WAR 10-15-2016-to-10-21-2016_____****THE****WINDS****of****WAR****

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.voanews.com/a/turkish-wa...ilitia-targets-in-northern-syria/3559028.html

Middle East

Turkish Warplanes Strike Kurdish Militia Targets in Northern Syria

October 20, 2016 4:52 AM
VOA News

Turkey says its warplanes struck Syrian Kurdish militia targets in northern Syria, killing as many as 200 militia members.

Turkish media quoted military officials Thursday as saying the raids were carried out late Wednesday night on 18 targets in Maarrat Umm Hawsh, a region north of the city of Aleppo.

The airstrikes came ahead of a unilateral cease-fire by the Syrian army Thursday to allow civilians and rebels to leave the besieged eastern part of Aleppo.

The pause in fighting is supposed to continue until at least 7 p.m. local time, though The Syrian army has said it will last for three days.

As part of the truce, the Syrian army has opened up eight corridors civilians can use to safely exit the city. Two of those corridors have also been opened up to rebel fighters who wish to lay down their weapons and flee; one leading to Turkey and the other a pathway to the rebel-held province of Idlib.

The United Nations said Russia's extension of a truce in Aleppo is not enough time to allow humanitarian aid to be delivered to besieged civilians.

"Before we can do something really meaningful ... we need assurances from all parties," said U.N. humanitarian agency spokesman Jens Laerke. He said the United Nations needs fighting to stop for "a minimum of 48 hours" to allow UN humanitarian aid teams to mobilize.

The United Nations said about 250,000 civilians are in desperate need of supplies on Aleppo's eastern side and hundreds of others who urgently need of medical care also need to be evacuated.

U.N. and Red Cross trucks packed with supplies have been sitting near the Turkish border for weeks, awaiting guarantees the trucks can safely deliver relief supplies.
Syria and Russia halted airstrikes on Aleppo on Tuesday.

Syrian and Russians warplanes had been bombarding the area in an attempt to reclaim Aleppo from rebels.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.ibtimes.com/turkey-build...ogan-vows-fight-terrorism-home-abroad-2434085

U.S.
Oct 20, 4:47 AM EDT
World

Turkey Building New Ottoman Empire? Erdogan Vows To Fight Terrorism At Home And Abroad

By Tom O'Connor @Shaolintom On 10/19/16 AT 5:21 PM

Video: Clashes In Turkey As 28 Kurdish Mayors Lose Posts

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan recalled his nation’s Ottoman past in a speech Wednesday that warned his foreign enemies that Turkey would take a more proactive role in the region, despite being left out of the ongoing U.S.-backed assault against the Islamic State group in Mosul, Iraq.**

At the presidential palace in Ankara, Erdogan accused his nation’s adversaries of trying to make the Turkish people forget their “Ottoman and Selcuk history” and restricting the country’s ability to participate in international affairs.

"From now on we will not wait for problems to come knocking on our door, we will not wait until the blade is against our bone and skin, we will not wait for terrorist organizations to come and attack us," he told hundreds of "muhtars,"*local and mostly pro-government administrators.

Erdogan has expressed his frustration toward being excluded from the U.S.-led coalition currently working with Iraqi forces to liberate the ISIS stronghold of Mosul. The U.S. has forbid*Turkey from taking a role as a result of Erdogan's poor relation with the Iraqi government.

Turkish attacks on Kurdish militant positions in northern Iraq have enraged Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi. Erdogan and Abadi have also traded insults in the past over unwelcome Turkish presence in the military camp of Bashiqa, less than 15 miles from Mosul.

While Turkey continues to campaign for its involvement in the Mosul offensive, Washington has decided to leave it up to Abadi. Feeling betrayed by his NATO partner, Erdogan has strengthened his tone of speech in recent weeks and has decided to review its geopolitical position. It has recently even sought closer ties with a traditional foe, Russia.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan delivers a speech during 28th Mukhtars (local administrators) meeting at the Presidential Complex in Ankara on Oct. 19, 2016. Photo: Getty Images

*In Wednesday's speech, Erdogan specifically called out those supporting the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which Turkey deems a terrorist organization. The PKK has waged a three-year insurgency against the Turkish state in hopes of securing Kurdish autonomy. Turkey refuses to participate in operations with Kurdish forces and opposes their involvement in U.S.-led coalitions in Syria. Erdogan vowed to eliminate PKK militants and their supporters.*

Related Stories
Turkey Sacks 150 from NATO Posts After Coup Attempt
38 ISIS Fighters In Syria Killed, Turkey Says

“They will not have a single place to find peace abroad,” he said.

Erdogan’s firm stance is backed by an increase in popularity experienced after a failed coup attempt in July. The Turkish population overwhelmingly supported Erdogan during the uprising and the leader has ridden the wave of support since. A number of terrorist attacks at home have also inspired patriotic fervor. On Wednesday, a would-be suicide bomber was shot dead by security forces in Ankara.

The Ottoman Empire existed for over 600 years. It was founded in 1299 and at its height in 1683, it spanned over 2 million miles throughout Europe, Asia and Africa. By the mid-19th century, however, a number of military defeats and an economic decline prompted Tsar Nicholas I of Russia to famously label the shrunken entity “the sick man of Europe.”

With Turkish forces now expanding deeper into Syria and Iraq, two regions within the former Ottoman sphere of influence, Erdogan appears to be reiterating past territorial claims.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-kurds-idUSKCN12K0ER

World News | Thu Oct 20, 2016 | 4:00am EDT

Turkish jets strike U.S.-backed Kurdish militia in Syria

By Ece Toksabay and Angus McDowall | ISTANBUL/BEIRUT

Turkish jets pounded a U.S.-backed group of Kurdish-led militia fighters in northern Syria with more than 20 air strikes overnight, highlighting the conflicting agendas of the two NATO allies in an increasingly complex battlefield.

