Aug 17, 2010, post by Artur Nowak
| *** 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 *** |
On September 17, 2009 U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and President Barack Obama separately announced plans to shift the emphasis of the global American interceptor missile – so-called missile shield or anti-ballistic missile defense – project from the previous George W. Bush administration’s plans to a more mobile, flexible and geographically broader system.
The proposed deployments of ten ground-based interceptor missiles in Poland and a forward-based X-band radar installation in the Czech Republic were abandoned in favor of what Obama deemed “stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America’s allies.” Both Poland and the Czech Republic, however, remain part of Pentagon plans and will be incorporated into a broader grid with all 28 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which in its final stage will cover all of Europe. Or at least the entire continent west of Russia and Belarus.
Plans for ground-based interceptors in Poland alarmed Russia, which necessarily saw them as aimed at itself, but would also have been housed in fixed silos that made them easy targets.
In the month before the announced change in American plans to begin the incremental buildup of a missile shield in Eastern Europe – phased adaptive approach in government terms – a report surfaced at the annual U.S. Space and Missile Defense Conference of the Boeing Company planning a 47,500-pound mobile interceptor missile launcher to be deployed within 24 hours to NATO bases in Europe. During the same month the Missile Defense Agency and Boeing also announced the successful test of their joint Airborne Laser (ABL) anti-missile system.
At the end of last August the first disclosure appeared of plans to expand U.S. interceptor missile deployments to the Balkans and the Black Sea region, Israel and Turkey. [4] The head of the Missile Defense Agency, Lieutenant General Patrick O’Reilly, said at the time that he supported the installation of Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptors in the Balkans and Turkey. (In 2007 his predecessor, Lieutenant General Henry Obering, mentioned placing U.S. interceptor missile radar sites in the Caucasus and even Ukraine.)
The SM-3 is a ship-based anti-ballistic missile and anti-satellite interceptor – used to destroy an American satellite in orbit over the Pacific Ocean in February of 2008 – and part of the U.S. and allied Aegis ballistic missile defense system. It has the main advantage of being deployable around the world on destroyers and cruisers. What O’Reilly was referring to, though, was a combination of sea-based SM-3s and their adaptation for use on land.
In describing current U.S. missile shield plans last September, Pentagon chief Gates spoke of a four-phase program that began with the deployment of Aegis class warships equipped with SM-3s in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea last year, to be followed by enhanced versions of the missile both on sea and land, with successive generations of more advanced models in the third and fourth stage.
This February plans to station land-based SM-3s in Bulgaria and Romania were announced [5], and when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski in the latter’s nation early last month to sign an amended agreement on interceptor missile cooperation, it was revealed that SM-3s will be stationed in Poland in the second phase of the Pentagon’s plan for a continent-wide interceptor system. [6] Slightly more than a month before, the U.S. moved Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) interceptors and approximately 100 troops into eastern Poland, only a few kilometers from Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave. [7] U.S. deployments in the country are also part of a broader NATO strategy.
Connecting the ship- and land-based components of the global U.S. missile shield in Eastern Europe with other locations to the east and the south, the Pentagon has also been qualitatively expanding Patriot Advanced Capability-3 and Standard Missile-3 deployments in the Persian Gulf. Washington is now preparing to provide Gulf Arab states with the longer-range Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile intercept system.
Last October and November the U.S. and Israel conducted the fourteen-day Juniper Cobra 10 exercise with five missile interception systems, the largest such live-fire maneuvers ever held. An American military officer present at the war games said the unparalleled drills would “help the development of a planned NATO missile shield for Europe.” A year before, the U.S. deployed an X-band missile shield radar (Army Navy/Transportable Radar Surveillance) to Israel with 120 troops, the first and to date only long-term foreign troop deployment in Israel’s history.
Washington and NATO are well advanced in solidifying an impenetrable interceptor missile system from the Baltic Sea to the Arabian Sea and the Black Sea to the Red Sea.
In the past few days further details have emerged concerning the expansion of those plans in both breadth and sophistication.
On August 30 Czech Prime Minister Petr Necas announced that “his government has been negotiating a plan with the United States to place a warning center in the Czech Republic as part of a reworked U.S. missile defense plan.” He also stated that personnel manning the facility could be provided by the U.S. and other NATO states and that the site could even be based in his nation’s capital, Prague. Necas added, “The U.S. plans to initially invest $2 million in 2011 and 2012 for the center, which is expected to become part of a joint NATO missile defense shield in the future,” and that no new treaty with Washington would be required for the project. Czech popular opposition to the earlier plan for an X-band missile defense installation was credited for the U.S. discarding the Bush-era plan.
Two days afterward Czech Defense Minister Alexandr Vondra confirmed that the U.S. had allotted $2 million for the construction of the facility, that American experts would be deployed there and that it would be in operation by the middle of next year. Vondra added, “I believe it will be one of many parts of the NATO system….”
In August of last year the Polish newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza revealed that the U.S. would expand its interceptor missile plans to the Balkans, Israel and Turkey. This August the Washington Post belatedly confirmed that design.
An article by staff writer Craig Whitlock appeared in the August 1 Sunday edition of the newspaper which quoted several U.S. military officials to the effect that:
“The U.S. military is on the verge of activating a partial missile shield over southern Europe….
“Pentagon officials said they are nearing a deal to establish a key radar ground station, probably in Turkey or Bulgaria. Installation of the high-powered X-band radar would enable the first phase of the shield to become operational next year.
“At the same time, the U.S. military is working with Israel and allies in the Persian Gulf to build and upgrade their missile defense capabilities. The United States installed a radar ground station in Israel in 2008 and is looking to place another in an Arab country in the gulf region.”
Not substituting for deployments in Poland and the Czech Republic, as has been seen above, but adapting and extending the network of which they are a part southward and eastward.
The Washington Post feature added that although the interceptor missile projects in Eastern Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf are technically distinct, “they are all designed to plug into command-and-control systems operated by, or with, the U.S. military. The Israeli radar, for example, is operated by U.S. personnel and is already functional, feeding information to U.S. Navy ships operating in the Mediterranean.”
Providing historical perspective and dispelling the prevalent notion that the current administration’s plans are in any manner a retreat from those of its predecessor, the piece stated:
“The concept of a missile shield began with former president Ronald Reagan, who first described his vision of a defense against a Soviet nuclear attack in his ‘Star Wars’ speech in 1983….It has expanded further under President Obama, despite the skepticism he expressed during the 2008 campaign about the feasibility and affordability of Bush’s plan for a shield in Europe.
“In September, Obama announced that he was changing Bush’s approach. Instead of abandoning the idea, he directed the Pentagon to construct a far more extensive and flexible missile defense system in Europe that will be built in phases between now and 2020.”
The author provided these additional details:
Starting late last year the U.S. has steadily deployed Aegis class warships in the Mediterranean Sea equipped with Spy-1 360 degree missile radar and “arsenals of Standard Missile-3 interceptors [which] will form the backbone of Obama’s shield in Europe.”
The initial detachments, one or two destroyers and cruisers at a time, will be tripled in number. Furthermore, “the Obama administration has plans to nearly double its number of Aegis ships with ballistic missile defenses, to 38 by 2015.”
