Quick Guide For Completing The Electronic Application Form Annex A: Fill & Download for Free

What do mean by British occupation? The people of Northern Ireland self determined to remain part of the UK.Why should the Republic of Ireland break the rule of law and annexe Northern Ireland against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland?But ignoring the element of how immoral such an action would be, it would be impossible for the Republic of Ireland to do.Ireland is not a member of NATO, and regardless an attack on any one member of NATO is considered to be an attack against them all, so in theory it wouldn’t be the UK had to fight against but also other NATO members should the UK request such aid.Though a reminder as to why doesn’t the Republic of Ireland attack Northern Ireland in order to annex it against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.“We therefore look at it as the will of the people there. That is what matters in a democracy.”But air superiority is important in any modern conflict, you are presumably aware that the Republic of Ireland does not defend their own airspace, they have agreement that another Sovereign State will protect their airspace on their behalf.So who would the UK face should they seek to control the air over Northern Ireland and well the Republic of Ireland in order to provide security for their naval and ground forces?The UK, the UK protects the Republic’s airspace. So the UK has air superiority.The UK would need to land forces on Northern Ireland by sea, after initial reinforcements by air.So what does the Republic’s Navy look like?They have 6 Offshore Patrol vessels, and 1 corvette, the corvette was originally part of the Royal Navy and is from the 80’s.Not much of a threat there.Now excluding other NATO members, shall we have a taster of what they would be up against?Ranking is rather arbitrary for overall military power but in terms of Naval power it is in the top 3.One reason for this is the ability to project power globally helped by having a Blue Water navy.Blue-water navy - WikipediaA blue-water navy is a maritime force capable of operating globally, essentially across the deep waters of open oceans. While definitions of what actually constitutes such a force vary, there is a requirement for the ability to exercise sea control at wide ranges.The term "blue-water navy" is a maritime geographical-term in contrast with "brown-water navy" and "green-water navy".Note that the UK is considered to be a “Rank 2” Blue Water Navy meaning “Limited global-reach power projection meaning At least one major power projection operation globally”, a rank shared with France.The US Navy is of course Rank 1 - “Global-reach power projection - Multiple and sustained power projection missions globally”.For comparison Russia is considered to be Rank 3 - “Multi-regional power projection - Power projection to regions adjacent its own”and China as Rank 4 “Regional power projection - Limited range power projection beyond exclusive economic zone (EEZ)”Europe’s security depends on British and American generositythe UK has effectively subsidised European security to the tune of $23 billion over the past five years.Europe's security depends on British and American generosity - CapXEuropean military spending has unrelentingly shrunk. The reductions in European defence expenditure have become so legendary that they have become a bad joke. Recall that most mainland EU countries are also Nato members. In 2006, they agreed to spend 2 per cent of their Gross Domestic Product on defence. Remember also, that, with threats growing in their eastern and southern neighbourhoods, they recommitted to this target at the Nato Summit in Newport in 2014.However, using calculations based on official Nato statistics, it is clear that mainland Europeans, with few exceptions, have not remained united and have failed to meet their commitments. Based on the 2 per cent of GDP guideline, they have underfunded Nato by a massive $451 billion over the past five years (2012-2016). So on the issue of defence spending, not only do the would-be European peace creators stand naked, they stand with their skin stripped fully to the bone.Oddly, the largest EU and Nato countries are the leading miscreants. France, ostensibly the alliance’s third-strongest military power, has short-changed Nato by approximately $24 billion over the past five years, meaning it has missed the alliance’s spending target by 9 per cent. Over the same timeframe, Germany, with all its vast trade surplus, has short-changed Nato by a whopping $142 billion. This means it has fallen short of its Nato spending target by 39 per cent. Italy, despite its economic difficulties, still a large and wealthy country of 60 million people, has short-changed Nato by $90 billion, or 43 per cent. Spain has short-changed Nato by $75 billion, which means it has failed to meet the organisation’s target by a colossal 54 per cent. And the Netherlands, smaller but still very affluent, has short-changed Nato by $64 billion, or 42 per cent.Indeed, insofar as it has exceeded Nato’s guideline, the UK has effectively subsidised European security to the tune of $23 billion over the past five years. So, far from being a vandal, Britain has continued to behave as a leading custodian of the European peace.The wealthier Europeans, of course, want no attention drawn to their inability to protect their integrationist dream. They will respond by claiming that the EU is distinct from Nato, or even that the EU bears greater responsibility for European peace. Yet such assertions are as mythical as they are false. European integration is a product of peace and security on the mainland, not its cause. So while the EU has undoubtedly helped to dampen distrust between ancient opponents, the real reason order finally emerged in Europe, and indeed, across most of the Euro-Atlantic region, is because of the commitment of the UK and US. They have been willing to cough up the cash to provide sophisticated armed forces and nuclear systems to deter countries – both within and without Nato, and by extension the EU – from disrupting the status quo.Experience, the UK military has had centuries of experience, but has also had relevant modern experience.Falklands War - WikipediaMilitarily, the Falklands conflict remains the largest air-naval combat operation between modern forces since the end of the Second World War. As such, it has been the subject of intense study by military analysts and historians. The most significant "lessons learned" include: the vulnerability of surface ships to anti-ship missiles and submarines, the challenges of co-ordinating logistical support for a long-distance projection of power, and reconfirmation of the role of tactical air power, including the use of helicopters.Conqueror is the only nuclear-powered submarine to have engaged an enemy ship with torpedoes, sinking the cruiser General Belgrano during the 1982 Falklands WarandDuring the 1982 Falklands War, Operations Black Buck 1 to Black Buck 7 were a series of seven extremely long-range ground attack missions by Royal Air Force(RAF) Vulcan bombers of the RAF Waddington Wing, comprising aircraft from Nos 44, 50and 101 Squadrons against Argentine positions in the Falkland Islands, of which five missions completed attacks. The objectives of all missions were to attack Port Stanley Airport and its associated defences. The raids, at almost 6,600 nautical miles(12,200 km) and 16 hours for the return journey, were the longest-ranged bombing raids in history at that time.Our Special Forces capability is so good that it has been influential on many other’s special forces.Special Air Service - WikipediaFollowing the post-war reconstitution of the Special Air Service, other countries in the Commonwealth recognised their need for similar units. The Canadian Special Air Service Company was formed in 1947, being disbanded in 1949. The New Zealand Special Air Service squadron was formed in June 1955 to serve with the British SAS in Malaya, which became a full regiment in 2011. Australia formed the 1st SAS Company in July 1957, which became a full regiment of the Special Air Service Regiment (SASR) in 1964.On its return from Malaya, the C (Rhodesian) Squadron formed the basis for creation of the Rhodesian Special Air Service in 1961. It retained the name "C Squadron (Rhodesian) Special Air Service" within the Rhodesian Security Forcesuntil 1978, when it became 1 (Rhodesian) Special Air Service Regiment.Non-Commonwealth countries have also formed units based on the SAS. The Belgian Army's Special Forces Group, which wears the same capbadge as the British SAS, traces its ancestry partly from the 5th Special Air Service of the Second World War. The French 1st Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment (1er RPIMa) can trace its origins to the Second World War 3rd and 4th SAS, adopting its "who dares wins" motto.The American unit, 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, was formed by Colonel Charles Alvin Beckwith, who served with 22 SAS as an exchange officer, and recognised the need for a similar type of unit in the United States Army. The Israeli Sayeret Matkal has also been modelled after the SAS, sharing its motto. Ireland's Army Ranger Wing (ARW) has also modelled its training on that of the SAS. The Philippine National Police's Special Action Force was formed along the lines of the SAS.With the Iran Embassy Siege meaning that the expertise of our special forces became in greater demand from foreign governments. Iranian Embassy siege - WikipediaNonetheless, the operation brought the SAS to the public eye for the first time and bolstered the reputation of Thatcher. The SAS was quickly overwhelmed by the number of applications it received from people inspired by the operation and experienced greater demand for its expertise from foreign governments.The UK military has unfortunately been underfunded by all governments for a number of years now, though despite that, it is still a top military power but it does need to be properly funded to maintain that level of capability.Our Navy is still a capable one.The Type 26 Frigate could be the most capable Royal Navy warship in decades if funded properlyThe Type 26 Frigate, or ‘City class’, represents one of the most capable warships the Royal Navy has owned in decades, albeit one of the most costly.It’s no secret that the Type 26 is designed with modularity and flexibility in mind to enhance versatility across a wide range of operations ranging from counter piracy and disaster relief operations to high intensity combat. The final BAE design had a large amidships mission bay instead of the stern well deck featured in previous designs. BAE have commented regarding the mission bay:“A key feature is the flexible mission space, which can accommodate up to four 12 metre sea boats, a range of manned and unmanned air, surface or underwater vehicles or up to 11 20ft containers or ‘capability modules’, and the most advanced sensors available to the fleet.”Once integrated with the Type 26, the MK 41 VLS will offer the Royal Navy “unparalleled flexibility and capability” say BAE, but only if money is made available to fill it.