The jets targeted positions of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in three villages northeast of the city of Aleppo which the SDF had captured from Islamic State, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said late on Wednesday.

The Turkish military confirmed its warplanes had carried out 26 air strikes on areas recently taken by the Kurdish YPG militia, the strongest force in the SDF, and that it had killed between 160 and 200 fighters.

The British-based Observatory monitoring group reported a much lower toll of 11 dead and dozens wounded. Officials of the Kurdish-led administration that controls much of northeastern Syria said dozens had been killed.

The United States has backed the Kurdish-led forces in their fight against Islamic State, infuriating Ankara, which sees the YPG as an extension of Kurdish PKK militants who have waged a three-decade insurgency in southeastern Turkey.

Turkey fears the YPG will try to connect three de facto autonomous Kurdish cantons that have emerged during the five-year war to create a Kurdish-run enclave in northern Syria, stoking the separatist ambitions of Kurds on its own soil.

The air strikes, the heaviest against the YPG since Turkey launched a military incursion into Syria two months ago, came hours after President Tayyip Erdogan warned that Turkey could act alone in rooting out its enemies abroad.

They also came ahead of an expected visit by U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter to Ankara on Friday.

"From now on we will not wait for problems to come knocking on our door, we will not wait until the blade is against our bone and skin, we will not wait for terrorist organizations to come and attack us," Erdogan said in a speech on Wednesday.

The Observatory named the bombed villages as al-Hasiya, Um al-Qura and Um Hosh. They lie around 30 km (19 miles) west of al-Bab, the last big town held by Islamic State in northwest Syria.

Turkey, a main backer of the insurgency against President Bashar al-Assad, entered the Syrian conflict in August, using its armor and air power to help Free Syrian Army rebel groups take territory near the border held by Islamic State.

But its intervention also aimed to prevent the SDF from gaining more ground. The SDF has been moving eastwards towards al-Bab, a town that the Turkish-backed rebel forces also want to capture from Islamic State.

The Turkish military said its air strikes had destroyed nine buildings, one armored vehicle and four other vehicles that belonged to the YPG.

(Reporting by Angus McDowall in Beirut and Ece Toksabay in Istanbul; Writing by Nick Tattersall; Editing by Dominic Evans)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:dot5:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thediplomat.com/2016/10/india-quietly-commissions-deadliest-sub/

India Quietly Commissions Deadliest Sub

The first-ever indigenously built nuclear armed submarine was reportedly quietly commissioned in August.

By Franz-Stefan Gady
October 19, 2016

thediplomat_2015-10-14_15-37-00-386x168.jpg

http://thediplomat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/thediplomat_2015-10-14_15-37-00-386x168.jpg

The Indian Navy has commissioned the country’s first domestically*developed and built ballistic missile nuclear submarine (SSBN), the INS*Arihant,*in complete secrecy in August, according to local media reports. India’s Ministry of Defense has neither officially confirmed nor denied the commissioning of the sub.

“There will soon be an opportunity to talk about it,” GS Pabby, Indian Navy Vice-Admiral and Controller of Warship Production and Acquisition, told reporters this week. An unnamed defense official reportedly confirmed the commissioning to The Hindu. “It (INS Arihant) has gone through severe sea trials and was finally inducted in the Navy in August and has been operational since then,” he said.

With the commissioning of the Arihant, India has joined the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and China*in operating SSBNs. However, it is premature to call India a nuclear triad power just yet. The INS Arihant is primarily a technological demonstrator, based on the Russian Project 971*Akula I-class nuclear-powered attack submarines, rather than a fully operational SSBN. (It will also serve as a training platform for future submarine crews.)

Also, India has a nuclear warfare policy centered on a No First-Use (NFU) doctrine.*“As a result, New Delhi needs to field a credible second-strike capability. Yet, as of now, India keeps its nuclear warheads de-mated from the actual missiles. However, in order for the new sub class to fulfill its role as the sea leg of India’s nuclear triad, SLBMs with mounted nuclear warheads will need to be deployed on the boomers,” I explained in February.

The INS Arihant is slated to be armed with the K-4, an intermediate-range nuclear-capable*submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), currently being development by India’s Defense Research & Development Organization (DRDO). The K-4 has an estimated range of up to 3,500 kilometers. The sub will also be able to accommodate the K-15 Sagarika SLBM with a 700-750 kilometers range.

The sub has four vertical launch tubes, which can be armed with either four K-4 missiles or 12*—*three per launch tube*—*K-15 missiles. (Other possible weapon system to be fitted aboard the INS Arihant is the 1,000 km-range subsonic tactical cruise missile Nirbhay as well as the submarine-launched variant of the BrahMos short-range ramjet supersonic cruise missile.) The various missiles have undergone extensive trials including a number of test launches, as The Diplomat has reported in 2016 (See here and here).

The INS*Arihant will serve as a blueprint for India’s future fleet of four to five Arihant-class SSBNs to be built under the so-called Advanced Technology Vessel project. The ship building center at Vishakhapatnam is reportedly currently working on the second and third submarine of the class. The second Arihant-class SSBN, INS*Aridhaman, is expected to be commissioned in 2018. In comparison to the lead ship of the class, subsequent boats will be larger (e.g., they will boast eight rather than four launch tubes), operate a more powerful reactor, and feature a host*of other technical improvements.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://translate.google.com/transl...muggler-ein-a-1117269.html&edit-text=&act=url

Mission in the Mediterranean
Frogmen Bundeswehr shall chase IS-arms smugglers

The German Armed Forces armies against armistice in the Mediterranean: According to SPIEGEL ONLINE information, combat swimmers are to be deployed in front of the Libyan coast for the first time.

