Electronic signature Presentation for Procurement Simple
Make the most out of your eSignature workflows with airSlate SignNow
Extensive suite of eSignature tools
Discover the easiest way to Electronic signature Presentation for Procurement Simple with our powerful tools that go beyond eSignature. Sign documents and collect data, signatures, and payments from other parties from a single solution.
Robust integration and API capabilities
Enable the airSlate SignNow API and supercharge your workspace systems with eSignature tools. Streamline data routing and record updates with out-of-the-box integrations.
Advanced security and compliance
Set up your eSignature workflows while staying compliant with major eSignature, data protection, and eCommerce laws. Use airSlate SignNow to make every interaction with a document secure and compliant.
Various collaboration tools
Make communication and interaction within your team more transparent and effective. Accomplish more with minimal efforts on your side and add value to the business.
Enjoyable and stress-free signing experience
Delight your partners and employees with a straightforward way of signing documents. Make document approval flexible and precise.
Extensive support
Explore a range of video tutorials and guides on how to Electronic signature Presentation for Procurement Simple. Get all the help you need from our dedicated support team.
How To Add Sign in eSignPay
Keep your eSignature workflows on track
Make the signing process more streamlined and uniform
Take control of every aspect of the document execution process. eSign, send out for signature, manage, route, and save your documents in a single secure solution.
Add and collect signatures from anywhere
Let your customers and your team stay connected even when offline. Access airSlate SignNow to Electronic signature Presentation for Procurement Simple from any platform or device: your laptop, mobile phone, or tablet.
Ensure error-free results with reusable templates
Templatize frequently used documents to save time and reduce the risk of common errors when sending out copies for signing.
Stay compliant and secure when eSigning
Use airSlate SignNow to Electronic signature Presentation for Procurement Simple and ensure the integrity and security of your data at every step of the document execution cycle.
Enjoy the ease of setup and onboarding process
Have your eSignature workflow up and running in minutes. Take advantage of numerous detailed guides and tutorials, or contact our dedicated support team to make the most out of the airSlate SignNow functionality.
Benefit from integrations and API for maximum efficiency
Integrate with a rich selection of productivity and data storage tools. Create a more encrypted and seamless signing experience with the airSlate SignNow API.
Collect signatures
24x
faster
Reduce costs by
$30
per document
Save up to
40h
per employee / month
Our user reviews speak for themselves
-
Best ROI. Our customers achieve an average 7x ROI within the first six months.
-
Scales with your use cases. From SMBs to mid-market, airSlate SignNow delivers results for businesses of all sizes.
-
Intuitive UI and API. Sign and send documents from your apps in minutes.
A smarter way to work: —how to industry sign banking integrate
FAQs
-
Why hasn't the IAF retired the MiG-21 yet, even though it is extremely old?
I will give a step-wise explanation on why IAF still uses Jaguar and Mig-21 till date even though they were retired long ago by some of the operators around the world.Mig-21 : It was in early 1980s , when Indian Air Force realised that it needed to replace its Mig-21 since they will be signNowing the end of their service life by 1990s which will be a critical fall for Indian Air Force in terms of numbers. Hence the Tejas programme was started which had its own share of problems and was dragged on for many years. Hence what IAF needed was an interim solution. The solution came when it was decided that IAF Mig-21 will be upgraded and its Total Technical Life (TTL) will be extended. The upgrade involved better avionics , armaments , EW suite and more. This helped the Mig-21 to stay for much longer in Indian Air Force. The sole reason why Mig-21 has persisted in IAF till date was due to the fact that Tejas programme faced initial hiccups and thus failed in its objective to replace the older Mig-21 in IAF service.Recently IAF has retired its Mig-21 Type 96 Aircrafts as Tejas programme has started to bore results with Tejas now being actively inducted in Flying Daggers Squadron of IAF. At present IAF uses only Mig-21 Bison/bis aircrafts which will be retired from service by next decade.SEPECAT Jaguar : Jaguars in IAF service are termed as “Deep Penetration Strike Aircraft” ( DPSA ) meant as a Fighter-Bomber to strike deep in the enemy territory. Indian Air Force has serially upgraded its Jaguars with DARIN programmes the latest being DARIN III which adds an AESA radar to the Jaguar. Future replacement for Jaguar can be AMCA which is an Indian 5th Generation Fighter Aircraft currently under development. The extended life which has been breathed in Indian Jaguars through MLUs can well keep Indian Jaguars in air up till next decade.India has been notoriously known for running the aircrafts in its inventory for a much longer time than warranted by its TTL through MLUs like in case of Mig-21 and Jaguars and even Mig-27 and others. Retiring almost 200+ Mig-21 will bring in a critical void which IAF doesn’t want due to its falling numbers. Also Jaguar is India’s lone DPSA so as long as upgrades are available and quick replacements are unavailable it is better to keep them running as these aircrafts serve quite well in their roles.Many nations still use Mig-21 like Romania with some of the famous Mig-21 knockoffs like F-7 used many nations around the world like Bangladesh , Pakistan and Egypt.
-
What are some mind blowing facts about the Indian Air Force?
Indian Air Force is an interesting topic to read and know about with many jaw-dropping facts that are particularly unbeknownst to the general populace of one of the largest air forces in the world. Here I will discuss some 11 amazing facts about the Indian Air Force from past and the present which I hope , people would like to know about :A. When IAF inducted 140 Fighters in just 1.5 years !You read that right. After the 1965 Indo-Pak War , Indian Air Force was heavily modernizing its combat fleet and to stop the squadron numbers from diminishing. For this purpose , Sukhoi Su-7 was selected which was the first Sukhoi to serve in Indian Air Force. The procurement were done in a record time which were quite unprecedented as Indian Air Force went on to induct 140 Su-7 in just 1.5 Years which was almost 8 Fighters each month. No.26 Squadron first converted to Su-7 followed by No.101 Squadron and during the induction process , IAF raised some 6 Strike Squadrons which served with distinction during the 1971 Indo-Pak War.B. When an Indian Air Force Mig-25 shot the sun !A Lamborghini Huracan Avio posing in front of the MiG-25 Foxbat at Indian Air Force Museum at Palam AFSOn 24th October 1995 , an IAF Mig-25 ‘Garuda’ flown by Group Captain, Air Marshal Mukerji shot the sun during the total solar eclipse which might sound simple but was quite challenging as the pilots were required to be specialized in navigation and earth’s geometry. An upward looking camera was cued by the pilot towards the sun while another pilot flew the ‘Garuda’ in the exact direction as the earth rotated around the sun. They filmed the magnificent scene from the stratosphere for one and more minutes. Mig-25 was one of the legends of Indian Air Force which served as a Strategic Reconnaissance Aircraft and its presence was kept as a secret for many years as it flew many hostile High-Risk Sorties in enemy airspace clicking high defenition pictures of enemy installments on the ground.C. Indian Air Force ‘Mammoth Formation’ :The largest Indian Air Force Formation flew from Ambala Air Force Station on 1987–88 which was nicknamed the “Mammoth Formation”. These aircrafts consisted of Canberra Bomber Aircraft , Mig-25 “Garuda” , Mig-29 “Baaz” , Ajeet , Mirage 2000 , Mig-27 “Bahadur” , Hawker Hunter , Jaguar “Shamsher” , Mig-23MF and finally the good-old Mig-21.D. When an Indian Air Force Military Transport Aircraft flew without using propellers :Here is an Indian Air Force C-119G Flying Boxcar Military Transport Aircraft somewhere in 1960s. If you closely notice this particular photo , the propellers are idle and the engine has been put off. Now you must be wondering how is this particular aircraft flying.This has been made possible only by its Orpheus Jet pod which has been placed on top of its fuselage. The aircraft is flying solely due to the power supplied by the pod as it was utilized by IAF to shorten the takeoff distance thereby enabling the aircraft of Short Takeoff and Landing Capabilities. IAF also used the J34 turbojet engine for short take-off and IAF’s C-119 also holds the record for being the first aircraft to take-off from the Daulat Beg Oldi with an Orpheus Pod.E. How was Garud Commando Force established :In early stages , PARA SF and MARCOS Officers advised the top brass of Indian Air Force to establish a dedicated Commando Force modeled on the Commando Force of Royal Air Force Regiment. They also advised IAF Officers to procure few numbers of C-130J Strategic Airlifters which can be used to air drop the Commandos in Combat Search and Rescue Missions and also in high-threat missions. Garuds were established on same lines as RAF Regiments and were trained on similar lines as PARA SF and MARCOS though the top brass of Indian Air Force did not pay heed to the second recommendation and no additional C-130J were procured.F. Indian Air Force was the first Air Force to Operate Fighter Jets in Asia :Indian Air Force inducted de Havilland Vampires with the No.7 Squadron “Battle Axes” in 1949 making Indian Air Force the first Air Force in Asia to induct Fighter Jets in its inventory. Vampire served in almost all Fighter Squadrons of Indian Air Force for a span of over 3 decades as a Fighter-Bomber and Reconnaissance Aircraft.G. Indian Air Force was the first Air Force to induct an indigenous Fighter Jet in Asia (outside Soviet Union ) :HF-24 was the first indigenous Fighter Jet which was inducted by an Asian Air Force outside Soviet Union. Conceptualized for Air Staff Requirement (ASR) as a Multi-Role Fighter jet , HF-24 was never realized to its true potential as it was primarily used as a Fighter-Bomber for Ground Attacks. It was inducted by No.10 Daggers Squadron of Indian Air Force in April 1967 making Indian Air Force the first Asian Air Force outside Soviet Union to induct an indigenously made Fighter Jet.H. When an Indian Air Force Mig-21 almost shot down an Indian Helicopter in a Special Operation :During 1971 Indo-Pak War , an Indian Alouette 3 helicopter was flying for a Special Operation in a hostile zone where no supposed friendlies were to be spotted. The helicopter was spotted by an Indian Air Force Mig-21 who decided to engage the helicopter by firing its 57mm Rockets , considering it an enemy asset , which was quickly dodged off by the Alouette Pilot. Realizing his miscalculation , he decided to re-engage the helicopter but that attack was also dodged off by the helicopter pilot. This time the Mig-21 pilot did not wanted to take any risk and closely approached the Helicopter and finally noticed the Indian markings on it. He sighed in relief as he has almost shot down the friendlies.I. Ashok Chakra Roundel for Indian Air Force :After Independence in 1947 , Indian Air Force adopted new markings for its Fighter Aircrafts in June 1948 to distinguish itself from the Royal Indian Air Force Markings. The roundel adopted by Indian Air Force was a ‘Ashok Chakra’ on the Fuselage and the wings. Since these roundels were difficult to paint in correct dimensions , they were soon replaced by Saffron White Green Roundels . Nevertheless these Ashok Chakra Roundels saw service during the 1947–48 Kashmir War when IAF Aircrafts flew with these markings.J. Missiles on Overwing Pylons !Indian Air Force utilized the unusual provision on the SEPECAT Jaguar Aircrafts to mount Air-to-Air Missiles like Matra R.550 Magic on overwing pylons thus freeing the underwing pylons to carry other weapons like Bombs and Missiles. The advantage of this was a quick height gain for Air-to-Air Missiles when they are launched at enemy interceptors at higher altitude who might arrive in the scene to intercept the low flying Jaguar Strike Aircraft. It also helped in additional payload carrying capacity for the Jaguars and is truly an amazing capability with an IAF Fighter still in service after 3 decades.K. First Indian Air Force Fighter with an InfraRed Search and Track System :IRST is a system deployed on Aircrafts to detect and track potential hostiles by scanning their Infrared Signatures. Indian Air Force was one of the first Air Force to deploy an IRST System on it's frontline Fighter Aircraft. IAF's Mig-23MF was fitted with TP-23 IRST at its undernose with the legacy continued by Su-30MKIs and Mig-29UPG at present and by Rafales in future.L. ‘Eye in the Sky' for Indian Air Force :India has acquired 3 EL/W-2090 Airborne Early Warning and Control Radar System from Israel to serve as the ‘Eye in the Sky' for Indian Air Force mounted on A-50EI Platform . This Radar System was adjudged as the most advanced AEW&C by Federation of American Scientists in 1999 and 2008 Articles. It can detect a fighter sized target at a distance of 500 kilometres relying on its L-Band AESA radar. It can also carry out L-band radar, then adds electronic and communications intelligence gathering (ELINT and COMINT ).Hope my answer serves the purpose =)References :Sukhoi-7 BMK - A whale of a fighterhttps://www.livefistdefence.com/...This Stunning Old Photo Of An IAF ‘Mammoth Formation’ Just Showed UpEL/W-2090 - WikipediaStory behind missiles over the wings (25 Photos)https://www.secretprojects.co.uk...Indian Air Force Gallery :: De Havilland Vampire F3 and FB52 (Single Seaters) - Bharat RakshakRoundels (Independence and Chakra)HAL HF-24 Marut - Wikipedia
-
Is it true that the United States military is the most powerful military in the world?
