Mil-Tech

Estonia to Buy 80 XA-188 APCs in its Largest Military Vehicle Procurement

Despite the relatively small amount of approximately €20 million, when compared to other major international defence deals, this one has a particular significance for Estonia. It is the country’s largest-ever procurement programme for military vehicles that will double the number of armoured vehicles in the Estonian Defence Forces. The deal for the purchase of 80 XA-188 armoured personnel carriers (APCs) from the Dutch Armed Forces was announced last week by the Estonian Ministry of Defence. However, it has not been signed, yet, as preliminary negotiations for the unit price, delivery terms and payment schedule are still in process. As the spokesman of the Defence Ministry, Peeter Kuimet, told defpro.com, a contract is expected to be signed within the next weeks.

According to national media, Defence Minister Jaak Aaviksoo said: “Compared with the current armoured carriers, these ones offer better protection, and the first carriers should reach Afghanistan this year for the use by the Estonian troops stationed there.” Estonia is contributing with currently 155 soldiers to the ISAF operation (the mandate allows for the deployment of up to 170 soldiers), mainly deployed to the southern province of Helmand. The county has lost eight soldiers in the course of the war – seven of which have died in combat – and reports 43 wounded soldiers.

Kuimet confirmed upon enquiry of defpro.com that an Estonian soldier died yesterday from his wounds after having stepped on an improvised explosive device (IED) during a patrol in the Helmand province. Although he was quickly medevaced his wounds were too severe and he died shortly after the incident.

In light of the increasing intensity of combat operations in Afghanistan, the Defence Ministry is seeking to improve the troops’ safety by sending more and better protected vehicles. In particular, road-side bombs and ambushes of insurgents, using small arms and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), have claimed nearly 2,000 coalition deaths in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001.

Estonia already purchased 60 XA-180EST armoured carriers, an older version of the vehicle, from Finland in 2004 for a total amount of €4 million. The country and joined NATO in 2004 and has since been in a process of modernising its Defence Forces in order to meet standards of the Alliance.

Some of the vehicles purchased in 2004 have been deployed to Afghanistan. According Kuimet, two of these older vehicles have been severely damaged in combat operations and had to be decommissioned. A further seven or eight vehicles were repaired in Estonia after having been damaged and send back to the troops in Afghanistan.

Before the new vehicles will be delivered by the Dutch Defence Materiel Organisation (Defensie Materieel Organisatie, DMO) to Estonia, the vehicles will be fully overhauled in the Netherlands. Whether this will be carried out by the Finnish manufacturer of the vehicles, Patria (the vehicles were originally built by SISU Auto), could not yet be confirmed by the Estonian Ministry of Defence. However, Kuimet stated that the vehicles will be delivered combat ready. The country has signed a maintenance agreement with Patria in 2004 in support of the then acquired XA-180EST armoured vehicles.

As soon as the vehicles have been accepted by the Estonian MoD, some of them will be deployed to Afghanistan. Deliveries are expected to start this year and to continue through 2015. The vehicles are intended to continue “mechanising the 1st Infantry Brigade and to offer their units in Afghanistan a better level of armoured protection,” Estonia Public Broadcasting reported last week.

By Nicolas von Kospoth
www.defpro.com

Army wants soldiers to have improved carbine

Soldiers, get ready for a better carbine. The Army has launched a dual strategy designed to give you a more accurate, durable and lethal weapon that will be the mainstay for the next 40 years.

The first part of that strategy is to radically overhaul the M4 starting now and give grunts an improved version of the special operations M4A1. Simultaneously, the second part challenges industry to come up with a new carbine that can outperform the M4. The competition opened in early August.

“This is an historic event. We have not done a carbine competition in our lifetimes,” Col. Douglas Tamilio, project manager for soldier weapons, told Army Times. His office is spearheading the M4 Carbine Improvement Program. “We don’t switch rifles and carbines too quickly, and it is not an easy thing.”

The M4 has faced some criticism from soldiers and others who have cited problems with its lethality and reliability, including a 2007 “dust” test in which the M4 performed the worst among four weapons tested, with the greatest number of stoppages.

Tamilio, a career infantry officer, said the weapon has “served the Army extremely well” and touted the 62 improvements made to the M4 in the past 19 years. But, he said, “We can’t sit on our laurels and say M4 is good enough.”

Deadlier weapon

The improvements have begun on thousands of M4s being built now, and thousands more will get conversion kits.

The upgrades will be done in phases. The improvement plan’s first phase essentially distributes an improved M4A1, which is notable for its heavier barrel and automatic fire. The heavier barrel reduces warping and erosion, resulting in better performance and longer life. It also allows for a higher sustained rate of fire.

The Army also is adding ambidextrous controls.

The Army has 12,000 M4s on the production line, and has told manufacturer Colt to turn them into A1s, said Brig. Gen. Peter Fuller, Program Executive Office Soldier.

In addition, 25,000 M4A1s would be purchased beyond existing contracts, as well as roughly 65,000 conversion kits, Tamilio said.

“The Army would like to convert about 150,000 in the near term for infantry brigade combat teams,” he said. The optimal plan would be to convert all the M4s, he added, but funding will be a large factor in that decision.

More changes external to the weapon are also improving its reliability and lethality, Fuller said.

Soldiers will experience fewer jams, thanks to a new magazine that doesn’t allow rounds to move, he said.

And the new M855 A1 ammo provides more stopping power at shorter distances. The older round had to get into a yaw dependency for maximum effect. If it hit the enemy straight, it would punch right through them. The new ammo is not yaw dependent. If it hits the enemy, he is going down.