Citing the commander of the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean, Vice Admiral Henry B. Harris Jr., the Washington Post article stated that one “option would be to assign some Aegis ships to home ports in Europe instead of making them sail constantly back and forth to the United States.
“Other Navy officials have floated the idea of flying in fresh crews so a ship could more or less deploy continuously, obviating the need for long breaks.”
It then supplied further specifics, disclosing that “Aegis ships, armed with dozens of SM-3 missile interceptors, will patrol the Mediterranean and Black seas and link up with…high-power radar planned for southern Europe.”
Romania will host land-based Standard Missile-3 deployments and Poland will follow as the site of SM-3s and additional sensors.
Although as recently as last year the Pentagon envisioned a total of 147 SM-3s, the Obama administration intends to nearly triple that number to 436. The new strategy “will require an unspecified number of new SM-3 missiles, which cost between $10 million and $15 million apiece.”
The system will expand in earnest after the NATO summit in Portugal in November, when the U.S.’s 27 members in the military bloc are expected to endorse a comprehensive, layered, mobile interceptor missile system for the entire European continent, albeit still firmly under U.S. control.
The Missile Defense Agency’s O’Reilly “said combined defenses would feature the best of both worlds: an ‘upper layer’ framework of SM-3 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, interceptors, operated by the United States, that could shoot down enemy missiles in space or the upper atmosphere; and a ‘lower layer’ of Patriot batteries, operated by European allies, providing a second layer of defense closer to the ground.”
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missiles have a longer range than both the PAC-3 and SM-3 and had not been discussed before as part of the new system.
Regarding the placement of U.S. and NATO interceptor missiles in Romania, on the Black Sea across from southwestern Russia, a recent analysis examined the geopolitical consequences:
“This means that the U.S. front line of defense is shifting from the eastern border of Germany to the Black Sea, which is adjacent to the Middle East, the Caucasus and Russia.
“Romania is ready to accept deployment of 20 SM-3 anti-ballistic missile units, currently installed on American naval vessels with the Aegis Combat System. These missiles could later be replaced with the more advanced terminal high altitude area defense (THAAD) missiles. They will also be deployed in Bulgaria. Meanwhile, it has become more likely that the X-band radar system, which the U.S. originally planned to install in the Czech Republic, will be set up in Israel.”
Bulgarian Defense Minister Anyu Angelov was summoned to Washington for six days starting in late June for “the launch of technical negotiations about NATO’s missile defence in Europe in general” and meetings with Defense Secretary Gates, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Ellen Tauscher, the last-named the key point person in securing U.S. missile shield deployments in Eastern Europe.
Angelov was given his marching orders and returned home to confirm that his nation will join the U.S. interceptor missile program in Europe (and beyond) and that “Bulgaria is participating actively in the discussions and the practical realization of all steps concerning the establishment of a NATO-wide missile defense system.” [17]
For domestic consumption he presented the decision as his country’s own – “We are the most interested state in Europe in the establishment of a missile shield because we are in the most threatened region – we fall within the range of ballistic missiles, medium-range ballistic missiles [such] as the ones employed by the states in the wider Middle East” – but since Bulgaria was incorporated into NATO in 2004 it now receives orders from the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon.
In a recent report that 700 Bulgarian combat troops have been ordered to Afghanistan (as Dutch troops have left), a leading local news agency demonstrated how such decisions are made: “Bulgaria’s center-right government, elected last July, initially said it would not be able to provide more forces in Afghanistan due to the economic crisis, but later changed its strategy under pressure from the United States and NATO.”
The same relationship of supremacy and subordination obtains between the U.S. and all other NATO members, particularly the twelve new acquisitions in Eastern Europe from the Baltic Sea to the Adriatic Sea.
The Pentagon has secured seven new military bases in Bulgaria and Romania since the latter two states joined NATO in 2004. Those sites include the Bezmer Air Base in Bulgaria, fifty kilometers from the Black Sea, and the Mihail Kogalniceanu Air Base in Romania near the city of Constanta on the Black Sea. Both are being upgraded to strategic air bases which, already employed for the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, are available for strikes against Iran and in the South Caucasus in the event of an equivalent of the Georgian-Russian war of two years ago. The Romanian base is the main headquarters for the Pentagon’s Joint Task Force-East.
At any given time there are several thousand U.S. troops in Bulgaria and Romania, the first foreign forces in Bulgaria since shortly after the end of World War Two and in Romania since 1962.
A comparable situation exists in Poland. An American military newspaper recently ran a feature on the deployment of Patriot missile batteries in the country called “U.S. Army’s presence in Poland most significant since World War II” in which an American Army spokesman stated, “We have between 80 and 150 troops going there on a regular basis. We’ve never had that number and for that long of a period.” No foreign troops had been stationed in Poland since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991.
The article also stated that “For the first time since the end of World War II, U.S. Army soldiers are making regular rotations into Poland, this time to train its forces to use Patriot missiles.
“Forty miles from the Russian border, a small group of U.S. Army Europe soldiers is instructing the Polish military about the missiles, which are designed to counter tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and advanced aircraft.”
A Fox News report characterized the operation as “the first long-term U.S. troop presence…in Poland,” and quoted U.S. ambassador to the nation Lee Feinstein as maintaining “It’s U.S. boots on the ground, a very tangible symbol of the U.S.-Polish alliance.”
Regarding Israel, where the U.S. has also deployed the first foreign troops on that country’s soil, in late July the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense added $95.7 million to a White House funding request for Tel Aviv’s long-range Arrow and medium-range David’s Sling anti-ballistic missile programs subsumed under the Iron Dome layered air and missile defense system. Abiding by the subcommittee’s recommendations, Congress will allot $422.7 million for the above purpose for next year (with $109 million for the Arrow 3 system), bringing total U.S. underwriting of Israeli interceptor missile programs to $1 billion over the past four years.
According to member of the subcommittee Congressman Steve Rothman, “Given the concern and attention that we are focusing now on every dollar we are expending on behalf of the US taxpayer for all purposes, including the defense of the United States and its allies, it is a mark of the importance of these projects that they were all funded so robustly and fully by our subcommittee.”
By absorbing most all of Eastern Europe into NATO, the U.S. has also provided its Israeli ally access to air bases and training sites of strategic significance for future attacks on neighboring Middle East nations. On July 29 Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilna’i stated, “We fly in Romania so we can act deep inside neighboring Arab states.”
The more extended and flexible, the “stronger, smarter and swifter” U.S. missile strategy, then, pursues a trajectory from the Baltic Sea, with Standard Missile-3-equipped Aegis warships also available for service in the Norwegian and Barents Seas, to Southeastern Europe into the South Caucasus, Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea and Persian Gulf, covering Russia’s western and southern flanks and encroaching upon Iran.
When President Obama visits India in November he intends to secure billions of dollars in arms deals with the world’s second most populous nation.
On July 12 Russia’s Vzglyad newspaper reported that “The deal, if signed during Obama’s visit, would [have] the US replace Russia as India’s biggest arms supplier…adding that the deal would also help India curb China’s rise.
