FLYING AIRCRAFT CARIERS IN THE ARCTIC: Russia is engaged in an aggressive one-sided arms race in the Arctic which is being IGNORED by NATO, warns report as relations with the West continue to frost
- The true scale of Russia's Arctic militarisation has been revealed in a new study
- Despite the UK warning NATO to interview, Russia is continuing its expansion
- Russia has established a new military district in the Arctic and expanded forces
- The country even launched a rocket with a satellite on board earlier this year
Russia has been expanding its military activities in the Arctic by establishing a military district, increasing training, and creating new brigades in the area, a new report reveals.
The true scale of Russia's Arctic militarization since 2014 has been revealed in a paper from The Henry Jackson Society's Russia Studies Centre.
Despite the UK urgently requesting NATO to intervene and warning of a possible second Cold War, Russia is continuing to militarise and exploit the region's natural resources.
Despite the UK urgently requesting NATO to intervene and warning of a possible second Cold War, Russia is expanding in the Arctic and exploiting the region’s natural resources. Russia unveiled a new Arctic military base (pictured) capable of housing 150 troops as well as nuclear-ready warplanes earlier this year
The triangular complex, painted in the red, white and blue of the Russia's tricolor flag, has been built in remote Alexandra Land in the Franz Josef Archipelago
Russia's President Vladimir Putin (centre) visited the Nagurskoye military airfield on Alexandra Land Island in late March
James Gray MP, member of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee said that NATO can 'no longer ignore' the Arctic operations.
'We can no longer ignore Russia's growing military footprint in the Arctic,' he said. 'As the ice melts and new commercial opportunities emerge in the region, Britain and her allies must do more to ensure that the Arctic remains stable and peaceful.'
The new study has revealed that Russia has established a new military district called the Arctic Joint Strategic Command to coordinate activity in the area.
New Arctic brigades and an icebreaker fleet have been launched, while Russia has also re-opened Soviet-era bases.Military exercises have been increasing since 2014, with a snap exercise called in March 2015, where 38,000 ground troops were mobilised, and 110 aircraft, 41 warships, and 15 submarines took part.
In April, Russia unveiled a new Arctic military base capable of housing 150 troops as well as nuclear-ready warplanes.
The triangular complex, painted in the red, white and blue of the Russia's tricolor flag, has been built in remote Alexandra Land in the Franz Josef Archipelago.
The five-storey complex, named Nagursky by Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, is on the extreme north of Russia's Arctic frontier.
Russia launched a modified version of its Soyuz rocket, with a mysterious satellite on board earlier this year
The rocket lifted off from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome on the edge of the Russian Arctic in June
Russian servicemen in white outfits guard an area at the Nagurskoye military base in Alexandra Land. Moscow is also starting to build nuclear icebreakers as it vies for dominance in the polar region with traditional rivals Canada, the United States, and Norway as well as newcomer China
It will hold 150 troops able to survive autonomously in subzero conditions for 18 months.
Officials have said they may deploy military jets there. MiG-31 fighters, designed to shoot down long-range bombers, or the SU-34, a frontline bomber are seen as options, it has been reported.
According to the Moscow Times, it also comes complete with a cinema, table tennis and billiards rooms while a military art studio is also planned.
In June, Russia launched a modified version of its Soyuz rocket, with a mysterious satellite on board.
The rocket lifted off from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome on the edge of the Russian Arctic
While the satellite's mission remains unknown, rumours suggest it may be used to take accurate measurements of the Earth's shape and gravity to guide ballistic missiles.
The report says that Russia has restored aerodromes in the region, cluding the Rogachyovo airfield on Novaya Zemlya, and airfields in Tiksi, Vorkuta, Alykel, and Anadyr.
The launch of the Arctic military base earlier this year was Russia's largest Arctic military push since the fall of the Soviet Union and as Moscow moves to lay claim to the region's huge oil and gas reserves - believe to be worth as much as £23trillion.
Earlier this year it was reported that Moscow is starting to build nuclear icebreakers as it vies for dominance in the polar region with traditional rivals Canada, the United States, and Norway as well as newcomer China.
The military outpost was built as Russia continued to flex its muscles in the Arctic which is believed to hold billions of barrels of oil
Officials have said they may deploy military jets at the outpost. MiG-31 fighters, designed to shoot down long-range bombers, or the SU-34, are seen as options
Meanwhile, NATO has been aware of Russia's expansions in the Arctic for several years.
'NATO has long overlooked the Arctic; its most recent Strategic Concept, published in 2010, does not even contain the word 'Arctic'. This should change,' the report says.
It adds: 'The alliance should adopt an Arctic strategy and thereby ensure that there is a common understanding of the region's security challenges as well as a comprehensive policy to address them.'
The report also encourages Russia to return to the Arctic Security Forces Roundtable.
The report says: 'Held annually since 2011, the ASFR gathers delegates from the eight Arctic states as well as from France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. Derailed by the Ukraine crisis, Russia has not attended meetings since 2013.
'The ASFR provides an important forum in which 'soft' security questions are discussed and, as such, Russia should be invited to resume participation.
'This would not only represent an attempt to minimise future disagreement and conflict, but would – if accepted by Moscow – provide a means of establishing Russia's regional intentions.'
Dr Andrew Foxall, Director of the Russian Studies Centre at The Henry Jackson Society, and author of the report said: 'Over the last decade Russia has expanded its military capacities and capabilities in the Arctic on a scale far greater in depth and scope than anything the West has done in the same period.
Russian President Vladimir Putin inspects the navy corvette Sovershenny during the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, Russia, on Wednesday
'Russia's national interests in the Arctic explain certain activities, but not all them, some of which make it appear that Russia is engaged in a one-sided arms race in the region.
'There is little the UK can do to prevent Russia's activities per se, but a more sophisticated assessment of these activities and their implications would aid the development of more effective policies.'
The expansion has far-reaching financial and geopolitical ramifications. The Arctic is estimated to hold more hydrocarbon reserves than Saudi Arabia - and Moscow is putting down a serious military marker.
Under President Vladimir Putin, Moscow is rushing to re-open abandoned Soviet military, air and radar bases on remote Arctic islands and to build new ones, as it pushes ahead with a claim to almost half a million square miles of the Arctic.
The Arctic, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates, holds oil and gas reserves equivalent to 412 billion barrels of oil, about 22 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas.
Low oil prices and Western sanctions imposed over Moscow's actions in Ukraine mean new offshore Arctic projects have for now been mothballed, but the Kremlin is playing a longer game.
It is building three nuclear icebreakers, including the world's largest, to bolster its fleet of around 40 breakers, six of which are nuclear. No other country has a nuclear breaker fleet, used to clear channels for military and civilian ships.
Russia's Northern Fleet, based near Murmansk in the Kola Bay's icy waters, is also due to get its own icebreaker, its first, and two ice-capable corvettes armed with cruise missiles.
As the oil wells run dry, the planet's last great energy reserves lie miles beneath the North Pole. And as the U.S. and Russia race to grab them at any cost, the stage is set for a devastating new cold war
In the years ahead from the Middle East to Nigeria, the world is convulsed by a series of conflicts over dwindling energy supplies. The last untapped reserves of oil and gas lie in the most extreme environment on the planet - the North Pole - where an estimated bonanza of 100 billion barrels are buried deep beneath the Arctic seabed.
The ownership of this hostile no-man's-land is contested by Russia, Denmark, Norway, the U.S and Canada. And, in an increasingly desperate battle for resources, each begins to back up its claim with force.
Soon, the iceberg-strewn waters of the Arctic are patrolled by fleets of warships, jostling for position in a game of brinkmanship. Russia's Northern Fleet, headed by the colossal but ageing guided missile cruiser Pyotr Velikiy (Peter The Great), and the U.S. Second Fleet, sailing out of Norfolk, Virginia, are armed with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles - and controlled by leaders who are increasingly willing to use them.
For now, such a scenario is pure fiction. But it may not be for long. Only recently, respected British think-tank Jane's Review warned that a polar war could be a reality within 12 years. And the Russians are already taking the race for the North Pole's oil wealth deadly seriously.
Indeed, the Kremlin will spend tens of millions upgrading Russia's Northern Fleet over the next eight years. And its Atomic Energy Agency has already begun building a fleet of floating nuclear power stations to power undersea drilling for the Arctic's vast oil and gas reserves. A prototype is under construction at the SevMash shipyard in Severodvinsk.
The prospect of an undersea Klondike near the North Pole, powered by floating nuclear plants, has environmentalists deeply worried - not least because Russia has such a dismal record on nuclear safety and the disposal of radioactive waste.
THIRTY FLYING AIRCRAFT CARRIERS ABOUT THE COST OF ONE USS GERALD FORD made of WOOD CAN DOMINATE THE ARCTIC: Scientists are using trees to develop materials that are 5 TIMES tougher than steel
- Cellulose nanofibres could become an alternative to steel in cars and planes
- It is made by breaking down the fibres from wood pulp chips into tiny strands
- The material weighs just one fifth of steel and is up to five times stronger
- It can also be combined with plastics to slash the cost of production
The global push among carmakers to make ever lighter vehicles is leading some auto suppliers in Japan to turn to what seems like an unlikely substitute for steel - wood.
Researchers and auto component makers say a material made from wood pulp weighs just one fifth of steel and is up to five times stronger.
The material, cellulose nanofibres, could become a viable alternative to steel in the decades ahead and could also be used in aviation, they say.
Experts are currently developing a prototype car using cellulose nanofibre-based parts to be completed in 2020.
Scroll down for video
Researchers say a material made from wood pulp (pictured) weighs just one fifth of steel and can be five times stronger. The material, cellulose nanofibres, could become a viable alternative to steel in the decades ahead and could also be used in aviation, they say
They are made by breaking down wood pulp fibres into several hundredths of a micron (one thousandth of a millimetre).
Cellulose nanofibres have been used in a variety of products ranging from ink to transparent displays.
But their potential use in cars has been enabled by the 'Kyoto Process', under which chemically treated wood fibres are kneaded into plastics while simultaneously being broken down into nanofibres.
This slashes the cost of production to roughly one-fifth that of other processes.
Speaking to Reuters Kyoto University professor Hiroaki Yano, who is leading the research, said: 'This is the lowest-cost, highest-performance application for cellulose nanofibres, and that's why we're focusing on its use in auto and aircraft parts.