By Matthias Gebauer
Wednesday, 19/10/2016 13:57

The Bundeswehr is preparing for offensive operations against the "Islamic State" weapon smugglers in the Mediterranean. According to SPIEGEL ONLINE, the Ministry of Defense is sending a unit of combat swimmers to the Libyan coast for the first time. The elite fighters of the navy are supposed to approach under the EU's military "Sophia" under silently suspicious ships, who want to smuggle weapons for the IS to Libya, check the cargo and fix the crew when weapons are found.


A total of 30 soldiers of the combat swimmers will be transferred to the Mediterranean in the coming weeks. Like the elite soldiers of the commando special forces, they operate under the strictest secrecy. The Bundeswehr is thus obviously a tougher approach in the operation "Sophia" a.

So far, the EU mission, which consists of several warships, has exclusively observed the trafficking networks. Their findings are intended to reduce the number of refugee boats sent to the Mediterranean by smugglers. In addition, have the warships, including currently the German tender "Werra" and the frigate " Mecklenburg-Vorpommern ", already thousands of refugees rescued by their non-seaworthy boats and brought to safety.

The fight against the smugglers, however, was still in the background until today. According to EU figures, only 70 suspected persons have been assigned to the rescue of refugees and handed over to the Italian authorities. One reason for the small number of arrests is that the mission is limited to the sea area; None of the participating nations wants to carry out operations on the coast of Libya.

Controls of possible IS arms suppliers

In the coming months, however, the mission is now to be expanded step by step. On the one hand, the EU wants to proceed more militarily against the smuggling networks. In addition, inspections of suspicious ships are planned, the weapons of the "Islamic State" (IS) after Libya could bring. The combat swimmers of the Bundeswehr could also be used for this task.

The combat swimmers have been trained for years for noiseless access to the high seas. They usually use the water for camouflage: with small submarines, for example, they can submerge themselves under suspicious ships, water the engines, and then descend the ships. Your years of training is ultimately aimed at all types of close combat . To this end the combat swimmers also train with the American Navy Seals.

The naval soldiers of the Navy, stationed in Eckernförde, are the oldest special unit of the Bundeswehr. Frogmen drove already in the anti-piracy mission "Atalanta" against Somalia on German ships, there they came, but - at least officially - never used. About the use of special forces will Bundestag informed only after the event, on the information, however, the deputies must be silent.

Note: In an earlier version of this post, it was said that the combat swimmers should also target refugees in the Mediterranean in addition to arms smugglers. However, according to a reaction of the ministry to the article in the current operational plan of the Bundeswehr for the Mediterranean operation is not foreseen.

AFP
Answers to the most important questions about the "Islamic State"

More on SPIEGEL ONLINE
Training of combat swimmers: Soldier of the Bundeswehr (06.08.2012)
New Bundeswehr mission: government wants 650 soldiers for anti-terror mission send into the Mediterranean (09/13/2016)
Ceasefire in Syria: "A real, new opportunity" (09.10.2016)
Lifted ban on visiting Incirlik: Turkey sees conditions are met (09/08/2016)
more on the subject
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/show...rning-Into-a-Guerrilla-Army-Top-General-Warns

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-into-a-guerrilla-army-top-general-warns.html

NEXT PHASE

‘Islamic State’ Turning Into a Guerrilla Army, Top General Warns

Four days ago, the U.S. defense secretary was predicting a ‘lasting defeat’ of ISIS. Now, a top general is warning that the terror group is preparing for a guerrilla war.

Nancy A. Youssef
10.19.16 10:00 PM ET

The capital of the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Iraq is now under assault. But ISIS isn’t going anywhere. Instead, the terror group is beginning to rebrand itself from a “caliphate” to an insurgency, a top U.S. general fighting ISIS said Wednesday.

It’s much more than a change of name, or even a shift in tactics. It could well mean that there will be no “lasting defeat” of ISIS, even if it loses control of Iraq’s second-largest city, despite Secretary of Defense Ash Carter’s claim of such a victory just four days ago, when the Iraqi campaign for Mosul began. After two years of either training local forces to fight ISIS or hitting the terror group with airstrikes, U.S. officials said they believe it still could evolve into the kind of threat that has plagued Iraq since shortly after the 2003 U.S. invasion.

Fighting that insurgency cost as much as $2 trillion, according to one estimate, and the lives of nearly 5,000 American troops. At its peak, 170,000-plus forces were required to weaken that uprising. It would be the most bitter of ironies if, years later, Iraq once again devolved into a guerrilla war.

An ISIS insurgency could use its foreign fighters to threaten not only Iraq but the West as well. And it likely would fall to nascent Iraqi fighters, who just two years ago ditched their weapons and uniforms in Mosul, to repel ISIS and launch a counterinsurgency.

During a briefing with reporters, Army Maj. Gen. Gary Volesky, the commander of U.S.-led coalition ground forces in Iraq, said troops are seeing three- to five-man mortar teams launching intermittent small-arms fire in cities once controlled by ISIS, such as Fallujah and Ramadi.

“It’s not this organized insurgency that people think of,” Volesky said. But “we are seeing these indications… That’s what we are preparing the Iraqis for.”

Volesky warned that such attacks in liberated areas are one reason the U.S. is advising the Iraqi and Kurdish forces charged with liberating Mosul to move deliberately. Fast-moving forces can open themselves up to strikes from behind.

But can a jihadi movement that no longer has a “caliphate” successfully evolve into a potent insurgency? Or is this the U.S. firing a warning shot across the bow to Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi and his Shiite-dominated government not to ignore Iraq’s Sunni minorities? After all, such mistreatment helped fuel the rise of ISIS.

Either way, Volesky’s statement was the latest sign of a U.S.-led coalition’s confidence of the Islamic State’s demise—and its fear that, despite the loss of land, ISIS could still terrorize Iraq.