Very much true.The US military has massive power projection, more than any country in the history of man. The US has 11 (CATOBAR/STOBAR) Aircraft Carriers, while the next country has 1 which is, China, Russia, India, UK, and France. Also, the US Carriers are not just regular carriers, they are known as Super Carriers. Which is a term coined by the public to say that these carriers are so large that they exceed the definition of an Aircraft Carrier. Also, the US carriers were designed in the 70’s and countries are now just starting to make designs that could compete with the American Carriers. However, the US just redesigned the carrier and is coming out with the new Gerald R. Ford Class Carrier, which is supposed to be years possibly decades ahead of any other countries design. If you include Helicopter Carriers, and Amphibious Assault ships, that number jumps up to 20, soon to be 22. Then the next highest is tied between Japan and France with 4. My favorite part about the US having so many Aicraft Carriers is that if we divided them up between the major oceans, we could have 4 in each ocean… Crazy. The US carriers are also nuclear powered, they are the only carriers to be nuclear powered besides the French R91 Charles de Gaulle.Note the types of planes on the US Carriers. If you look at the USS Gerald R. Ford, it is fielding 5 different aircraft. 4 planes and 1 helicopter. We will look at the planes. Woden note, the USN has the 2nd largest Air Force in the world, right behind the USAF.First plane- McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet/Super Hornet: The plane is one of the most decorated planes, with thousands of successful missions, while requiring 3x less maintenance and failures than its counterparts. The plane has electronic warfare capabilities, air to air, and air to ground capabilities. Also, has spy and early warning capabilities. It was one of the first aircraft to heavily use multifunction displays, which at the switch of a button allow a pilot to perform either fighter or attack roles or both. The airframe is complex yet so simple, that a 4 man team can remove and install a new F404 engine in 40 minutes. Was also one of the very first 4th generation fighter on an aircraft carrier.Second plane- Northrop Grumman X-47B: This guy will be the very first and only Carrier based Drone. Northrop Grumman intends to develop the prototype X-47B into a battlefield-ready aircraft, the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) system, which will enter service in the 2020s. So it’ll have strike options and surveillance capabilities.Third plane- Northrop Grumman E-2 Hawkeye: Many countries have AWAC systems or Airborne early warning and control. But only the United States have a Carrier based AWAC system. With the creation of this system, carriers that are hundreds of miles away from the nearest AWAC system, this plane gives the ability for a carrier strike group to potentially detect fifth-generation fighters like the Russian Sukhoi Su-57 and the Chinese Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31 farther out. Also, gives the ability to guide fleet weapons, such as AIM-120 AMRAAM and SM-6 missiles, onto targets beyond a launch platform's detection range or capabilities.Fourth plane- Lockheed Martin F-35C Lightning II: This plane is the first and only carrier based 5th Generation Stealth fighter. The plane is meant as an air superiority fighter and a plane capable of ground support. It also has a very low, almost undetectable, cross section and radar signature. Besides radar stealth measures, the F-35 incorporates infrared signature and visual signature reduction measures. With the addition of a 5th generation stealth fighter, this gives the US military and Navy, the opportunity to do more damage and to have true air superiority over all other aircraft carrier based planes and land based planes. The US, in the event of a war, can now bring 5th gen fighters to the battle without the need of the Air Force against other 4th gen fighters, or possibly the few Chinese or Russian 5th gen fighters.Furthermore, the US have some of the best destroyers on the planet. With the highly acclaimed Arleigh-Burke Class Destroyer, and the brand new, low production Zumwalt Class Destroyer. The US has the most destroyers in the world with about double the next country, with another 4 undergoing sea trials and we are currently building 5 more and have awarded contracts for 5 more. By 2024 the US is expected to have 79 destroyers in service.Zumwalt Destroyer- The Zumwalt class warships are the largest destroyer ever built. The USS Zumwalt has unusual hull design optimized for wave piercing. There is a composite deckhouse. Angular shape minimizes its radar signature. The ship has hidden radar and sensors. The despite its size the USS Zumwalt has a radar signature of a fishing boat. Also it has reduced sound and infrared signature what makes this ship harder to detect. The ship is the First american surface warship to integrate electronic propulsion, it generates enough power to light up a small city. Sound levels of the Zumwalt are comparable with Los Angeles class submarines.Arleigh-Burke Destroyer- These guided missile destroyers entered service with the US Navy in 1991 were the first large US Navy vessel designed to incorporate stealth shaping techniques to reduce radar cross-section. Also these are one of the biggest destroyers in the world that incorporate highly advanced weaponry and systems. Hull profile of the Arleight Burke class signNowly improves seakeeping, permitting high speeds to be maintained in difficult sea states. The AN/SPY-1D phased array radar incorporates signNow advances in the detection capabilities of the AEGIS weapons system, particularly in its resistance to enemy electronic countermeasures. Missile are stored in vertical launch systems, that can also house smaller Evolved Sea Sparrow (ESSM) missiles, Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles, ASROC anti-submarine missiles. For point defense the ships are equipped with two Phalanx Close-In Weapon Systems (CIWS). Also there are 324 mm launchers for Mk.46 or Mk.50 torpedoes.Daily dose of freedom right here.Obviously, we can’t forget about the immaculate US submarine fleet. The US has some of the most advanced and quietest submarines. All of them use nuclear propulsion for extended range and stealth capabilities. The US has the…Ohio class (18 in commission) – 14 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs), 4 guided missile submarines (SSGNs)- The U.S. Ohio-class submarines, of which 14 are Trident II SSBN, each capable of carrying 24 SLBMs. The first four which were all equipped with the older Trident I missiles have been converted to SSGN's each capable of carrying 154 Tomahawk guided missiles and have been further equipped to support Special OperationsSeawolf class (3 in commission) – attack submarines- The Seawolf class boats were intended to seek and destroy the latest Soviet ballistic missile submarines, such as the Typhoon class and attack submarines such as the Akula class. Seawolf class submarines are arguably the quietest submarines in the world ever constructed. It is exceptionally quiet even at high speeds. Most submarines need to keep their speed down to as little as 5 knots to avoid detection by passive sonar arrays, while the Seawolf class are credited with being able to cruise at 20 kots and still be impossible to locate. A Seawolf at 25 knots makes less noise than an older Los Angeles class submarine tied up alongside the pier. And these came out in 1989.Virginia class (11 in commission, 5 under construction, 2 on order) – fast attack submarines- The Virginia class submarines incorporate newly designed anechoic coating, isolated deck structures and new design of propulsor to achieve low acoustic signature. It is claimed that noise level of the Virginia is equal to that of the Seawolf class. The Virginia class submarines are fitted with 12 vertical launch system (VLS) tubes. These are used to launched Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles with a range of 1 700 km. Also there are four 533-mm torpedo tubes. These are used to fire a total of 26 Mk.48 heavyweight torpedoes and Sub-Harpoon anti-ship missiles. It is the first US submarine to employ a built-in Navy SEAL staging area allowing a team of 9 men to enter and leave the submarine.(Improved) Los Angeles class (34 in commission, 2 in reserve) – attack submarines- The Improved submarines are much quieter. It is described that improved Los Angeles class boats are 7 times quieter than the original Los Angeles class boats. The class features a very potent weapon array, including Mk.48 torpedoes, Sub-Harpoon anti-ship missiles and Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles. Tomahawk missiles can be launched from torpedo tubes of from dedicated vertical launching systems. These boats can operate under ice where the Russian ballistic missile submarines tend to hide.Surfacing of a US Submarine.Let’s move onto the air. While the USN has a quite capable Air Force. But that is dwarfed by the sheer magnitude and strength of the United States Air Force. The Air Force articulates its core missions as air and space superiority, global integrated ISR, rapid global mobility, global strike, and command and control. The USAF flys a multitude of different planes and helicopters. The USAF is the largest Air Force in the world, here is the list of what America flys. Most of these are at the cutting edge of innovation, with two of them being 5th generation stealth fighters. That’s really really good because no other country has an active 5th gen while the US has 2. The USAF also has the largest bomber, tanker, fighter, and transport fleets in the world. The USAF has so many staging areas around the world, that the US can have bombers or any other planes on station, anywhere around the world in a matter of hours.Attack: A-10, AC-130, MQ-1, MQ-9Bomber: B-1B, B-2, B-52HElectronic warfare: E-3, E-8, EC-130Fighter: F-15C, F-15E, F-16, F-22 (5th gen), F-35A (5th gen)Helicopter: HH-60, UH-1NReconnaissance: MC-12, RC-135, RQ-4, RQ-170, U-2, U-28Trainer: T-1, T-6, T-38, T-41, T-51, T-53, TG-16Transport: C-5, C-12, C-17, C-21, C-32, C-37, C-130, C-40, CV-22, VC-25Tanker: KC-10, KC-135Let’s look at the two of my favorite ones and the most technologically