“India’s shortlist includes Patriot defense systems, Boeing mid-air refueling tankers and certain types of howitzers, and the total cost of the deal may exceed $10 billion….”
By selling anti-ballistic missile systems to India – starting with Patriots and advancing to longer-range models – Washington will connect its missile interception network from Europe through the Middle East to its eastern wing, that which includes 26 ground-based interceptors at Fort Greely in Alaska, a 280-foot-tall, 50,000-pound sea-based X-band radar in the Aleutian Islands, and PAC-3, SM-3 and THAAD missiles in Japan, South Korea and Australia.
Current U.S.-China tensions, the worst in several decades, were triggered early this year when Washington confirmed it was providing Taiwan with 200 advanced Patriot missiles and warships capable of being upgraded for the Aegis Combat System.
For all the talk of protecting the U.S. Mainland from alleged Iranian and North Korean missile threats – accusations that are in the first case absurd and in the second highly improbable – at the end of the day Washington and its military allies around the world are well on the way to encircling Russia, China and Iran with an insurmountable barrier of interceptor missile deployments in conjunction with the militarization of space and the Prompt Global Strike program. Neither those three nations nor any other outside the rapidly expanding U.S. global military nexus will be permitted to retain effective deterrence or retaliation capabilities.
Apr 12, 2010, post by awatrobski
| *** 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 *** |
China’s cyber capability came into sharp focus recently when a report, issued coincidentally at the start of S M Krishna’s maiden visit to China, publicised that Chinese hackers had accessed and ‘stolen’ voluminous classified information from computers in sensitive government offices in India. The report, entitled ‘Shadows in the Cloud’ issued on April 6 by the Munk School of Global Affairs of the University of Toronto jointly with other organisations, informed that a number of computers in Indian establishments had been compromised. Launched specifically to investigate the extent of penetration by Chinese hackers of computers in the Dalai Lama’s offices, researchers detected that computers in 10 Indian embassies including Afghanistan, Russia, UAE, and USA, as well as in the Indian High Commissions in Nigeria and the UK had been compromised. Sensitive establishments targeted included the National Security Council Secretariat, a couple of MES establishments, the 21 Mountain Artillery Brigade, two air force stations, the Army Institute of Technology, Pune and the Military College of Electronics and Mechanical Engineering in Secunderabad. Computers of defence-related think tanks, like the IDSA and of academics and journalists working on defence issues were also compromised.
The Munk Centre and two researchers from the University of Illinois and Cambridge respectively, had in March 2009 issued similarly disturbing reports highlighting China’s cyber espionage attempts. It revealed that 1,295 computers in 103 countries were affected; 30 per cent of the affected computers as high value targets with many belonging to foreign governments and the Dalai Lama’s offices in India, Brussels, New York and London. A NATO computer, one in the Indian embassy in Washington and computers in nine other Indian embassies in UK, US, Germany, Serbia, Cyprus, Belgium, Italy, Kuwait and Zimbabwe were identified. The infected node stretched in an arc from India, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Laos, Brunei, Philippines, Hong Kong and Taiwan.
All the reports identify China as the source of the cyber attacks. The latest report identifies at least one hacker as based in Chengdu, capital of China’s Sichuan province and as associated with officially-tolerated hacker organisations like NSFocus and Eviloctal. Both these have links to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Another hacker was linked to the University of Science and Technology in Chengdu.
All these reports reveal that India has been subjected to sustained cyber attacks. While unlike in the US there is no official quantification of cyber attacks in India, estimates are that these were quite high last year. It is evident that computers of specific officials in sensitive establishments have been targeted, suggesting that a large number of computers were surveilled before a target was determined.
The reports are particularly disturbing since China views cyberspace as the battleground of the future. The military dimension to China’s interest in cyber technology was enunciated in a quasi-official book published in 1999, by two PLA senior colonels and entitled Unrestricted Warfare. Cyber warfare is suited to asymmetric warfare as it affords stealth, speed and deniability. Today, especially in advanced nations, Internet is a critical part of the operating infrastructure of public utilities like water works and electricity grids, transportation networks, financial institutions, health services, etc. The effort to merge Internet and mobile telephone networks will increase this vulnerability. After China’s President Hu Jintao in 2007 stressed the importance of cyber capability or ‘informationisation’ of the armed forces this became an area of intensive research and capital investment.
China formulated its cyber strategy in the early 1990s. The objective was to secure and control assured supplies of scarce essential resources, acquire dominance in the produce of hardware, gain the lead in cyber and wireless technology, and achieve indigenous capability and sophistication in software design. China developed an overarching policy encompassing civil and military applications. It declared rare earth metals a secret national priority in the mid-1980s. These metals are irreplaceable and used in hundreds of technologies ranging from mobile phones, BlackBerrys to low-light energy bulbs, missile guidance systems, superconductors and computer hard drives. In 1997, Deng Xiaoping observed that ‘China would be for rare earth metals what the Middle East is to oil’ and within 20 years China acquired virtually monopolistic control over the supply of rare earth metals. China’s ministry of industry and information technology demonstrated this when it recently proposed a total ban on the export of certain rare earth metals and recommended limiting the export of others to 35,000 metric tonnes a year. Japan, which alone needs over 38,000 metric tonnes, has accused China of treating rare earth metal exports as a ‘21st century economic weapon’.
China’s experimentation with cyber espionage and attacks coincided with the advances made in its cyber strategy. Official US estimates in 2008 noted that Chinese hackers mainly targeted US defence computers and systems and downloaded 10-20 tetrabytes of data. Chinese hackers are assessed as downloading intellectual properties estimated at $40-50 billion each year from the US.
China’s hostile cyber activity has attracted international attention because of the dominant military component in its cyber capability. Hundreds of Chinese nationals are being trained in cyber-warfare, many in academies run by the PLA, like the ‘informationisation’ military courses offered in Wuhan University. The PLA has, since 2002, steadily augmented its cyber-capable Information Warfare (IW) militia units. The distinction between civilian and military cyber applications has been deliberately blurred, as many militia units comprise personnel from the commercial sector and academia. This has widespread implications as a number of China’s Internet and wireless technology companies, like Huawei and ZTE, are going global. International concern has predictably generated debate on the appropriate response to a cyber attacks. The US and Western nations favour a military response including precision missile strikes.
India too will have serious concerns. Estimates are that China’s cyber force has at least 50,000 hackers targeting India and the Dalai Lama’s establishment and they are based in the Xinjiang-Uyghur Autonomous Region. With India and its armed forces getting increasingly ‘wired’ enhancing cyber security must be a priority. This has to be combined with the capability to trace and disable the source of cyber attacks.
Apr 12, 2010, post by awatrobski
| *** 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 *** |
On her third deployment to Afghanistan, Army Spc. Traci Petaway said it’s the little things she misses most about being back home – holding her husband’s hand or playing in the sand with her 2-year-old daughter, Arabelle.
But rather than letting the miles grow into a chasm between them, Petaway has combined modern technology with a dose of creativity to bridge the distance to her family.
