DOCSLIB.ORG

Yb05 455 10B.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Appendix 10B. Register of transfers and licensed production of major conventional weapons, 2004 SIEMON T. WEZEMAN and MARK BROMLEY The register in table 10B.1 lists major weapons on order or under delivery, or for which the licence was bought and production was under way or completed during 2004. Sources and methods for data collection are explained in appendix 10C. Entries in table 10B.1 are arranged alphabetically, by recipient, supplier and licenser. ‘Year(s) of deliveries’ includes aggregates of all deliveries and licensed production since the beginning of the contract. ‘Deal worth’ values in the Comments column refer to real monetary values as reported in sources and not to SIPRI trend-indicator values. Conventions, abbreviations and acronyms are explained below the table. The data presented are as of March 2004. For current or previous years’ data and for registers of suppliers, consult the SIPRI Arms Transfers Project via URL <http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/atrequest.html>. Table 10B.1. Register of transfers and licensed production of major conventional weapons, 2004, by recipients Recipient/ Year Year(s) No. supplier (S) No. Weapon Weapon of order/ of delivered/ or licenser (L) ordered designation description licence deliveries produced Comments Afghanistan S: USA 78 M-113 APC (2004) . Ex-US; aid; M-113A2 version; incl 15 M-577A2 CP version Albania S: Italy 7 Bell-205/UH-1D Helicopter (2002) 2004 7 Ex-Italian; AB-205 version; aid Algeria S: Belarus 28 MiG-29S/Fulcrum-C FGA aircraft (1998) 1999–2004 (28) Ex-Belarus; part of deal incl 8 MiG-29UB version delivered from Russia via Belarus Russia 42 Mi-8/Mi-17/Hip-H Helicopter 2002 2002–2004 (42) Deal worth $180 m; Mi-171Sh armed version 456 Recipient/ Year Year(s) No. supplier (S) No. Weapon Weapon of order/ of delivered/ or licenser (L) ordered designation description licence deliveries produced Comments MILITARY SPENDINGANDARMAMENTS,2004 22 Su-24MK/Fencer-D Bomber aircraft 2000 2001–2004 (18) Ex-Russian; deal worth $120 m; probably modernized before delivery; delivery 2001–2005 3 Drum Tilt Fire control radar (1997) 2000 1 For modernization of 3 Koni (Mourad Rais) Class frigates 3 Garpun/Plank Shave Air surv radar (1997) 2000 1 For modernization of 3 Nanuchka (Hamidou) Class corvettes 6 Pozitiv-ME1.2 Air/sea surv radar (1997) 2000 2 For modernization of 3 (Mourad Rais) Class frigates and 3 Nanuchka (Hamidou) Class corvettes (96) SS-N-25/Kh-35 Uran Anti-ship missile 1998 2000–2004 (24) For modernized Nanuchka (Hamidou) Class corvettes (24) TEST-71 AS/ASW torpedo (1997) 2000 (8) For modernized Koni (Mourad Rais) Class frigates; desig uncertain Spain 6 C-295M Transport aircraft 2004 . Deal worth €130 m ($165 m) Angola S: Peru 6 EMB-312 Tucano Trainer aircraft 2002 2004 (6) Ex-Peruvian; deal worth $1.6–4.8 m; delivery postponed while Peruvian court investigating claims that deal undervalues aircraft and by Angolan claim for $1.2 m damages for late delivery Argentina S: Netherlands 6 DA-05 Air surv radar (1979) 1985–2004 