if i had to choose between typhoon or rafale, i will chose typhoon but does typhoon have two seated version?

and if we have the money to buy typhoon might as well take a look at F15 strike E 

“Current reports say the Hind now begins an attack run 7000 to 8000 meters from the target, running in at low altitude and then rising 20 to 100 meters in altitude to fire. Firing usually commences at maximum range, and mutual support is emphasized. One tactic that has endured the war has been to send one helicopter in at high altitude to draw enemy fire, while wingmen remain low, behind a ridge, ready to attack anyone who opens fire.”

“The Soviets are also using helicopters in mass formations (a standard Soviet tactic). Reports have helicopters in packs of four and six, hovering, firing their rockets and machine guns, circling, hunting, and then swooping down and firing again.”

In the following analysis, the WP cited video posted in October, 2015 is mapped using prominent landmarks to plot a route and target area. New tactics involving concealment, movement and teamwork will be highlighted

The battle map above represents the likely route taken by two pairs of Mi-24 making a rocket attack on terrorists outside of Kafr Nabudah. Each of the numbered waypoints on the map correspond to the attack helicopter squadron’s position in the respective screen grabs below. The screen grabs themselves come from a video featuring forward observers reporting ‘four helicopters’ coming from Kernaz, towards Kafr Nabudah. In the video, the attack helicopters pass landmarks that help gauge the lead team’s position and target. Judging from the facing of the grain silos alone, we can determine that the forward observer team was located somewhere outside the village of Hobait. The attack itself lasts less than three minutes.

A cameraman and observer film two Mi-24s, Lead A and Lead B, flying between a white dome mosque in Kernaz and grain silos outside of Kafr Nabudah. The gunships fly under an altitude of 100 meters, maintaining speeds in excess of 200 km/h. While four helicopters are being reported by the observer, only the lead pair is prominently featured in the footage.

In the image above, Lead A helicopter pops up 40-60 meters over a large dirt mound approximately 1km from the terrorist position outside Kafr Nabudah. Lead A fires what appears to be an S-8 rocket barrage out of its stub wing mounted pods. The flat-faced B-8V20 rocket pod are visible in the silhouette below. Contrastingly, the older, ubiquitous UB-32 S-5 rocket launchers have conical fronts. Shturm missiles are mounted on the outermost pylons

Out of frame to the left: The trailing pair of Mi-24s launch their unguided rockets. Pictured: Lead B pops flares to distract missile seekers as it descends from its zenith. Evidence of the punitive nature of this strike can be seen smoldering in the background. This wreck is a victim of the battle raging below; above the Russian attack helicopters serve as a quick reaction force to complex ground situations. Interestingly, Lead B seems to hold fire while taking a slightly higher approach than Lead A before popping flares. The WP article attributes this strategy to lessons learned by crews of the Soviet-Afghan war attempting to ‘distract’ the enemy with a high-flying teammate. However, in this scenario, it is far more likely that the trailing gunship in the lead pair trades a higher profile for a better perspective to correct the trailing pair’s fire. Evidence of this action can be seen in the image below

The lead pair of attack helicopters make the turn to exit the area of operations. In parity with the lead pair’s turn, the trailing pair’s unguided rockets can be seen impacting the target zone in the image above, kicking up dirt and debris. The screen grab above also indicates that the lead pair carry a light load. With a pair of rocket pods and guided missiles (and presumably empty troop compartment) the Hind makes for a nimble gunship

The lead pair of Mi-24s pass the trailing pair as they cycle out of the target zone. The expansive dust cloud coming from the target area is evidence of an accurate execution on the trailing pair’s rocket barrage. The trailing pair doesn’t immediately break their course after attacking, flying out to the same apex as the lead pair before turning in. This deliberate circumnavigation of the target zone leads the author to believe that the lead pair was conducting follow-up on their attack, which would certainly differ from tactics of the Soviet-Afghan war

The gunship crews return to a white-knuckle altitude, with Trail A flying behind a prominent water tower south of Kafr Nabudah. The image above displays the impossible target the Mi-24 crews offer their opponents; the busy backdrop is filled with noise and confusion to missile seekers

Wed May 11, 2016 | 6:34 AM EDT

Indonesia plans to buy Airbus A400M military transport planes: minister

By Kanupriya Kapoor and Randy Fabi

JAKARTA (Reuters) - Indonesia plans to purchase some Airbus A400M military transport aircraft, the defense minister told Reuters on Wednesday, in a potential boost to Europe's largest defense project.

