bursting neutron warhead very high, out of the atmosphere? What will be the implication of a Soviet Sunlamp capability on the SAC bombers designed to fly as high and fast as possible? The neutron effects of a large thermonuclear warhead, that would reach to incapacitate the crews of high-flying bombers, far exceeded the effects of blast and heat. The Russian Sunlamp threat never materialized. Neutron bombs are very effective against the high flying SAC bombers.

Neutron Kill

NEUTRON KILL: Neutron bomb can cause the high explosive in the nuclear warhead of an ICBM to decompose to such a degree that the warhead probably would not function. The fissionable material in the warhead was even more susceptible than the high explosive. The US Sprint anti-ICBM missile uses a tactical neutron warhead

Legendary Death Ray

LEGENDARY DEATH RAY: Tactical neutron bomb is a low-yield nuclear warhead. By bursting this fusion device high off the ground, only the enemy-killing radiation will reach the ground. The blast and heat intensities that might reach the ground would not be powerful enough to cause any significant damage to built-up areas. It is a battlefield weapon like the legendary Death Ray. The fission-fusion neutron warhead produces only one-hundredth or less of the long-lived dangerous radioactivity, produced by the fission A-bomb with the same battlefield effectiveness. The pure-fusion neutron weapon, the N-bomb will produce none of the dangerous, long-term radioactivity produced by the fission A-bombs. Same battlefield effectiveness means the same enemy troop killing power.

Battlefield Weapon

BATTLEFIELD WEAPONS CONCEPT: It is a truly first battlefield-weapon concept in history, which allows a guaranteed, highly effective defense against an invading army without producing wholesale physical destruction of the country being invaded. The US Army has been amassing a stockpile of battle-field nuclear weapons, but had little affection for them, because they could not figure out who to use them without a massive overhauling of traditional doctrine and force structure.

Russian Pure Fusion Device

RUSSIAN PURE-FUSION EXPLOSIVE DEVICE: Soviet nuclear physicist L.A. Artsimovich, a key developer of Russian hydrogen bomb, reported during 1957, on the nuclear devices directed for peaceful applications. Soviets have utilized pure-fusion explosive devices for non-military application, since 1952. This peaceful nuclear pursuit when directed to military purposes was the ultimate neutron bomb; i.e., a weapon that worked without benefit of a fission trigger. Such a neutron bomb will produce no significant amounts of long-lived dangerous radioactivity that fission reactions produce. In contrast to a fission-fusion neutron bomb, the pure-fusion neutron bomb will put the maximum emphasis on producing neutrons, to incapacitate enemy soldiers, and the maximum de-emphasis on blast and heat effects that might knock down and incinerate civil property. For those who like neutron bombs, this would be the dreamboat version.

A pulsed thermonuclear reaction is possible under conditions of high temperature reached during the compression and implosion. It is produced by a charge of conventional explosives (such as TNT, or some-thing more powerful) surrounding a capsule of deuterium or a mixture of deuterium and tritium. There are conditions, under which the generation of neutrons in both the D+T, and the D+D reactions is detected with absolute reliability and reproducibility. In the experiments conducted in 1952, it was possible to record both fast neutrons that passed through the charge without any great loss of energy as well as neutrons that were slowed down in the explosive.

Limited Destruction

LIMITED DESTRUCTION RANGE: Neutron Bomb’s radiation effects could reach out as far as 500 yards to neutralize personnel, without destroying property. It is obvious that the neutron bomb is a variety of nuclear bomb, in which the energy of the blast is redistributed between (military) strike factors in favor of the flow of the neutrons. Under specific blast conditions, the main strike factors will not be light emission (heat) or shock wave, but the penetrating radiation, the basic force of which will consist of neutrons.

NEUTRON BOMB: Neutron Bombs kill people with extremely high levels of radiation able to penetrate armor or several meters of earth. Unlike conventional nuclear weapons the explosion and heat from a detonated neutron bomb is confined to a relatively small area. The blast and heat effects of a neutron bomb are confined to radius of only a few hundred yards. Neutron bomb throws massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation across larger area, which is extremely destructive to living tissue. Neutron bomb can be launched by missile, artillery, or attack aircraft.

American Neutron Bomb Program:

CARTE BLANCHE EXERCISE: In mid-1950’s NATO conducted a planning exercise called Carte Blanche to examine the potential consequences of a tactical nuclear war, a hypothetical war to conduct the successful defense of Europe. It estimated that if 268 A-bombs detonated on West German soil during a three-day period cause civilian casualties of more than 1.5 million dead and 3.5 million wounded.

23 (iii) American Neutron Bombs

Reagan Authorizes N-bomb

PRESIDENT REAGAN AUTHORIZES NEUTRON WARHEAD: On august 8, 1981 President Reagan authorized the production of neutron warheads. Would United States deploy neutron weapons with a credible doctrine for their use? It was in the context of Asian scenarios that the concept of the neutron bomb was conceived.

SURVIVING A NUCLEAR WAR: It is wrong to say that there is no easy solution to the problems faced in the Nuclear Age. Nuclear doctrine should discuss the concept of trying to survive nuclear war. United States has pushed itself close to the brink of annihilation, by creating a myth around nuclear weapons. It is wrong to regard atomic bombs as weapons of totality and terror. It is wrong to design multi-megaton bombs capable of blowing the enemy off the map and out of the war. The NATO preference for big atomic bombs is not right. The advocates of the big bomb wanted to create more casualty estimate to make war itself impossible.

Nuclear Radiation

NUCLEAR RADIATION IS A SOLUTION OF PROBLEMS: Nuclear radiation is a solution to many military problems. It is wrong to argue that the only way to solve military problems with nuclear weapons is to blast the enemy apart. The 20-kt Hiroshima uranium fission attack 70,000 civilians died with 70,000 injured. About 30 percent of the victims that are 21,000 dead victims had received lethal or injurious doses of nuclear radiation, the same kind of radiation produced by the neutron bomb.

Openheimer

TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Nuclear weapons are not primarily weapons of totality or terror, but weapons used to give combat forces help that they would otherwise lack. Nuclear weapons are an integral part of military operations. Only when the atomic bomb is as useful as it is an integral part of military operations, will it really be of much help in the fighting of a war. Otherwise it will become a weapon of warning for all mankind to avert it. It is very clear that nuclear weapons can be used only as adjuncts in a military campaign which has some other components, and whose purpose is a military victory. This was the statement of Oppenheimer.

Dwight Eisenhower

PRESIDENT DWIGHT EISENHOWER: President Eisenhower declared in 1955 that United States could use tactical nuclear weapons in war. ‘Where these (tactical nuclear weapons) are used on strictly military targets and for strictly military purposes, I see no reason why they shouldn’t be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything else.’ President Jimmy Carter in 1977 declared that a decision to cross the nuclear threshold would be the most agonizing decision ever made by the President. Admiral Arthur Radford, Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff, formulated Eisenhower administration’s nuclear policies. Radford’s basic view of nuclear weapons was that they ‘should be utilized simply as a new form of explosive.’ Radford recommended the use of nuclear weapons to prevent French defeat in Indochina.

Street to Street Combat & N-bomb

STREET TO STREET COMBAT: The destruction caused to Seoul after the street to street combat was no less than caused by the use of atom bomb over Hiroshima. Neutron Bomb could have flushed North Koreans out of Seoul without destroying Seoul. Sam Cohen advised the use of tactical nuclear weapons in the Korean conflict.

Dove Warhead

‘DOVE’ WARHEAD- LOW-YIELD NUCLEAR EXPLOSIVES: First approach is fission-fusion device, and it utilizes a minimal amount of fission-produced energy to trigger fusion reactions. This type of reaction involves the heavy nuclei of hydrogen, which produce the neutron bomb’s neutrons. Most of the yield of this device will come from these fusion reactions, which do not release dangerous radioactivity.

Starling Warhead

‘STARLING’ WARHEAD-PURE FUSION DEVICE: The pure-fusion device uses no fissile material whatsoever, requiring instead an ingenious detonating mechanism to trigger the fusion reactions. The potential application of these ideas was mainly for non-military purposes. The nuclear explosives could be used for commercial blasting purposes- digging canals, loosening or deposits, releasing underground caches of natural gas, etc- without producing vast amounts of long-lived, dangerous radioactivity. One of these ideas had been code-named Dove, which implied a peaceful application of nuclear explosives. These represented very low explosive-power versions of thermonuclear warheads. They were prodigious producers of neutrons. They were good neutron emitters.

N-bombs & Carriers

NEUTRON BOMBS AND AIRCRAFT CARRIERS: The aircraft carriers do not have any role in the strategic nuclear bombing by SAC. Any largescale conventional war is not likely to take place, so new carriers can not be built to fight future world wars. In the limited-war arena, equipped with tactical neutron bombs, carrier-based aircraft can almost immediately provide a credible and effective tactical nuclear capability. In February 1959, the US Navy began to push the N-bomb before other elements of the Pentagon. Admiral Moorer proceeded to push the N-bomb to the top.

Neutron Death Ray Bomb

NEUTRON DEATH RAY BOMB: The neutron bomb term was used in the May 1959, US News, and World Report. The magazine revealed that the US was working on a neutron death ray Bomb, which would kill man with streams of poisonous radiation, while leaving machines and buildings undamaged.

Lance Missile's Neutron Warhead

NEUTRON WARHEAD FOR LANCE MISSILE: Liverpool Lab began the actual testing of the neutron warheads, in early 1962. In July 19, 1959 the Washington Post revealed that a radically new type of atomic weapon, which could have profound effect on the Cold War, is at discussion level in the military circles. This new weapon is a bomb that would produce as much man-killing radiation as a large weapon, yet have the destructive blast of a small weapon and the long-term radioactive fall out of an even smaller one. It is a bomb that would be capable of killing an enemy force without too much physical damage to an area and without the fallout that would make the region uninhabitable after the attack. There are two N-bomb efforts afoot, under the nondescript project names Dove and Starling, at the Livermore laboratory. If such a weapon is possible, then it may make total test ban as a first step toward disarmament meaningless, since tests on large weapons of this type could be concealed underground. The low blast effect will make them difficult to detect.

Fission N-bomb for Lance Missile

LANCE MISSILE: The Livermore lab conducted a series of underground tests in Nevada. They were highly successful. In summer of 1977, the Washington Post revealed that production has been authorized for neutron warheads to go into the army’s Lance battlefield missile. By the spring of 1963 sufficient progress allowed the testing of a device that could be weaponized to fit into a battlefield-delivery system, a Army rocket, or a lance type guided missile. It was not small enough for use in an artillery projectile. The Lance warhead is a big dirty fission warhead.

Morality of N-bombs

MORAL SUPPORT FOR NEUTRON BOMB: In the fall of 1960, Thomas Murray AEC Commissioner while publicly lobbying argued that developing neutron bomb was imperative for the United States. The neutron bomb is neither a larger and more efficient H-bomb, nor a smaller and more efficient A-bomb. Neutron bomb is a weapon of a different category. Neutron bomb is primarily antipersonnel in destruction and effect. Neutron bomb is apt for proper military uses. Neutron bomb lends itself to a new type of nuclear strategy that will be more narrowly military in character. Neutron bomb will not create suicidal hazards for the country that employs it. Therefore, a moral argument for the use of Neutron bomb as a new weapon is possible. The moral argument is generally not possible for the use of A-bombs and H-bombs the immense weapons of sheer mass-destruction.

Kissinger & N-bomb

KISSINGER AND TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS: When Kissinger entered the White House in 1969, he made no effort to change the nuclear policies of the Kennedy-Johnson years, and did nothing of substance to address the issue of tactical nuclear weapons. It is strange that the man who wrote the first truly definitive work on tactical nuclear weapons, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, in 1957 chose to give little more than a lip service to the subject.

Discriminate Tactical Bomb

DISCRIMINATE TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPON: A discriminate tactical nuclear weapon is one, which confines destructive effects to the military targets, minimizing damage to non-combatants and their property. Neutron bombs, which intend to kill enemy soldiers but spare civilians and their towns, are by definition discriminate weapons. Perhaps United States would have used neutron bombs in Kuwait had Iraqi troops refused to get out of Kuwait.

Neutron Artillery Shells

NUCLEAR ARTILLERY SHELLS: In 1970, the AEC completed developments on two new nuclear warheads for the Army’s 155-millimeter and 8-inch artillery shells. These Neutron bombs uses the fission-fusion technology. It represented technological stagnation, as they used the technology of 1950s.

Neutron Bomb in Cold War

AMERICAN DEPLOYED NEUTRON BOMB IN COLD WAR: American military planners regarded the neutron bomb as a vital part of the Cold War arsenal – deterrent to stop advancing Soviet tank and infantry divisions in Western Europe. American scientists produced a few the W-70 warheads, designed for use with the Lance tactical missile. But Washington never deployed the weapon in Europe because of the surrounding political controversy. President Carter scrapped the neutron bomb program in 1978, but his successor President Ronald Reagan recommenced the research in 1981.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1043) 23 (iv) Russian Neutron Bomb Program:

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

America deployed Neutron bombs

US NEUTRON BOMB AGAINST RUSSIA: When you look at the number of Russian tanks and the other items, the neutron warhead could do quite a lot to restore some kind of balance there. That is one of the reasons that Russians reacted so strongly to this suggestion. Neutron bomb increases the military effectiveness of a battlefield weapon, and reduces the civilian casualties living near the war zone. Neutron Bomb will stop a massive invasion by enemy armor. Neutron bomb is safer, has increased range and better security. Neutron bomb adds to the credibility of the nuclear deterrent. Neutron bomb reduces the likelihood that adversaries will use nuclear weapons in a war.

Mega ton bombs

HIGH-YIELD H-BOMB TECHNOLOGY: The Russians broke the moratorium on September 1, 1961, with the massive series of tests the world has ever seen. Russia pulled ahead of the US in high-yield thermonuclear technology.

Korolyon

KOROLYOV FATHER OF RUSSIAN NEUTRON BOMB: Korolyov was the Soviet scientist in charge of the neutron tests. ‘Many years ago, we tested that (neutron) bomb. We tested, but we never started production of that weapon,’ said Leonid Brezhnev in November 1978.

RUSSIAN PURE-FUSION EXPLOSIVE DEVICE: Soviet nuclear physicist L.A. Artsimovich, a key developer of Russian hydrogen bomb, reported during 1957, on the nuclear devices directed for peaceful applications. Soviets have periodically used pure-fusion explosive devices for non-military application, since 1952. Russians have an enormous lead in pure-fusion neutron bomb technology, since the technology of the US warheads during 1983 required fission trigger. The activity highly relevant to neutron bomb development started a very long time ago in the USSR. In September 1961, the Soviet military journal Red Star, Colonel M.Pavlov wrote on ‘On Plans for the Neutron Bomb.’

Neutron Anti Tank Weapons

NEUTRON BOMBS IN ANTITANK WARFARE: General Biryukov and Colonel Melnikov, wrote a book, Antitank Warfare, and discussed the advantage of nuclear radiation as a tank killer. Neutrons are really the cat’s pajamas for knocking out enemy armored forces. In performing the mission of destroying armored troops on the field of battle, it is expedient to use neutron bombs, to destroy such a basic element as the tank crew in and outside the tanks. This makes it possible to deprive the enemy armored troops of their combat power with greater economy of ammunition, in shorter periods, and with a high destructive probability. It is more efficient to knock out tank crews with enhanced radiation, than to knock out tanks with blast.

Neutron bomb also makes good sense in indirect sense to Red Army, Russian armored forces could quickly move in to mop up in the areas attacked by neutron bombs. Because the destructive effect of the neutron bomb is relatively low, tank crews will be able to accomplish combat missions in the zone of application of neutron bombs continuously. The tank crews will also accomplish the mission’s limit of advance, said Soviet Marshal Pavel Rotmistrov in 1978. It is nothing but an attempt to make black look white when American declares that neutron bomb is a defensive weapon against advancing Soviet tanks.

Depopulation of Western Europe

RUSSIAN OCCUPATION OF WESTERN EUROPE: Neutron bombs allow Russia to occupy the Western Europe, with its key-industrial facilities intact after the neutron bomb attack. Then Russia could either ship the key industrial facilities to Russia or turn Western Europe into a slave labor camp and force European industrial production to continue at gunpoint for the benefit of Russia. Soviet strategy in case of a nuclear war with NATO is to constrain as much as possible the extent of the economic damage. The Soviet objective is not to turn the large economic and industrial regions into a heap of ruins, but to deliver strikes that will destroy strategic combat means, paralyze enemy military production. Neutron bomb provides the solution. After having acquired the neutron bomb capability, all that would be required would be to get the word off to the workers in NATO countries that if they work on military production they may be neutron-bombed at their factories. If they stay home, there will be no bombing. In both cases, the production would paralyze without destroying the facilities. Military strategy makes use of such weapons as defeat the enemy’s armed forces without doing essential injury to the economy or populace. It is in the interest of the political strategy, that military strategy of neutron bomb destroys the totalitarian rulers and their armies, without destroying their economic infrastructure. Neutron bomb is not an instrument of infrastructure wars. Neutron weapon war will not cause economic meltdowns.

French Neutron Bomb

FRENCH NEUTRON TEST: The mystery nuclear explosion off the coast of South Africa in the fall of 1979 was a French effort to evade detection of a neutron bomb test.

AlGore & Nuclear Weapons in Korean War

ALBERT GORE ON USING NUCLEAR WEAPON IN KOREA: In April 1951 Congressman Albert Gore (D-Tenn.) wrote to President Truman, that after removing all Koreans therefrom, dehumanize a belt across the Korean Peninsula by surface radiological contamination. This would differ from the use of the atomic bomb and would be morally justifiable.

23 (v) Chinese Neutron Bomb Program

W-70 Neutron Warhead

CHINA DEPLOYS W-70 DESIGN NEUTRON BOMB: China said on July 15, 1999, that it has independently mastered the technology needed to build a neutron bomb- a nuclear weapon that produces extremely high levels of radiation. Nobody knows exactly how or what China has developed. Beijing ordered a neutron bomb test in 1988. China stole the blueprints to the W-70 warhead, the basis of a neutron bomb, as long ago as the late 1970s. Neutron research began in the United States in the 1970s.

China Stole US Neutron Warhead Designs

INDIGENOUS NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY: The technological breakthroughs made by Chinese scientists had paralleled those of their US counterparts. China insists that its scientists developed neutron bomb technology independently of the US. China is keen to demonstrate it is a world class nuclear power capable of keeping up with the latest technology without resorting to espionage. China detonated its first neutron bomb 11 years ago in 1988, but made no public announcement about the test.

Miniature Neutron Bombs

NEUTRON AND MINIATURE BOMBS: It was logical for China to develop Neutron Bomb capability given the arms race then underway between the US and the Soviet Union. China had no other choice but to continue to carry out research and development of nuclear weapons technology and improve its nuclear weapons systems, mastering in succession the neutron bomb design technology and the nuclear weapon miniaturization technology. China has repeatedly said that its nuclear weapons program is purely for defense purposes.

China at par with USA

CHINA AT PAR WITH USA IN NUCLEAR WEAPON TECHNOLOGY: The Cox report announced that China had systematically stolen detailed blueprints for virtually all the nuclear warheads in the US arsenal. Due to nuclear espionage, the Cox report said, Chinese technological ability, in the field of nuclear weapons had reached at par with the US.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1044) Chapter 24 Light Mobile Super Infantry with PGM-IT Weaponry

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(i) New Age of Infantry: Logic of Infantryman

LOGIC OF INFANTRYMAN: The ancient logic of the infantryman is the logic of weapon against weapon and life against life. The same technology that has made the tank obsolete opens the door to a radically different future. The technology of all terrain vehicles, night goggles, cellular phones, voice pagers, GPS, brilliant munitions, Lap tops linked to Internet via wireless, satellite sensors, raise the possibility of a ‘Superior Soldier,’ ‘Super-Troop,’ ‘Super-Infantryman,’ or ‘Cap Trooper.’

INDIA’S NUCLEAR DOCTRINE: The IND states that highly effective conventional military capabilities shall be maintained to raise the threshold of outbreak of conventional military conflict.

Age of Man-Portabale Precision Munitions

NIGHT GOGGLES: Night goggles should be the near standard issues to combat troops. Night goggles, use available light, such as starlight, and enhance it thousands of times, make night vision and twenty-four-hour combat possible. At present, such sights called I2 (image-identification) have a number of limitations. However, by gathering light through a phosphor plate, thereby multiplying them 30,000 times, it has become possible for an infantryman to see on a moonless, cloud-covered night.

GPS Technology

GPS TECHNOLOGY: The cellular telephones allow the forward units to keep in touch with the base. The GPS technology allows every soldier to pinpoint its location on the map in the mountains, forests and in deserts. The soldiers will never get lost. The all terrain vehicles allow the individual soldiers immense mobility in desert lands.

Demise of Rifle

RIFLE AT THE END OF LINE: There has been no progress in the weapons of individual soldiers since world war I. The machine gun, sub-machine gun, rifle, hand grade, are all old weapons with fresh veneer. The AK-47, M16, Galil assault rifle, and the rest have not changed their basic design in nearly thirty (30) years. The conventional rifled personal weapon has reached the limits of its development. One cannot significantly increase performance of the bullet-type rifles. Rifle is a line-of-sight weapon in a world of indirect fire. Rifle fires a dumb slow projectile. Rifle bearing infantryman is governed by the same principles that governed the spear hurler and the bow man- first see the target then try to get your hands to direct your projectile toward it.

