Chinese Military Parade - The largest military force in the World - HD 720p

Amazing moments of China V-Day parade

China V-Day Parade 2015 中国胜利日阅兵式直播

Will Russia's Sub-Building Boom Matter? Three Fold Threat Russia,China And Iran !!!!

By Christopher P. Cavas4:25 p.m. EST January 24, 2015

Despite Numbers, Experts Question Combat Effectiveness   

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/2015/01/24/russia-navy-submarine-shipbuilding-nuclear/22190761/

Combine the revived Russian submarine construction rate with President Vladimir Putin's aggressive stances of the past year, along with the steady drumbeat of Chinese naval expansion, and the question might be asked — is a submarine race going on?

"I know a lot of folks like the term arms race, but I think it's more complicated than that," said Thomas Mahnken, a former US defense official and now a professor at the Naval War College. "There's definitely competition going on — with the US, other NATO navies, China — but there's also modernization going on. An increasing portion of what Russia is doing is replacing aging systems or systems that already have been retired."

"I would be skeptical," cautioned Norman Friedman, a longtime naval analyst and author. "There's a history in that country of laying down things that don't get finished for a long time. No question they'll lay down the subs, but actually building them after that is a more interesting question."

The Russians frequently issue proclamations that they intend to increase naval construction, including statements about building a fleet of aircraft carriers. But ship construction remains modest, and the Navy remains largely a collection of Cold War relics. Yet Russia has a long tradition of building tough and innovative submarines.

"The Russians have put their money where their mouth is with regard to submarine construction and development," said Bryan Clark, a former US Navy submariner and strategist, now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "They see that as a way to generate an asymmetric advantage over US forces. If they can develop a really high-end submarine force like they did in the Cold War, it would create a problem for US naval planners and strategists thinking through how to deal with a potential Russian threat — one that could emerge without a lot of warning."

Construction Delays

The most lethal new subs are those of the Yuri Dolgoruky class, also known as the Project 955 Borey class. Construction of the Dolgoruky has been a protracted affair — the ship was laid down at the Sevmash military shipyard in Severodvinsk in 1996 but not launched until 2007. Sea trials began in 2009, but development of the ship's primary weapon, the Bulava intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), itself has been fraught with problems. It was only in 2014 that the submarine submerged with a full load of 16 ICBMs, according to Russian media.

A second Borey, the Alexander Nevsky, was laid down in March 2004 and began sea trials in 2011. Like the Dolgoruky, the ship and its missiles have experienced numerous problems, and trials continued at least through 2013. Vladimir Monomakh, the third Borey, was commissioned last December after eight years of construction and trials.

Three more Boreys are under construction, and Russian Navy chief Adm. Viktor Chirkov said in December two more would be laid down in 2015, for a total of eight, all expected to be in service by 2020.

The design of the Dolgorukys uses many features of earlier submarines. In fact, the first units used pieces and components built for earlier submarines that were either scrapped or never finished. Russian media reports indicate the Vladimir Monomakh used significant hull components of the decommissioned Akula-class attack submarine Ak Bars.

"I get the feeling for all the big talk from the Russians about building a new fleet, they're probably having trouble getting stuff," Friedman said. "For the first subs, they used pieces from earlier subs."

The Dolgoruky carried out an operational test firing of a Bulava in October, the Itar-Tass news agency reported — the third successful test launch since a September 2013 failure — and two more will take place in 2015.

Meanwhile, construction of Yasen-class Project 885M nuclear attack submarines is picking up. The first unit, Severodvinsk, was commissioned at the end of 2013 after a 20-year construction period, during which the submarine underwent significant re-design. A second unit, laid down in 2009 at Sevmash, could be delivered this year.

Two more Yasens were laid down in 2014. Itar-Tass reported on Dec. 26 that Mikhail Budnichenko, head of Sevmash, said three Project 885 Yasen-class subs would be laid down this year along with two Boreys.

Non-nuclear submarine construction also continues. Along with several Kilo-class subs being built for the Russian Navy and export, at least one more Lada-class diesel-electric submarine is to begin construction this year.

Numbers vs. Effectiveness

But can Russia sustain this prodigious submarine construction effort?

"The naval production we're likely to see this year is an artifact of decisions made some time ago when oil prices were fairly high and before a number of Western countries imposed sanctions on Russia," Mahnken said. "Whatever the Russians do this year, I think it'll be very hard for them to sustain naval production going forward."

Added Friedman: "Putin doesn't have that much money. And with the drop in oil prices, they have very bad problems."

With the post-1990 decline in shipbuilding, Friedman said, the shipyards have lost much of their submarine-building expertise.

"A lot of people quit the yards" when construction all but ended, he said. "If they lost a lot of their smarter people, there's a difficulty in recreating what they had. Coming back 15 years later and trying to recreate it is kind of dubious."

Clark agreed.

"Their industrial base is weakened from two decades of not being used," he said. "You've got a significant reduction in the number of skilled engineers, the aging out of people who otherwise would be part of the Russian design base.

"While Russian engineering and technology development is top-notch, they don't necessarily have the people to be able to do all the legwork necessary to take an idea into a reality. That's why you see things like submarines taking 10 or more years to construct, because they just don't have the design and construction base to support high-rate production."

But are the new submarines cause for worry?

