Featured Post

Ultra violet

UV is a form of radiation generated by atomic transitions in chemical reactions such as those present in the Sun and in man-made equipment s...

Thursday, December 22, 2011

JSTARS The Keeper

JSTARS The Keeper

December 20, 2011: The U.S. Air Force continues to pay whatever it takes to keep its 17 E-8C Joint STARS (JSTARS) ground surveillance aircraft in service. This costs about a million dollars a month per aircraft just for maintenance and technical support. Fuel and crew costs are additional. In addition, some E-18Cs are getting new engines. The new JT8D engines are modern designs similar to those used on commercial aircraft. The new engines will enable the E-8C to maintain the most effective altitude and burn less fuel doing it. The new engines also require less maintenance.

The air force is spending nearly $100 million on upgrading each of the E-8Cs operated by reservists (the Air National Guard). This includes some new engines, an Internet-like communications capability, long range optical sensors (like that on combat aircraft targeting pods), and the ability to search water surfaces. These aircraft are organized into three units, one of which is in the reserves. In the last decade, JSTARS have flown over 5,200 missions, averaging about 12 hours each.

The E-8 is a militarized Boeing 707 (a 1950s design also used for the KC-135 aerial tanker and other U.S. Air Force electronics warfare aircraft). The main capability is the JSTARS ground search radar. This system has two modes: wide area (showing a 25 by 20 kilometer area) and detailed (4,000 by 5,000 meters). The radar can see out to several hundred kilometers and each screen full of information could be saved and brought back later to compare to another view (to see what has moved). In this manner, operators can track the movement of ground vehicles or ships. Operators can also use the detail mode to pick out specific details of what's going on down there, like tracking the movement of many small missile boats trying to rush an American warship. JSTARS can stay up there for over 12 hours at a time and two or more JSTARS can operate in shifts to provide 24/7 coverage.

The E-8C can be kept in service another 40 years, although will probably be replaced by cheaper, unmanned, aircraft in another decade or so. JSTARS first proved its worth during the 1991 Gulf War, where it accurately, and in real time, tracked the movement of Coalition and Iraqi ground forces. Most recently it was used in Libya and continues to operate over Afghanistan.

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Thermals For Almost Everyone

Thermals For Almost Everyone

Canada ordered another $14 million worth of U.S. AN/PAS-13 thermal sights. This device enables infantry to see through darkness, mist and dust storms, because it can make out differences in heat. Over 80,000 of these sights have already been ordered, mostly for U.S. troops. But close allies of the U.S., like Canada, Britain, Australia and the like, have also ordered these rifle and machine-gun accessories. European firms have also developed similar systems.

Troops operating in Iraq and Afghanistan have found these lightweight thermal sights invaluable. Since first appearing in 1998, for use by Special Forces troops, the AN/PAS-13 has gone through several upgrades. The latest version is AN/PAS-13C. It is a little heavier than earlier models, but has longer range and more reliability. Four years ago, a new model appeared that was much more reliable and sturdy, which made thermal sights much more useful, and popular, among combat troops.

The AN/PAS-13C actually comes in three sizes, to accommodate the different ranges of infantry weapons. The smallest one, weighing .8 kg/1.95 pounds, is used on your basic M-16 or M-4 assault rifle. This sight has a range of 680 meters and 3x zoom. It uses 4 AA batteries (lithium, as used in cameras), which gets you about 5.5 hours of use and a resolution of 320x240 pixels. 

The next version weighs 1.3 kg/2.9 pounds, has a range of 1,100 meters and is used in 5.56mm and 7.62mm machine-guns. This sight requires six AA batteries (for 6.5 hours). The heaviest version weighs 1.8 kg/3.7 pounds, has a range of 2,200 meters, and is used by heavy machine-guns and snipers. This one also requires six AA batteries (for 6.5 hours). Both the heavier models have 3x zoom and 640x480 resolution for the user.

Large quantities of the AN/PAS-13 began showing up in Iraq and Afghanistan three years ago, and now everyone wants one. Over 80,000 have been delivered so far. The U.S. Army plans to buy as many as 100,000 AN/PAS-13 sights (at a cost of over $10,000 each)

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Disposable Airborne Jammers Arrive

Disposable Airborne Jammers Arrive

December 13, 2011: Right on schedule, the U.S. Air Force is starting production of the jammer version (MALD-J) of its MALD (miniature air-launched decoy) disposable decoy. It was only last year that MALD, after over a decade of development, was delivered in sufficient (although classified) quantities so that aircraft could actually carry out operations with the new device. MALD is a powered decoy that appears, on enemy radar, as a warplane. This MALD works. Six years of wasted effort on earlier designs created several versions that did not. Work then began on MALD-J, a radar jamming version. Currently, only the B-52 and F-16 are equipped to carry MALD.