“Lockheed Martin has a long and successful partnership with the Royal Navy, and we look forward to working with BAE Systems to integrate the MK 41 VLS with the Type 26,” said Paul Livingston, Group Managing Director of Lockheed Martin UK Rotary and Mission Systems.“The MK 41 VLS will provide the Royal Navy’s Type 26 Global Combat Ships with a proven and cost-effective vertical launching solution.”Each Type 26 will be equipped with three 8-cell MK 41 VLS modules. BAE Systems initial order includes nine MK 41 VLS modules, enough for the first three ships of the class.A capable air force (again requires proper funding)What's so good about the F-35 anyway?It’s no secret that the F-35 has had severe cost and schedule issues but as the programme matures, it’s shaping up to be a very capable platform.Where the strength of these aircraft really exists is in a key element of 21st century air power, enabling coalition operations. The F-35 provides a (currently) unique integrated air combat capability whereby coalitions of joint or allied F-35s can be supported in common, with information being shared prolifically. The F-35 was designed from the outset to bring information sharing capabilities to any force with which they’re deployed.Two networks are core to this: the Link-16 and the new Multi-Function Advanced Datalink (MADL). These systems allow the F-35 to communicate with nearly all current and future NATO assets.The jet is a quantum leap in capability, able to give the pilot as much information as only theatre commanders have previously had. While the primary value of the jet is in its sensor and networking capabilities, it is also valuable in that it’s able to perform many tasks designed to increase the lethality of not only itself but other assets, such tasks include the ability to co-ordinate small fleets of unmanned combat aircraft, guide weapons launched from other platforms (even warships as detailed above), launch a wide-range of its own weapons and use it’s own radar to conduct electronic attacks.What is the purpose of Tempest?Tempest’s purpose is to explore the technologies and systems that could form a future combat air system. It is not yet at the stage of building a demonstrator aircraft, it may never end up being in any way similar to the mock-up.According to a Commons Library briefing paper which provides a brief overview of the Strategy, the process is still at very early stages and is focused more on exploring and developing potential technologies. It states that:“Tempest was a fighter aircraft in World War Two, although the Strategy only uses this term in the context of ‘Team Tempest’ – it does not confirm this will be the name of whatever aircraft or system emerges.”The companies involved have given some indications of the technologies and techniques they are looking at. The Strategy itself discusses ‘Pyramid’: the project to develop open mission systems architecture. This should make upgrades simpler and more cost effective and allow partners/export customers to easily integrate their own mission systems.Rolls Royce has talked of developing a future power system that drives not just the aircraft but provides a “step-change levels of electrical power (for the future systems on board)”.BAE say that a future combat air system must be able to survive the most challenging combat environments meaning that payload-range, speed and manoeuvrability will be key.“We expect that the system will be equipped with a range of sensors including radio frequency, active and passive electro-optical sensors and advanced electronic support measures to detect and intercept threats.”The aircraft, say the defence giant, is likely to operate with kinetic and non-kinetic weapons.A capable army, although again proper funding is required.The Government must stop twisting the numbers – it’s time to properly fund the British Armed ForcesThrough almost four hundred years of service, the British Armed Forces have proven their outstanding merit time and time again. Whether intervening against genocide in the Balkans, breaking the seemingly invincible powers of Napoleon or Hitler, or defending British sovereignty in the Falklands.Our armed services have always gone above and beyond the call of duty in their defence of this nation and its interests. Yet in recent years there has been a worrying decline in the Government’s willingness to invest in our armed forces.Despite the Royal Navy requesting thirteen of the new Type 26 Global Combat Ship, only eight are to be ordered, with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) now filling the gap with 5 smaller, less capable Type 31e frigates. More worryingly the size of the army has been greatly reduced with fewer soldiers available now than at any time in the past century. Yet, despite continuous cuts since 2010 it was only last December that Phillip Hammond suggested that the British Army ‘only needs 50,000 troops’. If this were to happen it would make the army smaller than it has even been. Stern opposition from Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson and the threat of a major rebellion in the Commons caused the Government to abandon any plans for further cuts. But nevertheless, for the party that is supposedly the “most patriotic”, it is hard to defend the willingness to slash defensive spending to save money.Vikings in Norway as Royal Marines train Americans on their vehiclesThe Royal Marine commandos of Viking Squadron are teaching their American counterparts how to operate their all-terrain vehicle.According to a Royal Navy press release:“Viking is similar to the long-serving BV tracked vehicle – except it’s armed and armoured, providing both firepower and protection for the ten Royal Marines transported in the rear cab. It also keeps them warm and spares them exhausting marches, especially in the Arctic.For the past few weeks, the Viking Squadron have been teaching the US Marine Corps how to operate their armour under Project Odin, as the ‘Semper Fi guys’ look for a vehicle suited to such extremes as they expand their cold weather warfare capability.”Part of that expansion has involved the commandos teaching the Americans the art of Arctic survival and combat a part of Exercise Cold Enabler according to a release. For 2nd Battalion 2nd Marines, that’s also included driver training on the Viking say the Royal Navy.BAE unveils 'Black Night' - the first fully-upgraded Challenger 2 tankBAE systems say that Black Night comprises cutting-edge technologies and capabilities, which are being offered to the Ministry of Defence as part of the Challenger 2 Life Extension Programme.Simon Jackson, Campaign leader for Team Challenger 2 at BAE Systems said:“The UK is home to some of the world’s finest engineering companies, who have pushed the boundaries of combat vehicle design with Black Night.We are providing the bulk of this upgrade from home soil, however, we have chosen the best defence companies from around the world to collaborate with also, including names from Canada, France and Germany who bring unique skills and proven technology.The British Army has our commitment that we will deliver the most capable upgrade possible, and the best value for money.”And is the home country to BAE systems - BAE Systems - WikipediaBAE Systems plc is a British multinational defence, security, and aerospacecompany. Its headquarters are in London in the United Kingdom with operations worldwide. It is the largest defence contractor in Europe and among the world's largest defence companies; it was ranked as the third-largest based on applicable 2017 revenues.BAE Systems wins US Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle competitionThe US Marine Corps has awarded BAE Systems a $198 million contract to deliver an initial 30 Amphibious Combat Vehicles (ACV), with options for a total of 204 vehicles which could be worth up to $1.2 billion.BAE Systems, along with teammate Iveco Defence Vehicles, prevailed in the Marine Corps’ robust competition for the next generation of vehicles to get the Marines from ship to shore to engage in land combat operations.“We are well positioned and ready to build the future of amphibious fighting vehicles for the Marine Corps, having already produced 16 prototypes,” said Dean Medland, vice president and general manager of Combat Vehicles Amphibious and International at BAE Systems.“Through this award, we are proud to continue our partnership with the Marine Corps by providing a best-in-class vehicle to support its mission through mobility, survivability and lethality.”As for perhaps the moral aspect, we have already seen that along with the USA, the British Armed Forces (as part of NATO) have effectively been subsiding our fellow European members to the tune of Billions in helping ensure peace on the continent.Otherwise the British Armed Forces help the UK stand up for freedom, justice and upholding the United Nations Charter. Which seems pretty ‘good’ to me.Also because European Security relies on British & American generosity, if the Republic were so immoral to ignore the people of Northern Ireland’s right to self determination, why would they endanger their own security?Europe's security depends on British and American generosity - CapXThe European Union likes to think of itself as an innovation in international affairs, an attempt by its members to live peacefully with one another, as well as with outside states. It is an attempt to transcend geopolitics. As the President of the European Commission remarked at the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome:We do so to solemnly renew our vows and reaffirm our commitment to our undivided and indivisible union. But we do so not out of nostalgia. We do so because only by staying united can we rise to the challenges we can face together. Only by staying united can we pass on to future generations a more prosperous, a more social and a safer Europe.Unfortunately, Jean-Claude Juncker is not telling the whole story. As Nicholas Spykman, a Dutch-American strategic thinker, once remarked in Geography of the Peace (1944): “political ideas and visions unsupported by force appear to have very little survival value”. How did European integration emerge, deepen and expand then, insofar as the EU shies away from using military power, either for intervention or deterrence?Indeed, as the EU has gradually grown in power and authority, European military spending has unrelentingly shrunk. The reductions in European defence expenditure have become so legendary that they have become a bad joke. Recall that most mainland EU countries are also Nato members. In 2006, they agreed to spend 2 per cent of their Gross Domestic Product on defence. Remember also, that, with threats growing in their eastern and southern neighbourhoods, they recommitted to this target at the Nato Summit in Newport in 2014.However, using calculations based on official Nato statistics, it is clear that mainland Europeans, with few exceptions, have not remained united and have failed to meet their commitments. Based on the 2 per cent of GDP guideline, they have underfunded