The warning came during what appears to be a steady push by Iraqi and Kurdish forces toward Mosul’s city center. On Wednesday, they continued advancing toward Mosul, amid reports of residents in villages leading up to the city celebrating ISIS’s defeat. Iraqi and Kurdish forces are now as far as 20 miles outside Mosul’s city center. The U.S. military has said the operation could last anywhere from weeks to months.

But that timetable could shift. In the last week, ISIS has lost a number of key cities in a matter of days. And in those battles, the group appears to be on the defensive before abandoning territory altogether. Most notably, ISIS lost the Syrian city of Dabiq on Saturday to Syrian opposition forces, backed by Turkey, after not much of a fight.

ISIS once declared it would fight to the death for that northern city. According to the group, citing an ancient prophecy, Dabiq would one day become the site of an apocalyptic battle between Christians and Muslims. After its defeat, ISIS said the promised apocalyptic battle would come at a later, unspecified date.

And residents in Raqqa, the terror group’s capital in Syria, have reportedly said ISIS families are pouring in from places like Dabiq and Mosul.

Moreover, there are certainly signs of regular insurgency attacks returning to Iraq. There are nearly daily bombings, usually targeting Shiite-dominated communities and Iraqi security forces. A series of attacks last week killed at least 55 people in Baghdad. And in July, at least 324 people died when a truck bomb struck a popular shopping area in central Baghdad, the deadliest attack since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. ISIS claimed responsibility for both attacks.

But after two years of brutal reign, ISIS may not be able to attract Sunnis to its insurgency. Not after the terror group that robbed their cities, beheaded their citizens, and made crimes of smoking, shaving, and playing music.

“ISIS is taking its resources and channeling it toward irregular warfare. But one of the problems ISIS has is that everyone understands what life under ISIS is like,” said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “ISIS has uniquely overplayed its hand.”

But there are alternatives. Al Qaeda, for example, has embraced local Sunnis, not terrorized them, allowing the group to return to areas and recruit members.
That said, ISIS would likely have more resources than most to support an insurgency. And like al Qaeda, it could rebrand itself.

And even as it has suffered major territorial losses in recent months, it still retains control of Raqqa, allowing the group a setting to regroup and potentially rebuild the caliphate. U.S. and Kurdish officials are reportedly discussing a potential plan to liberate the city, but it is unclear what incentive the Kurds have to fight a violent battle for the Arab-dominated city.

“As long as they still hold Raqqa, ISIS doesn’t need to abandon the caliphate,” one U.S. official explained to The Daily Beast.

And it is possible that ISIS, in taking credit for bombings, is exploiting the frustration of other groups seeking to upend the current Iraqi government.

“It’s entirely possible that you will see an insurgency in some of these areas that we think of an ISIS insurgency that is actually a Sunni insurgency,” Gartenstein-Ross explained.

Or just as likely, the U.S. military is wrong. After all, last year, U.S. commanders forecasted an ISIS expansion in Libya, which instead flailed.
 

Shacknasty Shagrat

Has No Life - Lives on TB
Thanks for paying attention to the real world rather than just a focus on the US mud wrestle.
At the debate,the bloody fighting between the Turks, our 'allies' that are armed by the US, and their enemies, the Kurds, our allies that are also armed by the US., should have been a topic, question or comment directed at the Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
We are paying both sides to shoot at each other.
And what is winning in this war, from our point of view?
And how long will it take to 'win'?
And what will is cost?
And how do we leave?
Her foreign policy is as ugly as the effigy of her with cloven hoofs.
SS
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Thanks for paying attention to the real world rather than just a focus on the US mud wrestle.
At the debate,the bloody fighting between the Turks, our 'allies' that are armed by the US, and their enemies, the Kurds, our allies that are also armed by the US., should have been a topic, question or comment directed at the Former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
We are paying both sides to shoot at each other.
And what is winning in this war, from our point of view?
And how long will it take to 'win'?
And what will is cost?
And how do we leave?
Her foreign policy is as ugly as the effigy of her with cloven hoofs.
SS

You're welcome SS...To be fair I'm just trying to keep my head from exploding over all of this crap. This stuff at least I understand. How we got to this level of the political basement and the resulting run to the Election makes looking at a train wreck seem to be a meditation exercise.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1683130-hypersonic-weapons-is-china-ahead-of-the-us

Share & Embed

US vs China: Is China In Front of the US in Developing Hypersonic Weapons?

Kris Osborn
07/01/2016

The US wants to say in front of China with hypersonic weapons able to travel at five-times the speed of sound and destroy targets with a "kinetic energy" warhead.

The Air Force will likely have high-speed, long-range and deadly hypersonic weapons by the 2020s, providing kinetic energy destructive power able to travel thousands of miles toward enemy targets at five-times the speed of sound.

“Air speed makes them much more survivable and hard to shoot down. If you can put enough fuel in them that gets them a good long range. You are going roughly a mile a second so if you put in 1,000 seconds of fuel you can go 1,000 miles - so that gives you lots of standoff capability,” Air Force Chief Scientist Greg Zacharias told Scout Warrior in an interview. *

While much progress has been made by Air Force and Pentagon scientists thus far, much work needs to be done before hypersonic air vehicles and weapons are technologically ready to be operational in combat circumstances.

“Right now we are focusing on technology maturation so all the bits and pieces, guidance, navigation control, material science, munitions, heat transfer and all that stuff,” Zacharias added.

Zacharias explained that, based upon the current trajectory, the Air Force will likely have some initial hypersonic weapons ready by sometime in the 2020s. A bit further away in the 2030s, the service could have a hypersonic drone or ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance) vehicle.

“I don’t yet know if this is envisioned to be survivable or returnable. It may be one way,” Zacharias explained.