Meanwhile, the similar U.S. Navy jet powered ADM-141C ITALD (Improved Tactical Air Launched Decoy) entered service about the time MALD entered development. ITALD is 2.34 meters (7.7 feet) long with a 1.55 meter (five foot) wingspan. It weighs 180 kg (400 pounds), has a top speed of 460 kilometers an hour and a range of about 300 kilometers. ITALD, as well as the earlier, unpowered, TALD, contains passive and active devices to enhance the radar image the enemy will receive when they spot the decoy. The navy bought about 200 ITALDs. In the late 1980s, the navy bought over 2,000 ADM-141 TALDs, which proved successful during the 1991 Gulf War. Israel also had success in combat with their version of TALD, which was developed from similar decoys designed in the 1970s, based on Israeli and U.S. Navy experience with Russian equipped Arab air defense systems. The U.S. Air Force didn't get interested until after the Cold War ended, and that led to MALD.

The new powered version of MALD is three meters (9.5 feet) long, and its pop-out wings give it a 1.55 meter (five foot) wingspan. The 130 kg (285 pound) decoy is powered by a small turbojet engine that gives it a speed of up to 1000 kilometers an hour, for 45 minutes at 11,000 meters (35,000 feet), or 20 minutes at 1,000 meters (3,100 feet). It can be programmed to fly a specific course to try and get enemy air defenses to open up, so the enemy weapons can be spotted and destroyed. MALDs are also designed to be used in swarms to overwhelm enemy air defenses. The new MALDs cost nearly $300,000 each. The MALD J is more expensive and about five percent heavier.

Early on, the MALD was supposed to be a smaller (by 15 percent), simpler and cheaper ($30,000 each) design. But, as is common with these projects, both the air force and the manufacturer, kept coming up with new things the MALD had to have. Some were necessary others were just part of the usual procurement politics. The current MALD, has a range of nearly 900 kilometers, and is apparently reliable enough to be used in combat. The radar jamming capability of MALD-J will be the first of many electronic warfare capabilities added to the higher (up to half a million dollars, or more, each) priced version of MALD planned for the future. This version is already in development. Thus the air force has pulled ahead in aerial decoy technology, although the TALD/ITALD series have the distinction of having been tested, and successful, in combat.

Friday, December 9, 2011

New £8m blast injury research centre opens at Imperial

New £8m blast injury research centre opens at Imperial

By Neil Bowdler
Health reporter, BBC News

A new £8 million research centre has opened which will study the effects of roadside bombs on British soldiers.

The Royal British Legion Centre for Blast Injury Studies at Imperial College in London will also devise new equipment to protect personnel.

Improvised explosive devices or IEDs are the biggest cause of deaths and injuries to UK troops in Afghanistan.

Scientists at the centre will study the effects on the whole body of blasts "right down to the cellular level."

Blast simulator

Blast injury studies have been conducted at laboratories at Imperial for some time, and the facilities there already include a blast injury simulator.

"Anubis" is both the name for an Egyptian god of the underworld and the Anti-vehicle Underbelly Blast Injury Simulator.

A large blue machine on wheels, the device can replicate the effects on human tissue of a roadside bomb hitting an armoured personnel carrier.

"It simulates an under-vehicle blast by creating a very large movement of a large lump of metal upwards which encroaches on the human body," the centre's director, Professor Anthony Bull told the BBC.

"We can use this to do experiments on human tissues to see how they're damaged and then we can try and mitigate against these injuries."

The centre also hopes to devise new combat boots which can transfer the impact of an IED from the heel to the shin bone, for example, which they believe could result in fewer amputations.

They are using a blue putty-like substance called "shear-thickening fluid" which stiffens to absorb more energy when impacted.

The centre will also be investigating "blast lung", the most common cause of death among soldiers who survive the initial explosion. Symptoms include severe bruising, bleeding and damage to blood vessels in the lung.

The majority of the money for the new centre is coming from the Royal British Legion. The organisation believes technology is already saving lives, but that more can be achieved.

"People are surviving injuries they wouldn't have survived five years ago as a result of all sorts of improvements," said Chris Simpkins, Director General of the Royal British Legion.

"But we don't full understand why, for example, an individual who has had a below-the-knee amputation is experiencing long-term excruciating pain in the other limb.

"The research here will examine the effects on the entire body - not just the visible effects of severe wounds - right down to the cellular level."

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Driving In The Dark To Victory

Driving In The Dark To Victory

November 29, 2011: Only two years after introducing DVE (Driver's Vision Enhancers) a camera based night driving aid for combat vehicles, the U.S. Army is upgrading the popular device with an enhanced version of DVE that widens the view from 40 degrees to 107 degrees, provides a better image and is easier to use.

Two years ago, after a decade of development and wide scale testing, the U.S. Army and Marines decided to buy nearly two billion dollars-worth of DVE. This is an infrared (heat sensing) system that consists of a 2.5 kg (5.5 pound) sensor, and a flat panel display that shows what is in front of the vehicle, despite night, fog, smoke or dust. The army has already bought over 80,000 DVEs in the last seven years, so that the equipment could be used on a wide variety of vehicle and in all possible conditions. The new purchases will equip just about every truck and combat vehicles with DVE. The most common users are combat vehicles (M-1 tanks, M-2s, STRYKER, MRAP, and HMMWVs).