The personnel actions clerk, deployed to Forward Operating Base Lightning, takes full advantage of the communication tools on hand, such as Yahoo Messenger, Skype and Facebook, to keep in touch with her husband and daughter, who are awaiting her return in Germany.
“When I am on a video call with Arabelle, I feel as though I am there with her,” she informed. “Playing ‘Itsy Bitsy Spider’ and blowing kisses back and forth really brightens up my day.”
Deployed servicemembers, who once had to rely on mail and a shaky phone system, now have a multitude of communication options at their fingertips, whether it’s webcams, instant messaging, e-mail or a plethora of social media sites, such as Facebook or Twitter.
“The parent may not be physically present, but the child is still hearing their voice and seeing their face,” informed Barbara Thompson, director of the Pentagon’s office of family policy and children and youth. “Those connections are very important over the course of a deployment.”
Some 1.7 million American children under age 18 have a parent serving in the military, and about 900,000 have experienced multiple deployments. Recognizing the importance of strong connections, the military has stepped up to help with a variety of free, technology-based resources designed to foster communication, Thompson noted.
She described a program in Navy child development centers in which deployed parents can see their children’s assessments and what they’re working on. Thompson also encouraged parents to check out TroopTube, an online video site on Military OneSource.
“Families can record significant or day-to-day events, such as Mom tickling a baby and Dad being able to hear him laugh,” she informed. “These kinds of things help people not feel so isolated.”
Deployed parents of children attending Defense Department schools can participate in important milestones such as graduations and football games using webcams, she informed.
Also aimed at schoolchildren, the Defense Department offers free online tutoring through Tutor.com. The site – http://www.tutor.com/military — offers round-the-clock professional tutors who can assist military children with homework, studying, test preparation and more. Deployed parents can keep tabs on students by accessing online resources offered through school Web sites or via e-mail with teachers.
“Families can use technology to do a science project together online or play a game over the Internet,” Thompson said. “By doing so, the deployed parent is still an integral part of the family.”
Nearing the end of a year-long deployment in Afghanistan, Army Sgt. Mark Morrison said he primarily relied on e-mails and phone calls to stay connected with his wife, Pamela, and daughters, 18-year-old Dominque and 6-year-old Gabriella.
“I have to call about every day for my 6-year-old,” informed Morrison, a Georgia Army National Guardsman who works in the joint operations center on Forward Operating Base Lightning. “As long as she hears my voice, she knows that everything is OK in the world.”
If more than a few days go by without contact, Morrison said, Gabriella starts to “act out” at school and at home. “We tried the webcam, but Gabriella didn’t like seeing daddy on the computer screen and not at home,” he said. “She wouldn’t look at me on the computer, so the webcam was out.”
When technology offers a stumbling block, such as with Morrison’s family, some families turn to more creative options to keep in touch.
Petaway said she mails her daughter kisses, but of the chocolate variety, to add to a jar. She sends a kiss each time she sends a letter. “As their jars are getting fuller, they realize that you did not forget about them and that you love them very much,” she explained.
She also suggests parents make a “flat parent,” created by gluing a picture of the deployed parent to an ice cream stick. That way, children can take their “flat mom or dad” with them wherever they go, she said. Some families also have created special stuffed animals or quilts to keep deployed loved ones close at hand for children.
Army Sgt. Stephen Nichols is preparing to deploy to Afghanistan, his second deployment since his 4-year-old son was born. As a single father, Nichols is doing his best to prepare his son for the long separation. As he did for the last deployment, Nichols bought his son a pre-deployment teddy bear and while he’s deployed, he plans to call often and chat with him online.
“My son is a lot like me, short and to the point,” he said. “As long as he hears my voice though, all is good.”
Air Force Maj. Spring Myers, officer in charge of a combat stress clinic, is dealing with the older end of the spectrum during her deployment in Basra, Iraq. Her younger daughter, 17, is with her grandmother at Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, while her older daughter, 20, is in the states attending college. Her younger daughter is applying for college, she said, and needs help with reference letters and applications.
“You just do what you have to do,” she informed. “I call as often as I can and try to work on things from here. I’m still a parent, even though it’s from a distance.”
It takes a great deal of effort to keep connected, Thompson acknowledged, but in the end, it’s well worth it.
“Communication can help ease the separation and the reunion when the parent returns,” she informed. “It’s critical to keep the child in the mind of the parent and the parent in the mind of the child.”
Petaway agrees. “For me, staying in touch is so important because I don’t want Arabelle to forget who I am,” she said. “And on really stressful days, seeing them is like my breath of fresh air.”
Feb 10, 2010, post by Artur Nowak
| *** 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 CH-53GA medium-lift military transport helicopter successfully completed its maiden flight over the Bavarian town of Donauwörth today.
Eurocopter test pilot Rene Nater and flight engineer Antoine Van Gent were at the controls. This first flight came just three years after the contract was awarded, and represents a major milestone for the CH-53GA program, as well as for Eurocopter Germany’s support centre for the German Army helicopters. Thanks to the new upgrades, the helicopter’s service life has been extended to 2030. Training flights are slated for early 2011, with the first deliveries of the retrofitted helicopters later in the same year. The German Armed Forces will then be able to deploy the CH-53GA with its state-of-the-art equipment for international missions (e.g. Afghanistan).
As Senior Vice-President Ralf Barnscheidt, responsible for German military contracts at Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH, points out: “Over the past 30 years, the Eurocopter support centre for German Army helicopters has completed many important upgrades on the CH-53G transport helicopter, working in cooperation with the Bundesamt für Wehrtechnik und Beschaffung (Federal Agency for Defense Technology and Procurement). I am extremely pleased to see the CH53-GA flying today, as it further demonstrates the successful cooperation we enjoy with the German Armed Forces that has enabled us to complete the program on time and within budget.”
Functional Requirements – Optimized Implementation
The CH-53G is being retrofitted so that the helicopter can be deployed in a wide range of national and international missions. The following major functional requirements for the CH-53GA have been defined and embodied:
• Improved display and flight control systems via state-of-the-art digital avionics
• Advanced accurate navigation system and improved flight capabilities in line with international IFR flight regulations
• Integration of a new automatic flight control systemAFCS/4-axis-autopilot) with automatic hovering
• Installation of auxiliary fuel tanks in the cabin to increase the range to 1,200 km
• Upgrade of communication equipment for joint missions with Tiger and NH90 helicopters
• Integration of a modular mission equipment package including FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared), satellite communication system (SatCom) and a cutting-edge electronic warfare system (EWS) for self-defense and identification of threats
Oct 16, 2009, post by awatrobski
| *** 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 *** |
KVH Industries, Inc., (Nasdaq: KVHI) has received a total of $2 million in new orders from multiple U.S. and international military consumers for its TACNAV® tactical navigation systems and Universal Multilingual Displays (UMDs). Shipments of these orders are planned to begin in the fourth quarter of 2009 with some extending into 2010. Due to contractual restrictions, additional details regarding the customers and platforms cannot be disclosed at this time.