Nato by a massive $451 billion over the past five years (2012-2016). So on the issue of defence spending, not only do the would-be European peace creators stand naked, they stand with their skin stripped fully to the bone.Oddly, the largest EU and Nato countries are the leading miscreants. France, ostensibly the alliance’s third-strongest military power, has short-changed Nato by approximately $24 billion over the past five years, meaning it has missed the alliance’s spending target by 9 per cent. Over the same timeframe, Germany, with all its vast trade surplus, has short-changed Nato by a whopping $142 billion. This means it has fallen short of its Nato spending target by 39 per cent. Italy, despite its economic difficulties, still a large and wealthy country of 60 million people, has short-changed Nato by $90 billion, or 43 per cent. Spain has short-changed Nato by $75 billion, which means it has failed to meet the organisation’s target by a colossal 54 per cent. And the Netherlands, smaller but still very affluent, has short-changed Nato by $64 billion, or 42 per cent.Worse, as these wealthy EU and Nato countries have underfunded their armed forces, the less affluent countries of Eastern Europe, such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania – with average incomes half as much – have been left to foot the bill. Commendably, they have managed to increase their outlay, with most now meeting or exceeding what they agreed to spend.So who supports European integration? Who protects the lofty ideals of the EU and Mr Juncker from predatory forces? The United States certainly does, despite the howl of denigration of Europe from President Donald Trump. But so does the UK, another country many EU officials have scorned, not least since it decided to leave the EU. The fact that Britain has met Nato’s defence spending goal every year since it was agreed in 2006, helping its European allies remain prosperous and free, suggests that the EU’s officials should treat the UK with greater respect than they sometimes have. At some $285.5 billion over the past five years, Britain’s defence budget has been by some margin the second largest in Nato, and the largest in the EU. Indeed, insofar as it has exceeded Nato’s guideline, the UK has effectively subsidised European security to the tune of $23 billion over the past five years. So, far from being a vandal, Britain has continued to behave as a leading custodian of the European peace.The wealthier Europeans, of course, want no attention drawn to their inability to protect their integrationist dream. They will respond by claiming that the EU is distinct from Nato, or even that the EU bears greater responsibility for European peace. Yet such assertions are as mythical as they are false. European integration is a product of peace and security on the mainland, not its cause. So while the EU has undoubtedly helped to dampen distrust between ancient opponents, the real reason order finally emerged in Europe, and indeed, across most of the Euro-Atlantic region, is because of the commitment of the UK and US. They have been willing to cough up the cash to provide sophisticated armed forces and nuclear systems to deter countries – both within and without Nato, and by extension the EU – from disrupting the status quo.Press Conference at the UNQuestionWould you kindly explain why you consider that Britain, a country which would not allow Jewish refugees to enter Palestine to escape Nazi terror, can invoke principle of all things in its international actions, particularly since in areas such as Tasmania and Ireland alone, it has more to live down than any South American dictatorships?AnswerHow I can invoke principle in international action? But of course I can. We stand for freedom, justice and upholding the United Nations Charter. The people for example in the Falklands had freedom and justice and self-determination. They now have it once again. We stand for upholding international law, that means that you must honour the borders of other people's countries, otherwise there is no international law, there is only international anarchy. We stand for self-determination. There was a border poll in Northern Ireland and of course it was won overwhelmingly by those who wished to stay with the United Kingdom. The fact is that the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland wish to stay a part of the United Kingdom—that is their right to self-determination. It is a right under the United Nations Charter, it is a right which we enjoy in my country, it is a right which is enjoyed in all democratic countries. And I might just point out, we were one of those countries which went to war in 1939 to 1945 to uphold all of those principles and to stop a tyrant holding sway over Europe and even further. And for a time we stood alone. So it is not a question I expect to find asked of me. But in having been asked, it is not a question I find difficult to answer in any way.Edit:Apparently some hard of thinking commentators, now blocked and muted, appear to think that I agree with the premise of the question and that Ireland would actually attack or that I advocate Ireland actually attacking.For avoidance of doubt, I agree that the question is rather Trollish and that Ireland would never (or be extremely silly to) attack the UK, some of those reasons are posted above.If you want to leave a long comment disagreeing with the question asker and highlighting why Ireland wouldn’t attack then don’t, leave that as an answer instead. I highly doubt the question asker looks at the answers never mind the comments to the answers, so such a comment is pointless.

I am not aware of there being any suggestions of the ROI attacking Northern Ireland other than from Trolls on Quora.So, the answer isn’t they shouldn’t.Why should the Republic of Ireland break the rule of law and annexe Northern Ireland against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland?But ignoring the element of how immoral such an action would be, it would be impossible for the Republic of Ireland to do.Ireland is not a member of NATO, and regardless an attack on any one member of NATO is considered to be an attack against them all, so in theory it wouldn’t be the UK had to fight against but also other NATO members should the UK request such aid.Though a reminder as to why doesn’t the Republic of Ireland attack Northern Ireland in order to annex it against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.“We therefore look at it as the will of the people there. That is what matters in a democracy.”But air superiority is important in any modern conflict, you are presumably aware that the Republic of Ireland does not defend their own airspace, they have agreement that another Sovereign State will protect their airspace on their behalf.So who would the UK face should they seek to control the air over Northern Ireland and well the Republic of Ireland in order to provide security for their naval and ground forces?The UK, the UK protects the Republic’s airspace. So the UK has air superiority.The UK would need to land forces on Northern Ireland by sea, after initial reinforcements by air.So what does the Republic’s Navy look like?They have 6 Offshore Patrol vessels, and 1 corvette, the corvette was originally part of the Royal Navy and is from the 80’s.Not much of a threat there.Now excluding other NATO members, shall we have a taster of what they would be up against?Ranking is rather arbitrary for overall military power but in terms of Naval power it is in the top 3.One reason for this is the ability to project power globally helped by having a Blue Water navy.Blue-water navy - WikipediaA blue-water navy is a maritime force capable of operating globally, essentially across the deep waters of open oceans. While definitions of what actually constitutes such a force vary, there is a requirement for the ability to exercise sea control at wide ranges.The term "blue-water navy" is a maritime geographical-term in contrast with "brown-water navy" and "green-water navy".Note that the UK is considered to be a “Rank 2” Blue Water Navy meaning “Limited global-reach power projection meaning At least one major power projection operation globally”, a rank shared with France.The US Navy is of course Rank 1 - “Global-reach power projection - Multiple and sustained power projection missions globally”.For comparison Russia is considered to be Rank 3 - “Multi-regional power projection - Power projection to regions adjacent its own”and China as Rank 4 “Regional power projection - Limited range power projection beyond exclusive economic zone (EEZ)”Europe’s security depends on British and American generositythe UK has effectively subsidised European security to the tune of $23 billion over the past five years.Europe's security depends on British and American generosity - CapXEuropean military spending has unrelentingly shrunk. The reductions in European defence expenditure have become so legendary that they have become a bad joke. Recall that most mainland EU countries are also Nato members. In 2006, they agreed to spend 2 per cent of their Gross Domestic Product on defence. Remember also, that, with threats growing in their eastern and southern neighbourhoods, they recommitted to this target at the Nato Summit in Newport in 2014.However, using calculations based on official Nato statistics, it is clear that mainland Europeans, with few exceptions, have not remained united and have failed to meet their commitments. Based on the 2 per cent of GDP guideline, they have underfunded Nato by a massive $451 billion over the past five years (2012-2016). So on the issue of defence spending, not only do the would-be European peace creators stand naked, they stand with their skin stripped fully to the bone.Oddly, the largest EU and Nato countries are the leading miscreants. France, ostensibly the alliance’s third-strongest military power, has short-changed Nato by approximately $24 billion over the past five years, meaning it has missed the alliance’s spending target by 9 per cent. Over the same timeframe, Germany, with all its vast trade surplus, has short-changed Nato by a whopping $142 billion. This means it has fallen short of its Nato spending target by 39 per cent. Italy, despite its economic difficulties, still a large and wealthy country of 60 million people, has short-changed Nato by $90 billion, or 43 per cent. Spain has short-changed Nato by $75 billion, which means it has failed to meet the organisation’s target by a colossal 54 per cent. And the Netherlands, smaller but still very affluent, has short-changed Nato by $64 billion, or 42 per cent.Indeed, insofar as it has exceeded Nato’s guideline, the UK has effectively subsidised European security to the tune of $23 billion over the past five years. So, far from being a vandal, Britain has continued to behave as a leading custodian of the European peace.The wealthier Europeans, of course, want no attention drawn to their inability to protect their integrationist dream. They will respond by claiming that the EU is distinct from Nato, or even that the EU bears greater responsibility for European