Mil-Tech

India to buy Javelin missiles to fill gap

The delay in the manufacture of indigenous NAG missiles has forced India to consider buying thousands of Javelin anti-tank guided missiles from the United States.

The Indian government would go down the route of a U.S. direct foreign military sale when ordering the Javelin, made by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. The process could frustrate European, in particular Russian, ATGM manufactures because it bypasses the global competitive tender route.

Defense Minister A. K. Antony told Parliament that a letter-of-request had been sent to the U.S. government for procurement of the third-generation off-the-shelf Javelin. Included in the letter is a transfer of technology request that could mean the man-portable Javelin is made under license in India.

Antony gave no indication of numbers of missiles needed, nor of numbers to be made in India.

What is known, however, is the army’s acknowledged shortfall of around 44,000 ATGMs — half of their required number. The Javelin order could run into the thousands until the first, vehicle-launched version of the NAG, meaning “snake” in Sanskrit, is inducted into the army next year.

The third-generation NAG with a 2.5-mile range has been 20 years in development and is on the verge of entering production.

But the army first will be getting the largest, vehicle-launch version of the missile, nearly 6 feet long, 7.5 inches in diameter and weighing around 95 pounds.

Other plans for the NAG include a helicopter-launched version with a range of nearly 5 miles. Launch systems are planned for the armed HAL Dhruv and HAL light combat helicopters produced by state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics.

A 6-mile air-launched version will probably be set up for use by the air force’s aging Anglo-French Jaguar fighters made by SEPECAT.

Also planned is a similar land version, to be launched from a hydraulically lifted mast. A man-portable version will be a direct competitor to the Javelin and weigh around 9 pounds, as against 26 pounds for the Javelin.

The army has ordered 443 NAG missiles and 13 Namicas, the missile’s tracked carrier, the main tank-busting vehicle. The missiles are carried on the sides of the Namica for offensive operations.

Currently, infantry units are relying on two man-portable ATGMs. The second-generation French Milan is made by Paris’s MBDA and has a range of just more than 1 mile. The Russian Konkurs ATGM, designed and made by Tula Machinery Design Bureau, has a range of around 2.5 miles.

Both of the wire-guided missiles are also produced under license in India by PSU Bharat Dynamics.

To help ease the shortfall of ATGMs , the army has ordered since 2008 around 4,100 of the advanced version Milan-2T missiles with tandem warheads and 15,000 Konkurs-M missiles.

The Javelin has been used by U.S. forces during bilateral battalion-level combat exercises, including the annual Yudh-Abhyas at the Indian army’s Babina base, in the state of Uttar Pradesh, last October.

Europe And Beyond: U.S. Consolidates Global Missile Shield

On September 17, 2009 U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and President Barack Obama separately announced plans to shift the emphasis of the global American interceptor missile – so-called missile shield or anti-ballistic missile defense – project from the previous George W. Bush administration’s plans to a more mobile, flexible and geographically broader system.

The proposed deployments of ten ground-based interceptor missiles in Poland and a forward-based X-band radar installation in the Czech Republic were abandoned in favor of what Obama deemed “stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America’s allies.” Both Poland and the Czech Republic, however, remain part of Pentagon plans and will be incorporated into a broader grid with all 28 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which in its final stage will cover all of Europe. Or at least the entire continent west of Russia and Belarus.

Plans for ground-based interceptors in Poland alarmed Russia, which necessarily saw them as aimed at itself, but would also have been housed in fixed silos that made them easy targets.

In the month before the announced change in American plans to begin the incremental buildup of a missile shield in Eastern Europe – phased adaptive approach in government terms – a report surfaced at the annual U.S. Space and Missile Defense Conference of the Boeing Company planning a 47,500-pound mobile interceptor missile launcher to be deployed within 24 hours to NATO bases in Europe. During the same month the Missile Defense Agency and Boeing also announced the successful test of their joint Airborne Laser (ABL) anti-missile system.

At the end of last August the first disclosure appeared of plans to expand U.S. interceptor missile deployments to the Balkans and the Black Sea region, Israel and Turkey. [4] The head of the Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly, said at the time that he supported the installation of Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptors in the Balkans and Turkey. (In 2007 his predecessor, Lieutenant General Henry Obering, mentioned placing U.S. interceptor missile radar sites in the Caucasus and even Ukraine.)

The SM-3 is a ship-based anti-ballistic missile and anti-satellite interceptor – used to destroy an American satellite in orbit over the Pacific Ocean in February of 2008 – and part of the U.S. and allied Aegis ballistic missile defense system. It has the main advantage of being deployable around the world on destroyers and cruisers. What O’Reilly was referring to, though, was a combination of sea-based SM-3s and their adaptation for use on land.

In describing current U.S. missile shield plans last September, Pentagon chief Gates spoke of a four-phase program that began with the deployment of Aegis class warships equipped with SM-3s in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea last year, to be followed by enhanced versions of the missile both on sea and land, with successive generations of more advanced models in the third and fourth stage.