A super high-speed drone or ISR platform would better enable air vehicles to rapidly enter and exit enemy territory and send back relevant imagery without being detected by enemy radar or shot down.*

By the 2040s, however, the Air Force could very well have a hypersonic “strike” ISR platform able to both conduct surveillance and delivery weapons, he added.

A weapon traveling at hypersonic speeds, naturally, would better enable offensive missile strikes to destroy targets such and enemy ships, buildings, air defenses and even drones and fixed-wing or rotary aircraft depending upon the guidance technology available.

A key component of this is the fact that weapons traveling at hypersonic speeds would present serious complications for targets hoping to defend against them – they would have only seconds with which to respond or defend against an approaching or incoming attack.

Hypersonic weapons will quite likely be engineered as “kinetic energy” strike weapons, meaning they will not use explosives but rather rely upon sheer speed and the force of impact to destroy targets.

“They have great kinetic energy to get through hardened targets. You could trade off smaller munitions loads for higher kinetic energy. It is really basically the speed and the range. Mach 5 is five times the speed of sound,” he explained.

The speed of sound can vary, depending upon the altitude; at the ground level it is roughly 1,100 feet per second. Accordingly, if a weapon is engineered with 2,000 seconds worth of fuel – it can travel up to 2,000 miles to a target.

“If you can get control at a low level and hold onto Mach 5, you can do pretty long ranges,” Zacharias said.

Although potential defensive uses for hypersonic weapons, interceptors or vehicles are by no means beyond the realm of consideration, the principle effort at the moment is to engineer offensive weapons able to quickly destroy enemy targets at great distances.

Some hypersonic vehicles could be developed with what Zacharias called “boost glide” technology, meaning they fire up into the sky above the earth’s atmosphere and then utilize the speed of decent to strike targets as a re-entry vehicle.

For instance, Zacharias cited the 1950s-era experimental boost-glide vehicle called the X-15 which aimed to fire 67-miles up into the sky before returning to earth.

China’s Hypersonic Weapons Tests

Zacharias did respond to recent news about China’s claimed test of a hypersonic weapon, a development which caused concern among Pentagon leaders and threat analysts.

While some Pentagon officials have said the Chinese have made progress with effort to develop hypersonic weapons, Zacharias emphasized that much of the details regarding this effort were classified and therefore not publically available.

Nevertheless, should China possess long-range, high-speed hypersonic weapons – it could dramatically impact circumstances known in Pentagon circles and anti-access/area denial.

This phenomenon, referred to at A2/AD, involves instances wherein potential adversaries use long-range sensors and precision weaponry to deny the U.S. any ability to operate in the vicinity of some strategically significant areas such as closer to an enemy coastline. Hypersonic weapons could hold slower-moving Navy aircraft carriers at much greater risk, for example.

An April 27th report in the Washington Free Beach citing Pentagon officials stating that China successfully tested a new high-speed maneuvering warhead.

“The test of the developmental DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicle was monitored after launch Friday atop a ballistic missile fired from the Wuzhai missile launch center in central China, said officials familiar with reports of the test,” the report from the Washington Free Beacon said. “The maneuvering glider, traveling at several thousand miles per*hour, was tracked by satellites as it flew west along the edge of the atmosphere to an impact area in the western part of the country.”

X-51 Waverider

Scientists with the Air Force Research Laboratory and the Pentagon's research arm are working to build a new hypersonic air vehicle that can travel at speeds up to Mach 5 while carrying guidance systems and other materials.

Air Force senior officials have said the service wants to build upon the successful hypersonic flight test of the*X-51*Waverider 60,000 feet above the Pacific Ocean in May of 2013.

The Air Force and DARPA, the Pentagon's research entity, plan to have a new and improved hypersonic air vehicle*by 2023.

The X-51*was really a proof of concept test designed to demonstrate that a scram jet engine could launch off an aircraft and go hypersonic.

The scramjet was able to go more than Mach 5 until it ran out of fuel. It was a very successful test of an airborne hypersonic weapons system, Air Force officials said.

The successful test was particularly welcome news for Air Force developers because the X-51 Waverider had previously had some failed tests.

The 2013 test flight, which wound up being the longest air-breathing hypersonic flight ever, wrapped up a $300 million technology demonstration program beginning in 2004, Air Force officials said.

A B-52H Stratofortress carried the*X-51A on its wing before it was released at 50,000 feet and accelerated up to Mach 4.8 in 26 seconds. As the scramjet climbed to 60,000 feet it accelerated to Mach 5.1.

The*X-51*was also able to send back data before crashing into the ocean -- the kind of information now being used by scientists to engineer a more complete hypersonic vehicle.

"After exhausting its 240-second fuel supply, the vehicle continued to send back telemetry data until it splashed down into the ocean and was destroyed as designed," according to an Air Force statement. "At impact, 370 seconds of data were collected from the experiment."

This Air Force the next-generation effort is not merely aimed at creating another scramjet but rather engineering a much more comprehensive hypersonic air vehicle, service scientists have explained.

Hypersonic flight requires technology designed to enable materials that can operate at the very high temperatures created by hypersonic speeds. They need guidance systems able to function as those speeds as well, Air Force officials have said.

The new air vehicle effort will progress alongside an Air Force hypersonic weapons program. While today's cruise missiles travel at speeds up to 600 miles per hour, hypersonic weapons will be able to reach speeds of Mach 5 to Mach 10, Air Force officials said.

The new air vehicle could be used to transport sensors, equipment or weaponry in the future, depending upon how the technology develops.

Also, Pentagon officials have said that hypersonic aircraft are expected to be much less expensive than traditional turbine engines because they require fewer parts.

For example, senior Air Force officials have said that hypersonic flight could speed up a five- hour flight from New York to Los Angeles to about 30 minutes. That being said, the speed of acceleration required for hypersonic flight may preclude or at least challenge the scientific possibility of humans being able to travel at that speed – a question that has yet to be fully determined.

