Sign Word for Procurement Secure

The question fills me with a grim sense of amusement because it gives me a chance to elaborate on one of the lessons I learned regarding military procurement during my service.You know the old saying “Amateurs talks strategy, professionals talk logistics?”.Well I have but one more phrase to add to it:“Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics. Bitter employees in the organization only talk bureaucratic politics.”Just one more thing to keep in mind when discussing what potential hardware a military could buy next.Take the 1980s for example, during the height of the cold war when the Indian Military was overhauling large amounts of equipment bought during the 50s and 60s and beginning a major military up gradation program that started somewhere in the late 70s and continued till the early 90s.This was matched by a Pakistani military up gradation that began with the US Aid package of $ 4 Billion of which $0.8 bill went to the nuclear program, $1.6 went to the economy and $1.6 b went to the military.Combined with the Siachen, Khalistan and Brasstacks tensions with an Afghan war in the background. all of this was a recipe for militarization.There was a flurry in the press back then and every military analyst went nuts trying to analyze who would purchase what and how that purchase would impact the South Asian military theater.There were two purchases of note that require examination: The Bofors artillery purchase by the Indian military and the potential purchase of M1 Abrams by the Pakistan army.When the Bofors artillery purchase was conducted by the Indian military from Swedish defense manufacturers, there was a flurry of interest in Pakistan that examined what could have motivated the Indian purchase of such an expensive and potentially game changing artillery piece. Officers would discuss the possibility of the Indian army completely overhauling their artillery set up and standardizing around this new piece of hardware, completely ditching their Soviet hardware. Others wrote fearful pieces about how the Pakistan army would face highly accurate western artillery all along the Western front and the Indians wouldn’t even need much of an air force if they had Bofors raining down accurate strikes on positions across the border. Lahore and the GHQ in Pindi being shelled were images that were considered.And what was the reality on the other side?The Swedish firm had bribed their way through the Indian defense ministry, providing major kickbacks to key players in order to secure the deal. Several Indian development projects had their funds diverted by key government officials to pay for this overly priced artillery piece.I remember several Indian officials being aghast at the purchase. The Indian army back then had been trying to phase out the different calibers in their army and standardize around the 155mm. The plan was to get rid of older calibers like 130 mm and have just one 155 mm caliber standardized as it would greatly simplify maintenance, training and operations.Instead, a completely new type of gun, the Bofors, was being forced on them with a massive part of the defense procurement budget gone and no resolution of the standardization issue.The Bofors would actually perform fairly well in the Kargil conflict, but the point here is how the bureaucratic politics behind the scene determined the procurement of defense equipment.The Pakistani side of the story revolves around the potential purchase of the M1 Abrams in the 1980s.This is again the good old times of the Afghan war with Pakistan being flushed with US military aid money and going on high tech shopping sprees.The sale of F-16s to Pakistan rattled Indian military analysts the same way Pakistan was somewhat rattled by the Bofors artillery purchase (just one of the many arms purchases made by the Indian military during the 80s arms overhaul campaign).The F-16 had been used in the Osirak reactor strike by Israel only a few years ago and its sale to Pakistan sent alarm bells in New Delhi over the potential capability of the Pakistani Airforce to carry out similar air strikes on Indian nuclear facilities.The US tried to downplay such fears by downgrading the radar of the F-16 and refusing to sell us the 1000 pound bombs needed to penetrate a nuclear reactors outer shell.The Pakistani Airchief refused to compromise on the radar and told the government that the F-16 was useless without its USAF radar and there was no point in buying it if the radar wasn’t the one the USAF used themselves.The US relented and kept the radar as it was (the F-15s sold to Saudi Arabia had the downgraded radar though). We never got the 1000 pound bombs though which was acceptable as Air Defence against Indian bombers and Soviet aircraft was the priority back then (especially over sensitive