While the air force completes procurement of its top-performance F-22, and gears toward fielding of the fifth-next generation F-35 stealth fighter, a modest effort is aimed at a different platform, less glamorous, perhaps, but not less suitable for irregular warfare, a type of conflict the Air Force is expected to support, but currently still lacks adequate means to deliver effectively.
As part of its new strategy, the U.S. Air Force is evaluating plans to buy about 160 light aircraft. These will include about 100 light attack/armed reconnaissance aircraft (LAAR) and 60 light transports, the so-called, light military aircraft (LiMA), optimized for irregular warfare operations.
LAAR could be operated from austere forward locations, remain airborne for several hours, survive relatively sophisticated threats, such as air defense missiles, as well as ground fire. It can support ground elements with intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), deliver precision guided weapons or conventional ordnance, with precision and effectiveness expected form the most sophisticated close-air-support aircraft. LAAR and LiMA can carry personnel and supplies into and out of hot battle zones.
The Air Force expects the new aircraft to become operational in 2013, one year after initial deliveries start. Procurement of up to 100 aircraft is planned. The Air Force expects the aircraft to be maintained by a civilian contractors, while supporting them at field level through its organic facilities. At present, Hawker Beechcraft Corp. (HBC) is offering the AT-6 variant of the T-6A/B trainer, to be equipped and supported by Lockheed Martin.Texas based Air Tractor is also expected to be offering the AT-802U unveiled earlier this year at the Paris Air Show. Embraer is also expected to bid, teamed with a local partner. While the Air Force has not specified an unmanned aerial system option, Proxy Aviation could also be offering the Skyraider optionally piloted UAV, which could introduce a totally new dimmension to LAAR capabilities.
At the same time, the Air Force also plans to introduce about 60 fixed-wing Light Mobility Aircraft (LiMA) aircraft with contracts expected in 2011. The aircraft will be optimized for Air Transport operations, supporting forward locations operating from makeshift landing ground. The aircraft are expected to conduct airlift of cargo and personnel, airdrops, forward operating location re-supply and medical/casualty evacuation. The aircraft will be able to carry at least six passengers with gross takeoff weight of 1,800 lbs., operating autonomously over a distance of 900 nautical miles with full cargo. Current U.S. manufacturers offering aircraft compatible with these requirements include the Explorer 500T from Texas based Explorer Aircraft or the Cessna Caravan. Yet eying the special operations character of these missions, few foreign aircraft could also be considered. Among those are the Swiss Pilatus PC6 Porter (below), the DH6 Twin Otter, a popular skydiving carrier being offered by Canadian Viking Air and the legendary Australian Nomad, which recently resurected by Gippsland Aeronautics.
Pilatus PC6 (Porter) is one of possible platforms conforming to the U.S. Air Force LiMA requirements. Photo: Pilatus Aircraft.
The basic security fence utilized along the Israeli Buffer Zone and northern border was built by Magal Security Systems and consists of a combination of taut wire and vibration sensors, to reduce false alarms. The fence is built in 50 meter segments, which are activated by any type of tampering or passage attempt. Magal is currently proposing an installation of video cameras, which will cover every segment, and be triggered by alarms of the local segment, thus sending a real-time view of the segment, for visual verification of the event. The image captured by the camera can be transmitted immediately to security forces that rush to the area, to engage the infiltrators. Magal is also providing a similar system for perimeter defense system, utilizing a number of pan mounted cameras, which are automatically aimed at the segment that triggered the alarm. Magal offers such solutions as a low cost addition to security perimeter defenses, where the size of the installation or budget for security measures prohibits the use of video motion detection systems.
The 5th biennial unmanned systems demonstration hosted by the U.S. Navy PEO U&W and Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) was held 10 August at the Webster Field Maryland, an auxiliary airfield adjacent to U.S. Navy Patuxent River naval air station. Two years ago, Defense Update covered the 4th demonstration held at the same location and our current coverage will relate to the previous event, highlighting the evolution of systems displayed in both events and the trends evident from the current demonstration.
IAI Malat Maritime heron I performs an autimatic landing at Webster Field, after demonstrating a maritime patrol mission of several hours. Photo: Defense-Update.