peace. Yet such assertions are as mythical as they are false. European integration is a product of peace and security on the mainland, not its cause. So while the EU has undoubtedly helped to dampen distrust between ancient opponents, the real reason order finally emerged in Europe, and indeed, across most of the Euro-Atlantic region, is because of the commitment of the UK and US. They have been willing to cough up the cash to provide sophisticated armed forces and nuclear systems to deter countries – both within and without Nato, and by extension the EU – from disrupting the status quo.Experience, the UK military has had centuries of experience, but has also had relevant modern experience.Falklands War - WikipediaMilitarily, the Falklands conflict remains the largest air-naval combat operation between modern forces since the end of the Second World War. As such, it has been the subject of intense study by military analysts and historians. The most significant "lessons learned" include: the vulnerability of surface ships to anti-ship missiles and submarines, the challenges of co-ordinating logistical support for a long-distance projection of power, and reconfirmation of the role of tactical air power, including the use of helicopters.Conqueror is the only nuclear-powered submarine to have engaged an enemy ship with torpedoes, sinking the cruiser General Belgrano during the 1982 Falklands WarandDuring the 1982 Falklands War, Operations Black Buck 1 to Black Buck 7 were a series of seven extremely long-range ground attack missions by Royal Air Force(RAF) Vulcan bombers of the RAF Waddington Wing, comprising aircraft from Nos 44, 50and 101 Squadrons against Argentine positions in the Falkland Islands, of which five missions completed attacks. The objectives of all missions were to attack Port Stanley Airport and its associated defences. The raids, at almost 6,600 nautical miles(12,200 km) and 16 hours for the return journey, were the longest-ranged bombing raids in history at that time.Our Special Forces capability is so good that it has been influential on many other’s special forces.Special Air Service - WikipediaFollowing the post-war reconstitution of the Special Air Service, other countries in the Commonwealth recognised their need for similar units. The Canadian Special Air Service Company was formed in 1947, being disbanded in 1949. The New Zealand Special Air Service squadron was formed in June 1955 to serve with the British SAS in Malaya, which became a full regiment in 2011. Australia formed the 1st SAS Company in July 1957, which became a full regiment of the Special Air Service Regiment (SASR) in 1964.On its return from Malaya, the C (Rhodesian) Squadron formed the basis for creation of the Rhodesian Special Air Service in 1961. It retained the name "C Squadron (Rhodesian) Special Air Service" within the Rhodesian Security Forcesuntil 1978, when it became 1 (Rhodesian) Special Air Service Regiment.Non-Commonwealth countries have also formed units based on the SAS. The Belgian Army's Special Forces Group, which wears the same capbadge as the British SAS, traces its ancestry partly from the 5th Special Air Service of the Second World War. The French 1st Marine Infantry Parachute Regiment (1er RPIMa) can trace its origins to the Second World War 3rd and 4th SAS, adopting its "who dares wins" motto.The American unit, 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, was formed by Colonel Charles Alvin Beckwith, who served with 22 SAS as an exchange officer, and recognised the need for a similar type of unit in the United States Army. The Israeli Sayeret Matkal has also been modelled after the SAS, sharing its motto. Ireland's Army Ranger Wing (ARW) has also modelled its training on that of the SAS. The Philippine National Police's Special Action Force was formed along the lines of the SAS.With the Iran Embassy Siege meaning that the expertise of our special forces became in greater demand from foreign governments. Iranian Embassy siege - WikipediaNonetheless, the operation brought the SAS to the public eye for the first time and bolstered the reputation of Thatcher. The SAS was quickly overwhelmed by the number of applications it received from people inspired by the operation and experienced greater demand for its expertise from foreign governments.The UK military has unfortunately been underfunded by all governments for a number of years now, though despite that, it is still a top military power but it does need to be properly funded to maintain that level of capability.Our Navy is still a capable one.The Type 26 Frigate could be the most capable Royal Navy warship in decades if funded properlyThe Type 26 Frigate, or ‘City class’, represents one of the most capable warships the Royal Navy has owned in decades, albeit one of the most costly.It’s no secret that the Type 26 is designed with modularity and flexibility in mind to enhance versatility across a wide range of operations ranging from counter piracy and disaster relief operations to high intensity combat. The final BAE design had a large amidships mission bay instead of the stern well deck featured in previous designs. BAE have commented regarding the mission bay:“A key feature is the flexible mission space, which can accommodate up to four 12 metre sea boats, a range of manned and unmanned air, surface or underwater vehicles or up to 11 20ft containers or ‘capability modules’, and the most advanced sensors available to the fleet.”Once integrated with the Type 26, the MK 41 VLS will offer the Royal Navy “unparalleled flexibility and capability” say BAE, but only if money is made available to fill it.“Lockheed Martin has a long and successful partnership with the Royal Navy, and we look forward to working with BAE Systems to integrate the MK 41 VLS with the Type 26,” said Paul Livingston, Group Managing Director of Lockheed Martin UK Rotary and Mission Systems.“The MK 41 VLS will provide the Royal Navy’s Type 26 Global Combat Ships with a proven and cost-effective vertical launching solution.”Each Type 26 will be equipped with three 8-cell MK 41 VLS modules. BAE Systems initial order includes nine MK 41 VLS modules, enough for the first three ships of the class.A capable air force (again requires proper funding)What's so good about the F-35 anyway?It’s no secret that the F-35 has had severe cost and schedule issues but as the programme matures, it’s shaping up to be a very capable platform.Where the strength of these aircraft really exists is in a key element of 21st century air power, enabling coalition operations. The F-35 provides a (currently) unique integrated air combat capability whereby coalitions of joint or allied F-35s can be supported in common, with information being shared prolifically. The F-35 was designed from the outset to bring information sharing capabilities to any force with which they’re deployed.Two networks are core to this: the Link-16 and the new Multi-Function Advanced Datalink (MADL). These systems allow the F-35 to communicate with nearly all current and future NATO assets.The jet is a quantum leap in capability, able to give the pilot as much information as only theatre commanders have previously had. While the primary value of the jet is in its sensor and networking capabilities, it is also valuable in that it’s able to perform many tasks designed to increase the lethality of not only itself but other assets, such tasks include the ability to co-ordinate small fleets of unmanned combat aircraft, guide weapons launched from other platforms (even warships as detailed above), launch a wide-range of its own weapons and use it’s own radar to conduct electronic attacks.What is the purpose of Tempest?Tempest’s purpose is to explore the technologies and systems that could form a future combat air system. It is not yet at the stage of building a demonstrator aircraft, it may never end up being in any way similar to the mock-up.According to a Commons Library briefing paper which provides a brief overview of the Strategy, the process is still at very early stages and is focused more on exploring and developing potential technologies. It states that:“Tempest was a fighter aircraft in World War Two, although the Strategy only uses this term in the context of ‘Team Tempest’ – it does not confirm this will be the name of whatever aircraft or system emerges.”The companies involved have given some indications of the technologies and techniques they are looking at. The Strategy itself discusses ‘Pyramid’: the project to develop open mission systems architecture. This should make upgrades simpler and more cost effective and allow partners/export customers to easily integrate their own mission systems.Rolls Royce has talked of developing a future power system that drives not just the aircraft but provides a “step-change levels of electrical power (for the future systems on board)”.BAE say that a future combat air system must be able to survive the most challenging combat environments meaning that payload-range, speed and manoeuvrability will be key.“We expect that the system will be equipped with a range of sensors including radio frequency, active and passive electro-optical sensors and advanced electronic support measures to detect and intercept threats.”The aircraft, say the defence giant, is likely to operate with kinetic and non-kinetic weapons.A capable army, although again proper funding is required.The Government must stop twisting the numbers – it’s time to properly fund the British Armed ForcesThrough almost four hundred years of service, the British Armed Forces have proven their outstanding merit time and time again. Whether intervening against genocide in the Balkans, breaking the seemingly invincible powers of Napoleon or Hitler, or defending British sovereignty in the Falklands.Our armed services have always gone above and beyond the call of duty in their defence of this nation and its interests. Yet in recent years there has been a worrying decline in the Government’s willingness to invest in our armed forces.Despite the Royal Navy requesting thirteen of the new Type 26 Global Combat Ship, only eight are to be ordered, with the Ministry of Defence (MoD) now filling the gap with 5 smaller, less capable Type 31e frigates. More worryingly the size of the army has been greatly reduced with fewer soldiers available now than at any time in the past century. Yet, despite continuous cuts since 2010 it was only last December that Phillip Hammond suggested that the British Army ‘only needs 50,000 troops’. If this were to happen it would make the army smaller than it has even been. Stern opposition from Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson and the threat of a major rebellion in the Commons caused the Government to abandon any plans for further cuts. But nevertheless, for the party that is supposedly the “most patriotic”, it is hard to defend the willingness to slash defensive spending to save money.Vikings in Norway as Royal Marines train Americans on their vehiclesThe Royal Marine commandos of Viking Squadron are teaching their American counterparts how to operate their all-terrain vehicle.According to a Royal