Daily Archives: March 18, 2017

Turkish KORKUT armored vehicle begin serial production

FNSS beings production for Turkish KORKUT armored vehicle

By Ryan Maass   |   March 17, 2017 at 3:09 PM

March 17 (UPI) — ASELSAN and FNSS have began serial production for the Self-Propelled Low Altitude Air Defence Gun System, an armored vehicle project for Turkish ground forces.

FNSS announced the beginning of its work with prime contractor ASELSAN after marking the completion of earlier design and pre-production phase.

FNSS is a Turkish-owned joint venture between BAE Systems and Turkey-based Nurol Holding, which owns 51 percent of the company. The company’s contracts focus on wheeled armored combat vehicles procured by the Turkish military.

The KORKUT system is an armored vehicle solution capable of detecting and tracking targets using a 3D search radar. It is also equipped with a weapon system comprised of two 35mm guns that fire fragmentation ammunition.

The system was built on on an ACV-30 chassis, which the company says was selected for its high payload capacity and mobility. In combat, it is designed to operate alongside other armored platforms such as main battle tanks.

Deliveries are planned for May 2018.

Original post upi.com


ACV-30 Platform 


Thanks to this feature, the vehicle has the capacity to carry greater payloads such as 105 mm guns and heavy air-defence platforms. The ACV-30 Platform also provides ballistic and mine protection.

The configuration of the vehicle can be changed to suit the operational requirements of the user. The ACV-30 constitutes an ideal platform in terms of command-and control, largescale mobile radar systems, artillery fire support, and pedestal mounted artillery and missile systems.

The Platform was selected as an Air Defence System platform by the Turkish Armed Forces within the scope of the KORKUT and HISAR projects.

The Weapon System Vehicle and Command-and-Control Vehicle configurations designed under the KORKUT Project are fully amphibious and have the capability of propelling themselves in deep water and rivers.

The Low and Medium Altitude Air Defence Missile System (LAADMIS) designed for the HISAR Project has a 3D Search Radar as well as a Pedestal-Mounted (PM) Autonomous Low
Altitude Air Defence Missile System platform. These features make HISAR unique in its weight-class owing to its capability to perform command-and-control and fire-control missions on the same platform.

Oerlikon 35 mm GDF-002


Tow barrels of 35mm
Country users
Argentina, Austria, Bahrain, Brazil, Cameroon, canada, Chile, Cyprus, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, Greece, Germany, Iran, japan, South Korea, Kuwait, Malaysia, Oman, Pakistan, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, United Arab Emirates.
Designer Country
Germany – Switzerland
Infrared night vision, NBC protection system.
6,700 kg travel order with ammunition and accessories
Traverse / Elevation
Traverse: 360°
Elevation: +92°/-50°
Range of fire
4,000 m 
Length, 7.8 m travelling; 8.83 m firing
Width, 2.26 m travelling; 4.49 m firing
Height, 2.6 m travelling; 1.72 m firing

Source armyrecognition.com

ASELSAN’s Fire Control Radar


  • Ku-Band transmission frequency
  • 30km maximum range
  • Pulse Compression
  • 3-D target search and track
  • Highly accurate 3-D target position
  • Automatic target classification
  • Sector search
  • Operation-on-the-move
  • Short reaction time
  • Remote operation from Command & Control Center

ACV-30 Technical Specifications


Engine Diesel
Transmission Fully Automatic
Crew 3 or 4 (Including Driver)
Length 7 m
Width 3.9 m
Height Hull Roof 2.2 m
Suspension Torsion Bar
Electrical System 24 V
APU 14 kW


Max. Road Speed 65 km/h
Amphibious Capability Optional
Fording Capability in 1 m Depth
Range 500 km
Gradient 60%
Side Slope 30%
Trench Crossing 2 m
Vertical Obstacle 0,80 m