Dr Yano said he was inspired in his research by a photo of the Spruce Goose, a cargo plane made almost entirely of wood in 1947 by US billionaire entrepreneur Howard Hughes.
At the time, it was the world's largest aircraft.
'I thought that if Howard Hughes could find a way to use wood to build a massive plane, why not use wood to make a material that was as strong as steel,' he added.
The cost of mass producing a kilo (2.2 lbs) of cellulose nanofibre is currently around 1,000 yen ($9/£7).
Dr Yano aims to halve that cost by 2030, which he says will make it an economically viable product.
Cellulose nanofibres are made by breaking down wood pulp fibres into several hundredths of a micron (one thousandth of a millimetre). Kyoto University professor Hiroaki Yano (pictured) is leading the research
It would be combined with plastic and so competitive against high tensile steel and aluminium alloys, which currently cost around £1.50 ($2) per kg.
Industry experts anticipate that carbon fibre prices will fall to around £7.75 ($10) per kg by 2025.
Reducing the weight of a vehicle will be critical as manufacturers move to bring electric cars into the mainstream.
Batteries are an expensive but vital component, so a reduction in car weight will mean fewer batteries will be needed to power the vehicle, saving on costs.
But cellulose nanofibres will face competition from carbon-based materials and remains a long way from being commercially viable.
Masanori Matsushiro, a project manager overseeing body design at Toyota Motor Corp, said: 'Lightweighting is a constant issue for us.
Dr Yano said he was inspired in his research by a photo of the 'Spruce Goose' (pictured), a cargo plane made almost entirely of wood in 1947 by US billionaire entrepreneur Howard Hughes
'But we also have to resolve the issue of high manufacturing costs before we see an increased use of new, lighter-weight materials in mass-volume cars.'
Automakers are already using other lightweight substitutes.
BMW uses carbon fibre reinforced polymers (CFRPs) for its i3 compact electric car as well as for its 7 series.
High-tensile steel and aluminium alloys are currently the most widely used lightweight options because they are cheaper and recyclable.
Analysts say high-tensile steel and aluminium will be the more popular alternative for many years to come.
This is because parts makers would need to overhaul production lines and figure out ways to fasten new materials like cellulose nanofibre onto other car parts.
But Cellulose nanofibres could one become an industry standard.
Yukihiko Ishino, a spokesman at DaikyoNishikawa, which counts Toyota Motor Corp and Mazda Motor Corp among its customers, said: 'We've been using plastics as a replacement for steel, and we're hoping that cellulose nanofibres will widen the possibilities toward that goal.'
HOWARD HUGHES’ 800-TON SPRUCE GOOSE LABOUR OF LOVE THAT FLEW FOR JUST A MILE
Built with the 'sweat of his life' the H-4 Hercules was meant to be engineer Howard Hughes' crowning glory in his aviation career.
But the 'Spruce Goose' turned out to be a painstaking project which sucked up time, money and ultimately only flew once.
Contracted by the US government in 1942 to build a military transport plane to ship materials and equipment to Britain, the H-4 Hercules was dreamt up by Henry J. Kaiser, a leading Liberty ship builder.
Because of restrictions bon what materials could be used, the ship was primarily made from birch wood, but the nickname 'Spruce Goose' caught on
He asked aircraft designer Howard Hughes to produce what would become the largest aircraft built at that time.
The huge aircraft was designed to be capable of carrying 750 troops or one M4 Sherman tank.
However, because of restrictions by the government on what materials could be used, the ship was made from wood - it was primarily made from birch wood, but the nickname 'Spruce Goose' caught on.
Although the billionaire's life ambition was to be known for his contribution to aviation, the Spruce Goose meant he was remembered for all the wrong reasons.
The 800-ton, 210-foot-long flying boat with an eight story-tall tail section, finally flew over the water and vindicated Hughes
The ship took so long to build that it was only finished after World War II ended in 1947. In fact, the ship was so big it was a miracle that the plane even managed to take off.
Completed, it was the largest flying machine ever built, and its wingspan of 320 feet remains the largest in history.
It was a colossal construction, measuring 220 feet long, 25 feet high and 30 feet wide.
The huge aircraft compared with other mammoth-sized aircrafts shows the sheer size of the H-4 Hercules
But by then Kaiser had withdrawn from the project, frustrated at the slow pace of construction.
Hughes had ploughed on, signing a new government contract to only create one example.
Then, on November 2, 1947, for a few minutes at least, Hughes was vindicated.
Joined by co-pilot Dave Grant and assorted engineers and mechanics, Hughes flew the monumental plane for about a mile, roughly 70 feet above Long Beach Harbour.
DARPA TAKE NOTE: ONE THOUSAND FLYING CARRIER SHIPS CAN COUNTERACT THE NAVIES OF RUSSIA, CHINA & IRAN WITH THE SAME BUDGET PROPOSED BY TRUMP'S 350 SHIPS
Strategy Behind China Joining Russia ‘on NATO Doorsteps’ in Baltic Sea
China’s decision to join Russia for joint naval exercises in the Baltic Sea, a first to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), may be linked to a military strategy pioneered by a famous Chinese marshal during World War II, experts told Sputnik.
MOSCOW (Sputnik), Tommy Yang — The first stage of the Russian-Chinese joint naval exercises in the Baltic Sea dubbed Joint Sea-2017 started on Friday and is expected to run until July 28, the Russian Defense Ministry said. The drills will involve nearly ten ships of different classes, over ten aircraft and helicopters of both Russian and Chinese naval forces.The Chinese naval fleet, taking part in the joint military exercises, includes the Hefei guided-missile destroyer, the Yuncheng frigate, the Luomahu comprehensive supply ship, ship-borne helicopters and marines.
Take it to the Enemy’s Heart
© PHOTO: MINISTRY OF DEFENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Friday’s joint naval drills marked the first time Chinese naval fleets entered the Baltic Sea as Beijing seeks to improve the PLA Navy’s capabilities in long-range missions.China’s decision to send its naval ships as far as to the Baltic Sea, which is the frontline of NATO expansion toward Russian borders, could have originated from a Chinese military strategy called “fanbian”, which was first introduced by a renowned Chinese military leader during World War II, military experts told Sputnik.
“As the United States continued its provocations in the South China Sea, China responded by joining Russia in naval drills on the doorsteps of NATO in the Baltic Sea. This is called the ‘fanbian’ strategy used by Chinese Marshal Luo Ronghuan during the Second World War,” Ni Lexiong, a military expert at the University of Politics and Law in Shanghai, told Sputnik.
During World War II, Chinese troops led by Luo were under siege from Japanese forces from almost all sides in eastern China’s Shandong province. Instead of fighting head on against the enemy forces, which outnumbered his troops by more than 10 times, Luo decided to attack a neighboring town behind enemy lines that was not well guarded to create a diversion. The surprise attack allowed Luo’s troops of about 3,000 soldiers to pull out to safety without severe casualties. Luo described this military strategy as “fanbian,” which literally means “change sides” in Chinese.The Shanghai-based military expert believes China employed the same strategy by sending its naval ships to the Baltic Sea as a military diversion against pressure from the US Navy in the South China Sea. In May, US Warships sailed within 12 miles of disputed islands in South China Sea, where China continued to build up its military presence.
The current international conditions and common strategic interests also drove China and Russia closer to each other, Ni suggested.
“It’s like China and Russia have their backs against each other now. They need to lean on each other for support to deal with hostilities from different fronts,” he said, adding that the two countries are trying to “keep each other warm by sticking together.”
China’s Growing Maritime Interests
Historically, as a nation built around agriculture, China never had a strong navy, which was not critical to its prosperity. Attempts by emperors in the Ming Dynasty to build a strong Chinese naval fleet incurred heavy costs on the national budget and shortened the rule of the Ming emperors by almost 100 years, Ni argued.However, following more than 30 years of explosive economic growth, China’s maritime interests continued to expand, and the sea route through the Strait of Malacca is being viewed as a “lifeline” to the Chinese economy with over 80 percent of the nation’s crude oil imports from the Middle East and Africa having to go via this route.
As a result, Chinese leaders are determined to build a strong navy to safeguard China’s economic interests, Ni explained.
“Chinese President Xi Jinping, as a son of the revolutionists who founded the current regime, is very focused on upgrading China’s military. I believe the PLA Navy can catch up or even surpass the US Navy in 10-20 years,” he said.
Global Presence of Chinese Navy
As the capabilities of the PLA Navy continue to improve, the world is expected to see increased presence of Chinese naval fleets, experts told Sputnik.
“China is building a ‘blue-water’ navy capable of long-range missions. In the future, I believe Chinese naval fleets will frequently appear in the north Atlantic, entering the key regions for Western countries in Europe and America,” Guo Peiqing, executive director of the Institute of Polar Law and Policy at the Ocean University of China, told Sputnik.
Analysts suggested China is sending a strong message globally by conducting the naval exercises in the Baltic Sea.“Conducting the exercise in the Baltic allows China to send other messages that it is a global power. It is capable of doing the same things in European waters which European powers such as the United Kingdom and France do in the Asia-Pacific,” James Goldrick, a non-resident fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy who served in the Royal Australian Navy for almost 40 years before retiring in 2012, told Sputnik.
Earlier this month, China established its first overseas naval base in Djibouti, a country on the Horn of Africa around the Gulf of Aden.
The Australian expert pointed out that, while China remains in many ways well behind the US Navy in overall capability and behind the Russian Navy in many warfare areas, it is advancing rapidly and the scale of its operations is increasing steadily.
Goldrick argued the PLA Navy’s effective capability to conduct extended deployments is now greater than the resource-constrained Russian Navy, adding that it is likely to become more obvious in the next few years, particularly after the first Chinese-built aircraft carrier becomes fully operational.
President Donald J. Trump chose the deck of the newest U.S. aircraft carrier, the $13 billion USS Gerald R. Ford, for a speech extolling his planned boost in military spending.
Trump vowed that the newest generation of "Ford Class" carriers - the most expensive warships ever built - will remain the centerpiece of projecting American power abroad.
"We're going to soon have more coming," Trump told an enthusiastic audience of sailors, declaring the new carriers so big and solidly built that they were immune to attack.
Trump vowed to expand the number of carriers the United States fields from 10 to 12. And he promised to bring down the cost of building three "super-carriers," which has ballooned by a third over the last decade from $27 to $36 billion.
The Gerald R. Ford alone is $2.5 billion over budget and three years behind schedule, military officials say. The second Ford-class carrier, the John F. Kennedy, is running five years late.