Navy press release:“Viking is similar to the long-serving BV tracked vehicle – except it’s armed and armoured, providing both firepower and protection for the ten Royal Marines transported in the rear cab. It also keeps them warm and spares them exhausting marches, especially in the Arctic.For the past few weeks, the Viking Squadron have been teaching the US Marine Corps how to operate their armour under Project Odin, as the ‘Semper Fi guys’ look for a vehicle suited to such extremes as they expand their cold weather warfare capability.”Part of that expansion has involved the commandos teaching the Americans the art of Arctic survival and combat a part of Exercise Cold Enabler according to a release. For 2nd Battalion 2nd Marines, that’s also included driver training on the Viking say the Royal Navy.BAE unveils 'Black Night' - the first fully-upgraded Challenger 2 tankBAE systems say that Black Night comprises cutting-edge technologies and capabilities, which are being offered to the Ministry of Defence as part of the Challenger 2 Life Extension Programme.Simon Jackson, Campaign leader for Team Challenger 2 at BAE Systems said:“The UK is home to some of the world’s finest engineering companies, who have pushed the boundaries of combat vehicle design with Black Night.We are providing the bulk of this upgrade from home soil, however, we have chosen the best defence companies from around the world to collaborate with also, including names from Canada, France and Germany who bring unique skills and proven technology.The British Army has our commitment that we will deliver the most capable upgrade possible, and the best value for money.”And is the home country to BAE systems - BAE Systems - WikipediaBAE Systems plc is a British multinational defence, security, and aerospacecompany. Its headquarters are in London in the United Kingdom with operations worldwide. It is the largest defence contractor in Europe and among the world's largest defence companies; it was ranked as the third-largest based on applicable 2017 revenues.BAE Systems wins US Marine Corps Amphibious Combat Vehicle competitionThe US Marine Corps has awarded BAE Systems a $198 million contract to deliver an initial 30 Amphibious Combat Vehicles (ACV), with options for a total of 204 vehicles which could be worth up to $1.2 billion.BAE Systems, along with teammate Iveco Defence Vehicles, prevailed in the Marine Corps’ robust competition for the next generation of vehicles to get the Marines from ship to shore to engage in land combat operations.“We are well positioned and ready to build the future of amphibious fighting vehicles for the Marine Corps, having already produced 16 prototypes,” said Dean Medland, vice president and general manager of Combat Vehicles Amphibious and International at BAE Systems.“Through this award, we are proud to continue our partnership with the Marine Corps by providing a best-in-class vehicle to support its mission through mobility, survivability and lethality.”As for perhaps the moral aspect, we have already seen that along with the USA, the British Armed Forces (as part of NATO) have effectively been subsiding our fellow European members to the tune of Billions in helping ensure peace on the continent.Otherwise the British Armed Forces help the UK stand up for freedom, justice and upholding the United Nations Charter. Which seems pretty ‘good’ to me.Also because European Security relies on British & American generosity, if the Republic were so immoral to ignore the people of Northern Ireland’s right to self determination, why would they endanger their own security?Europe's security depends on British and American generosity - CapXThe European Union likes to think of itself as an innovation in international affairs, an attempt by its members to live peacefully with one another, as well as with outside states. It is an attempt to transcend geopolitics. As the President of the European Commission remarked at the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome:We do so to solemnly renew our vows and reaffirm our commitment to our undivided and indivisible union. But we do so not out of nostalgia. We do so because only by staying united can we rise to the challenges we can face together. Only by staying united can we pass on to future generations a more prosperous, a more social and a safer Europe.Unfortunately, Jean-Claude Juncker is not telling the whole story. As Nicholas Spykman, a Dutch-American strategic thinker, once remarked in Geography of the Peace (1944): “political ideas and visions unsupported by force appear to have very little survival value”. How did European integration emerge, deepen and expand then, insofar as the EU shies away from using military power, either for intervention or deterrence?Indeed, as the EU has gradually grown in power and authority, European military spending has unrelentingly shrunk. The reductions in European defence expenditure have become so legendary that they have become a bad joke. Recall that most mainland EU countries are also Nato members. In 2006, they agreed to spend 2 per cent of their Gross Domestic Product on defence. Remember also, that, with threats growing in their eastern and southern neighbourhoods, they recommitted to this target at the Nato Summit in Newport in 2014.However, using calculations based on official Nato statistics, it is clear that mainland Europeans, with few exceptions, have not remained united and have failed to meet their commitments. Based on the 2 per cent of GDP guideline, they have underfunded Nato by a massive $451 billion over the past five years (2012-2016). So on the issue of defence spending, not only do the would-be European peace creators stand naked, they stand with their skin stripped fully to the bone.Oddly, the largest EU and Nato countries are the leading miscreants. France, ostensibly the alliance’s third-strongest military power, has short-changed Nato by approximately $24 billion over the past five years, meaning it has missed the alliance’s spending target by 9 per cent. Over the same timeframe, Germany, with all its vast trade surplus, has short-changed Nato by a whopping $142 billion. This means it has fallen short of its Nato spending target by 39 per cent. Italy, despite its economic difficulties, still a large and wealthy country of 60 million people, has short-changed Nato by $90 billion, or 43 per cent. Spain has short-changed Nato by $75 billion, which means it has failed to meet the organisation’s target by a colossal 54 per cent. And the Netherlands, smaller but still very affluent, has short-changed Nato by $64 billion, or 42 per cent.Worse, as these wealthy EU and Nato countries have underfunded their armed forces, the less affluent countries of Eastern Europe, such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania – with average incomes half as much – have been left to foot the bill. Commendably, they have managed to increase their outlay, with most now meeting or exceeding what they agreed to spend.So who supports European integration? Who protects the lofty ideals of the EU and Mr Juncker from predatory forces? The United States certainly does, despite the howl of denigration of Europe from President Donald Trump. But so does the UK, another country many EU officials have scorned, not least since it decided to leave the EU. The fact that Britain has met Nato’s defence spending goal every year since it was agreed in 2006, helping its European allies remain prosperous and free, suggests that the EU’s officials should treat the UK with greater respect than they sometimes have. At some $285.5 billion over the past five years, Britain’s defence budget has been by some margin the second largest in Nato, and the largest in the EU. Indeed, insofar as it has exceeded Nato’s guideline, the UK has effectively subsidised European security to the tune of $23 billion over the past five years. So, far from being a vandal, Britain has continued to behave as a leading custodian of the European peace.The wealthier Europeans, of course, want no attention drawn to their inability to protect their integrationist dream. They will respond by claiming that the EU is distinct from Nato, or even that the EU bears greater responsibility for European peace. Yet such assertions are as mythical as they are false. European integration is a product of peace and security on the mainland, not its cause. So while the EU has undoubtedly helped to dampen distrust between ancient opponents, the real reason order finally emerged in Europe, and indeed, across most of the Euro-Atlantic region, is because of the commitment of the UK and US. They have been willing to cough up the cash to provide sophisticated armed forces and nuclear systems to deter countries – both within and without Nato, and by extension the EU – from disrupting the status quo.Press Conference at the UNQuestionWould you kindly explain why you consider that Britain, a country which would not allow Jewish refugees to enter Palestine to escape Nazi terror, can invoke principle of all things in its international actions, particularly since in areas such as Tasmania and Ireland alone, it has more to live down than any South American dictatorships?AnswerHow I can invoke principle in international action? But of course I can. We stand for freedom, justice and upholding the United Nations Charter. The people for example in the Falklands had freedom and justice and self-determination. They now have it once again. We stand for upholding international law, that means that you must honour the borders of other people's countries, otherwise there is no international law, there is only international anarchy. We stand for self-determination. There was a border poll in Northern Ireland and of course it was won overwhelmingly by those who wished to stay with the United Kingdom. The fact is that the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland wish to stay a part of the United Kingdom—that is their right to self-determination. It is a right under the United Nations Charter, it is a right which we enjoy in my country, it is a right which is enjoyed in all democratic countries. And I might just point out, we were one of those countries which went to war in 1939 to 1945 to uphold all of those principles and to stop a tyrant holding sway over Europe and even further. And for a time we stood alone. So it is not a question I expect to find asked of me. But in having been asked, it is not a question I find difficult to answer in any way.For avoidance of doubt, I am not advocating that ROI attack NI, commentator to a similar question, seem to think I agree with the question asker who was advocating such action.Though a reminder as to why doesn’t the Republic of Ireland attack Northern Ireland in order to annex it against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland.“We therefore look at it as the will of the people there. That is what matters in a democracy.”

