Should Russia's new Armata T-14 tanks      worry Nato?



A Russian innovation in armoured warfare has pushed Norway to replace many of its current anti-tank systems.
Active protection systems (APS) are being built into Russia's new Armata T-14 tank, posing a problem for a whole generation of anti-armour weapons, not least the US-supplied Javelin guided missile, used by the Norwegian Army.
The warning comes from Brig Ben Barry of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London. He says this is a problem that most Nato countries have barely begun to grapple with.
APS threatens to make existing anti-tank weapons far less effective, and there is little real discussion of this among many Western militaries, he says.
Some countries are conducting research and trials to equip their own tanks with APS. "But they seem to miss the uncomfortable implications for their own anti-armour capabilities," he says.
Norway is one of the first Nato countries to grasp this nettle. Its latest defence procurement plan envisages spending 200-350m kroner (£18.5-32.5m; $24-42m) on replacing its Javelin missiles, "to maintain the capacity to fight against heavy armoured vehicles".
"There is a need for [an] anti-tank missile," it says, "that can penetrate APS 

  1. Enemy launches weapon at tank
  2. Sensors detect incoming threat
  3. Tracking radar calculates impact point
  4. Active Protection System launches countermeasure
  5. Countermeasure destroys target
APS is the latest twist in the age-old battle between offence and defence in military technology.
At different periods one side has held the advantage over the other. The armoured knight once ruled supreme, but the widespread use of firearms put paid to the armour-clad nobility's dominance.
Since World War Two the tank, like the knight of old, has reigned supreme on the battlefield.
It is of course vulnerable to the main guns of other tanks. If you have a heavy enough shell and a gun firing at high-enough velocity you can punch through even the best armour.
But tanks are also vulnerable to other weapons systems, and that is what APS is designed to deal with.
Since World War Two a whole category of lighter, man-portable anti-tank weapons has been devised.
Since they have to be carried by the infantry they depend not upon velocity and mass to get through the tank's armour, but on a chemical reaction. These warheads impact on the external armour and a metal core forms into a molten jet that pierces through.

You might also like:

Tank designers have tried to counter this in all sorts of ways, with reactive panels that explode outwards when hit; or by providing additional layers of spaced armour, to detonate the incoming round away from the tank itself.
APS takes a whole new approach. It is essentially an anti-missile system for tanks, with radars capable of tracking the incoming anti-tank missile, and projectiles that are launched to disrupt or destroy it.


Israel is among the leaders in this field and its Merkava tanks used it with some success during the last upsurge of fighting in Gaza.
The Israeli Trophy system is being evaluated by the Americans. Britain too is looking at such systems and the Dutch have recently decided to equip their infantry combat vehicles with another Israeli-developed system.
The fitting of APS to armoured vehicles is intended to counter a variety of weapons, ranging from the ubiquitous Russian/Chinese RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) to much more sophisticated guided anti-tank weapons like the Russian Kornet.
But Brig Barry at the IISS is pointing out that Russia's APS technology raises questions about many of Nato's anti-tank defences too. Norway is taking action - and he believes other Nato countries will have to do the same.
BBC NEWS

Paris climate deal: Trump pulls US out of 2015 accord

 Paris climate deal: Trump pulls US out of    2015 accord


President Donald Trump has announced that the US is withdrawing from the 2015 Paris climate agreement.
He said moves to negotiate a new "fair" deal that would not disadvantage US businesses and workers would begin.
Mr Trump said during last year's presidential election campaign that he would take the step to help his country's oil and coal industries.
Opponents say withdrawing from the accord is an abdication of US leadership on a key global challenge.
The Paris agreement commits the US and 187 other countries to keeping rising global temperatures "well below" 2C above pre-industrial levels and "endeavour to limit" them even more, to 1.5C. Only Syria and Nicaragua did not sign up to the deal.

What did Trump say?

Speaking in the White House Rose Garden, Mr Trump characterised the Paris agreement as a deal that aimed to hobble, disadvantage and impoverish the US.
He claimed the agreement would cost the US $3tn in lost GDP and 6.5 million jobs - while rival economies like China and India were treated more favourably.
"In order to fulfil my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord... but begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States," he said.
The speech contained several rhetorical flourishes reminiscent of his campaign speeches.
"We don't want other leaders and other countries laughing at us any more - and they won't be," he said.
"I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris. I promised I would exit or re-negotiate any deal which fails to serve America's interests. Many trade deals will soon be under re-negotiation."
The BBC's Rajini Vaidyanathan in Washington says the move will be welcomed by many Trump supporters, as for them this is less about science - and more about sending a signal to so-called global elites.
Analysts say the US withdrawal from the Paris agreement will make it more difficult for the world to reach the goals that it set for itself in the Paris agreement.
The US contributes about 15% of global emissions of carbon, but it is also a significant source of finance and technology for developing countries in their efforts to fight rising temperatures.
Mr Trump did not give a timescale for US withdrawal, but White House sources had earlier suggested it could take up to four years.

