What's new
Frozen in Carbonite

Welcome to FiC! Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

SECURITY ORIENTED DEVELOPEMENTS - WORLD

aldw

Active member
New Sino-Russian heavy lift helicopter under development:

Article:
 

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
New Sino-Russian heavy lift helicopter under development:

Article:

Understanable given the sizes of both countries necessiting use of helicopters for passanger and supply runs to the remote dwellings.

Also of note, have you known that Mirya program with whole documentation was bought by PRC ?


Funny thing is that means that China has a mean to literaly take over global air cargo buisness. Not mentioning heavy lift capacity.
 
CHINA, PRC WARNS AUSTRALIA ABOUT COMMITMENT FOR DFEFENSE OF TAIPEI

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
PRC WARNS AUSTRALIA ABOUT COMMITMENT FOR DFEFENSE OF TAIPEI

"China warned Australia of a massive attack in the event of a possible involvement in the defense of Taiwan in the event of Chinese aggression, Australian news.com.au reported on Sunday. The warning was issued on Twitter by Hu Xijin, editor-in-chief of the nationalist Chinese tabloid Global Times.

"If Australian troops come to fight in the Taiwan Strait, it is inconceivable that China would not launch a massive attack on Australia and its military bases. So let Australia better prepare for the sacrifice for the island of Taiwan and the United States," he tweeted on Saturday. night (Australian time - PAP) Hu Xijin.

The journalist's entry was a response to the words of the Australian Defense Minister Peter Dutton, who in an interview published on Friday said that in the event of an attack on Taiwan, Australian forces will support US troops - explained the Australian internet portal.

In October, US President Joe Biden announced that the United States would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese military invasion, recalls news.com.au.

Taiwan has remained politically separate since 1949, when the Republic of China forces and its government withdrew to the island after the communists took power in mainland China. Communist Beijing has never come to terms with this state of affairs and invariably considers Taiwan its province."


Translated from:
 
ARMENIA, CLASHES ON AZERI/ARMENIAN BORDER

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
CLASHES ERUPT ALONG AZERI/ARMENIAN BORDER







 
Last edited:

Wakko

Well-known member
Funny thing is that means that China has a mean to literaly take over global air cargo buisness. Not mentioning heavy lift capacity.
They'll still need the engines, their metallurgy is still lacking. The Xian Y-20 was also developed in cooperation with Antonov, but uses the ancient Soloviev D-30 which powers also the pre-upgrade Il-76. And I have serious doubts that Ukraine will be allowed to sell them new D-18T units (or that it could manufacture them in the required numbers), that's a strategic asset.
 

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
They'll still need the engines, their metallurgy is still lacking. The Xian Y-20 was also developed in cooperation with Antonov, but uses the ancient Soloviev D-30 which powers also the pre-upgrade Il-76. And I have serious doubts that Ukraine will be allowed to sell them new D-18T units (or that it could manufacture them in the required numbers), that's a strategic asset.

True. On the other hand we do not know how many soft assets the Chinese acquired. Even in the worst case scaenario it will only prolong the ineviteable, assuming they will take that road.
 
CHINA, WS-20 engines are nearing mass production

aldw

Active member
For the Y-20, the WS-20 engines are nearing mass production:



As for a D-18 equivalent, the CJ-2000 is currently under development (alongside the Russian PD-35) as potential engine options for the Sino-Russian CR929 widebody airliner, which are also potential replacement engines for the An-124 (and by extension An-225) respectively.
 
USA, Articles - SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP?, SELFDELUSION OF INVINCIBILITY

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP?



Americans are increasingly in favour of leaving decisions about the use and extent of applications of leathal force for military proffesionals rather than civilan officials

SELFDELUSION OF INVINCIBILITY


How new generation of US military is not accustomed to the idea of friction, fog of war and not holding irrefutable warfighting supremacy.
 
Last edited:

Inquisitor Solarion

Well-known member
Well, if you want to bring up the question of defeat, you could bring up Syria, where the Americans were diplomatically defeated when the Russians intervened and successfully propped up Assad, and they are still clinging onto a patch of Syria.

It does bring up the fact that Americans are sore losers but that is their culture; they will only tolerate their side winning.
 

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
Well, if you want to bring up the question of defeat, you could bring up Syria, where the Americans were diplomatically defeated when the Russians intervened and successfully propped up Assad, and they are still clinging onto a patch of Syria.

It does bring up the fact that Americans are sore losers but that is their culture; they will only tolerate their side winning.

Everyone is tolerating winning but we have to consider what the "win" is, becouse in the grand scale of things you can suffer a defeat with short term consequences which will further achieving the long term goal. With US you have a problem of definition of the goal they want to achieve and keeping the focus on that, and not dissolving attention.
With that we have a hegemon which wants to be (and not kid ourselves, must be) a global hegemon and do not want that, simultanously. They want and need that position by at the same time they do not want to pay to support such position nor willing to compromise, which lead to the increased friction.
Also note that due to their last 25 years of military adventurism and hardline policies, they actually have lost credibility and all soft power they have had actuall.
 

aldw

Active member
SERVICE GUARANTEES CITIZENSHIP?