-----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column/private-sector/future-hypersonic-weapons-1091

The Future of Hypersonic Weapons
October 20, 2016 | Daniel M. Norton

Daniel M. Norton
Senior Management Systems Analyst, RAND Corporation

Over the next few years, the Defense Advanced Research Projects*Agency*(DARPA) plans to demonstrate two air-launched hypersonic weapons (HSW) concepts; the*Turbo Boost Glide*and the*Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapons*Concept. These systems, though not weapons themselves, should generate a great deal of information on the operating conditions for weapon-sized air vehicles in hypersonic flight (Mach 5 to 10) at high altitudes, and, along with other government-funded research efforts, could pave the way for a weapons program in the next decade.
Other countries are also developing HSWs. Russia is developing the*Zircon, a ship-launched hypersonic anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) reportedly derived in part from the*Brahmos, a supersonic ASCM developed by Russia and India. It is also developing a ballistic missile-launched system with a hypersonic glide vehicle.

Russia*and China are developing ballistic missile launched HSWs. Russia recently launched a hypersonic glide vehicle on an SS-19 intercontinental ballistic missile.*China has tested the DF-ZF*(formerly the WU-14), a hypersonic glide vehicle that could be launched by ballistic missiles of various sizes, seven times since 2014.

The development of conventional hypersonic weapons offers opportunities and challenges for U.S. defense planners, particularly in potential major conflicts with adversaries possessing advanced air defenses. The introduction of air-launched HSWs could allow aircraft to target short-dwell mobile targets, such as surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems and ballistic and cruise missile launchers, from standoff range in ways that are ineffective with subsonic weapons due to their long time of flight. HSWs could also put at risk well-defended targets that are difficult to hit with subsonic weapons. The very high speed, high altitude flight profile, and maneuverability of HSWs could reduce threat engagement opportunities, increasing weapon survivability and effectiveness. Procuring HSWs could also force potential adversaries to develop new air defense systems or re-allocate existing ones to address this threat, possibly increasing the effectiveness of other air assets. Of course, other solutions are possible. Supersonic (Mach 1 to Mach 5) weapons could also be effective in attacking these targets and would also need to be considered.

The case for ballistic missile-launched HSWs, particularly those launched from the U.S. with intercontinental range, is less clear. Procuring such a system would provide a means of attacking targets throughout the world within 30 minutes from U.S. territory. However, such a launch could be misinterpreted as a nuclear-armed ICBM launch and thus could have substantial escalation risks. Further, ISR systems are likely to be needed in the theater to find many targets of interest. If ISR systems are available, strike aircraft could be as well. Strike aircraft could offer a less expensive, more tailorable, and more robust way of striking the target. Thus, while these weapons may have some utility, it is not clear they are cost-effective or outweigh their risks.

Even air-launched HSWs have important limitations. Achieving very high speeds and altitudes requires a great deal of energy and advanced materials. As a result, HSWs are likely to be much larger, heavier, and more expensive than subsonic weapons of similar payload and range. As such, they will never be competitive with current systems in attacking targets that both can effectively reach.

Although at this point a U.S. decision to procure HSWs would be premature, flight demonstrations and technology maturation efforts could pave the way for the development of a new weapon system.

Regardless of whether the U.S. procures HSWs, it may be compelled to develop ways to defend against them. Defeating the Zircon system could require attacks on multiple steps in the adversary effects chain. This could include destroying or dazzling Russian intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems to prevent them from finding Navy ships; jamming communications links between ISR systems and HSW-equipped surface ships; and attacking those ships. Efforts to deceive or blind the missile seeker and destroy the missile itself may also be necessary. The Navy has employed systems designed to defeat supersonic anti-ship missiles for decades. These kinds of systems would have to be extended to address the threat posed by Zircon.

The introduction of Russian and Chinese ballistic-missile launched HSWs could present a much broader set of challenges, since they could conceivably be used against multiple surface targets. Chinese HSWs will be more expensive than comparable subsonic cruise missiles and thus may be reserved for high-value, well-defended targets, such as ships and critical infrastructure.

Addressing this threat could also require attacks on multiple stages of the adversary’s effects chain. The fact that these weapons could be launched from mobile ground systems, which have proven very difficult to find and attack in previous conflicts, only adds to the challenge. Upgrades to air defense systems, such as theater air and missile defense systems, may also be needed.

It may not be possible to intercept every missile. The attacker chooses the timing and number of missiles used to attack each target. The defender must allocate defenses prior to the attack and thus those defenses may be overwhelmed in specific locations. Mitigation steps, such as hardening some critical facilities and building backups for others, could make operations more robust in the face of attacks.

Although the United States, Russia, and China are all developing hypersonic systems, and Russia and China appear to be developing hypersonic weapons, it would be a mistake to view this as an arms race. The United States should make decisions on whether to develop and procure HSWs based on their potential contributions in future conflicts, regardless of the course of action taken by others. Similarly, defense planners will have to address the threat posed by Russian and Chinese HSWs if those systems become operational, independent of whether the United States decides to procure its own HSWs.

Hypersonic Weapons
United States
Russia
China
missile defense

The Author is Daniel M. Norton
Daniel Norton is a senior management systems analyst with 27 years of experience in analyzing mobility, modernization, and strategic planning issues for the U.S. Army and Air Force. He began his career analyzing the performance of next-generation armored and mechanized vehicles using high-resolution ground-combat simulations. He then shifted his focus to improving the strategic mobility of Army units. He later analyzed force sizing and airfield suitability issues in the Next-Generation Gunship...