This February plans to station land-based SM-3s in Bulgaria and Romania were announced [5], and when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski in the latter’s nation early last month to sign an amended agreement on interceptor missile cooperation, it was revealed that SM-3s will be stationed in Poland in the second phase of the Pentagon’s plan for a continent-wide interceptor system. [6] Slightly more than a month before, the U.S. moved Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptors and approximately 100 troops into eastern Poland, only a few kilometers from Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave. [7] U.S. deployments in the country are also part of a broader NATO strategy.

Connecting the ship- and land-based components of the global U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe with other locations to the east and the south, the Pentagon has also been qualitatively expanding Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and Standard Missile-3 deployments in the Persian Gulf. Washington is now preparing to provide Gulf Arab states with the longer-range Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile intercept system.

Last October and November the U.S. and Israel conducted the fourteen-day Juniper Cobra 10 exercise with five missile interception systems, the largest such live-fire maneuvers ever held. An American military officer present at the war games said the unparalleled drills would “help the development of a planned NATO missile shield for Europe.” A year before, the U.S. deployed an X-band missile shield radar (Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance) to Israel with 120 troops, the first and to date only long-term foreign troop deployment in Israel’s history.

Washington and NATO are well advanced in solidifying an impenetrable interceptor missile system from the Baltic Sea to the Arabian Sea and the Black Sea to the Red Sea.

In the past few days further details have emerged concerning the expansion of those plans in both breadth and sophistication.

On August 30 Czech Prime Minister Petr Necas announced that “his government has been negotiating a plan with the United States to place a warning center in the Czech Republic as part of a reworked U.S. missile defense plan.” He also stated that personnel manning the facility could be provided by the U.S. and other NATO states and that the site could even be based in his nation’s capital, Prague. Necas added, “The U.S. plans to initially invest $2 million in 2011 and 2012 for the center, which is expected to become part of a joint NATO missile defense shield in the future,” and that no new treaty with Washington would be required for the project. Czech popular opposition to the earlier plan for an X-band missile defense installation was credited for the U.S. discarding the Bush-era plan.

Two days afterward Czech Defense Minister Alexandr Vondra confirmed that the U.S. had allotted $2 million for the construction of the facility, that American experts would be deployed there and that it would be in operation by the middle of next year. Vondra added, “I believe it will be one of many parts of the NATO system….”

In August of last year the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza revealed that the U.S. would expand its interceptor missile plans to the Balkans, Israel and Turkey. This August the Washington Post belatedly confirmed that design.

An article by staff writer Craig Whitlock appeared in the August 1 Sunday edition of the newspaper which quoted several U.S. military officials to the effect that:

“The U.S. military is on the verge of activating a partial missile shield over southern Europe….

“Pentagon officials said they are nearing a deal to establish a key radar ground station, probably in Turkey or Bulgaria. Installation of the high-powered X-band radar would enable the first phase of the shield to become operational next year.

“At the same time, the U.S. military is working with Israel and allies in the Persian Gulf to build and upgrade their missile defense capabilities. The United States installed a radar ground station in Israel in 2008 and is looking to place another in an Arab country in the gulf region.”

Not substituting for deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic, as has been seen above, but adapting and extending the network of which they are a part southward and eastward.

The Washington Post feature added that although the interceptor missile projects in Eastern Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf are technically distinct, “they are all designed to plug into command-and-control systems operated by, or with, the U.S. military. The Israeli radar, for example, is operated by U.S. personnel and is already functional, feeding information to U.S. Navy ships operating in the Mediterranean.”

Providing historical perspective and dispelling the prevalent notion that the current administration’s plans are in any manner a retreat from those of its predecessor, the piece stated:

“The concept of a missile shield began with former president Ronald Reagan, who first described his vision of a defense against a Soviet nuclear attack in his ‘Star Wars’ speech in 1983….It has expanded further under President Obama, despite the skepticism he expressed during the 2008 campaign about the feasibility and affordability of Bush’s plan for a shield in Europe.

“In September, Obama announced that he was changing Bush’s approach. Instead of abandoning the idea, he directed the Pentagon to construct a far more extensive and flexible missile defense system in Europe that will be built in phases between now and 2020.”

The author provided these additional details:

Starting late last year the U.S. has steadily deployed Aegis class warships in the Mediterranean Sea equipped with Spy-1 360 degree missile radar and “arsenals of Standard Missile-3 interceptors [which] will form the backbone of Obama’s shield in Europe.”

The initial detachments, one or two destroyers and cruisers at a time, will be tripled in number. Furthermore, “the Obama administration has plans to nearly double its number of Aegis ships with ballistic missile defenses, to 38 by 2015.”

Citing the commander of the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, Vice Admiral Henry B. Harris Jr., the Washington Post article stated that one “option would be to assign some Aegis ships to home ports in Europe instead of making them sail constantly back and forth to the United States.

“Other Navy officials have floated the idea of flying in fresh crews so a ship could more or less deploy continuously, obviating the need for long breaks.”