Many combat vets surveyed in 2006 described how enemy soldiers were shot multiple times but were still able to continue fighting. The survey included 2,600 soldiers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One in five U.S. soldiers polled recommended a more lethal round. The new round is designed to address that.

“It’s not enhanced performance, it’s consistent performance,” Fuller said. “It really performs the way you want a round to perform, and it’s optimized to the M4.”

Better accuracy

The second phase of the M4 improvement program begins this fall and will focus on increasing the M4’s effectiveness and accuracy, with emphasis on the bolt, bolt carrier assembly and the forward rail assembly.

Over time, reliability will degrade with the bolt, as that component provides the weapon’s action. Officials will host an open competition for a new bolt assembly to determine whether different materials and coatings can enhance the bolt. The Army also is interested in “unique design changes” that have arisen within the industry, Tamilio said.

The service also looks to strengthen the forward rail assembly on top of the receiver. This lends stability to the weapon and serves as the mount for weapon attachments, but restricts the barrel movement that is required for accuracy when re-engaging the target. The Army wants to determine whether a free-floating rail is the answer.

Officials also will look to provide a more consistent trigger pull for better control, according to a June Congressional Research Service report.

New operating system

The third phase, focusing on the operating system, will begin in about 18 months, Tamilio said. The goal is to improve the gas system by allowing less gas and dirt in, or replacing it with a conversion kit similar to the HNK16 that would put a piston in the M4.

Both have their benefits and detractors, the colonel said. The piston reduces the number of moving parts and provides better stability, but there is “a little more metal on metal,” which can diminish durability and accelerate fatigue.

A gas-impingement system is far smoother in operation, and supporters say its reduced heat and carbon deposits will decrease malfunctions. But the gas system requires a lot more elbow grease to get it clean.

The 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta, or “Delta Force,” replaced its M4s with the HK416 in 2004, according to the congressional report. That weapon combines the operating characteristics of the M4 with the piston system.

“There’s a lot of dynamics involved,” Fuller said. “When you go to a piston charger, you’re actually driving that bolt down at an angle versus back, so you have to make sure you understand it might not be the same weapon.”

The next carbine

The competition for the Army’s next-generation carbine opened in early August, and the service is looking for the “future Army weapon for any environment,” Fuller said.

The Army’s open, industrywide Individual Carbine Competition was approved Aug. 4 by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.

No caliber restriction has been placed on a new design. The requirements, instead, are for the most reliable, accurate, durable, easy-to-use and easy-to-maintain weapon out there, Tamilio said.

It will be at least a 500-meter weapon and have a higher incapacitation percentage, meaning if a shot doesn’t kill the enemy, it will put a serious dent in his medical record.

This weapon will be modular and able to carry all the existing attachments soldiers use.

It can have a gas or piston system.

Interchangeable barrel sizes, such as those seen in the SCAR, are not a “must have,” but “certainly won’t be a negative thing,” Tamilio said.

But above all, Fuller wants a weapon that has the soldiers’ approval.

“We really need to figure out lethality from a ‘soldier in the loop’ perspective,” he said. “If you can’t shoot the weapon accurately, it doesn’t matter how lethal it is.”

To meet that goal, Tamilio will release a draft request for proposal late this year. It is a warning order of sorts that will give industry a preliminary idea of what is expected. An industry day will follow in which officials will answer questions and provide clarity.

The official RfP will go out early next year, in the second quarter of fiscal 2011, which begins in January. Manufacturers will have a set time, typically a few months, to respond with their proposed weapons.

Next comes the “extreme, extensive testing” and selection of the weapons, Tamilio said.

During testing, hundreds of thousand of rounds will be fired over 12 to 18 months as weapons are tested to their destruction point. The primary goal is to determine if they meet Army specifications. But evaluators also will know whether a weapon can live up to its manufacturer’s claims.

“If they say it has a barrel life up to 20,000 rounds, we’ll test to that,” Tamilio said.

Weapons will also be tested to see if they maintain accuracy throughout their life cycle — something the military has not tested before, Tamilio said. A weapon typically loses accuracy as it ages.

“This is a huge importance for us,” he said.

Soldiers will be involved in virtually all aspects of this testing, Tamilio said. From the individual to unit, he said the tests will focus on what soldiers really care about: “When he pulls the trigger, it fires in a reliable fashion, and what he aims at, he hits.”

Mixed reviews

Investing in an improved M4 has met some opposition.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in April 2007 asked Army leadership why the service planned to spend $375 million on the carbine through fiscal 2009 “without considering newer and possibly better weapons available on the commercial market.” The senator’s letter questioned the M4’s reliability and lethality and called for a “free and open competition” to evaluate alternatives.

Nevertheless, improvements have been recommended from within the service. The Army Infantry Center in a Small Arms Capabilities-Based Assessment in 2008 identified 42 separate ideas for material solutions to address capability gaps. Thirteen solutions called for new or improved munitions, and 10 involved aiming devices, optics or laser designators. Only seven suggested modifying or developing new small arms.

After-action reports from soldiers both praise and criticize the M4’s reliability and lethality. The mixed reviews are reflected in the congressional report:

• A February 2001 U.S. Special Operations Command study said the M4A1 was “fundamentally flawed” and suffered “alarming failures … in operations under the harsh conditions and heavy firing schedules common in [special operations forces] training and operations.”

• An Army report from July 2003 on small arms performance during Operation Iraqi Freedom found the M4 was “by far the preferred individual weapon across the theater of operations.”

• A December 2006 survey requested by Army’s Project Manager for Soldier Weapons and conducted by the Center for Naval Analyses polled 2,600 soldiers who had engaged in combat action in Iraq or Afghanistan. More than half said they never experienced a stoppage in the M4 or M16.