Read More
Learn more about The Cipher's Network here

Related Articles

The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons
Will Edwards and Luke Penn-Hall

-----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/spaceplanes-high-frontier/

Spaceplanes on the high frontier

19 Oct 2016|Malcolm Davis

A transformation in military space capabilities is occurring hundreds of kilometres above the Earth’s surface as the US Air Force X-37B Space Plane logs over 500 days in orbit in its latest mission. The unmanned X-37B Space Plane is designed for long-endurance missions that are highly classified. It’s officially referred to as the ‘Orbital Test Vehicle’, and is described as a platform for testing ‘reusable spacecraft technologies for America’s future in space and operating experiments which can be returned to, and examined, on Earth.’ A total of four missions have been flown since April 2010, with the fourth in progress since 20th May 2015. It’s designed to be launched on an expendable Atlas V booster, and there are currently two operational X-37Bs in the USAF’s inventory.

The current mission is testing a new type of ion-engine called a ‘Hall-effect thruster’. It was the Hall thrusters on the first USAF Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) satellite that saved the satellite when a rocket motor failed to raise it to the correct orbit. Hall thrusters provide higher thrust than traditional ion propulsion, with sustained thrust allowing a spacecraft to reach about 50km per second—much faster than even NASA’s Voyager 1 space probe now travelling out of the solar system at mere 17km per second. For satellites they provide a much more cost effective way of remaining in the right location within an orbit.

The laws of orbital dynamics and the fact that rockets use fuel at an alarming rate means satellites and spacecraft are not manoeuvrable like fighter aircraft within Earth’s atmosphere. Minimising fuel use also demands the use of Hohmann transfer trajectories to move between orbits, reducing their orbital agility even further. Rocket engines and the need to carry large amounts of fuel adds mass and complexity to spacecraft design, blowing out cost and extending development time. Once the rocket fuel is used up, the spacecraft or satellite is useless.

The X-37B potentially changes this situation, as not only can the spacecraft be recovered and reused, but it uses a small amount of Xenon gas that is far lighter than traditional rocket fuel like hydrazine, though it has a high storage density to allow greater useful fuel. Manoeuvring with Hall thrusters is slow compared to rockets (even though prolonged acceleration over time produces much higher velocities), but far more cost effective in terms of fuel. So the X-37B can stay up longer, manoeuvre at far lower cost in terms of fuel than a similar vehicle with traditional rockets, and enjoy a greater ability to manoeuvre within and between orbits. This flexibility would allow it to do more in space, including close surveillance of an adversary’s satellites in orbit, both in terms of optical imaging, and electronic intelligence and signals intelligence gathering. It can also fill a gap if satellites are badly positioned to respond to short notice events like a nuclear test in North Korea. The X-37B suggests a new generation of space capabilities beyond traditional satellites.

The Obama administration’s space policy eschews the weapons in space option. It instead emphasises efforts towards ensuring space resilience and Space Situational Awareness (SSA) as a key aspects of space policy to deter adversary counter-space threats like anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons. Reconstitution of space capabilities after an adversary ASAT attack is also an essential aspect of space resilience, and DARPA is developing a vehicle similar to the X-37B, the XS-1 Spaceplane, which is designed to launch payloads at low cost in a responsive manner. Matching this responsive space launch capability with low-cost Cubesats means the US can rapidly replace lost capability after an attack. Furthermore an ability to temporarily operate in a degraded space environment may also mitigate the effects of losing access to space capabilities. Yet the X-37B would give the next Administration an option to quickly develop a very advanced ASAT capability if it were needed. That’s going to be an important issue for the next occupant of the White House to consider, given that both Russia and China are continuing to ignore US efforts to prevent the weaponisation of space, and are developing a broad range of ASAT capabilities that will allow them to threaten the vital satellites depended upon bythe US and its allies. SSA only permits the monitoring of space activities, and real space resilience may need to include defending critical high-end satellites such as missile early warning, GPS or strategic communications satellites. An expanded X-37B capability may be an answer to defending these vital assets through providing close-in escorting capabilities that can respond to an approaching threat before it can close within range of its target. For the US to take a step towards the weaponisation of space is a policy dilemma for Washington and has implications on space security, both of which will considered in a subsequent article.

Author
Malcolm Davis is a senior analyst at ASPI.*Image courtesy of Flickr user US Air Force.
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-oil-idUSKCN12L0FU

World News | Fri Oct 21, 2016 | 2:47am EDT

Iraq declares curfew in oil city under Islamic State attack

Suspected Islamic State militants attacked several buildings and a power station in the northern Iraqi oil city of Kirkuk in the early hours of Friday, killing eight people, and some of the attackers remained holed up in a mosque and a hotel, security sources said.

Six members of the security forces were killed along with two Iranians who were part of a team carrying out maintenance in a power station outside the city, according to a hospital source.

At least eight militants were also killed, either by blowing themselves up or in clashes with the security forces, the security sources said. Kurdish forces had dislodged the militants from all the buildings they had seized except a hotel and a mosque, where fighting continued.

Residents in the city said they had been hearing explosions since 1 a.m. (Thursday 2300 GMT).

Islamic State claimed the attacks in online statements, and authorities declared a curfew in the city.

Crude oil production facilities were not targeted and the power supply continued uninterrupted in the city, they said.

Kurdish Peshmerga fighters took control of Kirkuk in 2014, after the Iraqi army withdrew from the region, fleeing an Islamic State advance through northern and western Iraq.

The attacks in Kirkuk came four days after Kurdish and Iraqi forces started an offensive with the backing of a U.S.-led coalition to take back Mosul, the jihadist militia's last major city stronghold in Iraq.

The hardline group also controls part of Syria.

(Reporting by Maher Chmaytelli; Editing by Kevin Liffey)

-----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-turkey-idUSKCN12L0HR

World News | Fri Oct 21, 2016 | 2:02am EDT

Pentagon chief to stress Iraq sovereignty in Turkey talks

By Phil Stewart | ANKARA

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said he would stress the need to respect Iraq's sovereignty during a visit on Friday to Turkey, which has been locked in a dispute with Baghdad over who should participate in the campaign to retake Mosul from Islamic State.