Americans are increasingly in favour of leaving decisions about the use and extent of applications of leathal force for military proffesionals rather than civilan officials

SELFDELUSION OF INVINCIBILITY


How new generation of US military is not accustomed to the idea of friction, fog of war and not holding irrefutable warfighting supremacy.

It really does demonstrate just how much the concerns raised by Charles Dunlap's paper on a possible US military coup could be not only plausible but a real possibility , especially as polling even back in 2015 indicated a a sizeable proportion of the US population was willing to back a US military coup. The increased political polarization since then would only amplify the risk.
 

Inquisitor Solarion

Well-known member
I have seen at least one study that showed that the US has never been this polarized since the Civil War. The only thing missing now is some Senator/Congressman beating the living shit of the other guy in the opposing party with his walking stick.
 
TAIWAN, CHANGE IN DEFENSE POLICY

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
DISASTROUS CHANGE IN TAIWANS'S DEFENSE POLICY


Authors try to further the idea of new Taiwan's implementation of assymetric defense policy as highly destabilising and impossible - instead of trying to fight the potential chinese invasion in the islands littorals followed by bettle of the beaches, Taiwanese want to invest into the assymetry based on deep strike precision detterence, upgraded conventional ground and air forces and also better capabilities for "gray zone" competition.
Also authors advocate that US government should intervene and change the Taiwan MoD policy making.

"This challenge is not Taiwan's alone to navigate, because the costs of failure are not Taiwan's alone to bear. As Washington edges ever closer to defining Taiwan's security as a core national interest, Taiwan—and American allies around the region—will expect American military power to fill any lingering deterrence gaps that Taiwan cannot, or will not, handle itself.

Thankfully, Washington has options. Here are three recommendations.

First, it is time for Washington to confront Taipei. To this end, the Biden administration should organize a behind-the-scenes meeting with Tsai and her senior national security officials. The sole purpose of this "come-to-Jesus" intervention should be to communicate the unambiguous expectation that the Tsai administration immediately implement the Overall Defense Concept. Senior Biden political officials should also make clear that Washington will only support the sale of weapons, platforms, and capabilities that are fully congruent with that concept. At the same time, because the United States has a bad habit of sending contradictory signals about defense reform and arms sales, the Biden administration should also coordinate and enforce clear and consistent messaging across all of the agencies that interact with Taiwan. Clear signaling is essential to prevent those who oppose or resent the Overall Defense Concept from coopting the rhetoric of asymmetry to justify their usual priorities.

Second, Congress should give this message teeth by passing the Arm Taiwan Act recently introduced in the Senate. This important bill clearly links future arms sales with Taipei's ability to make real progress toward developing denial concepts, acquiring the right capabilities
(as defined by Washington), and recruiting, training, and equipping so as to match these new denial capabilities with a credible warfighting doctrine. Heavy-handed though they may seem, conditional arms sales can help the Tsai administration undertake the bureaucratically painful and politically costly steps associated with reform. Moreover, Congress should fully fund the $3 billion provision within the Arm Taiwan Act to help Taiwan purchase denial capabilities outside of the normal Foreign Military Sales process. Doing so will both free up Taiwan's defense budget to pay for other urgent doctrinal, training, logistical, and maintenance requirements needed to support asymmetric operations, and will blunt the critique proffered by some in the United States and Taiwan that U.S. arms sales are just a form of protection money.

Third, the Department of Defense should develop operational warfighting plans that complement a Taiwanese posture of denial. The fact is that Taiwan will struggle to defend itself from attack without external support. It is increasingly clear that the Taiwanese people are willing to fight. But it is unreasonable to ask them to sacrifice for a hopeless cause. By making it clear that American war plans are designed to serve as a counterpunch to the island's denial-oriented posture, Washington can help the Tsai Administration convince Taiwanese voters—and Chinese military planners—that an asymmetric defense will work. Specifically, by holding out and absorbing as much Chinese military power as possible, Taiwan can buy time for U.S. forces to intervene while exposing vulnerabilities for U.S. forces to exploit.

Some will argue that friends require a soft touch. I would ordinarily agree. Unfortunately, these are not ordinary times. Storm clouds are gathering, and the stark reality is that one day soon Washington might find it necessary to send Americans into harm's way to defend Taiwan. Washington, therefore, has a profound moral obligation to do everything in its power to make sure that Taiwan is doing everything in its power to provide for its own defense."
 
Last edited:

Inquisitor Solarion

Well-known member
DISASTROUS CHANGE IN TAIWANS'S DEFENSE POLICY


Authors try to further the idea of new Taiwan's implementation of assymetric defense policy as highly destabilising and impossible - instead of trying to fight the potential chinese invasion in the islands littorals followed by bettle of the beaches, Taiwanese want to invest into the assymetry based on deep strike precision detterence, upgraded conventional ground and air forces and also better capabilities for "gray zone" competition.
Also authors advocate that US government should intervene and change the Taiwan MoD policy making.
It's been like this for quite a while though. Between gross underfunding by both parties and no one really is interested in serving and fighting, Taiwan's military is a shell so hollow you could see through it.
 