KVH’s TACNAV military vehicle navigation systems provide unjammable, precision navigation, heading, and pointing data for vehicle drivers, crews, and commanders. TACNAV systems can also serve as a link between each vehicle and the overall digital battlefield, making each unit a node in a secure military network that consolidates a wide range of tactical data to provide detailed information to individual units and military commanders. TACNAV systems are currently in use on U.S. and allied vehicles participating in ongoing operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Military forces fielding TACNAV include the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, as well as many allied consumers, among them Canada, Sweden, Great Britain, Germany, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Malaysia, Switzerland, Botswana, Singapore, and Italy.
Aug 10, 2009, post by Artur Nowak
| *** 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 *** |
Darpa, the US defence research agency, is devoting $100m to alternative energy. But will it be commercially viable?
Nine years ago, Robert Nowak, an electro-chemicals expert for the US Defence Department, learned that senior generals weren’t happy with their troops’ electronic gear. While the night vision, laser, and GPS devices worked well, the batteries that powered them weighed some 25lb per soldier, heavy enough to hurt some of the troops.
So Nowak, who worked at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), the Defence Department’s research branch, solicited bids for a new device that would power a soldier’s gear at a 10th of the weight and a fraction of the $100 (£60) cost of the batteries. Today, the original 18 companies that took up Nowak’s challenge have been whittled down to two: Livermore, California-based UltraCell and Adaptive Materials of Ann Arbor, Michigan. Their solution: small, sturdy fuel cells that can power a soldier’s clutch of mobile devices for a week on a gallon or so of methanol or propane. Battle-ready versions of the fuel cells will be available this year.
Darpa regards the result as a game-changer for the military – akin to the potential shift in the automobile market from petrol-driven to hybrid or electric cars. Before the fuel cells: “If you were in Afghanistan and had a battery, you basically had to go to another country to get it recharged,” says Nowak, who is now retired.
Consumers and businesses might someday gain as well. Both companies are testing models for the US commercial market. First targets: city police forces and makers of recreational vehicles.
The big drive to create a viable alternative-energy future – by Detroit, multinationals such as IBM and BP, and Silicon Valley startups – is well known. But there’s another serious player in this sphere: the US military, and especially Darpa.
Created at the height of the Cold War to bolster US military technology after the Soviet Union’s Sputnik satellite launch, the agency has a long history of innovation. Most famously, Darpa’s researchers first linked together computers at four locations in the early 1960s to form the Arpanet, a computer network for researchers that was the core of what eventually grew into the internet. Other breakthroughs have lead to the commercial development of semiconductors, GPS, and Unix, the widely used computer operating system. There have been some serious gaffes as well, including mechanical elephants to carry troops through Vietnam’s jungles and an ill-conceived search for people gifted with psychic powers. But on the whole, Darpa has a strong record of bringing ideas from the lab to the real world.
Can Darpa now score another double success by changing how both the military and civilian worlds consume and produce energy? The Arlington, Virginia-based agency’s first goal is always to magnify the might of the US armed forces. That’s why it is devoting an estimated $100m of its $3bn annual budget to alternative energy. The US forces deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq are voracious consumers of energy. As a result, they have become perilously dependent on long, costly, and vulnerable convoys of diesel-fuel tankers. More vehicles are used to transport and guard the fuel – mostly for running generators for air conditioning, laptops, and other gear at US bases and posts – than are deployed in actual combat, according to a May report by the Military Advisory Board. With the expense of convoys and guards thrown in, the cost of a gallon of fuel used at the front can range from $15 to several hundred dollars, says the same report. So the army has set an overall goal of significantly reducing its fuel requirements. Under its plan, fuel and supply shipments to 5,000-troop brigades would be reduced from the current once every few days to just one a month.
Darpa describes itself as an incubator of long-shot technologies too risky for almost anyone else to take on. The agency operates by issuing challenges to companies that are so tough they are called ” Darpa-hard”. Typically, Darpa requires contractors to come up with solutions that are orders of magnitude superior to current technology. It pays companies – from startups to IBM – as well as top universities to meet a goal. Then, other than imposing strict reporting requirements, the agency gets out of the way of the researchers’ work.
In addition to spurring the development of palm-size fuel cells, Darpa has contracted with companies to miniaturise solar cells that would supplant the need for generators. It now wants to develop inexpensive diesel and jet fuel from algae that could be produced in the battle zone. All three programmes include the aim of accelerating the manufacture of any new product by private companies, from whom the military could buy.
The agency certainly has no shortage of ambition. Take its solar panel programme. Current technology converts into electricity just about 20 per cent of the sunlight that hits silicon panels. DuPont and the University of Delaware are partners in a Darpa contract worth up to $100m to elevate efficiency to 40 per cent, at an affordable price. The idea is to capture the sunlight that would normally fall across a square-metre solar panel and concentrate it into a cell about the size of a fingernail. A number of those miniaturised cells would be arrayed across a panel that could be folded up and toted into battle, where it would power the needs of a half-dozen to a dozen soldiers. “It’s an aggressive goal,” says Brian Pierce, who is managing the Darpa programme. In contrast, solar cell maker SolFocus of Mountain View, California, is working on similar technology for civilian applications but is aiming for much more modest efficiency gains.
Darpa wants the cost of the new panel not to exceed $1,500 – compared with the more than $15,000 DuPont recently spent on a working model of the panel and its cells. Dan Laubacher, DuPont’s manager for the project, says the system is at least two years away from delivery to the military. But as production ramps up, he says, the ultimate cost “could be lower” than the $1,500 targeted by Darpa. Eventually, as costs come down, DuPont hopes to sell the panels to utilities.
Darpa-inspired fuel efforts would change the military. How much the agency could change the commercial alternative energy industry is a matter of debate. Some in Silicon Valley welcome Darpa’s commitment. Vinod Khosla, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems and one of the most active venture capitalists in alternative energy in the valley, notes that so far both the private and public sectors have failed to make a definitive breakthrough in alternative energy. “Nobody knows the right answer. So the more the merrier,” he says. “Darpa’s ability to take a long-term view of research is positive.”
However, some argue that alternative energy is unlike other Darpa efforts in the past, when the agency had a tremendous impact. In nurturing a proto-internet, for example, Darpa was alone in the field. Now hundreds of companies are exploring solar panel technology, doing advanced battery research, and experimenting with algae-based biofuels. This is also a global field, where Japan, Germany, and China already have the lead in critical areas.
Others say Darpa’s goals can be unrealistic. Darpa wants to reduce the current cost of algae-based fuel from $20-$30 per gallon down to $3. In January, Darpa awarded contracts worth up to $34.8m to two companies to produce aviation fuel at $3 a gallon from algae. The competitors are General Atomics, best known for its Predator drone, and Science Applications International. They have three years to do it. Some doubt these companies – or any company – can achieve that goal.
Chris Somerville, the director of the BP-funded Energy Biosciences Institute at the University of California Berkeley, has specifically avoided investment in algae-based fuel because his team does not see costs dropping below $10 a gallon. “We’re sceptical that that’s going to be possible,” Somerville says of the $3 price target. Darpa’s answer, as expressed by Nowak, is simple: “If you want to change the world,” he says, “set the bar high.”