It then supplied further specifics, disclosing that “Aegis ships, armed with dozens of SM-3 missile interceptors, will patrol the Mediterranean and Black seas and link up with…high-power radar planned for southern Europe.”

Romania will host land-based Standard Missile-3 deployments and Poland will follow as the site of SM-3s and additional sensors.

Although as recently as last year the Pentagon envisioned a total of 147 SM-3s, the Obama administration intends to nearly triple that number to 436. The new strategy “will require an unspecified number of new SM-3 missiles, which cost between $10 million and $15 million apiece.”

The system will expand in earnest after the NATO summit in Portugal in November, when the U.S.’s 27 members in the military bloc are expected to endorse a comprehensive, layered, mobile interceptor missile system for the entire European continent, albeit still firmly under U.S. control.

The Missile Defense Agency’s O’Reilly “said combined defenses would feature the best of both worlds: an ‘upper layer’ framework of SM-3 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, interceptors, operated by the United States, that could shoot down enemy missiles in space or the upper atmosphere; and a ‘lower layer’ of Patriot batteries, operated by European allies, providing a second layer of defense closer to the ground.”

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missiles have a longer range than both the PAC-3 and SM-3 and had not been discussed before as part of the new system.

Regarding the placement of U.S. and NATO interceptor missiles in Romania, on the Black Sea across from southwestern Russia, a recent analysis examined the geopolitical consequences:

“This means that the U.S. front line of defense is shifting from the eastern border of Germany to the Black Sea, which is adjacent to the Middle East, the Caucasus and Russia.

“Romania is ready to accept deployment of 20 SM-3 anti-ballistic missile units, currently installed on American naval vessels with the Aegis Combat System. These missiles could later be replaced with the more advanced terminal high altitude area defense (THAAD) missiles. They will also be deployed in Bulgaria. Meanwhile, it has become more likely that the X-band radar system, which the U.S. originally planned to install in the Czech Republic, will be set up in Israel.”

Bulgarian Defense Minister Anyu Angelov was summoned to Washington for six days starting in late June for “the launch of technical negotiations about NATO’s missile defence in Europe in general” and meetings with Defense Secretary Gates, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Ellen Tauscher, the last-named the key point person in securing U.S. missile shield deployments in Eastern Europe.

Angelov was given his marching orders and returned home to confirm that his nation will join the U.S. interceptor missile program in Europe (and beyond) and that “Bulgaria is participating actively in the discussions and the practical realization of all steps concerning the establishment of a NATO-wide missile defense system.” [17]

For domestic consumption he presented the decision as his country’s own – “We are the most interested state in Europe in the establishment of a missile shield because we are in the most threatened region – we fall within the range of ballistic missiles, medium-range ballistic missiles [such] as the ones employed by the states in the wider Middle East” – but since Bulgaria was incorporated into NATO in 2004 it now receives orders from the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon.

In a recent report that 700 Bulgarian combat troops have been ordered to Afghanistan (as Dutch troops have left), a leading local news agency demonstrated how such decisions are made: “Bulgaria’s center-right government, elected last July, initially said it would not be able to provide more forces in Afghanistan due to the economic crisis, but later changed its strategy under pressure from the United States and NATO.”

The same relationship of supremacy and subordination obtains between the U.S. and all other NATO members, particularly the twelve new acquisitions in Eastern Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Adriatic Sea.

The Pentagon has secured seven new military bases in Bulgaria and Romania since the latter two states joined NATO in 2004. Those sites include the Bezmer Air Base in Bulgaria, fifty kilometers from the Black Sea, and the Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base in Romania near the city of Constanta on the Black Sea. Both are being upgraded to strategic air bases which, already employed for the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, are available for strikes against Iran and in the South Caucasus in the event of an equivalent of the Georgian-Russian war of two years ago. The Romanian base is the main headquarters for the Pentagon’s Joint Task Force-East.

At any given time there are several thousand U.S. troops in Bulgaria and Romania, the first foreign forces in Bulgaria since shortly after the end of World War Two and in Romania since 1962.

A comparable situation exists in Poland. An American military newspaper recently ran a feature on the deployment of Patriot missile batteries in the country called “U.S. Army’s presence in Poland most significant since World War II” in which an American Army spokesman stated, “We have between 80 and 150 troops going there on a regular basis. We’ve never had that number and for that long of a period.” No foreign troops had been stationed in Poland since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991.

The article also stated that “For the first time since the end of World War II, U.S. Army soldiers are making regular rotations into Poland, this time to train its forces to use Patriot missiles.

“Forty miles from the Russian border, a small group of U.S. Army Europe soldiers is instructing the Polish military about the missiles, which are designed to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft.”

A Fox News report characterized the operation as “the first long-term U.S. troop presence…in Poland,” and quoted U.S. ambassador to the nation Lee Feinstein as maintaining “It’s U.S. boots on the ground, a very tangible symbol of the U.S.-Polish alliance.”

