Mil-Tech

US Plans To Sell 10 Military Transport Planes To India

The United States said on Monday it hopes to begin negotiations soon on the sale of ten C-17 military transport aircraft to the Indian Air Force in a multi-billion dollar deal signifying deeper ties.

The Pentagon’s Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress last Thursday of “the possible sale of ten Boeing C-17 Globemaster III aircraft to the Indian Air Force,” the US Embassy in New Delhi said on its website.

The notification “is a necessary prerequisite to negotiations on the deal,” which could fetch up to 5.8 billion dollars, the embassy statement informed. “The actual cost will be based on Indian Air Force requirements and has yet to be negotiated,” it added.

Timothy Roemer, the US ambassador to India, played up the eventual sale of the C-17 planes that the statement said would help India’s armed forces increase and modernize their ability to move cargo.

“The potential sale of C-17s strengthens the growing partnership between our two countries, and demonstrates our enduring commitment to sharing the world’s best technology with India,” he informed in the embassy statement.

“This sale will offer economic benefits for both India and the United States and will likely include significant job creation in both countries,” he informed.

“India is a leading partner in our efforts to promote regional stability, peace and economic growth.”

The C-17, which transports both troops and heavy equipment, has proven “highly reliable in the harsh environments” of Iraq and Afghanistan, the statement informed.

“With a payload of 164,900 pounds, the C-17 can take off from a 7,000-foot airfield, fly 2,400 nautical miles, and land on a small, austere airfield in 3,000 feet or less,” the statement informed.

The US Air Force, the British Royal Air Force, the Royal Australian Air Force, Canadian Forces, NATO and Qatar all use the C-17s. The United Arab Emirates has also ordered C-17s.

What is more buying the C-17s, the Indian Air Force could also decide on a deal in which US personnel train the air crew and maintenance personnel as well as deliver training equipment, spare and repair parts.

Under a deal, the Indians could also agree to buy test equipment, ground support equipment and technical assistance. The Indians could also negotiate engineering services and logistical and technical support.

The Future For UAVs in the U.S. Air Force

When the Air Force recently mapped out a game plan to 2047, its report contained a big surprise: Fewer pilots and more robotic planes acting on their own. Will the airman-centric service accept a future with fewer cockpits? And are we ready for UAVs that can fire their weapons without human permission?

Like its waterfowl namesake, the Heron unmanned aerial vehicle has the excellent vision of a hunter. Today, the 27-foot-long Israeli UAV is making a rare flight over the United States, using a high-definition video camera to track a speedboat buzzing across the Patuxent River in Maryland. The camera shares space with an infrared thermal imager and laser rangefinder inside a 17-inch sphere mounted under the aircraft’s nose. The camera and the UAV both turn automatically to track the boat below, no satellite-linked joysticks required. On the Patuxent, a Coast Guard crew in a shallow-water patrol boat uses a real-time video feed from the Heron to locate the speedboat.

Less than 5 miles away, several hundred spectators watch the camera’s feed on a massive color television monitor. The crowd of defense officials, defense industry wonks and military aviation buffs—many with bumper stickers on their cars that say “My other vehicle is unmanned”—is thick here at Webster Field, an auxiliary naval airfield in Maryland. The Heron is just one of about a dozen UAVs making flight demonstrations. As each one sweeps overhead, an announcer gushes over its abilities with the over-enthusiasm of a county fair emcee describing a prize sheep.

The crowd watches on the massive screen as the two boats converge and the Coast Guard crew completes the mock interception. The image of the river scene wheels as the Heron banks away from the boats and returns to the airfield. The UAV glides into a smooth, autonomous landing and as the Heron taxis, the goofball emcee coos over the PA speakers: “Aw, isn’t that just pretty?”

The day is a spectacle of flying robots. A unit of Textron shows off an aircraft that it is pitching to the Marine Corps. It has a 12-foot wingspan and a pusher propeller mounted between its fuselage and inverted V-tail; it can be launched from a moving vehicle and is recovered by flying it into a net. The U.S. Army also has a marquee UAV to demo, the MQ-8B Fire Scout. The 3150-pound unmanned helicopter, the Army’s first, may soon scan battlefields for chemical weapons, minefields and radio transmissions. And the showstopper, even while remaining earthbound, is the Navy’s Joint Unmanned Combat Air System, a sleek, blended-wing aircraft with the maw of an air inlet placed almost mockingly where a cockpit would go. It sits like a resting bird, its 31-foot-long wings folded up for better storage on a warship. It is scheduled to perform an autonomous takeoff and landing from an aircraft carrier deck this year.

Unmanned aircraft are the biggest thing to happen in military aviation since stealth geometry, and the Air Force’s leadership is dramatically increasing the UAV fleet this year. However, the service is still struggling over how the technology can be maximized in the future. “Today, the evolution of the machine is beginning to outpace the capability of the people we put in them,” Air Force chief of staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said late last year in a speech to the Air Force Association. “We now must reconsider the relationship.”

Under his direction, the Air Force is trying to become the Pentagon’s leader of future UAV development. Schwartz’s primary tool is the “Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan, 2009–2047,” a comprehensive look at how the U.S. military can expand the use of UAVs over the next 38 years. The Air Force is proposing to use next-generation unmanned aircraft in a slate of new missions, including air strikes, aerial refueling, cargo transport and long-range bombing.

But how much freedom will the Air Force be willing to grant unmanned airplanes? Its airmen are only now coming to accept UAVs—they fly them every day over Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa and other hot spots—but the service has articulated a way forward that not only marginalizes pilots, it also promises to replace many UAV ground-control crews with automation. Today’s highly trained airmen may not embrace this vision of the future. One Air Force officer working with unmanned aircraft would only say he supports the report “because it’s a plan. And having a plan is better than not having a plan.

US army embraces robot technology

ROBOTS in the sky and on the ground are transforming warfare, and the US military is rushing to recruit the new warriors that never sleep and never bleed.

The latest robotics were on display at an industry show this week at a naval airfield in Maryland, with a pilotless helicopter buzzing overhead and a “Wall-E” look-alike robot on the ground craning its neck to peer into a window.

The chopper, the MQ-8B Fire Scout, is no tentative experiment and later this year will be operating from a naval frigate, the USS McInerney, to help track drug traffickers in the eastern Pacific Ocean, Navy officers said.

The rugged little robot searching an enemy building is called a Pakbot, which can climb over rocks with tank treads, pick up an explosive with its mechanical arm and dismantle it while a soldier directs the machine from a safe distance.

There are already 2,500 of them on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a lighter version weighing six kilograms has arrived that can be carried in a backpack, according to iRobot, the same company that sells a robot vaccum to civilians, the Roomba.

Monday’s demonstration of robotic wonders was organised by defence contractors and the US Navy, which says it wants to lead the American military into a new age where tedious or high-risk jobs are handed over to robots.

“I think we’re at the beginning of an unmanned revolution,” Gary Kessler, who oversees unmanned aviation programs for the US Navy and Marines, told AFP.

“We’re spending billions of dollars on unmanned systems.”

Kessler and other Pentagon officials compare the robots to the introduction of the aircraft or the tank, a new technology that dramatically changes strategy and tactics.

Robots or “unmanned systems” are now deployed by the thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan, spying from the sky for hours on end, searching for booby-traps and firing lethal missiles without putting US soldiers at risk.

The use of robotics in the military has exploded in the past several years as technology has advanced while Washington faced a new kind of enemy that required patient, precise surveillance.

In 2003, the US military had almost no robots in its arsenal but now has 7,000 unmanned aircraft and at least 10,000 ground vehicles.

The US Air Force, which initially resisted the idea of pilotless planes, said it trains more operators for unmanned aircraft than pilots for its fighter jets and bombers.

Peter Singer, author of “Wired for War,” writes that future wars may see tens of thousands of unmanned vehicles in action, possibly facing off against fleets of enemy robots.

Unlike expensive weapons from the Cold War-era, robotic vehicles are not off-limits to countries with modest defence budgets and dozens of governments are investing in unmanned programs.

At the trade show, military officers from the United States, Chile, Australia, Saudi Arabia and India listened to defence contractors promote their robotic vehicles, including a tiny helicopter about two-feet long and L3′s Mobius – a nimble medium-sized drone that reaches speeds of up to 215 knots.

The technology may sometimes resemble something out of “Star Wars” or a toy shop, but the robots determine matters of life and death on the battlefront.

In the fight against al-Qaeda, drones are Washington’s favoured weapon.

Predator and Reaper aircraft, armed with precision-guided bombs and Hellfire missiles, regularly carry out strikes in Pakistan’s northwest tribal area, causing an unknown number of civilian casualties.

Last week, a drone strike is believed to have have killed the Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud.

The unmanned aircraft in the US military’s inventory range from small Ravens, that can be tossed into the air to see over the next hill, to the giant Global Hawk, a 15-metre-long spy plane that can fly at high altitude for up to 35 hours.

The drones and ground vehicles are often operated using joysticks or consoles familiar to a younger generation raised on video games.

“Soldiers these days have a lot of experience playing video games when they’re growing up, and they’re really familiar with these controls. So this really reduces the training time on these types of unmanned vehicles,” said Charlie Vaida of iRobot, which makes a game console for the Pakbot.

Amid plans for unmanned bomber jets for aircraft carriers, the onslaught of drones could eventually render fighter aces a relic of history.

Military officers insist the robots are a complement and not a substitute for traditional aircraft, and pose no threat to the careers of their fellow pilots.

“I think they understand we’re not going to replace them,” said Captain Tim Dunnigan, a navy chopper pilot. “This is going to augment them.”

7 US Troops Dead Throughout Afghanistan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Satellite Broadband Internet in Iraq and Afghanistan for U.S. Troops

WARSAW, Poland, Jan. 22 /Reuters/ — TS2 Satellite Technologies‘ network in Iraq and Afghanistan has over 15,000 military users of local broadband satellite connections.

“We were among the first telecommunications operators in the satellite technology in the territory of Iraq and Afghanistan, and as such we have enjoyed a successful cooperation with the U.S. Army for several years now,” says Marcin Frackiewicz, CEO of the TS2 Satellite Technologies.

TS2 Satellite Technologies offers two-way high-speed Internet access with no phone lines, no cable and no dial-up modem. It’s always on, available virtually anywhere, and affordable. The laptop or Wi-Fi network can receive Internet signal through a special satellite VSAT modem, which was usually set up in a building or tent when deployed.

The one VSAT access point provides the following services for soldiers:

– Broadband access to the Internet (WWW, E-mail, FTP etc.)
– Data transfer to many other users simultaneously
– Telephone connections including VoIP, IP phone
– Video-conference connections

Advantages of the system:

– Short set-up time
– Fast and easy upgrades
– Possibility of guaranteed CIR
– Transmission in almost all weather conditions

The communication among the bases is possible thanks to the simultaneous lease of bands on the Intelsat 10-02, Intelsat 901 and Eutelsat W6 satellites whose coverage enables configuration of connections between any place in Europe, Middle East and Southwest Asia.

TS2′s satellite military networks are located in Al Taqaddum Air Base, Bahgram AF, Balad Base, Baquba Airfield, Brassfield-Mora, Cob Adder, Cob Speicher, Camp Al Asad Airbase, Camp Bucca Basra City, Camp Buehring, Camp Charlie Basra, Camp Eggers, Camp Fallujah, Camp Grizzly, Camp Korean Village, Camp Liberty, Camp Mejid, Camp Ramadi, Camp Slayer, Camp Stryker, Camp Taji, Camp Victory, Fob Bagram, Fob Brassfield Mora, Fob Delta Al Kut, Fob Diamondback, Fob Falcon, Fob Garryowen, Fob Gardez, Fob Ghazni, Fob Kalagush, Fob Kandahar, Fob Lagman, Fob Mchenry, Fob Marez, Fob Normandy, Fob Rustamiyah, Fob Summerall, Fob Sykes, Fob Salerno, Fob Torkham, Fob Warhorse, Fob Warrior, Herat RTC, Jallahabad Air Base, Kabul Airport, Kabul Camp Eggers, Kandahar Air Base, Lsa Anaconda Balad, Q-West Base Complex and Tallil Ab Lsa Adder.

Especially for U.S. Military Personnel, Contracting Officers and DoD Contractors, TS2 delivers satellite equipment to most of all military addresses in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Middle East, within maximum of 7 days.

Supported military locations in Iraq -
http://www.ts2.pl/en/Internet-in-Iraq-for-US-Army-Soldiers

Supported military locations in Afghanistan -
http://www.ts2.pl/en/Internet-in-Afghanistan-for-US-Army-Soldiers

Contact:

Piotr Kubiak and Michal Skrok
TS2 Satellite Technologies
phone +48 22 630 70 70
fax +48 22 630 70 71
http://www.ts2.pl

How Future Combat Systems Will Work

 
The Future Combat Systems (FCS) initiative is a massive overhaul of military technology intended to prepare the U.S. Army for modern warfare. Current projections suggest that it will be the most expensive military project in U.S. history and will take decades to design and complete. Creating the hardware, software, networks and integration necessary to make FCS work is an incredibly complicated project.
The Army wants to dominate the full-spectrum battlefield – land, sea and air. To accomplish this, it will need several different types of units. The Army must also link its operations with that of the other military branches, and the militaries of other nations that might join them in a coalition operation.

FCS is a “system of systems,” because it actually comprises 18 separate systems. Each system is a type of unit, such as an unmanned artillery vehicle, a manned tank or a command and control vehicle. FCS is also sometimes called “18+1+1,” where the “+1″s represent the network and the soldier who will utilize the systems. If the Army were simply revamping their military hardware and designing 18 new combat and logistics units, that would be a major project by itself. Designing all 18 from the ground up with the architecture to link every unit makes FCS truly revolutionary.

So why is the Army undertaking such a huge project? Military experts believe the nature of warfare is changing. Large-scale territory battles like those fought in World War II will disappear. Instead, the Army will probably face insurgencies and smaller conflicts spread out over wide areas. Tomorrow’s Army needs the ability to deploy and redeploy as quickly as possible. To this end, the FCS has four main goals:

Improve strategic agility
An Army with large, inflexible units that take months to deploy can’t react quickly enough or deal with all of the problems at hand. Some military analysts refer to this as “having a pocket full of $20 bills and a lot of $5 problems” [ref].

Decrease the logistics footprint
The logistics footprint represents the support crews, fuel, parts and ammunition needed to keep a unit operational. Long supply chains, large refueling vehicles and the need to set up large maintenance depots work against agility and makes the forces that they’re attached to more vulnerable.

Reduce operating and maintenance costs
Creating multiple units based on the same basic structures allows for exchangeable parts and gives maintenance personnel the ability to repair a wider range of units with the same amount of training. This also contributes to a smaller logistics footprint and greater agility.
The Army is focusing on smaller, lighter vehicles that are faster and more maneuverable. Instead of heavy armor, units will use stealth strategies and smaller profiles to reduce casualties. Lighter vehicles are also easier to transport and use less fuel. The Army will combine its efforts with other military branches and other nations. This makes the ability to communicate with coalition forces a vital facet of future warfare.

Increase battlefield lethality and survivability
Tomorrow’s soldiers need to destroy their targets and survive attacks a greater percentage of the time. This reduces the number of units needed in any particular engagement, reduces the need for extensive reinforcements and eases the burden on medical and repair units.

Meeting the Needs of Future Warfare
The network is the core of Future Combat Systems. It will allow each unit to share real-time information with other units, coordinate movement and react to battlefield conditions quickly and accurately. Network-centric warfare is a relatively new concept that unifies all of the advantages gained by other elements of FCS. For example, a tank platoon that can be deployed quickly and move with agility has no advantage if their orders are delayed or unclear, or if their commanders don’t have enough information to make the right decision in the shortest amount of time. The network will allow for speed of command.
Network-centric warfare changes the way commanders look at their armies. Instead of a contest of numbers (my 3,000 troops can beat your 1,000 troops), the U.S. Army becomes one entity with many parts that can shift and adapt to quickly-developing situations. Information is shared across the entire network.

The network comprises several components. The Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS, often referred to as “Jitters”), was designed to do away with the need for multiple bulky radio systems using various frequencies and encryption methods. It would allow all branches of the U.S. military to communicate with each other from land, sea and air using the same system. However, critics found the JTRS plan of replacing older analog radios (many of which aren’t very old at all, having just been purchased for operations in the Middle East) overly ambitious and almost impossible to implement. Today, JTRS is still in development as a supplemental communications program that will act as a soldier’s “gateway” to the overall FCS network [ref].

The System-of-Systems Common Operating Environment (SOSCOE) is software that will allow all of the various systems to operate seamlessly. It will take roughly 35 million lines of code to properly program SOSCOE [ref]. The operating system is a blend of Linux and an Intel-based OS specially created for the Army.

The WIN-T system is the data transport system that will connect the FCS systems. WIN-T will utilize lasers, satellites and more conventional ground networks. The WIN-T system is basically a tactical Internet, keeping fast-moving units in communication with operational leadership. Not only does WIN-T have to provide the massive amount of bandwidth to carry all of the information FCS will be generating, but it must also be strong enough to deal with the battlefield environment [ref].

Changing Needs
The need for tactical agility has led the Army to focus design efforts on lighter, faster combat vehicles. Today’s main battle tank, the M1 Abrams, weighs 65 to 70 tons, depending on its configuration. Its front armor is capable of stopping just about any anti-tank round in existence. However, next-generation ballistic weapons will strike with immense force. Instead of layering a tank with more armor, creating a heavier, slower vehicle, the Army has opted for a 20-ton design. These future tanks will use ultra-modern technologies (some of which don’t actually exist yet) to resist anti-tank weapons.

New armor materials are one part of the plan, but the tanks will also have a small signature – its small size will make it tougher to find and hit. An active suspension system will allow the tank to “crouch” into a very low position. The Army will also employ active countermeasures like smoke screens to obscure line of sight and small rocket rounds that can intercept incoming rounds from enemies.

According to a press release, “The Army transformation requirements includes the ability to put a combat-capable brigade anywhere in the world within 96 hours, a full division in 120 hours, and five divisions on the ground within 30 days” [ref]. One way to increase strategic agility is to allow fewer soldiers to do more work. This continues a trend that has gone on for centuries. At the Battle of Gettysburg, the Union line was a few miles long and covered by roughly six corps. The average tourist can walk the length of the line in one afternoon. During the Cold War, roughly the same number of NATO troops (and corps) covered the entire inter-German border – a distance that you certainly could not walk in an afternoon [ref].

FCS will allow for even greater dispersion of forces by utilizing unmanned vehicles, unmanned weapons platforms and robot sentries. Manned vehicles will require smaller crews – the FCS tank will have a crew of just two, compared to the M1′s crew of four.

The Army wants to reduce the amount of fuel needed by its units by as much as 30 percent. For example, the gas turbine engine that powers the M1 Abrams gives it enormous power and the ability to travel close to 45 mph, but it also uses an incredible amount of fuel. Vehicles and tanks developed for FCS will likely use some form of electric-hybrid engine, increasing both available torque and fuel efficiency.

In the next section we’ll learn more about these vehicles and the other vehicles planned for FCS.

Systems and Vehicles
The FCS project includes the design and development of several different types of air and ground vehicles, many of them unmanned and autonomous. Most of these vehicles don’t exist yet, but some prototypes have been developed and demonstrated by contractors. A few are already in use in Iraq to dispose of explosive and perform urban reconnaissance.
Unattended Ground Sensors (UGS)
These small sensor arrays are similar to “Star Wars” droids, but they’re not quite as mobile. After soldiers or robotic vehicles deploy them, they will be able to stay in place to do their jobs. Those jobs may include guarding areas of a perimeter, detecting chemical or radioactive materials, providing links in communications chains, spotting targets for other units to fire upon, and assisting in crowd control by directing people to head in a certain direction. They can also be switched on and off to allow friendly troops to move through the area.

Non-line of Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS)
These systems would come in discreet packages containing a computer, a communication system for connection to the network, and 15 missiles. Soldiers can give the missiles their launch instructions remotely, and can further modify targeting once they are in the air.

Intelligent Munitions System
Similar to Unattended Ground Sensors, these robotic units will be deployed to an area to guard it with suppressive weapons. This will aid in troop dispersion, help organize battlefields and force enemy troops into desired positions.

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
The FCS plan also calls for four different classes of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs):

The Class I UAV will weigh less than 15 pounds, take off and land vertically, and provide intelligence, surveillance and communications relay functions. It will be remote-controlled and portable.
 

Class II will be deployed from a vehicle, stay in the air for 2 hours and have a range of about 10 miles (16 km). According to the Army’s FCS Web site, the Class II UAV “supports the Infantry and Mounted Combat System Company Commanders with reconnaissance, security/early warning, target acquisition and designation.”

The Class III UAV will look like a small, simplified airplane. It will take off and land without a dedicated airfield and fly longer and farther than Class I and II UAVs.

Class IV will be an unmanned helicopter that can stay in the air and provide surveillance over an area of 47 miles (75 km) for up to 24 hours.
 

Armed Robotic Vehicle (ARV)
One of the most revolutionary aspects of FCS is the adoption of these robotic tanks. These units will be controlled remotely and provide many of the functions of a manned tank unit. They will offer support for troops with direct fire, anti-tank fire and over-watch fire. ARVs will also increase troop dispersion.

Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV)
These units are already in use in Iraq. Talon robots and Packbots have seen significant action in explosive disposal and urban reconnaissance missions, and future versions will have offensive capabilities.
Multifunctional Utility/Logistics and Equipment (MULE)
The MULE will be the workhorse of the FCS. This two-and-a-half ton truck will be able to operate via remote control or as a slave unit following a controlled vehicle in front of it. In addition to hauling equipment, the MULE will have a mine-sweeping configuration and an armed light assault configuration.

Crusher, an autonomous unmanned ground vehicle developed by Carnegie Mellon University, is essentially a prototype MULE. It can carry weapons and drive over a 4-foot vertical wall with 8,000 pounds of cargo onboard. To learn more, check out How Crusher Works.

Mounted Combat System (MCS)
The MCS is probably the most important piece of hardware in FCS, aside from the network. The MCS will replace the M1 Abrams main battle tank and will maintain a comparable survivability rate by using speed, situational awareness and an extremely long range 120-mm weapon to avoid close-up confrontations. Its 20-ton weight means that many MCS units will be able to ship via C-130 transport planes. They can also be parasailed into position if necessary.

To make the fleet more versatile while reducing operations and maintenance costs:
Infantry Carrier Vehicle (ICV)
With a crew of two, the ICV will transport nine additional soldiers to the battlefield. It will carry all of their equipment, provide a link to the network and protect itself with a 40-mm weapon.

Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon (NLOS-C)
This vehicle is will be a mobile long-range artillery unit.

Non-Line-of-Sight Mortar (NLOS-M)
This vehicle is similar to the NLOS-C, but it will use a mortar as a weapon instead of a long-range cannon. This will give it the ability to provide close support for infantry and use precision rounds to destroy highly dangerous targets.

Reconnaissance and Surveillance Vehicle (RSV)
The RSV is a high-tech scout equipped with a host of sensors, radio frequency interceptors, chemical detectors and communications link-ups.

Command and Control Vehicle (C2V)
The C2V is the mobile field headquarters unit for military commanders. This vehicle offers all the network connections and information analysis tools that field leaders need to make command decisions on the fly.

Medical Vehicle – Treatment (MV-T) and Evacuation (MV-E)
These vehicles will allow medical personnel and trauma specialists to move with combat units, placing them closer to the battle and allowing them to treat wounded soldiers quickly and evacuate them safely.

FCS Recovery and Maintenance Vehicle (FRMV)
FRMVs will primarily carry repair and maintenance crews. They also have a limited capability to recover damaged equipment and crews from the battlefield.
The Future Force Warrior
The individual soldier makes up the final element of FCS. Using the latest advances in personal body armor, an on-board computer and built-in networking, tomorrow’s soldiers will have amazing situational awareness on any battlefield, and will be able to accomplish military tasks with greater efficiency. Check out How the Future Force Warrior Will Work to learn more.

How FCS Might Not Work
The Army is using spiral development to develop the FCS. Instead of working on the entire project from start to finish, with no deployable elements until everything is completed, contractors are developing systems incrementally. Finished subsystems will be immediately deployed for testing. Problems discovered with those units can be overcome as the Army adds more systems are added, and it can improve upon and upgrade early systems.
The Army keeps moving up the launch date for FCS because they want to get the technology into the field as soon as possible. It plans to deploy a test unit in 2008, with more systems releasing every two years until 2014. By that time, there will be 32 FCS-equipped brigades. The Army hopes to have the ability to equip any brigade with a fully-functional FCS system in 2016. It will take years beyond that point to fully equip the entire Army.

 
Like any complex design project, FCS is not entirely without problems. Critics point to several factors:

Cost
All military research and development programs face questions about cost. Initially, FCS was projected to cost under $100 billion. In 2003, that increased to $175 billion [ref]. The latest estimates suggest the project will cost about $300 billion, making it the most expensive military project in U.S. history. With Congress threatening to trim some of the FCS budget, contractors working on the project have aggressively demonstrated the need for FCS in a series of seminars. It seems to have worked, because in 2006 a paltry $236 million was cut from Boeing’s FCS budget over four years [ref]. However, the possibility of future budget cuts remains.

Cost-plus pricing
Government contracts typically use a cost-plus pricing method. With this method, the contractor bills the government for the price of any material, personnel and other direct costs associated with the project. Then the government pays the contractor a fee based on a percentage of those direct costs. This method can encourage contractors to purchase at inflated prices and let project costs escalate, since the higher their costs, the higher their profit.

Reliance on light armor
Critics of the 20-ton replacement for the M1 Abrams tank contend that the modern light tanks will undoubtedly face heavy armor in close fighting, which will leave them extremely vulnerable. They fear that abandoning heavy tank designs will leave a major gap in the Army’s capabilities. At the very least, the Army will need to retrofit older M1s to stay in action as a form of heavy armor.
FCS is so ambitious that in some cases, the technology does not yet exist to accomplish it. The revision – some would say failure – of the JTRS system is one example of a system that has exceeded our current ability to actually make it work. Advanced ballistic armor, robotic control systems, automated sensors and high-bandwidth networks are all potential problem areas. It is likely that some FCS systems will never be fully functional and that current units and technologies will be retrofitted and upgraded to fit into the plan.
For lots more information about Future Combat Systems, the military and related topics, check out the links on the next page.

TS2 Satellite Technologies

TS 2 is the prime Internet Provider for US Army soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most of all active customers are Polish and US Army soldiers, but TS 2 solutions have been implemented also for private companies and organizations. TS 2′ network in Iraq and Afghanistan has over 15 thousand military users of local broadband satellite connections.

TS 2 specializes in providing global satellite access services. They core business is broadband access to the Internet in areas with poor telecommunications infrastructure and mobile satellite phones communication. The main medium of used transmission is a two-way satellite transfer system, which provides good access to the satellite network in even the least accessible areas. It not only provides a broadband connection but also a wide range of additional data and voice services.

TS2’s satellite networks are available in Al Taqaddum Air Base, Bagram AF, Balad Base, Baquba Airfield, Brassfield-Mora, Cob Adder, Cob Speicher, Camp Al Asad Airbase, Camp Bucca Basra City, Camp Buehring, Camp Charlie Basra, Camp Eggers, Camp Fallujah, Camp Grizzly, Camp Korean Village, Camp Liberty, Camp Mejid, Camp Ramadi, Camp Slayer, Camp Stryker, Camp Taji, Camp Victory, Fob Bagram, Fob Brassfield Mora, Fob Delta Al Kut, Fob Diamondback, Fob Falcon, Fob Garryowen, Fob Gardez, Fob Ghazni, Fob Kalagush, Fob Kandahar, Fob Lagman, Fob Mchenry, Fob Marez, Fob Normandy, Fob Rustamiyah, Fob Summerall, Fob Sykes, Fob Salerno, Fob Torkham, Fob Warhorse, Fob Warrior, Herat RTC, Jallaabad Air Base, Kabul Airport, Kabul Camp Eggers, Kandahar Air Base, Lsa Anaconda Balad, Sather Air Base, Q-West Base Complex and Tallil Ab Lsa Adder. [2]

TS2 delivers telecommunication services also for Police Transition Teams in following locations: West Ramadi, Warrar, Tal-Aswad, Saqlawiyah / Saqlawiah, Rutbah, Rumanah, Ramadi District HQ, Qatanna, Mulaab, Kubaisa, Khaladiah, Karmah, Jazeera, Hit, Haqlaniyah, Hamdiyah, Habbaniyah, Forsan, Ferris, East Ramadi, Barwannah, Anah, Ameriayah and Al Qaim. [3]

Military customers in Iraq and Afghanistan

Before end of 2007 year, the TS 2 solutions have been implemented for e.g. US Marine Corps (USMC), US Army Corps of Engineers, Australian Defence Force (ADF), Command of Polish Navy, Special Military Formation GROM, 1st Special Commando Regiment, Polish National Police, Polish National Headquarters of the State Fire Services, Border Guard (Poland), World Bank Group, Lockheed Martin Information Technology, Halliburton Energy Services, KBR, General Dynamics Information Technology, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc., L-3 Communications Vertex Aerospace, US Naval Research Laboratory, ITT Corporation Aerospace / Communications Division, Technest Holdings / EOIR Technologies, North Eastern Aeronautical Company (Neany), EchoStorm Worldwide, Jorge Scientific Corporation, Erinys International, Aegis Iraq, American Heart of Poland and more others.

TS2′s military services are used by soldiers from 1 BCT 101 ABN DIV, 1-151 CAV HHT, 1-161st FA A-BTRY, 1-206 Field Artillery Battalion, 1-25 SBCT, 1-5 INF B Co, 1-61 CAV SQDN, 1-76 FA, 1/402nd AFSB STRYKER LNO, 1038th HCC, 10TH MTN DIV, 1710 Transpotation company, 184th Ordnance Battalion, 189 CSSB, 18th EN BDE, 1AD 2BCT / TF 1-35 AR, 1AD STB/Datapath, 1BCT, 1STB 1BCT 4ID, 1st BCT 101st Airborne Div., 1st Intel Bn P&A Co AFP, 1st PLT C Co 3-21 IN, 1st Space BDE / MNC-I, 2 BCT 1ID JSS H2, 2/25 DET 1 WPNS CO MAP 3, 2/25 Det 1 H&S Comm Plt, 201st Engineer Bn., 215th ASMC Phipps Clinic, 259 CSSB 155 ICTC, 25th Signal BN, 269 TH MP CO, 269th MP CO, 27th BCT, 3/10 MPCO, 3/4 WPNS CAAT-2, 324 NSC, 330th Military Police Detachment, 345th MI BN, 351st MP CO, 368th Finance DET 4, 370th En Co 54th En Bn, 3ACR, 3D RADIO BN, 401st AFSB MRAP, 41st Fires BDE, 455 EOG/ Spawar/ ATM, 4ID, 4SB 1BCT 4ID, 4th BAT. 101st AB, 4th BCT, 504th MP BN, 527th MP CO, 527th Military Police Company, 542nd SMC, 55th EN CO, 561 MT company, 589th BSB, 58th mp co 1st plt, 5th ANGLICO HQ Det/1st BDE, 5th EN BN, 5th Eng Bn, 6-17 CAV 1-1 ARB, 715th MP CO, 752nd OD CO, 772 Military Police Company, 776 Maintenance Co., 812th MP CO, 836th Engineer Company Sapper, 84th EN BN 643 EN CO, 84th Eng Bn 643rd En Bn, 87th Eng Co, 926th EN BDE, 937th Engineer Company, 97th Trans Det 3, A 2-20 FA, A CO 1-5 IN REGT, A TRP 1-152 CAV, A co. 4SB, A-4/320th, A-BRTY 2-44 ADA, A-CO 1-21 INF, A/2-211 AVIATION, A/CO 1/21, ACO TF 1/35 AR, ALPHA TROOP 1-152, Aco 1-153 INF, Alpha Company, B 4-320th FA, B Btry 3-4 AMD Battalion, B CO Task Force Odin, B CO. Bldg 3455/CH, B Co 1-6 IN, B Co 2-112th, B Co 2-4 GSAB, B Co. Bldg 3455 / CH, B Co. Bldg 3510 / CH, B Company 1-18 Infantry, B co 1-35AR, B co 2-6 IN, B co 563D ASB, B co. 404 ASB CAB 4ID, Bco 1-184 IN L, Bco 1-21, Bco. 2-4 GSAB CAB 4ID, Bco.404 ASB, Bravo Co. 1-184th, Bravo co. 3-159 ARB, C 1/158 fa bn, C BTRY 2-5 FA, C Btry 2-8 FA 1/25 SBCT, C Co 1-12 CAV 1CD, C Co 1-24 IN, C Co. 1/168th GSAB, C Co. 4-4 ARB, C co. 4-4 ARB CAB 4ID, C trp 1-303d Cav 81st hbct, C-Btry 1/158 FA, C/Trp 6-17 CAV, CAB 4ID, CAB 4th ID, CAFFT TAJI, CAV. 2nd PLATOON, CJTF-101 CJ3 Biometrics, CSTC-A CJ6 CSC, Co. B 146 ESB, D Co 2-27 IN/ 3rd PLT, D Co. 2-327 Inf., D. Co. 1/114th INF, D/123 AVN 6-17 CAV, Delta Company 1-151, Delta Company 1-151 Warlords, Delta Troop 7-17 CAV, E CO 3-1 AVN REGT, E Co. 1-161IN, E. CO 1-66 AR, E/FSC 1-22IN 1BCT 4ID, EOD Company 1/3, F Co. 2-10 AVN, GLS/L-3/Titan, HHB 1/6 FA, HHB 2-20 FA BN, HHC 1-24 IN, HHC 1-87 INF, HHC 2-7 CAV 4 BCT 1 CD, HHC 2/327 INF Olsen Medics, HHC 25th STB 25ID G2, HHC 3-103 AR, HHC 3/2 SCR LST, HHC 51st Signal Battalion, HHC 56 SBCT, HHC 5th Engineer Battalion, HHC 710 BSB 3BCT, HHC 783rd MP BN, HHC 84th Engineers Battalion, HHC 949 BSB, HHC BTB, HQs/ 561st MP Company, HSC 834TH ASB, JCCS-1, JTF Paladin / COIC, KAF NSE Force Protection 1 Platoon, KAIA ISAF Kabul Afghanistan, KBR B4 Services, KBR/LSI C7A McHenry, L-3 Communications Iraq, L3 Vertex Aerospace Iraq, L3/GSI, NSWLOGDET TQ US NAVY, PM BIOMETRICS FWD/BAT, TF 5-09 Canadian Forces, TF Centaur, TF Fighting, TF Phoenix, Task Force 1-6 S6, Task Force ODIN, Task Force Wings and USAF FET in FOB Salerno. [5]

TS2 will provide satellite services for the Marines new bases in Afghanistan in first months of 2009 year. The government contract concerns establishing and maintaining full communication in new locations for two years for all soldiers stationed there. The USA are going to transfer 4.5 thousand Marines from Iraq to Afghanistan as early as at the beginning of 2009.

Military locations in Afghanistan supported by TS2 Satellite Provider

TS2 was among the first telecommunications operators in the satellite technology in the territory of Iraq and Afghanistan and as such we have enjoyed a successful cooperation with the US Department of Defense, DoD contractors, Contracting Officers and U.S. Military Personnel from Afghanistan.

Airfields

Bagram Air base
Chagcharan
Chapman Airfield
Bamian / Bamiyan
Fayzabad / Faizabad
Herat
Jalalabad
Kabul International
Kandahar / Qandahar
Khowst
Mazar-e Sharif, AF
Meymanah / Maimana
Pul-i-Kandahar, AF
Rhino FOB
Shindand Air base
Taloqan / Talulqan

US Army Camps

Kabul Compound
Gardez Compound

Camp Albert
Camp Bagram
Camp Barber
Camp Black Horse
Camp Blackjack
Camp Bastion
Camp Bulldog
Camp Civilian
Camp Cunningham
Camp Dogan
Camp Eggers
Camp Gecko
Camp Gibraltar
Camp Hadrian
Camp Holland
Camp Harriman
Camp Invicta
Camp Julien
Camp Kabul
Camp Kandahar
Camp Kearney
Camp Lightning
Camp Leatherneck
Camp Marmal
Camp Morehead
Camp Nathan Smith
Camp Phoenix
Camp Rhino
Camp Salerno
Camp Souter
Camp Spann
Camp Tombstone
Camp Vianini
Camp Warehouse
Camp Wilson
Camp Wright

FOB’s

FOB ABAD
FOB Asadabad
FOB Bermel
FOB Blessing
FOB Bostick
FOB Cobra
FOB Delhi
FOB Dwyer
FOB Fenty
FOB Freia
FOB Gereshk
FOB Ghazni
FOB Indianhead
FOB Keating
FOB Lagman
FOB Lonestar
FOB Lwara
FOB Martello
FOB Maimaneh
FOB Mehtar Lam
FOB Mizan
FOB Naray
FOB Orgun-e
FOB Payne
FOB Qalat
FOB Rhino
FOB Ripley
FOB Salerno
FOB Scorpion
FOB Shank
FOB Sharana
FOB Sweeney
FOB Tillman
FOB Terrett
FOB Thunder
FOB Tiger
FOB Zormat

Fire Bases

Fire Base Anaconda
Fire Base Asadabad
Fire Base California
Fire Base Cobra Strike
Fire Base Cobra
Fire Base Gardez
Fire Base Lagman
Fire Base Maholic
Fire Base Nixon
Fire Base Orgun-E
Fire Base Oulet
Fire Base Phoenix
Fire Base Shkin
Fire Base Waza Khwa
Fire Base Wilderness

Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT)

PRT Asadabad – ISAF US
PRT Baglan – ISAF
PRT Bagram – ISAF US
PRT Bamian (Bamyan) ISAF NZ
PRT Chaghcharan – ISAF Lithuania
PRT Farah – ISAF US
PRT Feyzabad – ISAF Germany
PRT Gardez – ISAF US
PRT Ghazni – ISAFUS
PRT Herat – ISAF Italy
PRT Jalalabad – ISAF US
PRT Kabul
PRT Khandahar – ISAF Canada
PRT Khowst / Khost – ISAF US
PRT Konduz – ISAF Germany
PRT Lashkar-Gah – ISAF UK
PRT Mazar-E-Sharif – ISAF Sweden
PRT Mehtar Lam – ISAF US
PRT Meymaneh – ISAF Norway
PRT Nurestan – ISAF US
PRT Parwan – ROK/US
PRT Panjshir – ISAF US
PRT Pol-E-Khomri – ISAF Netherlands
PRT Qalat – ISAF US
PRT Qala-e-Naw – ISAF Spain
PRT Sharana – ISAF US
PRT Tarin Kowt – ISAF Netherlands/Australia
PRT Wardak – ISAF Turkey