Mission Equipment

Night Vision Periscope AN/VVS-2

Protection System

NBC System
(Nükleer, Biyolojik, Kimyasal)
Positive Pressure Type
Air Conditioning Standard
Heating System Air Heater and Water Heater
Automatic Fire Suppression in Engine and Crew Compartment
Smoke Grenade Launcher Standard, 8 ea

Source fnss.com.tr


America’s Collective Defense Agreements

Mapped: America’s Collective Defense Agreements

By Ben Watson

February 3, 2017

President Donald Trump begins his term as an outsider distrustful of globalization, wary of overseas commitments, and determined to deliver on a promise to restore America’s sovereignty. His first 90 days find him in a particularly unique place for a U.S. president—having spent months suggesting some of America’s defense commitments may be obsolete, while knocking allies from Asia to the Middle East and throughout NATO for not paying the U.S. enough for security.

Now two weeks in and 18 executive orders down, the Trump administration is decidedly charting a new path for the country. And it’s doing so with a new and, at times, puzzling approach toward diplomacy. (Consider the recent messaging uproar from the president’s phone calls with the leaders of Australia and Mexico.) Aside from occasional presidential tweets about World War III, one noteworthy draft executive order leaked to the New York Times in late January entitled “Moratorium on New Multilateral Treaties.” It could offer a window in the future of White House diplomacy. As written, the order would apply “only to multilateral treaties that are not ‘directly related to national security, extradition or international trade.'” Notes the Times, “it is unclear what falls outside these restrictions.”


To America’s allies and fellow treaty signatories from Europe to South America, Trump’s approach “stands in stark contrast to the dominant strain of internationalism that has marked U.S. foreign policy since the days of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman,” Steven Patrick of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote in November. (Less than two months later, House lawmakers introduced a UN membership-ending bill called the “American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2017,” among the first submitted to the 115th Congress in early January.) Since the end of World War II, America’s consistency had been something that “long reassured partners and allies,” said Patrick.

Defense Secretary James Mattis wasted little time in his first days on the job, traveling for four days to visit with counterparts from Japan and South Korea, allies with a careful eye on nuclear-armed North Korea. They are among the most recent to be added to America’s list of collective defense arrangements, pictured below. Not all have kept their original members—NATO expanded, Rio signatories declined—but all remain active, according to the State Department.

Power in alliances

The nations that are allied with the U.S. have 6 million people in total military manpower and account for more than 60 percent of global defense spending (more than $1 trillion), according to a 2017 report from the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation. See the map below for troop counts of each U.S. ally listed under the State Department’s collective defense agreements. 

Size of U.S. allies’ militaries

To view in a separate page, click here

By contrast, China, Iran, North Korea and Russia combine for nearly 4.5 million active military members, and less than a fifth of global defense spending. (Data via Global Firepower, Heritage)

Find those troop counts below.

Size of other significant militaries

To view in a separate page, click here.

America’s defense treaties

Rio Treaty

  • Date signed: September 2, 1947
  • Current signatories: Argentina, Bahamas, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, U.S.


  • Date U.S. signed: April 4, 1949
  • Current signatories: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, U.S.

Philippine Treaty

  • Date signed: August 30, 1951
  • Signatories: Philippines, U.S.

Agreement between the U.S., Australia and New Zealand

  • Date signed: September 1, 1951
  • Signatories: Australia, New Zealand, U.S.

Republic of Korea Treaty

  • Date signed: October 1, 1953
  • Signatories: South Korea, U.S.

Southeast Asia Treaty

  • Date signed: September 8, 1954
  • Signatories: Australia, France, New Zealand, Philippines, Thailand, United Kingdom, U.S.

Japanese Treaty

  • Date signed: January 19, 1960
  • Signatories: Japan, U.S.

Original post defenseone.com


Related post:

RANKED: The world’s 20 strongest militaries – businessinsider.com

Symmetrical Response: Russia Will Get Division of Troops 85 KM Off US Border

World order in 2035: US could lose ability for global dominance, DoD paper says

China to have ‘world’s largest navy’ by 2020, says report

Will Japan Become The Next Big Military Superpower?