"I have a plan to buy A400s from Europe ... but just a small number. There is no need to buy many," Minister Ryamizard Ryacudu said without elaborating.[/b]

Airbus' A400M has been marred by development delays and cost overruns. One of the planes crashed in Spain a year ago killing four crew members and leading some countries to ground the troop and cargo carrier.

Ryacudu also said the government agreed to buy eight Russian Sukhoi Su-35 fighter jets this year, but added the price was still being negotiated.

Indonesia had initially planned to buy around a dozen of the Russian jets to replace its ageing Northrop F-5 fighters, and supplement a fleet of 16 Sukhoi Su-27 and Su-30 fighters that form the backbone of its air force.

anyone can identify the m16 variant?
looks pretty much liek the a2 but it got rails?

Hi, atreyuangel.

Thanks for the heads up! Are you currently serving? or have served in the past? Are you open to answering some questions?

Sure, I'll try to answer it as best as I can, when I can. Quite busy this week.

There are others that will gladly answer any questions for you.

A fighter jet has crashed into a building in Taizhou, eastern China, triggering a fire. The pilot safely ejected from the aircraft.

Photos posted on Twitter by CCTV show flames coming out of the upper floor of the building.

A crowd of spectators can be seen viewing the blaze.

Taizhou, a city of almost six million inhabitants, is in China’s Zhejiang province.

"But is this really the case?" Sivkov asks. "What is behind the concept of the Prompt Global Strike, and is it really possible to bomb an enemy into capitulation? How serious a threat is this concept with regard to its possible use against Russia?"

the concept "involves the creation of a complete combat system, and apart from the strike component also requires subsystems including reconnaissance and surveillance, command and communications posts, as well as jamming systems."

"The weapons used under this concept would include land- and sea-based ballistic missiles, as well as sea- and air-launched hypersonic long-range cruise missiles. In the long term, space-based platforms can also be used to launch attacks."

the concept of the Prompt Global Strike. "They provide for the high-precision destruction of targets (with a CEP accuracy of 100-150 meters), a short delivery time (no more than 30-40 minutes), and high speed of the warhead in the target area, allowing them to destroy objects buried deep underground. Their large throw-weight (up to 3.5 tons) allows for the use of various types of warheads."

"the Russian missile surveillance system (and that of China, in the near future), may classify the group launch of such missiles (and the guaranteed destruction of a single object will require at least 2-3 such missiles) as a nuclear attack, leading to a retaliatory nuclear strike."

"Secondly, the START treaties limit the total number of deployed ballistic missiles, and make no distinction between nuclear and conventionally equipped weapons. In other words, equipping ground and sea-based ballistic missiles with conventional warheads can only be done through a corresponding reduction in the number of deployed nuclear missiles."

Therefore, another important component of the Prompt Global Strike initiative is the Boeing X-51A, a prospective missile expected to be capable of hypersonic flight at a speed of 6,500-7,500 km/h

"the US may in the medium term rely for the most part on sea- and air-launched cruise missiles, such as the Tomahawk, based on strategic, tactical and carrier aviation. The US Navy's existing sea launched cruise missiles (SLCMs) have a range of up to 1,600 km, using 340-450 kg warheads with an accuracy of between 5-10 meters. These weapons can be launched from all modern vessels and submarines at the US's disposal."

12 such SLCMs can be placed on each of the 23 serving Los Angeles-class attack submarines. The same number can be launched from the Seawolf-class and Virginia-class subs (3 units and 9 units, respectively). "Under the program to convert Ohio-class submarines into carriers of Tomahawk missiles, each of the 4 subs were expected to carry 154 SLCMs. However, that program was closed."

61 of the US's new Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, and its 22 Ticonderoga-class cruisers are equipped with vertical launching systems, the Arleigh Burke-class featuring the 96-cell Mark 41 VLS, and the Ticonderoga a 122-cell system.