Man-Portable Antitank Weapons

MAN-PORTABLE ANTITANK WEAPONS: Javelin the man-portable antitank weapons will transform the future of infantry weapons. A single infantryman, who focuses on the target, locks the warhead on the target point, and launches, can fire the Javelin. He can fire and forget, as the Javelin will guide itself to the point the infantryman focuses on. Other weapons do not even need an initial lock-on; once fired they can locate the target themselves. The continued miniaturization of warheads and rockets allows more and more of them shall be man-portable, even without strength enhancement.

End of Age of Massed Armies

END OF THE AGE OF MASSED ARMIES: The infantryman will cease being the weakling of the battlefield. Soldier will carry with him the firepower of armored vehicles, with increased range and accuracy. The massed infantry armies of the past will become as obsolete as the tank. In the end, a soldier cannot replace the tank unless he can carry equivalent amount of firepower, and that weighs a lot, no matter how much it is miniaturized. At the same time, he must remain agile. This is an old problem. The solution is the All-Terrain-Vehicle (ATV), and the supporting soldiers, who would wield the same set of expensive arms, when the lead soldier is incapacitated or tired.

Electronmagnetic Guns

ETG & EM G GUNS: The Electrothermal Guns (ETG), and Electromagnetic Guns (EMG) can provide a soldier the firepower that previously required a platform driven by a petroleum engine. ET Guns &EM Guns would also provide accuracy and range beyond anything that direct fire could achieve.

Micro Managing Wars

MICRO-MANAGEMENT OF WAR: In changing the range of weapons, the structure of command is dramatically changed. It will allow the direct intervention by higher commanders into lower echelons. The sensors and data display will allow the senior commanders view the war front situation from the perspective of the junior commander. The commander would, in addition to managing the entire battle, will alo control the movement of a critical spearhead formation.

21^st Century Squad

ELEVEN MEN SQUAD IN 21^ST CENTURY: The Squad Leader will carry a personal weapon and massive computing and communications gear. The primary jobs of Programmer/Telecommunication will be to calibrate weapons and personal gear for satellite grids and to reprograms projectiles for new targets and tasks. In combat they would serve as the target-acquisition team, and transfer data to appropriate weapon systems. Heavy Weapons Teams will aid in launching projectiles into combat, using multi-mission projectile system. With sensor support from unmanned aerial vehicles a single squad, and reserves could secure an area twenty-mile per side, and project explosive power over a radius of fifty miles.

End of GI's

END OF THE AGE OF GI: The GI, the stamped government-issue interchangeable warrior, becomes obsolete when masses of men are no longer required to fight wars. The purpose of the military training was to force men into a mold, to drill them, depersonalize them, until they became a unit, until they fired in unison to overcome the inaccuracy of their firearms.

Model Soldier of Future

MODEL SOLDIER OF FUTURE: The model for the soldier of the future is not the GI or our large scale wars, but the Special Operations trooper- the Green Beret or indeed knight of old. The future soldier will be highly trained and skilled, but not in the rigid way of mass armies. Future soldiers will have to master technologies that are esoteric in the extreme, communications theory, sensor technology. As with the Special Forces, the small size units will require each man to become an expert. Small-unit operations in the past were associated with low levels of destructive force. Small units in the future will be capable of tremendous destructive force. Future soldiers will have a deep sense of unit loyalty and a strong sense of personal independence. In physical sense, the individual’s level of isolation will dramatically increase. The Visual contact with other troops may be impossible. The data links will keep the unit together, but when these data links fail, the mission will have to continue. Sociologically, the members of the military will again constitute a social elite as they did in the Middle Ages. The Future the means of war will be expensive, the skills esoteric and those who mastered the skills, will exercise great powers. Small armies, consisting of skilled and courageous men wielding enormous power, represent a challenge to democratic ideals. Unless checked the Meritocracy may well turn into aristocracy.

Exoskeleton Armor

EXOSKELETON IS STUPID IDEA: The America supports the projects for exoskeleton, the frame that fits to the outside of the body and body’s motions and multiplies their power. PITMAN Project aims to produce an infantry battle dress that would use robotics to amplify human strength. American military industrial complex will be ruining American military capability by promoting expensive toys. These unnecessary gadgetry is vulnerable to attacks by Super Soldiers, just as David killed Goliath.

Compulsory National Service

FIVE YEAR COMPULSORY NATIONAL SERVICE: India will follow the policy of universal draft. Every boy and girl shall serve five years for the compulsory national service. All school, college, and university students shall undergo compulsory military training. The educational system shall provide the bulk of Special Troopers.

Permanent Alerts

PERMANENT ALERT: Pearl Harbor taught American military thinkers that war might come at any moment and at any place. War became distinct from politics. War became a technical enterprise prepared for anything. American defense policy became twenty-four-hour vigilance, twenty-four-hour readiness. Soviets misconstrued the German intentions. Both American and Russian war machines are prepared for any contingency, regardless of the political situation. Both have remained on permanent alert, rely on their national technical means, their satellites, radar stations and communication networks to warn them of threat.

Rise of Military Scientists

RISE OF MILITARY SCIENTISTS: With the Battle of Britain in 1940, the technicians emerged as the dominant class in military and the decisive force on the battlefield. The success of Royal Air Force was due to the new device: Radar. With the radar’s success, a class of men previously only tangentially connected to war, the basic scientists became as essential to war as the military men did. Even during World War I, the British sent distinguished physicists to the front as ordinary soldiers. All this changed between the World Wars. Enter the Boffins, a name British officers gave scientists. The power of the scientist came from the disciplined contemplation rather than physical courage. To the Army soon the real hero of the war is not the warrior who risked his life, but the scientist. The success of the mission and ultimately, defeat or victory in the war was far more in the hands of the scientist than or the warrior. The warrior’s dependency on the scientist reappeared endlessly during the war, in the development of submarine and antisubmarine warfare, proximity fuses, flashless gunpowder, the German V-1, and V-2 rockets. The emerging hegemony of the scientist over the warrior became widely accepted with the development of the atom bomb.

Scientist Warriors

SCIENTIST PHYSICIST AS WARRIOR: Universities will transform into military cantonments or Military Universities. Universities would design new weapon systems, build new weapon systems, and train students to become Super Soldiers. Future Military University Cantonment will conduct wars as one point shopping center. According to the initial plan, the Manhattan Project was to be an Army endeavor with Army personnel. Therefore, Robert Oppenheimer was to be commissioned as lieutenant colonel. However, a rebellion by key scientists made it necessary to transform the terms of the project, placing it under contract to the University of California, and putting scientists, nor officers, in key positions of authority. This defeat of military culture by scientific culture set a pattern for postwar scientist warrior relationship. It shows the emerging power of the scientists as a class. Scientists were not merely useful in the Second World War; they were indispensable in the practical circumstance of war. In a war where none of the traditional martial virtues has meaning, where the laboratory is the scene of military power, it follows that the men who rule the weapons laboratory will take over the art of war. Technical universities would look like military cantonment, as universities will produce new weapon systems and Student Super Soldiers to use these new weapons systems in war. The university scientists have shaped and reshaped the entire field of modern strategy and nuclear strategy. Civilian scientists have developed most of the distinctly modern concepts of military strategy. These strategies have become part of the military doctrines.

Graduate Super Soldiers

UNIVERSITY SOLDIERS: The soldiers of the futures will come not from the backward agricultural villages or industrial belts, but from the universities. Large Universities will field their own Army and fight war as University Army. Universities will produce trained soldiers of the future. The proper use of new weapon systems, does not require illiterate soldiers, it requires technical expertise. With the new technologies of war, universities and engineering colleges suddenly become important. Universities with few thousands thoughtful scientists and skilled engineers can produce the instruments of war, sensors, computers, precision-guided munitions.

Universities can provide a very large reservoir of trained super soldiers. Student-soldiers drafted at a short notice will be ready to fight in the war zones. Student –Soldiers can continue their education at the war front via Internet. The Land warfare is making a quantum shift, not only in technology but also in the consequences of technology. The logic of the first global empire, the logic of semi-literate mass armies makes little sense in a world of precision-guided weapons. This will result in the end of rural, semi-literate, depersonalized soldier and the birth of the University Educated Supertrooper. This is the beginning of the second epoch. Large Universities will provide Super trained Super troopers, develop and design new weapons and may even be transformed into premium military organizations to conduct wars worldwide. University Army likes East India Company of the eighteenth century that established the Company Sarkar (Government) in Bengal after the battle of Plassey in 1787. Perhaps the Chancellor of the University will get a rank of three-star General.

University Army

UNIVERSITY ARMY COMMAND: The Army Command should be reorganized so that more than 80 percent of the soldiers are provided by the University System, that recruit students to serve the five years compulsory national service. University System shall maintain the Citizens’ Militia, Populist Militia. The revolution in war technology necessitates that students should serve in the Army, as they are best suited to fight the new war that uses Information technology.

Age of Rising Land Powers

RISE OF SOLDIERS LEADS TO THE RISE OF LAND POWERS: Mobile Light Infantry is the brightest jewel in the new war weapons culture. It allows highly trained university students to create a powerful fighting machine. The recent Kargil high mountain war established the military potency of the mobile infantry that entrenches in bunkers on the high mountaintop. A small number of Afghan fighters had occupied the crucial mountain top positions and which allowed them to shell by mortars the strategic highway. India had to spend three (3) billion dollars in this war. University students could have fought this war better. The light mobile infantry should undertake offensive operations deep inside the enemy territories. Light mobile infantry should be air dropped deep behind the enemy lines, and they should be equipped with 90-days high protein ration. The empowerment of the infantry units to conduct long-duration, independent military operations deep behind the enemy lines will drastically change the balance of power in favor of land powers. Heavily armed light mobile infantry units can also be air-dropped and transported by the merchant ships on the coastline of the maritime powers, to conduct civilian infrastructure war.

Burn Cities Infrastructure Warfare

BURNING THE CITY DOWN IN INFRASTRUCTURE WARS: Mobile-Armed-Light-Infantry (MALI), unit will be very effective in infrastructure wars of future. Twenty units of armed light mobile Infantry, with eleven soldiers each, will enter a city of the size of Naples. They can cause the economic damage of over twenty (20) billion dollars, by burning the apartments, shops, power plants, nuclear plants, bridges, high rise buildings and commercial centers.

Muslim invaders burnt the Hampi the capital of South Indian Vijaynagar Empire. Hampi was many times bigger than contemporary Rome, Paris, and London. NATO bombardment of Belgrade’s civilian infrastructure has legitimized the burning of metropolitan cities in the future wars. Indian military doctrine should specialize in burning the enemy metropolitan cities to the ground.

Sink World's Merchant Fleets Tankers and Trawlers

SINKING OF WORLD’S MERCHANT & FISHING FLEETS: Indian Navy will acquire capability to sink more than ninety (90) percent of world’s merchant marine and fishing fleet tonnage. It will permanently damage the military capability of Sea Powers and lead to the rise of land powers of the world. It is easier to sink merchant ships and fishing trawlers than to sink naval ships. It will be in the long-term interest of the land powers that railways replace ships as the principal transports of the global trade. Land powers will give a deathblow to the Sea powers by destroying the ninety-percent of world’s Merchant ships. An investment of ten (10) billion dollars in 10,000 cruise missiles should be made by Indian Navy. It will sink enough merchant ships and fishing boats to cause the economic loss of five (5) trillion, or 5,000 billion dollars. The loss of merchant ships and fishing trawlers will give a tremendous boost to Indian economy, and Indian rupee will appreciate from 40 rupees to a dollar to one rupee to a dollar. Indian doctrine plans to reverse the damage caused by the Vasca da Gama who during 1502 AD sank the entire coastal fleet of India by Ship Cannons. India will exploit the opportunity provided by the present revolution in war technology to permanently damage the Sea Powers by sinking the World’s merchant fleet and fishing trawlers in the even of the third world war.

Sink Aircraft Carriers

SINKING ENEMY AIRCRAFT CARRIERS: Aircraft Carriers have become a sitting duck in the age of precision munitions, Exocet missiles, and tactical nuclear weapons. President Nixon dispatched Seventh Fleet to Bay of Bengal during 1971 India-Pakistan War in Bangladesh. India is a land power and it cannot allow hostile aircraft carriers in the Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea during war times. Indian Naval doctrine advocates the preemptive torpedo and Exocet missile strikes against advancing hostile carrier battle groups to sink them before Indian coastline comes under the range of carrier based aircraft.

Neutron Depopulation Warfare

DEPOPULATION BY NEUTRON BOMBS: In case of Islamic preemptive nuclear strikes, India will use neutron bombs to depopulate the nuclear aggressor. India will occupy the entire land of the nation that attacks India with nuclear weapons. Indian doctrine of Depopulation of Nuclear aggressor states that in case of a preemptive nuclear strike against India, India will depopulate that aggressor with neutron bombs, and occupy its lands and resettle Indians in those occupied lands.

Deterring American Nuclear Strikes

DETERRENT AGAINST WESTERN NUCLEAR THREAT: President Nixon had threatened Indira Gandhi with the nuclear response in case India pursue liberating Kashmir after the surrender of Pakistan in East Pakistan. Post-Cold War nuclear policy of the United States suggests that United States may use tactical nuclear weapons in future regional wars. India need to develop a nuclear response to US threatened nuclear attack. India should never threaten the use of nuclear weapons against metropolitan targets in the United States. Indian nuclear deterrent will deter United States, if it declares that in the event of any preemptive nuclear strikes against India, India will use tactical nuclear bombs, and neutron bombs to depopulate metropolitan cities in Australia and New Zealand. India should acquire the capability to cause the loss of over one million Western white Christian lives to deter the threat of preemptive strikes from USA. India should only use nuclear weapons only against non-nuclear white European nations to avoid the risk of nuclear escalation. India will never use nuclear weapons against civilian targets in the United States, Britain and France. Lions do not kill just for killing. India does not gain by the destruction of New York, London, and Paris. In the age of civilizational wars, India’s use of neutron bombs to depopulate Australia and New Zealand, in retaliation to the preemptive strikes from white Protestant nuclear powers, is a just retaliation in inter-civilization nuclear wars.

Survivability in Nuclear Wars

SURVIVABILITY OF NUCLEAR WARS: The large geographic landmass and large population allows that India will survive the nuclear war. If a group of Islamic nations launch preemptive nuclear strikes against India then Indian nuclear and neutron bomb retaliation will cause the loss of over 40 million Islamic lives. If any white Christian nation launches preemptive nuclear strikes against India, then India will use nuclear and neutron bombs cause the loss of over 10 million white Christian lives.

Minimum Size of Indian Deterrent

MINIMUM SIZE OF NUCLEAR DETERRENT: India should deploy 50 ICBM, 50 SLBM missiles carrying 20 to 50 kiloton Atom bomb or Hydrogen bomb. India should develop 1,000 pure-fusion tactical neutron bombs each with 1-Kiloton yield. India should also develop 1,000 fission-fusion type, neutron bombs of 1-kiloton yield. India should develop 5,000 tactical nuclear weapons with 0.5-kiloton yield. India should develop three nuclear-powered submarines with MIRV missiles. The size of India’s nuclear deterrent should be large enough to deter United States and to survive a nuclear exchange with China and Pakistan. India should have a nuclear arsenal of around 8,000 nuclear warheads and 5,000 missiles.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1044) 24 (ii) PGM-IT Weaponized Armed High Mountain Warfare

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

Revolution in Mountain Warfare

GEOPOLITICS OF HIGH MOUNTAIN WARFARE: Recent technological advancements have made the High Mountain Warfare Troops the most prized divisions of the Light Mobile Infantry. The advances in the winter clothing, technology of thinsulated winter wear, light overalls and shoes, thinsulated tents, snowmobiles allow ordinary soldier face the challenges of Alaskan, Siberian and high mountain winters. The ready to eat, condensed, high-protein, long-lasting, food products, are lightweight, allow soldiers to self-carry six-month supply of food rations. The advances in computer-Information technology, cellular telephones, wireless-Internet connections, voice-pagers, Global Position Satellite (GPS) technology, Satellite TV broadcasting, allows the isolated, forward units real-time communications and precise map-location of the forward units and moving targets. The low orbit satellites provide target locations, and in-flight target corrections for the Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs). The man-carried missiles and precision mortars allows the destruction of moving transport targets to a distance of over 50 miles.

Disrupt Vehicular Traffic

DISRUPTION OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC: The high mountain ranges are similar to ocean. One need not occupy every mountaintop, just as one does not occupy every mile of sea surface. The purpose of navy is to control the sea-lanes and to deny the enemy the use of sea-lanes. Similarly, the purpose of High-Mountain Warfare is to secure the transport-artery of high-mountain roads, and to disrupt the transport of goods to the enemy.

Soviet Invasions of Afghanistan

LESSONS OF SOVIET-AFGHAN WAR: Russians are the people of the plains. Siberia and European Russia, is vast flat expanse of lands. The Russian invasion of Afghanistan involved into a prolonged confrontation with the Moslem World. It was the conflict between Russian Army trained for battle on plain lands and the mountain people. It created distensions among the mountain peoples of the Soviet Union.

Afghan Syndrome

GEOPOLITICS OF AFGHAN SYNDROME: The Afghan menace could lead to the general conflict between the civilizations of the agricultural plains and the mountain people. Afghan syndrome will expand to include the mountain peoples of Kurdistan, Chechen, Kashmir, and Tibet. The high-Himalayan mountains are to the north and west of Kashmir and Ladhak. Afghan mountain-warriors occupying high mountain bunkers could threaten the strategic road-transportation on the Kargil-Leh route. The air force is not effective at 20,000 feet high mountaintops. The entrenched soldier in mountain bunkers can tie down the attacking force ten times its size. India can use the lessons of high-mountain warfare in Kargil to plan the Tibet operations. India should train 10,000 Tibetan high-mountain soldiers and they should be strategically placed to disrupt the vehicular traffic on Tibet highways. The liberation of Tibet, has become a technical possibility.

GEO-POLITICS OF AFGHAN SYNDROME: Afghanistan has invaded India, by sending its mountain warriors to invade Kashmir, with a view to establish an Islamic state in Kashmir. India should declare a war in Afghanistan and send troops to overthrow the Taliban regime. The geo-political resolution of Afghan syndrome lies in India occupying Afghanistan and partitioning Afghanistan into three separately administered areas. Afghanistan should be partitioned into three parts, and these parts should be handed over to India, Pakistan and Iran. Sunni population should be shifted to the Pakistani administered Afghanistan.

Top Priority for High Altitude Warfare

TOP PRIORITY FOR HIGH MOUNTAIN WARFARE: High-mountain warfare is conceptually similar to Sea-warfare. The purpose of the high-mountain warfare is to secure the vehicular traffic through mountain-roads and to sabotage enemy’s vehicular traffic. There is no need to permanently occupy the high-mountain tops. The mountain-warfare secures the mobility of forward troops. Permanent settlements should be made in the high-altitude, snow-clad, cold barren mountain regions. The Information technology allows the viable economic activity at the high-mountain settlements. The wireless Internet connections, GPS technology, cellular telephones, and pagers, satellite TV broadcasting allows the development of vibrant economy even in the extreme cold climate and high mountain settlements. The land powers of plains should get its military personnel accustomed to living at high altitude.

China Losing Tibet War

INDIA CAN DEFEAT CHINA IN TIBET WAR: The habitable areas of Tibet are within 200 miles of Indian frontiers, while they are more than 2000 miles away from the nearest big Chinese cities. Tibet high-mountain warfare commandos will tie down Chinese supply route and defeat China.

Islamic Barbarian threats to India and Russia

DAGESTAN-KASHMIR-KURDS-AFGHAN: A general war involving the peoples of mountains and the peoples of fertile lands has begun in Asia and it extends from Tibet Plateau, Hindu-Kush and Caucasus mountains. Historically it is a war between barbarian forces and civilizations. The problem of Kashmir, Dagestan, Afghanistan, and Kurdistan require a similar Trans-national military solution. The solution of the problem of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism in Kashmir lies in Indian occupation of Afghanistan and the partition of Afghanistan in three equal regions, to be controlled and occupied by Pakistan, Iran, and India. The solution of the problem in Chechnya and Dagestan lies in arming Kurd rebels in Turkey. The Indian occupation and subsequent partitioning of Afghanistan will solve the problem of Islamic terrorism in Kashmir. India and Soviet Union can solve the problem of Islamic fundamentalism in Chechnya and Dagestan, by providing direct military aid to Kurd rebels in Turkey through the borders of Georgia and Armenia. The overthrowing of Kemalist regime in Turkey and its subsequent partitioning into Islamic Turkey and Aryan Kurdistan will solve the problem of Islamic fundamentalism in Chechnya and Dagestan. Islamic Mujahideens want a prosperous land to rule, so India and Soviet Union should militarily install a fundamentalist Islamic republic in North Turkey. Mountainous Turkey should become Kurdistan. The installation of a fundamentalist Islamic regime in the pro-Western, Westernized Turkey will snap NATO links with Islamic terrorism. Saudi Ossama Bin Ladin dreams to overthrow the Monarchy in Saudi Arabia. India and Soviet Union should give a catastrophic defeat to Islamic forces to push them westwards towards Turkey and Saudi Arabia. Let two of the leading Islamic powers lose their independence to the Islamic terrorism. After the successful installation of Islamic terrorist regimes in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, the Islamic barbarians will become civilized to enjoy the fruits of their victory. Then all the Islamic fundamentalists should be banished to Turkey and Saudi Arabia. All Islamic Mujahideens from Afghanistan, Chechnya, Dagestan will be evicted from their homes and banished to Saudi Arabia and Turkey. India and Russia should first convince Islamic warriors that they could not win against India and Russia. India and Russia should then offer them help in overtaking Turkey and Saudi Arabia in exchange of Hindu occupation of Afghanistan, Chechnya and Dagestan. By controlled fire alone, the blazing forest fire extinguishes.

