Mil-Tech

Aug 25, 2010, post by Artur Nowak

England’s Desert Hawk III UAV contract awarded to Lockheed Martin

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

England’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) awarded Lockheed Martin a $5.1 million contract for additional Desert Hawk III unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Desert Hawk III’s improved payloads maximize target detection and recognition by providing 360-degree daytime and nighttime coverage in a common turret package. These latest generation payloads also include a Lockheed Martin-developed navigation system that delivers more refined target position information and improved image stability to the troops.

 

 

Awarded by the MoD’s Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) organization, the latest contract calls for Lockheed Martin to deliver the Desert Hawk III air vehicles which as a result of ongoing obsolescence management and technology advancements in this area feature enhanced 360-degree infrared and 360-degree, 10-times zoom electro optics – later this year.

 

“We are extremely pleased with the enhanced capability that these new payloads bring to Desert Hawk III and the British Army,” says Duncan Robbins, program manager for mini-UAV systems, MoD DE&S. “Desert Hawk’s latest enhancements allow it to operate more effectively in difficult conditions and provide our soldiers with greater situational awareness in a very timely manner.”

 

“The battle-proven Desert Hawk III can operate in high winds, extended altitude and extreme temperatures, making it very effective in areas such as Afghanistan,” says Mark Swymeler, a vice president for Lockheed Martin’s Ship and Aviation Systems line of business. “Unlike some other UAVs, it is extremely quiet and virtually undetectable beyond 150 meters.”

 

Equipped with steerable, plug-and-play imaging payloads, the Desert Hawk has provided the British Army with greater situational awareness capabilities in Afghanistan since 2006.

 

The eight-pound Desert Hawk III features an open architecture environment and consists of a light weight, hand-launched, ruggedized air vehicle with snap-on Plug and Playloads, a portable ground station, and a remote video terminal. The snap-on payload capability allows a single operator to swap sensors on the air vehicle in less than one minute to meet immediate and rapidly changing mission requirements.

Feb 25, 2010, post by awatrobski

Taliban Military Equipment

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

The bullet made a zipping, or fizzing sound. American soldiers, relaxing beside their vehicles and backpacks without body armor or helmets, looked around, bewildered. A moment passed. Then another zip, fizz.

 

“They’re shooting at us,” a soldier claimed. Laughing, giddy almost, they moved behind an armored vehicle that shielded them from the fields to the west. Somewhere out there, a sniper was trying to kill them. He was far enough away for the gunshot to be inaudible, or he may have been using a silencer.

 

The fight in southern Afghanistan between insurgents and NATO troops, along with Afghan forces still learning on the job, is not a conventional war. A lot of it is harassment, the deadly kind. The Taliban shoot, drop their weapons and walk off. They plant roadside bombs and disappear. They know that they will lose a head-on clash with Western firepower.

 

“We have all this great technology and everything,” stated U.S. Army Capt. Michael Kovalsky of Fords, New Jersey. “We overlook the little things like a piece of garbage in a tree,” which is sometimes used by insurgents to mark the location of a bomb.

 

As U.S. Marines press the Taliban in a five-day-old offensive against their stronghold of Marjah, insurgents are resorting to tactics that worked for them against the Soviet Army in the 1980s. Or much further back. Alexander the Great, the British Empire – Afghanistan has known many invaders throughout history.

 

The insurgents of today have radios and cell phones, but little more in the way of a sophisticated communications network.

 

When Kovalsky’s Alpha Company of the 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment of the 5th Stryker Brigade moved into the Badula Qulp area, northeast of Marjah, last week, they occupied an abandoned Taliban compound. On some walls, they found cell phone numbers, possibly of insurgents, and drawings of American Chinook helicopters and other military hardware, said 1st Sgt. Gene Hicks of Tacoma, Washington.

 

The pictures appeared to provide a crude “running log” of American military strength in the area that could be consulted by other fighters as they moved from compound to compound, Hicks said.

 

The Taliban are patient and crafty when they plant roadside bombs, one of the biggest threats to American forces. They often do it in stages to avoid detection, according to American forces.

 

One man will drop off the explosives; the next day, a man will put in the charge; a day later someone will link up the materiel for detonation, and finally an insurgent will leave a marker – sticks across a path, a bundle of hay or rocks on the track.

 

Sometimes, they plant bombs – IEDs, or Improvised Explosive Devices – under puddles in the road. Or they create their own puddle, pouring water on the road to soften the earth for digging.

 

An insurgent’s bomb marker “could be anything. That’s the difficulty of it,” Kovalsky said. A rag on a branch could be a locator.

 

“Then again, who knows?” Kovalsky said. “On a windy day, it could have been somebody’s garbage blowing around.”

 

Alpha Company suffered casualties when it arrived in Afghanistan last year; the losses of new units are often higher when they first deploy because of inexperience. Alpha became battle-hardened in Maywan province and the Arghandab river valley of Kandahar province, other nesting grounds for the insurgency. They have yet to suffer a casualty in their current mission in support of the Marine offensive in Marjah.

 

Alpha Company’s commanders say they have noticed that Taliban cells operate locally, without much coordination with other groups of fighters, and that their leaders are, for the most part, not in the area.

 

Meanwhile, American technology – much of it high in the sky – scores successes, and falters at times. An Associated Press reporter and photographer accompanying a recent patrol heard a large explosion, one of many in the area. Soldiers said a Reaper, a pilotless reconnaissance aircraft with a weapons system, had killed a man who was apparently planting a bomb in the road.

 

The Stryker infantry carriers, designed for urban and open areas, can clock 110 kph (70 mph) on a highway. But they have had some trouble operating along a narrow canal road in Badula Qulp. The earth has caved in under at least three vehicles, pitching them at sharp angles in the mud and requiring hours to winch them out.

 

Instincts and experience, wedded to technology, help the Americans. One night, a gunner studying the thermal imaging screen of a Stryker’s weapons system spotted a man crouching and acting suspiciously in a field beside a compound. He was sure the man was planting a bomb.

 

Hicks took a look at the screen. Then the man stood up and wiped his hand on a wall. The sergeant had seen the same when he was deployed in Iraq. The man was no bomber; he was just going to the toilet.

Jan 07, 2010, post by awatrobski

WFEL Is Expecting A Record Year.

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

DEFENCE engineering firm WFEL expects to post record profits for 2009, chief executive Ian Wilson informed.

 

WFEL, based at Heaton Chapel, Stockport, anticipates earnings to top £6m against £5.8m in 2008, with revenues up from £29.6m to nearly £40m.

 

It follows a string of major contract wins during this year, from consumers such as the Ministry of Defence, the US Department of Defense and the Turkish government.

 

The company designs, makes and refurbishes bridges used by soldiers to cross rivers and ravines in conflict zones, including Iraq and Afghanistan, and in rescue operations in areas struck by natural disasters.

 

WFEL has also stepped up its inspection, repair and maintenance, spares and training services.

 

Earlier this month, the firm opened a repair facility after investing more than £300,000.

 

It followed a five-year contract with the US inked earlier this year.

 

WFEL’s bridges can be deployed by eight soldiers in just 90 minutes and can support loads of more than 120 tonnes.

 

They are used by 38 armed forces worldwide.

 

The company, which has 239 staff, was bought by its management in 2006 for £48m, in a deal backed by private equity house Dunedin Capital Partners.

 

It recently secured an increase in banking facilities from £20m to £30m to provide more working capital.