The study found that the frequency of disassembled cleaning did not affect the number of stoppages. The type and amount of lubrication used had little effect on stoppages, though dry lubricant decreased reports for M4 stoppages. Nearly nine in 10 soldiers said they were satisfied with the M4.
• A December 2007 test — resulting from Coburn’s letter — evaluated the M4 against the HK416, the HK XM8 and the FNH SCAR. Each system had 10 weapons on the line, and each fired 6,000 rounds under sandstorm conditions. The XM8 had 127 stoppages, the SCAR had 226 stoppages, the HK416 had 233 stoppages and the M4 had 882 stoppages. The Army later modified that number to 296 stoppages, attributing the difference to discrepancies in the test and scoring.
When you’ll get it

A new weapon could be selected by the end of 2011. How long it would take to field a new weapon would depend on funding. Fielding could start fairly quickly, but will take up to 10 years, Tamilio said.

No cost estimate of producing a new weapon is available from the Army, as the dozens of potential manufacturers have yet to receive specifications and generate the subsequent design.

By Aug. 19, the Army had 41 respondents to its market survey, Tamilio said.

“Industry is waiting for this,” he said. “They are excited about this … and that’s exactly what we want.”

How the dual-path strategy unfolds remains to be seen, but it means every soldier should be getting a better carbine.

That’s because there are 1.1 million soldiers, but only 500,000 M4s in the system. If the Army selects a new carbine, it may purchase 1.1 million. But a more likely scenario would see 500,000 purchased for infantry brigade combat teams, and the existing and improved M4s given to support troops to replace their M16s.

If the M4 turns out to be the weapon of choice, then the ICBTs will likely be fitted with the improved M4s, and the existing M4s would again be given to support troops to replace their M16s.

For soldiers “consistently using that M4 and satisfied with that M4, to know the Army is going out there to get you something better … that’s pretty damn exciting,” Tamilio said. “And that’s only going to make you more effective on the battlefield.”

www.armytimes.com

Chico State program making cheap robot

CHICO — Providing the military with a robot it can afford to lose in combat is the aim of a program at Chico State University headed by Nick Repanich, an adjunct research professor in engineering.

Repanich said robots, often costing in the millions, would be used more by the military if they weren’t so expensive.

Despite their cost, they’re pretty vulnerable to explosives and even small arms fire.

Starting with a Kubota utility vehicle he bought off the lot of a dealer in Chico, Repanich and a handful of students believe they’ve developed a robot that would be effective in surveillance and security applications — such as heading a convoy of manned vehicles in Iraq or Afghanistan — for a price tag of about $50,000.

With a reliable remote control operating range of at least a mile, Repanich said the vehicle could be effectively driven by personnel far back in a convoy. Cameras looking for improvised explosive devices, and any other dangers that might threaten the convoy, could also be controlled and monitored from a distance.

Jason Coates, an engineer with the project, said a recent demonstration showed that the remote control range of the robot is actually much farther than expected.

He said the robot, which was at University Farm on Hegan Lane, was precisely controlled from a location in Livermore, at least 150 miles away.

Coates said there was no lag in the video image being sent by cameras mounted on the robot, and no lag
Advertisement in commands being sent through a laptop computer. “Everything was in real time,” he said.

Repanich said hitting an improvised explosive device would likely destroy the robot vehicle. But he noted that would be less costly and far preferable to having personnel killed or wounded.

The vehicle can also be driven from the passenger compartment. It will carry two people, and gear weighing as much as 1,200 pounds, Repanich said. For the sake of the sensitive communications equipment it would carry, and not so much for passengers, Repanich said the vehicle is air conditioned.

Cameras and communications equipment for the machine are off-the-shelf and relatively cheap, he said.

The development team would like to market the robot to the military and go into production of the machines. Repanich said he would like to get an order for at least 10 of the robots, and said inquiries about them have also come from police bomb squad operations.

Coates said the robot could have other applications such as being used in the farming industry to apply herbicides and insecticides.

He said seven or eight smaller versions of the robots, also developed at Chico State University, are currently being used at nuclear power plants to enter areas as needed and locate radiation leaks.

He said the robots could be decontaminated to a degree, but at relatively low cost he said users might opt to consider robots exposed to radiation as disposable.

The program at Chico State, which has also produced smaller robots from radio controlled cars, operates under supervision of the school’s California Mechatronics Center, which is supported by the CSU Chico Research Foundation, and is associated with Lawrence Livermore Laboratories in Berkeley.

Students are paid through the CMC for working on the robots. Well-known scientist and KGO talk show host Bill Wattenburg, a Chico State graduate, is also associated with the program. Wattenburg has seen the robot demonstrated and was impressed with its capabilities. “He’s always supported our work,” Coates said.

SCAR Seeks Salvation

U.S. SOCOM (Special Operations Command) has bought 1,600 of its new SCAR assault rifles, and is sending most of them to Afghanistan for further testing. SOCOM spent $19 million developing SCAR, in cooperation with Belgian weapons manufacturer FN (which has set up a SCAR manufacturing plant in the United States). FN hopes to get orders to produce at least 10,000 more SCAR rifles. FN had originally hoped to built a lot more SCARs. But field tests in Afghanistan have, so far, not been as encouraging as hoped. Enthusiastic SOCOM acceptance of SCAR is important, because that could encourage others (both domestic and foreign) to adopt it. If FN and SCAR got real lucky, millions of these rifles could be sold. But at the moment, FN is facing potential sales in the low thousands.