Russia Support Kurdistan

RUSSIA SHOULD AID KURDS: Soviet failure to support the cause of Kurdistan caused Soviet defeat in Afghanistan, disintegration of the Soviet Union and the breakup of Yugoslavia. Independent Kurdistan will solve the problem of Islamic fundamentalism. Aryan Kurdistan will align with Aryan Iran and Aryan India to extend the frontiers of South Asia to the mouth of the Mediterranean Sea on the borders of Syria and Turkey. Russia can solve the problem of Dagestan by shipping 200,000 Assault Guns to Kurd guerrillas on the frontiers of Armenia and Georgia. The frontiers of Kurdistan meet Dagestan. There are large numbers of Kurds communities in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Dagestan, and Chechnya.

Islamic Rebels in Dagestan

REBELS IN DAGESTAN: Dagestan gunmen belong to the fundamentalist Wahhabi Islamic movement they want to merge Chechnya and Dagestan into one Islamic state. Chechnya ruined by fighting has been largely lawless. Chechnya began its war for independence from Russia in 1994. The conflict ended in 1996 with Chechnya winning de factor independence. Dagestan has a population of 2,074,000. Chechen gangs backed by Dagestan’s extremist groups plan to take over the Dagestan republic. They crossed from Chechnya and surrounded the border villages of Ansalta, Rakhata and Echeda. The fundamentalists declared Dagestan’s independence as an Islamic state and vowed to drive away infidels from its territory. Dagestan is a region of 33 different ethnic groups. Makhachkala is the capital of Dagestan. The elected President of Chechnya is Aslan Maskhadov. Shura is a council of radical Muslim leaders established in Chechnya, named Ichkeria by Muslims. Dagestan is a mountainous region roughly the size of Austria. Islamists have declared the Russian province of Dagestan an independent state and called for a holy war against Russia. The ‘Shura of Dagestan’, signed the independence declaration that states, ‘We, the Muslims of Dagestan, officially declare the return of independence to the Islamic state of Dagestan.’ The attempt by Islamic militants to take their fight beyond Chechnya’s borders now threatens to destabilize the entire turbulent region. The rebels’ clear aim is to broaden their conflict with President Maskhadov of Chechnya.

Indian Military Bases in Chechnya

INDIAN MILITARY BASES IN CHECHNYA: Chechnya has become a de facto independent state in 1996. Russia should allow India to set up military bases in Chechnya and Dagestan. Russia should allot India 100 sq. miles lands on the Caspian Sea coast on a 99-year military lease to India to set up a permanent military base. India should set up a large university at the military base to house 300,000 soldiers. Student Soldier Army will have police powers to maintain law and order in Chechya and Dagestan. Indian Army shall eliminate the Islamic threat from Chechnya and Dagestan. India will support Kurds in Turkey. Like the Afghan Taleban, the Wahabis who have hijacked the Muslim movement in the Caucasus are obscurantist fanatics and want to set up a religious dictatorship. Like the Aghan Taliban, they have played the Islamic card to win money and backing from the Gulf and Saudi Arabia. India wills its war in Kashmir against Afghan Mujahideens by destroying fundamentalists in Chechnya and Dagestan.

Mountaintop Rebel Outposts

MOUNTAINTOP REBEL OUTPOSTS: Islamic rebels from Chechnya have sneaked into the Dagestan and occupied mountaintop outposts. The heavily armed rebel outposts on mountaintops around the town of Botlikh in Dagestan can threaten the city and the adjoining vehicular traffic. So far, the outside reaction to the fighting in Dagestan has been muted. The Finnish Government, which now holds the presidency of the European Union, expressed concern about the widening of the conflict and cautioned the Russian authorities about using force. However, it is just this sort of internal warfare-and the West’s response to it-that Moscow Government has feared since the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Russia’s aversion to what it considers outside interference in its internal security issues was one factor in its strong opposition to NATO’s intervention in Kosovo, which the Russian Government feared could be seen as a precedent in places like Chechnya. Rebel outposts on high mountaintops is very difficult to be dislodged by air, as the aircraft becomes an easy target to the man-transportable stringer type anti-aircraft surface-to-air missiles. Infantry assault is very dangerous, as the climbing infantryman becomes easy target for the sharp shooters. India faced the similar strategic disadvantage in Kargil, when Afghan mercenaries sneaked into the high mountaintop outposts built by Indian Army, but vacated during winter season.

INDIAN MILITARY BASES IN DAGESTAN: India and Russia should sign a Defense Pact and designate the entire lands of Chechnya for Indian Military bases and a connecting link to the Capsian Sea. India will deploy 500,000 youths in Chechnya and provide law and order in Chechnya and Dagestan. Indian youths will marry the Chechnya women and permanently settle down in Chechnya and drive away all fundamentalist terrorists into Kurdistan.

Independent Kurdistan Will End Islamic Menace

KURDISTAN WILL SOLVE DAGESTAN PROBLEM: The borders of Chechnya and Dagestan separated from the lands of Kurds by less than 200 miles. India and Russia shall supply guns, munitions and other supplies to Kurd rebels in Turkey. The liberation of Kurdistan will establish Aryan Islamic Kurdistan and Islamic State of Northern Turkey. The area north of Bosporus shall become the land of Orthodox Christians. Disintegration of Turkey and the establishment of Sovereign will solve the problem of Islamic fundamentalism for ever.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1044) 24 (iii) PGM-IT Weapons Armed African Jungle Warfare

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

Greater India in Africa

INDIANS DOMINATED AFRICA: Indians have lived in Africa for more than 300 years. Indians dominated the economy of Africa. India had many billionaires in Africa. India’s virtually owned Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, and Rhodesia. Indian business Madhawani lost more than $4 billions in Uganda when Idi Amin expelled Indians. India should participate in every civil war in Africa and influence African politics. India should dominate the economy of Africa. Military participation in civil wars will entrench Indians as dominant economic and political player in Africa. Africa has mineral resources and India depends on imports of minerals. India will militarily support black Africans followers of ancestral indigenous tribal religions and cultures.

Revolution in Jungle Warfare

TROPICAL JUNGLE WARFARE TECHNOLOGY: Dense forests provide heartland-type protection to the mobile, armed, light infantry. Dense forests rule out the heavy mechanized warfare. Light gunboats, and helicopters control the river navigation. The control of river navigation is essential for victory. The GPS technology allows the base camp and forward troops pinpoint their locations on a real time basis. The cellular-phones, pagers, Satellite/wireless Internet connection allow immediate communications. The long-lasting, light high-protein condensed food products allow soldiers to self-carry 90-days rations. Man-transportable shoulder launched surface-to-air missiles, allows protection against air attacks, and river gun boat attacks. Jungle warfare is a manpower intensive, low-cost, long-duration warfare. The lack of mobility of infantry allows the mobile forces to target the weakest points. The Satellite reconnaissance allows the base camp select suitable targets for invasions. The diseases protect the locals and kill the enemies. Small well-trained mobile, armed infantry can overthrow large governments in Africa. Africa is too big, even massive military spending can not eradicate the rebel menace. The artillery and aircraft simply cannot cover such a large forest lands.

Profitable African Civil Wars

THE BUSINESS OF WAR IN AFRICA: Africa remains torn by 11 wars involving 16 nations, and countless rebel armies and movements. African civil wars have a nasty habit of metastasizing into regional conflicts. In many African nations, the natural resources finance rebel armies. In Congo and Sierra Leone, natural wealth is fuelling civil wars. Colonialism, which allowed Europe to extract Africa’s natural resources, left behind rebel leaders who exploit gold, diamonds, timber, oil and even wild life to benefit their soldiers, or their own bank accounts. Several of Africa’s wars are waged partially over control over control of these resources.

Congo

CIVIL WAR IN CONGO: Zimbabwe, Uganda and other nations supporting the Government or guerrillas in Congo’s war got involved in part to preserve, or to grab, Congo’s mining concessions. Foreign corporations and mercenaries, often those who had American or Soviet connections during cold war, have also financed and transported weapons in exchange for mines. These resources can buy plenty of tanks, guns and missiles, keeping wars going long after the political rationale is gone.

Sierra Leone

CIVIL WAR IN SIERRA LEONE: Loot of uncut diamonds has motivated the psychotically brutal guerrillas of Sierra Leone. In Sierra Leone, rebels quickly trade diamonds for arms. They trade the diamonds they control for arms through neighboring Liberia, under the sponsorship of President Charles Taylor, their longtime patron.

Angola

CIVIL WAR IN ANGOLA: The government and guerrillas in Angola are selling country’s oil and diamonds to buy weapons and pay soldiers in a 30-year civil war. Jonas Savimbi, an Angola Guerrilla leader of Unita organization, earlier backed by Washington and Apartheid South Africa, earned $3 billion to $ 4 billion in diamond sales in the last eight years. India should militarily participate in Angola civil war and the sale of diamonds will pay for the cost of Indian involvement. India is one of the world’s largest buyers of rough diamonds. Diamonds are financing and perpetuating wars in Africa. The flow of uncut diamonds from the rebel-held mines is keeping rebel armies in Angola, Congo and Sierra Leone supplied with tanks and assault rifles, uniforms and beer. From the fields in Africa, diamonds reach dealers in Belgium, Israel and Ukraine, where the ready cash turned into weapons. The largest weapons pipeline into Africa controlled by Russian organized crime figures who works with diamond brokers. Diamond revenues constitute the essential component of Unita’s capacity to wage war. Agreements to end the power struggle between the rebels led by Jonas Savimbi and the government have been within reach in 1975, 1991 and 1994, but never successfully grasped. Diamond incomes of Jonas Savimbi helps him sustain a war against an oil-rich government. Unita guerrillas have been able to capture big portion of its supplies from the Government itself. Unita guerrillas have too many advantages and too skillful for that.

Ivory Coast

COMING CIVIL WAR IN IVORY COAST: Ivoirians themselves are being marginalized in a country of Ivory Coast with a population of 16 millions, where at least one third of the population, or 6 millions were born abroad. In Ghana, Burkina Faso, Mali, Guinea and Liberia. Ivory Coast recently expelled Malian fishermen and there are plans to expel people of Burkina Faso origins.

Mozambique

MOZAMBIQUE: Mozambique is awash with weapons, left over from its long civil war. Warring factions during civil war gave even civilians arms. There are still enough AK-47s around to arm every man, woman and child in Mozambique.

Africa is Indian Sphere of Influence

AFRICA IS INDIAN SPHERE OF INFLUENCE: India should target eastern coast of Africa for developing closer military and political ties. India should develop closer strategic relationship with France to enhance India’s role in French speaking Africa. India should sign defense Pact with Congo and Angola. India is a brown nation, and it has special interests in black Africa. Africa can be the future home of 100 million Indians. India should arrange the inter-group marriages between South Indians and fairer black Africans.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1045) Chapter 25 Star Wars &Total Missile Defense

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

INDIA’S NUCLEAR DOCTRINE: Indian nuclear deterrence requires that India maintain an effective intelligence and early warning capability. India’s nuclear forces will base on a triad of aircraft, mobile land based missiles, and sea based assets. The survivability of the forces will enhance by a combination of multiple redundant systems, mobility, dispersion and deception. Space based and other assets shall provide early warning, communications, damage/detonation assessment. India should step up efforts in research and development to keep up with technological advances in the total missile defense. The survivability of the nuclear arsenal and effective command, control, communications, computing, intelligence and information (c4i2) systems shall be assured.

(i).KALI-5000 Beam Weapon

1^st Indian Star War Weapon

ELECTRON ACCELRATING MACHINE: The Bhabha Atomic Research Center (BARC) is in the final stages of assembling a powerful Electron-accelrating machine named ‘KALI-5000’ which can potentially be used as a beam weapon. This machine produces bursts of microwaves packed with gigawatss of power, one gigawatt is 1000 million watts. Bursts of microwaves when aimed at enemy missiles and aircraft, will cripple their electronics systems, computer chips, and bring them down. Machine essentially generates pulses of highly energetic electrons.

STAR WAR WEAPON: Kali-5000 will be ready for testing by the end of this year. P.H. ron is the chief designer of Indiaa’s first star war weapon, and head of the accelrator and pulse power division at BARC. In the present form, India’s beam weapon is too bulky, it weighs 26 tons, including tanks containing 12000 liters of oil. Some compacting is possible.

Kilo Ampere Linear Injector (KALI)

KILO AMPERE LINEAR INJECTOR (KALI): This is a machine bordering basic research. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Chairman Rajagopalan Chidambaram admitted it has military potential. There are some technologies, which one has to keep in touch with because they would become useful later. Development of KALI machine was mooted in 1985 by Chidambaram, then director of BARC, but work on Kali began earnestly in 1989.

INDUSTRIAL USES OF KALI-5000: The Kilo Ampere Linear Injector Kali, was developed for industrial aplications and the defense was a recent spin off. Other componensts in the machine down the line converted the elctrons into flash X-rays, for ultra high-speed photography or microwaves. The electron beam itself is used for welding. The Defense Balistics Research Institute in Chandigarh is already using an X-ray version of KALI to study speed of projectiles. Defense Institute is using Microwave producing version of KALI for testing the vulnerability of the electronic systems going into the Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) under development.

Hardening of Electronics

HARDENING THE ELECTRONICS OF MISSILES: It helps design the electrostatic shields to protect LCA from microwave attack by the enemy. Kali machine provided India a way to harden the electronic systems used in the satellites and missiles against the deadly ElecroMagnatic Impulses (EMI) generated by nuclear weapons. The EMI wrecks by creating intense electric field of several thousand volts per centimeter. The electronic components currently used in missiles can witstand fields of just 300 volts per centimeter.

Space Warfare Weapons

SPACE SATELLITES AS WEAPONS PLATFORMS: The use of the aircraft as reconnaissance platforms for artillery gave way to the bomber. Similarly, space satellites will evolve from platforms passing targeting information to earth-based weapons into weapons platforms in their own right. (The Future of War, p.331). Space is already being used for reconnaissance. The next phase of the warfare will be an attack on the space based reconnaissance satellite systems, along with attempts to protect these platforms from destruction.

Space Warfare Center

SPACE WARFARE CENTER: In April 1994, the US Air Force opened a Space Warfare Center as part of the Air force Space command. The motto of the Center is, ‘In Your Face from Outer Space.’ First project, code-named TALON SCENE, designed to demonstrate how imagery from a wide range of sources could be integrated and used in advanced precision weapons. Second, project, code-named TALON ZEBRA, combines global--position-system (GPS) data with imagery. Third project, the Joint Targeting Network demonstrated that a variety of data could be merged and provided to weapons systems in real time. Fourth project, code-named TENCAO, called Tactical Exploitation of National Capabilities, helps the defense community to convert assets created for nuclear warfare into systems for conventional war fighting.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)

POOR MAN’S SATELLITE SYSTEMS: New sensor platforms, an entire generation of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), some time little more than radio-controlled model airplanes, to as sophisticated as flying saucers, stand ready to assume the tactical reconnaissance role. Powered by sun, lithium batteries, or microwave radiation beamed from the ground, the vehicles will be able to hover thousands of feet above the battlefield, while using the same sort of sensors used by satellites. They will be useful supplements to the broad and deep coverage provided by satellites. Indeed they will become the poor man’s satellite system-low cost, but able to provide comprehensive intelligence over a limited area.

The unmanned aerial vehicles even from high altitudes can observe no more than a radius of 200 miles. Where the battlefield is clearly defined, as in Kuwait, Iraq, these systems are useful. UAVs will serve as tactical and operational reconnaissance platforms for ground forces already committed to combat in a specific theater.

Space War

SPACE WARFARE: The anti-satellite weapons (ASATs) will destroy enemy’s satellites. As anti-satellite weapons (ASATs) are developed, anti-ASAT weapons will take birth. As with the case with aircraft, satellites will have to become increasingly agile to evade threats. Like fighter aircraft other types of spacecraft, Space fighters will also evolve to protect reconnaissance craft from predators. Explosive missiles will move from earth into space. Once long-range hypersonic cruise missile become perfect, these missiles will set the stage for space warfare.

Need for Missile Defense

MISSILE DEFENSE DUE TO PAK THREAT:

India should develop Total Missile Defense to protect 4 or 4 major metropolitan areas against Pakistani preemptive nuclear strikes. India needs to develop an ambitious program to develop missile defense system to deter Pakistan’s preemptive nuclear strikes. Recent technology advances allow the development of the boost-stage interceptors, as Pakistani launch sites are not far from Indian borders. Japan is also developing Thaad Missile defense system. India can join with Taiwan and Japan to develop its Missile defense systems.

Taiwan’s Total Missile Initiative

TAIWAN’S TOTAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM: With China raising the volume on its threats to attack Taiwan, the Taiwan’s Cabinet accelerated plans for an island-wide network to shoot down Chinese missiles. Taiwan plans to establish an effective early warning system to detect airborne Chinese planes and missiles and build a ``total missile defense system.'' The Defense Ministry may seek funding for it from next year. Taiwan will pursue an ``in-depth'' plan for moving forward. The anti-missile defense system could allow Taiwan to take part in US-sponsored regional missile defense umbrella, though Taiwan has not been invited. China says it would fight to block Taiwan's inclusion. Though Taiwan has so far focused its attention on a limited local defense, technology to intercept missiles at high altitude can be added later. China's recent renewal of its threat to attack Taiwan over what it considers a radical shift toward independence by Lee has lent new urgency to Taiwan's quest for anti-missile defenses. Beijing was enraged by Lee's July 9 remark that Taiwan and China should manage relations on a ``state-to-state'' basis. Official news media of China have issued a stream of threats to crush what it sees as Lee's plan to formalize the political separation between the sides, which have operated independently since a 1949 civil war. China believes that no country in the world will dare to neglect the law and morality and become the enemy of 1.2 billion Chinese people just to fulfill Lee Teng-hui's personal ambition. To separate a sovereign country is a big risk. China views Taiwan as a renegade province that must eventually be reunited with the mainland, by force if necessary. Missiles are one of the few effective threats China's massive but largely obsolete war machine can muster against Taiwan. Strategists say they could take out vital military and civilian targets, hamstringing the Taiwan’s defenses.

TAIWAN MISSILE DEFENSE: Taiwan Leader Backs Missile Defense. In a move likely to anger Beijing, Taiwan's president pushed Wednesday for the island to adopt a defense network capable of shooting down the missiles, that rank among best weapons of China. An anti-missile defense system not only responds to current needs, but even more, fulfills the nation's long-term development interests. President Lee's comment was among his strongest public endorsements of an anti-missile system. A system to intercept missiles at low-altitude form the foundation of a defense network. Technology now being developed to stop missiles at a greater range could be integrated later. Details of the system are not released. System was being mulled that would detect incoming missiles with satellites and use Patriot missiles and the seaborne Aegis missile defense system to shoot them down. That system would cover about 70 percent of Taiwan's territory and cost about $928 million. Taiwan, which possesses Patriots and wants to buy Aegis destroyers from the United States, spends $7.84 billion, or about 20 percent of the national budget, on its military.

Japan’s Advance Missile Defence

Japan has signed a new agreement with Washington on developing advanced missile defenses. Japan plans to build Japanese spy satellite. Japan spends moe than $40 billion a year on defense spending. North Korea is th eimmediate source of japan’s defense anxieties. Last year Pyongyang fired a medium-range missile over Japanese airspace without advance warning, exposing Japan’s vulnerability to missile attack. Japanese leaders are also uneaswy aabout China. China has stirred new wories with its own missile testing and warlike talk aabout Taiwan.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1045) High Resolution Satellite

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

Ikonos Satellite

IKONOS SATELLITE: Space Imaging, whose Ikonos satellite plans to offer the finest-grained pictures ever, sold on the open market. Ikonos will be able to capture objects one meter wide and have the images available in 30 minutes- more precisely and much faster than its competitors. Ikonos imagery is for marketing for defense and intelligence applications. Several competing companies that plan to enter the high-resolution imaging business. Many foreign Governments have been willing to pay big money for this kind of data. This is what makes Ikonos a geopolitical milestone. Able to discern objects only a few feet wide – to see at one meter resolution – it will give presidents, generals and assorted political actors around the globe a kind of power once confined to elite nations. This democratization is not universally celebrated.

Had Saddam Hussein had got his hands on good satellite imagery during the Persian Gulf war, Iraq could have anticipated Gen. Norman Schwarzkoph’s famous ‘left hook’ maneuver and turned it into a bit less of a cakewalk. Faced with such prospects the United States is struggling to preserve a strategic edge. If Ikonos gets up and running, it is not be the first satellite offering salable pictures. However, its one-meter-resolution images will be unique. Unlike the 10-meter images available from the French SPOT satellites and the 5-meter images available from India. The pictures from Ikonos will get analysts close enough to discern missile launchers and tanks and distinguish between planes and bombers. Unlike the two-meter images sold by Russia, the Ikonos images do not suffer from Sputnik-era technology. The Russians still parachute their film to earth. Under ideal condition, a picture is available nine days after it is shot. Space Imaging, under ideal circumstances, can get a preliminary image out 30 minutes after the shutter snaps. Five-day-old images will qualify as archival, and sell for $30 to $300 per square mile of mapped surface, through company’s web site.

By 2000 AD, one-meter images will be available from West Indian Space Ltd, Cayman Islands. In the fall of 1997, Orbital Imaging planned a hyperspectral satellite, Orb View-4 with 8-meter resolution. Canadian Macdonald Dettwiler intends to launch Radarsat-2 in 2002, which can see through clouds and at night.