6 For 6 MEKO-140 Type (Espora Class) frigates from Germany 6 WM-28 Fire control radar (1979) 1985–2004 6 For 6 MEKO-140 Type (Espora Class) frigates from Germany USA 2 AN/TPS-43 Air surv radar 2003 2004 2 Ex-US; aid 3 AN/TPS-43 Air surv radar 2004 2004 (3) Ex-US; deal worth $2 m; status uncertain L: Germany 6 MEKO-140 Type Frigate 1979 1985–2004 6 Argentine desig Espora Class; delivery of last 2 delayed 10–15 years until 2000–2004 for lack of funding Armenia S: Russia 2 Il-76M/Candid-B Transport aircraft 2004 2004 2 Probably ex-Russian; part of Collective Security Treaty Organisation Cooperation Australia S: Canada (69) Piranha APC 1998 2002–2004 (66) Part of ‘Project Land-112 Phase-3’ or ‘ASLAV programme Phase-3’ worth $180–210 m; incl 7 ambulance, 11 ARV, 14 CP, 15 radar reconnaissance and 11 repair version; Australian desigs ASLAV-PC/R/A/C/S/F; assembled in INTERNATIONAL ARMSTRANSFERS457 Australia; delivery 2002–2005 (81) Piranha/LAV-25 IFV 1998 2003–2004 (61) Part of ‘Project Land-112 Phase-3’ or ‘ASLAV programme Phase-3’ worth $180–210 m; Australian desig ASLAV-25; assembled in Australia; delivery 2003–2005 France 22 AS-665 Tiger Combat helicopter 2001 2004 2 ‘Project Air-87’ worth $670 m (offsets incl production of components and production of EC-120 helicopter for Asian market); Aussie Tiger version; incl 18 assembled in Australia; delivery 2004–2008 Germany 259 Waran APC 2002 2004 (1) Part of ‘Project Land-106 Phase-2’ worth AUD500 m ($280 m); Australian M-113A1 APCs rebuilt to Waran; Australian desig M-113AS4; delivery 2004–2009 Israel (18) EL/M-2022 MP aircraft radar 1995 2002–2004 (18) Part of ‘Project Air-5276’ worth $372–495 m for modernization of 18 P-3C ASW/MP aircraft to AP-3C Sea Sentinel version by US company Multiple sellers 5 A330-200 Tanker/transport ac 2004 . ‘Project Air-5402’ worth AUD1.4 b ($1.1 b); delivery 2007–2009 458 Recipient/ Year Year(s) No. supplier (S) No. Weapon Weapon of order/ of delivered/ or licenser (L) ordered designation description licence deliveries produced Comments MILITARY SPENDINGANDARMAMENTS,2004 12 NH-90 TTH Helicopter (2004) . ‘Project Air-9000/Phase-2’ worth AUD1 b ($704 m); Australian desig MRH-90; delivery 2007–2008 . MU-90 Impact ASW torpedo 2001 . ‘Joint Project-2070 Djimindi Phase-2’ worth €150 m; delivery from 2005 . MU-90 Impact ASW torpedo 2003 . ‘Joint Project-2070 Djimindi Phase-3’ worth €150 m; assembled in Australia (incl up to 35% of components produced in Australia); delivery from 2005 South Korea 1 Delos Class Tanker 2004 2004 1 Deal worth AUD50 m ($35 m); modified in Australia to oiler/support ship Sweden 8 9LV Fire control radar (1991) 1996–2004 6 9LV453 version; for 8 MEKO-200ANZ Type (Anzac Class) frigates from Germany; incl for use with Seasparrow SAM 8 Sea Giraffe-150 Air/sea surv radar 1991 1996–2004 6 For 8 MEKO-200ANZ Type (Anzac Class) frigates from Germany . RBS-70 Mk-2 Portable SAM 2003 2003–2004 (50) ‘Project Land-19 Phase-6’ worth AUD83 m ($55 m) including launchers and modernization of existing RBS-70 systems and radars; Bolide version; delivery 2003–2006 UK 61 MSTAR Ground surv radar 1999 