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
It's been like this for quite a while though. Between gross underfunding by both parties and no one really is interested in serving and fighting, Taiwan's military is a shell so hollow you could see through it.

True, that's why having a long reach precision strike targeted at the enemy's critical infrastructure can be seen as a leverage, but from the point of view of the US they do not want to have Taiwan too independent, more like forward outpost protected by disposeable jannisaries armed with US produced weapons. That's why new Taiwanese doctrine was implemented - it is actually more flexible for new security enviroment, rather than old one which mandated large standing conventional forces and layered defense with practically no long reach weaponry capable of striking adversary in any meaningful way, ie. practically zero deterrence capability.

Also note that the authors seem to think that the deterrence capability should be based on uknonwn to the enemy "wild cards", an approach that paradoxically can invite an invasion, which given their rant in the quoted article, may be even aimed on sucking the PRC into the Taiwan on purpouse.
 

Inquisitor Solarion

Well-known member
True, that's why having a long reach precision strike targeted at the enemy's critical infrastructure can be seen as a leverage, but from the point of view of the US they do not want to have Taiwan too independent, more like forward outpost protected by disposeable jannisaries armed with US produced weapons. That's why new Taiwanese doctrine was implemented - it is actually more flexible for new security enviroment, rather than old one which mandated large standing conventional forces and layered defense with practically no long reach weaponry capable of striking adversary in any meaningful way, ie. practically zero deterrence capability.

Also note that the authors seem to think that the deterrence capability should be based on uknonwn to the enemy "wild cards", an approach that paradoxically can invite an invasion, which given their rant in the quoted article, may be even aimed on sucking the PRC into the Taiwan on purpouse.
I am not sure if that new doctrine will even help. This is a country where most of the youngsters don't even want to pick up a rifle and fight. And even those that do, don't have much of a morale to speak of.



Most people also know that any fight over Taiwan will be end of Taiwan itself. It's a country with large rich poor gap, and starting salaries are low etc. A good number just want to get out.
 
ETHIOPIA, AFRICA US PREPARES FOR EVACUATION?

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
US PREPARES FOR EVACUATION?



War in Ethiopia is escalating. USAF aircraft traffic is increasing. Some predict epcoming evacuation of the US contingent there.
 
ETHIOPIA, DRONE WAR

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
DRONE WAR IN ETHIOPIA








 

Wakko

Well-known member
More undercurrents of Israeli and US planning for potential military operations against Iran's nuclear program:


Let's hope it's just a part of the new JCPOA negotiation process...
 
US-RUSSIA GENEVA SUMMIT 2022

<Reaper>666

Well-known member





From last minute - stopping extension of NATO is a "non starter" according to the US, becouse it is "strangulation if freedom of choice" for other states and NATO itself.
According to the some TV "analysts" Russia is giving impossible to meet demands becouse of:
- domestic propaganda - ie. strong state
- to have a "pretext" for inteventions in it's own near border

Paradoxically, North Korean missile program and North Korean actions are shown as rational, although very aggressive policymaking.
 
Last edited:
European Union to block South Korean shipbuilding mega-merger

IndyFront

Ξ⌊:Ξ≪⊕ `∧∀⊥∥'⌊: ∀∃∃∀⌊:⊕⌈≪⌊:⊕Γ.
Author

Inquisitor Solarion

Well-known member
That's interesting. I remember one of the Daewoo shipyards being in deep shits hence the need for a merger.

I didn't know the EU even had a say in it though. Both are largely Korean owned shipyards and with little interests abroad.
 

Scottty

Well-known member
From last minute - stopping extension of NATO is a "non starter" according to the US, becouse it is "strangulation if freedom of choice" for other states and NATO itself.
According to the some TV "analysts" Russia is giving impossible to meet demands becouse of:
- domestic propaganda - ie. strong state
- to have a "pretext" for inteventions in it's own near border

Paradoxically, North Korean missile program and North Korean actions are shown as rational, although very aggressive policymaking.

The whole point of NATO was to be an alliance against the Soviet Union Russia.

US: "Hi everyone, let's all gang up against Russia!"
Russia: "Hey! We don't like that!"
US: "See? They're a threat!"
 

<Reaper>666

Well-known member
The whole point of NATO was to be an alliance against the Soviet Union Russia.

US: "Hi everyone, let's all gang up against Russia!"
Russia: "Hey! We don't like that!"
US: "See? They're a threat!"

Have you heard about "evolving security enviroment"? Becouse that is not a meaningful "buzzword".
Also, by your definition, explicite it means it should disband becouse USSR is no more and it is seen as even more a tool of US geoplotics rather than real defense alliance for concerned Western European states.
Given the Euro-US divide in geostrategy and geopolicy making, NATO loses coherence and the same place it held two decades ago.
Also note that 3/4 of the NATO military power is made from US troops and basically without them there is very abysmal power projection.
But you have ommited the most important part of my post - creation of the perception regarding Russian actions as an irrational actor whitt simultanous rationalisation of the actions of North Korea.
 
Top Bottom