SOCOM has lost some of its enthusiasm for SCAR and decided that the M-16 and M-4 aren’t so inferior after all. That’s because last year, SARC was issued to a battalion of U.S. Army Rangers headed for Afghanistan. This was the first big combat test for SCAR, which had completed field testing in 2007. The rangers found SCAR to be, in most cases, as good as the M-16s and M-4s it replaced, but not markedly superior. As a result, SOCOM backed off on its plans to replace all M-16s and M-4s with SCAR weapons. Meanwhile, SOCOM has given FN another list of needed tweaks for SCAR, and an order for 40mm grenade launchers for SCAR.

SCAR was part of several recent attempts to develop a replacement for the M-16, if only because the M-16 has been in use longer (nearly half a century) than any other American infantry weapon. What advocates for a new rifle, and critics of the M-16/4 fail to take into account is that the rifle has undergone numerous tweaks and improvements since the 1960s. Most telling, surveys of combat users report that the weapon works, and that they are satisfied with it. Sure, the troops would like something new and exciting, but not at the expense of ruggedness and reliability. That’s what hurt SCAR, where combat use revealed some unforeseen quirks. This happened while in the hands of a lot of troops who had used M-16s in combat, and now wanted them back. Combat troops tend to be very wary of new technology, especially if it’s supposed to replace something that, well, works. It’s a matter of self-preservation. New is nice, but not if it gets you killed.

SCAR (Special operations forces Combat Assault Rifle) was a SOCOM (Special Operations Command) effort to develop a new assault rifle that had some of the characteristics of the (now abandoned) U.S. Army XM-8 rifle. SOCOM had the money, and authority to develop their own weapons. And SCAR is mainly for use by SOCOM troops. SOCOM wanted a weapon that did everything the XM-8 did, and a little more.

Back in 2003, SOCOM asked rifle manufacturers to submit proposals, and FN (a Belgian firm) came up with the best ideas. One advantage FN has was its ability to quickly implement requests for design changes. FN’s rapid prototyping shop was often able to turn out a new part in hours. This, and FN’s long history of good weapons design, gave them the edge. SCAR has a more reliable short-stroke, gas piston operating system, and a floating barrel for better accuracy, plus several other improvements over the current M-4/M-16.

There are two basic models of the weapon. The 5.56mm SCAR-L weighs 3.5 kg/7.7 pounds (empty), while the 7.62mm SCAR-H weighs 3.9 kg/8.5 pounds (empty). A 30 round 5.56mm magazine weighs a little under 450 grams/one pound, while a 20 round magazine of 7.62mm ammo weighs nearly half a kilogram (a little over a pound). Special sights can weigh up to a kilogram, so a fully loaded SCAR won’t weigh much more than 4.6 kg/ ten pounds. FN also came up with a grenade launcher for SCAR. So far, SOCOM has ordered 850 SCAR-L and 750 SCAR-H.

Both models operate the same way, and have many interchangeable parts. SCAR-L is basically a replacement for the M4, which was designed (with a shorter barrel) as a “close combat” version of the M16. The SCAR-H was to also replace the M14, a 1950s era 7.62mm weapon (a replacement for the World War II M1) that is still favored for long range and sniper work. The SCAR design is the result of much feedback from the field. For example, the rate of fire was lowered to 600 RPM (rounds per minute) from the 800 typical with the M14 and M16. This makes SCAR easier to hold on target when firing full auto.

SCAR-H can be quickly converted to fire AK-47 ammo (the 7.62×39 round) with a change out of the barrel and receiver. Both models can be fitted with a longer and heavier sniper barrel. Thus this ability to quickly change the barrel length enables the SOCOM to equip their troops with the specific weapon they need. SCAR is also built to be more rugged than the M-16. The barrel is good for some 36,000 rounds, twice as many as the M-16. Barrels may be switched by users without special tools. Both models of SCAR take all the special sights and other accessories SOCOM troops favor. SCAR is meant to be easily modified and personalized for each user. It’s expected that SOCOM experience with SCAR will influence the next generation of U.S. Army and Marine Corps small arms.

SOCOM has not given up on SCAR, but it cannot ignore the fact that many of its troops are not yet ready to give up on old reliable. Other nations are having the same problem. No one has really come up with a replacement for the M-16. Even the AK-47 was replaced, in Russian service, by an M-16 type weapon. Same with most other AK-47 users, especially after the Cold War ended. The M-16 still has a lot of problems, but lack of popularity among combat troops is not one of them.

www.strategypage.com

Blackwater Reaches Deal on U.S. Export Violations

The private security company formerly called Blackwater Worldwide, long plagued by accusations of impropriety, has reached an agreement with the State Department for the company to pay $42 million in fines for hundreds of violations of United States export control regulations.

The violations included illegal weapons exports to Afghanistan, making unauthorized proposals to train troops in south Sudan and providing sniper training for Taiwanese police officers, according to company and government officials familiar with the deal.

The settlement, which has not yet been publicly announced, follows lengthy talks between Blackwater, now called Xe Services, and the State Department that dealt with the violations as an administrative matter, allowing the firm to avoid criminal charges. A company spokeswoman confirmed Friday that a settlement had been reached. The State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley, said he could not immediately comment.

The settlement with the State Department does not resolve other legal troubles still facing Blackwater and its former executives and other personnel. Those include the indictments of five former executives, including Blackwater’s former president, on weapons and obstruction charges; a federal investigation into evidence that Blackwater officials sought to bribe Iraqi government officials; and the arrest of two former Blackwater guards on federal murder charges stemming from the killing of two Afghans last year.