Regarding Israel, where the U.S. has also deployed the first foreign troops on that country’s soil, in late July the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense added $95.7 million to a White House funding request for Tel Aviv’s long-range Arrow and medium-range David’s Sling anti-ballistic missile programs subsumed under the Iron Dome layered air and missile defense system. Abiding by the subcommittee’s recommendations, Congress will allot $422.7 million for the above purpose for next year (with $109 million for the Arrow 3 system), bringing total U.S. underwriting of Israeli interceptor missile programs to $1 billion over the past four years.

According to member of the subcommittee Congressman Steve Rothman, “Given the concern and attention that we are focusing now on every dollar we are expending on behalf of the US taxpayer for all purposes, including the defense of the United States and its allies, it is a mark of the importance of these projects that they were all funded so robustly and fully by our subcommittee.”

By absorbing most all of Eastern Europe into NATO, the U.S. has also provided its Israeli ally access to air bases and training sites of strategic significance for future attacks on neighboring Middle East nations. On July 29 Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilna’i stated, “We fly in Romania so we can act deep inside neighboring Arab states.”

The more extended and flexible, the “stronger, smarter and swifter” U.S. missile strategy, then, pursues a trajectory from the Baltic Sea, with Standard Missile-3-equipped Aegis warships also available for service in the Norwegian and Barents Seas, to Southeastern Europe into the South Caucasus, Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea and Persian Gulf, covering Russia’s western and southern flanks and encroaching upon Iran.

When President Obama visits India in November he intends to secure billions of dollars in arms deals with the world’s second most populous nation.

On July 12 Russia’s Vzglyad newspaper reported that “The deal, if signed during Obama’s visit, would [have] the US replace Russia as India’s biggest arms supplier…adding that the deal would also help India curb China’s rise.

“India’s shortlist includes Patriot defense systems, Boeing mid-air refueling tankers and certain types of howitzers, and the total cost of the deal may exceed $10 billion….”

By selling anti-ballistic missile systems to India – starting with Patriots and advancing to longer-range models – Washington will connect its missile interception network from Europe through the Middle East to its eastern wing, that which includes 26 ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely in Alaska, a 280-foot-tall, 50,000-pound sea-based X-band radar in the Aleutian Islands, and PAC-3, SM-3 and THAAD missiles in Japan, South Korea and Australia.

Current U.S.-China tensions, the worst in several decades, were triggered early this year when Washington confirmed it was providing Taiwan with 200 advanced Patriot missiles and warships capable of being upgraded for the Aegis Combat System.

For all the talk of protecting the U.S. Mainland from alleged Iranian and North Korean missile threats – accusations that are in the first case absurd and in the second highly improbable – at the end of the day Washington and its military allies around the world are well on the way to encircling Russia, China and Iran with an insurmountable barrier of interceptor missile deployments in conjunction with the militarization of space and the Prompt Global Strike program. Neither those three nations nor any other outside the rapidly expanding U.S. global military nexus will be permitted to retain effective deterrence or retaliation capabilities.

Organizations Will Merge In Military Business

Next-generation aircraft and sensors are being planned that combine surveillance, intelligence gathering, tactical cyber and other electronic attack and directed energy. For example, a burst of high-power microwaves could leave a person unharmed but kill his mobile phone.

“There are three trends that are bringing about what I call the ‘information in war revolution,’” informed Lt. Gen. David Deptula, the Air Force’s first deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). “The first is the ability to rapidly compress and decompress data due to advancing computing speed; the second is the ability to transmit this data using very clever means — like transmitting only the parts of a video or radar picture that have changed — and then finally the ability we have now to bring all these technologies onto one platform, like we do with our Remotely Piloted Aircraft and will do on our future manned aircraft.”

Those advances in technology are increasing the speed of information and changing the way the Pentagon designs aircraft, its organizations, and even the military’s long-developed cultural habits of collecting data, analyzing it, and then distributing the information to those who need it.

“In the past we had a specific aircraft for collecting data, then a separate organization for analyzing it, and then another organization and system for distributing it,” Deptula informed. “And this was at all levels of operations.

With today’s technology we can do all of that from one aircraft — near real time and at the speed of light — from across the globe. Today the trends are blurring traditional lines to the point where we are now able to integrate a sensor-processor-distributor-kinetic-non-kinetic shooter-penetrator all on one aircraft — or perhaps even more attractive — distributed on a set of multiple aircraft in a ‘fractionated’ system. That is a concept that may allow us to achieve greater degrees of survivability in the face of advanced threat systems.”

In short, the traditional fighter, bomber and ISR aircraft will disappear, or at least no longer denote the mission. This is not a multirole, he cautions, but instead “rather a more advanced ‘integrated mission composable’ approach.”

However, advanced jamming tools and techniques may render relying on linking separate capabilities on separate aircraft more and more problematic, therefore integration of multiple function attributes on single aircraft could actually become more attractive.

Cyberwarfare also is part of ISR’s future. “A big part of the job in exploiting operations in cyberspace entails computer network exploitation,” Deptula says. “Wrapped up in the mission set of 24th Air Force is the exploitation piece, and the Air Force ISR Agency capabilities are vital to that task.