There are actually four different versions. DVE Lite is for trucks that cart troops and supplies around. DVE CV is used by combat vehicles. DVE TWV allows the sensor to be moved around, to search a wider area, and is used by wheeled combat vehicles (Stryker and MRAP). There is also a variation of the DVE TWV, used specifically to detect enemy activity, like someone placing roadside bombs or mines.

The driver uses a flat screen display that is moved down in front of the windshield, like a sun visor, so that he can see through night, fog or even a sand storm. The new enhanced DVE allows the driver to quickly expand the view to include the sides of the road or even to glance at the rear pointing IR camera many vehicles have. The enhanced version puts the viewing controls on the steering wheel, thus eliminating the need to fiddle with camera controls. The main camera is mounted at eye level in front of the windshield, between the two front seats of the vehicle.

DVE enables the army to move more quickly, and safely, in all kinds of atmospheric conditions. This not only speeds up supply and movement (of units) operations, but makes combat units more effective. The enemy can no longer rely on bad visibility to slow down U.S. troops. DVE, and especially the enhanced version, has been enthusiastically received by drivers. Previously, they had to use their night vision goggles, where provide a narrow field of view, and are uncomfortable after being worn for hours.

Monday, December 5, 2011

China Builds A Super Heat Seeker

China Builds A Super Heat Seeker

December 2, 2011: A new air-to-air missile (PL-10) has been seen on Chinese J-11B fighters. The PL-10 looks very similar to the South African A-Darter. This is an 89 kg (196 pound), three meter (9.3 foot) long heat seeking missiles that is highly maneuverable and resistant to countermeasures. The A-Darter is not yet in service, but is designed to be similar to the U.S. AIM-9X. A-Darter is being developed in cooperation with Brazil. It's not known if PL-10 is actually in service. It has been described and discussed for at least three years.

The J-11 is a clone of the Russian Su-27. The J-11A is being supplanted by the J-11B. At least two squadrons of J-11Bs are in service with the air force. The original J-11 entered service in 1998, but production was very slow and only a hundred were produced. Chinese officials were dismayed with the performance of the obsolete Russian electronics. After that, at least a hundred of the 33 ton J-11A was built. This model was equipped with modern, Chinese made, electronics and is capable of using up to eight tons of radar guided air-to-air missiles and smart bombs. But the J-11B, while the same size and weight as the J-11A, has a more capable AESA radar and is intended to specialize in air-to-ground missions, while also being able to take care of itself in air-to-air combat. The navy is using a beefed up version of the J-11B (the J-11BH) on its carriers.

There appear to be about 200 J-11s in service, with about 40 percent of them J-11Bs. This is deduced by the number of cell phone photos showing up, from different air force and navy air bases.

Sunday, December 4, 2011

An Armload Of X-Ray Vision

An Armload Of X-Ray Vision

December 3, 2011: For the last decade, the U.S. Army has used several generations of portable "see-through-the-wall" sensors. The Eagle series of sensors use low power ultra-wideband radio waves to detect what is behind walls (except metal ones). These devices (there are several versions) weigh less than 2.5 kg (5.5 pounds) and all are hand (or arm) held. The M model can detect motion, of people or animals who are up to six meters behind a 20cm (8 inch) concrete wall. The P model can see into the ground (3-4 meters down) and detect objects, as well as tunnels. The V model produces sharper images, but at shorter ranges. The Eagle 45W is mounted on the arm and is very useful in urban fighting, when the enemy is moving through a building you are outside of.

All these devices use rechargeable batteries that are good for about four hours. The older sensors look like a game controller, and put the image on a small screen, as well as being able to wirelessly transmit the image to a laptop computer, which can use software to enhance the image. These non-radar sensors are popular with police and fire departments, as well as anyone who has to search behind walls, or under roads, for stuff that is broken.

This kind of equipment is nothing new. Five years ago, the troops began using the nine pound Radarvision device. While this tool couldn't see through metal walls, it did give you an image of anyone behind any other wall material, including up to a 30 cm (one foot) of brick, concrete or stone. It could also see through multiple walls. Using a 90 minute battery pack, the image was particularly good if someone in there is moving. Competing devices weighed as little as 3 kg (6.5 pounds), and had a range of up to 20 meters (63 feet) and batteries that lasted 2.5 hours. The latest devices use new technology, are lighter and more reliable and produce sharper images. These can also be worn on the arm, with helmet mounted eye piece providing the visuals.

This equipment does not go out on every mission, but it does often enough to force the enemy to be very creative in trying to hide things (usually without success). The troops like this gear because it is portable and easy to use. The sensors can reveal hidden weapons as well as hidden people in a building or case. These sensors also help avoid civilian casualties, because you can check out who is in a building before going in. Kids are relatively easy to identify, which usually means civilians.