2002–2004 (45) ‘Project NINOX’ worth $32 m; incl 55 assembled in Australia; Australian desig AMSTAR USA 4 Boeing-737-7ES AEW&C aircraft 2000 . ‘Wedgetail’ programme worth $1.6–1.8 b; Australian desig A-30; incl 2 assembled in Australia; delivery 2006–2007 2 Boeing-737-7ES AEW&C aircraft 2004 . ‘Wedgetail’ programme worth AUD326 m ($224 m); Australian desig A-30; assembled in Australia; delivery 2008 7 King Air-350/C-12S Light transport ac 2002 2003–2004 (7) 10-year lease worth $170 m; owned by Australian company; for training 8 Mk-45 127mm Naval gun (1989) 1996–2004 6 Mk-45 Mod-2 version; for 8 MEKO-200ANZ Type (Anzac Class) frigates from Germany 59 M-1A1 Abrams Tank 2004 . Part of ‘Project Land-907’ worth $420–475 m; ex-US M-1A1 rebuild to M-1A1AIM(D) version; delivery from 2007 7 M-88A2 HERCULES ARV 2004 . Ex-US; part of ‘Project Land-907’ worth $475 m; delivery from 2007 8 AN/SPS-49 Air surv radar 1993 1996–2004 6 AN/SPS-49V(8) version; for 8 MEKO-200ANZ Type (Anzac Class) frigates from Germany 4 AN/TPS-77 Air surv radar 1998 2004 (2) ‘Project Air-5375’ worth $68–90 m; assembled in Australia . AGM-114K Hellfire Anti-tank missile (2004) . For Tiger combat helicopters (400) AIM-120B AMRAAM BVRAAM (2000) 2001–2004 (300) ‘Project Air-5400’; for F/A-18A combat aircraft (676) Javelin Anti-tank missile 2003 . ‘Project Land-40-1’ worth $60–110 m; delivery 2005–2007 INTERNATIONAL ARMSTRANSFERS459 . Mk-48 ADCAP AS/ASW torpedo (2003) . ‘Project Sea-1429’ worth AUD465 m ($280 m); for Collins Class submarines; delivery from 2006 64 RGM-84 Harpoon Anti-ship missile 2002 2004 (10) Deal worth AUD170 m ($96 m); RGM-84L Harpoon Block-2 version (possibly incl some Harpoon Block-1B version); for MEKO-200ANZ Type (Anzac Class) frigates (576) RIM-162 ESSM SAM 2002 2003–2004 (150) For MEKO-200ANZ Type (Anzac Class) and modernized Adelaide (Perry) Class frigates (48) RIM-66M Standard-2 SAM (2003) . ‘Project Sea 1390-4b’; for modernized Adelaide (Perry) Class frigates L: Germany 8 MEKO-200ANZ Type Frigate 1989 1996–2004 6 Deal worth $2.7 b; Australian desig Anzac Class; delivery 1996–2006 Austria S: Germany 18 Eurofighter/Typhoon FGA aircraft 2003 . Deal worth €1.95 b ($2.2–2.6 b; offsets worth $4.7 b incl UK order for trucks produced in Austria); delivery 2007–2009 460 Recipient/ Year Year(s) No. supplier (S) No. Weapon Weapon of order/ of delivered/ or licenser (L) ordered designation description licence deliveries produced Comments MILITARY SPENDINGANDARMAMENTS,2004 20 Dingo-2 APC 2004 2004 1 Delivery 2004–2005 Switzerland 12 F-5E Tiger-2 FGA aircraft 2004 2004 (8) Ex-Swiss; 4-year lease worth €56–75 m ($67–92 m); delivery 2004–2005 UK 3 C-130K Hercules Transport aircraft 2002 2003–2004 3 Ex-UK; deal worth $36 m; modernized before delivery Bahrain S: Malta 1 BAe-146 Transport aircraft 2004 2004 1 Deal worth $8.1 m; second-hand; sold and delivered via UK UK 6 Hawk-100 Trainer/combat ac 2003 . Hawk-129 version; possibly option on 6 more; delivery 2006 USA 1 AN/TPS-59 Air surv radar 2004 .
Recommended publications
  • Prepared by Textore, Inc. Peter Wood, David Yang, and Roger Cliff November 2020