But by paying fines rather than facing criminal charges on the export violations, Blackwater will be able to continue to obtain government contracts. While the company lost its largest federal contract last year to provide diplomatic security for United States Embassy personnel in Baghdad, where the Iraqi government was incensed by killings of Iraqis in one highly publicized case, it still has contracts to provide security for the State Department and the C.I.A. in Afghanistan.

Blackwater, its reputation tainted in part because of the excessive use of force by some of its personnel in Baghdad, sought for years to extend its reach far beyond the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.

For a time, the company’s founder, Erik Prince, had ambitions to turn Blackwater into an informal arm of the American foreign policy and national security apparatus, and proposed to the C.I.A. to create a “quick reaction force” that could handle paramilitary operations for the spy agency around the world. He had hopes that Blackwater’s military prowess could be an influential force in regional conflicts around the world.

Mr. Prince, a former Navy Seals member and the heir to an auto parts fortune, took an interest in Africa, particularly Sudan, and he is said to have wanted Blackwater to step in to help the rebels in southern Sudan, which is predominantly Christian and animist, fight the Sudanese government and the Muslim north, despite United States economic sanctions.

Blackwater’s ambitions in Sudan were described in detail by McClatchy newspapers in June.

The settlement with the State Department, involving practices from the days before Blackwater was rebranded as Xe Services, comes as Mr. Prince is trying to shed his ties to Blackwater and its past activities.

He overhauled the company’s management in 2009, changed its name, and has now put the privately held company up for sale. He has just moved with his family to Abu Dhabi from the United States, a move that colleagues say was a result of his deep anger and frustration over the intense scrutiny he and his firm have received in recent years.

The State Department export controls require government approval for the transfer of certain types of military technology or knowledge from the United States to other countries. But Blackwater began to seek training contracts from foreign governments and other foreign organizations without adhering closely to American regulations.

The company also shipped automatic weapons and other military equipment for use by its personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan in violation of export controls, and in some cases sought to hide its actions, according to the government. In one incident, Blackwater shipped weapons to Iraq hidden inside containers of dog food.

A federal investigation into the company’s weapons shipments to Iraq led to guilty pleas on criminal charges by two former Blackwater employees who are believed to have cooperated with a broader federal inquiry.

Investigators reportedly looked into whether some of the weapons that were shipped to Iraq were sold on the black market and ended up in the hands of a Kurdish rebel group, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or P.K.K., which Turkey considers a terrorist organization. Turkish officials reportedly complained to the United States about American weapons seized from the group.

In 2008, after a federal investigation of Blackwater’s actions was begun, the company admitted “numerous mistakes” in its adherence to export laws and created an outside board of experts to supervise the firm’s compliance.

Current and former government officials say that the government’s inquiry into some of Blackwater’s export control violations began as part of a federal grand jury investigation in North Carolina, where Blackwater is based. But the matter was apparently shifted to the State Department when the criminal investigation in North Carolina narrowed its focus.

That grand jury handed down the indictments of the five former Blackwater executives earlier this year. That indictment includes charges that Blackwater executives sought to hide evidence that they had given weapons as gifts to King Abdullah of Jordan.

Despite the fines and investigations that have plagued Blackwater, the firm has continued to win contracts from the State Department and the C.I.A.

In June, the State Department awarded Blackwater a $120 million contract to provide security at its regional offices in Afghanistan, while the C.I.A. renewed the firm’s $100 million security contract for its station in Kabul. At the time, the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, defended the decision, saying that the company had offered the lowest bid and had “cleaned up its act.”

www.nytimes.com

Defense jobs face shift from wartime footing

Central Florida’s two biggest military contractors – Lockheed Martin Corp. and Harris Corp. – have received billions of dollars in contracts during the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, yet their employment levels have remained nearly at a standstill.

Although both companies have made many new hires — engineers, technicians and financial analysts, to name a few — they say the added employees have generally been offset by retiring baby boomers and other forms of attrition.

As a result, after more than eight years of war-time work on multibillion-dollar military systems, their work-force totals in Central Florida are almost unchanged — or, in Harris’ case, down about 7 percent.

If the number of people working for the two companies hasn’t grown during almost a decade of war-time spending, what might happen in leaner times, as the Pentagon ratchets back its $700 billion-a-year budget?

Get the day’s top stories in your inbox. Click here to sign up for the Midday Update newsletter

The answer to that question matters a lot in tourism-dependent Central Florida, which continues to look to high-wage, high-technology companies to provide badly needed economic diversification.

Lockheed and Harris say they have managed their work forces efficiently and conservatively as the U.S. has fought wars in two far-away countries, resisting the urge to over-hire or over-react to the ebb and flow of military orders.

Even before U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned last year that the war-time spending “spigot” would soon be closing, Lockheed was working on cost savings, said Ken Ross, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin Global Training & Logistics in Orlando.

“We feel that really we got the jump on this,” he said. “We’ve been looking for ways to do things much more affordably for our customers.”

Lockheed has closely matched its staff to its current workload and the program bids it expects to win, Ross said. (Lockheed’s Central Florida operations have received contracts worth about $1 billion so far this year.)

“We have not been in a situation yet where we’ve been able to really staff up,” he said. “But we have been able to fill the openings we have.”

Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed has about 4,500 workers in its Orlando missiles and fire-control unit and nearly 2,000 in its simulation-training operation. Melbourne-based Harris employs more than 6,500 in Melbourne and Palm Bay.

They each make high-tech systems considered key to military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, such as missiles and weapons-firing equipment for Apache helicopters (Lockheed Missiles & Fire Control), high-tech armored-vehicle training for tank and convoy personnel (Lockheed Global Training), and fighter-jet avionics and battlefield-command satellite communications (Harris).