installations like Kahuta and Chashma which we feared would become the targets of a Osirak like strike).With the sale of the F-16s, suddenly the entire arsenal of the US military was potentially open to the Paks. So one can imagine how New Delhi was rattled when reports leaked that the Pakistan army was considering the purchase of M1Abrams tanks for its army as well.The same way Pakistan had freaked out over Bofors, the idea of M1 Abrams in the hands of the Pakistan army suddenly caused a flurry of scare mongering in Indian media. Scenarios of a second Operation Grand Slam and armored thrust towards Akhnur were drawn up. Other more fanciful ideas stemmed around the idea of a Sikh uprising in Punjab supported by Pakistani armored offensives, pushing first in a thrust outwards of the Sialkot sector and then swinging down for a pincer movement to trap Indian troops in the Punjab and avenging the 71 war etc.Yea I know. I think the Pakistanis were more surprised to hear about these plans to be honest.What was the end result of the entire episode?Literally nothing. The Pakistan Army muddled along, adding the occasional M48 Patton regiment or Chinese armor whenever they could afford it and focusing more on TOW anti tank weapons than anything.Turns out the Pakistanis had tried out the M1 Abrams but found it unsuitable for Pakistan. The Tank guzzled humongous amounts of fuel and would have drained the entire fuel supply for the Pakistani armored corp within a short while. The Pakistanis were hard pressed to stockpile enough fuel for 2–3 weeks of fighting, let alone armored thrusts into the Indian Punjab.Also, none of our bridges in the 80s could accommodate the weight and width of the M1 Abrams.A last story before we finish?I was lucky enough in my life to have met one of the Air Chiefs of the Pakistan Airforce at an event. This was back when Russia and Pakistan were undergoing a diplomatic thaw and Pakistan had begun its first forays into purchasing Russian hardware.A lot of our online forums had been speculating that Pakistan might purchase the Su-35 or something to replace the F-16 as the top of the line fighter jet for the PAF. Others speculated that it would be a European fighter like the Swedish Gripen instead.So here I was, lucky enough to meet the Chief of Air Staff back then. I asked him point blank whether there was any truth to the rumors of the PAF buying a Su-35 or Gripen or J-10 or ANYTHING really.He blinked in surprise.Apparently, all of the online theory crafting everyone had been doing about our next fighter aircraft was so far removed from the realities facing the Air Headquarters that my question surprised the ACM more than anything.He replied that the Airforce had no plans beyond upgrading and inducting incrementally improved blocks of the JF-17s and that the Airforce was quite happy with its performance and their needs were being met adequately.It was the M1 Abrams story all over again.People were speculating that some new technology advanced system would be inducted that would change the military balance and all that was happening was the Airforce was continuing to induct a standard workhorse (the JF-17) and slightly tweaking and improving the newer version Blocks.The F-16 wouldn’t be that easy to ditch. Decades had been spent building up its supporting eco system of training environments, maintenance and logistics supports, accompanying tactics and strategies. Armed forces don’t just throw out old systems like discarded tissue papers, there is an entire supporting network that needs to be overhauled using precious finite resources. Re-training all the ground crews to newer maintenance procedures alone would be hell.Also, the PAF has always supported a standardized force structure that’s built around a core of Top of the Line fighters performing advanced missions and with the best equipment supported by an outer shell of more mid-tier aircraft.This has been the standard model since the first armament campaigns of the 50s. A core of Top tier F-104s surrounded by an outer shell of F-86s.Sanctions and crippling resource shortages forced us to make do with whatever we had which is why we had 5–6 different fighter types by the 90s. But even in the 90s when the first Sabre 2 and Super Sabre plans were drawn up (predecessors of the Jf-17 program), the PAF’s long term vision was for a core of 100 F-16s surrounded by 200–400 JF-17s.It’s why the PAF ordered 12 F-16 B trainer aircraft in the first batch of 40 F-16s. 12 is a LOT of trainer aircraft for such a small batch, normally you’d get 4 F-16 B trainers for 36 F-16 A fighters. 