Within a few weeks of the stand up of 24th Air Force [the cyber-attack force], we established an ISR group of about 400 people in direct support of that command’s cyber-activities. Today it is known as the 770th Provisional ISR Group, and in June it will become the 659th ISR group, located at Fort Meade, Md. [the home of the National Security Agency].”

Iran preforms anti-aircraft missile

The Mersad air defense system, Iran’s first domestically built anti-aircraft missile, is ready to go into operation, the Iranian defense minister informed.

Iranian Defense Minister Brig. Gen. Ahmad Vahidi informed the Mersad, the Persian word for “ambush,” anti-aircraft missile was ready for wide-spread use, Iran’s state-funded broadcaster Press TV reports.

Vahidi said the anti-aircraft missile was able to hit modern aircraft flying at low to medium altitude.

“The state-of-the-art technology used in Mersad links it to other anti-aircraft batteries and provides it with the unique ability to combat electronic warfare,” he added.

The general said Iran was ready to start mass production of the medium-range missile. The military should take custody of the weapon by the end of the year.

He didn’t indicate the range of the Mersad.

Vahidi and other defense officials have ramped up their rhetoric against the United States and Israel as Washington kicks off a high-profile summit on nuclear non-proliferation this week.

Washington and its Western allies believe Iran is working on the technology needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iran insists the program is for civilian use, however.

Iran informed plans last week to hold its own two-day conference on nuclear issues. Tehran said it invited 60 countries to take part in the summit scheduled to begin Saturday.

Progress for Laser Weapons

Boeing says its free electron laser is just what the U.S. Navy needs to protect its ships against ever more menacing threats, such as “hypervelocity cruise missiles.”

Northrop Grumman has designed a laser for the U.S. Army to shoot down “missiles of various sizes and speeds, helicopters, drones, rockets, artillery, mortar rounds and submunitions.”

Textron, meanwhile, informed its new ThinZag laser could be mounted on an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to shoot down enemy aircraft and missiles and destroy targets on the ground.

Laser makers are ardently plugging their latest achievements in laser technology, each promising to provide “ultraprecise,” “speed-of-light” weapons to the U.S. military.

The Northrop and Textron lasers are solid-state lasers, and each company says it has conquered the 100-kilowatt threshold that solid-state lasers must pass to be considered serious contenders for use as weapons.

A 100-kilowatt laser is powerful enough to quickly heat a target, causing a warhead to explode or an airframe to break apart, the Army says.
Boeing’s laser, at this stage, is a design on paper. The closest extant version is a 14-kilowatt model in a U.S. government lab.

The vision of energy-beam weapons remains alluring, but usable weapons are still elusive.
Since the mid-1970s, the U.S. military and its contractors have produced lasers powerful enough to shoot down missiles, mortar and artillery shells, and aircraft.
“But those lasers never made it into the war-fighter arena,” said John Boness, vice president of Textron’s directed energy weapons division.

They were chemical and gas lasers, and both proved unfit for military duty. Their size and weight make them ill-suited for warfare that demands mobility. Gas lasers require enormous power supplies, and chemical lasers, which generate light from the reactions of highly toxic chemicals, can be as dangerous as the threats they’re intended to counter, Boness informed.

For that reason, the U.S. Air Force pretty much shot down any hope that there’s a realistic future for the Airborne Laser, the service’s most ambitious, and costly, laser program.

It took almost 15 years and about $4 billion, but Boeing and the Air Force announced that on Feb. 11 a 747 jumbo jet armed with a “megawatt-class” chemical laser had finally shot down two test missiles. The test was eight years late, but laser program officials heralded the shootdown as a “revolutionary use of directed energy.”

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz was less enthusiastic. The shootdown “was a magnificent technical achievement,” Schwartz told a congressional committee. “But the reality is that this does not reflect something which is operationally viable.”

For the future, “solid-state, not chemical-based lasers – that’s the coin of the realm,” Schwartz informed.

But it’s a coin that has been circulating for a while.

Textron has been developing solid-state lasers since “the early ’90s – it’s been that long,” Boness said. In February, the company announced the successful test of a 100-kilowatt solid-state laser in its Massachusetts laboratory.

But it will probably take another five to seven years to turn Textron’s laboratory laser into a battlefield weapon, Boness said.

Textron accomplished at least two laser technology breakthroughs to reach the 100-kilowatt mark. One was using thin “slabs” of transparent ceramic material impregnated with neodymium yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) as a medium for producing near-infrared laser light. The ceramic material replaces more fragile neodymium crystals.

Textron also devised “a unique optical concept” in which laser light zigzags through the ceramic slabs to even out any optical imperfections before exiting as a laser beam, Boness informed.

Northrop Grumman claims to be the first company to reach the 100-kilowatt milepost with a solid-state laser last year. This year, the company plans to take its laser from the laboratory to an Army testing range in New Mexico to see whether it will really shoot down missiles, mortar shells and other targets.

