"Our work has been accepted. It is no longer a research work but a detailed technical design. We continue working out specifications for the next phase - the development works- together with the Russian Defense Ministry," Boginsky said adding that the new flying craft would be absolutely new.
Asked about the weapons and characteristics of the new helicopter, Boginsky explained that "any customer moves towards harmonization of arms though it is clear that there are certain particularities of using them on ship-based helicopters."
In May 2018, Boginsky said that a detailed technical design for the prospective Minoga helicopter was due to be ready in the first quarter of 2019.
Earlier, Sergei Mikheyev, the chief designer of the Kamov Design Bureau, the Russian Helicopters’ affiliate, told TASS that an unmanned variant of the prospective Minoga sea helicopter could also be developed to meet the demands of potential customers.
They're struggling mightily to build an effective fighting force for the future, but seem to be building it on a curious mix of weapon systems, have no idea where they're going with tanks, have a scout vehicle that should be their new IFV, have an old IFV whose role should be taken over by their scout and have bought the most expensive wheeled vehicle going to provide mobility for their infantry.
Unfortunately for them they're also in the midst of adding firepower to these notional units and the debate is raging.
Had a conversation with an Army dawg and when he saw this pic he stated that its the fastest helicopter in US service. I pounded the table and told him he was full of shit...the CH-53 is faster. A quick Google search had me ruining the keyboard.
Don't know when it happened but the CH-47 is faster now. Fuck me....
Plan Beersheba was launched in 2011 with the objective of reorganising the Australian Army’s three dissimilar brigades (mechanised, motorised and light infantry) into three similar combined-arms multi-role combat brigades (MCBs) compromised of two standard infantry battalions (SIBs), an armoured cavalry regiment (ACR) with organic armoured, cavalry and mounted combat lift capabilities, along with the usual supporting elements of artillery, signals, combat engineers and combat service support units.
This reorganisation was based on both an analysis of combined arms warfare throughout the 20th century and the Australian Army’s experience of practising combined arms warfare in both low and high-intensity combat operations. This allows for a 36-month ready-readying-reset cycle in which one brigade in constantly ready for operations, another readying to replace it, and the third in reset after its ready cycle.
Cognisant of recent experience in low-intensity combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, it has been widely recognised that even in lower-threat environments, insurgent and terrorist actors have available to them weaponry that poses a serious threat to forces that lack protected mobility.
The bottom line, Australian forces deployed with armour protected vehicles stand a better chance of minimising casualties across all conflict scenarios, whilst better-armed and protected AFVs and tanks operating in concert will increase the protection, firepower and mobility of MCBs engaged in offensive operations. LAND 400 was initiated in order to provide this capability, with four phases covering: 1) project definition, 2) acquisition of combat reconnaissance vehicles (CRV), 3) acquisition of infantry fighting vehicles (IFV), and 4) support and training.
However, as Coleman points out, the Australian Army is more likely to be called upon for lower-intensity regional scenarios such as peacekeeping or stabilisation operations requiring a higher degree of strategic deployability and flexibility rather than high-intensity coalition warfare scenarios. This is where the 2017 changes to Plan Beersheba present significant challenges to developing a force structure that will be flexible, deployable and effective for the majority of likely deployment scenarios, whilst still maintaining a credible Army capability to engage in high-intensity warfare if called upon to do so.
These changes saw the original Plan Beersheba force structure of two standard infantry battalions, supported by an APC squadron in the ACR and a protected mobility vehicle platoon in the combat service support battalion restructured into two dissimilar infantry battalions, one mechanised and one motorised, with the ACR restructured with one armoured and two reconnaissance squadrons.
Although this restructure would lessen training demands and streamline command and control of mechanised and motorised battlegroups, this presents problems for the strategic and operational flexibility of the MCBs standing ready battle group (RBG) formed around one of its infantry battalions, if it is called upon to conduct either low or high-intensity combat operations.
If the RBG was the brigade’s mechanised battalion and is called upon to for low-intensity scenarios, its strategic and operational deployability may constrain its ability to do so, due to the heavy weight of projected LAND 400 AFVs, both for their strategic deployment and tactical mobility in areas lacking the transport infrastructure to support their weight. Conversely, if the RBG was the brigade’s motorised battalion, and deployment into a major combat operation was required, its capacity to execute such operations would be limited by their reduced conventional warfighting capability.
My personal opinion? I don't consider this critique valid. As usual, people will sit on the sidelines and attempt to punch holes in every effort and we're seeing that here.