 

The refinancing arrangement saw Lloyds TSB Corporate Markets replace the failed bank Kaupthing Singer and Friedlander.

 

Barclays remains part of WFEL’s banking syndicate.

 

Neil Price, director at Lloyds TSB Corporate Markets, said: “WFEL is a great example of a niche British manufacturing business which has established itself as the leading player on a global stage.

 

“We’re supporting a business with a strong, established management team and an equity sponsor which has taken a hands-on approach to building the business.”

 

Barclays’ Yasmin Nabi said: “We remain very committed to supporting businesses like WFEL, a strong and robust UK model with a leading global position.”

 

WFEL’s roots trace back to 1915, when it was established as the Fairey Aviation Company to build long-range bombers.

 

The firm, a finalist in last month’s M.E.N. Business of the Year Awards and a winner in 2007, has focused on military bridges since the 1970s.

Aug 05, 2009, post by Artur Nowak

British helicopters for Afghanistan 'not fit for use': report

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

British military helicopters set to be deployed to Afghanistan were not properly equipped to fly combat missions, a newspaper said Tuesday, fuelling a row over adequate resources for troops.
The helicopters were not fitted with special armour, leaving them vulnerable to attack by Taliban extremists while transporting troops, the Daily Telegraph newspaper said, citing unnamed Royal Air Force sources.

 

The Ministry of Defence rejected the report, saying the six aircraft set to be deployed by the end of the year were “fit for operational use.”

“Our Merlin Mk3 helicopters have ballistic protection as standard, and are being fitted with a range of modifications to make them fit for operational use,” a spokesman said.

 

The newspaper said pilots wanted the helicopters fitted with Kevlar armour, which would cost about 100,000 pounds (117,000 euros, 169,000 dollars) for each aircraft, to protect them from bullets and rocket-propelled grenades.

 

Claims of a shortage of helicopters have been at the centre of a political row over adequate equipment for the armed forces amid a surge in the British death toll in Afghanistan.

 

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been forced to defend the government’s strategy in Afghanistan amid ongoing questions about Britain’s involvement in the conflict.

 

British forces have suffered their highest casualty rate since the US-led invasion of the country in late 2001.

 

Twenty-two soldiers were killed in July fighting Taliban insurgents in southern Helmand province, as British troops waged the attack phase of an offensive, beating back the extremists ahead of elections on August 20.

 

The row has been deepened by a legal battle by the government to cut the compensation awarded to two injured soldiers.

 

A British soldier also faced court-martial Monday for refusing to return to Afghanistan as the armed forces minister insisted that the fight against the Taliban was improving Afghan lives.

Jul 26, 2009, post by Artur Nowak

New Report Just Published Military Communications & COTS 2009-2019: A Market in Retreat?

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Adoption of new commercially-available platforms and technologies has fuelled a global military communications industry worth more than $15bn per annum. Prime beneficiaries of this trend have included suppliers of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products and services to the military. Given the onset of the global economic recession in late 2008 and new potential constraints on defence budgets across the world, this report revisits the military communications market to ask whether the recent growth trend will be sustainable over the next decade. Is the global military communications market now a market in retreat?

 

This new defence report – Military Communications & COTS 2009-2019 – discusses those and other important matters in depth. The author of this report believes that pockets of opportunity within the global military communications market will remain very strong, despite the many constraining economic forces likely to impact upon military budgets during our forecast period to 2019. We believe that exposure to the right procurement programmes will therefore be critical to contractors’ success in the challenging period ahead. We also identify the key areas of opportunity for COTS providers in the airborne, open architecture, UAV, satellite, tactical radio, maritime, embedded and wireless broadband arenas, among others.

 

Why you should buy this report:

• Global military communications market sales forecasts, 2009-2019

• US military communications market sales forecasts, 2009-2019

• Up-to-date defence sales forecasts for 11 leading military markets: the US, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Australia, Japan, Russia, China and India (including post 2009-10 fiscal year US defence budget announcement analysis)

• Expert, post-credit crisis opinion from industry specialists in military communications and related sectors, including full interview transcripts from our original survey

• A profile of the major purchasers of COTS military communications equipment and services in these 11 leading military markets

• A profile of 100 major vendors of military communications equipment and services

• An examination of the key drivers and restraints for the global military communications market, including SWOT analysis

• In-depth analysis of the key COTS technologies involved in military communications and our view of their future prospects.

 

Overview

The importance of military communications

 

Today’s global military is inseparably bound up with technology, and with communications technology in particular. ‘Military communications’ encompasses a vast array of technologies and submarkets, including radios, satellites, software and embedded computer components. Communications systems on the battlefield are now rightly regarded as an essential component of mission success. For soldiers on the ground, radios and other communications devices are lifelines. They are needed to summon fire support or seek casualty evacuation, or simply to confirm their location or receive new instructions. For commanders in nearby command posts or headquartered hundreds of miles away, communications are vital for giving orders or simply pinpointing the location of their forces.

 

Opportunities for providers of milcoms technology

Although providers of products and solutions in this field must be aware that the high cost of platforms, coupled with the global financial crisis, may limit demand in the near future, the market for military communications is also likely to be supported by a number of powerful demand drivers, notably the need for allied information advantages in large-scale, operations such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Key content of the report

This new report – Military Communications & COTS 2009: A Market in Retreat? – discusses the present and future market for military communications. We critically examine the hypothesis that military communications spending may witness a retreat from the very high growth rates seen this decade.

 

Order this report today to receive the information you need.

 

Our report analyses the market through a comprehensive review of available information. We provide the information that you need to understand the military communications and COTS market. In addition to relevant sales forecasts, the report highlights important contemporary issues, including the key commercial drivers and restraints of the milcoms market. Sources used include interviews with industry experts, industrial news, policy documents and defence industry research. The author oh this report also applies financial forecasting, qualitative analyses and an assessment of currently-unmet needs to provide a comprehensive market-based report with detailed analysis and informed opinion.

 

Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary

2 The Military Communications Market and COTS

2.1 Military Communications – an Introduction

2.2 COTS – New Solutions for Traditional Military Demands

2.3 Commercial Communications Technologies for Defence

2.4 Focus and Scope of Military Communications and COTS 2009

3 Key Trends and Issues in COTS

3.1 Key Trends

3.1.1 Communications On-The-Move

3.1.2 Enhanced Communications Essential to Future Systems

3.1.3 Communications Also Essential in Asymmetric Warfare

3.1.4 Present Conflicts Put Pressure on Legacy Communications

3.1.5 Staying the Course in Communications Upgrades

3.2 Key COTS End-User Requirements 

3.3 Benefits and Risks of COTS Products to Defence Agencies

3.3.1 Technological Challenges

3.3.2 Security Challenges

3.3.3 Programme Challenges

3.3.4 Perceptual Challenges

3.3.5 Conclusion

3.4 A Note on World Defence Spending

4 Communications Platforms and COTS Solutions

4.1 Origins of COTS: William Perry and the ‘Mandate for Change’

4.2 Definition of COTS

4.3 Relevant COTS Technologies

4.3.1 3G

4.3.2 WiMax

4.3.3 Software-Defined Radio (SDR)

4.3.4 Software for Military Communications

4.4 Military and Communications Industry Collaboration

4.4.1 Commercial Design

4.5 Range of Military Application for COTS Solutions

4.5.1 Ground, Mobile

4.5.2 Ground, Fixed

4.5.3 Airborne (Aircraft and UAV-Mounted)

4.5.4 Space (Satellite-Based)

4.5.5 Maritime

4.6 Conclusion

5 Forecasts: US & Global Military Communications

5.1 Summary of Key Forecasts

5.2 Global Defence Spending, 2010-2019

5.3 US Defence Spending Powers the Global Market

5.4 US CET&I Spending

5.5 Forecast Analysis

5.6 Upside Risks to our Forecasts

5.7 Downside Risks to our Forecasts

5.8 Key Drivers of the Military Communications Market

5.9 Key Constraints on the Military Communications Market

5.10 SWOT Analysis

6 The United States Market

6.1 The United States Market: Overview

6.2 Status and Direction of Key Military Communications Programmes in the US

6.2.1 Family of Advanced Beyond Line-of-Sight Terminals  

6.2.2 Land Warrior

6.2.3 Navy and Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI)

6.2.4 Global Information Grid

6.2.5 Software Radio: Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS)

6.2.5.1 Waveform Solution

6.2.5.2 Origins

6.2.5.3 Problems and Restructuring

6.2.5.4 COTS Solutions

6.2.5.5 JTRS and Future Combat System (FCS)

6.2.5.6 Radios for Individual Soldiers

6.2.6 WiMax Trials

6.2.7 Tapping 3G

6.2.8 Satellites

6.2.8.1 Mobile User Objective System (MUOS)

6.2.8.2 Transformational Satellite (TSAT)

6.2.8.3 Wideband Global Satcom (WGS)

6.2.9 Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)

6.3 The US Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

7 The UK Market

7.1 Status and Direction of Key Military Communications Projects in the UK

7.1.1 Bowman

7.1.2 Skynet

7.1.3 Falcon

7.2 The UK Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

8 The French Market

8.1 Status and Direction of Key Projects in France

8.1.1 Syracuse III

8.1.2 Athena

8.1.3 Small Personal Radio in Felin

8.2 The French Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

9 The German Market

9.1 Status and Direction of Key Military Communications Projects in Germany

9.1.1 Tetrapol BW

9.1.2 idZ Infantry of the Future

9.1.3 Project Hercules

9.2 The German Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

10 The Italian Market

10.1 Status and Direction of Key Military Communications Programmes in Italy

10.1.1 Sicral

10.1.2 Soldato Futuro IPR

10.2 The Italian Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

11 The Canadian Market

11.1 Status and Direction of Key Military Communications Projects in Canada

11.1.1 HCTCN Experimental Tactical Radio System

11.1.2 JTRS Involvement

11.1.2.1 CRC Scari

11.1.2.2 Lytech Small Form Factor SDR

11.1.2.3 Spectrum Signal Processing COTS SDR

11.1.2.4 DRDC and SDR Forum 

11.1.3 AEHF

11.2 The Canadian Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

12 The Australian Market

12.1 Status and Direction of Key Military Communications Projects in Australia

12.1.1 High Frequency Modernisation Project

12.1.2 Battle Space Communications Land (BSC(L))

12.1.3 Maritime Communications and Information Management Architecture Modernisation

12.2 The Australian Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

13 The Japanese Market

13.1 Status and Direction of Key Military Communications Projects in Japan

13.1.1 Integrated Radio

13.1.2 Regimental Command and Control System (ReCS)

13.2 Use of COTS Components in Japan

13.3 The Japanese Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

14 The Russian Market

14.1 Status and Direction of Key Military Communication Projects in Russia

14.1.1 SPM-Atlas (M-539) Cell Phone

14.1.2 Kosmos Satellite

14.2 The Russian Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

15 The People’s Republic of China (PRC) Market

15.1 Status and Direction of Key Military Communications Projects in the PRC

15.2 Legacy, Present and Future Use of COTS Communications Components

15.3 The PRC Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

16 The Indian Market

16.1 Status and Direction of Key Military Communications Projects in India

16.1.1 Indian Army Tactical Communications System

16.2 The Indian Market: Analysis and Key Conclusions

17 100 Key Vendors of Military Communications Products and Services

In this chapter, the author of the report builds a representative profile of the international military communications market by identifying 100 players worldwide. Our survey reveals a large, dynamic mosaic of providers. Smaller, specialists firms that have developed niche technology and manufacturers of embedded COTS boards and integrated systems sit alongside established multinational titans and household names. We encounter veterans-led businesses, IT firms, telcos and specialists in all major fields of military communications, from ‘traditional’ communication forms such as radio and antenna manufacturers to satellite companies and SDR leaders.

18 Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.1 United States: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.1.1 Department of Defense (DoD)

18.1.2 Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa)