Boeing’s free electron laser has yet to enter the lab. The company announced in March that it has completed “the preliminary design” for the Navy laser, and now is waiting for the Navy to decide whether to pay for building a laboratory demonstrator.

Boeing proposes to build a laser that uses a series of powerful magnetic fields to concentrate a beam of high-energy electrons and generate light bright enough to melt metal.
The free-electron laser would use a ship’s electrical power system “to create, in effect, unlimited ammunition,” Boeing informed.

That’s the theory. How it will work in practice remains to be seen.
“The news seems to be that [laser developers] are getting higher power densities out of solid-state lasers,” said Ivan Oelrich of the Federation of American Scientists. But lasers still have a long way to go before they start replacing conventional weapons.

At ground level or sea level, lasers will still be affected by atmospheric conditions – fog, dust and smoke can diminish their effectiveness. The need to generate lots of electricity to operate lasers also means generating heat, and that heat signature provides an enemy with a target, Oelrich informed.

Lasers “are by definition line-of-sight weapons, when the trend is toward indirect fire and standoff. If I can lase the bad guy, he can at least see me,” providing another targeting opportunity, he informed.

Then there’s the competition: missiles, bullets and bombs. Lasers will have to be shown to be more effective, Oelrich said. And for now, “TNT is a very effective way to put energy on target.”

Laser Weapons Will Replace Existing Systems In The IAF

At the “Energy: The Challenge of the Future” Conference in an IAF base, Maj. General Ido Nechushtan informed: “To win, we’ll have to invent things before we even know them”.

The Conference on Energy: The Challenge of the Future was held this week at an Israeli Air Force base in Herzliya as part of a program created to develop solutions to problems presented by the Corps. Maj. Gen. Ido Nechushtan, Commander of the Israeli Air Force participated in the meeting along with Brig. Gen. Rami Ben Efraim and hundreds of Air Force officers. Various scholars lectured on different subjects related to energy issues that the Corps deals with.

Air Force Commander, Maj. Gen. Ido Nechushtan informed that, “technology creates solutions to challenges and requires us to find solutions to new problems. In our reality, those who think better and faster, have an advantage in the battlefield.”

“It is important that we continue to develop technologies that we have yet to invent. We must develop new technologies” said, Maj. Gen. Ido Nechushtan.

Potential Anti-Aircraft Laser

Maj. Gen. (res.) Prof. Isaac Ben-Israel, former head of the Administration for the Development of Weapons and Technological Infrastructure (Maf’at) and current chairperson of the Space Authority, gave a lecture on energy issues familiar to his previous work as head of the Maf’at. He informed that, “When you look at 2010, short-range missiles are the threats that the world is dealing with today. The IDF knows the technology for intercepting short range rockets very well, and now laser technology and electromagnetic weapons can be used to intercept short range missiles.”

Prof. Ben-Israel expanded on his remarks about the new laser technology, “A laser weapon can shoot down anything that is in the air including aircraft.” It will take an estimated five years for laser technology to be operational in the battlefield.

Zero Chances that Hamas May be Able to Acquire Laser Technology

During his lecture, Prof. Ben-Israel also spoke about the possibilities of terror groups such as Hamas acquiring these technologies. “It’s very difficult to imagine such a situation where Hamas would acquire this technology. I would say the chances are close to zero. I do not think that the question of whether Hamas can get to this technology is a practical question. However, hypothetically speaking if Hamas would have such a weapon there would be very little we could do against it. It can be possible to find solutions in electronic warfare against the system, but keep in mind that we would have a very short time at our disposal. There is no armor that can prevent the effect of a powerful laser beam.”

Col. Zvi Haimovitz, Commander of the Anti-Aircraft support unit in the north, said in relation to the laser systems that “it is just a matter of time before the technology becomes operational. It is too bad that laser systems are not advancing at the same rate as standard systems, but their price certainly plays a significant role in the delayed process. In the future, laser systems will be operational replacing existing systems used by the air defense system.”

The Connection between Academia and the Air Force

Brig. Gen Rami Ben Efraim informed during the conference that, “the idea behind this day is to connect the academia and a practical body such as the Air Force that actually puts research into practice.”

Col. Ronit Farber explained to the IDF Website that, “everyone who came to the lecture did so voluntarily. Here there are about 500 officers from the rank of Lieutenant Colonel and above, as well as other outstanding officers.”

Oz Electrifies Its Infantry

Australia is spending $300 million to have an Israeli firm create a BGC3 (Battle Group and Below Command, Control and Communications) system for the Australian Army. The system will be based on a similar one used by Israeli land forces. All of this goes back to the American 1990s era Force XXI Battle Command Brigade-and-Below (FBCB2) project.

Parts of FBCB2 (especially the Blue Force Tracking, or BFT, system) were quickly issued to the troops for the 2003 invasion of Iraq Blue Force Tracker (GPS/satellite telephone devices) were hastily placed in thousands of combat vehicles. Anyone with a laptop, satellite data receiver, the right software and access codes could then see where everyone was (via a map showing blips for each BFT user). The spectacular success of Blue Force Tracker (BFT) got the attention of generals everywhere.