Thursday, December 1, 2011

Sharper Night Vision

Sharper Night Vision

November 27, 2011: Two years after U.S. Army troops began receiving the first new helmet mounted ENVGs (Enhanced Night Vision Goggle), another major improvement has shown up; SENVG (Spiral Enhanced Night Vision Goggles). The main improvement with SENVG is a much sharper, true-color image. Troops who tested them did not want to give them up. But fewer than a thousand SENVG are on order so far. Demand is expected to skyrocket once more troops in Afghanistan get these devices.

The ENVGs were so successful that the army ordered 50,000, so that all troops in a combat zone can have them. The ENVG were particularly useful spotting for hidden (in the brush) enemy gunmen at night. Troops equipped with ENVG have a 50 percent probability of spotting these hidden hostiles at 300 meters and an 80 percent probability at 150 meters. This made it much more difficult for enemy fighters to ambush American troops at night. Since the enemy rarely has night vision gear, they have to rely on sound and fleeting glimpses of the approaching Americans. That means the U.S. troops have to be less than 50 meters away before the enemy can open fire. The ENVG thus provides a crucial edge at night. This has been great for American morale, not so good for the Taliban. The SENVG goggles simply increase the American edge.

What made the ENVG so popular was that it combines the older light enhancement technology goggles, with a thermal (heat sensing) night sight. This combined sight weighs about one kilogram (two pounds). The older ENVG (thermal only) weighed 864 gr (1.9 pounds), while the AN/PVS-13 light enhancing device weighed 568 gr (1.25 pounds), for a total of nearly a kilogram (2.15 pounds). The new sight is not only lighter, but more compact and easier to use. It provides a total of 15 hours' use (7.5 hours for thermal imaging and the same for light enhancement). In most cases (where there is some star or moon light) the light enhancement sight will do. But where there is no other light (as in a building or cave) the thermal imager works. The thermal imager also works through fog and sand storms.

It was five years ago that field testing of the original ENVG (the AN/PAS13) took place. This device worked with the current AN/PVS-14 night vision goggles (which provide night vision by enhancing available light), but added the capability to use thermal imaging (seeing differences in heat). As more combat moved to Afghanistan, the ENVG became more critical for battlefield success at night.

Until a decade ago, thermal imaging equipment was large and bulky and only available in vehicles (M-1 tanks and M-2 Bradleys). But in the last five years, smaller and lighter thermal imagers have come on to the market. The U.S. Army Special Forces has been using these lightweight thermal imagers to great effect from the very beginning of their development.

Field testing of the combined device began three years ago, and was quickly found to be popular and reliable. The earlier thermal imager was also very popular, but carrying both night sights was not. At first, the plan was not to equip all combat troops with the more expensive combined sight. That soon changed once user reports came back, praising the ENVG and describing how much of a life-saver it was. Not all non-combat troops will have an ENVG, but every unit will have some. The army found the money ($770 million) to buy over 50,000 of the new ENVGs, which cost about $15,000 each. It takes a while to manufacture these devices, and the army will only have about 10,000 of them by next year.

The SENVGs are equally expensive and difficult to produce. If past experience is any guide, special operations troops (Special Forces and SEALs) will be the first to get them. The new technology in Spiral Enhanced Night Vision Goggles will be included in weapons sights as well.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Taiwan AWACS Enhanced

Taiwan AWACS Enhanced

November 20, 2011: Taiwan is sending another two of its E-2T AWACS aircraft to the U.S. for upgrading to the E-2C 2000 standard. Two Taiwanese E-2Ts were sent last year. The upgrade will cost about $63 million per aircraft.

The E-2T is very similar to the E-2C. Meanwhile, it was only last year that the U.S. Navy received its first E-2D aircraft. This is the latest version of the E-2 Hawkeye radar aircraft that was originally introduced in 1964. The two engine, 24 ton E-2 was never produced in large quantities (fewer than a hundred are in use). Four years ago, the E-2 fleet reached a milestone, of a million flight hours.

The current E-2C models began entering service in the 1970s and are difficult to maintain because of their age. The E-2s always contained a large quantity of the most modern, and failure prone, electronics. Operating mostly off carriers, and thus constantly exposed to corrosive, salty ocean air, the aircraft takes a beating. The five man crew is mostly concerned with using the large radar carried atop the aircraft, and keeping track of friendly, and hostile, aircraft and missiles at up to 400 kilometers distance.

The aircraft can stay in the air for 4-6 hours at a time, and cruises at 450 kilometers an hour. Currently, the three "system operators" use large flat screen displays and many gigabytes of disk storage each (for capturing and comparing data) to operate as a sea-going AWACS. It was the navy that developed the AWACS concept at the end of World War II, using Avenger light bombers, equipped with radar, to control large carrier strikes.

Each American aircraft carrier has four E-2s, and the U.S. Navy has a total fleet of about 70 E-2s. There are several dozen in service in other countries, but only France operates them from carriers. Everyone else uses land based E-2s. About half the E-2s ever built are still flying, and the United States expects to keep using them (as the E-2D) into the 2020s. After that, an unmanned aircraft will probably replace the E-2.