Therefore, Sivkov notes, the US surface fleet can theoretically carry a total of 4,000 surface-ship launched cruise missiles, plus another 1,000 onboard its submarines.

"However, realistically speaking, given the need to use part of the surface fleet for other purposes, and accounting for operational readiness, ships and submarines of the US Navy can actually deploy no more than 2,500-3,000 SLCMs"

"In addition to the Navy, US long-range strategic bombers are also equipped with long-range cruise missiles. At present, the US Air Force is equipped with about 130 strategic bombers, capable of deploying a total of about 1,200 air launched cruise missiles (ALCMs). Thus, in total, all [US] carriers of cruise missiles are able to launch a total of 3,700-4,200 missiles."

No worries, other than you and LTZ are there more army/navy/air force men and women here? I've actually got a lot of questions.

If it's okay I'll drop you some DMs?

Donald Trump doesn’t talk a lot about Syria, except to say it’s screwed up. He likes to keep things simple, after all, and his great talent lies in confirming prejudices, not confusing them

but its logic does fit in with the politics of a man who admires leaders with tough-guy credentials like Russian President Vladimir Putin. And how does Putin play the Syrian game?

The Players and Stakes:  The Syrian Civil War has global implications.  What began in 2011 as a local protest against the Assad regime’s casual brutality has grown into an existential threat to America’s post-Cold War dominance.  The conflict is in its fifth year, has killed upwards of 200,000 people and displaced millions more.  Multiple factions—sectarian, secular, and mercenary

Fleeing the terror, refugees have sought shelter in Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, or moved on to Europe where their unwelcome presence is contributing to tensions among EU member states.  Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey each back their proxies in a bid to mold Syria in their image

Russia has chosen to emerge from its post-Soviet doldrums by flexing its military muscle in support of a longtime client, the Assad regime

All moves are calculated risks, so let’s look at them in the language of a casino, which the American people know you’ve mastered:

Salafi Blackjack:  Backing the rebels with military and economic aid, while actively targeting the Assad regime would keep America aligned with traditional allies, the Gulf monarchies and Turkey, and has the greatest continuity with the existing policy of building a viable alternative to the Assad Regime

The “deck” is made up of disparate rebel factions, many of dubious value, and others, such as the Nusra Front and the Islamic State (ISIS), are self-declared enemies of America

This option also carries the risk of a direct confrontation with Russia

Lastly, backing the Sunni proxies of Saudi Arabia and Turkey would likely require the U.S. to abandon the Syrian Kurds as a precondition for Turkey’s cooperation

Alawite Hold’em:  Siding with the regime is the fastest way to end the conflict and thereby bring an end to both the mass killings and to stem the flow of refugees into Europe.  However, it also would be guaranteed to completely alienate the Gulf States and Turkey

As of mid-2016 military momentum had swung in favor of the regime, largely due to the direct intervention of Russian military forces.  While the Assad Alawite minority regime is no friend to the United States, it is also an enemy of the Sunni extremists, such as ISIS

Should the United Sates side with the regime, many of the non-Sunni minorities, such as the Kurds and the Christians, would likely rally around the government due to their distrust of the Salafists

The primary risk with this scenario is to America’s reputation as an enduring partner of the Gulf monarchies and Turkey.  In the most extreme case, Turkey might even withdraw from NATO

The last major downside of this policy would be the ethical dilemma of backing a regime which has killed hundreds of thousands of its own citizens

Walk Away:  The only way to guarantee that the United States does not waste any more lives or resources in Syria is to walk away.  However, to walk away from Syria would be tantamount to walking away from the Middle Eas

For example, there is some question whether the Al Sauds would be able to maintain their grip on Saudi Arabia in an environment of low oil prices without the U.S. security umbrella.  While the Al Sauds are hardly the ideal regional partner, they are unquestionably better than the alternative of an Arabian Peninsula ruled by Salafist extremists. 

Analysts Welcome Indonesia’s Plans to Triple Defense Budget



Jakarta. The new government’s plan to bolster the country’s defense spending to almost triple its current budget by 2019 has received support from international relations analysts and military experts in Indonesia.