Nuclear boostIndia recently cleared the hurdle to join Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). This membership will make path for India to achieve high-end technology and also shape its engagement with nuclear proliferation group, which can positively impact India's bid to join elite Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) club.A membership into 48-nation NSG will open wide-array of nuclear possibilities for India. India can get help from global markets to set up nuclear power plants. Apart from giving India the knowledge of state-of-art technology, it can also solve the problem of nation's energy crisis. Under this membership, India can also commercialize the production of nuclear power equipment. This, in turn will boost innovation and high tech manufacturing and can bring India into level-playing field with its dragon neighbour. Most importantly India's access to advanced nuclear technologies, will help it export power generators to other emerging economies.However, China is a major stumbling block to country's NSG dreams. Backing Pakistan's membership bid, China asserts that India is not qualified to join the nuclear group, as the latter has not signed NPT.Waking the Beast: India’s Defense Reforms Under ModiWith all due respect to Parrikar—who has been a breath of fresh air after the paralytic reign of his predecessor, AK “Mr. No” Antony—few in Washington or Delhi would agree. Fortunately, the reforms he and Prime Minister Narendra Modi have shepherded are steering India in the right direction.When Modi assumed office in June 2014 he inherited a sluggish Leviathan of a defense bureaucracy and a military facing large (and widening) capacity gaps. By one estimate, India’s military is “short of some 300 fighter jets, at least a dozen submarines, over 1,000 combat helicopters, seven frigates and perhaps 3,000 artillery guns.”These shortfalls are partly the byproduct of an under-performing and highly bureaucratized defense industrial complex, and partly the result of broader contradictions in India’s defense strategy. Delhi wants to field world-class weapons capabilities as soon as possible but it wants to source those platforms from domestic producers and reduce arms imports. India wants to build a first-class domestic defense industry but has discouraged private-sector participation and foreign direct investment with counterproductive policies and regulations.Building a first-rate defense industrial base is a laborious, multi-generational effort under optimal conditions and India’s experience has been anything but. As India’s Economic Times notes: “a 40-year effort by [Delhi] to develop a battlefield tank has yet to produce anything the army can use.” Its effort to build an indigenous fighter aircraft, the Tejas has by one account produced “One of the single worst fighter projects that has ever been conceived of in the history of aviation. Even as it enters service, the aircraft is obsolete.”To be sure, India has made substantial strides in other areas like cruise and ballistic missile technology, nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, and drones. Yet even many of India’s success stories are the result of co-production and co-development projects with foreign partners, or include a high proportion of imported hardware.First Step: Admitting You Have a ProblemTo Modi’s credit, he identified the scope of the problem early in his tenure. He used a speech in 2014 to implore India’s state-dominated defense industry to abandon its “anything goes” approach. “The world will not wait for us…we should not say in 2014 that a project conceived in 1992 will take some more time.”Modi has since adopted a dual-track approach to defense sector reform. First, he is attempting to make India’s defense sector more competent, agile, and competitive by streamlining the procurement process, cutting red tape and, crucially, encouraging greater involvement by India’s private sector in an arena long dominated by state-owned enterprises.The Modi government had established three new committees focused reforming India’s defense acquisitions process, including “one charged with reshaping the basic patters of defense spending; another with galvanizing defense procurement by restructuring the ministry’s acquisitions agency; and five sub-committees that evaluate how to [better involve] in the private sector.”The latter may prove the most consequential. Nine state-owned undertakings and 39 state-owned ordinance factories account for 90 percent of India’s domestic defense manufacturing. Atop this hierarchy is the massive Defense Development and Research Organization (DRDO), with its 30,000 personnel and 52 research centers. Dissatisfied with its performance, in 2015 Parrikar ordered the DRDO to cease work on its growing portfolio of construction projects (which generated $735 million in revenue last year), and focus exclusively on building better weapons platforms.Additionally, the Modi government has adopted several initiatives to provide a boost to India’s long-neglected private sector defense industry. This year Delhi invited representatives of 200 private defense firms to an event offering unprecedented access to the Indian military. In another first, the Ministry of Defense (MoD) listed 23 projects—including UAVs, bombs, and tank engines—specifically earmarked for Indian private firms. Notably, the MoD shared details on platform requirements and acquisitions schedules with private industry, “things that were shrouded in secrecy in the past.”Finally, Delhi has unveiled a new “Buy IDDM” (Indigenously Designed, Developed and Manufactured) policy giving private Indian firms “first preference in most purchases” in six new priority defense categories. Under the new policy, “it will be mandatory for 40% of the content to be sourced locally.”Ben Schwartz of the U.S.-India Business Council calls Modi’s efforts to bolster the private-sector “arguably the most significant policy shift” of his administration. And yet, it’s far too early to wave the victory flag. To date, the MoD has yet to sign a deal with any private sector firm worth more than $400 million.Trouble With FDIFor years Indian leaders have articulated a desire to have 70 percent of the country’s defense needs met through the domestic production with only 30 percent deriving from foreign imports. For the past decade, the ratio has been frozen at nearly the exact opposite.Rather than seeking to attract foreign capital and technology through financial incentives, Delhi has instead sought to force the hand of foreign defense firms with a problematic “offset” policy. Any arms sale to India valued at more than $44 million requires the seller to “discharge offsets of at least 30 percent [and as high as 50 percent] of the total value of the contract” in one of several pre-approved categories. In other words, a $10 billion arms sale to India could require a separate $3 billion investment in an Indian arms manufacturer.By raising the cost of selling arms to India, the policy is directly at odds with Delhi’s desire to field cutting-edge defense platforms. This contradiction would be far less problematic if India’s defense sector was thriving and rife with lucrative projects awaiting foreign investors. Sadly, that is not the case today. From April 2000 to March 2016, India attracted a meager $5.12 million in Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) equity inflows in the defense sector, which ranked 61 out of 62 Indian industries in attracting FDI.Modi has embraced India’s longstanding obsession with “indigenization” with his high-profile “Make In India” initiative. Yet, he has paired the initiative with efforts to reduce onerous restrictions on defense-related FDI.Since 2008, the MoD has been gradually easing the guidelines on how much of the offset must be finalized at the outset of the initial contract and expanded the list of categories that can count as offset investments. Foreign firms can now direct offsets to “services” like research and development, or maintenance, repair, and overhaul. Foreign defense firms can also now “reopen” offset investment contracts if they find their Indian counterpart is unsuitable, and identify a new offset partner or project.Additionally, in August 2014 Delhi raised the cap on FDI in defense to 49% from 26%. Exceptions for investments of up to 100% will now be granted when access to “modern” technology is involved, a slight amendment to the previous exception for “state-of-the-art” technology. Delhi has also eliminated a provision requiring a single Indian investor to have at least a 51 percent stake in any joint venture.In aggregate, the moves are welcome but insufficient. One year after the revised guidelines foreign firms had submitted just six proposals valued at $15 million and only two seeking a 49 percent stake. In April 2016, Parrikar admitted India had attracted just $167,000 in defense-related FDI over the previous 18 months. Notably, any joint venture with an Indian defense firm still must be headed by an Indian chief executive. Many believe the cap must be raised to 74 percent or 100 percent to make a material impact.Full CircleDelhi can’t be blamed for wanting to field advanced military hardware now, or for seeking a more competent and competitive domestic defense industry while reducing arms imports. But it should recognize the inherent contradiction in giving equal priority to these competing objectives. Additionally, Delhi should continue to think innovatively about how to nurture a private defense industry still in its infancy and how to create positive incentives to capital investment and technology transfer.Modi and Parrikar deserve credit for shaking the Leviathan from its prolonged slumber and setting India on the path to true defense sector reform.India Approves New 'Strategic Partnership' Defense Manufacturing PolicyIndia’s Defense Acquisition Council (DAC), chaired by Defense Minister Arun Jaitley, approved and finalized a new policy that will allow private firms to enter into agreements as “strategic partners” with non-Indian original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for certain types of systems. These would include single-engine fighter jets, helicopters, submarines, and armored vehicles.The policy is expected to support the Indian government’s ‘Make in India’ initiative, something Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has long emphasized. Originally spearheaded by former Indian Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar, the policy had been mooted as early as 2014.Following the DAC’s approval, the policy will need approval from India’s Cabinet Committee on Security. The “strategic partners” under the new policy will be able to compete for fighter and helicopter tenders, but Indian public sector firms will be able to compete for submarine and armored vehicle contracts.At its core, this reform is designed to enable a more dynamic and efficient defense industrial base in India. India’s defense sector has long been maligned for sluggish public sector performers, who are prone to cost overruns and delays.The policy does have perceived shortcomings, however. The new policy will require private sector “strategic partners” to work with non-Indian OEMs in joint ventures, which could lead to unfavorable risk-sharing for Indian firms.On the flipside, the policy is likely to be perceived positively outside of India in a manner similar to the Modi government’s early move in 2014 to open up the defense sector foreign direct investment ceiling to 49 percent.India is the world’s largest importer of defense equipment. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), India was the world’s largest importer of weapons between 2012 and 2016, with its imports increasing by 43 percent between that period and 2007 and 2011.New Delhi’s indigenization and short-term security needs have led to competing priorities where defense deals with external OEMs and governments are bogged down in lengthy and complex negotiations over offset clauses, technology transfer agreements, and other vexing issues.While the new “strategic partners” policy won’t solve these issues overnight, it will considerably loosen up the defense industrial space in India, making room for new private sector players.Assessing US-India Defense Relations: The Technological HandshakeWe will now turn our attention to the “technological handshake,” shorthand for the growth in arms sales, technical cooperation, and defense co-production and co-development.Decades of political estrangement deprived the United States and India of any meaningful defense relationship during the latter half of the Cold War. To make up for lost time, just one year after the collapse of the Soviet Union the two held the first edition of their now-popular Malabar joint naval exercise. A modest defense cooperation framework followed in 1995, sandwiched by two more Malabar exercises in 1995 and 1996. Yet this early courtship proved fleeting. Another decade of trust-building would pass before Delhi and Washington began to explore the true potential of a defense partnership.In 2001, President George W. Bush brought to the White House the first contemporary Indophile foreign policy team. Their impulse to seek a strategic rapprochement with India was further reinforced by the 9/11 terror attacks, and they found a willing partner in the Atal Vajpayee-led BJP government in Delhi. The Next Steps For Strategic Partnership (NSSP) signed in 2004 served as the foundation for a groundbreaking 10-year defense partnership reached a year later with Vajpayee’s successor.Unlike the civil nuclear deal signed the same year, the defense pact quickly reaped dividends. By 2008 defense trade exceeded $1 billion, after cumulatively totaling some $300 million in the 55 years prior. Since 2008, the total has swelled to a $15 billion, as India has become the world’s largest importer of arms atop a $50 billion annual defense budget.Practically, India’s initial raft of purchases—including eight P-8I maritime patrol aircraft, six C-130J, and ten C-17 heavy lift aircraft—offered it some of America’s most capable military platforms. Symbolically, the sales marked an important departure from India’s philosophical attachment to Non-Alignment. Yet the initial euphoria was followed by a lull in defense ties.Both sides realized there were still formidable political and bureaucratic obstacles limiting the potential for defense cooperation in both capitals. Washington’s highly legalistic defense and export control regime often proved inhospitable to India, which sought privileged treatment despite lacking the institutional benefits of American defense partners or the perks of membership in the international arms control and non-proliferation architecture. Meanwhile, India’s defense industrial complex, a sluggish Leviathan by any measure, was undermined by the lack of a viable private sector, poor civil-military coordination, a highly-bureaucratized and burdensome regulatory regime, and a zealous anti-corruption campaign arguably as paralyzing as actual corruption.In recent years both sides have witnessed success in diminishing these barriers. The Modi administration’s multi-layered effort to reform India’s defense sector will be the subject of a third article to follow. To date, the prime minister is making his biggest impact outside the purview of institutional reform, through his personal intervention in advancing defense cooperation when and where the Indian bureaucracy has proven resistant.For India the same could be said of Secretary Carter, who has transformed the Pentagon’s “mindset regarding technology transfer to India from a culture of ‘presumptive no’ to one of presumptive ‘yes’.” As Deputy Secretary of Defense from 2011-2013, Carter served as point- man on Indo-U.S. defense ties, overseeing reforms that expedited the Pentagon’s review process for defense exports to India and dropping India’s prominent Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) from an “entities list” that limited technical cooperation. In 2012 Carter was tasked with heading a new Defense Technology and Trade Initiative (DTTI) designed to surmount the bureaucratic obstacles inhibiting defense trade in both capitals.In 2015, Carter was promoted to Defense Secretary and quickly created an Indian Rapid Reaction Cell (IRRC), the first-ever country-specific “cell” of its kind in the Pentagon. The IRRC carries a staff of six; three are attached to the cell on a long-term basis and three rotate through the office every six months.By 2015, the DTTI had identified four “pathfinder” projects for Indo-U.S. co-development. Two of the four were government-to-government initiatives between the Pentagon and India’s DRDO. They included mobile electric hybrid power sources (MEHPS) developed for the U.S. Marine Corps, and advanced chemical, biological warfare protection gear for the U.S. Army. Contracts for both were signed in August 2015 and have been hailed as a success. In May 2017 they will reach their two-year life cycle and Washington and Delhi will soon determine whether to move forward with co-production.The remaining two pathfinder projects were joint private-sector initiatives. These included a joint venture between India’s Dynamatic Technologies and America’s AeroVironment to co-develop an advanced version of the RQ-11 Raven hand-launched drone. The second focused on “roll-on, roll-off” kits for Lockheed Martin’s C-130J Hercules.The Indian military was apparently unsatisfied with the Raven mini-drones, and has made no secret of its desire to purchase more advanced armed American UAVs like the Reaper and Global Hawk drones. To date, U.S. export control laws prohibited the sale of armed UAVs to India. However, India’s accession to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in June 2016 has opened the door to new opportunities for defense collaboration and arms transfers, including potentially armed drones. (U.S. officials caution that the sale of armed drones will not be quick or easy, and India’s entry into the MTCR is only the first of many hurdles that must be cleared.)In the interim, the two sides have launched a pair of new government-to-government DTTI co-development projects. They include a digital helmet-mounted display and a joint biological tactical detection system. Both were approved during Defense Secretary Ashton Carter’s visit to India in April 2016.At a July 2016 meeting of the DTTI, Delhi and Washington agreed to establish five new joint working groups, including Naval Systems; Air Systems, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance; Chemical and Biological Protection; and Other Systems. Moving forward, the United States has proposed 11 new ideas for defense cooperation under the DTTI while India has proposed six of its own. For now, both sides prefer those proposals go unnamed, as they quietly explore each platform’s potential at various working group meetings.Outside the DTTI, India and the United States have established two important new initiatives to collaborate on advanced technology. Both the Jet Engine Technology Joint Working Group (JETJWG) and the Joint Working Group on Aircraft Carrier Technology (JWGACT) were proposed by Delhi and were initially considered by many Washington insiders to be non-starters.Secretary Carter disagreed, and the Jet Engine Technology Joint Working Group (JETJWG) held its first meeting in India in December 2015. Pentagon insiders say the JETJWG has to date been hobbled by India’s insistence on full tech-transfer of advanced jet engines but that Washington has proposed a way forward that is “instructive, informative, and productive.” In fact, Washington recently amended its policy guidelines on military jet engine tech-transfer to put India on par with NATO allies, though even that falls short of full transfer of advanced jet engine tech. Like India’s perennial interest in U.S. nuclear submarine technology, that is likely to remain a non-starter for the foreseeable future.The Joint Working Group on Aircraft Carrier Technology Co-operation (JWGACTC), meanwhile, has witnessed more progress. The JWGACTC is exploring the potential for sharing the technology behind EMALS, a system designed to launch aircraft from naval carriers at a higher rate and with less stress on the aircraft than the legacy steam-catapult systems currently in use. With India’s 57-year-old, Centaur-class carrier Viraat headed for retirement in the coming months, it will soon begin sea-trials for its first indigenously-built aircraft carrier, the Vikrant. (India also operates a 1980s-era Russian-built carrier, the Vikramaditya, commissioned in 2013).The JWGACTC has met twice thus far (a third meeting of the JWGACTC was planned for this summer but was canceled by India last-minute and had to be rescheduled), and during Prime Minister Modi’s June visit to Washington the two sides reached agreement on an Information Exchange Annex to the joint working group that will deal with confidential information. This is significant, as India is the only non-treaty ally of the United States with such an arrangement in place and a privilege shared by only two of America’s closest allies. The two sides are also exploring the possibility of having Washington “test and certify” the flight deck of India’s indigenous carriers, and the United States has offered to lead courses on carrier operations for the Indian Navy at the Defense Acquisition University in New Delhi.Finally, U.S. defense giants Boeing and Lockheed are aggressively pursuing opportunities to establish manufacturing lines in India for their F-16 and F-18 fighter aircraft, both for sale to India and as exports to third parties. In April 2016 Delhi and Washington organized the first “government-facilitated talks on producing an American fighter jet in India” where Boeing and Lockheed executives, accompanied by Pentagon point-man Keith Webster, jointly met with Indian Defense Ministry officials. “We are looking at establishing a complete manufacturing base ecosystem,” says one Lockheed official, with the company “offering India the exclusive opportunity to produce, operate and export F-16 Block 70 aircraft.”Meanwhile Raytheon and Lockheed Martin have partnered with Tata Power to jointly manufacture the world’s most advanced anti-tank guided missile, the 4,000-meter range “fire and forget” Javelin. Representing an “important precedent for future technology transfer to India,” Washington has committed to having 70 percent