    Prepared by Textore, Inc. Peter Wood, David Yang, and Roger Cliff November 2020

    AIR-TO-AIR MISSILES CAPABILITIES AND DEVELOPMENT IN CHINA Prepared by TextOre, Inc. Peter Wood, David Yang, and Roger Cliff November 2020 Printed in the United States of America by the China Aerospace Studies Institute ISBN 9798574996270 To request additional copies, please direct inquiries to Director, China Aerospace Studies Institute, Air University, 55 Lemay Plaza, Montgomery, AL 36112 All photos licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, or under the Fair Use Doctrine under Section 107 of the Copyright Act for nonprofit educational and noncommercial use. All other graphics created by or for China Aerospace Studies Institute Cover art is "J-10 fighter jet takes off for patrol mission," China Military Online 9 October 2018. http://eng.chinamil.com.cn/view/2018-10/09/content_9305984_3.htm E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/CASI https://twitter.com/CASI_Research @CASI_Research https://www.facebook.com/CASI.Research.Org https://www.linkedin.com/company/11049011 Disclaimer The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Government or the Department of Defense. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 51-303, Intellectual Property, Patents, Patent Related Matters, Trademarks and Copyrights; this work is the property of the U.S. Government. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights Reproduction and printing is subject to the Copyright Act of 1976 and applicable treaties of the United States. This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This publication is provided for noncommercial use only.
  • Progress in Delivering the British Army's Armoured

    Progress in Delivering the British Army's Armoured

    AVF0014 Written evidence submitted by Nicholas Drummond “Progress in Delivering the British Army’s Armoured Vehicle Capability.” Nicholas Drummond Defence Industry Consultant and Commentator Aura Consulting Ltd. ______________________________________________________________________________ _________ Contents Section 1 - Introduction Section 2 - HCDC questions 1. Does the Army have a clear understanding of how it will employ its armoured vehicles in future operations? 2. Given the delays to its programmes, will the Army be able to field the Strike Brigades and an armoured division as envisaged by the 2015 SDSR? 3. How much has the Army spent on procuring armoured vehicles over the last 20 years? How many vehicles has it procured with this funding? 4. What other capabilities has the Army sacrificed in order to fund overruns in its core armoured vehicles programmes? 5. How flexible can the Army be in adapting its current armoured vehicle plans to the results of the Integrated Review? 6. By 2025 will the Army be able to match the potential threat posed by peer adversaries? 7. Is the Army still confident that the Warrior CSP can deliver an effective vehicle capability for the foreseeable future? 8. To what extent does poor contractor performance explain the delays to the Warrior and Ajax programmes? 9. Should the UK have a land vehicles industrial strategy, and if so what benefits would this bring? 10. What sovereign capability for the design and production of armoured vehicles does the UK retain? 11. Does it make sense to upgrade the Challenger 2 when newer, more capable vehicles may be available from our NATO allies? 12. What other key gaps are emerging within the Army’s armoured vehicle capability? 13.
  • Security & Defence European

    Security & Defence European

    a 7.90 D European & Security ES & Defence 4/2016 International Security and Defence Journal Protected Logistic Vehicles ISSN 1617-7983 • www.euro-sd.com • Naval Propulsion South Africa‘s Defence Exports Navies and shipbuilders are shifting to hybrid The South African defence industry has a remarkable breadth of capa- and integrated electric concepts. bilities and an even more remarkable depth in certain technologies. August 2016 Jamie Shea: NATO‘s Warsaw Summit Politics · Armed Forces · Procurement · Technology The backbone of every strong troop. Mercedes-Benz Defence Vehicles. When your mission is clear. When there’s no road for miles around. And when you need to give all you’ve got, your equipment needs to be the best. At times like these, we’re right by your side. Mercedes-Benz Defence Vehicles: armoured, highly capable off-road and logistics vehicles with payloads ranging from 0.5 to 110 t. Mobilising safety and efficiency: www.mercedes-benz.com/defence-vehicles Editorial EU Put to the Test What had long been regarded as inconceiv- The second main argument of the Brexit able became a reality on the morning of 23 campaigners was less about a “democratic June 2016. The British voted to leave the sense of citizenship” than of material self- European Union. The majority that voted for interest. Despite all the exception rulings "Brexit", at just over 52 percent, was slim, granted, the United Kingdom is among and a great deal smaller than the 67 percent the net contribution payers in the EU. This who voted to stay in the then EEC in 1975, money, it was suggested, could be put to but ignoring the majority vote is impossible.
  • C4ISTAR TECHNOLOGIES ISSN 1478-3347 Volume Twenty Four – Issue Two September 2021