18.1.2.1 Control-Based Mobile Ad-Hoc Networking (CBMANet)

18.1.2.2 Connectionless Networks (CN)

18.1.2.3 Disruption Tolerant Networks (DTN)

18.1.2.4 Future Combat Systems Communications (FCS-C)

18.1.2.5 Mobile Network (MIMO)

18.1.2.6 Networking in Extreme Environments (Netex)

18.1.2.7 Optical & Radio Frequency (RF) Combined Link Experiment (Orcle)

18.1.2.8 The Next Generation Programme (XG)

18.1.2.9 Ultra-broadband Optical Arbitrary Waveform Generation

18.1.2.10 Power Aware Computing and Communication (PAC/C)

18.1.2.11 Analogue Optical Signal Processing (AOSP)

18.1.2.12 Technology for Frequency Agile Digitally Synthesised Transmitters (Tfast)

18.1.2.13 Ultra-Wideband Multifunction Photonic Transmit/Receive Module (Ultra-T/R)

18.1.2.14 Compact Lasers for Coherent Communications, Imaging and Targeting (CCIT)

17.1.2.15 Ultra Wideband Array Antennas (Uwbaa)

18.1.3 Defence Information Systems Agency (DISA)

18.1.4 Defence Contract Management Agency (DCMA)

18.1.5 Project Manager, Tactical Radio Communications Systems (PM TRCS)

18.1.6 JTRS Joint Programme Executive Office (JPEO)

18.1.7 Milsatcom Joint Programme Office (MJPO)

18.2 United Kingdom: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.2.1 MoD

18.2.2 The Defence Procurement Agency (DPA)

18.2.3 Air Command & Control Systems (ACCS) Integrated Project Team (IPT)

18.2.4 Bowman and Tactical Communications and Information Systems (BATCIS) IPT

18.2.5 Command Support Information Systems (CSIS) IPT

18.2.6 Identification and Communication Equipment (ICE)   IPT

18.2.7 Satellite Communications (Satcom) IPT

18.2.8 Strategic Terrestrial Radio Systems (STRS) IPT

18.2.9 Theatre and Formation Communication Systems (TFCS) IPT

18.2.10 Defence Communication Services Agency

18.3 France: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.3.1 MoD

18.3.2 DGA

18.4 Germany: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.4.1 Federal Ministry of Defence (FMoD)

18.4.2 The Federal Office of Defence Technology and Procurement (BWB)

18.4.3 The Federal Office for Information Management and IT of the German Federal Armed Forces (IT AmtBw)

18.5 Italy: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.5.1 Italian MoD

18.5.2 Teledife (Director’s Office of Information Science and Advanced Technologies)

18.6 Canada: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.6.1 The Department of National Defence (DND)

18.6.2 Defence R&D Canada (DRDC)

18.6.3 Assistant Defence Minister (Materiel) ADM

18.7 Australia: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.7.1 Department of Defence

18.7.2 The Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO)

18.7.3 The Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO)

18.8 Japan: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.8.1 Technical Research and Development Institute (TRDI)

18.8.2 Research Centre Two

18.9 Russia: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.9.1 Ministry of National Defence

18.9.2 Rosoboronexport

18.10 India: Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services

18.10.1 The Ministry of Defence

18.10.2 Department of Defence Production

18.11 PRC: Key Purchasers and Vendors of Military Communications Products and Services

18.11.1 Key Purchasers of Military Communications Products and Services in the PRC

18.11.1.1 Ministry of National Defence

18.11.1.2 Central Military Commission (CMC)

18.11.1.3 Commission on Science, Technology and National Defence Industry (Costind)

18.11.1.4 General Armaments Department (GAD)

18.11.2 Key Vendors of Military Communications Products and Services in the PRC

18.11.2.1 Ministry of Information Industry (MII)

18.11.2.2 China Electronics Technology Group Corp. (CETC)

18.11.2.3 China Great Wall Industry Corporation (CGWIC)

18.11.2.4 China Satellite Communications Corporation (ChinaSatcom)

18.11.2.5 Huanyu Mobile Technology Co.

18.11.2.6 Huawei Technologies

18.11.2.7 ZTE Corporation

19 Expert Views

19.1 Dr Sally Baron, Special Advisor to the Defense Commercial Vendors Coalition (DCVC, Washington DC), United States

19.1.1 Need to Streamline US Procurement Process; Bureaucracy Moving Far Too Slowly

19.1.2 DCVC: Companies With Superior Technologies Screaming to be Heard; in High-Tech, Largest Cost is Usually Development

19.1.3 Pentagon Insists On an Optimistic Three-Year Acquisition Cycle That Precludes Best Technologies Getting to the Field

19.1.4 System Has Outlived its Usefulness; Congress Needs to Work With DoD to Streamline Processes

19.1.5 Positive Outlook for COTS Companies; New Generation Will Better Embrace COTS

19.1.6 Identifying a Problem is Not the Same as Fixing it

19.1.7 Troops Must Have the Best Technologies; Our Adversaries are Not Slowed by Bureaucracies

19.1.8 COTS, When Available, Should be Used, ‘Unique’ Items Becoming Fewer

19.2 Peter Cavill, General Manager, Military & Aerospace, GE Fanuc Intelligent Platforms, UK

19.2.1 Recession Alone Unlikely to See Diminution in Conflict; Technology Moving Forward at Breathtaking Pace

19.2.2 GE Fanuc Investing Heavily in Product Range; Focusing on Primes; Rugged Systems Expertise Valued

19.2.3 Growth Abroad Unlikely to Compensate for Potential Decline in US Defence Spending

19.2.4 Three Key Trends: UAVs, Sensor-Acquired Data and Embedded Training

19.2.5 Significant Further Defence Sector Consolidation Unlikely, at Least Near Term

19.2.6 COTS Opportunity Still an Exciting One; VMEbus, VXS, VPX, CompactPCI

19.2.7 VPX Standard Promises to be Central to Military; New Challenge to Determine Which Processors to Support

19.2.8 Need to Back Technology Winners and Select Right Suppliers

19.2.9 Military Still Winning From COTS

19.3 Kim Walkling, Partner, Simmons & Simmons, London

19.3.1 Affordability and Funding Now Critical Issues in Defence; Strategic Programmes Receiving Support

19.3.2 Consolidation Within the Sector a Possibility; Valuation Will Be a Challenge

19.3.3 EU ‘Common Market’ for Defence May Be Difficult to Achieve

19.3.4 Critical Programmes Should Still Succeed

19.3.5 Current Trends: Soul Searching; Training Projects Look Firm; Classic PFI/PPP Structure May Not Work on Larger Projects; UAE Showing Strength

20 Report Conclusions

20.1 Summary of Key Forecasts

20.2 Revised General Outlook for Military Communications 2010-2019

20.3 Key Areas of Opportunity for COTS Providers, 2010-2019

20.4 Closing Remarks

List of Tables

Table 5.1 US Military Communications Market Forecasts, 2010-2019

Table 5.2 Global Military Communications Market Forecasts, 2010-2019

Table 6.1 US Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 7.1 UK Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 8.1 French Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 9.1 German Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 10.1 Italian Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 11.1 Canadian Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 12.1 Australian Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 13.1 Japanese Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 14.1 Russian Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 15.1 PRC Defence Spending 2004-2019

Table 16.1 Indian Defence Spending 2004-2019

List of Figures

Figure 3.1 The World’s Top 20 Defence Spenders, 2008

Figure 3.2 The World’s Top 5 Defence Spenders, 2008

Figure 5.1 US Military Spending vs the World ($bn)

Figure 5.2 2009 Department of Defense Budget Request

Figure 5.3 US Defence Spending, 2004-2019

Figure 5.4 US CET&I Spending, 2006-2019

Figure 5.5 US Military Communications Market Forecasts, 2010-2019

Figure 5.6 Global Military Communications Forecasts, 2010-2019

Figure 6.1 US Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 6.2 US Defence Spending Historically

Figure 6.3 US Defence Spending Since 2001

Figure 6.4 US Defence Spending as a Percentage of GDP

Figure 7.1 UK Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 8.1 French Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 9.1 German Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 10.1 Italian Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 11.1 Canadian Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 12.1 Australian Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 13.1 Japanese Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 14.1 Russian Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 15.1 PRC Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 16.1 Indian Defence Spending 2004-2019

Figure 20.1 Global Military Communications Forecasts, 2010-2019

Figure 20.2 US CET&I Spending, 2006-2019

Figure 20.3 US Military Communications Market Forecasts, 2010-2019

Companies, Organisations and Programmes Mentioned in the Report

Absolute Analysis (US)

Aculab (US)

Advanced Extremely High Frequency (AEHF) Satellite System (Canada)

Advent Communications (US)

Agilent Technologies (US)

Air Command & Control Systems (ACCS) Integrated Project Team (IPT) (UK)

Airbus Group

Aitech Rugged Group Inc (US)

Alcatel Alenia Space (Thales Alenia Space)

Altera (US)

Americom Government Services, Inc. (US)

Analogue Optical Signal Processing (AOSP) (US)

Anritsu Company (US)

Assistant Defence Minister (Materiel) (Canada)

Association of Defence & Security Professional Electronics Industries (France)

Association of French Aerospace Companies (Gifas)

Association of Land Defence Equipment Industries (Gicat) (France)

Association of Naval Construction and Weapons Industries (Gican) (France)

ATDI (UK)

Athena Programme (France)

Atlas Research and Development Centre (Russia)

Australian Defence Force

Australian Industry and Defence Network (AIDN)

Avtec (US)

BAE Systems (US / Multinational)

Battle Space Communications Land (BSC(L)) (Australia)

BelAir Networks (US)

Bernier (France)

Bharat Dynamics Ltd (India)

Bharat Earth Movers Ltd (India)

Bharat Electronics (India)

Bharat Electronics Ltd (India)

Boeing (US / Multinational)

Boeing Australia (Australia)

Boeing Satellite Systems

Bowman (UK)

Bowman and Tactical Communications and             Information Systems (BATCIS) IPT (UK)

BT (British Telecom) (UK)

Canada First programme

CC Ploenzke (Germany)

Central Military Commission (CMC) (RC)

Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES) (France)

Chief Information Officer Group (CIOG) (Australia)

China Electronics Technology Group Corp (CETC) (PRC)

China Great Wall Industry Corporation (CGWIC) (PRC)

China Satellite Communications Corporation (ChinaSatcom) (PRC)

Cisco Systems (US / Multinational)

Cobham (UK)

Cogent Defence & Security Networks (UK)

Command Support Information Systems (CSIS) IPT (UK)

Commission on Science, Technology and National Defence Industry (Costind) (PRC)

Communications & Power Industries (US)

Communications et Systemes (CS) (France)

Communications Research Centre Canada (CRC)

Communications-Electronics             Research, Development and Engineering Center [US Army] (Cerdec)

Compact Lasers for Coherent Communications, Imaging and Targeting (CCIT) (US)

Computer Sciences Corporation (US)

Connectionless Networks (CN) (US)

Control-Based Mobile Ad-Hoc Networking (CBMANet) (US)

COTS Journal (US)

Curtiss-Wright (US)

Dalnyaya Radiosvyaz Holding Company (Russia)

Data Link Solutions (DLS) (US)

Datamat (Italy)

DataPath (US)

Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) (US)

Defence Communication Services Agency (UK)

Defence Contract Management Agency (DCMA) (US)

Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) (UK)

Defence Fixed Telecommunications System for the MoD (UK)

Defence Industries Council (Cidef) (France)

Defence Information Systems Agency (DISA) (US)

Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) (Australia)

Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC)

Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) (Australia)

Defence Spectrum Strategic Plan (ADSSP)

Defense Commercial Vendors Coalition (US)

Department of Defense (US)

Department of National Defence (DND) (Canada)

Dicon Fiberoptics Inc (US)

Directorate for Cooperation and Industrial Affairs (DGA) (France)

Disruption Tolerant Networks (DTN) (US)

DRS Technologies (US)

E&E Enterprises (US)

EADS (Europe / Multinational)

EADS Astrium (UK)

EADS Deutschland GmbH (Germany)

EADS DS (Germany)

EFJohnson Company (US)

ELCON Systemtechnik (Germany)

ELG (France)

EM Solutions Pty Ltd (Australia)

Emrise Corporation (US)

EMS Technologies (US)

Ericsson (Sweden)

Ericsson Federal Inc. (US)

Falcon (UK)

Family of Advanced Beyond Line-of-  Sight Terminals (FAB-T) (US)

Federal Ministry of Defence (FMoD) (Germany)

Federal Office for Information Management and IT of the German Federal Armed Forces (IT AmtBw) (Germany)

Federal Office of Defence Technology and Procurement (Germany)

Felin (France)

Finmeccanica (Italy)

FSB Communications Security Centre (Russia)

Fujitsu (Japan)

Future Combat Systems (US)

Future Strategic Tanker Aircraft (FSTA) project (UK)

Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers Ltd (India)

GE Fanuc Intelligent Platforms (US / Japan)

General Armaments Department (GAD) (PRC)

General Dynamics C4 Systems (US)

General Dynamics Canada (Canada)

General Dynamics Decision Systems (UK)

General Dynamics Land Systems (US)

General pour l’Armement (DGA) (France)

Global Information Grid (US)

Goa Shipyard Ltd (India)

Guiana Space Centre

Harris Corp. (US)

Harris Systems (UK)

High Capacity Tactical Communications Network (HCTCN) (Canada)

High Frequency Modernisation Project (Australia)

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (India)

Huanyu Mobile Technology Co. (PRC)

Huawei Technologies (PRC)

Hughes (US)

IBM (US / Multinational)

Identification and Communication Equipment (ICE) IPT (UK)

Indian Army Tactical Communications System

Intelsat General Corporation (US)

Inter-Digital (US)

International Communications Group (US)

Italian MoD

ITT Communications Systems (US)

JSC (Joint-Stock Company) Relero (Russia)

JTRS Joint Programme Executive Office (JPEO) (US)

Kaiser Electro-Optics Inc

Kosmos Satellite (Russia)

L-3 Communications (US)

Land Warrior (US)

Lockheed Martin (US)

Luneberg Antennas (France)

Maritime Communications and Information Management Architecture Modernisation (Australia)

Mayflower Communications (US)

Mazagon Dock Ltd (India)

Mercury Computer Systems (MCS) (US)

Milsatcom Joint Programme Office (MJPO) (US)

Ministry of Defence (India)

Ministry of Defence (UK)

Ministry of Information Industry (MII) (PRC)

Ministry of National Defence (Russia)

Mishra Dhatu Nigam Ltd (India)

Mobilcom (Germany)

Mobile Network (MIMO) (US)

Mobile User Objective System (MUOS) (US)

Modernised High Frequency Communications System (MHFCS) (Australia)

Motorola (US)

National Command Authority (US)

Nato

Navy and Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) (US)

NEC (Japan)

Networking in Extreme Environments (Netex) (US)

Nokia (Finland / Multinational)

Northrop Grumman (US)

Omega Training Group

Optical & Radio Frequency (RF) Combined Link Experiment (Orcle) (US)

Pacific Star Communication (PacStar) (US)

Paradigm Secure Communications (UK)

People’s Liberation Army (PLA)

Power Aware Computing and Communication (PAC/C) (US)

PrismTech Solutions Americas (US)

Proactive Communications Inc (US)

Project Hercules

Project Manager, Tactical Radio Communications Systems (PM TRCS) (US)

QinetiQ (UK)

Quintech Electronics (US)

Racal Acoustics (UK)

Radio Frequency Systems Program Office (Australia)

Raytheon (US)

Regimental Command and Control System (ReCS) (Japan)

Richelieu Committee (France)

Rivulet Communications (US)

Rockwell Collins (US)

Rosoboronexport (Russia)

Royal Australian Navy (RAN)

SAAB Defence, Aviation & Space (Sweden / Multinational)

Saft (Germany)

Sagem Defense Securite (France)

SAIC (US / Multinational)

Samsung (Korea / Multinational)

Satellite Communications (Satcom) IPT (UK)

Satellite, Radio-Relay and Tropospheric Communication (STARS) Consortium (Russia)

Secure Communication Systems (US)

Segovia (US)

Selenia Communications (Italy)

Selex Communications (Italy)

Senate Armed Services Committee (US)

Short Term Strategic Air-Lift (STSA)

Sicral (Italy)

Siemens (Germany)

Simmons & Simmons (UK)

Sitab consortium (Italy)

Skynet (UK)

Spectrum Signal Processing (Canada)

Spectrum Signal Processing (Canada)

State Council Information Office of China

Strategic Terrestrial Radio Systems (STRS) IPT (UK)

Stratos (UK)

Syracuse III (France)

Tactical Air Control Party Modernization (TACP-M) programme (US)

Tactical Radio System (US)

Tadiran Communications (US)

Tata Group (India

Technical Research and Development Institute (TRDI) (Japan)

Technology for Frequency Agile Digitally Synthesised Transmitters (Tfast) (US)

Teledife (Director’s Office of   Information Science and Advanced Technologies) (Italy)

Telespazio (Italy)

Tenix Defence (Australia)

Thales (France)

Thales Alenia Space (France)

Thales Australia

Thales Communications (US)

The Next Generation Programme (XG) (US)

Theatre and Formation Communication Systems (TFCS) IPT (UK)

Transformational Satellite (TSAT)