By Steve LeVine
Jul 26, 2009, post by Artur Nowak
| *** 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 24, 2009, post by Artur Nowak
| *** 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 *** |
Nine years ago, Robert J. Nowak, an electro-chemicals expert for the Defense Dept., learned that senior generals weren’t happy with their troops’ electronic gear. While the night-vision, laser, and GPS devices worked well, the batteries that powered them weighed some 25 pounds per soldier, heavy enough to hurt some of the troops.
So Nowak, who worked at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Defense Dept.’s famous research branch, solicited bids for a new device that would power a soldier’s gear at a tenth of the weight and a fraction of the $100 cost of the batteries. Today, the original 18 companies that took up Nowak’s challenge have been whittled down to two: Livermore (Calif.)-based UltraCell and Adaptive Materials of Ann Arbor, Mich. Their solution: small, sturdy fuel cells that can power a soldier’s clutch of mobile devices for a week on a gallon or so of methanol or propane. Battle-ready versions of the fuel cells will be available this year.
DARPA regards the result as a game-changer for the military—akin to the potential shift in the automobile market from gasoline-driven to hybrid or electric cars. Before the fuel cells, “If you were in Afghanistan and had a battery, you basically had to go to another country to get it recharged,” says Nowak, now retired.
U.S. consumers and businesses might someday gain as well. Both companies are testing models for the U.S. commercial market. First targets: city police forces and makers of recreational vehicles.
The big drive to create a viable alternative-energy future— by Detroit, multinationals such as IBM (IBM) and BP (BP), and Silicon Valley startups—is well-known. But there’s another serious player in this sphere: the U.S. military, and especially DARPA.
Created at the height of the Cold War to bolster U.S. military technology following the Soviet Union’s Sputnik satellite launch, the agency has a long history of innovation. Most famously, DARPA’s researchers first linked together computers at four locations in the early 1960s to form the ARPANET, a computer network for researchers that was the core of what eventually grew into the Internet. Other breakthroughs have helped lead to the commercial development of semiconductors, GPS, and UNIX, the widely used computer operating system. There have been some serious gaffes as well, including mechanical elephants to carry troops through Vietnam’s jungles and an ill-conceived search for people gifted with psychic powers. But on the whole, DARPA has a strong record of bringing ideas from the lab to the real world.
Can DARPA now score another double success by changing how both the military and civilian worlds consume and produce energy? DARPA’s first goal is always to magnify the might of the U.S. armed forces. That’s why Arlington (Va.)-based DARPA is devoting an estimated $100 million of its $3 billion annual budget to alternative energy. The U.S. forces deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq are voracious consumers of energy. As a result they have become perilously dependent on long, costly, and vulnerable convoys of diesel-fuel tankers. More vehicles are used to transport and guard the fuel—mostly for running generators for air conditioning, laptops, and other gear at U.S. bases and posts—than are deployed in actual combat, according to a May report by the Military Advisory Board. With the expense of convoys and guards thrown in, the cost of a gallon of fuel used at the front can range from $15 to several hundred dollars, says the same report. So the Army has set an overall goal of significantly reducing its fuel requirements. Under its plan, fuel and supply shipments to 5,000-troop brigades would be reduced from the current once every few days to just once a month.
DARPA describes itself as an incubator of long-shot technologies too risky for almost anyone else to take on. The agency operates by issuing challenges to companies that are so tough they are called ”
DARPA-hard.” Typically, DARPA requires contractors to come up with solutions that are orders of magnitude superior to current technology. It pays companies—from startups to IBM—as well as top universities to meet a goal. Then, other than imposing strict reporting requirements, the agency gets out of the way of the researchers’ work.
In addition to spurring the development of palm-size fuel cells, DARPA has contracted with companies to miniaturize solar cells that would supplant the need for generators. It now wants to develop inexpensive diesel and jet fuel from algae that could be produced in the battle zone. All three programs include the aim of accelerating the manufacture of any new product by private companies, from whom the military could buy.
The agency certainly has no shortage of ambition. Take its solar panel program. Current technology converts into electricity just about 20% of the sunlight that hits meter-square silicon panels. DuPont (DD) and the University of Delaware are partners in a DARPA contract worth up to $100 million to elevate efficiency to 40%, at an affordable price. The idea is to capture the sunlight that would normally fall across an entire solar panel and concentrate it into a cell about the size of a fingernail. A number of those miniaturized cells would be arrayed across a panel that could be folded up and toted into battle, where it would power the needs of a half-dozen to a dozen soldiers. “It’s an aggressive goal,” says Brian Pierce, who is managing the DARPA program. In contrast, solar cell maker SolFocus of Mountain View, Calif., is working on similar technology for civilian applications but is aiming for much more modest efficiency gains.
DARPA wants the cost of the new panel not to exceed $1,500—compared with the more than $15,000 DuPont recently spent on a working model of the panel and its cells. Dan Laubacher, DuPont’s manager for the project, says the system is at least two years away from delivery to the military. But as production ramps up, he says, the ultimate cost “could be lower” than the $1,500 targeted by DARPA. Eventually, as costs come down, DuPont hopes to sell the panels to utilities.
DARPA-inspired fuel efforts would change the military. How much the agency could change the commercial alternative energy industry is a matter of debate. Some in Silicon Valley welcome DARPA’s commitment. Vinod Khosla, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems (JAVA) and one of the most active venture capitalists in alternative energy in the Valley, notes that so far both the private and public sectors have failed to make a definitive breakthrough in alternative energy. “Nobody knows the right answer. So the more the merrier,” he says. In this context, “DARPA’s ability to take a long-term view of research is positive.”
However, some argue that alternative energy is not similar to other DARPA efforts in the past, when the agency had a tremendous impact. In nurturing a proto-Internet, for example, DARPA was alone in the field. Now hundreds of companies are exploring solar panel technology, doing advanced battery research, and experimenting with algae-based biofuels. This is also a global field, where Japan, Germany, and China already have the lead in critical areas.
Others say DARPA’s goals can be unrealistic. DARPA wants to reduce the current cost of algae-based fuel from $20-$30 per gallon down to $3. In January, DARPA awarded contracts worth up to $34.8 million to two companies to produce aviation fuel at $3 a gallon from algae. The competitors are General Atomics, best known as the maker of the Predator drone, and Science Applications International (SAI). They have three years to do it. Some doubt these companies—or any company—can achieve that goal.
Chris Somerville, director of the BP-funded Energy Biosciences Institute at the University of California Berkeley, has specifically avoided investment in algae-based fuel because his team does not see costs dropping below $10 a gallon. “We’re skeptical that that’s going to be possible,” Somerville says of the $3 price target. DARPA’s answer, as expressed by Nowak, is simple: “If you want to change the world,” he says, “set the bar high.”
Jul 22, 2009, post by Artur Nowak
| *** 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 *** |
If it has a new gen armor system attached to it, then I’m in favor of the JLTV over the MRAP. Why? Well, a number of reasons.
The MRAP has some things going for it, and it’s saved some lives, no question. But it’s not the end-all be-all, ultimate solution to what’s going on in Iraq and Afghanistan—and it’s not going to be the solution in future wars that may be fought differently…and certainly will be fought in different terrain.