The E-2C 2000 entered service eight years ago, as an interim upgrade before the E-2D (with new engines, new phased array radar, new electronics and many other improvements) arrived. Development and manufacturing of 75 E-2Ds for the U.S. Navy cost about $206 million per aircraft. The E-2D has longer range, and more accurate radar as well as much more efficient and reliable computer systems. Many of the current E-2Cs will get some of the electronics improvements, depending on how much money is available. The first carrier to be equipped with E-2Ds won't happen for another 2-3 years. In the meantime, individual E-2Ds will operate from carriers to work out any remaining bugs and unforeseen problems.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Apache Enters The Block III Era

Apache Enters The Block III Era

November 12, 2011: The U.S. Army has received the first of 51 "low rate initial production" Block III models of the AH-64 Apache helicopter gunship. This is the newest version of the AH-64, and had its first flight three years ago. The U.S. Army will be upgrading all of its 634 AH-64s to the new Block III standard, a process that won't be completed until 2020. The first Block IIIs are entering service now, and will be heavily used to reveal any design or manufacturing flaws. These will be fixed before mass production and conversion begins. 

Block III has a lot of improvements. One of the notable ones is a more powerful and fuel efficient engine, as well as much improved electronics. Block III will also have Internet like capabilities with other aircraft and ground troops. Block III will be able to control several UAVs, and launch missiles at targets spotted by its UAVs. The Block III radar will have longer range and onboard computers will be much more powerful. The electronics will be easier to upgrade and maintain. The combination of improved fire control and Internet capabilities is expected to greatly increase the capabilities of the AH-64.

The 7.5 ton AH-64D carries a pilot and a weapons officer, as well as up to 16 Hellfire missiles (plus the 30mm automatic cannon). Sorties average three hours. The AH-64 can operate at night and has a top speed of 260 kilometers an hour.

In addition to the U.S. Army, the Block III is also being bought by the UAE (United Arab Emirates) which is buying 60. Neighboring Saudi Arabia recently ordered 70 of the same model, as well as upgrades for its existing twelve AH-64s, to the Block III standard. Many other of the existing 1,100 AH-64s may be upgraded as well.

 

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Slow, Sloppy and Stubborn

November 10, 2011: India's submarine fleet is dying of old age, and new boats are not going to arrive in time. It's not like this was a surprise, but the Indian defense procurement bureaucracy has long been noted as slow, sloppy and stubborn, especially in the face of demands that it speed up. The twisted tale of the tardy submarines is particularly painful.

The plan was to have a dozen new subs in service by the end of the decade. At present, there will be (with a bit of luck) six of them in service by then. The other six might arrive five years later. It's hard to say, because the manufacturer of the second six has not been selected yet. The defense procurement nabobs speak of "fast track" for this project, but long-time observers of these officials are not expecting speed.

India's effort to build the first six subs (French Scorpenes), under license, has been delayed several times, and the price has gone up to $5 billion ($834 million each). While this effort will leave India with thousands of workers and specialists experienced in building modern submarines, all that will be wasted because the defense procurement bureaucrats seem to have learned nothing. These officials already caused numerous delays, and cost overruns, during negotiations to build the Scorpene diesel-electric submarines. The bureaucrats mismanaged this deal to the extent that it is nearly three years behind schedule. But it is even more behind schedule if you count the several years the Indian bureaucrats delayed it even getting started. The delays and mismanagement have so far increased the cost of the $4 billion project by 25 percent. The first Scorpene is supposed to enter service in 2015 years, with one a year after that until all six are delivered.

There's some urgency to all this, because by next year, five of India's 16 subs (10 Kilo and two Foxtrot class Russian built boats and four German Type 209s) will be retired (some are already semi-retired because of age and infirmity). Two years after that, India will only have five working subs. India believes it needs at least 18 non-nuclear subs in service to deal with Pakistan and China.

But the bureaucrats and politicians dithered for nearly a decade, and it wasn't until 2005 that India signed a deal to buy six French Scorpene class boats. The delays led to the French increasing prices on some key components, and India has had some problems in getting production going on their end. The first Scorpene was to be built in France, with the other five built in India. While some problems were expected (India has been doing license manufacturing of complex weapons for decades), the defense ministry procurement bureaucrats never ceased to amaze when it came to delaying work, or just getting in the way.

The Scorpenes are similar to the Agosta 90B subs (also French) that Pakistan recently bought. The first of the Agostas was built in France, but the other two were built in Pakistan. The Scorpenes purchase was seen as a response to the Pakistani Agostas. The Scorpene are a more recent design, the result of cooperation between French and Spanish sub builders. The Agosta is a 1,500 ton (surface displacement) diesel-electric sub with a 36 man crew and four 533mm (21 inch) torpedo tubes (with 20 torpedoes and/or anti-ship missiles carried.) The Scorpene is a little heavier (1,700 tons), has a smaller crew (32) and is a little faster. It has six 533mm torpedo tubes, and carries 18 torpedoes and/or missiles. Both models can be equipped with an AIP (air independent propulsion) system. This enables the sub to stay under longer, thus making the sub harder to find. AIP allows the sub to travel under water for more than a week, at low speed (5-10 kilometers an hour). The Pakistanis have an option to retrofit AIP in their current two Agostas.