SYMMETRICAL TRANSPARENCY DETERS WAR:

After Soviet and American spy satellites went aloft in the early 1960’s, paranoia diminished. If Pakistan knows that India not mobilizing an assault and India knows the same about Pakistan then it will not get itchy. If each side knows that the other side is watching, both will indeed be less likely to mobilize an assault.

Anti Satellite War

ANTI-SATELLITE WARFARE: As sea commerce advanced in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, nations formed navies to project power and to protect and enhance their commercial interests. Similarly, during the westward expansion of the continental United States, military outposts and cavalry emerged to protect American wagon trains, settlements and railroads. With the commercialization of the outerspace, the leading powers will deploy weapon systems in space. Even if the reliance on eyes in the sky is not a net plus, the reliance is growing. In a nuclear world, sudden widespread blindness is bad. It makes people edgy. America is developing antisatellite weapons (ASATs). The value and feasibility of an ASAT treaty- whether a ban on the weapons themselves or more feasibly, a ban on testing them- is getting zero study in the arms control agency at the US State Department. Antisatellite weapons are just one tool in the space control arsenal, along with tactics like bombing satellite dishes and jamming satellites. The White House recognizes that such weapons are a messy form of space control, and deems them a tool of last resort. Many leaders are squeamish about transparency, bullish on antisatellite weapons and all for shutter control.

Indian Satellite Projects

MAJOR IMAGING SATELLITE PROJECTS: India launched IRS-1C during 1995 with 6 meters resolution, and IRS-1D with 6 meters resolution in 1997. France launched SPOT1 with 10 meters resolution in 1986, and SPOT 2 with 10 meters resolution in 1990, SPOT4 with 10 meters resolution in 1998. United States launched following satellites: Landsat 5 with 50 meters resolution in 1984, Landsat 7 with 5 meters resolution in 1999, NOAA-15 with 1,100 meters resolution in 1998, NOAA-14 with 1,100 meters resolution in 1995, and the planned Ikonos with 1 meter resolution may be launched in 1999. Canada launched Radarsat 1 with 8 meters resolution in 1995. Europe launched ERS 2 with 6 meters resolution in 1995.

Military Satellite Imagery

POOR SATELLITE IMAGERY: The Subrahmanyam Committee, looking into what led to Kargil, has been told that India's satellite imagery is ``incapable'' of providing any tactical military information. In addition, that so acute is the problem of cloud cover that in certain operational areas, satellites can transmit only two days of clear data in a year. Experts of the Delhi-based Defense Image Processing and Analysis Center (DIPAC) recently told the Subrahmanyam Committee that Indian Remote Sensing satellites can provide only broad terrain information and changes and cannot be relied upon to provide any vital IMINT (imagery intelligence). To get ``continuous coverage,'' the DIPAC has said that a range of systems is needed, including Synthetic Aperture Radars (SARs), Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and a `constellation of imaging satellites.'' Committee members were shown a comparison of pictures taken during the Kargil war by Indian Air Force (IAF) reconnaissance planes as against those obtained by the Indian Remote Sensing (IRS) satellites. DIPAC officials said that induction of a single satellite with 1-m resolution (existing Indian satellites have a 5-m resolution) would not give continuous coverage and would face the problem of cloud cover. Thus, the stress on constellations and the need for induction of SARs, which could be mounted on transport aircraft to get strategic information, even during inclement weather and during the night. On the question of comparative capabilities, the DIPAC reported that most countries treated their satellite-related work as secret. However, it was understood that China had acquired indigenous capability for 50-cm resolution (for photo imagery) while Pakistan had no indigenous capability yet. It was only to be assumed that Pakistan commercially purchased some high-resolution data. At the same time, the existing arrangements made by India for commercial purchase of high-resolution and high-spectrum data have been described as `inadequate to meet service needs.'' Thelong-pending question of having a separate cadre for a sensitive and highly specialized agency like the DIPAC also came up for discussion. It was pointed out that a proposal for having a separate DIPAC cadre was made by the Defense Secretary in 1995 but has since been hanging fire. Personnel from the three services man the DIPAC and a longer tenure for its analysts and software engineers has been mooted at several earlier reviews. Questioned about their ``wish-list'' by members of the Committee, DIPAC officials said any upgradation in their systems was linked to the satellite program of the Department of Space and the induction of India's own military satellite. It is understood that a suggestion has now been made for greater interaction between the newly formed National Security Council (NSC) and the DIPAC.

Indian Missile Defense System:

India needs to develop an ambitious program to develop missile defense system to deter Pakistan’s preemptive nuclear strikes. Recent technology advances allow the development of the boost-stage interceptors, as Pakistani launch sites are not far from Indian borders. Japan is also developing Thaad Missile defense system. India can join with Taiwan and Japan to develop its Missile defense systems.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1045) 25 (iii) US THAAD Missile Defense System

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

Missile Defense Radar

THAAD MISSILE DEFENSE RADAR: The US Army wanted to use new missile-defense radar to monitor a potential North Korean test. The radar would not add substantially to the missile monitoring equipment already in place aboard US ships and aircraft near Korea. The assets United States will have on the scene are perfectly adequate to meet the needs. Second, there would have been a cost to deploying the Thaad radar that he didn't think was worth spending,' given the amount of intelligence collecting assets the military already planned to have there. There are indications North Korea is preparing to test-fire a ballistic missile over Japanese objections and US. It appeared any test launch was days to weeks away. The Pentagon has specially equipped ships in the western Pacific to monitor electronic signals from a North Korean missile. The radar Myers requested was developed for use with a missile defense system called Theater High Altitude Area Defense, or Thaad. The system is still undergoing testing and has not been used against an armed missile. US decision not to send the Thaad radar to Asia. Arms-control officials opposed sending the radar because it might upset the Russians. Arms control issues did not influence decision.

THAAD PROGRAM: The Pentagon is preparing to move to the next phase of development of its experimental anti-missile missile, even though the weapon has succeeded in only two of eight flight tests. The Pentagon dropped its self-imposed requirement that the Theater High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, system score three successful intercepts in flight. Instead of conducting another test of the prototype missile later this year, the Army's contractor, Lockheed Martin Corp. will begin engineering a more advanced version to be fielded by the Army in 2007. Just last year, the THAAD program was reeling from six straight test failures. Earlier the go-ahead for Lockheed to move into the next phase of development, was to be given only after the prototype scored three successful intercepts of mock warheads. It recorded its first success in June, followed by another Aug. 2. THAAD is the centerpiece of the Defense Department's effort to provide missile protection abroad for U.S. and allied troops and their staging areas.

The US Army called off a flight test of its Patriot 3 missile interceptor after the missile that was supposed to launch as the Patriot's target over White Sands Missile Range, N.M., shut itself down just 30 seconds before launch. The US Army said it did not know what went wrong. The Patriot 3 is a new version of the missile interceptor used in the 1991 Persian Gulf War; it is intended as a complement to the THAAD missile defense system but does not have as great range as THAAD. The main reason for moving ahead with THAAD after two successes instead of three is to force Lockheed to focus on the missile interceptor that will actually be fielded, rather than the prototype used thus far. The two successful tests this summer have proven that the missile works. Critics, however, said after the second successful test in August that the THAAD system should be tested against faster, more capable missiles than the Hera rockets used in testing at White Sands Missile Range. Rather than spending months and millions of dollars on another THAAD prototype launch only to prove a point, we have decided to get on with the business of engineering development of the real thing. Final decision will be made next year on beginning the next phase of the project, in which Lockheed Martin will translate the design work done thus far into a missile that will enter initial low-rate production. The Pentagon is scheduled to begin fielding the THAAD system in 2007. Whether skipping the final flight test will enable it to be fielded earlier than that. The Pentagon has spent about $4 billion on THAAD so far.

BMDO Anti Missile Program

ANTI-MISSILE-MISSILE PROGRAM: The U.S. military postponed the latest test of an advanced Patriot missile being developed to shoot down enemy missiles because of problems with a target test rocket in New Mexico. The test of the Patriot Advance Capability Missile (PAC-3) was planned in White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. Patriot was not fired because of problems with a Hera target rocket. It was not clear why the Hera could not be launched and they did not know when the test might be rescheduled. The PAC-3 test had been postponed in May 1999, because of drought conditions and possible fires that might be caused by any flaming debris in a national forest in New Mexico. There was a further recent delay in order to change the target-seeking hardware on the Patriot. The PAC-3 is a more sophisticated version of the older Patriot missile used to intercept Iraqi Scuds in the 1991 Gulf War. The Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) and the Army are working on an anti-missile missile program to protect U.S. troops and bases from ballistic missile attack. Prime contractor on the PAC-3, designed to collide with and shatter enemy theater missile warheads in flight, is Lockheed Martin Corp., which helps the missile find its target, is built by Boeing Co. and the system integrator is made by Raytheon Co. To date, the PAC-3 has successfully completed three missions. The first two were development tests with special instrument packages instead of the seeker. In the most recent test on March 15, a PAC-3 successfully intercepted and destroyed a Hera although an interception was not the prime mission of the test. At the same time that the advanced Patriot is being developed as part of a theater missile defense. The Pentagon and aerospace firms are conducting costly research on weapons that could result in a national missile defense to protect U.S. cities from missile attack.

SBIRS

SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM LOW PROGRAM (SBIRS): SBIRS Low Program Definition Risk Reduction: A TRW/Raytheon team won a $275 million contract from the U.S. Air Force for the Program Definition Risk Reduction (PDRR) phase of the Space-Based Infrared System Low (SBIRS Low) program, the low-Earth orbiting component of the nation's next-generation, ballistic missile early-warning system. The TRW/Raytheon team was one of two contractor teams selected to define program requirements and complete conceptual designs for an operational SBIRS Low system under a 38-month contract. Included in PDRR is a comprehensive ground demonstration designed to reduce the risk and verify the performance of an operational system. SBIRS low is an extremely essential program for us, and we are very pleased to have been chosen to proceed to the next phase of its development. We have the right team, experienced people, and the resources to develop an affordable, predicable design that satisfies the nation's needs at a low cost. SBIRS Low will provide a significant capability for national defense, and we are proud to be a part of the integrated Air Force and contractor team that will define and develop a payload to meet these critical mission requirements. Our plan includes a focus on design and cost trade studies, and on risk reduction efforts to ensure the success of this program. Following completion of PDRR, the USAF is expected to select a single contractor to build the multi-satellite SBIRS Low constellation, estimated to cost several billion dollars over its lifetime. Initial launches are planned for the middle of the next decade. SBIRS Low is a component of the SBIRS system, which also includes satellites in geosynchronous orbits, sensors hosted on satellites in highly elliptical orbit, and ground data processing and control systems. SBIRS incorporates new technologies to enhance detection and improve the reporting of ballistic missile launches. SBIRS will integrate with, and eventually replace, the existing Defense Support Program (DSP) ballistic missile early-warning system.

THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM: It is for defense against short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles (up to 3,000 km or so) armed with nuclear, explosive, chemical, or biological warhead.

Safeguard

SAFEGUARD: In the 1950s effective intercept could be conceived only with a nuclear-armed interceptor, and the one strategic ABM system briefly deployed in the United States (Safeguard) was equipped with low-yield nuclear warheads on its short-range interceptor. The exo-atmospheric interceptor was to be equipped with a multi-megaton warhead not only to compensate for inaccuracy in intercept but also to be able to destroy spaced warheads and decoys. Safeguard ultimately promised no effective defense even of US strategic offensive force, but provided a test-bed to perfect the antiballistic missile (ABM) software.

Bullet for a Bullet

HIT A BULLET WITH A BULLET: The problem to ‘hit a bullet with a bullet’ was solved long ago. The solution requires detecting the incoming bullet at a sufficient standoff to be able to get an interceptor into its neighborhood before impact, or before reentry into the atmosphere. The solution also requires guiding the interceptor so that it collides with the incoming warhead, or the interceptor warhead explodes to destroy the incoming warhead. Either interceptor can climb along the inverse trajectory, or for crossing intercepts, the precise control of its velocity is very important.

Counter Measure Penetration Aids

COUNTER-MEASURE PENETRATION AIDS: It costs very little for the offense to provide penetration aids against non-nuclear interceptors outside the atmospheres. These penetration aids are effective when the light and heavy objects are in a free fall, not within the atmospheres, not during maneuvering portions of the trajectories.

Counter Counter Measures

COUNTER COUNTER-MEASURES: Enhanced discrimination capability will be required by the defense. The electrical heaters on the balloons could mimic the residual heat from a warhead to confound the infrared sensor defense. This is called Offensive Counter Counter Countermeasure to the Defensive counter counter measures of enhanced discrimination of the interceptors.

Anti Simulation

ANTI-SIMULATION: Using antisimulation offensive warheads are given a broad spectrum of observable, in order to make them easier to mimic by inexpensive decoys.

Endo Atmospheric Intercepts

ENDO-ATMOSPHERIC INTERCEPTS: During re-entry phase, the defense interceptors not armed with nuclear warheads, is complicated by the drag, are armed with fragment-kill warheads or hit-to-kill warheads. These make use of the fact that each gram of an interceptor at 6 km/s closing speed has some four times the energy of a gram of high explosives.

Hawk Air Defense System

HAWK AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM: The widely deployed Army Hawk SAM system can be upgraded for defense against Soviet SS-9 ICBMs.

COST OF DEFENSE Vs. DEMANDED EFFECTIVENESS: The carefully placed van bomb, the 2-ton explosive blast in Oklahoma City, and the 300-kg Scud warhead in Riyadh on January 25, 1991 caused substantial damage.

Patriot Interception

BLUFF OF PATRIOT INTERCEPTION: During the Desert Storm operations against Iraq, President George Bush bluffed that the effectiveness of the Patriot missile in intercepting Scuds was almost 100 percent. The range extension of Scud missiles by Iraqis involved a lengthening of the missile tank, which led to instability and breakup on reentry. The fuzing option for the Patriot was far from optimum for the closing velocities that were involved. The designer of the Soviet SA-10 system remarks that his system has more flexible fuzing option. The Patriot that saw service in Israel and Saudi Arabia in 1991 was fielded primarily as a SAM system and not an ABM system. In addition to the patriot, the Russian SA-10, SA-12, and S-300 systems have some capability against ballistic missiles.

Launch Phase Intercepts

LAUNCH-PHASE INTERCEPT: Effective launch-phase intercept is difficult since it requires intercept often within 40 s after launch. The Ground Based Interceptors (GEIs) could make an effective intercept if placed within 50 km of the launch site of a typical Scud. An air-launched interceptor of 8 km/s could move 300 km during that time. The Boost-phase intercept alternative should not be viewed as primary or preferred solution, but only a mid-term to long-term capability. The Midcourse Intercept or terminal-course intercept capability cannot solve the problem of Biological warfare (BW) or chemical warfare (CW) from bomblets dispersed on ascent. Therefore, it is either Boost-phase interception or nothing. A BMD capability deployed to protect against accidental launch will need to handle incoming reentry vehicles (RVs) of a full 7 km/s reentry speed.

Radiation Weapons

RADIATION WEAPON AGAINST SATELLITES: An explosion of a single high-altitude low-yield nuclear weapon can destroy $14 billion worth low-Earth-orbit satellites that would transit through the enhanced radiation belts produced by such a nuclear explosion.

Bio Terrorism

TERRORIST THREAT OF BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS: The terrorists can use highly contagious BW agents. The open borders, mixed societies allow the terrorists to deliver BW as a terrorist weapon against population centers of the adversaries.

1972 ABM Treaty

ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE TREATY: The ABM treaty was drafted not to prevent the existence of an effective nationwide defense against nuclear-armed strategic ballistic missile forces, but to provide a substantial buffer-time before such a defense could be deployed. A situation in which an ABM does not exist now, but could exist in the next 30 days, would be worse than the gradual deployment of such a defense. The very prospect of an ABM defense would force the adversary to develop penetration aids, multiple warheads and expansion of strategic force. The destruction of even vulnerable land-based MIRVed missiles before they could be launched in retaliation was not feasible, due to the possibility of Launch Under Attack (LUA), or Launch on Warning. Both super powers have the capability of launch under attack. The problem of destruction before launch (DBL) affects ICBM more than SLBM. The threat of DBL led to the development of MIRVs.

1980 Reagan Manifesto

REAGAN’s 1980 MANIFESTO: In the 1980 presidential campaign literature of Governor Ronald Reagan, stated that President Ronald Reagan will have a three-point program to build nuclear weapons to disarm the Soviet Union. If the Soviets tried to respond, it would be so costly that they will destroy themselves economically.

SAM Upgrades

SAM UPGRADE: The US Navy discovered a substantial capability of a fleet of vessels against cruise missile or even theater ballistic missile attack, by integrating the sensors on various ships. Americans were concerned about SAM Upgrade, by which the networking of the Russian SA-2 surface-to-air missile sites, to provide a coherent ABM capability.

Brilliant Pebbles

BRILLIANT PEBBLES: One does not actually need to have an explosive warhead to conduct an effective intercept in space. At 10 km/s relative speed, each gram of interceptor has 12 times the kinetic energy of a gram of high explosive. Brilliant Pebbles uses pallet warheads or matter orbiting pellet cloud to destroy objects in space. Now it uses ‘Smart Rocks’ that are smart enough to a collision with the target. Brilliant Pebbles Weapon envisages 100-kg mass of 5,000 Brilliant Pebbles (BPs), to destroy strategic weapons during their boost stage. The BPs assigned to the boosting weapons conduct an intercept with the precision necessary to strike the missile during boost phase. The BP needs to be self-guided.

Counter to Brilliant Pebbles

COUNTER TO BRILLIANT PEBBLES: The direct ascent ASAT can destroy Brilliant Pebbles. The adversary can destroy the constellation of BPs with very small homing interceptors supported by ground-based radar or lasers with a view of engagements taking place in low earth orbit. The ASAT itself need detect the BP satellite and provide guidance from a distance of only a few kilometers, or few hundred meters. The ASAT can be guided to the predicted position of the BP with the aid of ground-based radar or lasers. The ASAT guidance and homing system need survive only for a few minutes, whereas that of the BP needs to survive for years in space. The power supply of the ASAT could be batteries, whereas the BP would need to have a solar supply. The ASAT job of wiping out the BPs is very much easier than that of putting up BPs in the first place.

Brilliant Eyes

BRILLIANT EYES: Brilliant eyes would refine the trajectory observation of warheads in midcourse, so that terminal ABM system could work more effectively. The sensor of a terminal ABM system can have the capability to make an intercept without the trajectory refinement available through BP. An ‘Optical Probe’ launched from the terminal area, on detection of a ballistic missile will be a better idea than a Brilliant Eye. Brilliant eyes should have all the capabilities of Brilliant Pebbles, including rocket engines and homing systems that could boost the interceptor and conduct an intercept.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1045) 25 (iv) Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle Missile Defense

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

EKV Missile

EKV MISSILE: The E.K.V. will carry no explosives, relying on marksmanship and kinetic force to destroy the incoming warhead. Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle is a weapon that is supposed to protect America from Armageddon. The Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle is supposed to fly through space at 4,500 miles an hour and smash into an incoming warhead. The closing velocity of missile and missile-killer would be an amazing four miles per second. Somehow despite the velocity, despite the vacuum of space, despite the subzero temperatures, despite decoys and evasive measures, the E.K.V. will, if all goes as planned hit the warhead of its target and obliterate it. This task is akin to hitting the tip of a bullet with another bullet.

MAGIC BULLET OR PRICEY MISFIRE: An E.K.V. costs $20 million to $25 million and weighs 120 pounds. EKV is pound for pound, among the most expensive weapons ever built. It is the crown jewel of National Missile Defense, a program that is Topic A for defense hawks in Washington, who worry America is unnecessarily vulnerable to missiles tipped with weapons of mass destruction. National Missile Defense is also Topic A for Pentagon critics that soaked up $50 million in two decades. Most antimissile tests have failed to score intercepts. The E.K.V., would be either magic bullet for American National Security, or another pricey misfire from the American defense industry.

US Preparing for Nuclear War

AMERICA PREPARING FOR NUCLEAR WAR: President Reagan in 1983 outlined his vision of building a system of space-based lasers to shoot down missiles fired by the Soviet Union. It pushed the goal of defending the United States from intercontinental-ballistic missile attack to the top of the political agenda. The system known as Star Wars and was derided by critics. Critics proved accurately that there is no way the Government could build a missile shield that would work. The Star Wars drained more than $50 billion before the end of the Cold War turned off the tap.

MAD Doctrine is the Only Defense

MAD IS THE ONLY DEFENSIVE SYSTEM: No defensive system that can shoot down an ICBM. There is only MAD. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) means that if you nuke us, we will nuke you. MAD was the backbone of America’s nuclear defense throughout the cold war and remains so today.

Star War Lite Interceptors

STAR WARS LITE GROUND INTERCEPTORS: During 1998, America’s political and military leadership has concluded that the country can no longer rely on deterrence alone. The bellicose statements of Pakistan against India, convinced American military that nuclear deterrent would fail to deter irresponsible Islamic fundamentalists. A limited version of President Reagan’s shield, a Star War Lite relying on ground-based interceptors rather than space-based lasers, has moved to the forefront of Pentagon priorities.

Theater Missile Defense

THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE: China and Russia oppose the foreign deployment of the Theater Missile Defense, to protect United States troops in battle and, potentially, foreign allies. The Russians and China, condemn Theater Missile Defense as politically destabilizing. The proposal for U.S. antimissile umbrella covering Taiwan particularly worries China.