T-Systems (Germany)

Ultra Electronics (Canada)

Ultra Wideband Array Antennas (Uwbaa) (US)

Ultra-broadband Optical Arbitrary Waveform Generation (US)

Ultra-Wideband Multifunction Photonic Transmit/Receive Module (Ultra-T/R) (US)

United Kingdom Military Flying Training System (UKMFTS)

ViaSat (US)

VMETRO (Norway)

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) (US)

Wideband Gapfiller Satellite (US)

Wideband Global Satcom (WGS)

ZTE Corporation (PRC)

Jul 26, 2009, post by Artur Nowak

SatComms for Soldiers

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Have been out with British forces in the area of Sangin in northern Helmand Province.  This area appears to be turning into the main effort of the current fight in Afghanistan, but this is unclear to me at the moment.  I do know that air assets are heavy.  During our mission yesterday, a B-1 could be seen overhead, though it was miles high.  On the ground, this place is loaded with IEDs and there were many firefights during yesterday’s mission.   My section of eight soldiers did not fire a single round; we did not come into direct contact, though bullets sometimes zipped overhead.  Nearly all missions are conducted on foot and the soldiers like it that way.  I am with the British battalion called 2 Rifles.  The last mission I did with 2 Rifles was in Iraq, and they killed maybe 26-27 JAM members during that fight.  Yesterday they only killed two Taliban (Predator actually made the shot), but the mission was well run, and morale here is very high.  Everybody is ready to roll again and missions are near continuous.  I’ll ask British commanders to let me stay, though that might not be necessary because there are so few helicopters.  More likely I am stuck here.  FOB Jackson is probably going to be my Hotel California, but that’s all good because these are great soldiers, in the thick of it, and I want to stay.

 

More broadly speaking, our forces are spread to the high winds across desolate stretches of Afghanistan, sometimes in tiny “bases” with as few as a half-dozen soldiers.  Last December, I spent some time with a group of such soldiers in Zabul Province, but hardly wrote a word about them, yet. They were deep in wild country and it took two days for us to drive out to a paved road.  Those soldiers had no access to Internet, and said that on one occasion they didn’t even get mail for three months.

 

Until December, I used a satellite antenna called a “Regional BGAN” (R-BGAN) HNS-9101 to transmit dispatches from remote areas.  These small, portable systems are expensive; during a fifteen-day period last year, I spent almost exactly $5,000.  (Prices based on bandwidth usage.)

 

During late 2008, when I saw the group of a half-dozen American soldiers, out there in the boondocks, two days from a road and once going three months without mail, I told Mrs. Frankie Mayo, who runs Operation AC.  Frankie and Operation AC had sent loads of gear to Iraq, including air conditioners and generators.  When I told Frankie about the isolated soldiers, she got to work with Hughes to send R-BGANs to Afghanistan.

 

Lucky for me, with the old R-BGAN no longer usable, Hughes, through Frankie, shipped a newer model, the Hughes 9201 BGAN Inmarsat Terminal.  Many of this year’s dispatches will come through the 9201.

 

Without such a terminal, large numbers of Soldiers, Marines, Airmen and Sailors will be without regular communications for much or most of their time in Afghanistan.  The infrastructure is Spartan to non-existent.  Life here is tougher than it was in Iraq, and the fighting will be tougher still.  Yes, there are the gigantic bases-as in Iraq-where everything is available, but little of the war is being fought from the larger bases.

 

Extended battlefield journalism from Afghanistan is relatively non-existent.  Broadly speaking, folks at home will not know how their loved ones are doing unless they can communicate directly.  To learn more about the effort to send satellite communications gear to troops downrange, please see Operation AC.

Jul 19, 2009, post by Artur Nowak

'Beans, bullets and BTUs' define Army energy security

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

The Army will soon be the largest fleet owner of both low-speed electric vehicles and hybrid-electric vehicles.

 

“That will have significant impact on our fuel consumption at our installations,” said Dr. Kevin T. Geiss, program director for energy and partnerships in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment.

 

Geiss said orders are in now for an additional 800 low-speed electric vehicles, formerly called “neighborhood electric vehicles” by the Army. The purchase is part of a plan to add 4,000 of the LSEVs to the Army over three years. The Army is getting an additional 502 hybrid vehicles for installations as well.

 

The vehicle purchases are part of a larger plan by the Army to focus on energy security, Geiss said. The plan also includes a solar project at Fort Irwin, Calif., and a geothermal project at Hawthorne, Nev. Geiss said the Army should know soon who the civilian developer will be for the Fort Irwin project, and that a memorandum of agreement with the Navy is now being finalized for the 30Mw geothermal project in Nevada.

 

“Our goal there is to by the end of the summer or early fall, have the request for proposal on the street and have the industry day to get the developer for that project,” Geiss said.

 

The Army’s plans for energy security include such things as electric and hybrid vehicles, micro-grids for more efficient power distribution, reductions in consumption of energy on installations, certification of tactical vehicles for alternative fuel use, and partnerships with industry to build power-production capacity.

 

Ensuring the Army has enough energy, when and where it needs it, is an important consideration when prosecuting both training missions and contingency operations overseas, Geiss said. And efforts to provide that energy, so the mission can continue uninterrupted, focus on five key components: surety, sufficiency, supply, sustainability and survivability.

 

“All of those things are important to us for energy security,” he said. He modified a Marine Corps motto, “beans, bullets and bandages,” to include “BTUs” or British thermal units — a unit for measuring energy.

 

“Think of the concept of beans, bullets and BTUs,” he said. “Most people are familiar with the beans and bullets — but beans, bullets and BTUs, I think, focuses us on the vital importance of energy for the Army and our missions.”

 

Right now, Geiss said, neither the Army nor the United States is in a place where it can claim it has energy security.

 

“I would say energy security is an end state,” he said. “If we were able to satisfy those five key requirements at our installations and our deployed operations, and with our weapons systems, then we would achieve a state of energy security. I don’t think that the nation is in an energy-secure state at this point.”

 

Inside the United States, the Army has to consider what happens if the civilian electric grid, on which it depends for its power needs, should go down. Plans for that event, and the ability to continue operations unimpeded are at the center of the Army’s energy security concerns in the United States.

 

Solutions could involve equipping every installation with its own power-generating capability — a natural gas power plant, for instance. But the cost for that, Geiss said, is prohibitive. Additionally, there are community, state and federal restrictions about what kinds of things can be done.

 

Instead, Geiss said, the solution involves looking at both power production and reducing energy consumption. Reduction involves identifying what power consumption on an installation is mission critical and also taking measures to be more efficient in energy use. The Army is conducting ongoing studies to determine the nature of energy use at its installations.

 

For reduction of energy use, the Army must now comply with the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, that says all new and remodeled facilities must be off fossil fuels by 2030. Additional legislation mandates a decrease in consumption of 3 percent a year for a period of 10 years. By 2015, Geiss said, the Army will have achieved a reduction of about 30 percent.

 

For generation of power on an installation, the Army will look to partner with industry to develop renewable energy production capability. Last year the Army established the Energy and Partnerships Office to facilitate those kinds of developments.

 

“The Army does not have the funds internally to accomplish all this,” Geiss said. “We can’t fund all the geothermal plants, all the wind farms, all the solar farms, to get us the power and energy that we need. It’s going to require a partnership with industry.”