While India was largely concerned with the Pakistani navy when the Scorpene contract was negotiated and signed, China is now seen as the primary adversary. The Chinese subs are not as effective as the Pakistani boats, both because of less advanced technology, and less well trained crews. India could use their Scorpenes to confront any Chinese attempt to expand their naval presence into the Indian Ocean. Thus the delays and cost overruns with the Scorpenes are causing quite a lot of commotion in India. But at the rate India is going, it will be nearly a decade before all six of the Scorpenes are in service. At that point, India would have about a dozen subs (including nuclear powered models under construction). China will have over 60 boats, about 20 percent of them nuclear.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Building The Battlefield Tablet

Building The Battlefield Tablet

November 14, 2011: The U.S. Army is developing a tablet computer for battlefield use. Because the iPad is too large to be used on the battlefield, a smaller (18cm/7 inch versus 26cm/10.1 inch) Android model is the favorite. The current plan is to add several layers of security (require fingerprint or face/voice recognition) to the existing password requirement. Battlefield tablets and cell phones also need hardware and/or software to handle the additional wireless security required. This is not a big problem, but developing and testing a system that works well enough to be useful in combat takes time.

Another problem is that troops are often wearing gloves on the battlefield. But in many cases fingerless gloves get the job done, and allow touch sensitive tablets to be used. Field tests have already found that the devices (tablets and cell phones) are quite rugged, especially if covered by the inexpensive (under $10) protective "skins" you can buy anywhere. The troops are big users of tablets, and often create job-specific software for them.

Sunday, November 6, 2011

Laser Is Cheaper Than Lead

Laser Is Cheaper Than Lead

November 1, 2011: Over the last decade, the U.S. has developed revolutionary training technology and techniques for combat shooting. First it was the use of electronic rifle ranges, and now it has expanded to outdoor versions, where troops use laser equipped rifles to shoot at 3-D popup, stationary targets or even moving vehicles and personnel. These portable Targetry Systems can easily be set up anywhere, in open or urban areas. Using laser weapons (identical to those developed in the 1980s for combat training), there is no danger to the troops or anyone else in the area.

In addition to providing a lot more weapons training, these electronic systems save a lot of money. The U.S. Marine Corps has saved over half a billion dollars in the last five years, by using indoor electronic firing ranges. IMST (Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer) has cost over $200 million, but the savings in ammo, wear on weapons, and running outdoor ranges were much larger. Nearly 200,000 marines have undergone marksmanship training using IMST. Unlike the similar U.S. Army EST system, IMST is wireless. A special ammo magazine contains gas that provides realistic recoil and a wireless radio device connects the weapon to the targets displayed on the screen and records how accurately the electronic rounds were fired. Wireless systems like this also make the targetry systems possible, because an important aspect of all this is keeping track of every "shot" fired, and where it landed. This provides valuable feedback for the trainees, on what works, and what doesn't.

Devices like IMST and EST have boosted the shooting skills of troops, while reducing costs. This gives American riflemen a big battlefield advantage. In most armies, the troops rarely fire their rifles. Ammo is too expensive (given the meager military budget). When there is combat, the troops are issued bullets, which they fire very inaccurately. Against a better trained foe, this leads to quick defeat. Happens all the time. But now cash strapped armies can train their troops to be effective marksmen without spending a lot of money, by using simulators.

The U.S. Army pioneered this with their EST (Engagement Skills Trainer) 2000 system. Each of these consists of a movie theater size screen (but at ground level, not raised) with back projection target situations displayed as interactive movies. The troops use rifles, pistols and machine-guns that are actual weapons, but modified to fire "electronic bullets", and, via a thin cable, use a pneumatic system that provides recoil as well. There is a sound system to depict the sound of the weapons firing, as well as a computer controlled tracking of ammo fired, letting users know when they have to reload.

Because EST and IMST are simulators, they capture a precise record of exactly where the shooter's weapon is aimed, how well the shooter pulls the trigger, and how long it takes to find and fire at the next target. This enables instructors to much more rapidly detect problems troops are having, and correct them. Tests have shown that you can take people with no weapons experience, put them through four hours of simulator training, and take them to a rifle range, and they will be able to fire accurately enough to exceed military requirements. Studies have shown that troops trained with a simulator gain as much marksmanship skill as those using live ammo.

In addition, a simulator like this can be used for training troops in ways that are impractical using live ammo. For example, when used for "shoot/don't shoot" situations, the appropriate visuals (either an enemy soldier or a civilian) are shown on the video screen. Soldiers train in a group, positioned as they would be in a real situation. The scenario then plays out, allowing the troops to practice when they should shoot, and when they should not. Training can be for day or night scenarios, and for a wide variety of situations.