The demonstration focused on advanced multi-platform and manned-unmanned operations, featuring intelligence surveillance reconnaissance (ISR), security, maritime and counter-IED operation. The demonstrations clearly outlined the ability of operators to pursue time critical targets, but such specific actions were not included in the display. Furthermore, the demonstration emphasized different levels of maturity of unmanned aerial and ground systems, whereas aerial systems employed primarily on ISR missions demonstrated impressive functionality and agility. Ground robotic systems still lacking the mobility, flexibility and agility of the human element, are unable to act effectively, as integral part of an assault combat team. At present they are limited primarily to specific high-risk roles, such as handling explosive ordnance and IEDs.
Goldeneye 80 was displayed here for the first time. Left: the sensor view as displayed on a big outddoor screen. Photo: Defense-Update.
The UVS display was opened by a debut flight of Aurora Flight Sciences’ Goldeneye 80. At a gross take-off weight of 230lb this vertical take-off and landing UAV is part of Aurora’s family of VTOL ducted fan UAV systems, designed under DARPA Organic Aerial Vehicle (OAV) program to facilitate advanced, autonomous operations over rough terrain. Goldeneye can take off from any unprepared surface, including a vehicle flatbed, and is capable of continuously supporting a mission up three hours. In flight, the ducted-fan powered vehicle demonstrated relatively low acoustic signature, compared to past generation tactical UAVs. Nevertheless, unlike the newest small electrical and piston engined UAVs, ducted fan powered vehicles demonstrated here (Goldeneye and T-Hawk) created a distinctive buzzing sound, which should be considered as a significant factor in their ability to operate under clandestine missions.
L-3’s Geneva Aerospace UAV division unveiled the new optionally manned Mobius unmanned aerial system (UAS). The aircraft was flight demonstrated in a manned configuration and, after landing, was quickly converted within minutes into an unmanned aircraft. The Mobius uses a retractable Wescam electro-optic (EO) payload for various ISR missions. As an optionally piloted aircraft it can fly in controlled airspace just like any other aircraft, such as flying to a forward base, from where it can performed manned or unmanned flights. Turning the aircraft into an unmanned platform requires few instruments settings and the replacement of the canopy with low profile fairing improving the aerodynamic flow, contributing to extended mission endurance. Finally, Northrop Grumman demonstrated the FireScout P6, that has recently joined the MQ-4B FireScout test fleet, demonstrating the unmanned helicopter’s potential capabilities for the Army.
The 6th pby roduction version of the Firescout was built by Northrop Grumman as a technology demonstrator, utilizing systems destined for use by the U.S. Army and other land forces users. Photo: Defense-Update.
AAI demonstrated here the new Aerosonde 4.7, the new model the company has been developing this year in preparation for the Marine Corps’ small tactical unmanned aerial systems (STUAS) program. The new Aerosonde launched from a newly developed field-deployable launcher is installed, along with the net-retrieving system on a trailer. AAI demonstrated the Aerosonde in a multi-UAV mission, collaborating with two Orbiter UAVs, deployed from an internally transported vehicle (ITV) carrying the Orbiters, their launchers, and ground control segment. After flying their missions, the two Orbiters performed accurate parachute recovery, while the Aerosonde made a skid-landing on the runway. The vehicle can also be retrieved with a network, where lack of clear landing strips require such performance, like landing on abroad ships at sea, or on rugged surface or urban terrain.
Two Orbiter electrically powered mini-UAV were displayed by Textron Systems' AAI. Upon completing their missions the two mini-UAVs were retrieved by parachute. Photo: Defense-Update.
An unmanned aircraft already demonstrating impressive performance in combat operations and maritime missions worldwide, is the IAI Maritime Heron, which also deployed on a successful demonstration, with U.S. Southern command in El-Salvador. The Heron is marketed in the U.S. by IAI’s Stark Aviation subsidiary. The flight display was part of a mission lasting a few hours, where the aircraft was tasked with maritime surveillance, searching an open sea area along the Atlantic coast for drug trafficking boats. For this mission the aircraft carried a multi-sensor package, consisting of a maritime search radar, Multi-mission Optronic Stabilized Payload ( MOSP) 3000 EO turret and provisions for electronic surveillance systems. The suspect boat was located, identified, tracked and then handed over to US Coast Guards. The same target was later tracked by the Scan-Eagle as part of its demonstration. Upon completion of its mission the Heron performed an automatic landing, demonstrating its full mission-autonomous capability.