What has the reaction been?


Former US President Barack Obama, who agreed to the Paris deal, immediately criticised the move, accusing the Trump administration of "rejecting the future".
Republican congressional leaders and the US coal industry backed the move, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell supporting Mr Trump "for dealing yet another significant blow to the Obama administration's assault on domestic energy production and jobs".
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer called the decision "one of the worst policy moves made in the 21st Century because of the huge damage to our economy, our environment and our geopolitical standing".
The leaders of France, Germany and Italy issued a joint statement rejecting a renegotiation of the agreement.
"We deem the momentum generated in Paris in December 2015 irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris agreement cannot be renegotiated, since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies," it said.
Canada was "deeply disappointed" by President Trump's decision, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna told reporters.
This was echoed by UK Prime Minister Theresa May, who expressed her disappointment and told Mr Trump in a phone call that the deal protects the "prosperity and security of future generations".
Leaders of the Nordic nations - Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland - also condemned the move.
United Nations spokeswoman said it was a "major disappointment for global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote global security".
Small island nations whose existence is threatened by rising sea levels were critical of the move. The President of the Marshall Islands, Hilda Heine, said it was "highly concerning for those of us that live on the frontline of climate change".
Graphic showing impact of US pulling out of Paris deal
Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk confirmed that he was leaving his role as an adviser to the Trump administration in protest.
"Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world," he tweeted.

'Worse than expected'

By BBC environment correspondent Matt McGrath
President Trump's statement is a very clear repudiation of the Paris agreement and international efforts to fund climate mitigation and adaptation in poorer countries.
In many ways it is far worse than many had expected. He sees it as a clear job killer, as an economy strangler and a desperately unfair stitch-up by other countries wanting to take economic advantage of the US.
He spoke of being open to re-negotiating the deal or trying to build a new agreement - but the idea of "re-negotiation" is an unlikely scenario.
The scale of his opposition, seeing the deal as "a massive redistribution of US wealth to other countries" is a clear indication that he has fully bought into an economic nationalist and climate denier perspective.
The question of unfairness cropped up again and again, how the world's worst polluters, China and India, had "no meaningful obligations" placed on them by the deal.
The overall tone and content of his speech clearly plays to his base but is also a clear disavowal of multilateralism, especially on climate change, and will definitely push other countries more closely together on this issue.

What was agreed in Paris?

Climate change, or global warming, refers to the damaging effect of gases, or emissions, released from industry and agriculture on the atmosphere.
The Paris accord is meant to limit the global rise in temperature attributed to emissions.
Countries agreed to:
  • Keep global temperatures "well below" the level of 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial times and "endeavour to limit" them even more, to 1.5C
  • Limit the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity to the same levels that trees, soil and oceans can absorb naturally, beginning at some point between 2050 and 2100
  • Review each country's contribution to cutting emissions every five years so they scale up to the challenge
  • Enable rich countries to help poorer nations by providing "climate finance" to adapt to climate change and switch to renewable energy
  • BBC NEWS


 Putin: Patriotic Russians may become  involved in hacking


Russian President Vladimir Putin has suggested "patriotic" Russian citizens might turn their hand to hacking.
Such individuals might join "the justified fight against those speaking ill of Russia," he said.
He repeated his denial that his administration hacked the US election last year.
He added that this activity was "never" carried out at the government level and he expressed his belief that hackers could not influence voters' minds.

BBC NEWS


Joshua Paul: Nanny Viktoria Tautz guilty of killing shaken baby



A nanny who shook a 10-month-old boy to death "in a fit of anger" has been jailed for four years.
Viktoria Tautz, 34, was caring for Joshua Paul at his home in Haringey, north London, when he suffered "catastrophic brain and spinal injuries".
Joshua was rushed to hospital but died three days later.
Tautz had denied prosecution claims she "snapped". and shook Joshua in a "dangerous and excessive" manner
The court heard Joshua, who was born 10 weeks early, had a large head for his age and was being monitored.