These systems are sometimes built into standard shipping containers, so they can be moved around to where they are needed. The more useful of these "sims in a box" are the "encounter" and "convoy" sims. The encounter sim puts troops in a container containing video screens on three sides that portray an encounter between troops and foreign civilians (as they would encounter on patrol or manning a checkpoint). The troops are then allowed to deal with typical problems encountered in situations like this. While not combat (although some gunfire can be introduced), it is extremely useful training for troops headed for the combat zone.

A nation like China can build EST like systems for less than $100,000. But the Chinese have traditionally spent more time training their infantry to move quietly and pay attention to camouflage. These are important combat skills, which most nations do not spend a lot of time on. But when it comes time to shoot someone, you have an edge if your troops are accurate. China has been building aircraft and vehicle simulators. Operating warplanes and tanks is very expensive, and simulators are a much cheaper way to give operators useful experience.

In the West, there has been a lot more development of non-combat simulators in the last few decades. This has pushed total worldwide simulator sales to over $8 billion a year (out of total defense sales of $1,100 billion). Operators of electronic equipment are much more effective if they have lots of experience. But actually using their radars, sonars or complex missile systems is also very expensive. So simulators provide essential experience inexpensively.

Most nations can appreciate the need to train their pilots, ship crews and electronics operators to be better at their jobs. But ground combat troops are another matter. In most nations, the army exists mainly to protect the leadership from the population. The troops tend to get frequent training for riot control. Issuing them a lot of ammo is not considered wise, as soldiers in these countries are not considered particularly reliable. So even in military affairs, political expediency trumps everything else.

Friday, November 4, 2011

Chinese Remote Weapons Stations

Chinese Remote Weapons Stations

November 2, 2011: A Chinese firm is marketing a RWS (Remote Weapon Stations). This one is similar to the light (74 kg/163 pounds) model used by the U.S. Army. The Chinese RWS is apparently not meant for vehicle use, but for facility or perimeter security. The Chinese RWS is shown mounting a light (5.8mm) machine-gun and touted for "counter-terror" missions. China is playing catch-up in this area, as Western nations have been developing RWS for decades. The Chinese have developed a vehicle mounted RWS, but is described as still in development. This RWS is armed with a 12.7mm machine-gun and two anti-aircraft missiles. While the missiles are unusual for an RWS, the control systems look familiar to Western RWS operators. The same video game features are used. China also has millions of young men with lots of video game experience.

The U.S. Army continues to improve its RWS systems. These devices allow an operator inside the vehicle to control the gun and its sensors. Among the improvements are the addition of a green laser, which can temporarily blind people, and has long been used to stop drivers who keep coming at checkpoints despite other signals to stop. Used in an RWS, it would enable the RWS operator to flash suspicious people with the blinding light, rather than opening up with the weapon. Another upgrade is the addition of cameras to the side and rear of the turret, so that the operator can quickly check for activity all around without moving the turret (which sometimes alerts an enemy that they have been spotted.) Another addition is an IR Pointer, which, at night, enables the RWS operator to put a light, visible only to those using night-vision equipment, on something suspicious, or otherwise important. The larger CROWS II RWS has also been equipped and tested with a Javelin missile launcher. The army sees RWS as a key element in the development of remotely controlled, or autonomous, armored vehicles. The Chinese RWS does not have any of these features. But some, like the green laser, could easily be added.

RWS was one of the most important (in terms of saving lives) new weapons to appear in the last decade. This now ubiquitous remote control weapon (usually a machine-gun) is seen on many vehicles (from hummers to MRAPs and tanks). The U.S. Army has bought, or plans to buy, a total of 18,000 RWS systems. The army currently has 7,600 RWS in service. An RWS turret costs, on average, about $212,000 each. The remote control gun turret has now become a standard system on American combat vehicles.

Norwegian firm Kongsberg, the major supplier, has several models of its Protec RWS, to support small, medium and large sized weapons. Now there are a lot of competitors, if only because Kongsberg can't keep up with the demand. Many of the new competitors are trying to grab niche markets. The more obvious ones are those demanding RWS that can handle larger weapons, like 25mm or 30mm autocannon. But the most interesting new development is the portable RWS. It can be mounted on a hummer, but quickly removed, and carried by two troops, and set up anywhere using a tripod. The operator can stay behind cover, while the light machine-gun, exposed to hostile fire, unflinchingly takes on the enemy. There are lots of combat situations that could make use of this lightweight RWS.

The Protec RWS is the key component of the U.S. Army CROWS (common remotely operated weapon stations). This idea of a remote control turret has been around for nearly half a century, but years of tinkering, and better technology, have made the remote control gun turret finally work effectively, dependably and affordably. This has made the RWS practical for widespread combat use. While some troops miss the greater feeling of situational awareness (especially being able to hear and smell the surroundings) you got as an old-school turret gunner, most soldiers and marines have adapted and accepted the new system. What it lacks in the smelling and hearing department, it makes up in terms of night vision and zoom. And it's a lot safer.