Let’s face it, the MRAP is a bank vault tipped on its side with wheels and a motor. A million dollar bank vault tipped on its side with wheels and a motor. Consider some of its weaknesses, and the financial burden to fix or repair. We’re talking about a serious chunk of change just in the case of blowing the undercarriage out. My opinion on this shouldn’t be misconstrued as some reticence on my part to help out the troops. Anyone that knows me or has served with me knows I am STAUNCHLY behind the protection of our troops. It can be done with the technology at hand, and it can be done more efficiently.
Consider the cost, operational relevance and troop transportation capability of the MRAP (and the coming MRAPII) vs. something like the JLTV. We’re in a war, and in a war, particularly conducted with blitzkrieg type operations, it’s always going to be better to put fewer men and less equipment into less expensive vehicles. Put simply, I’d rather attack anything with a million ants than a pair of elephants. When it comes to those vehicles, protection doesn’t have to be expensive, the vehicles can be more efficient to operate in a disparate variety of terrains, and let’s don’t forget the cost of fuel.
Let me explain further.
The concepts of blitzkrieg were known in other countries, albeit poorly developed (the British army had partially implemented it), by the end of the First World War, but the Germans had worked out the complexities of breaking through a front with highly concentrated resources. This technique failed the Germans in their offensives of March 1918, largely because the breakthrough elements were on foot and could not sustain the impetus of the initial attack. The deployment of motorized infantry was the key to sustaining a breakthrough, but this would have to wait until the 1930s to be realized.
Superimpose the realities of modern war and we can see that the Humvee has proven itself to be a woefully inadequate method of safely transporting troops into battle, even with all the so-called ‘hillbilly armor’, up-armor packages, etc. We should have done it right the first time, or not done it at all. We should still be doing things right the first time or not doing it at all…
Let’s scroll back a hundred years to see the appearance of the first true British/American tanks worthy of the name. These hunks of steel, bristling with machine guns and small guns, were long enough to accomplish what they were originally designed for—to bridge the gaps of trenches. In those days, this was perhaps a good idea. Review the realities of today again. Everything has changed. Virtually every fundamental tenet of modern warfare is different than it was in WWI. So why do we persist in reverting to brawn over brains?
In those days, all we had were metals and a cubic mentality. Today we understand there are lightweight materials perfectly suitable for making lighter and more maneuverable vehicles of war without sacrificing the protection necessary to make them worthy of deployment. Yet our powers that be have built and fielded a 21ST century version of the WWI tank.
Why?
There are some laws and rules that must be applied to the discussion. Obviously we know that our modern vehicles must be lightened. We have a multitude of materials now that weren’t dreamed of then. Most vehicles in this discussion use some type of composite armor, meaning a hybrid of several materials much stronger as an admixture than by themselves. To fully understand my contention, however, one must understand some basic ‘Laws of Physics and Materials’.
First of all we have Spectra, Dyneema and other lightweight ‘soft’ material that can take up some of the weight.
But there are two laws that must be obeyed:
First, any projectile (or spall) traveling over 2,000fps will liquefy and penetrate just about any type of material. Imagine if you will a 22.250 cartridge. Its velocity is in the 4,000fps range. Now envision an M249 or Minimi type weapon putting out that sort of high velocity projectile at an incredible rate of fire and you begin to see some of the problem.
The second rule pertains to the shape of the armor. If it has a poor deflection angle, the round will penetrate rather than deflect. Take a lesson from our stealth aircraft. Its angles do the same thing, only with radar instead of hostile fire. The same principle applies to ballistic trajectory impact.
The reason boron carbide is so widely used is that it is a ceramic, which is essentially a glass. The majority of heavy duty anti-penetration materials in hard armor utilize this form of material. There are alternatives in play, such as pressing with an applied resin on top of soft armor until it hardens, then sandwiching it between some hard armor. One thing that has always taken me aback, though, is the lack of geometry used in armor design. Why was it such a surprise that we eventually put v-shaped boat hulls on armored vehicles? Did our modern designers just completely disregard the successful work of their Rhodesian forebears? V-shaped hulls were part of the way they tamed the landmines employed against them to such good effect by SWAPO, ZIPRA, ZANU and assorted other acronym-happy Communist-backed insurgents.
If you’ve ever seen the holes an 88 would punch into a Sherman tank in WWII, it is pretty apparent that they were cold-rolling (to the best of the contemporary technology) the armor. Then came Chobham, which basically utilizes a mixture of ceramics and different metallurgy. However, a balance of materials, placement, spaced methodology and geometry is the key to a true winning formula.
When discussing armor, one would be remiss not to bring up the subject of conventional Reactive Armor. These devices are nothing more than high speed reactive chemical bombs designed to detonate upon the impact of a hypervelocity shell. It is really meant to defeat copper jet penetrating charges, be they from an RPG or another tank’s main gun round.
Although not specifically part of the subject matter at hand, it’s worth pointing out that anyone who appreciates what may become future armor will appreciate Electro-Magnetic Armor. EMA uses electricity to defeat shaped charge warheads such as those from RPGs. Repetitive live fire testing has proven not only the theoretical properties of EMA but the actual, demonstrated ability to defeat shaped charges.
I won’t digress further by discussing other intelligent but somewhat whacky ideas such as Shear Thickening Fluids. From my understanding, development along these lines has been abjectly taken out with the garbage.
There are some good principles starting to come about that I believe originated with two or three different groups at once. These have to do with ‘spacing’, which in the light seem to make good ole’ fashioned sense.
Since we’ve all heard about how much Mine Resistant Vehicles weigh, its no wonder that scientists and material engineers continue to search for the elusive mixture of this and that necessary to reduce weight and retain the capacity to stop a hypervelocity round.
The offensive and defensive races for a defense-to-offense weapon is often elusive. This is NOT because the offensive weapon cannot be defeated. It is because nobody has grasped the necessary concepts or been given the green light to go ahead in reference to the consternating weapon.
Even if the JLTV is FCS compatible (which would be a big plus), the lightweight armor will still be of concern. The DoD is even now handing out massive contracts to the JLTV producers they feel best suited to construct them, but the armor problem has yet to really be solved.
There are a couple of things that must be brought into the overall picture:
1. The weight of the MRAP has already resulted in the “stranding with personnel inside” until reinforcements or flyboys arrive to bail them out. Still on the weight issue, you’d better have a nice paved road for the beast, otherwise you WILL be stuck in the mud or sand. These cost a MILLION USD apiece? It’s worth spending money to save troops, hell yes, but can we not do better? Could we design one that would crawl over rough terrain without tipping over?
2. Whatever the incarnation of the JLTV turns out to be, it will require the real and true next-gen armor. There are better answers than what is being considered now. They must eventually come into play because the majority of WIA and KIA suffered has been, horribly, due to a lack of thinking like good ole’ Heinz. Far better to put them into play now.