Theater High Altitude Defense

THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE ARE DEFENSE: Pentagon has poured $3.9 billion into the above antimissile program known as Theater High altitude Area Defense. Thaad is designed to destroy missiles aimed t troops or cities outside the United States. In its first six flights. Thaad registered zero intercepts, and the failure blamed on reliability problems. Reliability problem means that the mechanical parts or computer codes failed to perform their tasks. After the six consecutive failures in March 1999, the Pentagon tried to spin its way out of trouble by claiming the test was successful because 16 of 17 objectives were met. Bu hitting the target happened to be the 17^th objective. During 1999 summer Thaad scored hits in two test flights, but the tests were so conducted that the timing and trajectory of the missiles were known.

Star War Weapons

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE IS STAR WAR: National Missile Defense will be no different from Star Wars. The names were changed to protect the guilty. The US National Missile Defense budget nearly doubled earlier in 1999, doubled to $10.5 billion until 2005.

WHERE THREAT COMING FROM: Pyongyang is the only member of the group that has or may soon have a missile that can reach America. It was a point emphasized in 1998 when North Korea test-fired a three-stage rocket over Japan that could reach parts of Hawaii or Alaska. It was the ballistic shot heard around the world, reasoning especially in Washington. It also took the C.I.A. by surprise. The C.I.A. believes that North Korea has created a more powerful rocket that cold hit the western half of the American mainland with a sizable warhead.

President Bush's New World Order

BUSH’S NEW WORLD ORDER: President Bush hailed the birth of a new world order after the collapse of the Soviet Union, to emphasize the threat of the sale of nuclear technology in rogue to rogue commerce. Representative Cut Weldon of Pennsylvania has been a longtime advocate of missile defense. He said that the nuclear threats to United States come not just from Russia but from North Korea, from Iran and Iraq, and perhaps from China, and from terrorist activities, and much of it because of proliferation. Curt Weldon’s view, which used to be considered extremists, has entered the mainstream of strategic thinking. In 1998, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld warned that the threat of attack of missiles tipped with nuclear, chemical or biological warheads is evolving more rapidly than has been reported in estimates and reports by the intelligence community. In 1999 CIA director John Deutch warned that the United states is not effectively organized to combat proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

American Homeland Defense

AMERICAN HOMELAND DEFENSE: The Pentagon phrase ‘homeland threats’ echoes from the 1950’s and 1960’s when fallout shelters and duck-and-cover drills were the rage. It means now combating terrorism, cyber attacks, germ warfare, biological warfare, suitcase nuclear bombs, ICBM’s. Constructing a defensive shield against incoming missiles is the most expensive component of homeland defense and perhaps the ultimate reflection of fortress America.

Modern Maginot Line

MODERN DAY MAGINOT-LINE: National Missile Defense is a modern day Maginot Line. The Reagan-era Star War vision remains far beyond American technological reach.

Clinton's Missile Defense

CLINTON ON MISSILE DEFENSE: The Clinton Administration, which was cool to the missile-defense program, has changed his view. The Clinton Administration and the Congress Democrats have abandoned much of their cautionary stance toward National Missile Defense. They join Republicans in emphasizing how the National Missile Defense program is different from Star Wars.

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE & STAR WARS: The National Missile Defense would use a battery of approximately 100 ground-based interceptors to destroy incoming missiles. The NMD would be able to destroy only a handful of missiles rather than a cold-war barrage of thousands. Star Wars based on space based lasers. These changes would make National Missile Defense not just cheaper than Star Wars but actually technologically feasible.

Naval Missile Interceptors

NAVAL ANTIMISSILE INTERCEPTORS: The program to equip US Navy vessels with antimissile interceptors is estimated to cost $1.3 billion.

EKV Lab

E.K.V. LABORATORY: The Raytheon E.K.V. laboratory is a modest place, not much larger than a tennis court or two, stuffed with computers, vacuum chambers, a clean room for assembling sensitive parts, computer simulation terminals.

E.K.V.: The E.K.V. does not look like a slayer of missiles. EKV looks nothing like a missile at all. It has an ungainly appearance that suggests that a homemade jetpack, and from head to toe, it measures just 52 inches. EKV can fit into the trunk of a compact car. EKV looks very fragile. Fuel tanks, thrusters, and piping are anchored around a cylinder that is attached to a telescope like device that lets the sensors see the incoming missile and measure its speed, dimensions and density. That information will whiz through the E.K.V.’s processors and help it home in on missile’s warhead. Raytheon says the E.K.V. will be able to hit within centimeter of the desired point of impact on the warhead.

BULLET HITTING A BULLET: The E.K.V. does not carry any explosives. Because it will be travelling at 75 miles a minute, the kinetic force of its collision with the incoming warhead will destroy both devices. However, hitting the warhead is even trickier than the bullet-hit-bullet metaphor would suggest. It is difficult because of the possible decoy measure deployed. A Mylar balloon that inflates in space around a warhead is one such decoy. Fake warheads are placed in the balloon and the metal chaff is used to travel alongside the warhead as an alternate target. Much of the debate about the usefulness of the national Missile Defense revolves around the E.K.V.’s ability to outsmart these decoys. Decoy-foiling technology does not exist and will not exist anytime soon.

EKV Becoming Obsolete

OBSOLESCENCE OF E.K.V.: It is entirely possible that the E.K.V. system, even it is built and actually works, would be obsolete soon after its completion. The thin defense offered by the N.M.D. might need to be thickened in the years ahead as rogue nations expand and enhance their arsenals. An effective defense against the ballistic threats of tomorrow would require space-based interceptors and space based lasers. Ground-based weapons that must be boosted into space after a hostile missile is already on its way waste precious minutes. The cost of building such an enhanced system could greatly exceed $60 billion by 2010. The NMD will need to be expanded if the threat from rogue nations advances.

Space Based Weapons

SPACE BASED WEAPONS: Space is going to become a more critical part in the NMD. It is a fact that great powers will have to deal with Space-based sensing, space-based queuing and space-based assets. In the end, the most capable response will come from outer space. The $10.5 billion now budgeted for NMD may turn out to be little more than a down payment on a far grander system that has already been discussed in America years back under President Reagan. Back then it was called Star Wars.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1045) 25 (v) US Missile Defense to Modify ABM Treaty

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

AMERICAN PROPOSAL: America asks Russia to alter 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, which prohibits the nationwide defense. Americans are seeking to reassure the Russians that the proposed missile defense is not aimed at them. The 1972 ABM Treaty has been viewed for more than 25 years as the bedrock of arms control. Americans are pressing for changes to lay the groundwork for a defense against potential missile attack from North Korea and other nations. But the Russian officials insist that Washington has vastly exaggerated the missile threat arising from undeclared or potential nuclear powers, and weakening the ABM Treaty would be a reckless move. What happened to the CTBT was a disaster. If it happens to the ABM Treaty, it will be a quadruple disaster. United States exaggerated North Korea's capacity to develop long-range missiles, while minimizing the forms of political and military leverage, Washington has over North Korea.

2005 AD FIRST PHASE OF THE MISSILE PLAN: As a part of an effort to defend against potential missile attacks from North Korea, the United States is proposing to construct a new antimissile systems in the United States and to help complete a large missile-tracking radar in Siberia at Mishelevka. Upgrades are also planned to some of the current American early-warning systems. The Phase 1 of the US missile defense system, to be completed by 2005. It would include new battle management radar and deployment of u p to 100 antimissile interceptors in Alaska. The upgrades of the current early-warning systems currently in place in California, Cape Cod, Britain and Greenland would be undertaken. The system would be able to stop a limited attack involving relatively unsophisticated missiles.

2010 AD PHASE 2 OF MISSILE DEFENSE: The Phase 2 to be completed by 2010 would include the new battle management radar and deployment of up to 100 antimissile interceptors in North Dakota.

AMERICAN OFFER RUSSIAN UPGRADES: United States has proposed to help Russia complete new missile tracking Radar in Mishelevka Siberia 60 miles northwest of Irkutsk. It would be oriented towards to the southeast. The Radar covers North Korea among otherAsian nations. Amricans also offered to upgrade the Russian operated Radar at Lyaki in Azerbaijan. The Lyaki Radar oriented toward the south, covers Iran and other Middle Eastern nations. Undr the American plan, the Lyaki station might be jointly manned with the Russians.

SHARING THE RADAR DATA: American proposal includes joint computer simulations of antimissile systems and collaboration in deploying satellite systems. Russians would visit American early warning radar stations and perhaps access to their data, including that from the new radar to be built in Alaska.

QUALITY OF DEFENSE: This level of defense would enable the United States to protect itself against a limited missile attack that several tens of missiles with more sophisticated warheads and decoys. But the defense could easily be swamped by Russia's vast arsenal, thus preserving strategic equilibrium between Washington and Moscow.

THREAT OF AMERICA: The costly new Radar and command control system the United states might erect in the next century will become the building blocks of a more comprehensive antimissile defense. America would make a formal decision to proceed with its antimissile program in summer of 2000.

US Missile Defense Backfires

MISSILE SHIELD WOULD BACKFIRE: Both Republican and Democrats presidential candidates want to build a national defense against missile attack. The idea is sound, but a politically motivated rush to carry it out could do more harm than good. The technology for a missile shield is not ready. A missile defense was a Republican idea and candidate Bush has pledged to begin deploying a system soon after taking the office. Clinton Administration has also announced plans for a limited version capable of intercepting few warheads and set to be ready in Alaska by 2005. Al Gore has not strayed from that position. Rushing a decision on Total Missle Defense during a presidential year, when tempers are short in both Russia and America, and necessary technology is not even ready, is nothing short of foolhardy. It could only mean that United States and NATO have decided to recreate Colonial Empires in the 21^st Century.

Risks of Violating 1972 ABM Treaty

MENACE OF VIOLATING 1972 ABM TREATY: Clinton administration hopes to reach a formal decision on its plan by the spring. It would begin work before the Alaskan soil freezes in the fall, with the official groundbreaking in the spring of 2001. Somewhere along that time-line, the United States would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. ABM treaty prohibits nationwide missile defense. If Russia rejects US efforts to reach an accommodation, the US would eventually withdraw from the ABM Treaty. Before deploying the Missile Shield, United states should work with the new Russian president to try to modify the ABM Treaty. US must take concrete steps to convince Russians that the Missile Shield is response not to Russian misiles but response to Iraqi, North Korean, Pakistani and Indian missiles.

TECHNOLOGICAL RUSH TO FAILURE: The panel of defense experts headed by L.D. Welch, a former Air Force chief of staff, has reiterated that the compressed development schedule as a technological rush to failure. Despite its political appeal, a Spring 2000 decision to build such a shield makes little sense technologically. Some technology for the system has yet to develop.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1045) 25 (vi) 1999 Test of Pentagon's Missile Defense System Fails

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

FAILURE OF TEST: Over the last four decades, the Pentagon has spent nearly $100 billion on missile defense systems, with very few successes. Mr. Clinton signed into law the national Missile Defense act of 1999, which requires the deployment of a system when it is feasible. President Clinton scheduled to decide in summer 2000 whether to proceed with full deployment of a multibillion-dollar system to shield the United States. It was a serious setback to plans for creating a missile defense system, to protect the United States. The test a missile fired from the Marshall Islands in the Pacific failed to hit a mock warhead, fired earlier from a California Air base, thousands of mile away.

It was the first time the Pentagon had tested a fully integrated system of Radar and sensors intended to guide the missile as it sped into space in search of the target. If the test had succeeded, the Pentagon would have met its own minimum standard for advising the president that the technology was feasible for deploying the Missile Defense system in 2005. Instead, the military will have one more chance, in late April or early may, to test the system and show that it works. The Administration has imposed a June deadline for the Pentagon to open its review of the system. The failure of the test tonight will fuel the already deep divide between politicians and nuclear weapons opponents over the prospect of building this $12.5 billion shield.

The test began with the launching of a modified Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) from Vandenberg Air Force Base, California at 9:19 on Jan. 18 2000. About 20 minutes later a prototype interceptor launched from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, some 4,300 miles west of the California coast. The kill vehicle hurtled toward the missile but failed to hit it.

The modest defense shield is the modified version of President Ronald Reagan's unfulfilled Star Wars concept. This far more modest defense shield meant to protect all 50 states from a limited strike by an unpredictable enemy, like North Korea. If built, it would be the most complicated weapon system ever designed. It would also break the rules set out in the 1972 antiballistic Missile Treaty signed by Moscow and Washington, which forbids either nation from establishing a missile defense system to protect the entire land mass of their countries from attack.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1045) 25 (vii) Spaceports to Orbit as Platform for Space based Weapons

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

The Spaceports, the world gateways, the satellite launch sites that launched more than one rocket from 1995 through 1999 on missions to put into Earth orbit, whether of not those missions were successful. (i) Cape Canaveral, Florida, USA, total (73), Commercial (46), Government (27). (ii) Kourou, French Guiana, total (55), commercial (45), government (10). (iii) Vandenberg, California, total (47), commercial (23), government (24). (iv) Wallops, Virginia, total (7), commercial (5), government (2). (v) Alcantara, Brazil, total (2), commercial (0), government (2). (vi) Sea Launch, Pacific Ocean, joint venture led by Boeing, with Russian, Norwegian and Ukrainian partners, total (2), commercial (2), government (0). (vii) Baiknour, Kazakhstan, total (62), commercial (25), government (37). (viii) Plesetsk, Russia, total (46), commercial (7), government (5). (ix) Xichang, China, total (9), commercial (6), government (3). (x) Taiyuan, China, total (9), commercial (6), government (3). (xi) Tanega-Shima, Japan, total (5), commercial (0), government (5). (xii) Sriharikota, India, total (3), commercial (0), government (3). (xiii) Jiuquan, China, total (2), commercial (0), government (2). (xiv) Palmachim, Israel, total (2), commercial (0), government (2). (xv) Svobodny, Russia, total (2), commercial (1), government (1).

The satellite launching sites: for USA are Cape Canaveral, Vandenberg; for Russia are Plesetsk, Svobodny; for Kazakhstan are Baiknour; for India Sriharikota; for China Xichang, Taiyuan, Jiuquan; for Japan Tanega-Shima; and for Israel Palmachim.

The proximity to the equator allows rockets to carry relatively heavier payloads than those launched elsewhere. The rotation speed of the earth is greater at the Equator than in zones north and south, and the spin pushes rockets and satellites into orbit faster and with the use of less fuel. That translates into substantial savings for users and a longer useful life for the satellites. A satellite launching from Equator can be as much as 30 percent more efficient than one from Cape Canaveral, at 28 degrees north Atlantic.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1045) 25 (viii) Wastage of Russian Mir Space Station

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

United States profited by free transfer of Space Station technologies from Russia and then conspired that Mir structure should disintegrate by fiery re-entry through Earth's atmosphere. Instead, the Russian Mir space station remains in orbit. Two astronauts abroad Mir are busily repairing worn components and readying it for future visits. Previously abandoned, battered and showing all the effects of its 14 years in space, the Mir just keeps going on and on. It appears life of the 130-ton space station may extend past its 15 anniversary in orbit next February.

Russian astronauts Sergei Zalyotin and Aleksandr Kalery continue their 60-day mission of putting Mir back into working order and assessing the orbiting outpost for future renovations and commercial applications. The crew arrived at Mir on April 6, 2000 and concentrated on making the space station habitable. The astronauts found and patched what they believe was the source of a persistent air leak. The astronauts used supplies brought by an unmanned Progress cargo craft to repair and restock the Mir station.

On May 12, the astronauts conducted a five-hour space-walk outside Mir to inspect its outer Hull. They tested new glue designed to seal cracks in aging spacecraft. The glue could be used to till small cracks and leaks in any spacecraft.

A group of Western investors formed a company called MirCorp and began raising money. MirCorp, chartered in Bermuda and based in Amsterdam, received initial financing of about $20 million from Gold & Appel Transfer S.A., a Caribbean-based venture capital holding company. In February, MirCorp signed an agreement with RSC Energia, the privatized Russian Company that built and operates Mir, for commercial use for the station for the remainder of its life. Energia is 38 percent owned by the Russian government, became the majority shareholder in MirCorp and retains ownership of Mir. MirCorp announced sweeping plans for the Mir station. It intends to lease Mir space for pharmaceutical and materials company wanting to do proprietary research, and establishing Internet and entertainment business in space. Jeffrey Manber, an American citizen is the president of MirCorp. MirCorp has raised $40 million so far and trying to drum up another $100 million before making an IPO offering in 2001. MirCorp could raise $300 to $500 million by going public. This would allow Russians up to $200 million to revitalize their space industry. Then MirCorp would have more money to upgrade the Mir station and build a new central module for it. Only the core module of Mir is 14 years old. If one builds a new core module and add a newer module of the current station, then you have a much younger station in space available for commercial uses for a long time. The changing political climate in Russia is shifting in Mir's favor. Russia's president Vladimir V. Putin pledged in 1999, to fulfill Russia's commitments to the international station, and voiced strong support for Mir and Russian space industry. The space sector is not only a prestigious sector, which makes Russia a great power, but also linked to economic and scientific development. Russia would include money for Mir in next year's space budget. Russian support to Mir is part of the larger reevaluation of Russia's relationship with the United States and signal of new Russian independence.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1046) Chapter 26 Cyber Warfare

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(i) US Cyber Keyboard Warfare Command Center

WAR GAMES: General Henry H. Shelton publicly acknowledged that the United States played hacker itself earlier in '99 waging a keyboard war against Serbian computer networks. Pentagon has created a new military center to harness the nation's disparate cyber-warfare forces under the Airforce Space Command at Peterson Airforce base in Colorado Springs. The new command's first mission will be to coordinate the defense of the military's computer networks against foreign threats and cyber-terrorists. Soon after the mission will expand to include offense. Joint Task Force Computer Network attack, in Pentagon jargon, is designed to conduct wartime military operations against computer networks in enemy countries. The addition of an information-war fighting capability to the Pentagon's quiver takes activities that have largely been confined to covert military and intelligence operations and makes them a part of the nation's military chain of command. The new center is a public acknowledgement that as the world's most technically advanced nation, the United States is the most vulnerable to foreign cyber-threats.

NONCOBATANTS ARE TARGETS. The big challenge keyboard warfare poses for the democratic societies are that it further blurs the line between military and nonmilitary targets. Cyber-warfare deliberately targets noncombatants. Frequently you are not going after a Government or military strategic target; you are going after utilities.

Electronic Pearl Harbor

ELECTRONIC PEARL HARBOR: The specter of simultaneous computer network attacks against banking, transportation, commerce and military targets, as well as against the military, conjures up the fear of an electronic Pearl Harbor in which the nation is paralyzed without a single bullet ever being fired. The military threat is going to be death by thousand cuts, rather than a giant cyber attack.

Information Warfare

INFORMATION WARFARE POLICY: The challenge is to change a military culture that has fought wars with bombs and tanks into one that fights with bits and bytes. This ghost-in-the-machine threat is military's worst nightmare. The closed and secretive military organization would find it difficult to combat cyber-warfare. Preparing for cyber warfare will force the nation to rethink the way it fights wars.

Electronic Maginot Lines

ELECTRONIC MAGINOT LINES: Military has been trained to fight nuclear wars where static defenses are fatal. But in the information warfare we have to rethink everything. Building impenetrable electronic walls may be more effective tactics in cyber-warfare. The military concept of Electronic Maginot Lines would resurrect the military concept of static defense.

Faceless Enemy

FACELESS ENEMY: Military commander should expect an attack that blocks access to his computer networks. He should assume that somebody who has approved access to military networks is working for the other side and still the commander should be ready to fight a war.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1046) 26 (ii) Malicious Code Wars

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

Infrastructure Protection

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION: America’s top cyber investigator has asserted that foreign Y2K firms could have smuggled in codes designed to threaten United States’ economy and security. Michael Vatis, head of the national Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has been quoted as saying that Indian firms may have introduced ‘Malicious Code Changes’ in garb of Y2K modifications that could allow them future access to America’s computer systems. These codes have begun to surface in some U.S. work done by the foreign contractors. Perhaps the codes were introduced with an eye on future access to computer systems in order to threaten the country’s economic and security networks. Terril Maynard, a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer assigned to the NIPC, published an article in June issue of the Infrastructure Protection Digest. Mr. Maynard said that India and Israel appeared to be the most likely sources of the malicious codes

Indian Cyber Warfare Capability

TRIBUTE TO INDIAN CYBER WARFARE: Even if these reports are untrue, the allegation is a tribute to Indian and Israeli competence in Cyber Warfare. Cyber Warfare could determine the outcome of the Third World War. India should acquire the proven capability to crash and shut down Western computer system in the event of the Third World War. India is a land power and India should develop advance capability in Cyber Warfare. If India can crash Western Computer systems in future war then India’s victory in war becomes easy. India should set up a Cyber Warfare division and perfect Cyber Weapons of Mass Communications Destruction.

Planting Moles

PLANTING MOLES IN COMPUTERS: Moles can be planted as a part of the software marketing strategy to gain long-term clients. The ‘Regression Testing’ ensures that new software programming would not hamper other software in client systems. It is quite easy for an outsider or insider software programmer to code in ways of gaining future access or causing something to ‘detonate’ down the road. This could expose a company to future ‘denial of service attacks,’ open it to economic espionage or leave it vulnerable to malicious altering of data. Long term consequences of outside software development could include more espionage and reduced information security. Not many companies can afford to keep many software programmers on permanent payroll. It would make large corporations vulnerable to exploitation by Software companies in the Information Age. Corporations have to make a choice, whether to remain IT-wise technologically backward or become vulnerable to exploitation by software developers. Hiring over-priced American programmers makes IT-upgrading uneconomic.