'Horsey game'

At about 08:40 BST on August 29, 2014, Joshua's mum Pearl Paul left her son "happy and playing" with Tautz in the one-bedroom flat, the court heard.
But at 09:07, a neighbour called 999 after Tautz dashed from the flat shouting for help, holding Joshua who was unconscious and not breathing.
On her arrest, Tautz told police she had played a horse-riding game with Joshua but he had not had any accidents that morning.
Zoe Johnson QC rejected the defence's suggestion he was hurt in a "horsey game", as head wobbling involved would have been "nowhere near enough" to kill.
Tautz collapsed in tears in the dock as she was sentenced by Mrs Justice McGowan.
Jailing her, the judge said: "You were not in the same position as a teenage mother in the middle of the night on her own trapped in a flat without anyone to help her."

Mitigating, Bernard Richmond QC highlighted "worrying features" of the case which led to a "moment of madness".
He said: "She was a young woman with a very limited amount of training with a baby who had obviously very difficult needs."
He told the court the defendant, who was paid £3.60 an hour, also lacked "resilience".
Tautz, of Holly Park Road, Barnet, had denied manslaughter and said she never got "angry" or "frustrated" with the baby.
The Old Bailey jury convicted her with a majority verdict of 10 to 2 after deliberating for nearly seven hours.
BBC NEWS

Why did 'power surge' hit BA computers?





It is one of the worst IT meltdowns to hit British Airways in recent memory - thousands of passengers had flights disrupted or cancelled at the weekend and there were chaotic scenes at London's Heathrow and Gatwick airports.
Some travellers are still waiting to be reunited with their luggage, five days later.
But what really went wrong? No-one seems to have a firm answer.
BA has apologised and blamed a "power surge" affecting IT equipment - but many engineers have reacted sceptically to that, pointing out that major firms are meant to have redundancy plans in place to avoid disruption when primary systems fail.

What has BA said?

In a slightly more detailed statement on Wednesday, the airline said a loss of power to a UK data centre was "compounded" by a power surge that took out its IT systems.
The firm claimed that this did not constitute an IT failure, but rather "it was an electrical power supply which was interrupted".
An investigation is being carried out and it has been reported that BA's board is set to demand an external inquiry into what happened.

How has the explanation been received?

BA's statement has failed to satisfy everyone.
Several IT workers expressed doubt and the explanation was labelled "too simplistic" by independent defence and aerospace analyst Howard Wheeldon.
One of the chief questions that remains unanswered is why a back-up or secondary system did not come into play, even if a power surge affected the main one?

Could a power surge be the culprit?

According to one informed observer, yes - especially under specific circumstances.
Data centres generally rely on an uninterruptible power supply, or UPS, which is designed to keep providing power to a data centre even if the mains supply fails.
This secondary source of power could be based on batteries or a generator running on fuel.
As independent IT consultant Marcel van den Berg pointed out, a power surge might have occurred after this secondary power supply failed.
Since the UPS might also be designed to protect systems from power surges, without it servers might have been made vulnerable.
The Daily Mail has reported that the UPS system at Boadicea House, the home of one of BA's data centres near Heathrow, failed on Saturday - though the BBC was unable to confirm this.

Where did the surge come from?

Practically any piece of equipment could cause a power surge, perhaps due to a fault, for example.
But to stick with the UPS line of inquiry, one provider - UPS Systems - notes on its website: "Power surges could be caused by the shut-down of a generator or other industrial motor on the local supply circuit.
"Will cause systems to crash, can cause components to wear and degrade over extended periods.

What about disaster recovery?

Mr van den Berg told the BBC that while a power surge was a valid explanation in principle, it was still unclear why such an event had the catastrophic impact that it did.
"This shouldn't have happened because there should be enough resilience to allow another UPS to take over or a secondary data centre," he said.
Many large businesses have "disaster recovery" plans in place - often these involve the capability to quickly switch operations to a back-up data centre in a completely different location.
BA has not revealed whether, for example, it was unable to activate such a facility.

Is outsourcing to blame?

BA recently outsourced some of its IT contracts to India's Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) and some have questioned whether TCS is to blame.
Sunbird and AIT Partnership Group, two firms that have in the past provided software and services to BA's data centres, released a statement on Wednesdaysaying they "had no involvement" with the recent incident.
British Airways and TCS both denied that outsourcing jobs had anything to do with the power issues.

Apple to scan iPhones for child sex abuse images

  Apple has announced details of a system to find child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on customers' devices. Before an image is stored on...