America’s rising danger of imperial overstretch

How China Is Building the Biggest Commercial-Military Empire in History

Russia reluctance to transfer aircraft technology could derail Indo-Russian fifth-gen fighter program

Full tech transfer could derail Indo-Russian fifth-gen fighter program

By: Vivek Raghuvanshi, March 16, 2017

NEW DELHI — The Indo-Russian fifth-generation fighter aircraft under joint development and production by the two countries has taken a hit, with Russia showing reluctance to fully transfer the aircraft technology, particularly stealth capabilities, despite repeated reminders, according to a top Indian Air Force official.

After the preliminary agreement on the particulars of the fifth-generation fighter aircraft (FGFA) program in 2010, and with both sides having paid $295 million each, the final agreement that enables India to release more than $4 billion, is pending.

The Air Force has worked out its requirements for the FGFA, but the crucial “work sharing and technology sharing draft has yet to be finalized,” the IAF official said.

“The project is likely to get delayed further unless the issue of transfer of technology is finalized,” offered Daljit Singh, a defense analyst and retired Indian Air Force air marshal. India should insist on technology transfer in specified fields, he added, as “full technology transfer may not be feasible.”

Another retiree from the Air Force agreed. “Full technology transfer is not possible since the aviation industrial base in India is not at par with that in Russia,” said Vijainder K Thakur, a defense analyst and former squadron leader.

An Indian Ministry of Defence official said the FGFA would be a joint project and that all technologies should be worked on together. The official would not provide further information.

Konstantin Makienko, the deputy director at the Moscow-based Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, said: “The joint project means that the both sides develop the technologies together and become equal owners of them. Therefore it is not about the technology transfer but a joint use of them.”

The Air Force is insisting that an agreement for joint development of the FGFA be reached at the earliest, lest the production of the aircraft be delayed. Any delay “would have serious cascading effect on production of the aircraft for India,” Singh said.

India has a requirement for 120-130 of such swing-role planes with stealth features for increased survivability, advanced avionics, smart weapons, top-end mission computers and 360-degree situational awareness, the Air Force official noted, adding that “the ability to supercruise or sustain supersonic speeds in combat configuration without kicking in fuel-guzzling afterburners is a key Indian requirement.”

For the most part, officials and analysts share a common view that a delay the final FGFA agreement is unlikely to shelve the entire program.

“It’s unlikely that an in-principle agreement between Russian and Indian heads of government would be shelved. If India is unhappy with the extent of technology transfer, it would likely resort to a straightforward, albeit limited, buy, as happened in the case of the Rafale deal [with France]. Doors would be kept open for enhancing the scope of the deal at a later date,” Thakur said.

The Air Force official pointed out that India has worked out operational needs for the FGFA, which the service says could differ from those of the Russians in some aspects. Russia has already moved ahead with its own research and development of the FGFA.

Russia is doing very well with its version of the FGFA, which is called the T-50. The first flight of the T-50 took place in 2010.

In addition, Russia said it will fly the T-50 with the Product 30 engine, giving it Mach 1.5 supercruise, by 2020.

The Indian Air Force wants technology transfer for the FGFA from Russia because it is facing difficulties in the Russian Sukhoi Su-30MKI aircraft due to no availability of spares and technology transfer. India has contracted 272 Su-30MKI aircraft and is license producing the same at state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited facilities.

Original post: defensenews.com


Related post:

India and Russia on Friday signed two long-terms support agreements for Su-30MKI

India wants Russian 5th-generation fighter with full-tech transfer pact

India wants firm commitment whether the agreement will allow commercial production and exports of FGFA Project

Russia to Test PAK FA Fighters With Operational Engines in Late 2017

Russia hopes to ink Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft deal with India by end of 2016

Sukhoi Pak Fa T-50 (Su-50): Details

Su-30MKI: Details