Trump's expansion plans come as evidence mounts that potential enemies have built new anti-ship weapons able to destroy much of the United States´ expensive fleet of carriers. And as they have been for decades, carriers remain vulnerable to submarines.
In a combat exercise off the coast of Florida in 2015, a small French nuclear submarine, the Saphir, snuck through multiple rings of defenses and "sank" the U.S. aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt and half of its escort ships. In other naval exercises, even old-fashioned diesel-electric submarines have beaten carriers.
The US military is taking a leaf out of Marvel's comic after it invited people to submit ideas for future 'aircraft carriers in the sky.'
The hope is that these flying fortresses will someday carry, launch and recover multiple swarms of drones anywhere in the world.
Darpa has invited people to submit ideas for future 'aircraft carriers in the sky.' The hopes is that these flying fortresses will someday carry, launch and recover multiple swarms of potentially deadly drones anywhere in the world. Artist's impression pictured
According to Darpa - the Pentagon's advanced military technology research agency - military air operations typically rely on large, manned, robust aircraft.
But such missions put these expensive aircraft, and their pilots, at risk
And while small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) can reduce or eliminate such risks, they lack the speed, range and endurance of larger aircraft.
Darpa believes the solution is to create a flying Avengers-style platform that can rapidly carry these drones wherever needed.
The concept resembles Helicarrier (pictured) used in the 2012 film The Avengers. Captain America, the Hulk and Iron Man relied on this craft to launch their planes from the air
DARPA want to find ways to make smaller aircraft more effective, and one promising idea is enabling existing large aircraft, with minimal modification, to become 'aircraft carriers in the sky',' said Dan Patt, Darpa project manager.
'We envision innovative launch and recovery concepts for new UAS designs that would couple with recent advances in small payload design and collaborative technologies.'
The new project, called Distributed Airborne Capabilities, is likely to use a plane similar to the B-52 Stratofortress bomber, B-1B Lancer bomber or C-130 Hercules cargo plane, according to a report by The Washington Post.
Darpa is also involved in another initiative, dubbed the Hydra Project, which is aiming to develop a network of undersea 'motherships', capable of deploying both underwater and aerial drones.
Meanwhile, the US Air Force is developing tiny unmanned drones that will fly in swarms, hover like bees, crawl like spiders and even sneak up on unsuspecting.
The Air Vehicles Directorate, a research arm of the Air Force, last year released a computer-animated video outlining the future capabilities of Micro Air Vehicles (MAVs).
'MAVs will become a vital element in the ever-changing war-fighting environment and will help ensure success on the battlefield of the future,'
This new project, called Distributed Airborne Capabilities, is likely to use a plane similar to the B-52 Stratofortress bomber, B-1B Lancer bomber (pictured) or C-130 Hercules cargo plane
Darpa, the Pentagon's Virgina-based military research agency, claims these flying fortresses will overcome the limits of speed, range and endurance typically associated with drones
The flying ship is a ground effect vehicle (GEV) is a vehicle that is designed to attain sustained flight over a level surface (usually over the sea), by making use of ground effect, the aerodynamic interaction between the wings and the surface. Among the best known are the Soviet ekranoplans, but names like wing-in-ground-effect (WIG), flarecraft, sea skimmer, or wing-in-surface-effect ship (WISE) are also used.
Today, the ekranoplans are produced with a displacement of up to three thousand tonnes, though craft betwenn 1500 to 2000 tonnes are typical, and both the engineering and technological issues have been resolved. Such displacement will allow the installation of various weapons and hardening of the airframe, including by armouring important components. It will also allow the installation of a power plant giving the ekranoplan cruising speeds of 400 km per hour, and maximum speed of 500 km/hr, with fuel reserves ensuring range of 5000 to 7000 miles. Current airplanes, weighing 200-300 tonnes can fly without refuelling 10,000 to 12,000 kilometres.
The main reason for the interest in the ekranoplan is its incomparably higher speed than that of naval ships’. This provides an opportunity for operational and tactical group manoeuvres in terms of approaching similar levels of aircraft. Thus the ekranoplans are invulnerable to current anti-ship missiles which can only engage slow-moving targets. They may be engaged by air-to-air missiles, though the ekranoplan’s ability to alight on the water limits their effectiveness.
When comparing with traditional aircraft, the advantages of the ekranoplans, in the cruise control mode at extremely low altitudes over the entire route and with the ability to alight on the water with minimal fuel usage, allows to significantly increase the on-station time and the weapons load. An important advantage is the prolonged endurance, potentially reaching several days.
The weaknesses of the ekranoplans include the limits of weaponry that can be used, be it naval or aircraft.
The main use of the ekranoplan is combatting surface ship groups, such as aircraft carrier groups. The high-speed ships deprive the enemy of time (for distances greater than 500 kilometres) to detect the ekranoplans traveling directly over water and attack them.
Their significant size will allow them to carry anti-ship weapons sufficient to inflict enough damage to the aircraft carrier group by four or five ekranoplans, as well as SAMs to counter enemy fighters. The technical aspects of such ekranoplans will probably be of 1500 to 1800 tonnes displacement, with speeds of up to 500 kilometres for distances of 5000 to 6000 miles, with main weapons systems of 12 to 16 anti-ship missiles with an effective range of up to 300 kilometres, SAMs with range of 120 to 160 kilometres, 1 or 2 30mm guns for close-range fights, 4 small drones for surveillance. This machine is capable of quickly reaching the launch point for anti-ship missiles, launch, then swiftly evade return fire.
For the destruction of enemy surface ships in closed marine theater, ekranoplans can be used against groups of ships of relatively small displacement, primarily in zones of powerful anti-aircraft and anti-ship defences. There exist designs with displacement between 100 and 150 tonnes, with speeds of 450 to 500 kilometres per hour, and range of 500 miles while carrying 4 to 8 anti-ship missiles.
The capabilities of the ekranoplan moving at high speed, overcoming enemy defenses including in areas unreachable by other classes of ships and boats, makes it attractive for amphibious operations. It is these qualities that are important for the first wave of landing troops, which in cases of strong anti-landing enemy fire solves the problem of capturing the foothold.
As the condition of conducting amphibious operations is the conquest of the air and sea superiority in the landing area, assault ekranoplans do not require heavy armament. The need to lay down suppressive fire on the beaches can be satisfied by Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS). Given the likely volume of fire missions it is best to have on board 12 220mm rockets or 40 122mm rockets. With this equipment, the possible number of troops on board the ekranoplan of two to three hundred tonnes of displacement can be estimated at one company of infantry with standard weapons and equipment.
Therefore they have been intended to go at a most extreme of three meters over the ocean however in the meantime could give take off, stable “flight” and safe “arriving” in states of up to 5-meter waves.
These specialties were initially created by the Soviet Union as fast military transports, and were construct for the most part in light of the shores of the Caspian Sea and Black Sea.
Ekranoplan Aircraft Carrier Project
In 2005 specialties of this sort have been ordered by the International Marine Organization so they likely ought to be viewed as flying ships instead of swimming planes.
It is additionally intriguing to note that this airplane is one of the biggest ever worked, with a length of 73,8 meters (contrasting and 73 of Airbus A380
The folks over at English Russia figure this is another task to examine if the Ekranoplan outline could be incorporated with a plane carrying warship.
All told, since the early 1980s, U.S. and British carriers have been sunk at least 14 times in so-called "free play" war games meant to simulate real battle, according to think tanks, foreign navies and press accounts. The exact total is unknown because the Navy classifies exercise reports.
Today, the United States is the only country to base its naval strategy on aircraft carriers. The U.S. fleet of 10 active carriers is 10 times as big as those deployed by its primary military rivals, Russia and China, who field one active carrier each.
Roger Thompson, a defense analyst and professor at Kyung Hee University in South Korea, says the array of powerful anti-ship weapons developed in recent years by potential U.S. enemies, including China, Russia and Iran, increase carriers´ vulnerability.
The new weapons include land-based ballistic missiles, such as China´s Dong Feng-21 anti-ship missile, which has a claimed range of 1,100 miles (1,770 kilometers) and moves at 10 times the speed of sound. Certain Russian and Chinese submarines can fire salvoes of precision-guided cruise missiles from afar, potentially overwhelming carrier-fleet anti-missile defense.
Russia, China, Iran and other countries also have so-called super-cavitating torpedoes. These form an air bubble in front of them, enabling them to travel at hundreds of miles per hour. The torpedoes cannot be guided, but if aimed straight at a ship they are difficult to avoid.
A 2015 Rand Corporation report, "Chinese Threats to U.S. Surface Ships," found that if hostilities broke out, "the risks to U.S. carriers are substantial and rising."
"Beyond a shadow of a doubt, a carrier is just a target," says defense analyst Pierre Sprey, who worked for the U.S. Secretary of Defense´s office from 1966 to 1986 and is a longtime critic of U.S. weapons procurement.
DEFENDING CARRIERS
Navy leaders stand by the carrier. In an interview late last year, Admiral Scott Swift, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, lauded carriers´ versatility. Swift says they remain "very viable," sufficiently impregnable to be sent into the thick of combat zones.
Swift said he would order carriers into close battle "in a heartbeat." Nevertheless, citing the new anti-ship weapons, Swift says the carrier "is not as viable as it was 15 years ago."
Trump has said he will make good on his campaign promise to increase the Navy's fleet to 350 ships. The Navy currently has 277 deployable ships. The cost of a single new, Ford-class carrier - $10.5 billion without cost overruns - would consume nearly 20 percent of Trump´s proposed $54 billion increase in next year's defense budget.
Some critics, including former senior Defense Department personnel, say Washington has put too much of the country´s defense budget into a handful of expensive, vulnerable carriers.
At a naval symposium in 2010, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called into question making such big investments in a few increasingly sinkable ships. Gates said "a Ford-class carrier plus its full complement of the latest aircraft would represent potentially $15 billion to $20 billion worth of hardware at risk."
The Navy, with the backing of Congress, went ahead nevertheless. The program has strong Congressional backing. In the 1990s, when defense spending was cut after the end of the Cold War, Congress enacted a law requiring the Navy to maintain an 11-carrier fleet.
Congress has given the Navy a temporary exemption to have 10 active carriers while one is overhauled. When the Ford is commissioned, it will bring the U.S. carrier fleet to 11.
Trump did not specify in his speech how he would bring the carrier fleet to 12. But he said the Ford-class carriers would be invulnerable to attack because they represent the best in American know-how.