Look, military improvisation to deal with tactical problems isn’t new to American war-making. Think about all they did when they hit the hedgerows in ’44, or take a look at the pictures of sandbags held by chicken wire to the front glacis of Sherman tanks. My point here is that we should design our JLTVs, and whatever else we’re going to go to besides the MRAPs, and make sure our troopers aren’t having to improvise in some other faraway place to keep themselves whole.
Remember, do it right the first time.
Jul 08, 2009, post by awatrobski
| *** 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 *** |
US desire for power and wealth is insatiable where financial resources are worshipped like God. Friendship is fragile which is contrived to take advantage and so is its commitment to treaties. The US doesn’t believe in mutually beneficial deals but goes for hegemonic monopoly over others inviting strife. Imperialism has made the West dehumanized and devoid of morality. It conquers, plunders and kills with an altruistic face of saving humanity under false pretexts and catchy slogans. In actuality, it is dehumanizing Asia. CIA is notorious for spying, rigging elections to have US pawns in power and to secure lucrative contracts. It ruthlessly smothers resistance into submission and compliance.
Although Islamic resistance confronting the sole superpower is disjointed and divided, it has however denied it the unchallenged global supremacy and caused economic global decrease.
Terrorism is a product of injustice and confined to Islamic world. Without eradicating root causes which breed terrorism, the disease cannot be cured.
War on terror is chiefly being financed by USA through drug trade in Afghanistan. Likewise, Taliban too are using drug money to finance their resistance struggle. Continued occupation of Afghanistan by US-Nato troops is the major cause of instability and militancy in Afghanistan while RAW led subversion and sabotage against Pakistan has fueled extremism and terrorism in Pakistan.
Bush led neo-cons caused worst damage to US prestige and its economy. Contrary to claims of change, Obama Administration is following policies of Bush. It prefers force over dialogue, making no effort to provide them security, justice, rule of law, jobs and basic amenities to improve their lives. It is turning a blind eye to narcotic trade in Afghanistan, spreading vices in Afghan society and funding militancy. It continues to depend upon cunning advises of RAW, Mossad, CIA and pseudo US think tanks and hence distrusts, blames and coerces Pakistan which is facing the major brunt of US war on terror.
Disregarding US said that it has won Iraq war, Peter W. Galbraith opined that Iraq war failed to serve a single major US foreign policy objective. It has not made US safer; not advanced war on terror; not made Iraq a stable state; not spread democracy to Middle East; and has not enhanced access to oil. Even now 10-15 terror attacks take place daily. The US has suffered 4321 casualties. Situation in Afghanistan is far worse where 80% of territory is under control of Taliban. UK military commander Brig Mark Carlton Smith and French and German military commanders in Afghanistan admitted that US led allied forces are not going to win the war. Troops surge and flawed Af-Pak policy will not convert defeat into victory but will reinforce failure.
USA is trying to allay fears of Pakistan that it should not worry about India but doesn’t spell out basis of its optimism. While it attentively listens to complaints of India, it turns a deaf ear to grievances of Pakistan claiming that these are misconceived and warns Pakistan to behave (Kargil conflict, suicide attack in July 2008 on Indian Embassy in Kabul, Mumbai attacks etc). Colossal amount of $32.35 billion spent on defence by India and frenzy with which it is modernizing its armed forces and upgrading its nuclear capability disturbing regional military balance do not consternate Washington. Collective defence budget of all the six neighbors of India is $5.7 billion, of which Pakistan’s share is $4 billion.
Drones have not curbed militancy in Fata or put fear in hearts of tribesmen nor has it helped US military in limiting militancy in Afghanistan. Purpose of schemers is to provoke divisive militants like pro-government Gul Bahadur and Maulvi Nazir to join hands with Baitullah and put up a unified front against Pak army in Waziristan and get locked in fatal combat. Greater the resilience shown by militants, greater will be the urge to redeploy forces from eastern to western border to fulfill another wish of USA. It is in context of leaving our eastern border unguarded that Indian COAS Gen Kapoor has rendered a hollow and babyish assurance that India poses no threat to security of Pakistan.
Does USA really think that India is preparing itself to fight China? If so, it must be dreaming since ground situation is quite different. India has 13 Corps out of which seven Corps including six strike Corps are deployed against Pakistan, marked as principle enemy. It broke Pakistan into two in 1971 and thereafter it has constantly employed covert means to destabilize Pakistan. India and Afghanistan have signed a defence pact according to which India would deploy some 1,50000 troops in Afghanistan by December 2009. It would provide Indian military in collaboration with Afghan forces another avenue for invasion against Pakistan.
Was invasion and occupation of Afghanistan justifiable and are Americans justified in imposing set of rules quite alien to local customs and traditions and their brand of democracy which has not worked anywhere else?
Is it morally correct for occupation forces to divide local population into unfriendly and friendly categories and pitch latter against the former, split them on ethnic lines and also indulge in collateral damage under the pretext of eliminating irreconcilable? Will reconcilable of today not be irreconcilable of tomorrow?
Are Americans justified in keeping majority Pashtun Afghans out of power and propping up anti-Pakistan non-Pashtun regime headed by a puppet in Kabul? Are they right in trying to block Taliban from regaining power even if locals want them?
Having been ousted from power and their country, are Afghans so terribly wrong in resisting occupation of their country by alien forces and has it happened for the first time? Are invaders who conquer, plunder and mercilessly kill inhabitants of captured country for economic and strategic gains real terrorists or resistance forces that pick up arms in self-defence to safeguard their liberty and honor?
Are Americans justified in converting Afghanistan into biggest narcotics state in the world particularly when the Taliban had rid Afghanistan of this menace? In what way Americans have made lives of Afghans more secure and prosperous than what it was during Taliban rule? Is security in Afghanistan better today than what it was during Taliban rule?
Are they justified in misusing Afghan soil for carrying out drone attacks against Pakistan killing innocent people and in alliance with other powers carrying out covert operations to destabilize Pakistan?
Is USA justified in establishing military bases in other countries, spying over them and neighboring countries, destabilizing regimes and stealing their resources? Today USA has its forces in nearly 200 foreign countries. All US military bases are tied to oil resources and oil transportation considerations. Southcom in Colombia, Pacific Command, Centcom Command keep an eye on various oil producing areas. Centcom keeps its eye on Middle East and oil rich Caspian Basin covering most of Central Asian Republics. Afghanistan is an important military base for its reach against Iran, Central Asia, China, Russia and Pakistan.
As per South Asian analyst Lisa Curtis ‘The US needs Pakistan more than Pakistan needs the US’. What if a drone is shot down when Pak army patience wears thin? Doesn’t USA know that there is no viable supply line to send arms to Kabul for US-NATO troops?
On what moral grounds USA is so keen to give India a key role in Afghanistan, thereby enabling it to stab Pakistan in the back?
Why is USA pressing Pakistan to shift more and more forces from eastern to western border without taking any practical steps to allay its genuine security concerns?
Why has USA underestimate nefarious activities of 17 Indian Intelligence units in Afghanistan and each of Indian consulates and Kabul Embassy housing two Israelis despite being repeatedly told about their involvement in Fata, Swat and Balochistan?
Isn’t it high time we stand up as a nation and say No More?