    C4ISTAR TECHNOLOGIES ISSN 1478-3347 Volume Twenty Four – Issue Two September 2021

    BATTLESPACEC4ISTAR TECHNOLOGIES ISSN 1478-3347 Volume twenty four – Issue two September 2021 VEHICLES COMMUNICATIONS ARMOUR COMPUTERS SPACE Contents 8 Editor: Julian Nettlefold Advertising: Battlespace Publications Published by: BATTLESPACE Publications Old Charlock Abthorpe Road 24 Silverstone Towcester NN12 8TW United Kingdom Contacts: Julian Nettlefold Mobile: +44 (0)77689 54766 Email: j.nettlefold@ battle-technology.com All rights reserved in all countries. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval systems or transmitted in any form 30 42 or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the Publisher. Infringements of any of the above rights will be liable to prosecution under UK, European or US civil or criminal law. Subscriptions: www.battle-technology.com Battlespace C4ISTAR Technologies (ISSN: 1478-3347) is published by Battlespace Publications. Battlespace C4ISTAR Technologies (ISSN: 1478-3347) is published by Battlespace Publications Printed by: St. Austell Printing Company St. Austell Business Park St. Austell Cornwall PL25 4FD BATTLESPACE C4ISTAR TECHNOLOGIES 3 Letter from the editor Dear Reader, Welcome to our special DSEI issue, published as the turmoil of the COVID pandemic recedes and life inches back to normal. It is a tribute to Clarion to keep the DSEI show alive and to bring us all back together again after so many months apart or on a Zoom screen. Since COVID struck the world has become a more dangerous place with hot spots springing up all over the world from Mozambique in Africa to Iranian drones in the Gulf thru to China and Afghanistan, where the situation gets worse by the day.
  • CRUISE MISSILE THREAT Volume 2: Emerging Cruise Missile Threat

    CRUISE MISSILE THREAT Volume 2: Emerging Cruise Missile Threat

    By Systems Assessment Group NDIA Strike, Land Attack and Air Defense Committee August 1999 FEASIBILITY OF THIRD WORLD ADVANCED BALLISTIC AND CRUISE MISSILE THREAT Volume 2: Emerging Cruise Missile Threat The Systems Assessment Group of the National Defense Industrial Association ( NDIA) Strike, Land Attack and Air Defense Committee performed this study as a continuing examination of feasible Third World missile threats. Volume 1 provided an assessment of the feasibility of the long range ballistic missile threats (released by NDIA in October 1998). Volume 2 uses aerospace industry judgments and experience to assess Third World cruise missile acquisition and development that is “emerging” as a real capability now. The analyses performed by industry under the broad title of “Feasibility of Third World Advanced Ballistic & Cruise Missile Threat” incorporate information only from unclassified sources. Commercial GPS navigation instruments, compact avionics, flight programming software, and powerful, light-weight jet propulsion systems provide the tools needed for a Third World country to upgrade short-range anti-ship cruise missiles or to produce new land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs) today. This study focuses on the question of feasibility of likely production methods rather than relying on traditional intelligence based primarily upon observed data. Published evidence of technology and weapons exports bears witness to the failure of international agreements to curtail cruise missile proliferation. The study recognizes the role LACMs developed by Third World countries will play in conjunction with other new weapons, for regional force projection. LACMs are an “emerging” threat with immediate and dire implications for U.S. freedom of action in many regions .
  • SP's Naval Force June-July 2010