Carter, acknowledging it was a delicate issue, declined to explicitly say whether he thought Turkey should be allowed toparticipate in the operations in Iraq. Washington in the past has deferred that matter to Baghdad.

"Of course we'll talk about that. And yes, of course there are sensitivities there. We conduct ourselves, and the coalition does, respecting Iraqi sovereignty. That's an important principle of ours," Carter said.

Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has been frustrated that NATO member Turkey has not been more involved in the U.S.-backed assault on Mosul and angered by Washington's support for Kurdish militia fighters battling Islamic State in Syria.

Asked about Turkish air strikes that pounded a group of Kurdish fighters allied to a U.S.-backed militia in northernSyria, Carter said he was not certain about what precisely transpired.

"I can’t clarify that now," he said.

A U.S. defense official said on Thursday the specific groups struck by Turkish jets were not themselves U.S.-backed, but were "close to and friendly with" the fighters Washington is working with.

Ankara has been in a row with Iraq over the presence of Turkish troops at the Bashiqa camp near Mosul, as well as over who should take part in the offensive in the largely Sunni Muslim city of Mosul, once part of the Ottoman empire and still seen by Turkey as firmly within its sphere of influence.

Erdogan has warned of sectarian bloodshed if the Iraqi army relies on Shi'ite militia fighters.

A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, acknowledged Turkey had legitimate security concerns in Iraq but added that Washington had been clear that "no military should be operating in areas (of Iraq) where they aren't invited expressly."

"We have been working behind the scenes to get the Iraqis and the Turks to come to an understanding about how we're going to move forward on Mosul," the official said.

Carter steered clear of directly commenting on the matter ahead of his talks in Turkey. He acknowledged the United States was partnering with both Iraq and Turkey in the fight against Islamic State.

"These are two close friends of ours. In the case of Turkey, it's a NATO ally. And we want to keep everybody focused on the objective here, which is to defeat ISIL, because that is a threat to all three of us," Carter said.

(Editing by Nick Macfie)

-----

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-turkey-kurds-idUSKCN12L0M7

World News | Fri Oct 21, 2016 | 2:44am EDT

Turkish military says it killed 18 Kurdish militants in Iraq and southeast

The Turkish military said on Friday it had killed 12 Kurdish militants in southeast Turkey and another six in air strikes in northern Iraq, while also targeting their allied fighters in northern Syria.

Twelve of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) guerrillas were "neutralized" on Thursday in the Cukurca district of Hakkari province, near the Iraqi border, the army statement said.

In northern Iraq, the Turkish air strikes hit the Avashin Basyan region, killing six PKK fighters and destroying four targets on Thursday, it added.

In another statement on its operation to drive Islamic State and the Kurdish YPG militia away from the border in northern Syria, the army said it fired on 40 Islamic State and six YPG targets on Thursday, leaving them 'incapable of maneuver'.

On Wednesday night, Turkish air strikes pounded YPG fighters and allied fighters in northern Syria and the army said it killed between 160 and 200 combatants.

Syria's military called the strikes by Turkey there an act of "blatant aggression" and said it would bring down any Turkish war planes entering Syrian air space.

The United States has backed the YPG in its fight against Islamic State, infuriating Ankara, which sees the YPG as an extension of the PKK, which has waged a three-decade insurgency in southeastern Turkey.

President Tayyip Erdogan warned on Wednesday that Turkey could act alone in rooting out its enemies abroad.

More than 40,000 people, most of them Kurds, have been killed in Turkey's conflict with the PKK, which Ankara, the United States and European Union designate a terrorist organization.

(Reporting by Orhan Coskun; Writing by Daren Butler; Editing by Nick Tattersall)
 

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
:dot5:

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?sc=30800022&year=2016&no=736292

S. Korea, U.S. mulling deploying U.S. strategic weapons in or nearby Korea permanently

2016.10.21 14:25:58 | 2016.10.21 14:26:32

South Korea and the United States are considering the option of rotational stationary deployment of U.S. strategic military assets such as nuclear-capable bombers, aircrafts, and submarines in South Korea or nearby as part of joint efforts to reinforce deterrence against increasing North Korean nuclear threat.

The presence of strategic weapons in a show of force will not only send strong warning to North Korea but they could be effectively put to use if Pyongyang dares to use nuclear weapons, the defense ministry of Seoul said.

South Korean Defense Minister Han Min-koo and U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter issued a joint communiqué on the commitment in Thursday’s annual defense ministers’ talks, known as the Security Consultative Meeting (SCM) at the State Department in Washington, U.S, focused on forming extended deterrence strategy.

U.S. strategic weapons will be deployed in and near South Korea in a cycle of several months throughout the year. Those weapons staying in, on and off South Korea will be kept in readiness even to launch a self-defending preemptive strike in case of emergency, according to sources.

Seoul’s Defense Minister official said the agreements including the study on strategic weapons deployment will be further discussed at “KIDD ad-hoc Consultation Mechanism” (KCM), a new crisis management dialogue to be set up soon between South Korea and the U.S. and the existing Deterrence Strategic Committee (DSC).

The strategic assets to be deployed on a permanent basis include military units and forces controlled by the United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM). Most of these assets are nuclear capable. U.S. Air Force’s B-1B, B-2 and B-52 long-range bombers or F-22 stealth fighter jets can be deployed. Nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and cruise-missile submarines are also mentioned as permanently deployed weapons.

South Korea and the U.S, also agreed to strengthen cooperation between naval forces of the two countries to counter North Korean sea threats such as a submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM). The allies will expand the scope and execution of the ROK-U.S. naval training events, including combined ballistic missile defense and anti-submarine exercises.

By Lee Jin-myung and Ahn Doo-won
 
Top