12 only makes sense if your long-term plan is for 100 F-16s. Again, sanctions played havoc with that long-term plan.Currently, the PAF seems to have been locked into the F-16 by force of momentum, having invested too much into its infrastructure and maintenance to switch out that easily. We even imported special communication links and technology to allow our Western F-16s to collaborate with our Chinese AWACs.The only 2 contender aircraft that could have been inducted were the J-10s and the Swedish Grippens. The J-10’s induction would present an immense challenge to maintenance and logistical network of the PAF and to invest in such a maintenance channel for only 2 squadrons is not worth it for now. It only seems feasible if the supply lines for F-16 parts are threatened in a permanent manner.Despite our turn down in relations with US and their refusal to subsidize further F-16 sales, our logistical channels with the US are still open and spares/upgradation coming through. Alternative sources like Turkey are also opening up for our F-16 program in terms of upgradation and mid life upgrades.The Gripen purchase was heavily pursued at the time of the SAAB Eyerie purchase as the Gripen had the incredible ability to switch their radars off during Air Defense and rely on the Eyerie AEW platforms alone for interception and i think even missile guidance, making the Gripen aircraft very difficult to detect on radar in the meantime. The USAF F-15s and their AWACS have a similar capability. But again, that sale never went through due to logistical and maintenance costs.The F-16 and JF-17 alone are currently meeting the entire spectrum of the PAF’s requirements and doing so in a very optimized and cost-efficient maintenance and logistical framework. Why would anyone buy J-10s or Gripens, both mid weight TFL fighters when their capabilities already exist within the PAF is anyone’s guess. I would honestly look more closely at the combat drone program of Pakistan. Those Burraq UCAVs sure look like they could carry a few air to air missiles…The only online resource I’ve found that closely matches what my short talk with the Air Chief covered is this surprisingly excellent piece by Quwa:Analysis: Pakistan’s Fighter Modernization Roadmap (Part-1)QUWA’s reports on the Eyerie’s repair after the Kamra airbase attacks are also almost word for word what I’ve heard from top Airforce officials and I’m surprised at the excellent quality of their reporting. They are the only news source I would trust (I wonder who their sources are?). I have a good story about how the last Eyerie was repaired after the Kamra Airbase attack and will post it if I can find a matching question for it.For other references, Fizaya: Psyche of the Pakistan Airforce by Ravi Rikhe is a must read.My own time in service.The final nail in the coffin.It’s a mix between big-think questions and the politics of the organization.Big thinks:Who is willing to supply us?Is it sanction proof?Do we get tech transfers and training and maintenance support for a couple of years?Which country should we buy from and why is it China?Did we import a previous version before we have some familiarity with?Is it part of an integrated, pre-existing system?What’s our history of usage?Whats the current doctrine stemming from GHQ regarding procurement?Whose in control of the country at the moment?Whats the state of foreign relations?Who got bribed and by how much?And then of course, the politics.What’s the state of the civil-military tussle in the organization? Who’s at the top? Are they of good repute with their bosses in the GHQ and will they be staying on or are they getting booted soon? Who’s heading the procurement office right now? Whose heading central right now? Who’s heading the land-based segment recommendations?The weight of past decisions long decided before any of us even signed up and the flutter of miniscule but plenty decisions being made at the bottom drove organizational procurement. Several of our top brass inherited files and projects that had been dreamed up in the 1980s and were still in play. We’ve seen projects with life times stretching into the 2040s.One insider look into the bureaucratic, dull nature of paper-pushing military procurement is enough to dampen the heart and soul of every young lad banging on his keyboard about the PAF buying the J-20 stealth aircraft or Su-35 or whatever.References:Richard Rinaldi, Ravi Rikhye: Amazon.in: BooksFiza'ya

A single-word answer would be Power but I’ll try to explain the controversy in as simple manner as possible. But it will be a long answer with the recent Lok Sabha debate (02/01/19) of Shri Rahul Gandhi.Rafale Deal Controversy is related with the purchase of 36 multirole fighter aircraft for the price of Rs 58,000 crore by Ministry of Defence from Dassault Aviation.TimelineJan 31, 2012: Indian Defence Ministry announced Dassault Rafale had won the MMRCA competition to supply Indian Air Force (IAF) with 126 aircraft along with an option for 63 additional aircraft. Rafale was chosen as the lo...