    SP's Naval Force June-July 2010

    June-July l 2010 Volume 5 No 3 rs 100.00 (india-based buyer only) SP’s AN SP GUIDE PUBLICATION www.spsnavalforces.net ROUNDUP 3 PAGe STOP PRESS A Global Concern NAvAL vARIANT OF LCA ROLLS OUT India, in cooperation with its allies and friends The country’s first naval variant of Light Combat Aircraft, the LCA (Navy) Trainer around the world, will have to work to ensure Naval Project (NP)–1 was rolled out by the Defence Minister A.K. Antony from HAL that lawful private and public activities in the Aircraft Research and Design Centre at a glittering function in Bengaluru on July 6, maritime domain are protected against attack 2010. The Chief of Naval Staff Admiral Nirmal Verma, Secretary Defence Production by hostile exploitations R.K. Singh, Scientific Adviser to the Defence Minister, Dr. V.K. Saraswat, HAL Chair - man Ashok Nayak, Director Aeronautical Development Agency P.S. Subramanyam Cdr Sandeep Dewan were present on the occasion. The Defence Minister described the development as a ‘defining and memorable event’ for the nation. PAGe 4 Around the Sea A report on Commander Dilip Donde’s TeTe-e-TeTe successful completion of the first solo circumnavigation by an Indian Rear Admiral (Retd) Sushil Ramsay ‘Cooperation and interaction in the PAGe 6 Stealthy Ships maritime domain will continue to be an important aspect of IN’s vision’ PhotograPh: abhishek / sP guide Pubns Chief of Naval Staff Admi - ral Nirmal Verma , in an interaction with SP’s Naval The scope of accessing technologies from Forces , throws light on the the western world, so far denied to India, is security measures to deal witnessing an upward swing with the growing incidents Rear Admiral (Retd) Sushil Ramsay of piracy.
  • Technical Report

    Technical Report

    NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California TECHNICAL REPORT “SEA ARCHER” Distributed Aviation Platform by Faculty Members Charles Calvano David Byers Robert Harney Fotis Papoulias John Ciezki Robert Ashton Student Members LT Joe Keller, USN LCDR Rabon Cooke, USN CDR(sel) James Ivey, USN LT Brad Stallings, USN LT Antonios Dalakos, Helenic Navy LT Scot Searles, USN LTjg Orhan Okan, Turkish Navy LTjg Mersin Gokce, Turkish Navy LT Ryan Kuchler, USN LT Pete Lashomb, USN Ivan Ng, Singapore December 2001 Approved for public release, distribution unlimited REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instruction, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188) Washington DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED December 2001 Technical Report 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE: 5. FUNDING NUMBERS “Sea Archer” Distributed Aviation Platform 6. AUTHOR(S) Charles Calvano, Robert Harney, David Byers, Fotis Papoulias, John Ciezki, LT Joe Keller, LCDR Rabon Cooke, CDR (sel) James Ivey, LT Brad Stallings, LT Scot Searles, LT Ryan Kuchler, Ivan Ng, LTjg Orhan Okan, LTjg Mersin Gokce, LT Antonios Dalakos, LT Pete Lashomb.
  • Russia and Strategic Non-Nuclear Deterrence Capabilities, Limitations and Challenges

    Russia and Strategic Non-Nuclear Deterrence Capabilities, Limitations and Challenges

    Russia and strategic Briefing Paper non-nuclear deterrence Russia and Eurasia Programme Capabilities, limitations July 2021 and challenges Summary — An analysis of Russian military theory and practice suggests that Russia’s views have undergone an evolution, moving from reliance on nuclear deterrence towards a greater emphasis on non-nuclear deterrence. The development of Russia’s new long-range precision-guided weapons strongly supports the notion of such a shift. — At the same time, Russia is pressing ahead with the development of both non-nuclear and nuclear capabilities. It ceaselessly emphasizes its nuclear weapons, and its nuclear projects continue to proliferate. — In Russian theory and practice, nuclear and non-nuclear (conventional) deterrence are inextricably linked. A picture emerges of a flexible package of capabilities, with non-nuclear strategic systems complementing non-strategic and strategic nuclear weapons. — In anything less than large-scale high-intensity warfare, Russia’s non-nuclear strategic deterrent is valid conceptually and has clear practical utility. — This paper examines Russian non-nuclear deterrence in its primary, military manifestations. It outlines the capabilities involved in the exercise of non-nuclear deterrence and explores its potential limitations as well as its ambiguities. Studying these nuances offers a way to gain a fuller understanding of the challenges that they present, including for NATO. Valeriy Akimenko Russia and strategic non-nuclear deterrence Capabilities, limitations and challenges Introduction An analysis of Russian military theory and practice suggests that Russia’s views have undergone an evolution, moving from reliance on nuclear deterrence towards a greater emphasis on non-nuclear deterrence. Uncertainty surrounds this emphasis, both conceptually and practically.
  • Israeli Arms Transfers to India: Ad Hoc Defence Cooperation Or the Beginnings of a Strategic Partnership?