advanced planes in the world.F-22 RaptorThe F-22 Raptor air superiority fighter is almost invisible to radars. This aircraft carries a powerful array of weaponry. It is the most advanced and most expensive production fighter aircraft to date. Many of sensors and avionics of this plane remain classified. Engines of the raptor allow the aircraft to supercruise over long ranges, while thrust-vectoring nozzles, combined with a triplex fly-by-wire flight control system, make it exceptionally maneuverable. The highly integrated avionics systems also include a data-link, inertial navigation system with embedded GPS for high-accuracy navigation, and advanced electronic warfare, warning and countermeasures systems. Two central computers manage the automatic switching of the sensors between completely passive and wholly active operation, according to the tactical situation. Artificial intelligence algorithms fuse data from the sensors and present only relevant information to the pilot to reduce workload while at the same time improving tactical awareness. The datalink allows tactical information to be shared with other F-22s. The tech is so special that other countries, not even NATO allies are given the chance to procure the plane.B-2 SpiritThe B-2A Spirit is the silver bullet of US policy, reserved for use against targets of the highest priority. The B-2's stealth characteristics enable the undetected penetration of sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses and to attack even heavily defended targets. This stealth comes from a combination of reduced acoustic, infrared, visual and radar signatures (multi-spectral camouflage) to evade the various detection systems that could be used to detect and be used to direct attacks against an aircraft. Composites are extensively used to provide a radar-absorbent honeycomb structure; the bomber has a minimal IR signature, does not contrail and uses its shielded APQ-181 radar only momentarily to identify a target just before attacking. The onboard DMS is capable of automatically assessing the detection capabilities of identified threats and indicated targets. The DMS will be upgraded by 2021 to detect radar emissions from air defenses to allow changes to the auto-router's mission planning information while in-flight so it can receive new data quickly to plan a route that minimizes exposure to dangers. Also, most of the B-2s are stationed in Missouri, and they are capable of bombing any target in the world despite being in the heart of America.Now for the US ARMYThe US army it self is massive in numbers, coming in at 1.01 million personnel, it self is one of the biggest standing armies in the world, and that's just one branch of the US military. Also, in the US military, it is the largest branch out of them all surpassing any other branch by almost 600,000 personnel. They provide the bulk of security for the US's foreign interests. The mission of the U.S. Army is to fight and win our Nation's wars, by providing prompt, sustained, land dominance, across the full range of military operations and the spectrum of conflict, in support of combatant commanders. Which is mainly air domination and land domination. They mainly engage is conventional warfare, and asymmetrical warfare. The US Army's main responsibilities is preserving the peace and security and providing for the defense of the United States, the Commonwealths and possessions and any areas occupied by the United States, Supporting the national policies, Implementing the national objectives, Overcoming any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States. The US Army is also home to some of the most dangerous, prestigious and hardest working special forces teams in the world such as the frontline special force, the Rangers, we also have the green berets and the iconic 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta (Airborne) also known as Delta Force. The US army is thought to be one of the most battle tested and battle proven militaries in the world. With the mobility of the USAF an army QRF can be anywhere on earth in less than 24 hours. The US ARMY uses the M1A2 Abrams tank. One of the most badass, heaviest, fastest, and battle hardened tanks in the world.This tank has incredible technology and armor. Also it has seen combat. It is one of the most feared MBTs. The M1A2 offers signNow protection against all well-known anti-tank weapons. This main battle tank uses advanced armor, reinforced with depleted uranium layers. The M1A2 has signNow level of protection against all known anti-tank weapons. It can also employ counter-IED equipment. The tank is armed with the same 120-mm M256 smoothbore gun as its predecessor. Range of effective fire is in excess of 4 km. This main battle tank is powered by a Honeywell AGT1500 gas turbine engine, developing 1 500 hp. The tank is one of the fastest in the world, clocking in (with no governor) at 60 mph while being THE heaviest tank in the world. As of April of 2018, the US has no combat losses with the Abrams, the Abrams has only been lost due to friendly fire, never to enemy fire.I don’t think I need to explain the marines. Just know that they use the same tech as the Army (with some exceptions) but they are also the main invasion force for the US. And they are badass.The US military signNow is massive with the Aircraft carriers and the 700+ military bases around the world. The US is truly the most powerful military in the world. The fact that they can have a men anywhere in the world in less than 24 hours and being able to bomb any place on earth, just proves how powerful the US military is.
-
Fighter Aircraft: How does Dassault Rafale compare to Eurofighter Typhoon?
Rafale vs Typhoon: The facts!Thrust to weight ratio:Maximum:Rafale = 1.50Typhoon = 1.76Nominal:Rafale = 1.03Typhoon = 1.21Minimum:Rafale = 0.62Typhoon = 0.82RafaleEmpty weight = 10220 kgFuel capacity (internal) = 4680 kgMinimum weight = 10220 kgNominal weight (without external loads) = 14900 kgMaximum weight = 24500 kgMaximum Thrust = 2*75 kNMaximum Thrust-to-weight = 2*75/(9.81*10.220) = 1.50Nominal Thrust-to-weight = 2*75/(9.81*14.900) = 1.03Minimum Thrust-to-weight = 2*75/(9.81*24.500) = 0.62TyphoonMinimum weight = 11000 kgFuel capacity (internal) = 4.996 kgNominal weight = 15996 kgMaximum weight = 23500 kgMaximum Thrust = 2*95 kN (war setting)Maximum Thrust-to-weight = 2*95/(9.81*11.000) = 1.76Nominal Thrust-to-weight = 2*95/(9.81*15.996) = 1.21Minimum Thrust-to-weight = 2*95/(9.81*23.500) = 0.82Wing loading:Minimum:Rafale = 224 kg/m²Typhoon = 215 kg/m²Nominal:Rafale = 326 kg/m²Typhoon = 312 kg/m²Maximum:Rafale = 536 kg/m²Typhoon = 459 kg/m²RafaleWing area = 45,70 m²Nominal weight = 14900 kgMinimum wing loading = 10220/45.70 kg/m² = 224 kg/m²Nominal wing loading = 14900/45.70 kg/m² = 326 kg/m²Maximum wing loading = 24500/45.70 kg/m² = 536 kg/m²Typhoonwing area = 51.2 m² (with extended leading edges)Minimum wing loading = 11000/51.2 kg/m² = 215 kg/m²Nominal wing loading = 15996/51.2 kg/m² = 312.5 kg/m²Maximum wing loading = 23500/51.2 kg/m² = 459 kg/m²Service Ceiling:Rafale = 15.240 kmTyphoon = 16.765 kmRate of Climb:Rafale = 250 m/sTyphoon = 315 m/sFerry Range:Rafale = 3750 kmTyphoon = 3790 kmMaximum payload:Rafale = 9600 kgTyphoon = 7500 kgMinimum Speed: Rafale = 148 km/hTyphoon = 203 km/hMaximum Speed:Rafale = Mach 1.97Typhoon = Mach 2.35The Rafale has two advantages over the typhoon. It has a lower minimum speed, which makes it more suitable for landings on aircraft carriers. It can carrier a higher weapons load, which makes it more suitable for ground attack missions. The respective range of both aircraft is approximately equal. In all of the parameters relevant for aerial combat, i.e. thrust-to-weight ratio, wing loading, climb rate, service ceiling and top speed, the typhoon is superior to the Rafale.Both Rafale and Typhoon were built to be aerodynamically instable along the longitudinal axis, which results in the natural tendency to lift the nose of the aircraft, i.e. to pitch. The canards are used in order to balance this tendency such that the aircraft can be redirected from a looping into a straight flight path. The Rafale's canards are positioned right in front of the wings, whereas the typhoons canards are positioned further away from the wings right below the cockpit. This means that the typhoon's canards are further away from the axis of rotation. The longer lever means that the typhoon's canards can apply a greater leverage force (torque) in order to redirect the nose of the aircraft. Consequently, the instantaneous as well as the continuous pitch rates of the typhoon should be considerably better than the Rafale.PerformanceTyphoon is the faster aircraft and has a signNowly superior thrust-to-weight ratio which gives it better acceleration at all altitudes. This also allows Typhoon to retain and regain energy faster than Rafale in a horizontal dogfight situation. It also has a signNowly higher service ceiling of over 60,000ft which allows it to operate uniquely well alongside the US F-22 Raptors ‘high and fast’ in the air superiority role which is exactly where it was designed to excel. Rafale has a signNowly superior load-carrying capability and its manoeuvrability at low speeds and altitudes is also better than Typhoon’s although the margin is slim except where both aircraft are very heavily loaded. In terms of horizontal manoeuvrability, Rafale has the better instantaneous turn rate allowing it to reverse its turns more quickly but Typhoon can sustain higher g’s for longer without bleeding speed. High alpha performance is similar, with both aircraft limited by their air intake placement and lack of thust vectoring although Typhoon’s intakes can at least ‘gape’ slightly to increase airflow at high Alpha and low speeds. Range is almost identical at around 2000nmi with three drop-tanks in ‘ferry’ configuration but in terms of strike missions, Rafale’s greater payload capacity allows it to carry greater under-wing fuel loads for a given strike payload. The high availability of aerial refuelling in both air force’s standard operating scenarios means the small differences are almost unimportant for overall combat effectiveness.the french rafalethe eurofighter typhoonsource:Typhoon versus Rafale: The final word
-
Why is India not considering Russian Su 30s and instead placed orders for the French Rafale?