Over the next five years the U.S. Army built new versions of the BFT tracking (for vehicles on the battlefield) device. Because this hasty (all the stuff was still in development) experiment was a huge success, the United States proceeded to add more of this capability by producing and distributing 50,000 additional tracker devices.

There were some problems, however. The biggest hassle was the delay (often up to five minutes) between getting updated data from the satellite. Another big problem was that stationary icons, placed on BFT user screens to indicate enemy troops or dangers (like minefields or roadside bombs), don’t get updated accurately, or in a timely fashion. Once the troops begin to encounter a lot of roadside bombs that don’t exist (although Blue Force Tracker showed them), they began to lose faith in the system. Fixing this wasn’t easy, and several different solutions were tried before a stable solution was found.

The army supposes it has fixes for the major complaints. For example, the new BFT2 will have a ten second (or less) delay between satellite updates. New software will help clear away inaccurate icons indicating where the enemy is, or may be. The BTF2 network will also allow users to send more information to each other, including attachments. This will enable BFT2 to be used in automated command and control systems, that work more effectively because they can pass more information, more quickly, between the headquarters and the troops. While the existing BFT laptop (which includes the satellite communications hardware) costs about $1,500. BFT2 will cost $2,500 each (but will be a much more powerful piece of equipment).

Currently the army and marines have 60,000 BFT tracking devices (and far fewer laptops equipped to display BFT data for commanders), and plans to get at least as many of the BFT2 units, and perhaps as many as 120,000. BFT2 is expected to start shipping to the troops in another year or two. There are already hundreds of BFT2 prototypes undergoing testing. The field tests have shown BFT2 to be 45 times faster than BFT, and transmits data 30 times faster. This allows BFT2 users to send each other pictures and Word documents. But while BFT2 has taken a long time to perfect, the army upgraded other aspects of FBCB2.

After 2003, as combat operations continued in Iraq, so did the flow of money for new communications gear, software and communications capability. As a result, there were soon several improvised battlefield Internet systems that enabled commanders to quickly establish electronic Command Posts in combat zones. The tools were available, there was a need, and things just happened. Many components of this new form of command post (the fast satellite data links, PCs, large flat screen displays and laptops everywhere, plus easy networking) remain fairly stable. Most of the change is coming in the software. But even this aspect is kept under control because most screw-ups occur in front of senior commanders. This delivers an additional incentive to get these things working right.

Israel paid close attention to the American experience, and quickly adapted the most successful U.S, ideas for Israeli use. This is what they are delivering to Australia, which has become a major customer for Israeli military technology. The Israeli LAND 75 and 125 systems will equip over a thousand Australian vehicles, and 1,500 troops, as well as making it possible to quickly (within minutes) establish a command post anywhere, and know where your troops are, and be in touch with them.

This was not the first time radical technology sneaked up on the military. Portable radio, first widely used during World War II, radically changed how commanders operated, especially at the tactical level. But the current revolution is different in that the signals can easily be encrypted, and carry visual, as well as speech, data. Thus commanders at all levels can eliminate face-to-face meetings, and just videoconference, or talk freely about plans. But even Instant Messaging have become a powerful tool, because many times, a few short text messages are all that is needed to solve problems.

Finally, the Internet delivered, for the military, many new ideas on how to efficiently handle information. The Internet has been militarized much faster than anyone expected. That has led to the military adopting new database and visualization tools as well. In a single decade, the way commanders run their units, and battles has changed more than it has in the past half century.

Raytheon Delivers 2,000th Tomahawk Block IV Cruise Missile to U.S. Navy

In a significant production milestone, Raytheon Company (NYSE: RTN) delivered the 2,000th Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile to the U.S. Navy.

“Tomahawk Block IV provides the Navy with a combat-proven weapon that plays a critical role in hybrid warfare operations,” informed Capt. Dave Davison, the U.S. Navy’s program manager for the Tomahawk weapon system. “The Navy’s receipt of the 2,000th Tomahawk Block IV provides the commander with a powerful tactical weapon to shape the battlespace and prosecute time-critical targets.”

Tomahawk Block IV’s technologies deliver a tactical capability while reducing acquisition, operation and support costs. Tomahawk Block IV employs a two-way satellite datalink that enables a strike controller to flex the missile in flight to preprogrammed alternate targets or redirect it to a new target. This targeting flexibility includes the capability to loiter over the battlefield and await a more critical target.

“The Tomahawk program continues to provide the U.S. Navy with the capability to project precision firepower across the breadth and depth of the battlespace while providing unprecedented flexibility to the commander,” informed Harry Schulte, vice president of Raytheon’s Air Warfare Systems product line. “With the dedication of our employees and suppliers, the Tomahawk program has set the standard in cruise missile capability.”