    Israeli Arms Transfers to India: Ad Hoc Defence Cooperation Or the Beginnings of a Strategic Partnership?

    Policy Brief: Israeli Arms Transfers to India: Ad Hoc Defence Cooperation or the Beginnings of a Strategic Partnership? Richard A. Bitzinger April 2013 Policy Brief: Israeli Arms Transfers to India: Ad Hoc Defence Cooperation or the Beginnings of a Strategic Partnership? RICHARD A. BITZINGER 2 Executive Summary Israeli arms exports to India are at the core of Indo-Israeli defence cooperation. Israel has been selling weapons to the Indian military for over 20 years. These transfers are mutually benefi cial: Israel has become one of India’s most important arms suppliers, as well as a critical provider of military technologies and know-how, while India has become Israel’s single largest arms market. This arms relationship has subsequently expanded into other areas of defence cooperation, such as combating terrorism, and joint naval and space activities. However, any expectations that such cooperation will result in a broader and deeper “strategic partnership” – particularly one that could help Tel Aviv enlist New Delhi’s help in hindering Iran’s anti- Israeli activities – are overly optimistic. India and Israel do not share enough of a common worldview or common goals to form the basis of such a partnership. Consequently, Indo-Israel defence cooperation will likely remain a tactical, ad hoc arms- for-cash relationship for some time to come. Defence cooperation has always been a low-key but essential Recent Israeli transfers to India include: element in relations between Israel and India.1 While most of • Searcher and Heron surveillance UAVs this cooperation has taken place at the rather discreet level • Harpy and Harop loitering anti-radiation drones of Israeli arms sales to India, these deals have nonetheless • The Popeye air-to-ground missile been critical to the expansion of military ties between these • The Python-4 air-to-air missile two countries since the establishment of bilateral diplomatic • The Spike anti-tank missile relations in 1992.
  • Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 239/Friday, December 11, 2020

    Federal Register/Vol. 85, No. 239/Friday, December 11, 2020

    80060 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 239 / Friday, December 11, 2020 / Notices Defense System Launcher political stability, military balance, 2. The highest level of classification of Transporter Units, twenty-five (25) economic and progress in the region. defense articles, components, and radar trucks, spare and repair parts, This proposed sale will improve the services included in this potential sale support and test equipment, recipient’s capability to meet current is CONFIDENTIAL. publications and technical and future threats by providing a 3. If a technologically advanced documentation, personnel training flexible solution to augment existing adversary were to obtain knowledge of and training equipment, U.S. surface and air defenses. The recipient the hardware and software elements, the Government and contractor will be able to employ a highly reliable information could be used to develop representatives’ technical and effective system to counter or deter countermeasures or equivalent systems, assistance, engineering and logistics maritime aggressions, coastal blockades, which might reduce system support services, and other related and amphibious assaults. This effectiveness or be used in the elements of logistics support. capability will easily integrate into development of a system with similar or (iv) Military Department: Navy (TW-P- existing force infrastructure. The advanced capabilities. LHX) recipient will have no difficulty 4. A determination has been made (v) Prior Related Cases, if any: TW-P- absorbing these systems into its armed that the recipient can provide LGV, TW-P-LGN, TW-P-LGL forces. substantially the same degree of (vi) Sales Commission, Fee, etc., Paid, The proposed sale of this equipment protection for the sensitive technology Offered, or Agreed to be Paid: None and support will not alter the basic (vii) Sensitivity of Technology being released as the U.S.
  • Borító Seregszemle 2012. Július-Szeptember.Indd