I think the Aussies are doing something brilliant. To be a homer, I think they're trying to build in the type of scalability found in the Marine Air-Ground Task Force into their force. With a bit of amusement on my part, the US Army tried the same and for the most part failed in their effort.
The Aussies seem to be getting it right.
Lastly I cringe at the emphasis on low end warfare. It is MUCH easier to scale down to fight terrorist than to scale up to fight a peer opponent.
Yean. It's easy to punch holes but the reality is that Plan Beersheba appears to have been well thought out and has been executed nicely up to this point. Even more stunning is the fact that a small nation like Australia is setting the standard for modernization in the West. I LIKE IT!
I've watched with more than a bit of amusement at the shouts and yells of outrage at the US military displaying a pathetically FEW vehicles at the 4th Of July parade.
Now that its over can we get a little bit of sanity? How about we go a step further and talk about the REALITY of how this all came to be?
via US Today (2017)
France put on a dazzling Bastille Day display for President Trump on Friday, an occasion that marked both the founding of French democracy and the centennial of the United States' entry into World War I.
The colorful parade along the French capital’s famous Champs-Élysées included U.S. soldiers marching with their French counterparts.
Dozens of military planes and helicopters flew above as military bands played traditional marches.
One band spelled out the word "NICE" in front of Trump and his host, French President Emmanuel Macron. It was a tribute to the 86 people killed in a truck rampage by an Islamist terrorist one year ago during a Bastille Day celebration along the famed Promenade des Anglais in the French Riviera resort.
"It was a great honor to represent the United States at the magnificent #BastilleDay parade. Congratulations President @EmmanuelMacron!" Trump tweeted.
Reality #1.
Trump was inspired by Bastille Day, not a parade in Red Square or a display by the N. Koreans. The amount of silliness surrounding this one issue has caused me much annoyance.
I don't get how people could get something so simple so wrong.
Additionally the French while playing a unique role in our independence aren't the only Western nation that puts on displays (parades) for their local populations.
I can post DVID article after DVID article that shows US troops participating in parades from Europe, to Asia and even in Africa.
Parades are a pain in the ass for troops but make no mistake about it. Generals love the things!
Reality #2.
The amount of over the top "he's acting like a dictator" is just silly. Worse, its coming from those that have served and know better. Why? I have no idea but something that should have been a great selling point for the US military that DESPERATELY needs volunteers has been squandered.
Reality #3.
I find it amusing that the US military supposedly had issues with driving tanks in the open down the streets of Washington DC while at the same time they have no problem doing urban exercises in major US cities all the time under the cover of darkness using SOCOM forces.
This was just stupidity in a handbag.
It shouldn't have even risen to the level of a talking point but for some reason it has. Thank God its over.
China's expanding global influence directly competes with America's military, economic, and technological might – and the country is considered by many to be the U.S.' top national security threat.
In an interview with "CBS This Morning" Wednesday, former acting CIA director and CBS News contributor Michael Morell offered another daunting prediction: if the United States went to war with China in East Asia, we could "possibly lose."
China "has gained on us more rapidly than any other country has in history, militarily," Morell said. "If we had to fight a war against them today, in East Asia, we would struggle to win and could possibly even lose that war."
Lots of platitudes, lots of if's and but's... the reality however is stark.
We've never faced a threat like China and due to the flawed concepts of military to military engagement, business influence and an endless war on terror, leadership has been slow to wake up to the threat.
Russia is not a threat.
China is.
Russia is building a defensive force. China is building an expeditionary force while using stolen tech to accelerate their development.
A stupidly conceived "global economy" has only helped their rise and ignorance mixed with normalcy bias has further hampered our ability to deal with them forcefully.
Future generations will ridicule us for failing to act. Triviality rules the day while an existential threat to the US profits from the consumerism of the American people.
We could lose a war with China?
We will lose the coming war with China unless we get harder, faster.
At the 50 second mark of the above vid you're taking a look at perhaps the most powerful electronic warfare trio in existence today.
The Wedgetail, along with the EA-18G with the wingman stealth fighters could prove to be war winners.
Add the new pods that Raytheon is working on and you have a force that can detect and jam the enemy into the ground.
The Navy/Marines would be wise to get an Americanized capability that mirrors what the Aussies are doing. It's a distinct possibility but will require the will and funding to match the goal.
First the Marine Corps is going to have to climb out of its foxhole and embrace the idea that an all F-35 is not only cost INeffective but probably not where we want to go into the future.