"There is no competition to this ship," declared Trump, who called the Gerald R. Ford American craftsmanship "at its biggest, at its best, at its finest."
FAILING SYSTEMS
Trump did not mention that the ship´s builder, Huntington Ingalls Industries, launched the Ford more than three years ago, but the Navy has yet to commission it and put it into service because of severe flaws. Many of its new high tech systems failed to work, including such basic ones as the "arresting gear" that catches and stops landing jets.
The Navy says the ship will be commissioned sometime this year. But the criticism has continued.
In a written statement in July, John McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, noted the cost overruns and cited a list of crucial malfunctioning systems that remained unfixed. "The Ford-class program is a case study in why our acquisition system must be reformed," McCain wrote.
Ray Mabus, who in January stepped down as secretary of the Navy, said in an interview that the Gerald R. Ford "is a poster child for how not to build a ship." He added: "Everything that could have been done wrong was done wrong."
Mabus said that because of commitments made before he became Navy secretary, the Ford was loaded with high-tech equipment that had not even been designed yet. He also faulted awarding the shipbuilder a "cost plus" contract, under which it gets a fixed profit regardless of how much it costs to build the vessel. "There was no incentive to hold down costs," Mabus said.
Others criticize carriers as strategically flawed. Jerry Hendrix, a retired Navy captain and Defense Department official, is now director of the Defense Strategies and Assessments Program at the Center for a New American Security. Carriers, he said in an email exchange, give Washington´s rivals a cheap opportunity to score big. For the cost of a single carrier, he calculates, a rival can deploy 1,227 anti-carrier missiles.
"The enemy can build a lot more missiles than we can carriers for equivalent investments," Hendrix said, "and hence overwhelm our defensive capabilities."
The most commonly proposed alternative to carriers is building a much larger number of smaller, nimbler vessels, including submarines and surface ships. Submarines don´t require escorts and can hit distant targets on land. And carriers have not been tested in battle against an enemy able to fight back since World War II - more than 70 years ago.
The Navy and some outside defense experts say that despite increased threats, carriers remain fully viable and perform an essential service. They laud carriers´ mobility and swiftness, enabling the United States to project air power to places otherwise unreachable.
Carrier proponent Bryan McGrath, the deputy director of the Hudson Institute´s Center for American Seapower in Washington, said carriers are less vulnerable than stationary, land-based air bases.
"A carrier is a big floating airport, and not only a floating airport, but it moves at 40 knots," says McGrath, a former captain of a guided missile destroyer. "How much more vulnerable are airfields on land that don´t move?"
But Sprey, the former Defense Department official and longtime Pentagon procurement critic, says carriers waste funds that could be used to build more cost-effective weapons systems.
"Every Ford-class carrier we build detracts from U.S. defense," Sprey said.
LIMITED PROTECTION
Both strong supporters of carriers as well as opponents agreed that there is a serious flaw in the current configuration of U.S. carriers: their complement of strike aircraft. Almost all are short-range jets, the F-18 Hornet, whose range could render the planes useless in some conflicts.
The Chinese, in particular, have established sea zones bristling with anti-ship weapons meant to make it impossible for enemy flotillas to enter.
Top U.S Navy commanders, including Pacific commander Swift and Vice Admiral Mike Shoemaker, the Navy "Air Boss" in charge of carriers, say carriers could safely enter such zones long enough to carry out a mission. But many outside analysts say a U.S. president would be hesitant to risk such an expensive ship and the lives of up to 5,500 crew members.
In order to be relatively safe, a carrier would have to stand off by 1,300 nautical miles, or 2,300 kilometers - out of range of the Dong Feng missiles. And the F-18s have a range of only 400 nautical miles (equal to 460 statute miles or 740 kilometers) to a target with enough fuel to return.
Experts on both sides of the debate say that if the carriers have to stand off, the Hornets would have to be refueled in midair an impractical number of times while flying to and from their targets. It thus would be all but impossible for carriers to send air power into war zones.
The F-18s are to be replaced by 2020 with new F-35C Lightning IIs, but these have only a marginally better range of 650 nautical miles.
The Hudson Institute´s McGrath, who champions carriers, says the short-range jets impair the mission.
"What they (the Navy) haven´t done yet is to design and fund a strike aircraft that can fly 1,000 miles, drop its bombs and come home," McGrath said.
The cost of carriers in terms of strategy and money is multiplied because carriers do not travel alone. For protection, they move with large escorts, making every "carrier strike group" a virtual armada.
Each carrier usually has an escort of at least five warships, a mixture of destroyers and cruisers, at least one submarine and a combined ammunition-supply ship and helicopters designed to detect subs. When close enough to shore, carriers are also protected by new, land-based P-8 Poseidon jets, designed to detect and destroy subs.
OLD THREATS
For carrier commanders, the most feared weapon is a 150-year-old one. A single, submarine-launched torpedo could send a carrier to the bottom.
Most modern torpedoes aren´t targeted to hit ships. Instead they are programmed to explode underneath. This creates an air bubble that lifts the ship into the air and drops it, breaking the hull.
For decades, critics have faulted the Navy for failing to develop effective defenses against modern torpedoes. A 2016 report by the Pentagon´s Office of Operational Test and Evaluation said the Navy has recently made significant progress, but the systems still have crucial deficiencies.
Experts also say that carriers are at risk from updated versions of one of the oldest naval vessels still in use: the diesel-electric submarine. These were the subs used in both World Wars.
Diesel-electric subs have the advantage of being small - and while on electric power, silent, and in general quieter and harder to detect than nuclear subs.
Diesel-electric subs are also far cheaper to build than nuclear ones. Allies and rivals have been building large numbers of them. Worldwide, more than 230 diesel-electric subs are in use. China has 83 in use, while Russia has 19.
Hendrix, the former Defense Department official, says the carriers' vulnerabilities make the fleet a profligate use of money, vessels and aircraft.
"We have paid billions of dollars to build ships that are largely defensive in their orientation, thus taking away from the offensive power of the fleet," Hendrix says. "In the end, we spend a lot of money on defense to send 44 strike aircraft off the front end of a carrier."
Russian submarines have increased patrols to the level last seen during the Cold War, navy chief says, as Putin spokesman says relations with US are 'maybe worse' than they were then
- Russian submarines have increased combat patrols to the level last seen during the Cold War
- The military has revived its strength thanks to a sweeping arms modernization program amid tensions with the West over Ukraine
- Elsewhere today, Putin's top spokesman said the relationship between the U.S. and Russia may be more antagonistic now than it was during the Cold War
Russian submarines have increased combat patrols to the level last seen during the Cold War, the navy chief said today.
Admiral Vladimir Korolyov said Russian submarine crews spent more than 3,000 days on patrol last year, matching the Soviet-era operational tempo.
Elsewhere today, Russian President Vladimir Putin's top spokesman said the relationship between the U.S. and Russia may be more antagonistic now than it was during the decades-long Cold War.
Asked by ABC's 'Good Morning America' host George Stephanopoulos if the U.S. and Russia were in a 'new Cold War,' Dmitry Peskov said the current situation may be worse, pinning the blaming on the U.S.
He said: 'New Cold War? Well, maybe even worse. Maybe even worse taking into account actions of the present presidential administration in Washington.'
Russian submarines have increased combat patrols to the level last seen during the Cold War
The Russian military had fallen on hard times after the 1991 Soviet collapse when it was forced to scrap many relatively new ships and keep most others at harbour for lack of funds.
The military has revived its strength thanks to a sweeping arms modernization program amid tensions with the West over Ukraine.
Mr Korolyov spoke after attending the launch of a new Yasen-class nuclear-powered attack submarine called the Kazan.
He hailed the new ship as the most modern in the world, emphasizing its low noise level making it hard to track it.
'It represents the cutting edge of nuclear submarine design,' Mr Korolyov said in televised remarks.
The navy plans to commission seven Yasen-class submarines that are armed with torpedoes and long-range Kalibr cruise missiles, which for the first time have been tested in combat during the Russian campaign in Syria.
Admiral Vladimir Korolyov said Russian submarine crews spent more than 3,000 days on patrol last year, matching the Soviet-era operational tempo
If Donald Trump's hawkish new administration follows through on threats and tries to cut Beijing off from artificial islands in the South China Sea, it could face a stiffer pushback than many imagine, experts say.
The US president and his team have made much of their desire to put Beijing in its place, including in the strategically vital waterway, which China claims almost entirely and where it has reclaimed -- and fortified -- thousands of acres of land, according to the Pentagon.
Trump's nominee for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, told his confirmation hearing the US needs to send a clear signal that China's access to the islands is "not going to be allowed".
The second-hand, Soviet-era Liaoning is China's only aircraft carrier ©STR (AFP/File)
Observers quickly pointed out the full-scale blockade this would require was likely to provoke a military response from Beijing -- a response that might be enough to make the US think twice.
While Beijing may have a poorer and less well-equipped military, it is stocking its arsenal with submarines, anti-ship missiles and other weapons tailor-made to neutralise Washington's most valuable naval assets, they say.
"Beijing knows that it cannot win a conventional frontal conflict with the US," with its vastly superior military, Valerie Niquet of French think tank Foundation of Strategic Research told AFP.
Instead, it is developing "capacities that would restore its freedom to manoeuvre by pushing Washington to hesitate before a potentially costly intervention in Asia."
- Flexing muscles -
China's island building programme in the South China Sea has irked neighbours -- many of whom also have claims to parts of the sea -- and caused global concern.
Beijing has ignored international condemnation over its construction of airstrips and installation of anti-aircraft batteries on one-time reefs.
It has dismissed an international arbitration court that ruled last year there was no basis for its claims over the South China Sea.
Former US President Barack Obama occasionally sent warships and planes through the area in so-called "freedom of navigation" exercises, but critics say he did not do enough to prevent China gaining a substantial foothold.
Trump, who threaded anti-China rhetoric throughout his election campaign, has indicated he is going to be a lot firmer.
"If those islands are, in fact, in international waters and not part of China proper, yeah, we'll make sure we defend international interests from being taken over by one country," new White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Monday.
Beijing is flexing its military muscle in response to the warnings.
Three days after Trump's inauguration, China's navy announced the delivery of the CNS Xining destroyer, nicknamed the "carrier killer" for its large load of anti-ship and land attack cruise missiles.
Beijing also possesses DF-21 and DF-26 anti-ship missiles that could secure it "a credible denial of access" against the US Navy, a source with knowledge of Chinese military activities told AFP.