Article II of the Constitution contains the job description of the President.He assumes “executive power”. He is commander in chief of the Army and Navy. His job requires that he “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” i.e., he is in charge of law enforcement. The buck stops there.Executive Orders are authorized Presidential edicts — laws which Congress never passed but which have all the effect of a real law. They don’t teach this in school. We never learned this. But it’s a fact.Here’s why it’s a fact.Endless Congressional authority instructs the President to enforce laws via Executive Orders aka “directives”.In 2012, Congress passed 26 USC § 168, authorizing the President to sign an “Executive order” to protect U..S. commerce from foreign competitors.The 2012 Procurement Act, 40 USC § 121, authorized the President to create and enforce certain “policies and directives”.3 USC § 301 makes the President responsible for enforcing it by putting “the head of any department or agency in the executive branch, or any official … appointed by … the Senate” in charge of “any function which is vested in the President by law” or needs approval of the President.Executive Order No. 12333 was signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1981. It authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to perform surveillance as part of enforcement. The NSA itself was created in an Executive Order by President Truman in 1952, pursuant to his authority as Commander in Chief.The 2012 International Emergency Economic Powers Act § 203(a)(1) gave the President permission to “investigate, regulate, or prohibit” certain violations of the law and then enforce compliance.Executive Orders were used by Lincoln to suspend habeas corpus (Ex Parte Merryman, 1861), by Truman to desegregate the military (Executive Order 9981 (1948)), and by George W. Bush to shut down stem cell research (Executive Order 13455 (2007)) and resume waterboarding (Executive Order 13440).George Washington issued 8; FDR issued 3,721; Barack Obama issued 276, according to the American Presidency Project.NPR White House Correspondent Tamara Keith says Donald Trump's Executive Order on ethics was pulled word for word from Obama and Clinton orders, changing the number of years an executive branch employee could not lobby Congress from 2 to 5 years.On January 17, 2017, Trump signed Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements. The first paragraph lists the laws that give Donald Trump legal authority to issue this particular Executive Order:“the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S. Code § 1101 et seq.) (INA),”and“the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (Public Law 109 367) (Secure Fence Act),”and“the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208 Div. C) (IIRIRA),”and because the President has a legal responsibility“to ensure the safety and territorial integrity of the United States as well as to ensure that the Nation's immigration laws are faithfully executed.”He’s right. CONGRESS HAS AUTHORIZED President Donald J. Trump to issue these orders.The INA defines the meaning of the words used in these other laws. In some contexts, tourists are aliens. (“The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.”) We don’t expect Donald Trump to start arresting foreigners with cameras on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan taking pictures of Trump Tower and Central Park. But if there was no protocol for ensuring that innocent people receive due process, this would be a dangerous Order.In the Secure Fence Act, Congress ordered the President’s Homeland Security Department to“take all actions the Secretary determines necessary and appropriate to achieve and maintain operational control over the entire international land and maritime borders of the United States.”The aforementioned “all actions” could be described in an Executive Order, if the President wanted to do that.Paragraph (b) of that law explains what they mean by operational control:“prevention of all unlawful entries into the United States, including entries by terrorists, other unlawful aliens, instruments of terrorism, narcotics, and other contraband…”,i.e. guns, etc.Congress passed IIRIRA in 1996. A Republican majority passed it; President Clinton signed it into law in return for Congress’s approval of the federal budget.The IIRIRA was instructions for the President and his Cabinet. The Attorney General and the Treasury Secretary were to expand the number of employees in the INS and the United States Customs Service. Border personnel were to guard “the border in proportion to the level of illegal crossing[s]”. It called for “expedited removal of inadmissible arriving aliens” and “incarceration in the country of the alien’s nationality”. It was long and it was harsh.These laws, passed by Congress, authorized the Executive Orders signed by Donald J. Trump for several immigration policies he would enforce.Like all laws in this country, Executive Orders must be Constitutional. Compliance with the Executive Order delaying and halting entry of certain non-U.S. citizens was promptly halted by an injunction issued by a “so-called judge” sitting in a federal court. Donald Trump hinted he was going to issue another Executive Order. He swears that this time, it will be Constitutional.We’ll see about that.