To argue that American Citizen software programmers could not be spies, may be factually wrong, better read Cox Report on Chinese espionage. The firms from Ireland, Pakistan and Philippines have done significant Y2K repair, but Maynard noted that they are least likely to harm U.S. interests. Perhaps he should read about Pakistani espionage of Uranium Enrichment Plant Technology and other nuclear secrets from the West. .

Cyber Weapons

Those who are doing the Y2K remediation are almost always contractors who are given the status of a trusted insider with broad authority to review and make changes to the source code that runs information systems. These contractors could, undetected, do any of the following, to compromise the computer systems.

Trap Doors

INSTALL TRAP DOORS: By installing trap doors, intruders can later gain accesses to a system through an opening that they have created and then exploit or attack the computer systems.

Root Access

OBTAIN ROOT ACCESS: Given their level of access, software remediation companies can gain the same extensive privileges as the system administrator, allowing them to steal or alter information or engage in denial of service attack on the computer systems.

IMPLANT MAILICIOUS CODES: By implanting malicious code someone could place a logic bomb or a time-delayed virus in a system that will later disrupt it. A malicious actor could also implant a program to compromise passwords or other aspects of system security.

Map Systems

MAP SYSTEMS: By mapping systems as a trusted insider, a contractor can gain valuable information to sell to economic competitors or even foreign intelligence agencies.

Computer Systems can be compromised for any number of purposes including, foreign intelligence activities, information warfare purposes, industrial espionage, terrorism or organized crime. The use of untested foreign sources for software outsourcing has created a unique opportunity for foreign countries and companies to gain access, steal from, or disrupt sensitive national and proprietary information systems.

The problem of course is checking the remediation works to make sure that no malicious code was implanted in the system. If reviewing the millions of lines of code are issue were simple, there wold not be need for outside software contractors in the first place. Nevertheless, given the vulnerabilities that could be implanted in the critical systems, it is imperative that the client companies do as much as possible to oversee the remediation process closely, and review new code as closely as possible and to remove any extraneous code. Companies should test for trap doors and other known vulnerabilities to cracking. Companies can use ‘Red Teams’ to try to crack the software and further determine if trap doors exist. Companies should formulate the policies on potential Post-Y2K problem on their critical systems. This would generate lots of revenue for Y2K firms even after the year 2000. The whole allegation could be a novel way of generating new business even after the end of the Y2K problem.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1046) 26 (iii) Black Money Capital Flight Wars

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

Secret Banking

SECRET BANKING IS AN INSTRUMENT OF WAR: Swiss Secret Banking is the most potent weapon of warfare in the modern age. The world’s organized crime generates $1,000 billion tax-free, and United States organized crime generates $500 billion tax-free, and US Drug cartels generates $300 billion tax-free, every year. United States requires the reporting for any international money transfer more than $500. United States encourages foreign leaders to rape their national resources, to deposit their loot in Western banks. The rape of foreign nations fuels Western economic growth.

Jews Raped Russia

WHO RAPED RUSSIA? Russia has spent the years after Communism spiraling downward. Who is to blame: That is becoming a highly charged racial question in Russian and American politics.

DID JEWS RAPED RUSSIA? In Russia, the charge is that the New Russian reformers, abetted by Jews controlled Wall Street, and American Jew controlled Russian Mafia, have systematically destroyed Russian economy, by siphoning away Russian capital to United States, United Europe and Switzerland. Jews constitute the vast majority of Russians that emigrated abroad, and they control the Russia’s financial markets. Non-Jew Russians did not emigrate on a massive scale, and these non-Jew Russian emigrants do not control Western financial markets. Jews controlled the transformation of Russia into Capitalism, because they alone had extensive exposure to capitalism. Jews dominated Bolshevik leadership that raped Russia during the Soviet Union. Jews dominated Russian Biznismeny in Capitalist Russia.

Russian Capital Flight

RUSSIAN CAPITALISM IS CAPITAL FLIGHT: When the new Russian biznismeny got hold of the properties, their first thought was not to spruce them up or extend their product line. The Russian biznismeny’s first thought was how to realize the assets in cash, exchange the cash into dollars and get it out of the country. Capitalism became flight capital. Just how much money has left Russia in the past seven-(7) years (1992-1999), is not known precisely, but estimates vary from $200 billion to $500 billion. Bolsheviks raped Russia during twentieth century. Jew-led Russian Capitalists and Jew-led Russian Mafia raped Russia During 1980s, 1990s. Jews, Catholics and Protestants have made fortunes by Raping Russia.

Indian Capital Flight

FLIGHT OF INDIAN CAPITAL: Catholic West has been instrumental in the flight of Indian capital. Just how much capital has left India in the past twenty years (1980-1999), isn’t known precisely, but estimates vary from $200 billion to $300 billion. United States allows the unrestricted entry of foreign black money, if US laws had not been violated by the owners of the black money. India can not check the menace of the flight of capital by restricting its movement. India should also set up Secret Banking financial institutions in Andaman & Nicobar to attract the $1,000 billion that Protestant and Catholic organized crime earns every year. Indian Secret Banks can attract 25 percent of the annual income of the global organized crime syndicates. Indian Bank Secret Account services shall provide Global Mafia guaranteed protection of Swiss banks type secrecy.

Karl Marx & Jew World Plot

KARL MARX WAS A PROSTITUTE-PHILOSOPHER: Russian Jews remained fanatic Orthodox Jews, and helped Bolsheviks destroy Eastern Christianity. Vatican Agents had hired Karl Marx write an Iconoclast atheist ideology, which may destroy Orthodox Czar and Eastern Christianity. Soviet Communism effectively destroyed Russian economy, and Russian Orthodox Church. Did Joseph Stalin secretly convert to Catholicism. Catholic Joseph Stalin perhaps murdered 30 million Orthodox Russians not because they were enemy of the Communist State but because they were devout Orthodox Christians. Jews became top leaders in soviet Communist system, because they had Western exposure more than fellow Russians. Jews played a very important role in raping Russia during Soviets. Similarly, Socialist Government of India undermined and nationalized leading Hindu temples, while guaranteeing the establishment of 100% Catholic states in the Northeast Indian states of Nagaland, Mizoram etc.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1047) Chapter 27 End of the Age of Tank Warfare

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

Tank Age

END OF TANK ERA: The twentieth-century tank will not survive into the twenty-first century. The tank can be attacked; but tank cannot in turn, counterattack. US Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, said with advances in technology and tactics, the heavy weapons now at the heart of the Army's structure like the Abrams M1-A1 Tank, could become obsolete. The heavy weapons (like tanks) would be replaced by wheeled-vehicles, that could be moved overseas in greater numbers more quickly. Army would reconsider the weapons systems that it buys, paying greater attention to those that are lighter but still lethal. The Army's distinction between heavy armored division and light infantry division or light airborne division would soon disappear. The entire transformation will go toward capabilities that give those divisional formations the lethality that the heavy forces have and the agility of the lighter forces. The need of the day is the Army's ability to put large forces into combat in remote areas without the support bases; it has relied on in past conflicts.

Purpose of Tanks

THE PURPOSE OF TANK: The purpose of the tank is to move a large gun around the battlefield, destroying fortifications, killing infantrymen, disrupting lines of supply and communication. Now long-range precision munitions can more cheaply and efficiently than tanks, place explosives with precision at essential point on the battlefield, which was the initial purpose of the tank. You no longer need a tank to destroy a tank, nor do you need tanks to envelop and isolate enemy formations.

Anti-Fortification Role

ANTIPERSONNEL & ANTI-FORTIFICATION ROLE OF TANKS: So long as the basic threat was line-of-sight weapons, tanks retained an offensive capability. While wire-guided or fiber optically guided missiles increased the probability of a given round hitting a tank, the missile’s platforms, and even somewhat the man-portable antitank missile, remain vulnerable to the tank. During 1980s, the indirect fire of precision munitions, launched outside the firing range of the tanks, placed tanks in a new an untenable position. Tanks could no longer strike at what menaced them most, the missiles; all the tanks could do was defend itself. With the major threats beyond their range, they became like a turtle on its back, able to survive unable to function. Projectile does not have to be driven to the target like a weapon platform. Projectiles can fly to the target. In future, it will be necessary to separate weapons physically from the system that performs the targeting. The ability to see is conceptually separate and practically different from the ability to shoot. As new technologies mature, it will be senseless to put the targeting and weapons functions together in one slow vehicle, the tank, and then to drive it within a few miles of the enemy.

Light Offensive Tanks

ALL-TERRAIN LIGHT OFFENSIVE TANK: No-frills devoid of defensive gadgetry, light-weight all-terrain vehicles equipped with tank’s offensive capability and man-portable anti-tank missiles will perform many of tanks’ offensive roles. The revolution in precision missiles has undermined tanks as too visible, too vulnerable, and too expensive to survive on the battlefield.

X-ROD Round

X-ROD ROUND: The M-1 Abrams tank has now been given a depleted uranium kinetic-energy round, the X-ROD, which has in its nose a millimeter wave radar sensor and a computer chip. The tank fires the round toward an enemy tank. Then the X-ROD searches the area for a possible target, during the flight. It finds the target and compares the image of the target tank to an image programmed into its onboard computer. If they match, X-ROD fires a rocket motor at about a kilometer out-accelerating the round into the hull of the tank.

Smart Target Activated Ffire Forget Round

STAFF XM943 ROUND: The M-1 Abrams tanks also has XM943, Smart, Target-Activated, Fire-and-Forget (STAFF) Round. It can be fired at tanks that cannot be seen by the Abrams’s gunner. The round is fired high in indirect-fire mode, then the millimeter-wave radar finds the enemy tanks, identifies it, and uses a rocket to attack its thin top armor.

Strix Shells

STRIX MAN-PORTABLE MORTAR SHELLS: Swedes have developed the Strix a 120-mm shaped charge, launched in a typical mortar fashion, in a high arc. In its nose is an imaging infrared system that feeds data to onboard computers. The computers in turn control side thrusters to guide the mortar round to the top of any tank that has an engine running, identifying it by its infrared signature. British Aerospace has developed an 81-mm, man-portable mortar that performs the same job, using millimeter wave radar for terminal guidance. American Copperhead program designed a 155-mm round, to be used against any target.

Multiple Rocket Launchers

MULTIPLE-LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM (MLRS): MLRS is a rack of launchers, each containing a rocket, fired in rapid succession. Basic round will have a maximum range of 30 kilometers. It creates a new distinction between projectiles and munitions. MLRS divides the round between the projectile, responsible for the long-range transport of the system, and the munitions, responsible for destroying the target. Now the projectile becomes, again, just the delivery system, transporting the destructive munitions to the general area of the target.

BAT Munitions

BRILLIANT ANTI-TANK MUNITIONS (BAT): BAT is one of the first, and a true multi-sensor weapon. BAT combines both an infrared sensor and an acoustic sensor. BAT will identify any tank whose engine is running. The upgraded version of BAT is equipped with millimeter radar, which will also identify targets whose engines are turned off. Northrop has equipped the BAT with a finute- a finned, balloon-parachute combination, which is stored in a one-inch case in the rear of the munitions and released when the munitions begin free fall. This gives BAT more time to survey the scene below and spot a target. BAT was originally designed to be carried on the Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile (TSSAM), a Short- Range Cruise Missile. Twenty-two (22) BAT munitions can be carried on board, each weighing about forty-four ($$) pounds and about three (3) feet long. It has folding wings and tail fins that deploy when released. Once the target is located, the BAT turns on a rocket motor and, using its wings, guides itself to an attack, using a conventional-shaped high-explosive antitank round to penetrate the relatively thin top hull of the tank. The twenty-four (24) BATs can be launched on a single MLRS with twelve (12) rocket tubes. MLRS can launch two (2) TSSAMs, each carrying twenty-two (22) BATs, over one hundred miles.

Modernizing Tanks

MODERNIZING THE TANKS: Most contemporary tanks have (4) four-man Crews, commander, driver, gunner, and loader. Soviet and Japanese tanks have already eliminated the loader by replacing him with a mechanical loader. With the developments in internal controls, called vetronics, the role of the commander combined with either that of driver or gunner. A separate commander needed to observe what was going on around the tank, either by standing in the turret or by using the periscope of the tank. This problem solved by placing head-mounted displays in front of the operator. It will have multiple sensors, millimeter wave radar, optical, and sensor fusion. Future tank-crews will function like a two-man fighting crew, a front-seat driver/commander, and a rear-seat weapons officer. The turret and gun should be outside the armor, mounted on a pivot, with the ammunition and loader inside. This will reduce the weight of the tank from seventy (70) tons to perhaps thirty (30) tons.

Expensive Tanks

TOO EXPENSIVE TANK: Tanks have become too costly a weapon to risk and not deadly enough to accomplish its mission. During 1995, an M-1 Abrams tank cost around $ 3 million. A ‘Search And Destroy Missile,’ (SADARM) using both millimeter wave and infrared sensors cost about $7,000. A laser-guided Hellfire cost $50,000. A millimeter wave-guided Hellfire cost $200,000.

Battle of Cambrai

BATTLE OF CAMBRAI: On November 20, 1917, at the Battle of Cambrai, the British third Army, in an attempt to break the stalemate of Trench warfare, used 378 tanks attacking in mass against German Second Army. To everyone’s amazement, the German Army broke and ran. In six hours, the British penetrated four miles into German lines. However, the Germans managed to close the lines and the offensive failed. It demonstrated that when operating as massed force, the tank could defeat infantry. During World War I, the primary role of the tank was the anti-infantry, anti-fortification and anti-logistical.

Tank Warfare in WWI

FRENCH & GERMAN TANK WARFARE: For French the lesson of World War I was that offensive warfare could not succeed. On the eve of World War II, the French had 3,245 tanks with 37-mm and 47-mm guns, and armed with 40-mm thick armor. Germany had 2,574 tanks, out of which 1,500 tanks armed with machine guns, and 1,074 armed with 37-mm cannon that could not penetrate French armor at anything beyond direct range. The French outgunned, out-armored, and outnumbered the German tanks. Yet, the Germans defeated the French. The German tanks had three decisive characteristics: speed, range, radios, and a doctrine for using these effectively. German tanks had the speed of 35 km/h and 40 km/h, which was more than double the speed of French tanks. French tanks had extremely limited range. German doctrine of Blitzkrieg, the lightening war, deal with one threat at a time and place most favorable to them.

Superior Hitler's Tanks

SUPERIOR GERMAN TANKS: Germans out-gunned their enemies. However, Germans could not out-produce and out-deliver them. In 1940, the German 50-mm gun could penetrate the best French tank carrying 30 mm of armor at less than 1,500 yards. In 1945, the German tank firing an 88-mm cannon could penetrate the heaviest Soviet tank, the IS-2, with 95-mm front-hull armor at less than 1,500 yards. In 1942, American Grant with 75-mm gun could not penetrate Panzer IVF, with 80-mm front hull armor, at 1,500 yards. In 1945, a Sherman tank with 75-mm gun could not penetrate the German Tiger with 100-mm hull armor. Only 76-mm high-velocity gun could penetrate German tanks at ranges closer than 1,000 yards. Americans won the Second World War’s tank wars because they could mass-produce cheaper tanks.

Armor is Crucial for Offensive Strategy

ARMOR IS THE KEY TO OFFENSIVE POWER: Tanks and armored vehicles were at the heart of strategic planning and operations, and its operational principle was the primacy of the offensive. That armor was the key to offensive power, was understood by the great generals of World War II, namely, Zhukov, Rommel, Guderian, Patton, Montgomery. None of the Pacific generals understood that armor was the key to offensive power. The Soviets constructed a massive tank army and concentrated it in Central Europe. Therefore, the American strategy was stopping that tank armor from rolling westward. Americans built nuclear weapons to deter Soviet Army from moving. Americans deployed other nuclear devices, tactical nuclear weapons, and neutron bombs to destroy Soviet armored concentrations.

Anti Tank Missiles- SS-11

SS-11 ANTI-TANK MISSILES: French SS-11 developed in 1963, has a velocity of 160 mps and longer range of 3,000 meters and can penetrate over 600 mm of armor. The SS-10, ENTAC, and SS-11, are man-portable weapons, and it allows infantry to engage from ambush positions from distances up to nearly three (3) kilometers, mounted on thin-skinned vehicles. It was the revenge of the infantry. The gunner had to command the SS-10 via a joystick, much as in today’s video games.

TOW Missiles

TOW AND AT-3 SAGGER MISSILES: Tow is the heavy missile, called a Tube-launched, Optically tracked Wire-guided (TOW) Missile. Soviet developed a smaller, man-portable AT-3 Sagger. They are wire-guided antitank weapons. The velocity was low below 200 mps. The HOT missile, a shoulder-fired infantry missile, had a hit probability of 86.7 percent at 500 meters. The HEAT rounds fired by shoulder-held missiles are able to penetrate even the thick front armor of the tank. The maximum range of a TOW missile varied from 2,000 to 3,750 meters it maximum speed 300 mps. The AT-3 can be mounted on a vehicle or carried around in a suitcase by a team of infantrymen. AT-3 could be launched up to fifteen (15) meters from the gunner, to protect the gunner from the return fire. Russian AT-3 has a launch weight of only 11.3 kilos, and can penetrate up to 400-mm armor. It has revolutionized the warfare.

Blazer Technology

ISRAELI BLAZER TECHNOLOGY: Israel developed Blazer, to defeat the HEAT round. Blazer consists of appliques applied to the hull of tanks. These appliques contain an explosive, that is set of by the superheat of a HEAT round is extruding jet. The applique explodes on contact with the extrusion, disrupting the structure of the jet and making it impossible for it to penetrate the armor. Blazer is a part of a class of armor called Explosive Reactive Armor (ERA). ERA has evolved to combine lamination with an explosive. ERA reduces the effectiveness of HEAT rounds by 75 percent, but it is very expensive.

Future Soviet Tank

FUTURE SOVIET TANK (FST): The FST 1 uses 135-mm main gun mounted on a turretless chassis. The FST2 has a 140 0r 145-mm gun. United States had planned to produce 6,000 new Tanks at an average cost of about $10 million, costing around $60 billion, under Armored systems Modernization plan, was discontinued.

ET Guns- ETC Guns

EXPLOSIVE-POWDER GUN HAS REACHED ITS LIMIT: Faster and heavier bullets is the best way to break through sophisticated armor. A chemical explosion drives a projectile up a tube by creating a mass of expanding gas. However, it has become obvious that the explosive-powder gun has reached its limit. Conventional munitions have just about peaked out. It has reached a point of diminishing returns. New technologies are required to attain the quantum leaps to power a gun. What sort of energy should power the gun, the use of electricity to produce Electro-thermal (ET) gun or Electro-thermal-chemical (ETC) gun becomes possible.

Expensive Tanks

RISING OPERATING COST OF TANKS: The strains modern armor places on the supply system have become so great, that during Gulf War the allies had to launch their attack with only 5.6 days of petroleum, oil, and lubricants on hand. Had the famous left hook failed, disaster would have been a real possibility. (Future of war, p139). The M-60A3 Tank in 1979, and M-1A1 Abrams Tank in 1995, total per mile cost of operation was ($50.39 and $159.74), cost of HEAT rounds ($127, $1,033), Kinetic energy Rounds ($148, $711), respectively.

LOSAT

LOSAT ANTI TANK MISSILE: LOSAT’s per unit cost will be around $30,000. LOSAT is a Line Of Sight Anti-Tank missile. It travels at speeds more than two kilometers per second, it is guided by a forward-looking, infrared sensor located on the launcher, which transmits course directions by laser. LOSAT adjusts its course with small radial thrusters behind its nose. LOSAT can be fired from smaller vehicles, helicopters, and fixed-winged aircraft.

Nag Indian Anti-Tank 3^rd Generation Missile

Fire-and-forget' system for `Nag' tested: In a technological breakthrough, Indian defense scientists have successfully tested the ``fire-and-forget guidance system'', using imaging infra-red seeker mounting on Nag, to make it the first third generation anti-tank missile in the world. Nag provided with an especially embedded system for hunting targets in day and night and later it would be miniaturized in tandem with warfare technology to make the weapon deadlier and more accurate. The technologies developed under the Integrated Guided`Fire-and-forget' Missile Development Program (IGDMP) made system for `Nag' our missile systems globally competitive. It tested their performance and built a strong Java foundation for the future technologies and Balloon fire lands Systems developments. The IGMDP launched in 1983 with the state-of-the-art technology to make them contemporary in performance at the time of deployment. India has today operational Agni-II and Prithvi. India has mastered propulsion technology, guidance and control and introduced innovative software packages, algorithms and new devices.'' These developments had taken place inspite of missile technology control regime and technology denials from certain industrially developed countries'. Through Prithvi, India mastered the liquid propulsion technology, high accuracy inertial guidance technology, supersonic maneuverable trajectory and multiple field interchangeable warheads and launch capabilities from mobile platforms.'' Several technologies such as computational carbon-carbon technology and advanced composites, special guidance schemes and software were developed for Agni. With Trishul, India had command guidance technology and the anti-sea skimming missile capability. With the fire-and- forget guidance involving the imaging infrared seeker and millimetric wave seeker technologies, and with tandem warhead, Nag was aiming to be the first third-generation anti-tank missile in the world. The Ramjet technology and modern guidance developed under Akash would lead to several futuristic systems including the hypersonic re-usable missiles.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1048) Chapter 28 End of the Age of Expensive Bombers

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

Serb Shoot 2 Stealth Bombers

SERBS SHOOT DOWN STEALTH BOMBERS: Serbia shot down two Stealth Bombers during NATO bombing raids over Serbia. Serbia gave a formal burial to the Age of Expensive Bombers. The fundamental military lesson of the NATO Air Bombing of Yugoslavian civilian Infrastructure is that Stealth Bomber with astronomical price tags as good as museum quality rare work of Art but useless on the battlefront. Only a fool wears a helmet and shield made of pure gold on a battlefield. Expensive military gadgets are dinosaurs of the modern warfare. Future of the Air Power depends on developing cheaper lethal fighter tactical fighter aircraft.