Their wide-ranging operations for the military have sustained their work forces despite the nation’s economic woes — no small feat, say experts, given the loss of more than one million jobs nationwide in the Great Recession.

“If their employment base has been stable through all of this, then they are certainly better off than many industries that have been in decline,” said Paul Taibl, vice president of the Business Executives for National Security, a Washington-based defense-and-intelligence think tank. “This would have to be a case of the cup half full.”

There are some signs of cracks forming in the local employment picture, however.

Lockheed laid off 90 engineers last month in its Orlando missiles and fire-control operation — the first layoffs there in a decade. The company cited competitive pressures and shifting military requirements, among other factors. During the past year or so, Lockheed has also trimmed nearly 100 jobs from its local high-tech training and information-technology operations.

Harris streamlined its work force last year, laying off more than 100 people and eliminating another 300 jobs vacated by retirement or other attrition.

Both companies say no further job cuts are planned. And even with the layoffs, they have each continued to fill certain openings, often with newly minted engineering graduates.

“We take a long-term view of work-force development,” said Craig Vanbebber, spokesman for Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control. “That applies to recruiting and mentoring college students. All of those initiatives have continued on track.”

Lockheed Missiles & Fire Control units in Orlando and Texas are working on new technologies that could eventually lead to job growth, he said. For example, the Orlando unit recently won a $1.1 million contract to develop “wearable robotics” — computerized hydraulic “suits” that enable soldiers to carry extraordinary amounts of gear on the battlefield.

Harris said it expects its employment to remain stable for the foreseeable future. In many cases, it moves workers from programs that are winding down to others in which activity is picking up, spokesman Jim Burke said.

He cited as an example a non-military program, Harris’ Census Bureau communications systems, in which the workload has subsided as the government’s nationwide census wraps up its collection phase.

“Some of those employees are shifting onto new programs that are ramping up, which we’ve won during the past year,” he said. “That has always been one of our strengths employment-wise.”

So far this year, Harris has won more than two-dozen military and non-military government contracts worth more than $1 billion combined. More than one-third of the programs are tied to its Melbourne and Palm Bay operations, including satellite commmunications, missile-defense radios and fighter-jet avionics.

But both Harris and Lockheed will be challenged in the months and years ahead as more Pentagon budget cuts take effect, said Taibl, the Washington think-tank official.

“Overall, the outlook for defense spending will be either flat or on a slow decline,” he said. “What we’re seeing right now is probably the tip of the iceberg in terms of cuts the Pentagon is going to have to make.”

www.orlandosentinel.com

R29m more for SA rocket killer

The SA Army has invested a further R28.9 million to develop “a local active protection system” hat can intercept rocket propelled grenades (RPG), missiles and even fin-stabilised long-rod penetrators rounds fired by tanks.

The R28 946 305.66 contact was handed Denel Dynamics last Wednesday. The company, SAAB SA and, Reutech Radar Systems (RRS), Rheinmetall Denel Munitions (RDM) have been working on the technology for about a decade. Denel Dynamics CE Jan Wessels in 2008 told the Engineering News active protection was a domain that had opened up from about 2003 “in peacekeeping and asymmetrical warfare situations around the world, with Iraq and Afghanistan being prime examples.”

In these operations, it is often impossible to distinguish between civilians and irregular combatants until the latter unveil their weapons. And by then they may be very close. Wessels noted that today almost every armed faction has RPGs and many groups have access to more sophisticated and powerful anti-armour missiles. “So they can attack and disable, even destroy, the most sophisticated and expensive vehicles,” he told Keith Campbell.

“We now have a product which we have named Mongoose, which is a small missile that gets fired at the incoming RPG or missile and actually destroys it before it hits the vehicle or other asset (like a command post) being protected by Mongoose. Now you can understand that this is a radically new type of technology, a new type of product. This is an example of a technology that is very beneficial in the current situation – for example, when our forces are deployed in peacekeeping operations in the future, this will be a very valuable lifesaver and equipment saver.”

Mongoose is currently the “hardkill” or “active” component in the SAAB Avitronics Land Electronic Defence System (LEDS). Wessels told defenceWeb earlier this year RRS provide the sensor, Denel Dynamics and RDM the Mongoose missile, and SAAB the overall system.

The system consists of a brain called an active defence controller (ADC), a set of sensors, a high-speed directed launcher (HSDL) and countermeasure options ranging from fast deploying multi-spectral smoke and decoys (soft-kill) to rockets (hard-kill munitions) to destroy incoming threats. “It is a unique system,” said Wilfred Moore, Saab Avitronics’ senior executive, marketing and sales in 2006. The control computer, which has a global positioning system capability, integrates with the vehicle intercom and its command and control system. It also draws data from the vehicle wind sensor.

The basic LEDS 50 warns the crew of a vehicle fitted with the system that they are in the beam of a laser. In the military environment, lasers are used to designate targets for artillery and antitank guided munitions, as well as for range finding. The system can deal with up to eight threats simultaneously, while providing analysis on the nature of the threat based on the spectral band used.

LEDS 100 adds jammers and decoys, while LEDS 150 adds the Mongoose counter-munition. LEDS 100 confuses enemy weapons operators and incoming rounds by deploying smoke in their line of sight or flight, hiding the target vehicle. The smoke and an optional infra-red jammer interfere with the acquisition and/or tracking, ranging, launching or guidance of a hostile weapon. The system provides automated warning to the vehicle’s occupants and “dynamically and intelligently screens the vehicle from attack in any direction (including above) in less than 700 milliseconds,” a SAAB official said at African Aerospace and Defence in September 2004. The screen obscures the attackers’ line of sight and gives the vehicle and its occupants to get behind cover. The screen is multispectral and cannot be penetrated by lasers or thermal imagers of the type used to guide weapons. Unlike some comparable systems abroad, one does not have to turn the vehicle or its turret to defeat the threat. “This is achieved by the use of a high-speed directed launcher. The launcher moves extremely fast and can turn to any position in the protected hemisphere in less than 100 milliseconds,” the official added.