Thanks for the A2A Jimmy:From the C-Span transcript:LAST MONTH, 20,000 MIGRANT CHILDREN WERE ILLEGALLY BROUGHT INTO THE UNITED STATES, A DRAMATIC INCREASE. THESE CHILDREN ARE USED AS HUMAN PAWNS BY VICIOUS COYOTES….I think that’s a surprisingly accurate description of Jeff Sessions and Stephen Miller for their role in creating the “zero tolerance” policy that put those kids all in cages - or just plain lost them entirely - over the course of last year. I would definitely agree they are both vicious coyotes.NATION, BUT ALL AMERICANS ARE HURT BY UNCONTROLLED ILLEGAL MIGRATION. IT STRAINS PUBLIC RESOURCES AND DRIVES DOWN JOBS AND WAGES. AMONG THOSE HARDEST HIT ARE AFRICAN-AMERICANS AND HISPANIC AMERICANS.Ah, the delicious irony of a man worried about the wages of minority Americans, when his club, this year, asked for 78 guest worker visas, so as to avoid the inconvenience of paying American citizens of any color enough to make living in or commuting through West Palm Beach worthwhile.MORE AMERICANS WILL DIE FROM DRUGS THIS YEAR THAN WERE KILLED IN THE ENTIRE VIETNAM WAR.Suddenly, The Wall is about drugs? Even dumber than it being about immigration. Drug money pays for some pretty damn impressive tunnels. You want to solve the drug problem? Decriminalize them. Not only will there be no need for a big wall, we’ll save billions and perhaps stop being the country that has the highest rate of incarceration on the planet.PROFESSIONALS HAVE REQUESTED 51 $7 BILLION FOR A -- $5.7 BILLION FOR A PHYSICAL BARRIER. AT THE REQUEST OF DEMOCRATS, IT WILL BE A STEEL BARRIER RATHER THAN A PHYSICAL WALL. IT IS WHAT OUR PROFESSIONALS AT THE BORDER WANT AND NEED.A steel barrier rather than a physical wall? If Donald Trump has the secret to making non-physical steel he would be even more of a comic book villain than he already is. As usual, it is very hard to be convinced that Mr. Trump actually has a grasp on what he is asking for when he talks this way.AND MEDICAL SUPPORT. FURTHERMORE, WE HAVE ASKED CONGRESS TO CLOSE BORDER SECURITY LOOPHOLES SO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CHILDREN CAN BE SAFELY AND HUMANELY RETURNED BACK HOME.Safely and humanely returning kids to countries torn by political and drug violence? Without their parents?We have different definitions of “humane.”PROTECT OUR FAMILIES AND OUR NATION. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REMAINS SHUT DOWN FOR ONE REASON, AND ONE REASON ONLY, BECAUSE DEMOCRATS WILL NOT FUND BORDER SECURITY.Democrats offered an additional $1.6 billion. You wouldn’t take it because Ann Coulter told you not to.DEMOCRATS WILL NOT FUND BORDER SECURITY. MY ADMINISTRATION IS DOING EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO HELP THOSE IMPACTED BY THE SITUATION.No you aren’t, or you wouldn’t have caused the situation in the first place, by turning around and vetoing a spending package three days before Christmas that you had previously promised to sign. And your thoughts and prayers won’t do much when SNAP runs out.BUT THE ONLY SOLUTION IS FOR DEMOCRATS TO PASS A SPENDING BILL THAT DEFENDS OUR BORDERS AND REOPENS THE GOVERNMENT.They already did. But by continuing to refuse to consider any border defense that is not The Wall, you are killing border defense entirely. CBP cannot keep going on without funding. and unlike the $5bn you want for The Wall, which will take at least a year or two to wend its way through design and procurement, the $16bn CBP ask for 2019 will actually put people in place to protect the borders right now.IMMIGRATION. I HAVE HELD THE HANDS OF THE WEEPING MOTHERS AND EMBRACED THE GRIEF STRICKEN FATHERS. SO SAD, SO TERRIBLE. I WILL NEVER FORGET THE PAIN IN THEIR EYES, THE TREMBLE IN THEIR VOICES, AND THE SADNESS GRIPPING THEIR SOULS.Leaving aside whether he has forgotten their names, or is capable of empathy, the entire long exercise in waving the bloody shirt of “crimes committed by illegals” really just goes back to the preference for fear as a motivator. It certainly doesn’t go back to facts - illegals commit crimes at a lower rate than natural born citizens, so if you want to avoid being a weeping mother or grief stricken father, statistically, you should avoid natural born citizens.AMERICAN CITIZENS WE SERVE. WHEN I TOOK THE OATH OF OFFICE, I SWORE TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY, AND THAT IS WHAT I WILL ALWAYS DOThe Presidential oath of office, emphasis mine:"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."I get that he’s not good with remembering his promises, but it’s not like this oath is particularly long or uses too many big words. All the words that are there are important, though, and part of the reason the President (and the rest of our elected officials) swear to defend and uphold the Constitution and not the country is precisely because we are supposed to be a nation of laws. “I did it for the good of the country” is not, in fact, a justification for lawbreaking or the kind of malpractice this shutdown represents.