We have close to 300 Su 30 MKIs. However they are plagued by maintenance issues . Poor spare availability has further worsened availability of the top line fighter , resulting in only 60% of the fighters beeing available for active duties . This figure is up from 47% when the Rafale deal was announced.While it has been debated that this is due to high peace time operational tempo of the IAF training missions , High ratio of Maintenance hours to Flying hours is an issue with heavy Air-Superiority Fighters , these Dukes of the sky also cost good money in maintenance.IAF wanted lighter Multirole , High endurance and High Availability , Easy to Maintain fighters to replace Mig 27s & 23s . Rafale deal was also meant to bring lot of new technologies and help build LCA MK 2 and AMCA . This is the reason for Rafeal deal.From what we have last heard in the news , Rafale deal will bring in the following technologies & projects to Indian defence agencies as part offset commitments of the current 36 fighter deal :1. Kaveri engine project: Snecma has proposed to invest $1billion to iron out the issues in Kaveri Jet Engine and bring it to production standard in time to be fit on to the LCA MK1A. If this turns true, this alone is worth the whole deal. This will enable India for the first time with a capable Jet Engine with massive applications.2. Thrust Vectoring Nozzles for Missiles : MBDA will work with DRDO to transfer Thrust Vectoring technologies that can be applied to Astra and other missiles to bring them on par with Meteor in terminal phase maneuverability , giving the missiles higher kill probability. A clever application of this will be to apply TVC to Kaveri Jet Engine. However another project with Kilmov of Russia , that is currently underway , will also be able to give TVC capability to Kaveri engine.3. Stealth Coatings and Paints :The final stealth coating of the 36 jets might be done in India and this will be done as part of Make in India component of the deal. Also as part of the deal the special spray paint and coating technology will be transferred. This also has immense potential for application to other projects like LCA , AMCA , SU 30 MKI upgrade , FGFA , AURA etc..4. AESA RADAR :The radar technology on Rafale can easily be adapted to other aircrafts in IAF . As part of the deal the multimode AESA radar technology will be transferred to DRDO for application on UTTAM AESA radar.Conclusion :If these technologies are quickly observed and put to good use then the deal is definitely worth it. 36 Rafale will help build 360 LCA (All versions) if we can effectively leverage this deal.This will cover up for the low number of fighter aircraft that IAF has for joint operations against Pakistan and China.
-
What are the chances of tampering with the EVMs and rigging elections in India? If any person from the Election Commission can a
This is a long answer.I may be violating copyright law. But I think it is necessary.This question has been blown out of proportion. I am directly quoting the relevant sections- without any editing-from former election commissioner book.Read both Technical security aspects and administrative security aspects. Those who say that give me EVM and I will hack it ignore the administrative security aspects is like saying give me a gun and remove the security of Prime Minister and I can Kill him.Link of the book:English:Buy An Undocumented Wonder: The Great Indian Election Book Online at Low Prices in IndiaHindi:Buy Loktantra Ke Utsav Ki Unkahi Kahani (A Undocumented Wonder) (Hindi) Book Online at Low Prices in IndiaBelow are the sections from the book:Electronic Voting MachinesHistory and BackgroundNo presentation on the use of technology in Indian elections can be complete without a reference to EVMs. The voting system in India has undergone several changes over the decades. During the first two general elections to the Lok Sabha in 1952 and 1957, each candidate was allotted a separate coloured ballot box. The candidate’s name and symbol were not printed on ballot papers. Voters would drop an unmarked ballot paper in the ballot box of the candidate of their choice. The system, though very simple, evoked fears of tampering in the minds of stakeholders. Therefore, a marking system on the ballot paper was introduced during the mid-term elections to the Legislative Assemblies in Kerala and Odisha in 1960–61. That system remained in vogue until the 1999 Lok Sabha elections.Meanwhile, in 1977 the Commission introduced some form of electronic machines for recording votes in an error-free manner and removing the possibilities of invalid votes. S.L. Shakdhar, the then Chief Election Commissioner, while on tour in Hyderabad in December1977 requested M/s Electronics Corporation of India Limited (ECIL) to study the feasibility of using an electronic gadget for conducting elections. M/s Bharat Electronics Limited, Bengaluru (BEL) had already developed microcomputer based voting equipment, which they had used for the elections for the various unions of the company. They approached the Commission in January 1981 for manufacturing EVMs. On 29 July 1981 the Commission held a meeting with representatives from BEL, ECIL, the Ministry of Law and some CEOs regarding the use of EVMs in elections. It was decided to introduce EVMs in fifty polling stations in the 70-Parur assembly constituency in the assembly elections to the Legislative Assembly of Kerala held on 19 May 1982 as an experimental measure (the machines used had eight candidate buttons in the ballot unit (BU) instead of the sixteen candidate buttons as in existing EVMs. However, seven such BUs could be connected in series to provide for a maximum of fifty-six candidates).Since the central government could not take steps to introduce legislation as proposed by the Commission for amendments to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and to the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 to facilitate the use of EVMs, the Commission issued directives under Article 324 of the Constitution of India for the use of EVMs and conducted elections at fifty polling stations using the machines. The use of EVMs was challenged in court and the Supreme Court of India* held that EVMs cannot be used in an election unless a specific provision is made in law providing for their use. The law was amended by Parliament in December 1988 and a new Section 61A was added in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, empowering the Commission to use voting machines. The amended provision came into force on 15 March 1989.In January 1990 the Government of India appointed the Electoral Reforms Committee (Dinesh Goswami Committee) consisting of representatives from several recognized national and state parties. The Electoral Reforms Committee felt that the machines should be examined by technical experts with a view to removing any doubts or misapprehensions in the minds of the public with regard to the credibility of the working of the machines. To do so it constituted an expert committee under the chairmanship of S. Sampath, Chairman, TAC, Defence Research & Development Organization, Ministry of Defence, and comprising reputed scientist P.V. Indiresan of the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi, and Rao C. Kasarbada, Director, ER&DC, Trivandrum. The committee, after meeting with the manufacturers, election administrators and technical experts and conducting detailed laboratory tests, came to the conclusion that the EVM was a secure system. In April 1990, therefore, the expert committee unanimously recommended the use of EVMs without further loss of time.On 24 March 1992 necessary amendments to the Conduct of Elections Rules 1961 were notified by the government with regard to the use of EVMs. EVMs have been used in all bye-elections to parliamentary constituencies and Legislative Assembly constituencies since November 1998. The general elections to the Lok Sabha in 2004 and 2009 were conducted exclusively on EVMs. Several technological changes were made in EVMs in 2001 and again in 2006 to upgrade them. To address the concern that the fast changing technology may have overtaken older members, the Technical Experts Committee was expanded and it now has P.V. Indiresan as its Chairman, and D.T. Shahaniand, A.K. Aggarwala of IIT, Delhi, D.K. Sharma of IIT, Mumbai and Rajat Moona from IIT, Kanpur (now DG, CDAC) as its members. The Commission does not take any technical decision without their recommendation or approval.Types of Electronic VotingAcross the world, electronic voting is essentially of two types. First and most commonly used is polling place e-voting. The second is remote e-voting online which has been used only experimentally in some countries like Switzerland, Canada, Estonia and Spain. Moreover, EVMs used in polling place e-voting are of two types, Direct Recording Electronic Voting Machines (DR-EVM) and those using optical scanners. When a voter presses a button on the DR-EVM his vote is recorded electronically in the machine’s memory. EVMs used in India, Venezuela and Brazil fall in this category. In the other type a voter marks his choice on a paper ballot which is then optically scanned and the counting is done electronically. Some states in the US use this type of machine. Direct recording voting machines can either have electro-mechanical buttons or a touch-screen to record votes. These can either be stand-alone or networked. Networked machines can transmit results to a central server to compile results quickly and display them at a central website. Indian EVMs are direct recording voting machines with electro-mechanical buttons for voters and are non-networked. Counting is done separately by each machine and the result from all machines is compiled manually.Security Features in Indian EVMsTechnical Security—ECI-EVMs are manufactured by the Electronics Corporation of India Limited (Department of Atomic Energy) and Bharat Electronics Limited (Ministry of Defence), both central public sector undertakings which are entrusted with developing high security defence equipment. The machines are both mechanically and electronically protected to prevent any tampering. The software used in these machines is burnt into a one-time programmable/masked chip so that it cannot be altered or tampered with. These machines are not networked either by wire or by wireless with any other machine or system.Therefore, there is no possibility of data corruption by hacking. The software for this chip is developed in-house by BEL and ECIL independently. The software development team is separate from the production team and reports directly to the CMD.Operationally, the Indian EVM is a set of two units—the ballot unit and the control unit. A vote can be recorded only after the presiding officer enables the ballot unit through the control unit. However, even the presiding officer cannot enable the ballot for twelve seconds after every ballot is cast. Thus, a maximum of five votes can be cast in one minute. Samples of EVMs from production batches are regularly checked for functionality by the quality assurance group which is an independent group within BEL and ECIL. Certain additional security features were introduced in 2006. These include dynamic coding between the ballot unit and the control unit, installing a real-time clock, installing a full display system, and date and time stamping of every key press.Administration Security Measures for EVMsThe Commission has put in place elaborate procedural checks and balances aimed at preventing any possible misuse or lapses.EVMs are kept in a secure room with only one double-locked door. The room is guarded twenty-four hours by armed police. The lock on the EVM warehouse is opened only after giving notice to political parties to be present at the time of unlocking.First level checking (FLC) of each EVM is done before elections by BEL and ECIL. FLC is done transparently in the presence of representatives of political parties. A mock poll by casting at least a thousand votes in at least 10 per cent (now reduced to 5 per cent after political parties found 10 per cent too cumbersome) of EVMs randomly selected by political parties is done at the time of FLC. After the mock poll, a sequential printout of the result is taken and shown to the political parties for comparing the record of the mock poll kept by them. The entire FLC process is videographed. After the FLC every EVM is sealed using a pink paper seal manufactured by the Security Printing Press, Nasik, using security paper and security printing technology. Every pink paper seal has a unique number. Representatives of political parties put their signatures on the pink paper seal. After it has been sealed thus, the plastic cover of the machine cannot be opened during the election without breaking it. Any machine with a broken or damaged seal will not be used.EVMs are randomized by the District Election Officer before being distributed in the assembly constituencies in the presence of representatives of recognized political parties, to guard against the possibility of anyone manipulating the software.Preparing EVMs for candidates’ setting is done in the presence of the candidates or their agents or authorized representatives, and in the presence of the Commission’s observer. At this stage, once again, a mock poll is conducted.Multi-level thread sealing of various compartments and sections is done at the time of candidates’ setting as:Thread seal for the ‘candidate set’ and power pack (battery) section of the control unit after setting the number of contesting candidates and installing the battery respectively.Thread seal for ballot paper screen of the ballot unit after fixing the ballot paper.Two thread seals for ballot paper cover of the balloting unit.After this, the returning officers do the second randomization