The Yasen attack subs "are probably what you could get in 1989, plus improved combat systems," Friedman said. "They got access to microprocessors and things like that. But they're not going to the insertion of new technology, because they're not that flexible. But I would guess the combat systems have improved substantially."

Clark sees no cause for alarm in the pace of Russian submarine construction.

"They don't have very many submarines today, and they certainly don't have very many frontline submarines that would be anywhere close to US submarines," he said. "The best submarines the Russians are producing are perhaps equivalent to some of the older US submarines currently in use. It would take a while for the Russians to build up enough of those to where they create a potential problem for the US.

"The main concern," Clark added, "is that even a small number of very good submarines can be problematic from an intelligence-gathering and surprise strike kind of perspective. But they're not able to cause a debilitating effect to a fleet."

E-mail ccavas@defensenews.com

Twitter: @CavasShips

The Glenn Beck Program - Russia Prepping an EMP for America? 4/10/15

The Glenn Beck Program - Beck Blitz: The Very Real Threat Of EMPs

http://www.glennbeck.com/podcast/

Iran Nuclear Deal: Bad News To Republicans, Israel, North Korea

http://www.forbes.com/sites/donaldkirk/2015/04/03/iran-nuclear-deal-anathema-to-republicans-israel-and-north-korea/

Israel and Republicans in the U.S. Congress now share common cause with North Korea on one critical topic: they hate the nuclear deal that  negotiators from the U.S. and five other countries have struck with Iran.

While Israeli leaders and commentators denounce the agreement and Republicans vow to fight it in the U.S. Congress, North Korea has already stated that it will never give up its nuclear weapons. Six-party talks with North Korea, hosted by China, screeched to a halt nearly seven years ago and aren’t likely to resume as long as North Korea really has nothing to talk about.

That doesn’t mean, though, that North Korean leaders will not be watching closely to see how the deal works out even if they’re not going to follow Iran’s example.

President Barack Obama walks to the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Thursday, April 2, 2015, to talk about the breakthrough in the Iranian nuclear talks. The president said the Iran nuclear deal _ if completed_ will make US, allies and the world safer. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

North Korea and Iran are not about to break off close ties forged in cooperation not only on nuclear technology but on missiles and other weaponry.  Iran has sent teams of advisers to North Korea to witness and assist on long-range missile development while North Korea has exported short and mid-range missiles to Iran along with both experts and laborers to work on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The huge difference, of course, is that Iran professes to be dedicated only to producing nuclear energy for industrial purposes while North Korea is interested only in making warheads.

Energy-poor North Korea, relying on China for all its oil, lost its chance to obtain twin nuclear energy reactors, promised under the 1994 agreed framework with the U.S., when revealed eight years later to be developing highly enriched uranium after having shut down its plutonium program under terms of the agreement. Construction of the twin energy reactors soon stopped, and North Korea resumed building warheads with plutonium and possibly uranium.

Skeptics of the Iranian pledge to downsize its number of centrifuges and stop enriching most of its uranium while agreeing to on-site inspections point out that Korea is now fabricating centrifuges with technology acquired from Iran and from A.Q. Khan when he was running Pakistan’s nuclear program. North Korea is believed to be gearing up for a fourth nuclear test — this one with a device powered by uranium.

The deal with Iran, though, is sure to give pause to North Korea’s nuclear ambitions for a number of reasons.

One is that China, North Korea’s only ally whether North Korean leaders like it or not, is fairly well committed to opposing their nuclear ambition and can slow the flow of oil, as well as food, any time.

Another is the nuclear deal with Iran calls for an end to sanctions if Iran really complies with the terms.  North Korea may not be ready to give up its nukes but might be amenable to an agreement to stop producing them in return for relaxation of sanctions imposed by the UN after its nuclear and missile tests.

Not that North Korea will be ready to resume six-party talks right away — or even in the near future. It does mean, however, that at some stage the North might agree to return to the table with a view to some sign of concessions — an understanding that the U.S. and South Korea demand in advance so the talks won’t be totally useless.

Experts in Washington seem just about unanimous in agreeing, no way will the Iran deal have an impact on North Korea.

Scott Snyder at the Council on Foreign Relations told South Korea’s Yonhap News that “North Korea is in a different situation from Iran, because it has shown no interest in coming back to talks on minimally acceptable terms to the administration.” Alan Romberg at the Stimson Center was quoted as saying “Iran has obviously shown a willingness to curtail its still-nascent program and forgo nuclear weapons” but “North Korea has not — so there really are no parallels.”

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, however, may be in a somewhat different mood after making his first trip outside the country next month — to see Russian leader Vladimir Putin. Russia has formed close ties with both Iran and North Korea — the former as a foil to U.S. aims in the middle east, the latter to counter Chinese influence in North Korea and the U.S. alliance with South Korea.

Putin could suggest to Kim  the advantages of putting on a show of conciliation. North Korea, like Iran, could be the recipient of Soviet arms and aircraft needed to replace its fleet of aging MiGs, gifts from the Soviet Union.

That might not be good news for the U.S., South Korea — or China — but could be persuasive when it comes to persuading North Korea to scale down its nuclear ambitions.  Would North Korea really want to remain the odd man out when offered all that — and maybe, some day, relaxation of onerous sanctions?

To read more of my commentaries on Asia news, click on www.donaldkirk.com,  and the details of my books are available here.