    Borító Seregszemle 2012. Július-Szeptember.Indd

    A Magyar honvédség Összhaderőnemi Parancsnokság szakmai-tudományos folyóirata Sereg Szemle „Fegyver, fegyver, fegyver kévántatik, és jó vitézi resolutio!” (Zrínyi Miklós) BBorító_Seregszemleorító_Seregszemle 22012.012. jjúlius-szeptember.inddúlius-szeptember.indd 1 22012.09.04.012.09.04. 113:46:233:46:23 BBorító_Seregszemleorító_Seregszemle 22012.012. jjúlius-szeptember.inddúlius-szeptember.indd 2 22012.09.04.012.09.04. 113:46:253:46:25 AZ MH ÖSSZHADERŐNEMI PARANCSNOKSÁG SZAKMAI-TUDOMÁNYOS FOLYÓIRATA AZ MH ÖSSZHADERŐNEMI PARANCSNOKSÁG SZAKMAI-TUDOMÁNYOS FOLYÓIRATA Megjelenik negyedévente X. évfolyam, 3. szám, 2012. július-szeptember Felelős kiadó: Tagok: Domján László vezérőrnagy Dr. Böröndi Gábor dandártábornok az MH Összhaderőnemi Parancsnokság Oláh József ezredes parancsnoka Mucsi István ezredes Bárány Zoltán ezredes Szerkesztőség: Topor István ezredes Postacím: 8000 Székesfehérvár, Dr. Révész Gyula mk. ezredes Zámolyi út 2-6, 8001. Pf 151 Dr. Horváth Zoltán mk. ezredes Telefon: 22-542-811 Rózsa Tibor ezredes Fax: 22-542-836 Koller József ezredes E-mail: [email protected] Dr. habil Horváth Tibor mk alezredes A lap eletronikus változata megtekinthető a Szakácsi István mk. alezredes www.honvedelem.hu/cikk/28301/ Sári Gábor alezredes seregszemle-kiadvanyok-gyujtemenye linken Dr. Parragh Csaba közalkalmazott Szerkesztőbizottság: Szerkesztőségi titkár: Elnök: Huszár János dandártábornok Gyöngyösi Gáborné közalkalmazott Elnökhelyettes: Garas László ezredes Szerkesztőség: Lapzárta: 2012. augusztus 30. Felelős szerkesztő: Dr. Földesi Ferenc Nyomdai előkészítés, nyomás: HU ISSN: 2060-3924 OOK-Press Kft., Veszprém Készült: 500 példányban Fv.: Szathmáry Attila A folyóirat az MH ÖHP alaprendeltetéséből adódó kérdések katonai-szakmai fóruma. A szerzők szakmai véleményét a lap hűen közli, azok tartalmáért a szerző felel! A szerkesz- tőség azonban fenntartja magának a jogot a cikkek rövidítésére, a szükséges nyelvi és for- mai javítások végrehajtására.
  • Ukraine 2014

    Ukraine 2014

    TheRaising Chinese Red Flags: QLZ87 Automatic Grenade An Examination of Arms & Munitions in the Ongoing LauncherConflict in Ukraine 2014 Jonathan Ferguson & N.R. Jenzen-Jones RESEARCH REPORT No. 3 COPYRIGHT Published in Australia by Armament Research Services (ARES) © Armament Research Services Pty. Ltd. Published in November 2014 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Armament Research Services, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organisation. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Publications Manager, Armament Research Services: [email protected] CREDITS Authors: Jonathan Ferguson & N.R. Jenzen-Jones Contributors: Yuri Lyamin & Michael Smallwood Technical Review: Yuri Lyamin, Ian McCollum & Hans Migielski Copy Editor: Jean Yew Layout/Design: Yianna Paris, Green Shell Media ABOUT ARMAMENT RESEARCH SERVICES Armament Research Services (ARES) is a specialist consultancy which offers technical expertise and analysis to a range of government and non-government entities in the arms and munitions field.ARES fills a critical market gap, and offers unique technical support to other actors operating in the sector. Drawing on the extensive experience and broad-ranging skillsets of our staff and contractors, ARES delivers full-spectrum research and analysis, technical review, training, and project support services, often in support of national, regional, and international initiatives. ARMAMENT RESEARCH SERVICES Pty. Ltd. t + 61 8 6365 4401 e [email protected] w www.armamentresearch.com Jonathan Ferguson & N.R.