Limits of Air Power

AUGUSTINE’S LAWS: Norman R. Augustine, the former Lockhead chief executive, states that the price of military aircraft is growing so fast that by the year 2054, the United States will be able to afford only one airplane.

Birth of Air Warfare

BIRTH OF AIR WARFARE: In 1848 the Field marshal Joseph Rodetzky of Austro-Hungarian Empire, used hot-air balloon that carried a cast-iron bomb filled with gunpowder which will explode on impact. The bomb was connected to the balloon by ropes, which was attached to a fuse. The fuse was to severe the ropes at the right moment, dropping the bomb on target. On October 23, 1911, Lt. Giullio Gavotti carried out the first recorded bombing mission from a heavier-than-air platform, striking at Turkish troops in Libya. He dropped on bomb on one target and flew on to a second target, an oasis, where he dropped three others. The bombs, little more than hand grenades, weighed about four pounds, about the size of grapefruits, and he armed them by removing a pin with his teeth. It proved an important point, that aerial bombardment was possible.

Bombers don’t bring Victory

BOMBING DOES NOT BRING VICTORY: German great comfort from bombing London. The Allies drew great comfort from bombing Germany. The American comforted with the bombing of Vietnam, and Serbia. It is a futile dream that bombing brings victory.

Reconnaisance Planes

WORLD WAR I AIRPLANES: Airplanes performed as reconnaissance platforms that combined the ability to see from great heights, and wireless radio, provided up-to-the-minute intelligence for the first time. It presaged an intimate relationship between air power and electronics that continues today.

Giulio Douhet

COMMAND OF THE AIR: Italian General Giulio Douhet, was the father of modern air-power theory. The guiding principle of air-bombing action should be that the objective must be destroyed in one attack. There should not make any distinction between military and nonmilitary objectives.

Billy Mitchell

FATHER OF AMERICAN AIR DOCTRINE: Billy Mitchell was father of American air doctrine. An attack from an air force using explosive bombs and gas may cause the complete evacuation of and cessation of industry in these places. This will deprive armies; air forces and navies even, of their means of maintenance. That aerial warfare was an assault on the urban centers of modern society, was believed by Douhet, Mitchell, Herman Goring, Arthur Harris, Carl Spatz and Curtis LeMay. Air power will destroy the infrastructure of modern cities, forcing massive social dislocations and making production impossible. American doctrine of Air Warfare states that attacks against the enemy’s economic and social infrastructure will determine the outcome of the war. Germans and Russians diverted air resources to provide air support to troops in combat and interdiction of roads and bridges immediately behind the enemy’s front. Japanese treated air power and naval power as part of the same system.

The British and Americans concentrated on strategic bombardment. Americans entered the war convinced that daylight precision bombardment was both possible and necessary. As early as 1918, Lt. Col. Edgar S. Gorrell had argued that the only way to stop the Germans was to destroy the factories that produced German weapons.

Pure Air Offensive Policy

PURE AIR OFFENSIVE POLICY: The pure offensive policy causes horrendous casualties. US strategic bomber fleet was designed for long-range, land-based bombing of enemy warships from great heights, as well as daylight precision bombardment of the enemy’s industrial centers. Throughout the 1930s, the Americans tried to design and build long-range, high-altitude, precision bomber with a large payload, capable of defending itself against enemy fighters. American tried to design an 8000-mile range and a speed of 230 mph, able to bomb Europe from New York and Japan from Hawaii. The B-52 was the first intercontinental bomber. The mature B-17 carried a bomb load of 7,000 lbs., at a maximum altitude of 35,800 feet and a maximum speed of 287 mph, and cruising speed of 182 mph. Until the summer of 1944, monthly bomber losses ran as high as 6.5 percent per sortie. British air marshal Harris pursued the pure air offensive, ignoring both fighter escorts and heavily armed bombers, but he suffered an attrition rate of over 65 percent for the campaign, with 47.5 percent of the men in the aircrews killed. It took between 4000 and 8000 shells of the antiaircraft gun to shoot down one plane.

Birth of Fighter Plane

BIRTH OF FIGHTER PLANE: The losses of the pure air offensive strategy, lead to the development of the aircraft whose sole purpose was to protect the bombers, it was a dedicated anti-air fighter aircraft. The development of long-range fighters was aided by the invention of the ‘Drop Tank’ an auxiliary fuel. The Drop Tank could be jettisoned when empty, or if the aircraft found itself in the dogfight.

Norden Bombsight

NORDEN BOMBSIGHT: The Norden bombsight was an automatic pilot. During a bomb run, the pilot will relinquish control of the aircraft to the bombardier, who in turn depended on the auto-pilot-officially the automatic flight control equipment, to stabilize the aircraft. The bombardier, situated in the nose of the bomber, input data on altitude, wind, into the Nordon bombsight, peered through a low-power telescope with crosshairs. When the crosshairs were on target, released the bombs, returning control to the pilot, all within 20 seconds. Between the Nordon bombsight and the Manhattan project an American culture and penchant for technology secrecy developed that understood that technology is the foundation of American power, technology was portable, and it had no national allegiance. Thereafter hiding technological innovation became a national obsession. Americans understood that the new military technology threatens America as much as it threatens the enemy of America. Norden Bombsight was invented by Carl Lucas Norden, a Dutchman.

Terror Bommbing

COUNTER-POPULATION TERROR BOMBARDMENT: The primary virtue of incendiary bombardment is that its area of destruction is much greater than that of high-explosive bombs. If the target consists of combustible material, a single incendiary device can set off fires that can destroy city blocks. A saturation attack by incendiary devices can destroy entire cities.

Le May Bombing of Tokyo

Le May undertook a counter-population strategy, terror bombardment of Tokyo, by recognizing the limits of precision bombardment. On March 9, and 10, 1945, B-29s staged nigh-time incendiary raids on Tokyo. LeMay stripped bombers of their machine guns. This allowed each bomber to carry eight (8) tons of ordnance and still travel three thousand (3000) miles route. This meant that each bomber was able to burn out sixteen (16) acres. More people died in Tokyo during those two nights than even Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The firebombing of Tokyo represented the high point of strategic bombardment. The B-29s concentrated n being platforms for delivery of ordnance, without any parasitic load. The result was the destruction of the center of Tokyo, the slaughter of nearly one hundred thousand civilians. It was the clearest case of the pure air offensive. It was a war of platforms and projectiles, of pure statistics. It employed the strategy to saturate the area to compensate for the inaccuracy of bombs. By the end of the World War II, the culture of strategic bombardment had taken firm hold in the US Air force, culminating in the creation of Strategic Air Command (SAC). World War II was won by the army and navy, and not by the air force.

Vietnam Air Campaign

STRATEGIC AIR CAMPAIGN IN VIETNAM & SERBIA: North Vietnam had the military-industrial base in China beyond the reach of American air force, and a peasant economy impervious to air attacks, except possibly on the Red Rive dams. No strategic campaign was possible in Vietnam. LeMay wrongly argued that the bombing of North Vietnam far from being a refutation of strategic power was actually its confirmation. Had the United States actually employed strategic bombardment, as it did during the Christmas bombing of Hanoi in 1972, its uses would have amply confirmed the efficacy of strategic bombardment. The problem of the US Air Force was that it knew how to destroy the enemy’s economy and society. What it did not know was how to destroy the enemy’s military. The Air force was incapable of cutting either lines of communications or lines of supply. Similarly US Air Force knew how to destroy the Serb economy, bridges, power plants, consumer industries, but it did not know how to destroy Serb’s Army in Kosovo or Serbia.

Bombing Paul Doumer & Thanh Hoa Brigdes

PAUL DOUMER & THANH HOA BRIDGES IN VIETNAM: The US Air Force and Navy lacked the means for destroying two bridges permanently. One of the foundations of American Air strategy was unattainable in Vietnam War, because of technical limits. Airpowers simply were not up to the job. On April 3, 1965, seventy-nine (79) US aircraft, including forth-six (46) F-105s, twenty-one (21) F-110s, two (2) RF-101s, and ten (10) KC-135 tankers, attacked the Thanh Hoa Bridge. First day One hundred twenty (120) 750-pounders were dropped, along with thirty-two (32) Bullpup guided missiles. Two US planes were shot down. Next day another (384), 750-pounders were dropped, and three (3) more US aircraft were shot down. Day and night strikes against the bridge, using visual as well as radar bombing techniques had succeeded only in shaking the steel girders. This is a very sad commentary on the military capability of US Air Force and its role in Vietnam. On April 27, 1972, the Paul Doumer and the Thanh Hoa bridges were finally brought down. Twelve (12) F-4 Phantoms were ordered to strike at the Thanh Hoa, eight (8) aircraft carried 2000 pound bombs, four (4) carried chaff, designed to foil North Vietnamese missiles and antiaircraft guns.

Electron Optical Guided Bombs

ELECTRO-OPTICAL GUIDED BOMBS: The bombs were smart bombs that could correct their course while falling. First kind of bomb was the Electro-optically guided bomb, a conventional high-explosive bomb with a small TV camera in its nose. During the attack run, the pilot would point the plane and the TV camera of the bomb at the target. The camera of the bomb would transmit a picture to a screen in front of the weapons system officer sitting in the back seat of the F-4. The weapons officer would select a point on the target with high contrast, a small area on the target clearly defined because of distinctions of light and dark, which a small, primitive computer would lock onto. After being released, the bomb, locked on the contrast point, would direct itself using vanes, small wings and tails that would provide guidance, and using inertia and gravity for energy. It was a fire-and-forget weapon.

Laser Guided Bombs

LASER-GUIDED BOMBS: The second type of munitions was the laser-guided bomb, which required the illumination of the target by a low-power laser beam. The great advantage of the laser system (designated Paveway) was that more than one aircraft could use the point designated by the laser beam. Since the target would have to remain illuminated until the bombs struck, this meant that only one aircraft had to loiter around the target, while the others could shoot and run. Laser-guided bomb was not a fire-and-forget weapon.

Defensive Air Strategy

ACCURACY AND DEFENSIVE AIR STRATEGY: A number of extraordinary changes had occurred from 1965 to 1972 in US air capability, most obvious and extraordinary change in accuracy. Secondly, the percentage of the attack aircraft had shifted from 91 percent in 1965 to 37 percent in 1972. The bulk of the aircraft that flew missions in 1972 were intended to protect the attackers.

Pacific Air War

AMERICAN JAPANESE GERMAN AIR-POWER: Shortly after Pearl Harbor the United States discovered that the Japanese Zero was superior in dog-fighting to any American fighter plane. This placed the United States at a tactical disadvantage as well as the strategic disadvantage if the Japanese Zero were able to gain air superiority over an American carrier fleet or an embattled island. In the last days of the war, American bombers encountered German Jet fighters that were too fast and maneuverable to be shot down. If Germans had introduced these jet fighters earlier in the Second World War, and in greater numbers, then the US Bombing campaign would have been a total failure. It is accepted by the US Air Force. Sherman tank’s 75-mm gun could not penetrate the armor of the German panther. Had the German panther appeared earlier in the Second World War, and in quantity, then the American victory in the Second World War would have been in real doubt. During Second World War Americans opened themselves to defeat by the enemy’s more sophisticated weapons. United States had been saved by rapid innovation and development in response to these weapons, by greater troop strength, and by the sheer proximity of victory.

Need for Cheaper Weapon Platforms

MASS-PRODUCE CHEAPER WEAPON PLATFORMS: American industrial philosophy has always been based on mass production. Henry Ford had never made the world’s finest car, but the world’s most efficiently produced car. What the United States did best, therefore was to build many usable but rarely outstanding weapons, during the Second World War. India should follow American experience in the War to mass-produce cheaper versions of Tanks, bombers, attack fighter aircraft, submarines, frigates etc. India cannot afford to lose expensive weapon platforms. Where World War II was built around mass-production, the Cold War was built around technical excellence.

Wasteful Pentagon Projects

There are only two phases of Pentagon's weapons program, too early to tell, and too late to stop. Many weapons systems currently produced or contemplated were designed during the Cold War. Ultimately, changes in weapons procurement may not come until costs get so high that they dry up funds for recruiting, training and paying servicemen and women. Pentagon must begin acting more like a business, using proven technologies when possible, rather than inventing technologies and hoping they will work. American Air Force, Navy and Army must stop warring among themselves for money. Services must be stripped of the power to demand new weapons, which should reside with the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff.

This simple measure would constitute a revolution inside the Pentagon. Unless America gets some major reform done inside Pentagon, in the way it buy weapon systems, United states will pass some critical point where it could no longer do what the national interests needs it to do. Fundamental weapon-system problems exist in Pentagon. Pentagon has a process that is very costly and does not give you what you want.

Pentagon process begins with top-secret threat assessments. What if an ally buys American fighter jets and turns into an enemy? The Pentagon has responded to that possibility with three tactical fighter programs, at a total cost of $350 billion. Envisioning threats creates and urgency about finding technologies to defeat them. Thus, the threat of nuclear annihilation led to the "peace shield" - Star Wars systems on which $60 billion has been spent in USA without a single working system to show for it. Pentagon now wants to spend $30 billion more on a far smaller shield. Billion-dollar overruns are now commonplace. More than $1 billion over run on the new version of the patriot missile, which failed in the 1991 Gulf War. More than $1.4 billion cost overrun on the Crusader artillery system. More than $2 billion cost overrun on a new Navy destroyer. Pentagon believes that there simply is no alternative to spending hundreds of billions on state-of-the-art weapons and technology to defend them. The very first billion-dollar cost overrun took place in the Air Force's C-5A plane.

Airforce F-22 Fighter

The Airforce is spending $200 million per plane on Air Force F-22 Fighter whose design keeps changing and whose computers are untested. Pentagon's cost, so far, of the Air Force F-22 Fighter project is $70 billion, and $200 million each. The bill for six new systems- three (3) new tactical jet fighters, along with the Osprey, the Comanche Helicopter and the missile Defense Program, will come to more than $500 billion. Most, if not all, will go into full-scale production with open questions about their cost and effectiveness. The position of the Pentagon is plain: there can be no price tag on national security. These weapons represent America's global superiority. If they are costly, so be it. Around 339 F-22 Fighters are planned. The first F-22 yet to be built. The mission of the F-22 fighter is to replace F-15 and defeat Soviet aircraft.

B-2 Stealth Bomber

Pentagon has spent on B-2 Stealth Bomber $45 billion and each plane costs $2.2 billion each. Serbia shot down two B-2 Stealth Bombers, by firing only two missiles. B-2 stealth Bomber designed to carry nuclear weapons. Stealth Bombers used to carry missiles in Kosovo in 1999.

Tilt-Rotor Osprey Plane-Copter

Pentagon has spent $37 billion on Osprey Aircraft Project and each plane costs $83 million each, and would cost $40 later. 458 Osprey planes are planned, 5 Osprey planes have been sent to US Marines since 1956. The Mission of Osprey is Ferrying Marines from ship to shore, designed to land without a runway. During April 2000 an Osprey aircraft crashed, killed 19 marines, and it was a grim reminder that the US military builds weapons and aircraft that cost fortunes and still fail.

Comanche Helicopter

Pentagon has spent $39 billion in the Comanche project and each helicopter would cost $30 million each. Around 1,292 Comanche helicopters are planned. It is on the drawing board since 1983. Comanche is a hybrid attack and reconnaissance helicopter.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1049) Chapter 29 American Joint Strike Fighter Project to Save Cost

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

Augustin Law

AFFORDABLE FIGHTER PLANE: Only by building an affordable fighter lane that Air Power can continue to decisively influence the future of war.

JSF Mission

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER MISSION: Mission of the JSF is to design a single pilot fighter that is used by all three services, Air Force, Army and Navy. JSF is sold to overseas allies. JSF must fly faster than the speed of sound, be invisible to enemy radar. JSF is to be produced for the bargain-basement price by fighter aircraft standards, of around $30 million an airplane. The Joint Strike Fighter designed to follow as part of a ‘hunter-killer’ team, dropping bombs once the F-22 clears the skies. The Joint Strike Fighter will be the attack plane for the Air Force. The Naval version of Joint Strike fighter will be like Harrier short take-off and vertical landing plane It is a stealthier plane with more range than existing fighters. Bomber Pilots want a robust plane to engage and kill a target as a bomber, without putting themselves in harm’s way. If they do get in harm’s way, bomber pilots want to be able to defend themselves. The Joint Strike Fighter should be good for bombers and strike fighter aviators alike.

Multi Purpose Plane

MULTIPURPOSE PLANE: The Joint Strike Fighter is a multi-purpose plane. It is designed to fly both air-to air fighter sorties and air-to-ground attack missions. It provides close air support to ground troops and Marine corps.

JSF Contract

SIZE OF CONTRACT: The JSF is the future. It will be the fighter plane for all the services. It will be the fighter plane for all the world. The winner will build a Joint Strike Fighter in three versions. First, Naval JSF to fly off carriers for the Navy. Second, Air Force JSF to land on ground for the Air Force. Third, Marine JSF to hover into hot spots for the Marines. Nearly 5,000 of these JSF planes are expected to be made to replace nearly all the fighter planes flying today. The Joint Strike Fighter will replace Navy Fighter F-14 TOMCAT ($38 million), Air Force Attack Plane A-10 THUNDERBOLT II ($8.8 million), Navy Carrier Plane Sea Harrier ($32-$40 million), Air Force Fighter f-16 FIGHTING FALCON ($20 million), Navy & Marine Fighter & Attack plane ($24 million), AND Marine Ground Support plane AV-8B HARRIER & GR.7 HARRIER ($32-$40 million).

COST SHOULD BE A CRUCIAL FACTOR: The cost shall be as important as performance. Manufacturers need not manufacture the best plane they can, but the best that the Government and Air force can afford, both in terms of its initial price tag and in maintenance costs over time. Rather than being a Cadillac of the air, the JSF is designed more as a Chevrolet, but with a Saturn style attention to innovation and cost control. The country going broke trying to pay for the latest airplane. The future planes should be built your car, just put gas in it and go.

Common Fighter for 3 Services

COMMON FIGHTER FOR THREE SERVICES: We need to replace older and outmoded aircraft for all three services. Nation cannot develop three different planes. It makes sense to make a family of vehicles, three planes with the same motor, the same avionics and 60 to 80 percent common parts, but with variation for all three services.

F-111 Fiasco

F-111 FIASCO: Vietnam era F-111 was the compromise to suit the demands of all three services, but it was the compromise that satisfied no one. The F-111, a Vietnam- era plane common for all three services was both costly and wildly unpopular.

JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER: Can a plane that is three variations on a theme, 80 percent the same for all, and otherwise modified to meet each service’s special needs, actually work? It retains an air of common sense that one should look for in an era when United States is not facing a high-tech major power. If we can build this meat-and-potatoes plane, let us press on. But let us not do the same thing that United States did in the F-111 and get the requirements jazzed up so much that its goals can not be met.

Joint Stealth Bomber

JOINT STEALTH BOMBER STRIKE FIGHTER: Pentagon’s the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is intended to take the place of celebrated aircraft manufactured over the last quarter-century. Unlike its predecessors the new plane is not supposed to be the best that its manufacturers can build, but the best that the Armed forces can afford.

Developmental cost

DEVELOPMENTAL COST OF JSF: The Boeing X-32 and Lockheed Martin X-35 are developing the two prototypes, one each at the cost of $500 for each pair. Pentagon’s total tab for the development process is $2.2 billion, including $832 million for Pratt & Whitney for the engines for all the planes.

X-32 Joint Strike Aircraft

BOEING X-32 JOINT STRIKE AIRCRAFT: The plane has more experimental design overall, with a more futuristic profile. It has a length of 46 feet, wing span of 32-36 feet. The X-32 drastically redesigned the plane to achieve better control in carrier landings, trading a bat wing for a conventional tail.

X-35 Joint Strike Fighter

LOCKHEAD MARTIN X-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER: It is fashioned after the F-22, a more traditional, less risky design. It has a length of 52 feet and wing span of 33-40 feet.

F-14 Tomcat

F-14 TOMCAT: It is the Grumman made Naval fighter plane. It was the first fighter to feature a swingwing, which gives the plane a greater speed and maneuverability. F-14 Tomcat replaced the F-4 Phantom II. The Tomcat was designed to carry long-range Phoenix missiles, with which it can attack six planes simultaneously. It entered service in 1973, around 712 have been produced. It costs around $38 million a piece.

A-10 Thunderbolt II

A-10 THUNDERBOLT II: It is Air Force heavily armored attack plane. Thunderbolt is the first Air Force aircraft designed for close air support of ground forces. A-10 Thunderbolt is a simple, twin-engine planes, used against all ground targets, including tanks and other armored vehicles. It entered Air Force service in 1977, around 713 have been produced and costs per plane $8.8 million.

Sea Harrier

SEA HARRIER: The Sea Harrier can both take off and land vertically as well as hover. It features a novel radar system and advanced avionics. It entered service in 1978, cost per plane $32-$40 million a piece, 98 Sea Harrier have been produced , 23 exported to India, made by British Aerospace.