of the Control Units (CUs) and Balloting Units (BUs) to allot a CU and BU to specific polling stations.These CUs/BUs are then stored in a strongroom in the presence of the candidates/their agents and the Commission’s observer. The candidates/their agents are allowed to put their seals on the lock to the strongroom.The strongroom is opened in the presence of candidates/ their agents and the observer on the day when polling parties are dispatched to their respective polling stations.Before the actual poll, a mock poll of at least 100 votes is done by the presiding officer in the presence of candidates or their authorized agents to demonstrate that the EVM is working properly.Sealing of the result section/bottom compartment of the control units is done by the presiding officer after the mock poll in the presence of polling agents with the following seals:Green paper seal for result sectionThread seal for inner door of result sectionThread seal for the bottom compartmentThread seal for connector box for the cascading balloting unit, if any (when there are more than sixteen candidates)After the poll, the EVMs are sealed with paper seals and packed in plastic boxes, which are also sealed. These EVMs are taken straight to the strongroom from the polling stations. The strongroom is closed and sealed in the presence of the candidates/their agents and the Commission’s observer. They are permitted to affix their own seals on the locks of the strongroom and are allowed to guard it till the counting begins. They are provided facilities for this purpose. In addition, an armed police guard keeps round the clock vigil. Arrangements are also made for video coverage and CCTV coverage of the strongroom round the clock.The storage hall so sealed is opened in the presence of the candidates/their agents and the Commission’s observer on the day of counting.Controversies about EVMsEarly ControversiesBefore the elections in Tamil Nadu, Jayalalithaa Jayaram, General Secretary of the AIADMK, had written a letter to the Commission to discard EVMs and use paper ballots in the state assembly elections in 2001 on the grounds that electronic devices had failed miserably even in scientifically and technologically advanced countries like the US and Japan. She also filed a W.P. No. 3346 of 2001 in the High Court of Chennai. The case finally went to the Supreme Court where it was decided in favour of EVMs.Captain Amrinder Singh, President, Punjab Pradesh Congress Committee, raised objections in a petition before the Punjab High Court prior to assembly elections in 2002. He sent a team of experts to the Election Commission, as directed by the High Court, to examine the machines. The experts could not come up with any concrete objection even after detailed examination of the EVMs.Satinath Choudhary, a computer scientist in the USA and the President of Better Democracy Forum, could not demonstrate any tamperability of EVMs in a demonstration session on alleged tamperability of ECI–EVMs on 8 August 2009 in the premises of the Election Commission of India.A demonstration session on alleged tamperability of ECI–EVMs by one Haneefa (who, incidentally, wanted to promote his own machine) was held on 12 October 2007 in Bangalore. He could not demonstrate any malfunction or tamperability and was fined by the court.Recent ControversiesThe Commission also received petitions from individuals raising doubts about the non-tamperability of EVMs. These include Kirit Somaiya of the Bharatiya Janata Party, G.K. Mani, President, Pattali Makkal Katchi, Omesh Saigal, retired Chief Secretary of Delhi, Subramaniyam Swami, President Janata Party and Satinath Chowdhery.Rashtriya Janata Dal, All Indian Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Telugu Desam Party, All India Forward Bloc, Asom Gana Parishad, Communist Party of India, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Indian National Lok Dal, Janata Dal United, Janata Dal (Secular), Rashtriya Lok Dal, Revolutionary Socialist Party and Samajwadi Party wrote a letter to the Commission requesting an all-party meeting on EVMs. The BJP also made the same request in a separate letter. The Commission held an all-party meeting on 4 October 2010 in which EVMs were discussed along with three other issues—monitoring expenditure, paid news and criminalization of politics. Most of the political parties expressed satisfaction with EVMs. Some political parties requested the Commission that the Expert Committee may be asked to examine the feasibility of introducing a Voter Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) with the EVMs.A programme on a Telugu TV Channel TV-9 by V.V. Rao and Hariprasad made a demonstration of alleged tamperability of EVMs on an EVM allegedly stolen from the office of the DEO, Mumbai. An FIR for theft of public property was registered. The trial in the case is ongoing.The main points raised by people alleging tamperability and the reasons why these are not acceptable include:It has been alleged that there is a possibility of the presence of a Trojan horse in an EVM. However, there is no such possibility because the software code is secret and not readable by anybody. The software programmers are of very high integrity. EVMs are manufactured by reputed public sector organizations and have proved very reliable. Every EVM is subjected to rigorous checks before deployment in the presence of political party representatives.It has been alleged that there is lack of voter verifiability in EVMs. The fact is that the voter verifies his or her ballot by a beep and by a LED getting lit next to the candidate’s button on the BU once the button is pressed.Some people say that there is a lack of a possibility of recount. The fact is that a recount is possible any number of times. There will not be any variance in the result displayed as there are no human errors in machine counting.Possibility of change of components (hardware hacking) has been mentioned. The fact is that after FLC an EVM is sealed and its inside cannot be accessed, making hardware hacking impossible.It was shown on television that the display on an EVM can be controlled from another Bluetooth device by passing the data in the EVM. This is not possible in a real election because in a real election nobody has access to EVMs and it is not possible to introduce a Bluetooth device in an EVM because of administrative safeguards and security.It was shown in the same television programme that using a chip on the memory, he could access and change the data in the memory of the EVM. This cannot be done in a real election because nobody can access the memory in an EVM without breaking open all its seals. A broken seal can be easily identified. If a seal is found broken or damaged, the machine is not used.Voter Verifiable Paper Audit TrailThe demand for a voter verifiable paper audit trail (VVPAT) in the EVMs has been around for some years. VVPAT allows voters to verify that their vote was cast correctly, and to provide a means to audit the stored electronic results. It includes a direct recording electronic voting machine (DRE) and a printer to print the ballot recorded in the electronic memory. It was first demonstrated in New York City in March 2001 and first used in Sacramento, California in 2002. In a VVPAT system the voter can review a physical ballot to confirm that the electronic voting system accurately recorded his or her vote. In addition, the election officials may manually recount ballots in the event of a dispute.The demand was referred to the Technical Experts Committee by the Commission, as suggested in the all-party meeting held by the Election Commission. The committee anticipated several technical problems in a VVPAT system, including:Possibility of the printer getting jammedRequirement of a large battery to operate the printer, which is difficult to maintain and chargeRequirement of special technical training for all polling personnelLonger time required per voterHigher costsIlliteracy in large sections of the population making it difficult for them to read the printoutPossibility of fading of the printout in a thermal paper printerThe Technical Expert Committee held consultations with political parties, civil society organizations and manufacturers of EVMs, and also saw a demonstration of the prototype VVPAT system developed by EVM manufacturers. The Technical Expert Committee recommended that a field trial of the system should be held in extreme environmental conditions.A field trial was accordingly conducted in Thiruvananthapuram (coastal area in Kerala), Delhi (capital of India), Jaisalmer (hot, desert region in Rajasthan), Cherapunji (in Meghalaya, receives highest rainfall in the world) and Leh (snowbound region in Jammu & Kashmir) in July 2011 in the presence of all stakeholders including political parties, civil society organizations and the media. The Commission issued a press note for wide participation of voters. It was found that certain improvements were required in the VVPAT system before it could be considered for use in an election. The Commission asked EVM manufacturers to carry out the design changes required.Thereafter, the manufacturers made several important changes in the design and produced an improved prototype. The Technical Experts Committee recommended that it should be tested in the field once again at the same places where the first field trial was held. Accordingly, the second field trial was held in July–August 2012, again in the presence of all stakeholders.The Technical Expert Committee approved the final design of the VVPAT units in a meeting held on 19 February 2013. The system was demonstrated in another all-party meeting held on 10 May 2013. All political parties recommended that VVPAT should be used in elections as soon as possible. The Commission decided to use the system initially in a bye-election. Accordingly, the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, was amended and notified on 14 August, 2013, allowing for the use of VVPAT along with EVMs in elections, and it was first used on 4 September 2013 in a bye-election for 51-Noksen (ST) assembly constituency in Nagaland.Subsequently, it has been used successfully in ten assembly constituencies in Mizoram on 25 November 2013 and one constituency of Delhi on 4 December 2013 during general elections to Delhi assembly constituency. The Commission has now decided to gradually expand its use and has placed orders for procurement of 20,000 units of VVPAT.
-
How good is JF-17?
Even as an Indian, I'll give JF 17 a thumbs up for its potential. Well, I am going to show how good is JF 17 irrespective of what country built it or what country use it. As an aircraft enthusiast, my motto would be only to prove the capability of the aircraft, but not any country.JF 17 “Thunder” is considered as a succesful Light Combat Aircraft with an ability to serve as a frontline fighter for Pakistan Air Force. It has a exclusive “Thunder” nickname for Pakistan only while other countries like Myanmar use JF 17M nicknamed “Ruby”.The plan to build JF 17 was started after failure of “Project Sabre II”, that was upgradation plan for ageing F7 fleet of Pakistan. Grumman and Chengdu signed a project to redesign or Remaster the Chinese F7 for Pakistan Air Force. Due to heavy economic santions by US that results in budget problems, the project was scraped.In 1995, Pakistan Aeronautical Complex and Chengdu launched a joint project to develop a low-budget, light category multirole aircraft to meet the demands of Pakistan Air Force. Russia joined the development phase by supplying engines and support in designing airframe.The Avionics include an electronic warfare suite, enhanced man-machine interface, Digital Electronic Engine Control (DEEC) for the RD-93 turbofan engine, FBW flight controls, day/night precision surface attack capability, and multi-mode pulse-Doppler radar for BVR air-to-air attack capability.Prototypes flew succesfully and in 2007, PAC assembled the first batch of JF 17 “Thunder” by the imported parts arrived from China.Now, how good is JF 17?Well, JF 17 is a trustworthy fighter with an achievement. It withstand the potential to be a capable low-cost fighter jet with average avionics (because you can't expect state-of-the-art avionics in low budget). It showed what it said.It can hold armament weighing upto 3,700kg and can carry it upto 3,350km. The armament can be installed on its 6 underwing harpoints that can be managed in various configurations like Interception, Strike or SEAD. The latest weapon integrated in JF 17 is PL 15 BVRAAM that is counted in one of the best BVRAAMs in the world. Well, this integration is countered by India with purchase of MBDA Meteor BVRAAMs for Mirage 2000 Jets (it is under consideration).It possess Multirole capability and BVR combat support. It can also perform maritime operations like Reconnaissance and Anti-Ship operations.Now, what's the reputation of JF 17 at global level?JF 17 has gained a lot of followers due to regular participation in Renowned Air Shows like Farnbourgh air show, Paris air show, Dubai air show, Radom air show, etc. PAC is also planning to display JF 17 in upcoming 2019 Paris Air Show.Nigeria and Myanmar are its succesful customers and even Malaysia approached for evaluation of JF 17 for its LCA program. Countries like Sudan, Argentina, Qatar, Egypt and Uruguay are in talks with China for JF 17. Once, Sri Lanka was close to sign a deal of 20+ JF 17s but it was cancelled due to extreme pressure of India on Sri Lanka.So, overall, it's a really good alternative to replace ageing fighters in the Air Forces with low-budget. It is cheap but potent and a really good aircraft.The answer ends herePls donate an upvote if you liked my answer:)
-
Is there an equivalent on modern warships to an armor belt as was existent on WW2 capital ships?