 

Partnerships with industry mean looking for investors and the right locations around the country to develop projects that will benefit both the Army and the developer.

 

“We can generate large projects that will provide us with power, as well as an economic case for the developer being able to sell some of that power off to the grid,” Geiss said.

 

Ongoing Army energy projects include the solar projects at Fort Sam Houston, Texas, and Fort Carson, Colo., and large-scale energy-management programs at Fort Hood, Texas. There is also the development of a 500-megawatt solar thermal plant at Fort Irwin, Calif.; a 30Mw geothermal plant at Hawthorne Army Depot, Nev.; and biomass-to-fuel demonstrations at six Army posts.

 

Overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan, energy security is also important for contingency operations and for weapons systems. The Army needs continuous, uninterrupted power for its forward operating bases. Added to the mix in forward locations is the exponential increase in the cost of fuel.

 

While fuel prices rose at the pumps in the United States last year, the price for fuel used by forces in Iraq and Afghanistan rose as well. But there, the cost of the fuel itself is eclipsed by the cost of getting it to where it is needed.

 

“Last year, the big deal was the price of fuel,” Geiss said. “You go from $2 a gallon to $4 a gallon — so we are doubling our costs. But that’s really the tip of the iceberg as far as how much it really costs to get a gallon of fuel to an operating base or some other operating location.”

 

The “fully burdened” cost of fuel accounts for the cost of transporting it to where it is needed, Geiss said. And moving fuel by convoy or even airlift is expensive.

 

“In some places you have to fly it in by plane or by helicopter and drop off bladders of fuel,” he said. “Those costs can be an additional $20, $40 or even $200 a gallon. To complete that mission with weapons a system in a remote location in Afghanistan, for a week, you (might) need 1,000 gallons. For us to get that in there, it’s going to cost us maybe $200 a gallon. So that’s $200,000.”

 

In some places, Geiss said, analysts have estimated the fully burdened cost of fuel might even be as high as $1,000 per gallon.

 

Energy consumed by a combat vehicle may not even be for actual mobility of the vehicle, Geiss said, but instead to run the systems onboard the vehicle, including the communications equipment and the cooling systems to protect the electronics onboard.

 

One combat vehicle, Geiss said, operates an 800-horsepower power plant — of which only 200 horsepower are used for mobility. The rest is to power the vehicle’s subsystems.

 

“What is it cooling? Electronics and sensors, some for the engine,” Geiss said. “That’s how significant this other stuff is.”

 

In January, the Defense Science Board released a report titled “More Fight, Less Fuel,” that focused on the fully burdened cost of fuel. Addressing the issue means changing the way Soldiers operate at forward operating bases, and even the way weapons systems are designed.

 

Applying spray foam insulation to a tent can reduce energy costs related to climate control by as much as 50 percent. That was determined though research conducted at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif. Also at the NTC, the Army has demonstrated microgrid technology that can better manage and reduce energy consumption at forward deployed locations.

 

“At an FOB, electricity is generated by a generator,” Geiss said. “You fill it up and turn it on and they go 24/7 — whether you need all the power being generated or not.”

 

With micro-grid technology, generators are linked together and equipped with computer-controlled intelligence. The system is aware of the total power demand and can turn generators on or off to meet that demand.

 

“If you are turning the generator off instead of running it when you are not using all the power, it’s pretty simple,” he said. “The savings estimates are 25-40 percent. But you have to have the intelligent systems to do that.”

 

The culture of Soldiers themselves also has to change, Geiss said. He said Soldiers must realize that the price of fuel needed for survival at FOBs is paid not only in dollars, but in lives and mission resources to get it there.
Bookmark & ShareDeliciousDiggFacebookMySpaceYahoo BuzzSee All…DeliciousDiggDiigoFacebookFriendFeedGoogle BookmarksLinkedInLiveMixxmyAOLMySpaceNewsvineRedditStumbleUponTechnoratiTwitterYahoo Buzz

Jul 09, 2009, post by awatrobski

7 US Troops Dead Throughout Afghanistan

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Bombs and bullets killed seven American soldiers on Monday, the deadliest day for U.S. forces in Afghanistan in nearly a year — and a sign that the war being fought in the Taliban heartland of the south and east could now be expanding north.

 

Separately, Taliban militants claimed on a militant Web site that they were holding an American soldier whom the U.S. military says insurgents might have captured last week. The Taliban information, however, did not include any proof, such as a picture or the soldier’s identity.

 

Four of the deaths Monday came in an attack on a team of U.S. military trainers in the relatively peaceful north, considering the question of whether the U.S. is committing enough troops to secure a country larger than Iraq in both population and land mass.

 

On a visit to Moscow, President Barack Obama said it’s too soon to measure the success of his new strategy in Afghanistan. He said the U.S. can take another look at the situation after the country’s presidential elections on Aug. 20.

 

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said in some respects, progress has been “insignificant” in Afghanistan. He said it’s hard to say how quickly the situation will improve.

 

Obama has ordered 21,000 additional American troops to this country, mainly in the south where Taliban militants have made a violent comeback after a U.S.-led coalition topped them from power in late 2001. The U.S. expects 68,000 troops here by year’s end, double last year’s total but still half as many as now in Iraq.
The four American soldiers killed in the north died in a roadside bombing of their vehicle in Kunduz province, said Navy Chief Petty Officer Brian Naranjo, a U.S. military spokesman. The soldiers were training Afghan forces, he said.

 

Two Americans were killed in a roadside blast in southern Afghanistan, Naranjo said. And another American soldier died of wounds in a Monday firefight with militants in the east, a U.S. military spokesman said.
There were no further details on the incidents in the south and the east.

 

It was the deadliest day for American troops in Afghanistan since July 13, 2008, when 10 soldiers were killed — nine of them when militants using small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades attacked a remote outpost in the village of Wanat near the Pakistani border.

 

The Taliban claim about holding a captured U.S. soldier came six days after a soldier was noticed missing during a routine check of his unit June 30. His body armor and weapon were found on the base.
Two U.S. defense sources have said the soldier “just walked off” post with three Afghans after he finished working. They had no explanation for why he left.

 

In southern Afghanistan, meanwhile, thousands of U.S. Marines continued with their anti-Taliban offensive in Helmand province. Some 500 Marines out of 4,000 participating in the operation moved into the Khan Neshin area, a Marine statement said Monday.

 

“This is the first time coalition forces have had a sustained presence so far south in the Helmand River valley. Khan Neshin had been a Taliban stronghold for several years before Afghan, and coalition forces arrived and began discussions with local leaders several days ago,” the statement added.

 

In the southern province of Kandahar, meanwhile, a suicide car full of bombs blew up outside the outer gate of the main NATO base in the region, killing two civilians and wounding 14 other people.

 

Those wounded near the gates of Kandahar Airfield included 12 civilians and two Afghan soldiers, said Gen. Sher Mohammad Zazai, the top military commander for southern Afghanistan.

 

As the conflict intensifies, U.S. forces are under pressure to minimize civilian deaths in military operations. In an effort to reduce civilian losses, the new commander of U.S. and NATO forces, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, issued guidelines ordering troops to “scrutinize and limit” the use of airstrikes against residential compounds, which Taliban fighters often use as hideouts.

 

McChrystal says he hopes to produce a cultural shift in the military so that his troops’ first priority will be protecting Afghan civilians, not using massive fire power. McChrystal’s guidelines went into effect last week, and officials released a declassified version Monday.