While the US has around a dozen aircraft carriers, Beijing has just one: the second-hand, Soviet-built Liaoning. A second is under construction.
The Liaoning conducted its first live fire drill in December before heading to the South China Sea.
China's naval capacities "might not be enough to decisively destroy hostile modern navies, yet they are enough to deny or impede their access to some extent," Noboru Yamaguchi of the International University of Japan told AFP.
- 'Bring China more respect' -
While China has made significant progress in developing its military over the past two decades, it remains far behind the US, whose military budget is three times higher, at nearly $600 billion.
"Most analysts agree that it is 20 or 30 years behind the US in terms of military capabilities," said James Char of Singapore's Nanyang Technological University.
A major Achilles heel for the People's Liberation Army (PLA) is that it has not fought a real battle since a war with Vietnam in 1979, and has a questionable mastery of modern military techniques, according to some Western experts.
And while the West has NATO as a channel through which to share military experiences, China has no similar outlet, despite periodic joint exercises with other countries such as Russia.
As Niquet sees it, "Beijing must play a delicate balancing game so as not to go too far in their threats and provoke an American intervention" with unthinkable consequences.
So far, China is playing it cool in the face of Washington's rhetoric, with the foreign ministry largely avoiding any statements that might raise the temperature.
But "there certainly exists the worst-case probability of a destructive showdown" over access to China's artificial islands an editorial in the state-run China Daily warned Wednesday.
And "if there is to be 'war' in the South China Sea it will be because of actions by the US military."
China military balance ©Gal ROMA (AFP)
China flexes its military muscles with stunning display of warships
China flexed its military muscle and showed off its latest warships and submarines to the world today.
The emerging superpower showed off its fleet off the mist-shrouded eastern port city of Qingdao.
It marked the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Liberation Army Navy.
Military pomp: Chinese Navy helicopters and 527 warships attend the international fleet review on the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Liberation Army Navy
Parade: The warships sail the high seas, displaying a feet which has 'come from nothing'
The spectacle included two of China's nuclear-powered Long March submarines, vessels capable of firing ballistic missiles far from the country's shores, the China Daily reported.
With Beijing worried about securing access to far-off resources, however, the spectacle is meant to show that China's leaders are increasingly comfortable with using their modernising fleet, and want it to be seen by other powers as a benign force for 'peace, harmony and cooperation'.
'China does need a stronger navy to project its power. Even if we can't surpass the United States, a stronger navy can help to counter that influence and protect China's own interests,' said Shi Yinhong, a professor of international relations at Renmin University in Beijing.
Pomp: The gathering of ships and submarines was watched by foreign admirals and officials
Chinese Navy fighters fire off rockets in timed formation as they fly overhead
'Showing the country's military strength is also popular with the public,' added Shi. 'This parade is also meant to consolidate domestic support for greater spending on the navy.'
The gathering of ships and submarines watched by foreign admirals and officials may be taken as a disquieting sign of Chinese assertiveness by other governments worried about sea boundary disputes and rivalry for resources.
Chinese boats last month tangled with a U.S. ship in the South China Sea, which Beijing calls its exclusive economic zone.
Chinese Navy sailors line up on deck during the parade
Sailing the high seas: Ships including the U.S. Navy missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald (center), the Russian Navy's 11,370-tonne Vayag missile cruiser (right) join the parade
The military pomp also comes as China becomes increasingly vocal about its ambition to become a deep-water power. For decades, China's military has been preoccupied with neighbouring Taiwan, the self-ruled island Beijing says must accept reunification.
Taiwan remains a priority. But Beijing has also concluded it must master the logistical and technological demands of a blue water navy, including eventually building an aircraft carrier.
The PLA Navy, or PLAN, has come from nothing to 'a modern maritime force capable of effectively defending national sovereignty and security', the Liberation Army Daily said.
By air and sea: The Chinese fighters and warships work in tandem
In one cautious venture into distant waters, Chinese warships have sailed to off the Somali coast to guard against pirates attacking merchant vessels.
But China's naval modernisation has far from erased a technological gap with the United States and other major powers.
'Yet let us be sensible,' said an editorial in the China Daily. 'The PLAN does not have much muscle to show off.'
International Boundaries Research Unit, Durham University
The new generation power stations will be engineered to the highest safety standards, says Russia, with two 35-megawatt reactors on a giant ship-like platform which will store its own nuclear waste.
But even if there is no spillage of radiation, the plants are likely to speed up the warming of Arctic waters and contribute to the disappearance of the polar ice cap.
And there are other, even more chilling dangers in the race for the North Pole's resources - the prospect of war on the top of the world.
A battle for the North Pole would be the coldest war of all. Fought in a frozen wasteland, where nuclear submarines already prowl beneath the polar cap - and occasionally break through it - a conflict in the Arctic would involve an arsenal of Cold War-era hardware.
Since late 2007, Russian Bear and Blackjack tactical bombers have been flying perilously close to Canadian territory. Tensions reached a new level in 2008, when Canada declared a go-slow on issuing visas to Russian nationals in protest at the airspace violations.
A Russian mini submarine is lowered from the research vessel Akademik Fyodorov moments before performing a dive in the Arctic Ocean on a quest to claim the region's oil-and-mineral wealth
Soviet and U.S Cold Warriors spent decades fantasising about how to militarise the Arctic. Joseph Stalin sent millions of gulag prisoners to their deaths building an insane railway between the Arctic towns of Salekhard and Igarka. Leonid Brezhnev built fleets of monster, nuclear-powered icebreakers in an attempt to keep a passage around northern Siberia open year-round.
Today, Russia, Canada and the U.S. keep isolated military posts dotted across the Arctic Circle, supplied by helicopters and, in Russia's case, manned by shifts of shivering conscripts in tall felt boots and sheepskin coats.
But above all, any confrontation over the Arctic would be a naval one, with Russia's Northern Fleet, based at Murmansk, confronting the U.S. Second Fleet.
Fully two-thirds of Russia's naval power is allocated to its Northern Fleet. The fleet also boasts Russia's newly-revamped nuclear missile submarines.
The fleet is also armed with new, sea-launched Bulava intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles, which are designed to evade U.S. missile defence shields and destroy entire cities.
Clearly, Moscow sees the north as its most vulnerable, and easily expanded, frontier and seems willing to stake its claim with devastating force.
For all the oil and gas riches of Putin's country, for all the Russian oligarchs jetting and yachting around the world with their billions, their nation is still characterised by brooding anger. They feel themselves victims of a huge injustice.
They have lost their empire. They have endured 20 years of perceived Western slights and condescension, since the economic collapse of the Soviet Union.
They see the Americans preparing to deploy missiles in their former East European satellites. They watch Russian dissidents flaunting their wealth and - as they see it - treachery from the heart of London.
And thus it is that they applaud Putin to the rafters for telling the West that he will stand no more of it. They welcome the expulsion of BP and other Western oil companies from Russian drilling sites. They delight in our embarrassments with Islamic extremism, and defeat in Iraq.
They are thrilled to discover that agents of Moscow have found means to kill one of Russia's more prominent critics in London, and then to escape back to safety at home, in a manner that makes fools of Britain's James Bonds.
For those of us who hoped for the opportunity to build a new relationship with Russia after the end of the Cold War, it is all desperately sad.
So much that we interpreted as "progress" under Gorbachev and Yeltsin has crumpled into ashes. The pessimists have been proved right.
The great American diplomat and historian George Kennan, who knew Russia intimately for half a century, wrote bleakly in 1992: "That Russia will ever achieve "democracy", in the
sense of political, social and economic institutions similar to our own, is not to be expected."
Back in 1944, writing from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, it was Kennan likewise who asserted that it was mistaken to think of Stalin as an extreme communist. Rather, he wrote, he was a peasant tsar.
Stalin killed at least as many people as Hitler. In Berlin today, no one would think of displaying publicly an image of the late Fuhrer. Yet in Moscow, it is deemed perfectly acceptable for taxi drivers to stick a picture of Stalin in the corner of their windscreens.
"He made Russia great, "I have heard many Russians say. "In Stalin's day, this country was respected."
They do not care that such respect was forged from terror, by Russia's ruthless willingness to inflict death wholesale in order to impose its will.
They would much prefer that the world should be made to tremble at Russia's capacity to broadcast fear, rather than acknowledge their abject failure to match the West - and the extraordinary rise of China - in technical imagination, productive power or economic achievement.
Putin is the new tsar, Stalin's spiritual heir, in a country which has lost all ideological belief, can make nothing work within its frontiers save its cascading flow of oil and gas, and has fallen prey to institutionalised corruption which afflicts everyone from the highest officials to the humblest traffic policeman on point duty.
It is hard to overstate the ignorance of the outside world, and even of their own history, which afflicts every Russian from the president downwards.
Putin has closed Russia's archives to western scholars not on security grounds, but because he is disgusted by the horrors which they exposed to researchers in the 1990s.
Western historians explored, for instance, the brutal history of Marshal Zhukov. Russia's most famous general of World War II.
Zhukov, we learned, recommended to Stalin in 1942 that the families of all those who allowed themselves to be taken prisoner by the Germans should be shot, to discourage others from surrender.
This is the sort of titbit which Putin has determined there should be no more of.
He astonished the world, last year, by telling an interviewer in deadly earnest that the biggest catastrophe of the 20th century was the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In truth, of course, the U.S.S.R. was the greatest construction of human misery and economic failure that history has ever seen.
Yet Putin's people love him. They care amazingly little that he has stifled free speech and systematically dismantled the fragile instruments of democracy created by Gorbachev and Yeltsin.
They decided, in the shambolic and inflationary days of the 1990s, that one cannot eat votes.
Democracy matters much less to them than bread, order, and foreign respect for their nation. Ordinary Russians today perceive that they live a little better, and thank their president for this rather than soaring energy prices.
They applaud the sort of savage harangue which he gave the West on Sunday. We may expect plenty more like it, whether from Putin or whatever successor he chooses to nominate at the end of the year, if indeed he relinquishes office when his appointed term finishes.
From a Western standpoint, there are some grounds for hope for the future. For all Putin's threats of targeting Europe with new missiles, a return to the direct military confrontation of the Cold War is unlikely. Russia today is as dependent upon banking our cheques as we are upon buying its oil and gas.
We should hope that George Bush's successor as U.S. President is less appallingly clumsy, in provoking Moscow with promised missile deployments a few miles from her border.