Q. Is there an equivalent on modern warships to an armor belt as was existent on WW2 capital ships?A. Warship PhilosophyThe philosophy of warships and related topics as the muse strikesModern Warship Armor (part 1)May 28, 2013The missing warship armorNeophyte warship enthusiast questions: Guns (size, quantity), Missiles, and armor protection.The World War I-era battleship HMS Resolution and the aircraft carrier HMS Formidable served with the British Eastern Fleet at various times during World War II.Questions linger: How much armor does a warship have? Surely if tank armor had evolved from rolled steel to Chobham then can’t modern materials be used to similarly armor modern warships? Imagine my confusion when I read the description of almost any modern warship’s armor: “Splinter Protection”.Most cold war warship design discussions dismissed armor protection lightly, invoking nuclear weapons. Since no amount of armor could be expected to resist a nuclear armed adversary there was no benefit to be gained from armoring warships any more. Although a simplistic argument it was valid enough and certainly understandable. The excellent photo of the Crossroads Baker nuclear test is enough to convince anyone of this. Nuclear weapons are dramatic enough that few people would question this line of reasoning.However the nuclear bogeyman doesn’t explain the lack on armor on ships clearly designed to fight with conventional weapons, nor any ships developed after the cold war ended. All of the conflicts since WW2 have been conventional so another rational for the missing warship armor is needed.Battleship ArmorAs commonly understood battleships have big guns and heavy armor. Battleships guns are easy to comprehend as they’re huge and very visible; the armor is harder to conceptualize as it’s not an obvious external feature for the most part. In a perfect world where there are no materials science and cost limitations one would build warships so that every element as adamantine as possible. Every door, bulkhead and deck would be made of armor so that any incoming attack that defeats the outer layers of armor hits another layer immediately. In reality this would result in an impossibly heavy warship as each of these elements would have to be immensely thick to be strong enough to act as armor. To balance the competing demands for armor protection and weight allocation to other ships functions (like propulsion) the armor must be limited in scope and thickness.The term “armor belt” is the most commonly used description of warship armor. Many works use a single sentence description for battleship armor using this term. For example the German battleship Bismarck had a 13” armor belt to use an example from a well known ship. The armor belt is most easily thought of as the hull on the sides of the battleship, although much more complex forms exist the image conveys the essence of the term. In the diagram of the HMS Royal Sovereign above the main armor belt is also 13”. The main armor is very much like the clothing belt as it’s a single relatively narrow band around the middle of the ship. Of course constructing the entire hull out of our 13” armor would offer more protection but would be much too heavy. One of the important considerations in battleship design is that it’s still a ship that needs to be seaworthy. Weight distribution affects ships seaworthiness, especially top weight. To remain stable a ship must generally weigh more on the bottom than on the top. As one moves higher on the ship the more sensitive it is to weight.In our diagram of the Royal Sovereign we see that the armor varies in thickness from 13” down to 1”. Below the waterline the hull armor is 1” or 1 ½” thick, at the waterline it’s 13” thick, and above that are two 6” thick sections. In the excellent diagram below the 13” belt is labelled P and the 6” belts are labelled U. As we can see from the diagram the armor belt represents a very small proportion of the ship by volume.The armor belt is not the only protection on the battleship. The torpedo bulges labelled M are the most obvious example of other forms of protection. The bulges protected the ship by absorbing the force of the explosion. Other critical areas of the ship also have heavy armor like the armor belt, the turret faces and guns being a key example of heavily armored areas.It must be noted that the armor scheme on the HMS Royal Sovereign only represents one of the ways the armor could be arranged, other schemes exist.The flaw in the Armor BeltThe HMS Royal Sovereign’s armor layout was designed to maximize protection against what was thought to be the most likely threat it would face, direct large calibre gun fire. It was thought that the HMS Royal Sovereign would be fired upon at relatively close ranges resulting in nearly horizontal strikes against the armor. In essence a more modern version of the broadside to broadside volleys depicted in Nelsons battles. In this type of exchange one would be well served by an armor layout that looks very much like a wall to hide behind.Had this type of naval warfare remained the norm this armor layout wouldn’t be considered obsolete. In reality even by WW1 naval artillery duels were fought a much longer ranges than expected when the Royal Sovereign was designed. At longer ranges the shells flight path from the gun to the target describes a high arc and not straight lines. As a result the shell strikes plunge down from above and not from the side. In our armor diagram we can see that the plunging fire might strike the armor belt, or it might hit the much thinner 1” armor of the forecastle deck (labelled X).The situation deteriorated further in WW2 with the dominance of air power as the primary striking force. One of the classic battle images of naval warfare in WW2 is of warships from the point of view of the attacking aircraft. The photo above is the ill fated Force Z (HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse) under attack. Attacks of this type would have almost certainly struck the 1” armor instead of the 13” armor belt.The flaw in the HMS Royal Sovereigns armor scheme is that naval warfare was essentially two dimensional when she was designed, but had become very three dimensional during her service. The flaw in the armor belt is simply that it was a belt at all, providing protection from a very limited set of attacks. The armor belt was designed for a type of threat that never materialized to any substantial degree.Considerations for Modern Warship ArmorModern warships could be built with armor; it’s technically still possible and undoubtedly advances in materials science means that more protection could be had for any given weight of armor. Modern warships do face two obstacles to an effective armor scheme that their older counterparts did not which would make the task much more difficult.The first is the nature of the threat. Guided weapons are now the norm and present a particular challenge to armor designers. Taking the Royal Sovereigns armor as an example layout it would provide reasonable if not excellent protection against the dreaded sea skimming cruise missile attacking from the side. However if the missile changed its flight profile to attack from above it would effectively bypass the armor belt. This kind of attack is already commonplace in land warfare, entire categories of top attack munitions exist for this very reason. Guided weapons offer too much flexibility to the attacker for an armor scheme to be optimized against a single type of attack. If you were to design your ship with strong overhead protection, guided weapons would be programmed to attack from the side. A modern armor scheme would have to offer much more comprehensive (and thus heavy) coverage than the armor belt.The second issue is the nature of modern naval warfare. Modern naval warfare is fought very much in the electromagnetic spectrum which means that the ship’s antennas are a vital part of her weapon systems. Indeed on many warships the antennas are now one of the most prominent topside features. Without working radar antennas most modern warships are functionally out of action and nearly defenseless. Radar antennas cannot be covered in armor, as armor is nearly opaque to the kinds of electromagnetic waves the radars emit. Covering them in armor would at best severely reduce their capabilities and most likely prevent them from working at all. Adding to this issue is the incompatible ideal locations for armor and antennas. Armor is ideally located as low in the ship as possible for stability, antennas are ideally located as high in the ship as possible to maximize the clarity of their signals and their field of view.This is not to suggest armoring a modern warship is impossible, but it will be much more difficult than it was in the past.It can be argued that armor could be even more important in modern warfare than in the past. In the past a warship only had a very small chance of being hit by any given enemy shot. To compensate for the low percentage of shells that would hit their target warships had to rely on high volumes of fire to produce a relatively small number of hits. In the modern age of guided weapons the situation is reversed, most enemy shots can reasonably be expected to hit their targets. In addition the extremely long ranges of cruise missiles means that the enemy can attack from great distances so that even the most vigilant crews may not know they’re under attack until the missiles are very close to them. This can leave only a short window for the ship’s defense, increasing the probability the ship will be hit. These two factors both contribute to the likelihood that a warship will be hit, increasing the return on investment of adding armor to the design.Even if the antennas cannot be armored, adding armor to a warship would still increase its survivability. A warship with limited radar functionality may be out of action, but may still be able to retreat to be repaired. Further while armor may or may not preserve the ship as a fighting force it would protect the crew. Losing a ship is in war is a major setback, losing the crew is a tragedy. Even in the cold calculus of war, the crew remains a very expensive and hard to replace component of a warship.Active ProtectionOf course warships haven’t been setting to sea defenseless since the end of the battleship era; they just aren’t using heavy armor belts. Modern warships rely on active protection where they attempt to prevent the incoming attacks from hitting them at all by destroying them en-route.This brings the modern image of missile defense to mind with defensive missile streaking out to destroy the attacking missiles. This is indeed how warships defend themselves now, but it isn’t the only way. As the saying goes the best defense in naval warfare is a good offense.Cold war defensive doctrine was based on carrier naval aircraft. Shooting down low flying cruise missiles is much harder than shooting down bombers or bombing ships. Patrolling fighter aircraft supported by airborne early warning radars still provide an excellent defense against most types of attacks. Forcing the enemy to stay out of range for their own safety is a much better strategy than letting them choose the moment to attack. Enemies have historically rarely chosen to attack at a moment convenient to the defenders (except in some land battles in WW1). Defending with a carrier air wing is probably not disputed as the best way to defend ones ships. The only major criticism of this strategy is its cost. Aircraft carriers and their air wings are enormously expensive, so expensive that only the USN currently operates more than two carriers with fixed wing assets in the world. Only the larger navies in the world operate any carriers at all.While it’s theoretically possible to put an F-35 or Harrier on a destroyer, functionally the costs outweigh the benefits. Perhaps future fixed wing VTOL aircraft will be able to operate from surface combatants, that day has not arrived. Smaller warships will continue to rely on missile defenses in lieu of defensive aircraft.Simply put missile defenses shoot down the incoming missiles. The attacking missiles are tracked via radar and then defensive missiles or guns destroy them before they hit the ship. Guided missiles are more effective than guns in this role as they are both more precise and can be expected to be effective at much greater ranges than unguided gun shells. The number of missiles that can be shot down varies with the sophistication of the defending ships missile guidance systems and the depth of the defensive missile magazines. These are two of the key measures of effectiveness in missile defense, the number of attacking missiles that can be shot down in total, and the number of attacking missiles that can be shot down simultaneously.The Best Defense?The question is now which defense is better? Active defenses that shoot down the incoming missiles or armor that protects the ship and its crew from those missiles? This is an involved question I now realize deserves its own post.Modern Warship Armor (part 2)Modern Warship Armor – Framing the DiscussionTo attempt to answer the question “should armor be added to modern warships” it becomes necessary to try and quantify the usefulness of armor. To assist this analysis a notional warship design based on the Fridtjof Nasen class frigate will be used. This class represents a good example of a modern multi-role warship, and is a simple enough design to allow a conceptual de-construction of its elements for analysisOpinion: Is There a Frigate in Your Future? - USNI NewsWhile very capable ships the frigates are not battleships, they lack the armor protection to take hits and keep fighting the way some battleships did. They are sturdy ships built to military construction standards but most definitely not heavily armored. As they were built the Fridtjof Nansen class relies on a combination of active defenses, countermeasures and reduced radar signature for defense.