We need to understand this question, not only from point of view of two ( Supreme Court and Rahul Gandhi) but from that of four, the supreme court, Rahul Gandhi, Narendra Modi and citizens.When Supreme Court ruled that it won't go into prices of Rafale but the decision making process of the government, it found decision making process an appropriate. This order was on one of the petition.By another review petition, when the petitioners placed before the court certain secret documents which were published by N Ram of The Hindu newspaper, the government told court that since these documents are stolen, they shouldn't be relied upon. The government said it would order criminal proceedings under official Secret Act which later they cancelled. The Hon Court has now unanimously held that these leaked documents would be held as an admissible evidence. This means, Rafale proceedings are still going on and matter is subjudiced.I have gone through the speech of Rahul Gandhi. In first part he said. Mr Narendra Modi, before media, had claimed clean cheat. Frankly, his supporters on Quora too had celebrated the clean chit.In second part of interview, Rahul Gandhi said the court found Mr. Modi guilty of corruption.Both Mr. Modi and Rahul Gandhi are wrong. Neither the court has given clean chit to Mr. Modi as claimed by Mr Modi nor found Mr Modi guilty as claimed by Mr Rahul Gandhi. Thats politics.What legal position exist as of now, is that Rafale case has been again reopened by the Supreme Court. This opinion could be treated as opinion of neutral citizens.

MiG Design Bureau: Founded in 1939, 79 years ago.This company is among few left in world which has acquired the great and in-depth knowledge on their own about how to make an aircraft, especially for combat purposes.It is also a harsh truth that now a days, this company is suffering and passing through one of its greatest decline period, all due to another majestic organization, the Sukhoi design bureau.MiG-21 majorly operates in :INDIAN AIR FORCECROATIAN AIR FORCEROMANIAN AIR FORCEPost 1964 Indo-Pak war, IAF pilots gave a very positive response towards the maneuverability and flight control of MiG-21, which led the Indian government to order it in a large number, hence making this country as largest operator of MiG-21 in world (still now).Now the question should be corrected as follows:“Why MiG-21 should not be operational now ?” rather than “Why is India still using MiG-21 fighter plane?”Ans:Small flight rangeRare availability of spare parts (as it is obsolete now)Large radar cross section (hence easy radar detection)Unstable compressor characteristics at high altitude, more specifically it is prone to surge/reversal of air flow from jet engine when flying at its service ceiling or design flight altitude.Below is the photograph snapped behind Su 57 during the compressor surge .Shifting of Center of gravity backwards as fuel in the internal fuel tanks gets consumed with time (hence the nose-up pitching moment begins which is difficult for pilot to control every time during cruise)Using of cone air intake system that severely limits the space available for radar.

The Indian army could not provide better helmets, bulletproof jackets to its infantry soldiers UPA defence minister ‘Saint Antony’ never purchased these items thinking there should no defence scam during his term. His term was considered as lost decade of Indian defence.Ratnik (the Russian word for warrior) is a system consisting of advanced protective and communication equipment, weapons and ammunition. It comprises some 40 protective and life support elements and allows a soldier to receive continuously updated information about the situation in a combat area. It includes modernized body ...