F-16 Falcon Fighter

F-16 FIGHTING FALCON: It is Air Force fighter plane. The digital computer allow the F-16 to remain stable at higher speeds than any previous fighter. It also has the advantage of being lightweight and low-cost. It entered Air Force service in 1979, costs $20 million, 3930 have been produced to date. Pakistan has 68 F-16 Fighter Falcon.

F/A 18 Hornet

F/A-18 HORNET (C/D Versions): It is the Navy and Marine Corps Fighter and ground attack plane. It is a multi-purpose plane. It was the first plane designed to fly both Air-to-Air fighter sorties and Air-to-Ground attack missions. The Hornet can switch between fighter and attack mode with the flip of a switch. The joint Strike fighter will not replace the more advanced F/A-18E and F versions.

CIVILIAN CUM MILITARY AIRPLANE MAKERS: Civilian aircraft manufacturers have an edge over military-only aircraft manufacturers, in the age when the price of a military platform is crucial. Boeing received $662 million from Pentagon for producing the prototype of the X-32 Joint Strike Fighter.

Air Force Prefers F-22

AIR FORCE ABANDONS J.S.F.: At an average cost of $30 million a plane, the Joint Strike Fighter is considered inexpensive, although the project could cost $223 billion. The J.S.F. project shows that the pentagon could build a plane with a cutting-edge technology at a low cost for three services. But that would require the US Air Force to buy 1,763 planes, or more than half of the 2,763 Joint Strike fighters scheduled to be produced. The US Marines would buy 609 of their model, which can take off and land without a runway. The US Navy would buy 380 planes modified to operate off aircraft carriers. Even if the air Force were to drop the joint Strike Fighter, Marine would not change its needs. The Marine needs it on time.

F-22 Most Expensive Aircraft

F-22 MOST EXPENSIVE FIGHTER JET IN HISTORY: F-22 is the most expensive jet in history, at the projected cost of $125 million a piece. After the NATO air war over Kosovo, which United States pilots, aircraft and weaponry took credit for winning, the Air Force has had a loud voice both in the Pentagon and in Congress. US Air Force says that it is possible that upgrades of the old systems will be used instead of Joint Strike fighter. The Air Force is obsessed with its fascination with Fighter Jets and they are willing to do anything to keep F-22 alive. The United States can not afford $350 billion over the next decade to develop three fighters Jets: the F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter and the Navy's Super Hornet. The US Air Force has made the F-22 a priority because it would be the next generation air-to-air combat fighter with stealth capabilities and advanced computer and radar systems. The Joint Strike force is most vulnerable because it is not even in production. The idea of deferring the Joint Strike fighter makes sense because through modification and upgrades, one could use F-16 as an alternative. The less-expensive jet, the Joint Strike fighter is unusual in that it was being developed for the Air Force as well as the Navy and the Marines. It may not be cost-effective to continue with the Joint Strike fighter.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

(0)(1050) Chapter 30 Miniature Hydrogen Bomb W-88

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/

Trident Missile

TRIDENT II (D-5) MISSILE: The United States’ most advanced nuclear warhead is the W-88, at least eight-8 of which can fit on the Trident D-5 SLBM missile. The miniaturization of the W-88 hydrogen bomb warhead, considered the most advanced in the American arsenal, made the Trident SLBM submarine missile one of the most deadly weapons of all times. Trident II D5 missile is 44 feet in long, 6 feet 11 inches diameter. The Trident can carry eight W-88 warheads, each of which can seek a different target. The First stage motor ignites after missile clears the water’s surface. The Trident missile fired from a submarine has a second stage motor. The third stage motor accelerates the warhead to approximately 15,000 m.p.h. As many as eight nuclear warheads (W-88), fit atop Trident II D-5 SLBM missile. Height of the warhead is less than the height of a man.

Miniature Bombs

MINIATURE BOMBS: The world’s first nuclear explosive device, code named ‘the Gadget’ in 1945 looked like a cylinder with diameter around 7 feet and five-5 feet wide. It had as trigger the lump of plutonium the size of a softball, surrounded by a much larger ball of high explosives, that was five feet wide and made up of 32 explosive charges and 64 detonators. It was as big as a car. The world’s first hydrogen bomb was roughly one thousand times more powerful than the first atom bomb, stood two stories high and weighed 82 tons.

Miniaturization Secrets

MINIATURIZATION SECRETS: China succeeded on Sept. 25, 1992 to explode a miniature Hydrogen Bomb based on the miniaturization secrets. Miniaturization technology can make small-size hydrogen bombs. They are so small that many can fit atop a single missile, or fired from trucks, submarines and other mobile platforms. China’s nuclear stride is a result of successful espionage. It would have been virtually impossible for China to make small warheads without the nuclear secrets stolen from the United States. The lost secrets were available to hundreds and perhaps thousands of individuals scattered throughout American Arms complex. In 1995, CIA obtained an internal Chinese document that described the most advanced miniature warhead the W-88. The Chinese text cited five key attributes of the warhead, including two measurements accurate to within four-hundredths of an inch.

The Pines Camera Chinese with two axes built for photographing nuclear blasts, was far better than a similar one made by the United States which had one axis. Knowing the approximate size and shape of the components provided a road map to Chinese bomb makers, probably allowing them to skip years of preliminary testing. The conclusion of the Cox report that espionage allowed Beijing to skip decades of research, was an appropriate one. Most of the world’s nuclear powers have figured out the secret of miniaturization.

American Miniaturization Secrets

AMERICA SHRINKS AN ATOMIC MATCH: From the dawn of the nuclear age, miniaturization has been an obsession of weapons designers. The world’s first atomic bomb, designed by the Los Alamos laboratory and detonated in July 1945, was an awesome but cumbersome affair. The lump of plutonium the size of a softball was surrounded by a much larger ball of high explosives that was five feet wide and made up of 32 explosive charges and 64 detonators. Big as a car, it could not fit not a small airplane, let alone a missile.

Secret of Watermelon Design

SECRET OF WATERMELON DESIGN: American innovation was to design the shape of the Atomic bomb trigger as watermelon not spherical. The shape of the hydrogen bomb fuel was spherical, for the secondary explosion. In 1952, American physicists made an important breakthrough: the H-bomb. Roughly a thousand times more powerful than the first atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb was a two-stage device. Inside its dense casing, an atomic explosion, called the primary, worked as a match to kindle an even more powerful detonation by hydrogen fuel, known as secondary explosion. Size was an issue from the start. The first hydrogen bomb stood two stories high and weighed 82 tons. It would be militarily useful only if it shrinks in size. A main break-through centered on the large, heavy atomic match. By shaping its plutonium fuel into an ovoid, roughly like a watermelon, scientists drastically shrank the size and number of the explosives that triggered the nuclear blast. The radical idea roared into life in July 1957, in a nuclear explosion in the Nevada desert, after at least one flop. It had taken United States a little more than five (5) years to move from the first hydrogen bomb to its miniaturized cousin.

The development had profound implications for the cold war’s nuclear competition. It shrank the atomic trigger of the hydrogen bomb from something roughly the size of a washing machine to something smaller than a football. Shrinking allowed weapons designers to put thermonuclear arms atop small missiles that launches weapons from submarines or mobile platforms like trucks. Nuclear weapons became free from confinement to the bombers or silos in the ground.

The advancement meant nuclear weapons could be carried stealthily nearer to enemy shores, and made safe from attacks of the enemy. It also meant that warheads could fit into the cramped spaces of narrow nose cones, which streaked faster to Earth than blunter shapes and were less buffeted by winds during the fiery plunge, making them more accurate.

The first warhead in the new generation of weapons, the W-47, was less than half the size of the bomb that leveled Hiroshima but up to 80 times more powerful. In 1960, when the first Polaris submarine put to sea, each of its 16 missiles armed with a W-47. The weapons continued to evolve, and by all accounts, the reaching the apex in the 1980’s with the W-88, one of the most deadly weapons in the American arsenal. The W-88 warhead made for submarines first went to sea a decade ago. W-88 is quite powerful for its small size. The precise size is secret. However, at least eight W-88’s can fit atop the Trident D-5 missile, which is less than seven feet wide. Since Trident subs have 24 missiles, a single submarine can carry up to 192 of the thermonuclear arms. Today, American submarines o patrol in the Atlantic carry the small warheads. The US Navy is adding W-88 to its Pacific fleet, so the W-88 is aimed at China.

MX Missile

MX MISSILE: United States’ developed in the late 1970’s of a high-accuracy design known as ‘Missile Experimental’ or MX that bristled with 10 warheads, to unnerve Soviets. American Navy in the late 1970’s, for a new submarine-launched missile nearly as unerring as the MX and bearing an even more powerful warhead- the W-88.

30 (ii) Chinese Miniaturization Efforts

CHINA JOINS THE NUCLEAR CLUB: China was late in joining the nuclear club, but showed considerable skill when it did. Beijing detonated its first bomb in 1964. The tricky design based on uranium, like Hiroshima bomb, known as ‘Little Boy’ saved costly fuel and made the bomb lighter, increasing its military value. The Chinese feat was enormously impressive. Beijing’s first hydrogen bomb came just 32 months later. By comparison, the step from nuclear to thermonuclear took Britain 66 months, Soviet Union 75 months, United States 87 months, France 103 months, and India 24 years.

NUMBER OF NUCLEAR EXPLOSION TESTS: China set off just 6 nuclear weapon test explosions to get to the H-bomb stage, versus 31 for the United States, versus 5 for India. The low number of nuclear explosion was typical. China while developing at least six types of nuclear weapon warhead designs over the decades conducted relatively few nuclear tests, 45 in all, versus 1030 for the United States, versus 5 for India over the period of two days.

Bulky Warheads

BULKY CHINESE WARHEADS: The evidence strongly suggests that China in its first phases of development of missiles had no idea how to shrink thermonuclear arms. The warhead for the submarine missile developed by China in 1970’s weighed 1,300 pounds, more than twice the old American W-47, suggesting that the Chinese were still using a spherical atomic match to ignite hydrogen bombs. Chinese land based ICBM force was modest. Starting in 1980’s it deployed about 20 ICBMs that can reach anywhere in North America. Each ICBM is topped by a single warhead that can unleash a force equivalent to up to five million tons of high explosives, 5 mega tons, 300 times stronger than the Hiroshima bomb.

MIRV-MARV Missiles

AMERICAN MIRV-MARV MISSILES: The late 1970’s MX missile project spurred Chinese interest in building smaller weapons, which bristled with 10 warheads. The MX worried China, which quickly grasped that its handful of big land-based missiles looked like sitting ducks, vulnerable for easy destruction in a first strike of precisely aimed hydrogen bombs. Beijing’s unease grew as American Navy unveiled plans to deploy SLBMs nearly as unerring as the MX and bearing powerful warhead W-88.

Henry Kissinger offered Nuclear Secrets to China

KISSINGER OFFERED NUCLEAR TIES: After the Kissinger's visit to China and President Nixon’s visit to China in 1972, United States offered to share nuclear secrets with China to strengthen China against Soviet preemptive nuclear strikes. China insisted as a part of the deal, negotiated with Henry J. Kissinger that American nuclear arms designers help Chinese weapon designers during their visit to Chinese weapons labs and Lop Nur. As a part of the deal at least 85 nuclear weapons scientists and officials, many of them were Chinese Americans. The benefits were judged to far outweigh the risks that arms scientists in informal settings and conversations might, by accident or design, give away nuclear weapons secrets. This was a huge intelligence game for the United States. Before the Kissinger’s visit to China and military ties that followed, American intelligence agencies knew little about Chinese nuclear program and modernization plans. At the beginning the CIA knew zip about China. American secured the technology of Pinex camera with two axes to photograph the fiery nuclear blasts. The American visitors also learned much about what China lacked.

Pinex Camera

PINEX CAMERA: United States discovered that parts of Chinese program were very advanced including technologies for bomb development. Chinese had in 1979 had excellent facilities, some better than that of United States. Chinese were able to peer into fiery blasts with an advanced camera known as ‘Pinex’ revealing details to aid warhead development. The American version of the Camera device had one axis, while Chinese version had two axes doubling its usefulness. Chinese Pinex camera was much better than American version.

SPY LEE: American scientist Lee at the Livermore weapons lab in California, in 1979 talked with Chinese scientists. Lee compromised not only the design of the W-70, a neutron bomb, but also the secret to making small atomic triggers of the hydrogen bomb. He gave to China the crucial insight of the watermelon shape. The challenge of the watermelon design plutonium atomic trigger lies in the manufacturing not in design. Plutonium one of the most complex metals known to science is difficult to cast because of its odd ways of reacting with other metals and materials. Plutonium is a strange beast, the dense metal that fuels most atom bombs.

CHINA TAKES A GIANT NUCLEAR STEP: China finally succeeded in exploding a miniaturized hydrogen bomb on Sept 25, 1992. China’s September hydrogen bomb detonated was miniaturized with a core, in the distinctive shape of an ovoid, indicating China had begun to master the art of making modern warheads. The atomic core of the Chinese bomb had the size of a common household object. The trigger of the W-88 was close enough.

1995 Chinese Nuclear Policy

CHINESE NUCLEAR DOCUMENT OF 1995: In 1995, a Chinese official sent a package of secret Chinese documents dated 1988 to American officials. It laid out China’s nuclear modernization program for China’s First Ministry of Machine Building, which makes missiles and nose cones. It not only described Chinese plans but also compared them to nuclear arms of American arsenal. Relatively crude hand drawings sketched out the nose cones enveloping the W-88, the W-87, the W-78, the W-76, the W-62 and the W-56, the warheads of the Trident, MX and Minuteman missiles, and also gave their overall weights and dimensions. It accurately described the shape of the atomic trigger as not spherical. It described the atomic trigger was situated in the nose cone’s narrow forward end, an arrangement used in some but not all US warheads. It correctly described hydrogen fuel, or secondary, as having a spherical shape. It described the width of the casing that surrounds the atomic trigger to within a millimeter, or four-hundredth of an inch. The Chinese document gave a similarly exact measure for the width of the W-88’s secondary or hydrogen stage. Primaries are the long pole in the tent. Atomic trigger is very important. China used its new atomic match, or atomic trigger, or primary explosion, to ignite a variety of hydrogen bombs, including one similar to the W-88. After this series of nuclear blasts at Lop Nur test site, from 1992 to 1996, China signed the Comprehensive Test ban Treaty, signaling an end to its nuclear experimentation. The Chinese nuclear warhead design espionage happened between 1984 when the warhead entered engineering development, and 1988, the date of the Chinese document. It is not true that scientific and technical analyses do not draw you to a watermelon design used in the W-88. It is beyond a shadow of doubt that China benefited by the major espionage.

1998 Cox Report

COX REPORT: In April 1998, the New York Times reported that two United States aerospace companies were under criminal investigation for providing rocket data to Chinese scientists. The House of Representatives created a select committee led by Mr. Cox, to look into whether the Clinton Administration is increasingly open policies on satellite exports had compromised national security. There was no hint that the committee would end up studying nuclear bombs. Composed of five Republicans, and four (4) Democrats, the Cox committee did not learn of the suspected Chinese nuclear espionage until October 1998, just a few months before its mandate expired. On Nov. 12 and Dec. 16 1998 it held secret hearings in which Mr. Truloock, Director of intelligence at the Energy Department, was called as the star witness. In January 1999, the Cox Committee completed a secret manuscript. In May 1999, it released an 872-page report. The chapter on atomic espionage, just 37 pages, garnered most of the headlines. It charged that Chinese spies had carried off vital secrets about seven America’s most advanced nuclear weapons warhead designs. China has stolen information on all of the United States’ most advanced thermonuclear warheads, leaping from the clumsy designs of the 1950’s to those that are far more modern and deadly. China had obtained design secrets of the neutron bomb. Every one has come to the same conclusion. A US Federal intelligence study done in 1998 said American secrets lost between 1984 and 1988 let the Chinese accelerate their nuclear weapons program well beyond indigenous capabilities. There are more interpolating facts that closely tie lost W-88 secrets to Beijing’s nuclear advance.

US Offered Secrets to China after Vietnam Defeat

DEFEAT IN VIETNAM & NUCLEAR ESPIONAGE: Henry Kissinger promised China the unrestricted transfer of American Nuclear weapon technology, provided China organized a graceful exit to United States after the humiliated defeat in Vietnam War. As a victor in the Vietnam War China demanded and got nuclear technology as a form of war reparation for the Vietnam War. After the defeat in the Vietnam War United States had no option but to humbly bow down to China to wean China away from Soviet Bloc. Soviet-China alliance could have exploited the victory of the Vietnam War to severely damage Western Christendom in the world. United States being a defeated nation in the Vietnam was in no position to deny China the most favored nation status and unrestricted access to American nuclear secrets. American came out of the defeat in the Vietnam War very cheaply, as Germans had to pay a very heavy price for its defeat in the First World War. After the humiliating defeat in the Vietnam War United States had no option but to win Chinese support, but allowing Chinese spies steal classified American nuclear weapons secrets, otherwise Henry Kissinger’s supposedly diplomatic finesse would have failed. Was it a part of the diplomatic deal to hire Chinese spies in American nuclear weapons labs to secure Chinese support in anti-Soviet conspiracies during President Nixon’s and subsequent administrations? Did President Clinton know that Chinese contributions to Democratic campaigns are inducement for continued Chinese nuclear espionage? The CIA has been bribing politicians all over the world, so why should American complain when Chinese could successfully bribe Republican and Democratic American Presidents? China showed that bribing an American President is no different than bribing an Indian politician. China perfected the art of exploiting the politician’s vulnerability for campaign donations to secure classified military, industrial, and nuclear weapons secrets. In a capitalist society, everything is for sale, including the Presidency of the United States and the Prime Ministership of India. China secured the classified technologies worth more than $100 billion by spending less than $500 million in political donations and bribes in America. China has become a Super Power by bribing American politicians. Do not accuse China of misdemeanor for receiving technology and classified information in exchange for the diplomatic deals it signed with ex-Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger, and the payments it made to top American politicians. Perhaps patriotic American public would some day life-sentences for top American politicians, for allowing the two decades of unrestricted espionage by Chinese spies in exchange for diplomatic trade-off, campaign contributions, post-retirement gifts, and other illegal financial deals. Rather than criticizing China, American public opinion should lynch top American politicians, so that the public pressure may put them behind bars in future. America should learn that those who live in the glass houses should not throw stones at the glass windows of their neighbors. Indians are overjoyed that top American politicians are more corrupt and less patriotic than their Indian counterparts. Perhaps the security clearances of the top Chinese spies was arranged by some top politicians that continued to influence the Administrations of President Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. The real traitor must be some big man, who continues to be an over-towering personality.

Chinese Capability

CHINESE NUCLEAR RESEARCH CAPABILITY: China could have miniaturized its warheads on its own without spying in the United States. There is no reason to believe that China could not have built perfectly adequate warheads for a range of modern missiles from nuclear technology that it developed itself. China simply went down the path as other nuclear powers, helped along by general knowledge of what the United States had achieved: proof that hydrogen bomb can be made very small but nonetheless very powerful. Every state has come to it. Soviet Union, Britain and France all made the breakthroughs in atomic triggers. Now China and India got it too. The basic physics of bombs and missiles push weapons designers in roughly the same direction. To obtain the best performance, engineers are invariably led toward narrow nose cones about 16 degree wide, if cut from a pie, a very modest slice. Once you realize that, it drives every nation down similar paths. Eventually, all weapons systems will look alike. It has to do more with physics than espionage. A mix of espionage, openly available data and scientific acumen had greatly lengthened Chinese strides. Stolen secrets could help China develop a mobile missile and accelerated its program to develop future nuclear weapons. The specific secrets known to have been seized by the Chinese, principally those detailed in the 1995 document, wold have been little help to a bomb maker. As for an H-bomb’s innards, what designers call the physics package, describe nothing significant. It turns out that the US W-88 warhead is slightly smaller than described in the 1988 Chinese document procured in 1995. The secret document describing the design of the W-88 nuclear warhead went to 548 mailing addresses throughout the US Government and military. Data described by Chinese in the 1995 document might have come from engineering plans or from secret manuals on military bases. That kind of information was widely available. The manuals that went out had pictures and numbers. If a submarine came in, and there was a problem, they had to know what they were dealing with. China is apparently proud enough to boast about it publicly, at least among its friends in Los Alamos. A Chinese arms scientist, Sun Cheng Wei told an open seminar at Los Alamos in early 1990s that China had forged significantly ahead in nuclear arms. For a long time, Chinese were dealing with round designs and then only watermelons.

Indian Miniature Hydrogen bomb:

VINTAGE 98 WARHEAD DESIGNS: India has perfected the art of developing tactical nuclear weapons, miniaturized hydrogen bomb warhead. India has perfected three nuclear warhead designs.

Impact of Chinese Nuclear Espionage

GEOPOLITICS OF CHINESE ESPIONAGE: American intelligence analysts have concluded that espionage played a role in Beijing’s advance. The CIA cannot identify a hard link, comparable to the theft by Soviet spies in the 1940’s, of the American design for the first atom bomb. Chinese espionage ranks as the most damaging transfer of military technology, in the recorded history of the mankind. The United States in the post-Cold War world will lose the preponderance due to the transfer of American nuclear, satellite, and military secrets to China. United States will become one among the equals. India has indigenously developed miniaturized nuclear weapon warhead designs comparable to the best in the arsenal of the United States. India has the neutron bomb technology. India can send man to moon also.

http://indiatalking.com/blog/kalkigaur/