(The relative value of soft kill countermeasures versus active hard kill defenses is also an excellent topic of discussion but not one I’m going to pursue in this post)To quantify the armor versus active defenses we’ll need to establish the relative values for the baseline frigate and then alter those values to examine the costs and benefits of adding armor. Given that the Fridtjof Nansen class has a displacement of about 5,300 tons we can assume that our notional frigate can take one hit from an Exocet type missile and continue fighting but a second would put it out of action. I’m taking this as an approximate value from the literature on cruise missile effectiveness.While the frigates lack the armor of a battleship they have far more formidable air defenses. Two of the components of this system are the two fire control radars used to illuminate the incoming missiles during the terminal phase of the defensive missile’s flight. In our notional frigate loosely based on the Fridtjof Nansen class we’ll assume that each fire control radar can guide defensive missiles at two incoming missiles each. This is likely slightly below the capability of the real system.Adding capabilities to a warship usually means adding weight. In this case it is very difficult to know how much weight. Without a specific armor scheme, or even armor material as we can no longer assume it will be steel, we cannot reasonably make predications. In the absence of specific weight values for armor increases we can only make generalized comparisons. The generalizations will prevent specific design recommendation but will allow a relative comparison of different trade space options.For discussion purposes we will suggest that the fire control radars can each be exchanged for their equivalent weight in armor and the armor will provide the same level of protection that the defensive missiles guided by that radar would have. Therefore each unit of armor will provide protection against two missile hits. While this most likely represents an unreasonably good assumption for the armor it works well for the comparison.Exploring the Trade-OffsWe must first examine our baseline frigate with its two fire control radars and no armor. With each of the two radars guiding defensive missiles to destroy two attacking missiles each and the baseline ship being able to survive a single Exocet hit we can conclude that the baseline frigate should survive a five missile attack and remain operational. A six or greater missile attack would put the ship out of action and unable to continue the fight.We then exchange the radars for armor and re-examine the frigate’s performance. Having removed the two radars and added armor the frigate now has no missile defenses but is capable of withstanding five Exocet missile hits and remain operational. Again a six or greater missile attack would put the ship out of action.Upon a cursory examination the armored frigate has a number of advantages over the baseline frigate. Missile defense is complex, the system has many components that need to work together to complete the kill chain and destroy the incoming missile. Further these systems are not kept operational all of the time, they are frequently kept off. Some of the literature suggests that the number one determinate in the success or failure of missile defenses is simply “was it turned on at the time of the attack?”. Armor suffers neither of these weaknesses. Armor is always on and armor isn’t sensitive to power availability. Armor doesn’t require the crew to be alert and well trained to work.However the active defenses also have their advantages. If we change the scenario slightly and have the attacker fire two salvoes of three missiles instead of one salvo of six missiles we get very different results. Against the same number of missile as before our baseline frigate is undamaged and our armored frigate is out of action.This may not initially sound logical but bear with me I’ll explain. There’s a slight difference in the terms used to describe the defenses of our two frigates. The baseline frigate can withstand one Exocet missile hit, and shoot down four incoming missiles at a time while the armored frigate can withstand five Exocet missile hits. The total defensive capacity for a single salvo in both cases is a maximum of five incoming missiles.However in the second scenario there are only three missiles in each salvo. In this scenario the baseline frigate can shoot down up to four missiles so it isn’t hit at all, while the armored frigate has taken three of it’s maximum five hits in the first salvo. In the second salvo the baseline frigate again shoots down all of the attacking missiles while the armored frigate takes an additional three hits putting it at one over it’s damage limit.This is because missile defense works as a threshold situation. Any attack with fewer missiles than the number required to saturate its defenses will probably not cause any damage at all. The baseline frigate and the armored frigate can survive the same number of attacking missile at the same time, but the total number of missiles baseline frigate can defend against is much higher providing that each attack remains below the saturation threshold. The baseline frigate can defend itself from up to thirty two attacking missiles, this being the total number of defensive missiles carried by the Fridtjof Nansen class. (Sixteen is a more likely real world maximum as the operational doctrine of many navies calls for two defending missile to be fired at each attacking missile to maximize the chances of success).Sometimes Bigger is Better (and sometimes it isn’t)You may have noticed that I’ve been very careful in my terminology when describing the attacking missiles in the scenarios above. I called them Exocet hits, this is because the research into warship staying power uses a standardized attacking missile “Exocet equivalent”. This is to allow standardized comparisons given that different missiles will naturally have different attributes. Both the size of the attacking missile’s warhead and it’s kinetic energy can be considered. For example the P-15 Termit (SS-N-2 Styx) is approximately three and a half times heavier, has a two and three quarter times larger warhead and flies at roughly the same speed. When calculating Exocet equivalents for ships out of action instead of ships sunk, warhead weight is the important variable and is therefore used. Thus a single Termit missile (or it’s famous Silkworm cousin) is 2.75 Exocet equivalents in this analysis.Returning to our two frigates if we use the Termit missile in a three missile attack the baseline frigate again would be expected to shoot down all three missiles, especially given that the P-15 is a less sophisticated missile than the Exocet. However the armored frigate is now hit with 8 Exocet missile equivalents and is out of action (and most likely sinking). The size of the warhead is a variable that affects the armored frigate only, as it does not make the missile any harder to shoot down. As a result the armored frigate is much more sensitive to warhead size than the baseline frigate. A potential adversary can also exploit this fact by using older, cheaper missiles against the armored frigate, knowing that the lack of sophistication in the missile will not change it’s effectiveness.I feel I must clarify that the same older cheaper missiles used in a slightly different strategy can prove effective against the baseline frigate as well. In that case the determining variable is if the attack contains enough missile to saturate the frigate’s defenses. The proliferation of cheap cruise missiles is the bane of any warship design.Not everyone plays by the rulesThe scenarios thus far haven’t been complimentary to the armored frigate so I would like to consider scenarios where it performs much better. In this scenario the frigate will be in crowded waters filled with a mix of international craft, commercial shipping and local fishing boats. Two of the fishing boats carry one cruise missile each purchased by non-state actors attempting to destroy a large multi-role frigate to raise their international prestige. The fishing boats use simple line of sight to aim their missiles and no radar emissions occur before launch. Attacked in neutral waters with no warning, neither frigate is likely to react at all before being hit by the missiles. The baseline frigate is out of action, but the armored frigate remains operational.The scenario can be altered in a number of ways to produce the same result, the cruise missiles are fired from camouflaged shore based positions, the cruise missiles are substituted by small boats with explosives and suicide bombers. The recurring theme is that in an asymmetrical warfare situation the attacker will try to find the most inconvenient and unexpected time to attack. The inclusion of non-state actors also means that nominally friendly or neutral waters can still hold dangers as abiding by international maritime law or respecting sovereignty is rarely a priority for them.This approach to naval warfare was reportedly used in a major US war game to great success resulting in loses that may have turned the tide of the battle (had they been real). These kinds of tactics also what resulted in the successful attacks on the INS Hanit and on the USS Cole. They are valid tactics, and are now internationally understood to be a viable option when attempting to attack an otherwise overwhelmingly superior warship.Things Don’t Always Go According To PlanAnother weakness of active defenses is the concept of leakers. A missile attack is a very chaotic situation where not everything goes according to plan all of the time. The incoming missiles, the defending ship, the radars, the defensive missiles are all in motion and are all subject to the elements that will degrade their effectiveness. Statistically missile defense systems aren’t perfect, some percentage of the time they won’t work the way they’re supposed to and some attacking missiles leak through the defense.Allowing for the reality of leakers argues for at least some armor. If getting hit by missiles is a statistical inevitability then it seems prudent to design one’s warships to be able to continue fighting after being hit.The problem here is pinning down just what percentage of missile will be leakers. Hard-kill missile systems haven’t yet been used in combat enough to have a historic record to make predictions from. The nations that have these kinds of systems in their navy’s arsenal have certainly run tests but the accuracy of staged tests instead of a live adversary can be questionable. Those same nations will also be highly motivated not to share how successful their defensive systems are (or aren’t) with anyone making the data hard to come by.Only once a reliable leaker rate is established could the relative merits of armor be analysed. Higher leaker rates favour armor, low leaker rates make it a poor return on investment.Co-operationTurning back to the advantages of active defenses over armor we must begin to consider our notional frigates outside of the isolation of the previous scenarios. In this scenario our frigates are now escorting a non-combatant in contested waters and the attacking warship fires a four missile salvo. Two missiles lock on to the frigate and two lock on to the non-combatant. Both frigates would survive the encounter, but only the baseline frigate can defend the non-combatant. Armor protects the warship it’s installed on but not any ships around it. A warship relying exclusively on armor for defense isn’t very useful in the escort role against these kinds of threats.In another variation of this type of scenario we can have multiple warships travelling in a group. With active defenses these warships are capable of supporting each other. Warships with an excess of defensive capacity can assist in the defense of the other ships in the group. Even if all of the warships have equal capacity the attacking missiles tend not to distribute themselves evenly among the available targets, resulting in some warships being targeted by fewer missiles than others resulting in potential excess capacity in otherwise similar warships.Armor on Modern Warships?Before concluding it must be acknowledged that