Dump the C-model NOW. Instead re-establish our electronic attack squadrons and buy EA-18Gs.
Next make the tough decision of considering hanging these pods off select F-35Bs aboard the LHD/LHAs. Not every airplane but float with say...six of them aboard ship? That would give each MEU that goes on float ORGANIC electronic attack capability. Would it equal the capabilities of the EA-18G? Probably not but it would be superior to what we'd get from the current plan of relying on the AESA array in this mode.
Lastly we should rethink what we want from our current workhorse.
The above modules are great. They might be greater than great but if we're looking at great power competition then we need a dedicated electronic warfare module that we can roll onto the MV-22.
The Corps has put itself into a position of relying on air for its electronic warfare mission.
We've done away with the EA-6 so until the fast mover community sorts itself and provides the missing functions then its up to the rotary community to do it in the interim.
This needs to happen poste-haste.
The planners of the 1980's and 1990's labored hard to look at the future. They got it mostly right but they missed on a few items. This appears to be one of them.
No problem. Perfection is the goal, but since its unattainable we're flexible and can adjust. We need to readjust and deal with this formidable new area of air/ground warfare.
Consider this though. The below vid but instead of an "Australia Only" initiative, its picked up by the US Navy & Marine Corps. That would be a formidable teaming.
That's a team that could dominate the Pacific from the air. If Japan, Singapore or a few other allies picked up a few pieces of this initiative then you would have a juggernaut that could keep the Chinese bottled up. They wouldn't dare to range off shore.
For better or worse the USAF just bought us our low end fighter/attack/homeland defense interceptor.
The performance required for a pure "trainer" is over the top so I'm assuming that these additional functions were baked into the cake (even though they didn't say it out loud).
Good thing too.
But what does that mean for the future? I'm really not sure. If past is prologue then we can expect this plane to be around for quite awhile. Is it upgradeable? Will it be cost effective?
My thinking is yes.
It does have SAAB DNA so it should be a good performer...while being cost effective at the same time.
We didn't buy the Gripen, but we did manage to get it's little brother. Overall? I'm pleased. Plus they seem to be moving with a sense of urgency. That alone is refreshing.
I know it'll never happen but I would so LOVE if the US Army or Marine Corps would grab a tank out of storage, strip it down, trick out the engine and head over to Russia to curb stomp the competition!
Put a few PT Gods as crew for the athletic competition that they put the crews in and strut around in the red, white and blue in the land of the Bear in front of the Red Dragon.
First reports reaching DEBKAfile’s military sources say that a US submarine intercepted a Russian nuclear sub in American waters opposite Alaska. The Russian sub escorting the nuclear submarine responded with a Balkan 2000 torpedo and scuttled the US vessel. Urgent consultations in both the White House and the Kremlin were taking place on Tuesday night. US Vice President Mike Pence called off an appearance in New Hampshire after being recalled to Washington for a conference called by President Donald Trump without explanation.
Russian President Vladimir Putin cancelled an engagement and headed for the Kremlin to confer with Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and military chiefs, after learning that 14 submariners died in a fire that broke out on a nuclear-powered “experimental submarine in Russian waters.” This account carried in Russian media varies in most respects from the first reports reaching this site and may refer to a separate incident. They report between 14 and 17 members of an AS-12 nuclear powered submarine died of poisonous fumes caused by a fire aboard the vessel. The submarine was described as experimental and unarmed but often used in spy missions. It is unclear how many of the 25 crew survived. Local media suggest four or five are receiving treatment in Severomorsk’s military hospital for poisoning and concussion injuries. Another news account said the majority of the officers died in or on their way to hospital. These reports do not cite the cause of the fire.
1. The Vice President WAS CALLED BACK TO WASHINGTON and we still haven't heard why. Hell the press isn't even asking.
2. When the sub went down I did see some scattered reports that the incident involved a US sub. That's the Twitter-verse for you so I can't make heads or tails of that.
3. I do know cause I've talked to more than one sub driver and those boys are tight lipped. I mean they make SOCOM look like gossiping wives (well that's not fair to GWs...they don't write books or make movies).
4. We do know that during the cold war, subs were doing some pretty intense stuff. It made the border exchanges on land look like a picnic. I'm talking ramming, bumping and opening torpedo tubes. The Hunt For Red October was fantasy, but much of it was actually pretty spot on.
Long story short? Still don't think there was an undersea "fire fight" but I do think something MIGHT have happened. I'll wait for more info.