But the notion of Western friendship with Russia is a dead letter. The best we can look for is grudging accommodation. The bear has shown its claws once more, as so often in its bloody history, and its people enjoy the sensation.
We may hope that in the 21st century we shall not be obliged to fight Russia. But it would be foolish to suppose that we shall be able to lie beside this dangerous, emotional beast in safety or tranquillity.
The Rossiya nuclear icebreaker navigates back from the North Pole after providing support to a mini submarines' mission to the floor of the Arctic Ocean two years ago
An operator of a Russian mini-submarine plants a titanium capsule with the Russian flag during a record dive in the Arctic Ocean under the ice at the North Pole
War over the North Pole was, until Russia's invasion of Georgia in August, an unlikely scenario. Now, though, as Russia becomes ever more aggressive Putin signed off on the latest round of a massive upgrade of the country's armed forces), it has come a step closer to the realms of the possible.
The Kremlin has made it clear that it has set its sights on domination of the last great wilderness on Earth.
At stake is the massive mineral wealth hidden deep under the Arctic seabed - much of it made more accessible as the ice cap retreats.
Vladimir Putin, Russia's Prime Minister, long vowed to build an 'energy empire' and dreamed of reversing the collapse of Russian power after the fall of the Soviet Union, an event he once called 'the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century'.
And now Putin, has set his sights on the Arctic, a chunk of territory with massive mineral wealth.
In a startling attempt to re-draw the map of the world, Moscow has signalled its intentions to annex a huge swathe of the continental shelf, which runs from Northern Siberia, to include the entire North Pole.
Putin set out his assertive strategy to expand Russia's borders northward at a meeting of Russia's national security council in the Kremlin almost immediately after coming to power last year.
'Our biggest task is to turn the Arctic into Russia's resource base for the 21st century,' he told his top security lieutenants.
The top of the world currently lies under international waters, supervised by a United Nations Commission. The five countries with Arctic coastlines - Russia, Canada, the U.S, Denmark (which owns Greenland) and Norway - control only a 200-mile economic zone extending north from their northern coasts. Beyond that, it is a no-man's-land.
Russia's President Putin controls a formidable arsenal of nuclear weapons, along with Russia's powerful Northern Fleet
But under UN rules, an Arctic country's zone can be extended if it can prove that the undersea territory it wants to claim is geologically part of its own continental shelf - in other words, a natural extension of its own territory.
Using this loophole, Russia has mounted a massive scientific and diplomatic effort to redraw the polar map.
The Russians made what they claimed was their first major scientific breakthrough in the summer of 2007. The Rossiya nuclear ice-breaker, carrying 50 scientists and tons of seismic equipment, nosed through the ice of the polar region, taking sonic and magnetic photographs of the seabed.
After a freezing 45 days at sea, the Russians announced that they had discovered that an underwater ridge directly links Russia's Arctic coast to the North Pole.
The Lomonosov Ridge, named after the 18th-century founder of Moscow University, is an impressive piece of real estate - according to Moscow's claim, it guarantees Russia's rights over a polar territory half the size of Western Europe, which just happens to contain ten billion tons of oil and natural gas deposits. Countries have fought devastating wars over much less.
To push the point home, the Kremlin decided that a Russian submarine would plant a national flag on the bottom of the sea at the North Pole.
The expedition, led by the bearded Artur Chilingarov, a celebrated Russian polar explorer, set out aboard the giant ice-breaker Akademik Fedorov carrying two MIR deep submergence vehicles.
A U.S. Air Force F-15 (left) intercepts a Russian Tu-95 bomber which flew provocatively close to Alaska's west coast in September 2006
Accompanied by a businessman, an Australian adventurer and a Swedish pharmaceuticals millionaire, Chilingarov descended to a depth of 4,261m below the polar ice.
And then, on the seabed at the geographic North Pole, the submersible dropped a three-foot Russian flag made of Siberian titanium. It also left another flag encased in a time capsule - the banner of the pro-Putin United Russia party.
Unsurprisingly, the televised flag-planting sparked angry reactions from Russia's Arctic neighbours.
'This isn't the 15th century,' stormed former Canadian Foreign Minister Peter MacKay. 'You can't go around the world and just plant flags and say: "We're claiming this territory."' The U.S also protested.
But the point was made: Russia was deadly serious about its claim to the North Pole - and had the hardware, scientific clout and steely political will to push it through.
It's impossible to build a permanent base at the North Pole simply because there's no land, and the giant chunks of sea ice jostle and drift in the Arctic.
Nonetheless, the Russians have made an attempt. On a 16 sq km island of ice near the North Pole, the 'North Pole-35' ice station was established soon after Chilingarov's expedition.
Three hundred tons of equipment, prefabricated buildings and food were offloaded on to snowmobiles, along with 22 scientists, who raised the Russian flag over their snowbound station.
For the past year, the inhabitants of this real-life Ice Station Zebra have been the closest human inhabitants to the North Pole - until the station was abandoned early in the summer as the ice drifted rather too close to Canada's Fram Strait.
But the North Pole isn't the resurgent Russian empire's only prize. Moscow is also believed to be readying a claim to an 18,000 sq mile piece of the Bering Sea, which separates Alaska from Russia's far east.
Known as Chukotka, the region's governor until July was Chelsea football club owner Roman Abramovich.
A U.S.-Soviet Maritime Boundary Agreement awarded the undersea territory to the U.S. in 1990.
The agreement, signed by Secretary of State James Baker and Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, was designed as a post-Cold War gesture of reconciliation - and was bitterly opposed by Soviet hard-liners.
Now, the complaints of these hardliners have become Kremlin policy, as the Russian media denounce the agreement as a treasonous act by Shevardnadze, who later became the pro-Nato President of Georgia.
Indeed, many members of the Kremlin-controlled parliament are demanding that the agreement be reviewed, setting the scene for a diplomatic storm between Russia and the U.S.
Russia is also stepping up the military pressure in its push for Arctic riches. The Kremlin has increased the number of patrol flights over the Arctic by Tu-95 strategic bombers - known as Bears. These gigantic warplanes are designed to carry nuclear payloads.
Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay was angry over the provocative flights, which swing close to Canadian airspace.
'We're obviously very concerned about much of what Russia has been doing lately,' MacKay said as he launched Operation Nanook, an Arctic military exercise designed to assert Canada's sovereignty over its own huge Northern Territories.
'When we see a Russian Bear approaching Canadian air space, we meet them with an F-18. We remind them that this is Canadian sovereign airspace, and they turn back.'
And so with tension escalating, many believe the Arctic could be the scene of the next Russia-Nato clash.
So far, Russia's sabre rattling is just that - rattling. What's more, their chances of laying claim to the Arctic's riches are legally ambiguous.
According to a study by Southampton's National Oceanography Centre's Law of the Sea Group, Denmark (which owns Greenland, the closest landmass to the North Pole) and Canada also have claims to the no-man's-land.
'Denmark could be given the North Pole,' said Helge Sander, the country's science minister. 'The preliminary investigations done so far are very promising.'
But her optimism may be misplaced. With billions of barrels of oil and a former superpower's hurt pride at stake, it looks like the battle for the North Pole is ever more likely to be fought not by teams of lawyers, but the old-fashioned way, with a clash of Cold War hardware.
Are U.S. Ships in the 2nd Fleet able to Dominate the Arctic?
This kind of vehicle brought in Russian ekranoplan utilizes purported ground impact – additional lift of expansive wings when in closeness to the surface.
Therefore they have been intended to go at a most extreme of three meters over the ocean however in the meantime could give take off, stable “flight” and safe “arriving” in states of up to 5-meter waves.
These specialties were initially created by the Soviet Union as fast military transports, and were construct for the most part in light of the shores of the Caspian Sea and Black Sea.
Ekranoplan Aircraft Carrier Project
In 2005 specialties of this sort have been ordered by the International Marine Organization so they likely ought to be viewed as flying ships instead of swimming planes.
It is additionally intriguing to note that this airplane is one of the biggest ever worked, with a length of 73,8 meters (contrasting and 73 of Airbus A380
The folks over at English Russia figure this is another task to examine if the Ekranoplan outline could be incorporated with a plane carrying warship.
Flying Aircraft Carrier Project
Flying Aircraft Carrier Project
US military is developing 'Gremlin' drones to overwhelm enemy defenses and conduct missions too dangerous for manned aircraft
- Each drone could be reused up to 20 times
- Drones would 'swarm' together to carry out missions on the front line
- Launched in mid-air or at sea from a flying aircraft carrier and then retrieved in the same way.
They were the mischievous creatures blamed for causing mechanical failures and faults on aircraft during World War Two and later the destructive monsters in a hit film franchise.
So Gremlins might not seem like the first choice for a fleet of robotic aircraft being developed by the US military.
But the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is developing swarms of re-usable drone aircraft that can work together to perform a mission, which it has called the Gremlins program.
Darpa said the program has been deliberately named Gremlins after the imps that British pilots during Wold War Two adopted as their good luck charms.
The idea is to replace the expensive and increasingly vulnerable multi-function combat aircraft which currently perform a range of different missions.
Instead they propose deploying from the air smaller unmanned aircraft, each with different capabilities, to perform a mission before retrieving them mid-air so they can be used again.
- Each drone could be reused up to 20 times
- Drones would 'swarm' together to carry out missions on the front line
- Launched in mid-air or at sea from a flying aircraft carrier and then retrieved in the same way.
They were the mischievous creatures blamed for causing mechanical failures and faults on aircraft during World War Two and later the destructive monsters in a hit film franchise.
So Gremlins might not seem like the first choice for a fleet of robotic aircraft being developed by the US military.
But the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is developing swarms of re-usable drone aircraft that can work together to perform a mission, which it has called the Gremlins program.
Darpa said the program has been deliberately named Gremlins after the imps that British pilots during Wold War Two adopted as their good luck charms.
The idea is to replace the expensive and increasingly vulnerable multi-function combat aircraft which currently perform a range of different missions.
Instead they propose deploying from the air smaller unmanned aircraft, each with different capabilities, to perform a mission before retrieving them mid-air so they can be used again.
Not only would the concept remove the risk to pilots by keeping them out of the front line but it would also drastically reduce the cost of each aircraft.
Darpa said the program has been deliberately named Gremlins after the imps that British pilots during Wold War Two adopted as their good luck charms.
This is because they are hoping to the 'feasibility of conducting safe, relatable operations with multiple air-launched unmanned drones'.