CROWS is a real life saver, not to mention anxiety reducer, for troops who drive through bandit country a lot, and man the turret gun. You're a target up there, and too often, the bad guys get you. Not with CROWS. The gunner is inside the vehicle, checking out the surroundings (with night vision, zoom and telephoto capabilities). CROWS also has a laser rangefinder built in, as well as a stabilizer mechanism to allow more accurate fire while the vehicle is moving. The CROWS systems (RWS, weapon and installation) cost about $260,000 each, and can mount a variety of weapons (M2 12.7mm/.50 caliber machine-gun, MK19 40-mm automatic grenade launcher, M240B 7.62mm machine-gun and M249 5.56mm squad automatic weapon). CROWS comes in several different configurations, based on weapon mounted and armor installed (light, at 74 kg/163 pounds, standard, at 136 kg/298 pounds and CROWS II, at 172 kg/379 pounds.) The heaviest version is usually used in MRAP (armored trucks) and has a better user interface, a thermal imager and sniper detection system.

The Chinese system offered for sale is more similar to Israeli use of RWS, in turrets guarding the long border with Gaza. The Chinese RWS might be pitched to the many Chinese firms setting up mines and industrial facilities in Africa and parts of Asia that are prone to criminal gangs that carry out large scale raids. Multiple RWS systems would be a deterrent to such attacks.

By the end of 2006, there were about a thousand CROWS in U.S. service. There are now nearly 8,000. Many of the enemy fighters have seen Western or Japanese films featuring killer robots, and often think that's what they are facing. The fear factor is real, and it helps. The accuracy of the fire, and uncanny speed with which the CROWS gun moves to point at a target, is due to something few officers expected; so many troops who quickly become expert RWS operators. The guys operating these systems grew up playing video games. They developed skills in operating computer systems (video games) very similar to the CROWS controls. This was important, because viewing the world around the vehicle via a vidcam is not as enlightening (although a lot safer) than having your head and chest exposed to the elements (and any firepower the enemy sends your way). But experienced video gamers are skilled at whipping that screen view around, and picking up any signs of danger.

Since many troops have years of experience with video games, they take to CROWS quickly, and very effectively. This has further frightened hostile gunmen, who are quick to attribute magical qualities to American equipment. However, many CROWS users have mixed feelings about the system, because they know that you have more awareness of your surroundings if you are actually standing with your head and shoulders outside the vehicle, manning a machine-gun. For this reason, RWS manufacturers are investigating adding more sensors (for things like sound, smell and wind direction.) But the biggest improvements have been more reliability, ease-of-use, more sensors and lower cost.

Sunday, October 30, 2011

The Rise Of the Illusion

The Rise Of the Illusion

October 25, 2011: The mass media is having a good time with the idea that several hundred Predator, Reaper and Global Hawk herald an unprecedented age of robot surveillance and destruction. Actually, it's a practice that has been present for thousands of years, and one that, like everything else in the last century, is taking advantage of new technology.

It's all about information. Warfare grew out of hunting, and hunting was all about information. Namely, where the prey was and where it was headed. To this day, hunters who have learned to read the signs (detect spoor, the term for the signs any critter leaves behind) and follow it, are more likely to bring home the fresh meat. As hunting evolved into warfare, the ability to track gave your side an edge. This evolved into espionage, but it was all about correctly noting and interpreting signs that were, well, just there. Be they footprints, bent grass, marks on trees or rocks, or gossip in a market place, those who could collect and sort out the spoor, had an edge.

The military first saw aircraft as a better way to collect information. Combat (shooting at other aircraft and bombing ground targets) came later. What UAVs do is allow you to keep aircraft over an area of interest more cheaply. But just because these aircraft are unmanned does not mean they are robots. They are controlled from the ground. In the past, the pilot and observer were on board, which required a larger and more expensive aircraft, which could not stay in that air as long as an unmanned one. What made the modern UAV possible is cheaper, smaller and more reliable cameras, computers and communications gear.

Commanders have always wanted more aerial reconnaissance, and until UAVs came along, it was too expensive to put as many recon aircraft up there as were needed for "persistent" (continuous) surveillance. Now that they have it, those ignorant of history see something sinister. That's nothing new, but that's another story.

What you will see evolving out of the current UAVs is more software to handle the tedious job of constantly scanning the ground for something useful. This software has been around for over a decade, and is slowly being incorporated into analyzing all sorts of digital video feeds. In factories, it looks for unsafe work habits. In stores, it looks for shoplifters, and shopping patterns. In hospitals, it monitors patients, especially unconscious ones, for signs of trouble, or improvement. In police work, the software can scan through thousands of hours of video for clues and suspects. On the battlefield, scanning software looks for signs of the enemy, and what they are up to.

But people still create the software, and interpret the results. People still fly the robotic aircraft, with the help of the same kind of automatic pilot software long used in manned aircraft. Thus it's not an ominous development we are witnessing, just history in action. Trends happen more quickly these days, and not just for consumer electronics.