Raytheon Company, with 2009 sales of $25 billion, is a technology and innovation leader specializing in defense, homeland security and other government markets throughout the world. With a history of innovation spanning 88 years, Raytheon provides state-of-the-art electronics, mission systems integration and other capabilities in the areas of sensing; effects; and command, control, communications and intelligence systems, as well as a broad range of mission support services. With headquarters in Waltham, Mass., Raytheon employs 75,000 people worldwide.

U.K., France To Fund Tests On 40mm Cannon

The British and French governments have reached an agreement to fund the qualification of an extraordinary cased telescoped 40mm cannon and ammunition system earmarked for use on armored vehicle programs being pursued by both countries.

CTA International (CTAI), the BAE System/Nexter Systems joint venture that has developed the weapon system, informed in a statement the two governments had signed an 11 million pound ($17 million) deal to fund qualification of the cannon and ammunition.

The qualification work, designed to prove the weapon system is safe, effective and reliable, is planned for completion by early 2012. Britain and France adopted a common process to qualify the cannon and ammunition in early 2009 but have been haggling over the funding. The deal, which involves firing some 15,000 rounds, was finally signed Feb. 8.

The weapon system has already been mandated by the British for use on the scout variant of the Future Rapid Effects System (FRES) armored vehicle and an update to the in-service Warrior infantry fighting vehicle. France has earmarked the weapon for use on a future reconnaissance vehicle but has not formally selected the cannon.

The British Ministry of Defence’s Investment Approval Board is due to meet later this week to select the winner of the FRES specialist vehicles requirement and the Warrior capability sustainment program.

The FRES SV requirement includes some 245 CTAI cannon-equipped scout vehicles.

BAE is battling to secure both contracts. Its CV 90 is competing with General Dynamics UK’s ASCOD SV vehicle for the FRES requirement while it is contesting the Warrior upgrade with Lockheed Martin. The Warrior upgrade includes a new turret and gun.
Lockheed Martin is also designing the turret for the scout version of the ASCOD SV.

Advance in Technology

The Anglo-French CT40 weapon is a major break from conventional technology. CTAI officials have previously described it as the biggest advance in gun technology since the advent of rifling.

The projectile is placed inside its case with the propellant packed around it, giving the round the appearance of a large can of beer. CTAI informed the design halves the length of the round and improves the volumetric efficiency by 30 percent for a given level of performance.

The 40mm cannon itself is said to occupy the space of a conventional 25mm weapon inside the turret.

The CTAI design means ammunition is introduced to the gun from a static ammunition feeder into a rotating breech via a hollow trunnion, rather than from the rear in a conventional breech.

CTAI and Lockheed Martin are offering separate ammunition feeder designs.

Qualification of the new weapon system’s ammunition will initially cover armor-piercing, training and general-purpose rounds. A BAE spokesman informed a round with an airburst fuse will be qualified between six and nine months after the other ammunition types.

BAE’s Global Combat Systems-Munitions recently submitted proposals to the Ministry of Defence for series ammunition production proposals for the British military. Nexter is expected to follow with proposals for series ammunition production for France.

Both nations are expected to operate their own assembly and packing facilities, but the components, like the case and the projectile, will be sourced collectively by the two countries.

Bioterror Could Be Harmful For U.S.

Almost nine years after the 9/11 attacks that shocked the nation to its very core and exposed the inadequacies of U.S. defense, it still hasn’t reached acceptable standards. The Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism released a report card assessing the progress that the United States government has made in implementing the recommendations made by the Commission in its report “World at Risk” that was submitted at the end of 2008.

In December 2008 the Commission informed, “Unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013. That weapon is more likely to be biological than nuclear.” This statement though not meant to strike fear in the hearts of Americans, but rather to push for more protective and preventative measures is a cause for worry.

The Swine Flu is a perfect example of how quickly biological agents can travel and a vaccine was developed for it. “H1N1 came with months of warning. But even with time to prepare, the epidemic peaked before Americans had access to vaccine,” wrote the Commission. I don’t want to think of how fast one could travel that had the intention to cause harm. This statement from the Commission should have prompted action by the government. The Commission requested a year from the government to follow-up their recommendations and with the release of this report card, they found many disturbing facts. The government is not giving full attention to the biological threat.

They have improved on the nuclear weapons front but haven’t placed much credence on the biological agents. With all the continuous advancement of technology and scientific discoveries, this is a pressing issue. The U.S. received an “F,” indicating that no attention or action has been taken. The Commission said, “the lack of U.S. capability to rapidly recognize, respond, and recover from a biological attack is the most significant failure identified in this report card.” It says that there has been no plan to coordinate federal, state, and local actions.

Many deficiencies were identified in the report but none were as blatantly disregarded as bioterrorism. After 9/11, strict measures were put into place at airports and other transportation places. Do we need to have a biological attack before we institute preventative and protective plans? We shouldn’t be scrambling after the fact; more time and effort should be made before this happens. It is 2010, and the Commission is predicting that a biological attack will happen by the end of 2013. The government has less than three years to come up with and implement a plan that will prevent the loss of human life.

More attention should be delegated to this issue in order to protect all Americans. It is a serious issue and it should be treated as such.