Dan Patt, program manager at Darpa, said: 'Our goal is to conduct a compelling proof-of-concept flight demonstration that could employ intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and other modular, non-kinetic payloads in a robust, responsive and affordable manner.'
Darpa says the Gremlin drones would have a lifetime of around 20 uses, fitting somewhere between missiles and conventional aircraft.
The Gremlins would be launched in mid-air from larger aircraft and then retrieved in the same way.
The agency is hoping to build on its automated mid-air refuelling technology alongside the sea based platforms for capturing drones as they come into land.
Mr Patt said: 'We wouldn't be discarding the entire airframe, engine, avionics and payload with every mission, as is done with missiles.
'But we also wouldn't have to carry the maintainability and operational cost burdens of today's reusable systems, which are meant to stay in service for decades.'
Darpa is now inviting military engineers and academics to suggest solutions that will allow the drones to be launched and recovered mid-flight along with navigation and flight control systems.
In its briefing, the agency said it hopes that by using cheap drone aircraft it would be possible to overwhelm the increasingly sophisticated defences of enemies.
Darpa said the program has been deliberately named Gremlins after the imps that British pilots during Wold War Two adopted as their good luck charms, and were inmportalised in the film of the same name.
It said: 'As part of a future concept of operations, it is envisioned that instead of using conventional, monolithic systems to conduct missions in denied environments, multiple platforms with coordinated and distributed warfighting functions can be employed to saturate adversary defenses while achieving mission objectives.
'Within this concept of operations, a Gremlins system would provide options for delivering small Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) and other non‐kinetic payloads to the battlespace in a manner that is robust and responsive.
Not only would the concept remove the risk to pilots by keeping them out of the front line but it would also drastically reduce the cost of each aircraft.
Darpa said the program has been deliberately named Gremlins after the imps that British pilots during Wold War Two adopted as their good luck charms.
This is because they are hoping to the 'feasibility of conducting safe, relatable operations with multiple air-launched unmanned drones'.
Dan Patt, program manager at Darpa, said: 'Our goal is to conduct a compelling proof-of-concept flight demonstration that could employ intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and other modular, non-kinetic payloads in a robust, responsive and affordable manner.'
Darpa says the Gremlin drones would have a lifetime of around 20 uses, fitting somewhere between missiles and conventional aircraft.
The Gremlins would be launched in mid-air from larger aircraft and then retrieved in the same way.
The agency is hoping to build on its automated mid-air refuelling technology alongside the sea based platforms for capturing drones as they come into land.
Mr Patt said: 'We wouldn't be discarding the entire airframe, engine, avionics and payload with every mission, as is done with missiles.
'But we also wouldn't have to carry the maintainability and operational cost burdens of today's reusable systems, which are meant to stay in service for decades.'
Darpa is now inviting military engineers and academics to suggest solutions that will allow the drones to be launched and recovered mid-flight along with navigation and flight control systems.
In its briefing, the agency said it hopes that by using cheap drone aircraft it would be possible to overwhelm the increasingly sophisticated defences of enemies.
It said: 'As part of a future concept of operations, it is envisioned that instead of using conventional, monolithic systems to conduct missions in denied environments, multiple platforms with coordinated and distributed warfighting functions can be employed to saturate adversary defenses while achieving mission objectives.
'Within this concept of operations, a Gremlins system would provide options for delivering small Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) and other non‐kinetic payloads to the battlespace in a manner that is robust and responsive.
THE 'AIRCRAFT CARRIER IN THE SKY'
'Responsiveness is achieved through the use of conventional aircraft hosts to transport and launch a volley of gremlins from stand‐off ranges.
'Furthermore, by scaling up the number of systems engaged in operations, the impact of a loss of any individual gremlin is reduced.'Seeing as the “Enormous Luns” idea never truly took off (no play on words planned) then it would appear that this one is remaining focused planning phase.
'Responsiveness is achieved through the use of conventional aircraft hosts to transport and launch a volley of gremlins from stand‐off ranges.
The Lun-class ekranoplan (NATO reporting name Duck) is a ground effect vehicle (GEV) designed by Rostislav Evgenievich Alexeyev and used by the Soviet and Russian navies from 1987 until sometime in the late 1990s.It flew using the lift generated by the ground effect of its large wings when close to the surface of the water—about 4 metres (13 ft) or less. Although they might look similar and have related technical characteristics, ekranoplans like the Lun are not aircraft, seaplanes, hovercraft, nor hydrofoils–ground effect is a separate technology altogether. The International Maritime Organization classifies these vehicles as maritime ships
When the Soviet Union started developing their massive ekranoplan or “flying ship” dubbed ‘KM’ in the mid-1960s, the CIA was so scared that it developed a drone specifically to spy on the KM. Bewildered Western military experts dubbed it the “Caspian Sea Monster.” It was followed by the Lun-class ekranoplan outfitted with six Moskit anti-ship missiles. The Lun was deployed in 1987, and remained in service until the 1990s.
The US Navy can follow Russia with the stacks of short-range nuclear/cruise missiles and a company of marines in light attack vehicles meant to be an amphivious assault in a sea-skimming sneak attack. The upper deck of this craft can b
e used to carry F35 like below as support combat aircraft.
THE GAU-22 GATLING 'GUNPOD'
Capable of firing 55 rounds per second, the GAU-22 gatling gun is powerful enough to shred vehicles in mere moments.
This four-barrel gun can fire up to 3,300 shots per minute according to its makers.
Previous footage showed the first test firing of the pod-mounted version which will be used by the Marines and Navy, on the same BF-01 craft.
The gun pod is housed in what is described as a 'semi-low observable' enclosure attached to the F-35B and C's centerlines, between the two weapons bays.
The gun's enclosure design can also be used to house other bolt-on systems in the future such as EM weapons or surveillance sensors.
The Air Force has already tested the wing-mounted versions of the same weapon on their F-35A variant of the craft, but the more compact B and C variants need to have the weapon mounted externally.
According to Aviation Week, even the latest version of the plane's laser targeting system has one slight flaw with its larger weapons - it can only target stationary or slow moving objects.
'Despite being among the most technologically advanced low-observable warplanes on the planet, the Lockheed Martin F-35 has one significant shortcoming,' it wrote.
Tests aboard the USS America last year evaluated the F-35B Short Take-off Vertical Landing (STOVL) operations in a high-sea state, shipboard landings, and night operations. The maintenance work will include the replacement of a lift fan, seen here, the specialized equipment made by Rolls Royce and Pratt and Whitney that gives the F-35B variant its short take-off, 'jump jet' capability, Rowell said.
The United States is expected to spend some $391 billion over 15 years to buy about 2,443 F-35 aircraft, which are being built in different versions for the Air Force, Navy and Marines.
President Donald Trump claims his administration had been able to cut some $600 million from the latest U.S. deal to buy about 90 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, the Lockheed Martin aircraft the president has criticized for cost overruns.
Trump said Lockheed Martin had been responsive to his concerns about the high cost of the stealthy, high-tech warplane.
'We cut approximately $600 million off the F-35 fighter, and that only amounts to 90 planes out of close to 3,000 planes,' Trump said, attributing that figure to Lockheed chief executive Marillyn Hewson.
Negotiations for the 10th batch of F-35 aircraft - about 90 planes - have been under way, with a deal expected by the end of the month.
The contract was expected to be around $9 billion, with the price per plane falling below $100 million.
Trump said he became involved in the discussions over the cost of the aircraft about a month ago when he was still president-elect because the negotiations were not progressing.
'They were having a lot of difficulty. There was no movement. And I was able to get $600 million approximately off those planes.
'So I think that was a great achievement,' Trump said, suggesting the savings would be even larger as more planes are bought and as the administration looks at other contracts.
'We will be savings billions and billions and billions of dollars on contracts,' Trump said.
The United States is expected to spend some $391 billion over 15 years to buy about 2,443 F-35 aircraft, which are being built in different versions for the Air Force, Navy and Marines.
Trump has threatened and rebuked some of America's largest companies, creating a new business risk for those who have been or fear being targeted.The Marines have already moved 16 F-35Bs to Iwakuni Air Station in Japan, it is believed.
The Marines will be the first force to deploy the Lockheed Martin jet aboard the USS Wasp next year, and will deploy a second contingent soon after, aboard the USS Essex.
'We will learn from that, and see what capabilities we need to further develop,' said Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Walsh, the commanding general of the Marines' Combat Development Command, according to Defense One.
'A lot of it's going to be the school of hard knocks.'
The jets will deploy as part of Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 in early 2017, a Marine spokeswoman said.
In total the cost for the F35 project is estimated to be $400billion, more than double the original forecasts, a scenario described by John McCain as 'a scandal and a tragedy'.
At year's end, six of that squadron's planes will attach to the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit.
Following over a decade of de and with a price tag of $400 billion for 2,457 planes, the fifth-generation fighter has been plagued with issues.
But it appeared the tide had finally turned earlier this year when the U.S. Air Force has declared an initial squadron of Lockheed Martin Corp F-35A fighter jets ready for combat.
Now, the Pentagon's director of operational testing has poured cold water on the announcement, slamming the planes readiness.
Michael Gilmore, stated the F-35 is 'actually not on a path toward success but instead on a path toward failing to deliver' the plane's full combat capabilities on time, according to Bloomberg.
Gilmore also said the plane is 'running out of time and money' to address deficiencies
'Achieving full combat capability with the Joint Strike Fighter is at substantial risk' of not occurring before development is supposed to end and realistic combat testing begins, he said of the F-35.
The U.S. Air Force has declared an initial squadron of Lockheed Martin Corp F-35A fighter jets ready for combat, marking a major milestone for a program that has faced cost overruns and delays.
However, the most complex software capabilities 'are just being added' and new problems requiring fixes and verification testing 'continue to be discovered at a substantial rate,' Gilmore wrote to Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James; General David Goldfein, the service's chief of staff; and Frank Kendall, the Pentagon's acquisitions chief.
The action is another achievement for the $379 billion program, the Pentagon's largest weapons project.
The Air Force's decision follows one by the U.S. Marine Corps in July 2015 declaring a first squadron of F-35s ready for combat.
'The U.S. Air Force decision to make the 15 F-35As ... combat ready sends a simple and powerful message to America's friends and foes alike - the F-35 can do its mission,' the program's chief, Air Force Lieutenant General Chris Bogdan, said in a statement.