Luhut Panjaitan, an adviser to President Joko Widodo, said on Tuesday that Indonesia’s defense spending was targeted to increase to 1.5 percent of gross domestic product over the next five years in order to protect the country’s sovereignty and national interests.

“We link to economic growth of about 7 percent … so by 2019, the national defense budget can increase to around $20 billion per annum,” Luhut said, as reported by Reuters on Wednesday.

Muradi, a defense and military analyst at Padjadjaran University in Bandung, West Java, agreed with the country’s plan to set such an impressive target for its defense and security sector, saying that “our defense sector is already 10 years behind neighboring countries such as Singapore and Malaysia.”

According to Muradi, Indonesia’s defense sector spending — which includes the purchase of primary weaponry defense systems, the cost of security monitoring and also stipends for military personnel — should make up at least 2 percent of the country’s GDP to be considered adequate.

This year, Indonesia has allocated Rp 83 trillion ($6.6 billion), which represents 0.8 percent of the total state budget, Defense Minister Ryamizard Ryacudu said early last month.

“As of now, I believe there’s no other way to modernize our weaponry except for increasing the defense sector budget,” Muradi told the Jakarta Globe on Wednesday.

“We can’t let other parties help us [with providing weaponry] because that way they are likely to dictate to us [on how to manage  the country’s defense and security].”

Meanwhile, a nation’s moves to increase military and defense sector spending often set off alarms in neighboring countries — in Indonesia’s case, it includes Australia and members of the  Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean). They may see such a policy as a threat.

Deterrent effect

But international relations experts believe Indonesia’s move to beef up its security, by setting aside more money for defense in its state budget, is essentially based on its need to improve its defensive capabilities  and security systems in order deter any potential aggressors.

“By beefing up security in its territory, Indonesia is sending a warning to other countries that may possibly be planning acts of aggression against it. It shows that they can no longer do whatever they like and think that we wouldn’t be able take decisive action against them,” Muradi said.

According to Muradi, Indonesia records  some 200 violations to its airspace per year.

“For instance, just to challenge the most recent violation by three foreign aircraft, we spent some Rp 150 million, while we only fined them some Rp 60 million,” Muradi said.

“The increase is really needed, not because Indonesia is worried that there would be attacks from other countries, but more due to its internal interests,” Hikmahanto Juwana, an international relations expert from the University of Indonesia, told the Jakarta Globe on Wednesday.

Hikmahanto says that the increase in defense spending is needed: to protect the country from illegal actions by private groups; to be a peace broker in any disputes occurring in the region; and also to boost Indonesia’s participation in United Nations peace-keeping efforts.

“Indonesia also requires adequate weapons systems to protect its territory as it has the second-longest coastline in the world, which eventually is in line with Jokowi’s agenda to be a Global Maritime Fulcrum,” said Djayadi Hanan, an academic in Paramadina University’s department of international relations.

Muradi further pointed out that increased defense spending was also needed to improve the welfare of personnel in the country’s armed forces aside from buying more weaponry.

To avoid any misinterpretations by its neighbors, foreign policy experts also say that Indonesia would have to explain and clearly outline the reasons behind its plan to increase its defense spending.

“Increasing the military budget could make other countries worry and if it’s not explained in a very clear and diplomatic way, it could be dangerous,” Hikmahanto said.

“Therefore, Indonesia must be able to justify clearly in its white paper on defense its reasons for the need to increase the spending.

“[For other countries] the move should not mean that Indonesia is planning to start a war or any aggressive actions, but that it’s basically meant to fulfill minimum essential force requirements,” Djayadi says.

“Indonesia’s move to strengthen its defense sector could boost stability in the Southeast Asia region,” Djayadi adds.

“Furthermore, Indonesia could also then start taking part in maintaining security in the region that will eventually improve defense and security for all countries.”

Hikmahanto pointed out that Indonesia would also need to show that its foreign policy had shifted to “all nations are friends until Indonesia’s sovereignty is degraded and national interest is jeopardized.”