I’ve only considered notional frigates that have either active defenses or armor but not both. Any modern warship with armor is unlikely to not also have active defenses. The question then becomes how much design emphasis should be place on each. Which is where an analysis like this becomes very difficult. Without real and very specific details on the active defenses and the potential armor schemes it is impossible to make informed decisions about potential designs. So sadly even after this much discussion the conclusions must remain very generic.The appear to be a larger number of scenarios where active defenses are more effective than armor suggesting that when designing a warship money and weight are better allocated to active defenses instead of armor. When considering any increase in capability active defenses will provide a better return on investment more often than armor. Almost all of the scenarios that involve high intensity warfare favor active defense over armor.However there are two situations where at least some armor offer has benefits, and both of them appear probable. The first and most probable are surprise asymmetric attacks, by their very nature these kinds of attacks are hard to predict and likely to catch warships off guard rendering active defenses much less desirable. The second is in cases where leakers are probable, if during any attack at least some hits are probable armor offers an increasingly attractive benefits.The most damning factor against armor on modern warships may simply be cost. Adding armor increases weight, which mandates a larger hull to allow the warship to carry that extra weight and still have enough room for the mission specific equipment (and active defenses). Larger, heavier warships are more expensive than smaller lighter ones. In the politics of warship procurement it will be very difficult to argue for armor as it increase cost and superficially does not appear to increase capability.Questions already answered: How tough are American aircraft carriers? Can they absorb damage like a tank or are they delicate giants? (Quora)Kevlar Armor: important areas.Advanced missile defence systems:RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile designed to stop anti ship cruise missilesRadar jamming technology to disrupt enemy radarFlares to throw off missilesTorpedo defence systemsMissile defence cannons and missile launchers.Aircraft on board, ranging from air combat to electronic warfare.How did Japanese battleships compare to their German counterparts? (Quora)Trillion Dollar Defense – Advanced Modern WarshipsL’USS Zumwalt, le futur destroyer de la marine américaine, bientôt mis à l’eauThe Most Technologically Advanced Warship Ever BuiltWarship - WikipediaTypes of warshipChina Kicks Off Construction of its Biggest Amphibious Assault ShipUSS America Gets Ready For First Overseas DeploymentAmphibious assault shipAviso type A69 Commandant Bouan F797Aviso, a kind of dispatch boatCapital ship, the largest and most important ships in a nation's fleet. These were previously battleships, battlecruisers, and aircraft carriers, but the first two warship types are now no longer used.Aircraft carrier, a warship primarily armed with carrier-based aircraft. Battlecruiser, a ship with battleship-level armament and cruiser-level armor; typically faster than a battleship because the reduction in armor allowed mounting of more powerful propulsion machinery, or the use of a more slender hull shape with a lower drag coefficient.Battleship, a large, heavily armoured warship equipped with many powerful guns. A term which generally post-dates sailing warships.Ironclad battleship, battleships built before the pre-dreadnought in the 1870s and 1880sPre-dreadnought battleship, sea-going battleships built to a common design before the launch of dreadnoughts, between the mid- 1880s and 1905. Pre-dreadnoughts commonly featured a mixed main battery composed of several different caliber guns.Dreadnought, an early 20th-century battleship, which set the pattern for all subsequent battleship construction. Dreadnoughts differ from pre-dreadnoughts in that they feature an all-big-gun main battery. The advantage lies in that if all the big guns have the same characteristics, only one firing solution will be needed to aim them all.Bireme, an ancient vessel, propelled by two banks of oars.Coastal defence ship, a warship built for the purpose of coastal defence.Commerce raider, any armed vessel—privately or government-owned—sanctioned to raid a nation's merchant fleet.Corvette Comandante Foscari of the Italian NavyCorvette, originally a small, lightly armed ship ordered by Winston Churchill, prime minister of Great Britain at the end of WW2. Corvette design was based on a commercial whale catcher, its primary attribute being ease of construction as an emergency wartime anti-submarine weapon. Its original engine was a reciprocating steam engine, original armament was one four inch gun, small arms and depth charges. Primary users of the World War II corvette were the British Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy, although corvettes saw use elsewhere.Russian Slava-class cruiser Varyag in the Pacific OceanCruiser, a fast, independent warship. Traditionally, cruisers were the smallest warships capable of independent action. Along with battleships and battlecruisers, they have largely vanished from modern navies. Armored cruiser Heavy cruiser Pocket battleship Light cruiser Protected cruiser Unprotected cruiserJapanese SDF’s Aegis destroyerDestroyer, a fast and highly maneuverable warship, traditionally incapable of independent action. Originally developed to counter the threat of torpedo boats, they are now the largest independent warship generally seen on the ocean. Guided missile destroyerFast attack craftFire ship, a vessel of any sort set on fire and sent into an anchorage or fleet with the intention of causing destruction and chaos. Exploding fire ships may be called hellburners.Frigate, a ship used in modern navies (Although they date back to the 17th century) that are typically used to protect merchant vessels and other warships.Galleass, a sailing and rowing warship, equally well suited to sailing and rowing.Galleon, a 16th-century sailing warship.Galley, a warship propelled by oars with a sail for use in favourable winds.GunboatTonnerre (L9014) - Mistral class Amphibious Assault Ship (France)Helicopter carrier, an aircraft carrier especially suited to helicopters and amphibious assault.Great War Vessels: What are Iron Clad Ships?Ironclad, a wooden warship with external iron plating.Viking Longships: Fearless Dragonships Daring The Oceans And Seas | Ancient PagesLongship, a Viking raiding ship.Anatomy of an English Man of WarMan-of-war, a British Navy expression for a sailing warship.Minesweeper Defending D-DayMinesweeperRoyal Navy Hunt-class Mine Counter Measures Vessel HMS Brocklesby (M33) at The Tower, HM Naval Base, GibraltarMinehunterMinelayerType 022 Fast Attack Missile Craft Houbei Class of the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLA) Report: Russian Arms Sales Give China a Better Chance in Competing with U.S. Ships - USNI NewsMissile boatMonitor, a small, heavily gunned warship with shallow draft designed for land bombardment.Two Japanese Coast Guard vessels block a Chinese trawler trying to signNow DuaoYu Islands (Pinicle Islands) to claim sovereignty.Naval trawlerNaval drifterOffshore patrol vesselQuinquereme, an ancient warship propelled by three banks of oars. On the upper row, two rowers hold one oar; on the middle row, two rowers; and on the lower row, one man to an oar.Ship of the line, a sailing warship capable of standing in the line of battle. A direct predecessor to the later battleship.The sloop Providence is a replica of the first warship at the inception of the US NavySloopRussia's Submarine Force Is Back: How Worried Should America Be?Submarine, a ship capable of remaining underwater for extended periods. Submarines in the world wars could stay under for less than a day, but development of nuclear reactors and air-independent propulsion allows submarines to stay submerged for weeks, even months at a time, with food supplies as the only limiting factor.Torpedo boat, a small, fast surface vessel designed for launching torpedoes.Trireme RammingTrireme, an ancient warship propelled by three banks of oars.China’s 3rd Aircraft Carrier
Trusted esignature solution— what our customers are saying
be ready to get more
Get legally-binding signatures now!
Related searches to Electronic signature Presentation for Procurement Simple
Frequently asked questions
How do i add an electronic signature to a word document?
When a client enters information (such as a password) into the online form on , the information is encrypted so the client cannot see it. An authorized representative for the client, called a "Doe Representative," must enter the information into the "Signature" field to complete the signature.
How to use electronic signature paint?
Here is how to use electronic signature paint:
1. Get started in this tutorial, and follow all steps.
2. Take your digital signature and print it on a piece of paper, paper that is not too thick. You can use a regular paper for that. We recommend paper with the same color as your skin, as it will ensure that your signature will be easy to see. If your signature does not fit on your paper, it will be very difficult to see on it.
3. Get a paint marker. You would be surprised how much this costs, and for good reasons. We've found cheap paint markers at local craft shops. If you can't make these yourself, then get a good brand like Tacky or Wet N' Wild. You can buy these at local craft stores, or you can buy them online. We buy ours at , where it costs just $ for a ounce bottle.
4. After you've purchased and used a paint marker, take that paint marker to a surface that is not too slick for ink to adhere to, and lightly paint your digital signature onto it. This will not be too messy, and it is a good idea to paint lightly, since the thicker the paint, the more ink that will be needed.
5. Place your signature on the paper that you want your digital signature on, such as a piece of newspaper.
6. Using the tip of the paint marker, apply very light pressure to the paper with a very light stroke. The lighter your stroke, the harder it will be to see. You want it to be very lightly brushed, without the brush leaving any ink on the paper.
7. Remove the paper from the paper hol...
How to unlock pdf to sign?
How to unlock pdf to sign? What is your email address? How to access the pdf from the web
What is your mailing address?
What is your mailing address? Do you have my email address?
Do you have my email address? If I buy a book on your website I will get the pdf to sign for free
If I buy a book on your website I will get the pdf to sign for free Do you have a phone number or email? I can buy a copy
Do you have a phone number or email? I can buy a copy Do you ship internationally? Yes
Yes What is it going to cost? $25 to $75 to sign, shipping
$25 to $75 to sign, shipping Is the signer allowed on my book? Yes, if you buy the book for yourself
Yes, if you buy the book for yourself Are you a printer? No, you are not an independent printer
No, you are not an independent printer How do I get to see my book? From the website
From the website Can I send copies? No, it is your responsibility to send the signed copy to the author. I have a question that is not answered here? If you believe you have a valid reason to ask and the question can not be answered on this website (not including copyright law), please contact me directly using the form at the bottom of this page.
Get more for Electronic signature Presentation for Procurement Simple
- How Can I Electronic signature New Jersey Courts PDF
- Can I Electronic signature New Jersey Courts PDF
- Help Me With Electronic signature New Jersey Courts PDF
- How To Electronic signature New Jersey Courts Word
- How Can I Electronic signature New Jersey Courts PDF
- How To Electronic signature New Jersey Courts PDF
- How Do I Electronic signature New Jersey Courts Word
- Help Me With Electronic signature New Jersey Courts Word
Find out other Electronic signature Presentation for Procurement Simple
- Legal formsduke university school of law
- Control number nc p060 pkg form
- Control number nc p061 pkg form
- Control number nc p062 pkg form
- Control number nc p066 pkg form
- Filing a paper annual report nc secretary of state form
- Control number nc p077 pkg form
- Control number nc p083 pkg form
- Control number nc p084 pkg form
- Free north carolina llc operating agreement templates form
- Control number nc p092 pkg form
- Control number nc p093 pkg form
- Control number nc p109 pkg form
- Parks and recreation offenses for which court appearance may form
- Nc pc am form
- This presentation should not be construed as providing legal form
- How to file a north carolina corporation amendment with form
- State of north carolina in the office of form
- North carolina new state resident packageus legal forms
- Signed and sworn to or affirmed before me this day by name of form