Workers can be seen on the moving line and forward fuselage assembly areas for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at Lockheed Martin Corp's factory located in Fort Worth, Texas
Dan Grazier, a fellow of the Project On Government Oversight, said, however, 'This is nothing but a public relations stunt.'
He added that it would not be possible to know if the F-35 jets were ready for combat until after initial operational testing.
'The program is not doing everything they wanted it to do ... But they're at a point now where it is stabilizing and so it is progress,' said Todd Harrison, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
Officials say the F-35 will give the U.S. military the ability to detect enemy aircraft and other threats far beyond current ranges, allowing the jets to strike targets and disappear long before they are detected.
The U.S. Air Force plans to buy a total of 1,763 F-35A conventional takeoff and landing jets in coming years and will operate the largest F-35 fleet in the world.
Air Force General Herbert Carlisle, commander of Air Combat Command, said work to upgrade the jet would continue in areas such as software, making the displays more intuitive and boosting the ability to share information between aircraft.
The aircraft could provide basic air support at this point but did not have everything the final version would, such as an infrared pointer, Carlisle said, adding that he would try to get the jets deployed to Europe and the Pacific within 18 months.
Lockheed is building three models of the F-35 Lightning II for the U.S. military and 10 countries that have already ordered the jets: Britain, Australia, Norway, Italy, Turkey, Denmark, the Netherlands, Israel, South Korea and Japan.
The Pentagon's F-35 program office said it remained in negotiations with Lockheed over long-delayed contracts for the next two batches of F-35 jets, deals worth about $15 billion.
With a price tag of $400 billion for 2,457 planes, the fifth-generation fighter could finally be battle ready later this year, a new report claims.
'We're seeking a fair deal for the F-35 enterprise and industry,' said F-35 program spokesman Joe DellaVedova.
The program, launched in 2001, has made strides in recent years after huge cost overruns and technical problems that sent the project's cost up nearly 70 percent.
Problems with the fighter jet included issues with the radar software and increased risk of neck injury to lower-weight pilots when they ejected from the aircraft.
Industry and U.S. defense officials say they are working hard to continue driving down the cost of the new warplanes to $85 million per plane by 2019, as well as the cost of operating them.
Senator John McCain, the Republican chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he welcomed the announcement but made clear he intended to keep a close eye on the hugely expensive program.
'The Senate Armed Services Committee will continue to exercise rigorous oversight of the Joint Strike Fighter program's long-delayed System Development and Demonstration phase as well as the start of the operational test and evaluation phase,' McCain said in a statement.
To become battle ready, at least a dozen individual F-35 must demonstrate their ability to drop bombs and shoot down other planes.
Each jet must be upgraded to a specific software package, and plugged into the complex logistics cloud that manages maintenance.
The F-35 project office had previously set an Aug. 1 target date.
The project has been plagued with delays.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter's record on cost, schedule and performance has been a scandal and a tragedy, Senator John McCain told senior Pentagon officials earlier this year.
McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the aircraft's development schedule has stretched to 15 years, deliveries of the F-35 have been delayed, and costs have skyrocketed.
'It's been a scandal and the cost overruns have been disgraceful,' McCain said.
Most recently, problems with its logistics software system grounded the entire fleet.
The issue is with what the Department of Defense officials call the 'brains' of plane, also known as the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS).
A Government Accountability Office report says a failure 'could take the entire fleet offline' because there is no backup system.
The report also says a lack of testing done of the software will mean it's not ready for its deployment by the Air Force in August and the Navy in 2018.
The 'brains' of the F35 are one of three major components, with the other two being the engine and airframe.
CNN points out that the software runs on ground computers rather than operating on the plane itself.
It is designed to support operations, mission planning and to spot any maintenance issues with the vehicle.
'Program officials said that if ALIS is not fully functional, the F-35 could not be operated as frequently as intended,' the report said.
'But a DoD commissioned plan found that schedule slippage and functionality problems with ALIS could lead to $20-100 billion in additional costs.'
So far, the software has been so flawed that maintenance crews have had to resort labour-intensive alternatives.
According to National Interest, in one instance maintainers had to manually burn data onto CDs and to send the massive files across a civilian WiFi network.
One major problem, the report said, is that the F-35 data produced goes through a single main operating unit which has no back up.
'As ALIS development continues, our focus is on the warfighter and delivering the most effective, efficient fleet management system to sustain the F-35 over the next five decades of operations,' said Sharon Parsley, a spokeswoman for Lockheed Martin.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been hailed as the 'most expensive weapon in history.' But despite a price tag of $400 billion for 2,457 planes, the fifth-generation fighter has been plagued with issues. Pictured is a F-35B aircraft prepares for a landing at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona. Now, a new report says the craft could finally be battle ready later this year.
'The recommendations by the GAO are in line with the actions already underway in preparation for full-rate production and worldwide sustainment.'
This isn't the only problem to plague the program.
Last month, it has emerged the jets complex radar system has a problem - it keeps crashing.
The software glitch that interferes with the ability of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter's AN/APG-81 AESA radar working in flight.
This poses the greatest threat to delaying US Air Force (USAF) plans to declare its jets operationally deployable, a top service official told Janes.
Major General Jeffrey Harrigian, director of the air force's F-35 integration office at the Pentagon, described the problem as 'radar stability - the radar's ability to stay up and running'.
Nobody really doubts the utility of large-deck carriers. There's nothing else like them, and the United States is the only nation that operates a fleet big enough to keep three or more carriers continuously deployed at all times. However, two issues have come up over and over again since the Cold War ended that have led at least some observers to question why carriers are the centerpiece of America's naval fleet. One concern is that they cost too much. The other is that they are vulnerable to attack.The cost issue is a canard. It only costs a fraction of one-percent of the federal budget to build, operate and sustain all of the Navy's carriers -- and nobody has offered a credible alternative for accomplishing U.S. military objectives in their absence. Critics say carriers are more expensive than they seem because an accurate accounting would include the cost of their escort vessels, but the truth of the matter is that the Navy would need a lot more of those warships if it had to fight conflicts without carriers.The vulnerability issue is harder to address because putting 5,000 sailors and six dozen high-performance aircraft on a $10 billion warship creates what military experts refer to as a very "lucrative" target. Taking one out would be a big achievement for America's enemies, and a big setback for America's military. The original "KM" ekranoplan – designed to travel at high speeds just 150m above the ocean on a cushion of air – was created in the mid-1960s and is arguably one of the oddest weapons to emerge during the Cold War. The "Lun-class" follow-on was outfitted with six missile tubes and entered service with the Soviet navy in the late 1980s.The Lun was powered with eight Kuznetsov NK-87 turbofans, mounted on forward canards, each producing 127.4 kN (28,600 lbf) of thrust. It had a flying boat hull with a large deflecting plate at the bottom to provide a "step" for takeoff.[4] It had a maximum cruising speed of 340 miles per hour (550 km/h).[2]Equipped for anti-surface warfare, it carried the P-270 Moskit (Mosquito) guided missile. Six missile launchers were mounted in pairs on the dorsal surface of its fuselage with advanced tracking systems mounted in its nose and tail.[5]The only model of this class ever built, the MD-160, entered service with the Black Sea Fleet in 1987. It was retired in the late 1990s and is now sitting unused at a naval station in Kaspiysk.[2][6][7]Another version of Lun was planned for use as a mobile field hospital for rapid deployment to any ocean or coastal location. It was named the Spasatel ("Rescuer"). Work was about 90% done, when the military funding ended, and it was never completed.[3][8]
As of 2015, the A-050 ekranoplan is being developed by the Central Hydrofoil Design Bureau, two concepts of which have been shown at the MAKS (air show). According to ValueWalk, the model "will feature modern avionics and navigation", having a take-off weight of 54 tons and carrying capacity of 9 tons; it will be powered by R-195 booster engines, and have a cruising speed of 250 to 300 miles per hour (400 to 480 km/h), with a range of 3,000 miles (4,800 km). At the same time, it is thought the ground effect vehicle will be armed with cruise missiles. The new 'groundskimmer' is a huge craft capable of carrying 500 tonnes of cargo in a single trip.
New development
To do this, is uses an effect known as ground effect to trap a cushion of air underneath its giant wing.
The new 'groundskimmer' is a huge craft capable of carrying 500 tonnes of cargo in a single trip. To do this, is uses an effect known as ground effect to trap a cushion of air underneath its giant wing. Pictured, wind tunnel tests of the strange design
'The layout combines functions of a wing with those of a body to take optimal advantage of the aircraft interior and to enhance the aerodynamic efficiency,' said Russia's Central AeroHydrodynamic Institute, which is developing the project.
'The aircraft is intended for intercontinental transportation of large amounts of cargo — up to 500 tonnes, including transportation in approved containers.'
HOW IT WORKS
The strange craft is known as a Ground Effect Vehicle (GEV).
It uses short, wide wings to trap a layer of air between the undersurface of the aircraft and the ground.
This creates vortices and downdraughts to generate more lift and less drag at very low altitudes - letting a plane carry heavy loads with far less fuel.
The radical design combines the wing and the fuselage of the aircraft, yet only reaches an altitude of between three and 12 m (10 and 40 ft) over water and land, while still being able to use existing runways.
The radical design combines the wing and the fuselage of the aircraft, yet only reaches an altitude of between three and 12 m (10 and 40 ft) over water and land, while still being able to use existing runways.
It would be loaded with containers in compartments inside a wing and loaded via flap doors of fore-sections (leading edges) in the aircraft’s center, the scientists say.
As part of the concept research, a model has already created and tested by the Institute’s specialists in a subsonic wind tunnel.
The strange craft is known as a Ground Effect Vehicle (GEV).
The unique design would be loaded with containers in compartments inside a wing and loaded via flap doors of fore-sections (leading edges) in the aircraft’s center, the scientists say
It uses short, wide wings to trap a layer of air between the undersurface of the aircraft and the ground.
- In winning wars, boots on the ground is essential to occupy enemy territory. With a complement of 40 GXV-T with 4 to 6 infantry personnel each, it can be used as a super amphivious assault ship carrying troops aboard on special type vehicles like the one below.
US Army reveals radical new self-driving troop carrier: GXV-T concept can keep soldiers sealed inside and even automatically reconfigure its armour to 'bounce off' missile attacks.
LIGHT-WEIGHT ALUMINIUM FOAM STRUCTURES FOR SHIPS
https://www.helmholtz-berlin.de/media/media/spezial/people/banhart/html/B-Conferences/b023_banhart1998.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment