Mil-Tech

Oz Electrifies Its Infantry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taliban Military Equipment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITT Facility In Clifton Creates Electronic Solutions To Protect U.S. Troops

JERRY McCREA/THE STAR-LEDGEREdward Moroney stands in an anechoic chamber used to test radio frequency self-protection system equipment at an ITT Electronic Systems facility in Clifton. The Clifton location develops technology used by the United States military. Christopher Bernhardt was deeply moved three years ago when he met U.S. soldiers who were maimed by roadside bombs in Iraq.

The patients at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., suffered lost limbs and head injuries because of those radio-controlled bombs.

At the time, the U.S. military had only crude methods of defeating such devices. So, Bernhardt decided to do something about it.

“I pulled together a special team and told them, ‘I want you to figure out a way to address this problem,’ ” the ITT executive said. In just one year, ITT engineers in Clifton created a device so Army vehicles could jam the signals that set off improvised explosive devices (IED). Thousands of jammers are now being used by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The speedy development was built on ITT’s decades of experience making radar jammers so U.S. warplanes can evade surface-to-air missiles.

“We make the visible invisible and the invisible visible,” said Bernhardt, who is president of ITT Electronic Systems in Clifton.
His Passaic County operation is poised to add hundreds of jobs following a reorganization announced this month by ITT, the White Plains, N.Y.-based conglomerate. As part of the restructuring, the company’s defense operations will merge seven business units into three.

The largest of the new units is the electronic warfare operation in Clifton, which employs 1,350 workers and has $2.8 billion in sales. Bernhardt expects the work force there to jump to nearly 2,000 in the next few years. The company is looking for top-quality engineers and will pay its employees up to $5,000 each for luring the right talent.

The Clifton defense plant provides the engineering to develop small IED jammers, which are made in California, and it builds larger jammers used on warplanes such as the Navy’s F/A-18 Super Hornet, the Army’s UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter and the Marine Corp’s Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle.

At the Passaic County plant, rows of technicians in blue coats peer through microscopes to inspect tiny processors that are the brains of electronic countermeasures, which are designed to fake out enemy missiles or radar. Inside a clean room, automated machines dispense epoxy that resembles silver Hershey’s kisses so electronics can bond to small circuit boards. Other machines knit tiny golden wires thinner than a human hair to connect microelectronics.

Defense is a big business for ITT, which derives half its $12 billion or so in sales from the military and expects defense revenue to rise 4 percent this year.

The military electronics unit based in Clifton has grown dramatically.

“It was a $100 million business when I joined in 2001, and it’s a $2.8 billion business today,” Bernhardt informed.

“The majority of our work is highly classified,” because ITT makes systems for special operations units as well as for the intelligence community, he informed.

The plant has been performing sensitive research work since World War II, when it invented a directional finder so U.S. warships could locate Nazi submarines.

Defense contractors are awaiting the Obama administration’s announcement next month of the military budget for 2011. The White House is expected to ask for a record $708 billion defense budget, with an additional $33 billion for a troop escalation in Afghanistan.

Besides electronics to jam IED, the military also needs tactical communications radios designed by ITT in New Jersey.

The reorganization will allow the company to better integrate the operations of EDO, an electronics maker ITT acquired in 2007, according to John Baliotti, defense analyst for FTN Equity Capital Markets in New York.

“The EDO business has opportunities to work closely with the communications segment” in Clifton, he informed.

Current IED countermeasures can merely jam an explosive device. ITT won a $100 million contract to develop gear that will expand those capabilities and connect each unit to a battlefield network. The new models will be designed to tell commanders where an IED is so soldiers can find the insurgents who are trying to detonate it with a cell phone, Baliotti informed.

That kind of capability will allow U.S. forces to have a better view of the battlefield and play offense as well as defense, according to Bernhardt.

“Right now, it’s like having a car, and you are only looking out the front window,” informed Bernhardt, a former General Electric and AlliedSignal executive. “In the future, they want to look out of all the windows.”

Clifton-Based Defense Contractor Has Plans

Christopher C. Bernhardt, president of Clifton-based ITT Electronic Systems, makes no bones about what makes his company’s cash registers ring.

“We are a country at war,” he stated on a recent afternoon at the company’s 13-acre headquarters. “And we are a company that serves customers with products that save lives. That’s the way it’s been since Sept. 12, 2001.”

Whether business will continue at the current pace, however, is a cause for concern to ITT, which makes electromagnetic-based products, from state-of-the-art military radios to missile detection systems and aircraft precision landing equipment.

With the Iraq war slowing, the long-term future of the Afghan war uncertain and the military changing its priorities, ITT and other military contractors are increasingly looking to find new revenue streams.

Two weeks ago, ITT’s White Plains, N.Y.-based parent, ITT Corp., announced a major restructuring of its defense business, which is now under way, consolidating seven company divisions into three and boosting the prominence of the Clifton office, which now heads the largest of the three divisions.

Bernhardt said the move is designed to adapt to the new economic and military environment. Seventy-five percent of the company’s revenue — about $2.7 billion after the restructuring — comes from military contracts, he informed.

“As people think about the downturn in defense,” he stated, “the leaders of my operation get paid to look out four, five, six years and say, ‘Where are my customers going, where is our market going and how do we reposition the business?’ ”

“My goal is to further diversify the portfolio, to offset and mitigate the eventual decline of the Department of Defense,” he said. “And that’s what we are doing.”

To that end, the company is looking to foreign governments for business and trying to retool its products for civilian use, such as using surveillance equipment for anti-narcotics efforts and tiny electromagnetic wave emitters to slow the spread of brain cancer.

David Fishering, a California-based defense industry analyst, said most top defense companies are making moves similar to ITT, either through reorganizing and restructuring or cost cutting.

Yet the extent of future defense cuts and their impact on contractors is unclear, said Bernard Finel, senior fellow at the American Security Project, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.

Although U.S. military expenditures in Iraq are declining, they are increasing in Afghanistan at a faster rate, so a decline in direct war spending is not imminent, Finel informed.

That’s good news for contractors who supply the kind of day-to-day equipment needed to wage war — ammunition, fuel and food, he said. But funding cuts to longer-term programs such as a recently cut search-and-rescue helicopter system would hurt suppliers to those sectors, he stated.

“These are not companies that have the ability to diversify significantly,” Finel informed. “They are trying to find out which programs are durable and which ones are not, and they are trying to consolidate where they can.”

ITT’s restructuring came after eight years of steady growth, organically and through an acquisition, said Bernhardt, who joined the company as president in June 2001.

Company revenue, about $100 million at the time, has grown by double digits annually ever since, company officials said. That’s boosted the company’s Clifton workforce from 300 to 1,350. The company, which was known as ITT Avionics until 2005, expects to hire at least 100 engineers this year.

A key part of the company’s revenue in that period came from an electronic system designed to intercept and confuse radio-guided missiles heading toward military aircraft, said spokesman John C. Dench.

Yet until 2006, the company got no part of the federal funds used to wage the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, Bernhardt said. That changed, he said, after he visited wounded soldiers, many with limbs blown off and severe disfigurement, at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., in 2006.

“What took my breath away was that, to the man and woman, I said, Would you do this again?’ and to a man they said, ‘yes,’ ” Bernhardt said. “I said to myself, there has got to be something ITT can do with our technology.”

He formed a team to study how ITT’s technology could be used to stop improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, one of the biggest threats to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bombs, which are often left in the path of passing troops, are detonated by a radio-based device such as a cellphone or an electronic garage opener.

ITT developed a device to “jam” the signal before detonation, and acquired New York-based EDO Corp., which made similar technology, in 2007 for $1.7 billion. ITT has now shipped 21,000 anti-IED units, generating revenue of $1.6 billion, Dench informed.

The company’s new strategy is designed to broaden the market for such military products by expanding relationships with existing customers like the governments of Oman, Brazil and Chile and find new ones.

Some company products designed for military use are already employed in the private sector. ITT satellites used in Global Positioning Systems, which were developed to help military units keep their bearings, are also used to guide citizens armed with consumer GPS units, company officials say.

And ITT is working with New York-based NovoCure, which has a plan before the Food and Drug Administration to use tiny sensors to generate electromagnetic waves that would stop cancer cells splitting and slow the spread of cancer in the brain and other organs, Dench said.

The sensors, originally developed to detect threats to military ships and submarines, would be made by ITT if the FDA approves the plan, he said.

Bernhardt says the company is harnessing the same instincts and skills that fueled its growth.
“Part of the success of any company is about what inspires employees to do great things,” he said. “This company is all about innovation. Innovation is all about ideas, and people who generate ideas are people who are inspired.”

That’s the main reason the company does not expect to move, especially to a cheaper out-of-state location, even though the Clifton campus is reaching maximum capacity.

Instead, the company opened a Bloomfield facility at the end of last year to allow the expansion of the GPS business, he said.

“When you have built a business that is as deep technically as this, from people who are from the area, it’s very hard to replicate that in another area without taking a phenomenal risk,” Bernhardt said, adding that New Jersey residents don’t like to leave the state.

“You are just not going to take talent like this and resurrect it in New Mexico,” he said. “It’s not going to happen.”

Navigating Military Vehicles, Tactically, Is KVH.

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.

RQ-11 Raven Unmanned Aircraft System, USA

The RQ-11 Raven is a lightweight unmanned aircraft system (UAS). It is designed for rapid deployment and high mobility for military and commercial operations. The Raven meets army requirements for low-altitude reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition. It can be operated manually or programmed for autonomous operation, utilising the system’s advanced avionics and GPS navigation.

Each Raven costs about $35,000, but the total system costs around $250,000.

Raven development

The US Army required live-coverage capability, to enable the troops to get real-time, up-to-date and over-the-horizon view in trouble areas. The army bought four AeroVironment FQM-151 Pointer UAVs in 1999, for military operations in urban terrain (MOUT) and the ACTD (advanced concept technology demonstration) programme.

Later, AeroVironment developed a smaller air vehicle, called Raven. Being half the size of Pointer it was named the ‘Flashlight’ SUAV (small UAV). It flew for the first time in October 2001.

The Flashlight SUAV was developed into Raven in 2002. This was done as part of the army’s Pathfinder ACTD programme. As it was handbuilt, mass production was not possible. Block I of Raven’s modified version, delivered in May 2003, became the first LRIP (low-rate initial production) version.

“RQ-11 UAVs are manufactured in two variants – RQ-11A and RQ-11B.”Block I’s shortcomings, such as difficult launch procedure and insufficient flight stability were corrected in block II, which was first delivered to the army in September 2003. The batch II version was tested in Afghanistan. Later, US Special Operations Command ordered a batch of 179 Raven systems with three UAVs each. batch II was officially designated as RQ-11A Raven air vehicle.

RQ-11 variants

RQ-11 UAVs are manufactured in two variants – RQ-11A and RQ-11B, designed and manufactured by AeroVironment

More than 3,000 RQ-11As were produced before 2006. The RQ-11A Raven UAV weighs about 1.9kg (4.2lb). It has a flight endurance of 80 minutes and an effective operational radius of about 10km (6.2 miles). Raven has a flying speed of 45km/h to 95km/h (28mph to 60mph) at typical operating altitude between 30m and 300m (100ft to 1,000ft). RQ-11A Raven provides flexibility, with remote control or control through ground station. It allows completely autonomous missions using GPS waypoint navigation. CCD colour video and an infrared camera constitute the standard mission payloads.

The Raven B system is an enhanced version of the battle-proven Raven A. It is a lightweight system designed for rapid deployment and high mobility for both military and commercial applications. The Raven B is the most advanced SUAS deployed with the US armed forces.

RQ-11B has a wingspan of 4.5ft and a weight of 4.2lb. Launched by hand, Raven provides aerial observation, day or night, at line-of-sight ranges of 10km or more. It can deliver real-time colour or infrared imagery to ground control and remote viewing stations, as well as IR laser illumination of ground targets.

Features

The Raven allows military units to conduct intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) over danger zones without committing soldiers. It allows the task force to monitor an area with a less obtrusive presence and live video capabilities during day and night.

Launched in just minutes, by hand, into the air like a model airplane, the Raven lands itself by auto-piloting to a near hover. It does not require carefully prepared landing strips. Requiring no elaborate support facilities, the Raven ideally suits forward-deployed units. Automated features and GPS technology make it simple to operate, requiring no specialised skills or in-depth flight training.

“Each Raven costs about $35,000, but the total system costs around $250,000.”It delivers real-time colour or infrared imagery to the ground control and remote viewing stations via three different cameras attached to the nose of the plane. One of these is an electrical optical camera that is placed either on the nose or side, the second is an infrared camera in the nose and the third is an IR camera located on the side.

Because of the size of the technology the IR camera is fairly large and does not have a zoom so it cannot lock onto a target. However, it does have high enough resolution to show whether someone is carrying a weapon.

RQ-11 orders

The US Army, Air Force, Marine Corps and Special Operations Command are the primary users of Raven B. More than 9,000 Raven airframes have been delivered to customers worldwide.

RQ 11B Raven’s full-rate production for the US army is scheduled up to 2014. There would be upgrades providing continuous system improvements over the life of the programme.

US allies such as Australia, Italy, Denmark, the UK and Spain have also begun acquiring the Raven. The UK has been using Raven equipment in Iraq. The Royal Danish Army acquired 12 Raven systems in September 2007. Three systems will be used by the Huntsmen Corps. The remaining will be deployed with the Artillery Training Centre.

'Beans, bullets and BTUs' define Army energy security

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Airpower Report For July 5, 2009.

Coalition airpower integrated with coalition ground forces in Iraq and the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan in the following operations July 5, according to Combined Air and Space Operations Center officials.

In Afghanistan, a UK Royal Air Force GR-4 Tornado conducted a strafing run in a wooded location near Gereshk against anti-Afghan forces fighting positions. Enemy personnel in the trees were firing on a friendly unit with small power and rocket propelled grenades.

Near Asadabad, Air Force F-15E Strike Eagles dropped guided bomb unit-31s on enemy mortar emplacements. Enemy forces were located preparing to launch an indirect fire strike, leading to the aircraft targeting them in self-defense of friendly forces. Nearby, Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt IIs conducted shows of force to prevent an enemy attack near a coalition forward base.

A GR-4 and a coalition aircraft carried out strikes in the vicinity of Kandahar to take out enemy fighting positions along a treeline and a weapons cache concealed in the woods. The aircraft employed GBU-38s, Paveway guided bombs and cannon strafes, hitting a lot of enemy positions and devastating the enemy ammo dump. Intelligence was received that the enemy was preparing an attack, prompting the aircraft to intervene before anti-Afghan forces could initiate hostilities.

In the vicinity of Farah, an F-15E flew a show of force to deter enemy forces who had been firing at an Afghan and coalition unit. The aircraft also conducted route reconnaissance helping ground forces locate improvised explosive devices set up by anti-Afghan personnel, helping to reduce the threat the improvised explosive devices posed to security forces and Afghan civilians.

Strike Eagles were scrambled to deliver overwatch for a friendly ground unit which came under enemy RPG and automatic weapons attack near Shahid. The attack ended when the aircraft flew a show of force over the area.

A coalition aircraft, a Marine AV-8B Harrier, and an Air Force B-1B Lancer conducted shows of force in the Musa Qaleh, Delaram, and Gereshk areas respectively, deterring enemy attacks during ground operations. The presence of airpower assets stopped enemy forces from acting and allowed Afghan and coalition missions to continue without risk to Afghan civilians from enemy fire.

Joint Terminal Attack Controllers assigned to coalition units verified the success of these missions.

In total, 61 close air support missions were flown in support of the ISAF and Afghan security forces, reconstruction activities and route patrols.

Twenty-four Air Force surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft flew missions as part of operations in Afghanistan. In addition, two coalition aircraft performed tactical reconnaissance.

In Iraq, coalition aircraft flew 8 close air support missions for Operation Iraqi Freedom. These missions integrated and synchronized with coalition ground forces, protected key infrastructure, provided overwatch for reconstruction activities, and helped to deter and disrupt hostile activities.

Twenty-four Air Force and Navy surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft flew missions as part of operations in Iraq. What is more, two Air Force aircraft performed tactical reconnaissance.

U.S. Air Force C-130s and C-17s provided intra-theater heavy airlift, helping to sustain operations throughout Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Horn of Africa.

Approximately 120 airlift sorties were flown; 300 tons of cargo was delivered; and about 2,530 passengers were transported. This included about 20,650 pounds of aerial resupply cargo dropped over Afghanistan.

Coalition C-130 crews flew as part of operations in Afghanistan or Iraq.

On July 4, Air Force HH-60 Pave Hawk helicopters and “Guardian Angel” teams transported 14 wounded soldiers to coalition field hospitals from locations in Afghanistan. Pararescue Team members aboard located, rescued and began treatment to stabilize patients in the battlefield. The Pave Hawk transported these patients to field hospitals in less time than it takes for a civilian patient to reach emergency care by ambulance in most major cities.

U.S. Air Force aerial refueling crews flew 35 sorties and off-loaded approximately 2.0 million pounds of fuel to 110 receiving aircraft.

Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon

War is hell. But it’s worse when the Marines bring out their new urban combat weapon, the SMAW-NE. Which may be why they’re not talking about it, much.

This is a version of the standard USMC Shoulder Mounted Assault Weapon but with a new warhead. Described as NE – “Novel Explosive”- it is a thermobaric mixture which ignites the air, producing a shockwave of unparalleled destructive power, especially against buildings.

A post-action report from Iraq describes the effect of the new weapon: “One unit disintegrated a large one-storey masonry type building with one round from 100 meters. They were extremely impressed.” Elsewhere it is described by one Marine as “an awesome piece of ordnance.”

It proved highly effective in the battle for Fallujah. This from the Marine Corps Gazette, July edition: “SMAW gunners became expert at determining which wall to shoot to cause the roof to collapse and crush the insurgents fortified inside interior rooms.”

The NE round is supposed to be capable of going through a brick wall, but in practice gunners had to fire through a window or make a hole with an anti-tank rocket. Again, from the Marine Corps Gazette:

“Due to the lack of penetrating power of the NE round, we found that our assaultmen had to first fire a dual-purpose rocket in order to create a hole in the wall or building. This blast was immediately followed by an NE round that would incinerate the target or literally level the structure.”

The rational for this approach was straightforward:

“Marines could employ blast weapons prior to entering houses that had become pillboxes, not homes. The economic cost of house replacement is not comparable to American lives…all battalions adopted blast techniques appropriate to entering a bunker, assuming you did not know if the bunker was manned.”

The manufacturers, Talley, make bold use of its track record, with a brochure headlined Thermobaric Urban Destruction.”

The SMAW-NE has only been procured by the USMC, though there are reports that some were ‘borrowed’ by other units. However, there are also proposals on the table that thousands of obsolete M-72 LAWs could be retrofitted with thermobaric warheads, making then into effective urban combat tools.

But in an era of precision bombs, where collateral damage is expected to be kept to a minimum, such massively brutal weapons have become highly controversial. These days, every civilian casualty means a few more “hearts and minds” are lost. Thermobaric weapons almost invariable lead to civilian deaths. The Soviet Union was heavily criticized for using thermobaric weapons in Afghanistan because they were held to constitute “disproportionate force,” and similar criticisms were made when thermobarics were used in the Chechen conflict. According to Human Rights Watch, thermobaric weapons “kill and injure in a particularly brutal manner over a wide area. In urban settings it is very difficult to limit the effect of this weapon to combatants, and the nature of FAE explosions makes it virtually impossible for civilians to take shelter from their destructive effect.”

So it’s understandable that the Marines have made so little noise about the use of the SMAW-NE in Fallujah. But keeping quiet about controversial weapons is a lousy strategy, no matter how effective those arms are. In the short term, it may save some bad press. In the long term, it’s a recipe for a scandal. Military leaders should debate human right advocates and the like first, and then publicly decide “we do/do not to use X”. Otherwise when the media find do find out – as they always do — not only do you get a level of hysteria but there is also the charge of “covering up.”

I’m undecided about thermobarics myself, but I think they should let the legal people sort out all these issues and clear things up. Otherwise you get claims of “chemical weapons” and “violating the Geneva Protocol.” Which doesn’t really help anyone. The warfighter is left in doubt, and it hands propaganda to the bad guys. Just look at what happened it last week’s screaming over white phosphorous rounds.

– David Hambling

Light Utility Vehicles of the Future

A modern fighting force needs good land transport, whether it is for reconnaissance and intelligence gathering; routine patrols; or transportation of troops, small or large fighting forces, or vehicles. Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the theatre of warfare is forever changing and allied troops continue to fight a deadly insurgent and guerrilla war where roadside bombs and mines form a large part of the attacks made on allied vehicles.

The rules have changed and vehicles need to change with them to guarantee the safety of troops. As international forces continue active service, their organisations are beginning to step-up to protect them with a number of new vehicle systems in development.

“With additional armour vehicles can becomes heavier, cumbersome and difficult to manoeuvre.”Against attack

The most important factor to consider during R&D is the vehicle’s purpose.

Mike Sweeney of BAE Systems Land Systems says that if the vehicle is to go into a combat situation it needs to be armoured to protect troops against small arms attack as well as the possibility of mine attack. But with this additional armour the vehicle becomes heavier, cumbersome and difficult to manoeuvre.

To make a vehicle resistant to roadside bombs and mines side armour is needed for defence against lateral attack, while an armoured hull can resist mine attack from beneath. Shaped hulls and chassis underneath the vehicle can direct the blast away from the cabin but injuries can still occur if the shock of the blast is transferred to the personnel inside the vehicle. The only way to reduce this is for the armour to be thick and heavy – again making the vehicle weightier.

Increasing the mobility of the machine to ensure optimum safety also needs to be considered. Many light utility vehicles are based on four wheels but an attack might make the vehicle immobile and a sitting duck by virtue of losing a wheel. Therefore, newer vehicles are now adopting six and eight-wheel drive systems.

Weapons systems for these types of vehicles also have to be relatively light – 7.62mm and 12mm heavy machine guns or light recoil-less cannon weapons offer a good rate of fire and effective stopping power. For patrols conducted by forces in recent conflicts, lower-echelon vehicles have been subject to substantial attack and so measures need to be adopted for these protected mobility vehicles to secure the survival of the troops being carried.

In conjunction with the actual body of the vehicle, electronic countermeasures against roadside bombs, shock-mounted seating, inner spall liners against small arms attack and run-flat tyres, all offer additional safety.

Two-pronged approach

Light utility vehicles are now becoming much more specialised and the days of the modified, all-purpose vehicles like the Snatch Land Rover could be almost over. To ensure that troops are protected to the best level that technology can offer there are two ways to go: either make a vehicle very light, fast and manoeuvrable, or produce a highly armoured heavy vehicle for maximum protection of forces on patrol.

For both of those extremes there are light vehicles in use. On the one hand is the BvS 10 Viking which runs on rubber tracks and has a low ground pressure (to avoid mine detonation) but still has armour and is commonly used by the Royal Marines.

In addition there is the Mastiff, which was introduced into the Iraq theatre at the end of 2006. It has substantial blast and ballistic protection being based on the 6×6 Cougar platform used by the US Marines (a similar vehicle in this vein is the BAE Systems Land Systems RG-33). This 23.5t vehicle can proceed at 90km/h and provides the highest level of protection, but is not highly manoeuvrable.

“Roadside bombs and mines form a large part of the attacks made on allied vehicles.”At the other end of the scale are the quad bikes being used by some special forces which have no protection but are highly mobile and very light. In support of this second approach is the fact that the lighter a vehicle is, the less likely it will give the pressure required to set off larger mines. However, the latest Afghan Taliban tactics favour using a lighter anti-personnel mine on top of a heavier mine because much less weight and pressure is required to detonate the smaller mine.

An important development in vehicle development is the US joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV) programme, which will produce a range of four or more vehicle types based on the same platform but for different duty levels that will replace today’s models. The scheme has set a number of design demands for the vehicles including a 30kW generator to support operations, a trailer, a standard spare ammunition carrying capacity, jam-resistant doors, automated fire-extinguishing system, extra spall liner to give further protection to troops and multiple additive armour kits for different duties.

Fit for purpose

An example of a range of armoured vehicles designed for varying operational and combat situations is that from Force Protection Inc. The range includes the Cheetah, the Cougar 4×4, the Cougar 6×6 and the Buffalo (mine handler).

The Cheetah is a light utility vehicle for urban operations and reconnaissance of just 16,000lb but with a capability of being able to go over 80mph. It is lightly armoured but still with the good design of the V-shaped monocoque hull. The more highly armoured, thus heavier, Cougar is available in two basic variants – 6×6 or 4×4 – and these have been designed with mine-resistant armoured protection in mind. More importantly they can be easily modified to fit the electronics and armour specification required by a range of different armed forces.

The Cougar 6×6 has already been very successful, as the Mastiff for the British Army, the Badger ILAV for the Iraqi Army and of course in several variants for US forces such as the HEV (hardened engineer vehicle) and the JERRV (joint EOD rapid response vehicle). Other variants have also been sold to the Italian and Canadian Armies.

“An important development in vehicle development is the US joint light tactical vehicle (JLTV) programme.”In many ways the range of vehicles from manufacturers like Force Protection Inc has provided a good base for the JLTV programme because of the extensive vehicle range and the customisability of these vehicles.

Other refinements are now being introduced to light utility vehicles to increase their operational usefulness. These can include additional power units that can be used in case of engine failure to get the vehicle out of trouble or allow the vehicle to be used as a remote control drone for unmanned reconnaissance, as is the case with the spider light strike vehicle.

Remote control is also becoming popular with weapons systems, whereby the troops have the ability to operate them from the inside of the vehicle – this is possible in both the Cougar and Ridgback. In addition, weapons active protection systems such as the ‘Quick Kill’ from Raytheon are being introduced to intercept and destroy attacking anti-tank missiles, rockets and grenades.

As individual vehicles become more specialised to fit varying purposes so the cost implications of the build and the training needed to handle the machines rise. But critically, so does the safety of the troops and their ability to tackle enemy forces. As active service continues for troops across the globe, this has to be a priority and a critical spend for international militaries.