The Pacific Fleet is comprised of 3rd Fleet, headquartered in San Diego, California, and 7th Feet, headquartered in Yokosuka, Japan. Historically, the 7th Fleet took command of 3rd Fleet ships when they crossed the International Date Line westward, but on April 26, Swift reiterated his longstanding preference to expand the role of the 3rd Fleet commander in the Asia-Pacific region. In other words, he wants Vice Admiral Nora Tyson and her staff to maintain operational control over some of the ships that cross the International Date Line.

The USS Momsen, USS Decatur, and USS Spruance became the first ships to be deployed under this new arrangement on April 27.

Swift had been pushing for such a change since last September. He questioned the need for the, practically speaking, rather arbitrary administrative demarcation. The change would not require a change of headquarters or home ports, but would allow for greater cooperation between the two fleets in “areas with the greatest instability.” Swift is looking for ways to enable Tyson to “more fully employ her fleet forward.”

Swift believes that this change will allow the U.S. Navy to take fuller advantage of 3rd Fleet’s capacity and capability. Swift envisions a future where the two fleets could divide responsibility for tasks in the Asia-Pacific; for example, by having 3rd Fleet deal with the Navy’s response to a tsunami while 7th Fleet deals with earthquake relief.

Illustrious was third of the Invincible class of helicopter carriers. At 686 feet long and 22,000 tons fully loaded, the Invincibles had full-length flight decks and a ski ramp to launch Sea Harrier jump jets. Built to escort convoys across the Atlantic in a World War III scenario, the ships could carry up to a dozen Sea Harriers and ten helicopters.

Illustrious served the Royal Navy for 32 years but was retired in 2014, a victim of budget cuts. Currently moored in Portsmouth Harbor, she's been emptied out in anticipation of the sale. The ship currently displaces 17,000 tons and still has her massive twin 15-foot-diameter bronze propellers, as well as her six Rolls Royce Olympus marine gas turbine engines. The hull is described as being in "good" condition (though we all know what "good" really means on the used vehicle market). Here's a video of Illustrious conducting flight operations while on active duty:

The carrier's flat top has been demilitarized, so don't count on getting her three Goalkeeper gatling guns or her pair of 20-millimeter cannons. Or any aircraft, for that matter—the U.S. Marines bought all the Harriers for spare parts and the helicopters will find new homes on HMS Queen Elizabeth, a new carrier set to enter service in 2017.

One curious note: the Ministry of Defense intends to remove "material coatings" from the upper hull and superstructure before transferring ownership, and it warns this action will make the ship pretty darn ugly. Whatever those coatings do, the MoD doesn't want them passing into strange hands. Could it be something like an anti-radar coating, in order to reduce the ship's radar signature?

Interested parties must file with Her Majesty's Government by May 23, with a viewing scheduled in June. You're going to need a bank guarantee of $2.8 million to convince the government you're a serious player. If you win, you'll never have to convince anyone you're a player ever again

For nearly two years the town of Shaddadi in northeastern Syria was a stronghold of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL). In February, fighters from the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a coalition of Kurdish and Arab militias, battled the jihadists for 10 days before liberating the city in fierce fighting, supported by anti-terror coalition airstrikes

Furthermore the level of underground fortifications varied among the hierarchy of ISIS fighters, with rookie foreign recruits being forced to hide in less secure structures, while the elite were offered well-reinforced concrete bunkers

“Its [one tunnel’s] length is about 200-300 meters. It is designed for protection against air strikes,” an SDF soldier told RT. Underground protective structures used by foreign ISIS fighters at the same time are “narrow” with just “gravel” protection against air strikes

Inside the house RT discovered hundreds of ISIS documents, including photos relating to the Iraqi army, as well as photos of members of the Syrian government. Names of hundreds of local and foreign fighters were also unearthed

Tensions are continuing to rise throughout the South China Sea as the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague is expected to bring forth a ruling in the next few weeks against China’s claims over control of the majority of the territory in the region.

Meanwhile, Chinese diplomats throughout the region have started a push-back campaign in favor of China’s claims over the sea. China’s territorial claims run against similar claims made by the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei, and Malaysia.

The following map from the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative shows how significant disputes over the region could be. China, by far, has the largest military force in the region. As such, Beijing could force its claims over the South China Sea against the wishes of the other nations involved in the dispute due to both its economic and military size.