LEDS 150 claims to destroy incoming RPG-7 rounds and antitank guided munitions with Mongoose at ranges as close as within 20 metres of the launch vehicle, allowing it to intercept rounds fired “from across the street”. Moore said this would be put to the test in late 2007 in what are called “full dynamic trials”, meaning LEDS would have to detect the rocket travelling at 300 metres per second and fire back within a bare fraction of a single second if the round is not to hit the vehicle. Moore said no other system in use has that ability, and tests prove it: On January 24, 2006, a Mongoose intercepted and destroyed a 105mm high explosive round fired from a tank at a muzzle velocity of 683 metres per second. In a previous test series, three Mongoose hit three fin-stabilised rods travelling at close to 1500 metres per second, breaking their fins and deflecting them from their flight path with concentrated blasts, forcing them to smash into the ground within 150m of the point they were to hit, Moore added. Mongoose should also be able to defeat rounds fired from anti-tank guns and even artillery shells, as well as anti-armour missiles. LEDS can also be used aboard ships and smaller vessels.

Indications are the Mongoose can also be delivered as a light precision guided missile from an unmanned aerial vehicle or light aircraft.

The SA Army has invested substantial amounts of money in the project in recent years: In March 2007 it awarded Denel Dynamics R720 205 for a local active protection system technology maturity study, and in August 2007 R17 192 301 for “active protection system technology establishment”. In October 2008 it added R526 315 for he same purpose and in March this year a further R712 716.46, amounting to R19 151 537.46. Last week’s contract takes the value of “hardkill” work since 2007 to R48 097 843.12. Indications are the latest infusion of money is for R&D work on “more challenging threat scenarios” than those that fit the Mongoose I profile.

More US-NATO Military Bases: US Armed Forces in Central Asia

The US plans to build military training centers in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. First these plans were announced last year and they received a wide response because earlier it had been announced that a Russian military base would be built in the south of Kyrgyzstan. Now Pentagon is not going to confine itself with Kyrgyzstan and plans to build military facilities on the territory of five states of the region. It implies the redeployment of part of military infrastructure of the US from Afghanistan to the former Soviet Central Asia and Kazakhstan and also the construction of NATO facilities there.

According to “EurasiaNet” (an internet-portal financed by George Soros), US Central Command’s counter-narcotics fund was to allocate more than $40 million for the construction of military training centers in the cities of Osh (Kyrgyzstan) and Karatoga (Tajikistan), a canine center and helicopter hangar near the city of Alma-Ata (Kazakhstan) as well as for the strengthening of border check points in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan.

Pentagon estimates the construction of each border check point at $5-10 million. The location of the US border check point in Uzbekistan is not disclosed out but the location of the check points in Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan is quite remarkable. The Serahs check point (Turkmenistan) is on the border with Iran and the Kyrgyz check point (where the modernization of electricity supply and water supply and sewerage system is planned) – near Batken. Both check points are of geo strategical importance – first in case of a war between the US and Iran and second – in case of destabilization of the political situation in this part of the Fergana Valley like it was in 1999-2000 during the invasion of Islamic movement of Uzbekistan (IMU).

In Kazakhstan the US plans to build a new helicopter hangar near the city of Alma-Ata, a canine center and a center for inspection of transport vehicles, with the total construction costs amounting to $10 million. In Tajikistan the Americans plans to build a military training center in Karatoga (not far from the capital of Dushanbe) for Tajik servicemen. There they plan to practice combat actions in city conditions of a city and to train sharpshooters/spotters. The construction costs are estimated at $10 million. A similar center worth $ 5.5 million for practicing different kinds of combat actions in the course of border and counterterrorist operations should be built in the Kyrgyz city of Batken.

It has been known about the US plans to strengthen its military presence in Central Asia since last autumn when the Northern supply route through Russia began to function alongside with the transport route from Pakistan. It is known that Pentagon is working on the plan to deploy elite units of its special troops in Central Asia namely four battalions of the 3rd Special forces (airborne) group which has a long experience of fighting in Afghanistan.

In addition to Central Asia the US plans to deploy its forces in Southern Caucasus – in particular early warning radars in Georgia. It is expected that besides the radars Pentagon may locate a land military base and a naval base in Georgia with 25,000 servicemen.

Finally Pentagon is to build a special operations complex in Afghanistan near the Uzbek border worth $100 million. The complex with the area of 6 hectares will be located in Mazar-i-Sharif, 275 km north-west from Kabul and 56 km south from the Uzbek city of Termez. In 18 months the Americans are to build a united operational center, residential blocks, a communication hub, a center for tactical operations, storage facilities, a training center, a medical center, repair facilities a center for logistics, a canteen, recreation facilities and a doghouse. They plan to put the complex into operation in late 2012 early 2012. In longer perspective 2012-2016 the US Central Command plans to allocate another $3.8 billion on the construction of military facilities in the countries of the Middle East and Central Asia.

Even a brief look at the deployment of the US military objects shows that it almost fully repeats the geography of “the Eurasian Balkans” of Z. Brzezinski, who gave this geopolitical region a decisive role in fighting Russia on “the Grand Chessboard”. By locating its special troops, surveillance equipment and other forces in Central Asia and in the Caucasus after the withdrawal of its troops from Afghanistan in 2011 the US will ensure its military presence right besides Russia’s “belly” near the northern border of Iran and the western border of China. Here the Americans plan to deploy an intelligence network which will ensure control over the situation in the most important points of Eurasia.