 

The three directives are that airstrikes must be authorized and very limited but can be used in self-defense if troops’ lives are at risk; troops must be accompanied by Afghan forces before they enter residences; and troops cannot go into or fire upon mosques or other religious sites, though this is already U.S. policy.
“We must avoid the trap of winning tactical victories — but suffering strategic defeats — by causing civilian casualties or excessive damage and thus alienating the people,” McChrystal said in the statement.

 

Civilian deaths caused by U.S. and NATO military operations have long been a source of friction between President Hamid Karzai and the West. Such deaths have deeply angered Afghan villagers, eroding support for the Afghan government and international mission.

 

In the latest accusation, Daud Ahmadi, the spokesman for the governor of Helmand province, said a rocket hit a civilian house in Nad Ali district Sunday, killing four civilians and wounding four others.
Noor Mohammad, from Khoshal Keli village where the rocket hit, alleged that the rocket was launched by foreign forces.

 

NATO was not immediately available to comment on the report. British troops have been operating in the area.
A NATO helicopter, meanwhile, made an emergency landing in the southern Zabul province, a spokesman for the military alliance said. There were casualties among those on board, but Lt. Commander Chris Hall did not have details. The incident was not caused by insurgent fire, Hall said.

Jul 09, 2009, post by Artur Nowak

UK troops to get new body armour

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

The British armed forces are to get new body armour and helmets this autumn.

 

More than 10,000 enhanced Mark 7 helmets and the new Osprey Assault body armour have been ordered.

 

The MoD says the new body armour has “all the stopping power of the kit it is replacing, but is lighter, closer fitting and easier to move in”.

 

It is hoped the new lighter Osprey Assault will go some way to answering soldiers complaints about heavy or ill fitting armour.

 

The new armour and helmet were unveiled at the MoD’s DVD 2009 event at the Millbrook Proving Ground in Bedfordshire.

 

The new helmet will eventually replace the existing Mark. It comes with a new four-point harness to keep the helmet more stable when night vision equipment is fitted to it.

 

It also has a new gap above the eye to compensate for the helmet tilting forward when a soldier goes into the prone position before firing, and there are plans to fit it with mounting brackets.

 

While the ballistic protection of the Osprey Assault is the same as its predecessor, the Osprey, the MoD says the overall fit has been tailored to the needs of dismounted troops, particularly those in Afghanistan.

 

British forces in Iraq were predominantly vehicle based, but in Afghanistan the terrain and conditions means that foot patrols are far more common.

 

 
Quentin Davies MP, Minister for Defence Equipment and Support, discusses the new Osprey Assault body armour.
Speaking at the launch of the kit, the MoD’s chief of defence materiel, General Sir Kevin O’Donoghue, said Osprey was a “proven world class system” and the new body armour order would ensure troops would “get the best kit for the job they are doing”.

 

“Troops will be issued with a new ballistic plate that is much thinner, reducing their bulk and burden and improving their endurance,” he said.

 

Current Army directives state that all soldiers must wear the latest Osprey body armour and Mark 6 Alpha helmets in any combat situation.

 

However, there have been a number of deaths due to troops either removing kit or wearing inappropriate gear.

Jul 08, 2009, post by awatrobski

In Afghan Desert Marines Confront An Invisible Enemy.

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

Since 2003, we provide satellite Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan globally enabling Iraqi and Afghan citizens, businesses and remotely deployed personnel to have broadband Internet access, enterprise connectivity, VoIP and videoconferencing services at affordable costs. Contact: phone +48 22 630 70 70 www.ts2.pl

*** ads by SatPRnews ***

A scorching desert littered with bombs, little contact, an invisible enemy: the Marines that descended on Taliban bastions in southern Afghanistan will have to confront guerrilla tactics proven against the Soviets, an analyst informed.

 

“Nawa is quiet, too quiet,” commanding officer of the operation, Brigadier General Larry Nicholson, claimed of the town where some of the 4,000 Marines involved had deployed Thursday at the start of the assault in Helmand province.

 

“The enemy has gone to ground,” he said.

 

By Sunday, four days into the first military test of President Barack Obama’s new strategy for Afghanistan, the Marines had confronted resistance except in Mian Poshteh where a US officer said 200 battled about 40 Taliban.

 

This was even though they had pushed into locations where the government in Kabul had little or no control, and where the Taliban had in some cases established a parallel administration.

 

Dutch Major General Mart de Kruif, commander of about 30,000 NATO-led troops in the region, estimates there are 10,000 to 18,000 Taliban fighters in volatile southern Afghanistan.

 

“When guerrilla fighters see that the enemy is bigger in number and facilities, have an upper hand on the ground and in the air, all they do is let the enemy take over,” said Afghan analyst Waheed Mujda.

 

“The tactic behind guerrilla war is simply to exhaust the powerful enemy, make it time-consuming and expensive for them to carry on.”

 

The Taliban militia itself said that it cannot take on so many men in direct combat.

 

“We are trying not to engage with them too soon because there are a lot of them and they would use air force in which case there will be civilian casualties,” spokesman Yousuf Ahmadi told AFP.

 

The fighters were using “guerrilla clashes,” he said. “Our men are among the people.”

 

“Significant resistance is not being seen,” interior ministry spokesman Zemarai Bashary told reporters in Kabul Sunday. However, mines were a threat and had already killed two policemen on Saturday, he said.

 

Homemade bombs — improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in security jargon — have killed three British soldiers in a similar operation further north since Wednesday.
A U.S. Marine and another British soldier were killed in insurgent fire, the military said.

 

None of the forces involved in the massive operation issued casualty tolls for the insurgents. “We don’t know,” Bashary said.

 

“The Taliban do not have the ability to face such a big force and power,” defence ministry spokesman General Mohammad Zahir Azimi told AFP, adding the security forces were being slowed down by the militants’ roadside bombs and mines.

 

Azimi said there was always the risk that militants would merely hide their weapons and melt into the community as ordinary villagers, while resorting to bomb attacks and other guerrilla tactics.

 

But by taking control of their strongholds, “we basically break their chain of command and control, we disrupt their supply routes, we deny them the opportunity to gather and group together,” Azimi said.

 

“The bottom line is we will take the secure ground they have from them and break their network.”

 

The joint forces had a three-phase security plan to keep insurgents out of areas they take, he said.

 

International troops would help the Afghan forces hold these areas; they would withdraw when the Afghan army and police were strong enough; and the army would gradually pull out, leaving police in place.

 

“This will take some five to six months after the end of the operation,” Azimi said.

 

Anlayst Mujda believed the Tailban still would be able to continue with their guerrilla methods which have been seen in previous Afghan conflicts.

 

“They attack the isolated security posts, the district headquarters and others, take control of them briefly, take weapons and money and food, and whatever they can,” the analyst said.

 

“They basically feed off the expenses of the enemy and go away.”

 

The Afghan mujahideen who fought off the Soviet invaders in the 1980s did the same, he said.

 

“They only resisted and fought when they were surprised by the enemy and they had no choice and most of the time they were carrying out attack-and-escape tactics,” he said.

 

But even before the Marines are able to hold these militant areas, they will have a difficult time in Helmand, Mujda said.

 

“It is terribly hot, the foreign soldiers move heavily, they carry food, water, heavy uniform and protection. They cannot survive in that heat for long.”

 

At least two Marines have been evacuated suffering chronic heat exhaustion, the force has said.