of the value of the Javelin built in India. That includes “manufacturing smokeless propellant, and assembling the missile seeker—the Holy Grail of missile technology.”In September 2015, Delhi announced terms had been reached on a $3 billion deal five years in the making to purchase 15 Chinook and 22 Apache helicopters (including Longbow fire-control radar), while India continues to express interest in the KC-46 strategic mid-air refueling tanker, as well as armed Predator drones and advanced surveillance drones. In the coming years India will take delivery of six additional C-130J Hercules heavy lift aircraft, four additional P-8I maritime surveillance aircraft, two dozen Harpoon anti-ship missiles, as well as hundreds of Stinger and Hellfire missiles.Tackling the March of the DragonIndia’s expenditure on defense acquisition has remained largely static in real terms in recent years, resulting in constraints on not just the navy but the armed forces in general. The defense outlay for fiscal year 2016/17 was INR 2.49 trillion (USD 36.63 billion), but according to IHS Jane’s 360, this was counterbalanced by rising inflation, and weakening of the Indian rupee against the U.S. dollar over the past two years. Furthermore, the force posture and modernization agendas of the Indian armed forces under the continued broad influence of a “two-front war” construct have left the Indian Navy with a mere 16 percent of the defense budget (excluding defense pensions). This limits the navy’s capacity to address increasing diffusion of the People’s Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN)’s capabilities in the region.The commissioning of the INS Kalvari, first of six indigenously-built French Scorpene-class submarines, should be a shot in the arm for the navy’s ageing and dwindling submarine fleet. However, the submarine will be inducted sans its primary weapon: torpedoes. The navy plans to buy Black Shark torpedoes from a subsidiary of Italian defense big wig Finmeccanica. But the company is currently embroiled in a helicopter bribery scam in India that will create further delays in acquisition, leaving the weapons platforms ineffective for the near future. Given how long submarine building takes, the follow-on program for Project-75 I submarines is probably more than a decade away, considering the Ministry of Defence is yet to issue a Request for Proposal.The navy’s most-recently inducted surface combatants destroyers — INS Kolkata, INS Kochi, and ASW corvettes INS Kamorta and INS Kadmatt — lacked Active Electronic Towed Array Sonar (ATAS) systems to detect submarines at the time of commissioning. The Indian Navy is also woefully short of ASW helicopters, which means that ships have taken to sailing without their requisite air complements of late. The purchase of 16 Sikorsky S-70B naval multi-role helicopters (MRH) is stuck in price negotiations. While the navy has made significant progress in acquiring government approval to build a robust warship program, its acquisition of an adequate multi-role ship-borne helicopter has been futile. This significantly reduces the ability of Indian vessels to triangulate and engage underwater targets. However, in recent years, India’s aerial maritime surveillance has received somewhat of a boost with the induction of eight Boeing Poseidon-8I maritime patrol and ASW aircraft, which have been deployed to the strategically important Andaman and Nicobar Islands and more recently, Seychelles. The process of acquiring four more P-8I aircraft is on.In contrast, according to a new Congressional Research Service report, “China since the mid-1990s has acquired 12 Russian-made Kilo-class non-nuclear-powered attack submarines and put into service at least four new classes of indigenously-built submarines.” The same report quotes various defense sources, estimating the PLAN submarine force to grow to between 69 and 78 submarines by 2020. A combination of nuclear-powered (such as Jin class/Type 094) and conventionally-powered (such as Yuan class/Type 039A) submarines will represent formidable capability.Compounding Indian concerns over China’s increasing underwater ambition in the Indian Ocean, Pakistan is believed to be in the process of purchasing eight Type 039A/Type 041 Yuan-class diesel-electric submarines from Beijing. Added to the existing three French Agosta-90B/Khalid and two Agosta-70 submarines of the Pakistan Navy, the Indian Navy faces a significant under water threat in the years to come.Fitting India’s defense needs within a reasonably-sized budget remains a challenge as concerns remain over its fiscal situation. Despite allocating around 54 percent of its budget (INR 394.25 billion/USD 5.93 billion, excluding pensions) to capital expenditure this year, the navy would be woefully short of funding its Long-Term Integrated Perspective Plan (LTIPP 2012-27). This is because the assumption was that the allocation for defense would equal three per cent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during the entire plan period, which has not happened.Co-operating with the United States and regional partners in ASW in the Indian Ocean will help the navy bridge its ASW capacity deficit, and also allow for the optimization of its available assets and capabilities. The commitment to sign the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) during U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter’s visit to India — which grants India access to certain U.S. military bases like Diego Garcia, Djibouti, Bahrain as well as logistical assets in the region— will be central to Indo-U.S. co-operation in ASW. With a bit of imagination, the Indian naval assets can increase their endurance, and range in tracking and deterring PLAN’s submarine forays into the region. Division of labour, by way of forming different areas of responsibility to track and monitor, will help focus India’s limited ASW capacities in strategically-vital regions.While procurement difficulties and funding issues will drive New Delhi’s co-operative sourcing of maritime capabilities, India’s defense preparedness and capability-development efforts will ultimately depend on building an efficient system of defense procurement, indigenous production capability, and acquisition reform, in order to sustain this modernization. Given the centrality of the Indian Ocean to India’s national security and China’s increasing activity and ambition there, New Delhi must recapitalize and optimize its ASW capability in order to shape the region’s security environment.Cyber WarIn 2013 India framed for the first time a cyber-oriented national security policy . The change was in part prompted by media reporting of US NSA hacks to our strategic interests. India has a chance to play a leadership role not only for its sake but for the sake of international order. In cyber terms, 2016 marked a watershed year for India – she was included at the big table in the top UN cyber body (GGE) and the Dutch have handed over the leadership of Global Conference on Cyber Space (GCCS) over to the Indian government. Yet in the eyes of many India remains a “reluctant digital power” and it’s time to step up.We are the world’s second largest digital nation – more than 350 million Indians are online and millions more will be getting connected in the years to come. There is a push towards greater digital dependence– with demonetisation a cashless system is being propagated, with Aadhaar, an entire India Stack is being built and the wider platforms such Digital India and Smart Cities will push things further along.We are keen to capitalise on the enormous economic opportunity, but we need to be prepared for potential cyber onslaughts. Eventually our systems, our people and our devices will all be connected that is when modern war games will start being played. We’ve already received a few unwanted pokes: allegedly, Chinese or otherwise hostile hackers have targeted the offices of the Dalai Lama, our embassies and government departments. In 2013, the DoT blocked the import of Huawei equipment on grounds of potential breach of security.More recently in the beginning of 2017, the newly launched Bharat Interface for Money application (BHIM app) reportedly faced spam threats.India should take certain steps to safeguard itself. Indeed, our country’s approach to this will be pivotal. The recent appointment of a national cyber security coordinator in the PMO is a step in the right direction. That said a lot more will need to be done in the days ahead:While cyber war should be avoided at all costs, India still needs to be prepared for it. Thus preparing for the offensive, and drafting a cyber war manual is essential.A robust ecosystem must be built to secure India from acts of state and non-state actors, including protocol for grievance redressal in international forums.Better capabilities must be built to detect and deflect attacks.The Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) must be strengthened and aligned with military and foreign affairs operations.Building a joint task force between the government and key technology players will be crucial.The government’s cyber security policy can be revisited and more importantly implemented in mission mode.Key areas of cyber importance, such as the banking system, India Stack, various government infrastructure, should be identified. –The government should push for the creation of a global charter of digital human rights.A national gold standard should be created, which ensures that Indian hardware and software companies adhere to the highest safety protocols.Changing nature of conflictKlaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum, feels technology will radically alter the nature of conflicts. He considers cyber-attacks “one of the most serious threats of our time”. If everything from our social media to our mobile phones now have an impact on international security, cyber as an arena of war needs to enter mainstream discussion and the gap between policy and technical experts needs to narrow. The Internet is fast becoming humanity;s lifeline. Therefore the stakes are high and thus ripe ground for conflict.While a ‘Code War’ will likely never replace conventional modes of conflict, it will with time become a relevant part of any state’s arsenal. With increased dependence on digital infrastructures, acts of war on those assets are inevitable – in some cases such actions could also lead to material damage to life and property. Moreover, nation states should be prepared for conventional retaliation to a cyber attack and vice versa. Lastly, cyber, like all security, is a public good and nations will have to determine the level of safety it must provide to its average citizens and small businesses (beyond securing critical infrastructure).There is a real impact for India. The digital revolution presents once in a generation opportunity for our country, but it also leaves us exposed and open to attack. While we climb the inevitable ladder of technological progress one eye must be kept on the potential perils. The government is in the process of building deep digital infrastructure, from payments to ID.