New military base ‘we can be proud of’

A £690 million military communications base which is being built in the West is near completion.

The base, at Corsham in Wiltshire, will house the Defence Equipment and Support’s Information Systems and Services (DE and SISS), which deals with all aspects of armed forces communication. The team is currently spread across a number of sites, but the £690 million Corsham New Environment (CNE) Programme will unite the team in one location at Basil Hill.

The new modern office complex will provide 1,874 new workspaces.

Alongside the new offices, the programme will build new living accommodation at the site to house 180 service personnel, and a sports hall with improved facilities is also under construction.

Once completed, the site will enable the MoD to sell off the older buildings they are currently using.

Haydn Fowler, deputy head of the CNE, said: “By moving on to one site, we gain financial efficiencies and we can release some properties into the market place that the MoD no longer needs. We also become more efficient and effective, reducing duplication of roles and improving communication between teams.

“The co-location of living accommodation and technical facilities at Basil Hill reflects the operational nature of the site. The Global Operations Security Control Centre (GOSCC) manages all defence communication channels 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, including those which support operational theatres and keep them connected to the UK.

“In operational terms, ISS are responsible for delivering the kit that our Armed Forces need, including all the latest communications systems required for hostile environments such as Afghanistan.”

The site’s critical operational role, and the implication of any breaks in communications in theatre, has presented some challenges for the redevelopment project.

Mr Fowler added: “During construction, we must ensure that nothing goes down in the event of a power cut. So we’re quite worried about the diggers going into certain areas, because of the cables they might cut. We work very closely with the DE team on this, to make sure it can’t happen.

“We’re at the stage where the roofs and the floors are done now, so it’s down to details. That means the smaller parts of the programme must all be wired up in time with the construction – and that includes lots of things that could potentially trip us up, such as telephones and computers.”

Rugged radio designers for military applications focus on improving the networking, building tiny radios

Designers of rugged radios for military communications are focusing their efforts on improving the warfighter network, while at the same time creating radio communications technologies that are more efficient in terms of size, weight, and power.

“Today it is all about the network,” says Joe Miller, director of Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) Ground Domain for General Dynamics C4 Systems in Scottsdale, Ariz. “Current operations demand better communications and warfighters need more bandwidth across secure seamless pipes. Networks must self form and auto route communications all without the benefit of fixed infrastructure — no cell towers. Real-time communications and situational awareness are critical, and current operations in rugged remote regions of the world require new networking technologies.

“However, the network is just an enabler,” Miller continues. “The value lies in applications that run on the network. Applications provide information and intelligence that improves safety, increases effectiveness, and multiplies lethality.”

The funding trends out of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) also are pushing toward a more efficient network, says Steve Marschilok, president of Department of Defense Business at Harris RF Communications in Rochester, N.Y. “The market and funding trends for military radios in the DOD are transitioning to wideband requirements as there is a pent-up demand for more and more data at the lowest echelons on the battlefield. Much like the commercial world, data intensive applications like biometrics, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), video, logistics are driving an increasing need for bandwidth.”

Falcon III AN/PRC-117G
Harris is meeting this demand with their Falcon III AN/PRC-117G, which is “the first wideband tactical radio that is both compliant with the JTRS Software Communications Architecture and NSA Type-1 certified,” Marschilok says. This radio has been deployed by the U.S. Army and other services to mission areas.

“The current challenge is to develop effective human interfaces at the soldier level to disseminate this intelligence without adding significant size and weight,” Miller says.

“From a product perspective, our military customers have placed emphasis on size, weight, power, and cost (SWAP-C) for new products,” says Earl Johnson, vice president of business development at ITT Communications Systems in Fort Wayne, Ind. “Radios of the future will be required to have an open systems architecture and run various waveforms as dictated by the operational environment. Tactical ground forces are seeking satellite communications on the move (SOTM) and beyond line of sight (BLOS) capabilities for company and below units.”

ITT’s Soldier Radio Waveform (SRW) meets this demand and brings “the network to battalion and below units,” Johnson continues. “We are developing smaller handheld radio capabilities that will exceed requirements for the JTRS Rifleman Radio. Our NexGen Iridium products such as the RO Tactical Radio are providing BLOS capabilities to deployed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“In addition, we have tested and demonstrated a SOTM with our GNOMAD system that brings on the move capability using a low profile SATCOM antenna, Johnson adds.

Smartphone on the battlefield
“The Army has also expressed strong interest in bringing smartphone capabilities to the battlefield based on the commercial model of smart phones using various applications,” Johnson says. “This is a low cost, open system solution leveraging commercial technology.”

However, as “new radios become cheaper and the military move to commercial type smart phones, the ruggedization required maybe relaxed in the future,” Johnson says.

“Military standards for ruggedization really have not changed, nor have techniques to achieve ruggedization,” Miller says. “That said, what is new is miniaturization. The Joint Tactical Radio Systems (JTRS) Handheld, Manpack, Small Form Fit (HMS) leverages technologies from the commercial cellular industry to achieve increased capabilities in packages significantly smaller than current radios.

“The smallest HMS radio, used on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and sensors, weighs approximately 8 ounces, he continues.

“Ruggedization does become a challenge as density of electronics increases and size decreases,” Miller says. “Special techniques are required to manage thermal dissipation and unique power savings modes are necessary as well. Within the HMS radio, individual circuits can be shut down for fractions of a second all to conserve battery life and reduce thermal loading.”