Another view of the Heron I in flight. Photo: Defense-Update.
Boeing’s subsidiary InSitu flew the Scan-Eagle and displayed the new, larger Integorator system, being offered by Boeing for the USMC STUAS program. In addition to utilizing its EO camera to follow maritime targets, the Scan Eagle participated in a coordinated mission on land, cooperating with multiple Hornet mini-UAVs. These autonomous miniature helicopters, developed by Adaptive Flight, are utilizing vehicle and ground control systems developed by Georgia Tech. The 2.4 pound helicopters demonstrated IED inspection, by locating suspicious objects in the area, the Hornets covered each other, with one vehicle providing overwatch and the second closing in, to inspect the object, marking it by dropping an with ‘RF tag’, enabling other sensors aand units to monitor and be warned by the potential threat.
Another multi-UVS demonstration involved a simulated route-clearing mission, performed by a team of robots operated by a Stryker vehicle, conforming to a ‘manned-unmanned team’. The robots comprised two of General Dynamics Robotics Systems (GDRS) T-2 vehicles, with tele-operated and autonomous control modes, acting as lead vehicle and a follower patrol vehicle in a convoy, traveling ahead and trailing the manned Stryker, which provided control and supervision of the entire team. The vehicles were tasked with a standard route-clearing mission, scanning the roadside for potential threats and providing early warning of suspected IEDs. The lead T-2 was equipped with GD’s vehicle autonomy control kit, developed for the U.S. Army’s FCS program. The system uses Laser Radar (LADAR) to sense the environment, plot the route of movement, according to the mission, and detect unexpected obstacles, including human activity, to avoid potential risk. Impressive as such performance may be, the level of sophistication of such systems has yet to mature to enable true autonomy operation. At their present state, such systems could become useful as semi-autonomous lead elements, keeping manned vehicles farther from potential threats. However it is still a long way off, until providing the ‘human touch’ will turn these vehicles, from unmanned sitting ducks and operational liability, into a life saving force multiplier, securing convoy and clearing routes in high-risk and complex combat zones.
A model of Boeing A-160T Hummingbird displayed at Webster Field, in an armed configuration, carrying egiht advanced guided missiles. (JCM) Photo: Defense-Update.
In another “live” demonstrattion, the team moved through a street safely negotiating human activity. The mission continued to a nearby airstrip where IED were encountered hidden on the scene. More suspicious objects were spotted and an explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) team was dispatched to secure the site and eliminate IEDs. First, the EOD sent in a T-Hawk to scan the area and spot additional threats. Taking off vertically from a nearby site, the T-Hawk swiped the roadside, at low altitude, searching for suspicious objects. As a new suspicious IED site was detected, the T-Hawk operator recorded its location and sent the image and coordinates to the ground robot operator, controlling the iRobot 510 Pacbot. The robot was offloaded by hand from the team‘s HMMWV, and dashed to the scene to eliminate the IED by attaching a small C4 explosive charge to neutralize it in place. The whole process continued with the Scan Eagle, flying overhead securing the scene and T-Hawk providing a closer peripheral view of the site for the ground EOD team.
A different scenario involved manned-unmanned, air and ground operation of the Aerovironment Puma-AE and iRobot Warrior and Pacbot UGVs. The Puma was launched into flying an extended patrol of over one hour. This UAV, considered to replace some of the Raven Small Unmanned Aerial Systems, currently used by different US services, is the most advanced mini-UAV developed by AV. Featuring a new, retractable stabilized EO payload and the capability to fly missions up to two hours. It already demonstrated mission endurance beyond six hours, using new Proton exchange membrane (PEM) Hydrogen fuel cells.
iRobot demonstrated the Warrior and Packbot in a marcupial configuration, where the Pacbot was loaded on the Warrior's payload acting as a sensor and, deployed on a dedicated mission indoors after being inserted through the window. Photo: Defense-Update.
On the mission demonstrated at Webster field, the Puma provided area security, spotting intruders in an urban area, while the UAV maintained constant watch of the intruder’s location until a team of guards, assisted by a Warrior unmanned ground vehicle (UGV) arrived at the scene.
The Warrior was employed in a ‘marsupial configuration’ carrying a Pacbot on its cargo bed. As the Warrior approached the site it used its flippers to erect and peek through the window, inserting the smaller Pacbot through the opening, to survey the interior space for hostiles. Once the team obtained the information from inside the house, the heavier Warrior was used to breech the door and lead in the final assault. While the ground robots demonstrated impressive capabilities in the mission preparation phase, providing important intelligence that cannot be obtained by other means without putting human lives at risk, it was clear that in the actual combat phase, when rapid movement, timing and coordination are imperative, ground robots are still reacting too slow and may actually become a burden to the assault team. Military experts agree that robots have still a long way to go before they can act as an integral part of the urban combat team.
A model of BAE Mantis, displayed at the Webster Field. The Mantis is shown here with different armament configurations, comprising Paveway II laser/GPS guided bombs and Brimstone mmw guided missiles. Photo: Defense-Update.
In August 2009 Israel’s first operational Merkava Mk4 tanks were declared operational mounting the Trophy Active Protection System (APS). Following a slow process that almost killed the program prior to the 2006 Lebanon War, the Israeli Ministry of Defense funded the trophy’s integration with current Merkava Mk4 tanks as a retrofit. An APS will also be integrated into the Merkava based Namer Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle (AIFV), scheduled for delivery next year.
However, it is not yet certain if the APS will be the Trophy or IMI’s Iron Fist which is also under development. In fact, the IDF hasn’t finalized its decision about how many and which types of APS it will field throughout the entire force. A mix of systems could prove valuable against a wide range of potential threats expected in medium and high intensity warfare. These images show the Trophy fully integrated into the Merkava Mk4 turret, showing the target acquisition radar, and the interceptor module (note deflector plates behind the interceptor. These are probably used to protect the crew from debris resulting from the Trophy effect. Similar deflectors were visible on the Sherif configured Stryker Vehicle which also mounted the Trophy). During the first months of 2009 the Trophy system went through comprehensive operational testing and was cleared for operational use after a successful operational firing test conducted early August 09. By the end of the year all new Merkava Mk4 tanks will be equipped with the system. Until then, Trophy is being retrofitted to operational tanks.
Fielding of advanced C4ISR technology with the lower echelons will introduce new opportunities but also pose new challenges to trainers and recruiters, as it will require recruitment of more technologically savvy personnel. Carefully balanced training and procedures should be implemented, to maintain combat warfighting skills, with physical and psychological endurance, while mastering technological prowess. These new capabilities should address Tactical, Technical Procedures (TTP) training and human factors, as well as careful design of the man-machine interfaces, to best integrate the systems’ operation into the soldier’s environment, rather than change the soldier’s activities to match the new system’s needs.
For example, typical system interfaces should address display type, size, daylight-and night visibility (brightness, color), the use of text messages, automatic text-to-speech conversion, voice activation commands and audible alerts enabling effective human multi-tasking without impairing the primary functions (mobility, hand-eye coordination, hearing etc.) A critical issue is the interaction with command-and-control systems, particularly under the stressful conditions. Designers tend to use industry standard ‘windows’-based displays to benefit from the familiarity most people have with ‘Windows’ based applications. However, the commercial success and enthusiast adoption of Apple Computers’ iPhone clearly demonstrated the importance in matching the ergonomics of a complex electronic device to the user’s operating environment. The development of the ‘Common Controller’, to be used as standard controller of all future robotic systems, is an example of such an approach. GSE as well as the the new ISR system, which will become the core of the BCT-Modernization, should be addressed along similar guidelines.
Good examples for such tactical C4 systems can be realized in some of the European and Israeli systems. An example is the latest version of the French Army battle management system, designed for the French Army soldier modernization system (FELIN) and the Israeli Elbit System Dominator, which established a subset of the ‘Digital Army’ Program (DAP). Both systems were designed for small format displays and offer the user quick and intuitive ‘shortcuts’ for combat relevant functions, relieving the soldier from ‘drilling’ into endless menus and submenus of commands, to get to the relevant function in his immediate sphere of interest. Such displays should also effectively respond to operators, using fire retardant or chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) protective gloves. For displays to be integrated into the soldier’s combat gear, dismounted operations will require, either integrated display controllers, or helmet-mounted displays, while for combat vehicles, displays should be integrated into weapons and sensor sights and other vision systems, enabling the crew and vehicle commanders to monitor the tactical situational picture in their area of responsibility, while performing their basic warfighting functions as fighting vehicles crewmen.
The development of other MDAP continues for medium and long term modernization of the BCT. These include the Class IV (Firescout) unmanned helicopter developed by Northrop Grumman, the robotic MULE load carrier and common controller, developed by Lockheed martin, and the QuickKill Active Protection System, which, like other survivability and protection components – was excluded from the MGV termination. The APS program continues with both long and short range munitions, as well as its associated sensors. Development of other sensors considered integral parts of the MGV was stopped as part of the FCS termination, except for those shared by the MULE and Class IV programs.
The network initiative currently under analysis and review, will partly derive from the FCS network technologies, and dovetail into an incremental network strategy to be implemented throughout the U.S. land forces. The network was designed as a central and critical component of the FCS strategy, hence, it was designed to be so robust and resilient, that it required a new vehicle with unique infrastructure available only by the specially designed ‘Manned Ground Vehicle’ for full implementation. The Army panel will now take a fresh look at these requirements including new capabilities, technologies and lessons learned from the FCS program.
The panel’s recommendations will inform U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command’s (TRADOC) ongoing work on operational requirements for the ground combat vehicle. The Army will now reassess the requirements and capabilities of this network to determine what networking, processing, cooling and power resources are required to run the software. This analysis will also address the requirements from the network and C4I software, into what the new capabilities are expected to address. What systems it should cooperate with, how such integration should be performed and what level of ‘backward compatibility’ is required for best integration with the current force. Overall, the new network is considered to establish the BCT’s future Intelligence, Surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) command and control network, employed on current and future ground combat vehicles such as he Stryker,MRAP, Bradley, M-1A2 and the yet-to-be-defined Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) and Joint Light Tactical family of vehicles (JLTV).
An early version of such future network is being tested by the Army Evaluation Task Force (ATEF) at Ft., Bliss. Tx. The unit, part of the former FCS test and evaluation team, has already employed the new network as part of the evaluation of the FCS ‘Spinout’. This test evaluated a subset of the FCS network running on HMMWVs rigged with Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) radios and adapters, enabling communications with current Brigade networks and the new protocols established by JTRS. Soldiers from the 2nd Combined Arms Battalion, based at Fort Blisst have been evaluating unattended ground sensors, unattended urban sensors, small unmanned ground and air vehicles and network integrated HMMWVs since last July, as part in operations of the Army’s combined task force. Unlike other test and evaluation programs, conducted with individual systems by civilian test officers, the systems that survived the FCS cancellation are being tested as a group by soldiers, to get better user feedback on both, the individual systems and the network that connects them. The process will allow forming a ‘system-of-systems’ approach, where each new component is providing the unit with pieces to form a larger battlefield picture.
Major acquisition programs currently being formulated will replace major fragments of the FCS. For example, instead of the eight variants of the tracked manned Ground Vehicle, cancelled along with FCS, the Army is seeking new vehicles to be developed under the Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program being formulated these days.
TRADOC and Ft. Monroe are working to map the capability-gaps existing today and future requirements, that should be answered by a single common vehicle, or several types of GCV. The final assessment of this study is expected around September 2009.
The review will also implement the survivability lessons learned on recent combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which were part of the concerns the Department of the Defense had about the previous program, which has also led to the unprecedented rapid acquisition, of well over 25,000 heavily armored Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles in 2008 and 2009. The Pentagon realized that the threat has changed in recent years. Characterized by modern asymmetric warfare, illusive enemy forces are being faced by relatively static regular military forces. These are primarily tasked with security, stability and counter-insurgency type of operations, less suitable for the rapid deployment, in high mobility, area- dominance type of warfare, for which the MGV was originally designed for. To assess the new requirements the Army established a panel of combat experienced and technical experts to take a fresh look at these requirements, including capabilities, technologies and lessons learned from the FCS program. The panel’s recommendations will inform the Army Training and Doctrine Command’s (TRADOC) ongoing work on operational requirements for the ground combat vehicle.
Part of this evaluation will address the obsolescence of the Paladin self propelled gun, which was slated for replacement by the FCS’-Non Line of Sight Cannon (NLOS_C) platform which was the most mature variant of the MGV family of vehicles. While the fielding of the NLOS-C in its present form is unlikely, due to the excessive cost of the unique hybrid-electric powered platform, the automatic cannon weapon system could be reused on an existing, or GCV platform to accommodate a replacement for the current SP artillery.
GCV should support the future networking capabilities required for the future force, while effectively coexisting with current units. A request for proposal for the GCV is expected by early-to mid 2010. Once prime contractors are selected, the Army could expect to get the first vehicles within five to seven years.
The Army’s termination of the MGV segment of FCS also eliminated Boeing and SAIC’s position as Lead Systems Integrators for the program and the Army is expected to select specific prime contractors for each of the future programs. Likely contenders for these programs are the current developers of tracked, or wheeled combat vehicles, including General Dynamics and BAE Systems, both shared the FCS MGV program subcontractors. Yet, if the Army opts for a mix of tracked and wheeled platforms, prime contractor such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin or Northrop Grumman could return to compete for these contracts, renewing teaming with former Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) contenders (Northrop Grumman-Oshkosh and Boeing-Textron Systems were two of the losing bidders) – such a wheeled-tracked split could bring these companies back to the game.
Fielding the elements remaining intact, as the FCS is restructured into the BCT Modernization, will include the Honeywell Class I UAV (T-Hawk), iRobot SUGV mini-robot and the family of Unmanned Ground Sensors (UGS) developed by Textron Systems. Other FCS systems continuing as planned, include the Raytheon Non-Line-Of-Sight (NLOS) Launch System and its associated ‘Precision Attack Missile’ (PAM), which are staying on track for early deployment.
In addition, the Army issued development contracts for the Ground Soldier Ensemble (GSE), slated for fielding with the first unit, 1-7 infantry BCT by 2011. TRADOC is currently developing the Tactics, Techniques and Plans (TTP) addressing these enhanced capabilities. The GSE will provide better situational awareness to dismounted commanders, through the use of wearable computers and distribution of position locators and personal radios, deployed with each team member. The system involves graphic displays, access to mapping information.
Testing of these systems has become more important in recent months as the program is restructured to meet current and future Army requirements. Where in the past the plan had been to supply FCS technology primarily to brigade combat teams organized on the FCS model, it has now been decided that FCS technology will be integrated into all BCTs. As a result, the tactics techniques and procedures developed by the 2nd Combined Arms Battalion will be utilized by even more soldiers than previously expected.
The memorandum by secretary of defense to the department sent by Ashton Carter on 23.6.09 to the Army formally set guidance on the program change. The memo covered 7 steps for a future program. The cancelation of the Future Combat System (FCS) program created 3 major acquisition programs, Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) aiming at modernizing all 73 Army and National Guards Brigade Combat Teams (BCT), rather than the FCS special BCTs planned under cancelled program. The near term MDAP the BCT Modernization addresses is the fielding of new sensors and unmanned systems, previously covered under the ‘FCS Spinout’ plan, as well as other systems to be included, following the initial review of the BCT needs, currently conducted by the Army Training, Doctrine and Operations Command (TRADOC). The second MDAP phase addresses the combat brigades’ Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) modernization. The third will introduce incremental enhancements into the brigade’s networking capabilities.
Russia and Georgia have been spoiling for a fight for years. With Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in Beijing for the Olympic opening ceremony and the world’s attention fixed on China, Georgia may have been betting it could pounce on an opportunity to quickly wrest control of its breakaway province South Ossetia. But there may be much more than meets the eye to this. What still seems a local clash, in a remote Caucasus mountain region, which most people never heard of since yesterday’s newsflash, could escalate into a highly serious escalation with worldwide repercussion.
A glance at the map shows why. Georgia sits in a tough neighborhood, shoulder to shoulder with huge Russia, not far from Iran, and astride one of the most important crossroads for the emerging wealth of the rich Caspian Sea region.A U.S.-backed oil pipeline runs through Georgia, allowing the West to reduce its reliance on Middle Eastern oil while bypassing Russia and Iran. On Saturday, August 9, 2008 after Russian Air Force fighter bombers attacked the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline that transfers oil from Azerbaijan to Turkey. Concequently, Azerbaijan announced it has halted oil exports via the Georgian ports of Batumi and Kulevi. Oil flow through the BTC pipeline has been suspended since Wednesday, due to a technical failure in Turkey.
Moreover, Russian politics have become so utterly opaque that it is not easy to say why this particular “frozen” conflict has erupted right now. It may have to do with Moscow’s recent upsurge in its naval and air activities in the Baltic, Atlantic and Arctic regions – demonstrating a comeback of its global strategy, challenging Washington’s resolve in President George W Bush’s waning political tenure.
For a very long time it has been clear that there was a security vacuum created in the strategic Caucasus; that this vacuum was extremely dangerous, especially to US’ vanishing military presence in Central Asia.
It would be only natural to assume that the timing chosen by Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili would be ideal, counting on surprise to fulfill his longtime pledge to wrest back control of South Ossetia. However, it could actually have been a shrewd move by Vladimir Putin, to perpetrate a perfect situation, challenging Washington over a highly strategic gambit in the remote corner of the Caucasus?
Putin’s move, to send in his tanks to “save” his beleaguered citizens in South Ossetia, was carefully orchestrated in advance preparations. Did his intelligence people give early warning of the Georgian move? Had Moscow’s troops been placed on high alert to move on short command? Previous performances of Russian troops in that region have not excelled in matters of discipline and logistics sofar.
If Putin has planned this move, he imitated another highly skilled political performer – the late Hafez Assad, who in 1991 during Desert Storm, while sending in his 9th Armored Division to “support” the war against Saddam Hussein – actually invaded Lebanon, while all attention, including Israel’s, was away in the Gulf and held it by force, until his inexperienced son, Bashar, lost it to the “Cedar Revolution” nearly fifteen years later .
Moreover, Putin has to do something to improve his armed forces shameful performance in Chechnya. His approach to the Muslim renegades, sofar, proved quite disastrous. Just as rough is his eight-year Machiavellian ‘pacification’ of Chechnya. Nothing could contribute more to the newly “elected” Russian prime minister, than a short, cheap and brilliantly conducted war against Washington’s ally Georgia – which has been a thorn in Moscow’s eye for a long time .
Indeed, from all its aspects, the conflict in the Caucasus has great strategic importance because it pits one of Washington’s staunchest allies in the war on terror against Russia, a re-emerging superpower with vast energy reserves that is showing growing eagerness to assert its will on the international stage .
But President Mikhail Saakashvili gamble may well be backfiring. Washington will not hasten to endorse Georgia’s attack and it will be hard for Georgia to win a fight with the Russians without outside help. The Russian cards in this ruthless game are overwhelming in their favor over anything the Georgians can put in their way.
Georgia’s armed forces number about 30,000 soldiers, including 20,000 ground forces. They are equipped with some 200 tanks, including 40 totally obsolete T-55s and 165 T-72s, which are currently being upgraded and perhaps still not operational. The ground troops can receive artillery support from 120 artillery pieces of 122 mm and 152 mm cannons, 40 multiple-launch rocket systems, and 180 mortars, totally insufficient against massive Russian firepower. The Georgian Air Force is equipped with five Su-25 (Frogfoot) close support aircraft, 15 L-29 and L-39 combat training aircraft and 30 helicopters, including eight MI-24 attack helicopters. To augment its combat forces fighting back home, Georgia is pulling back its 2,000-strong military contingent from Iraq.
Of course the South Ossetian’s are much weaker, if pitted against Georgia alone and the Russians are perfectly aware of this. According to recent reports, the Russian forces, which have already crossed the border, mount only one armored brigade, with another to follow behind. But if the fighting escalates, the Russian Army could send in much more forces and recapture Georgia as a whole within a week, if they are commanded to do so. In addition to the land and aerial campaign, Moscow has also ordered its Black Sea fleet to group near the Georgian coastline, to enforce a naval blockade preventing Georgia from getting arms resupply from supporters oversaes and prevent possible onslought against Abkhazia, the second Georgian seperatist region.
But a serious forecast of the outcome of this conflict cannot be based on mathematics alone. The Caucasus mountain ridge marking the Northern Georgian border is a rough mountainous land with few passages, where even a very small unit can resist a numerically much stronger enemy. In this case, the outcome of the conflict will primarily depend on the training of forces their fighting spirit and motivation and the influence of third parties.
While the training of the Georgian army, mainly directed by US military advisors, this army is not likely to have changed much in the last two months, but could well prove itself as a powerful guerilla army against the Russian forces, as they enter into their heartland. The painful lessons that the Russians have learnt in Afghanistan (which NATO is still experiencing today) and especially in Chechnya, could be repeated, if the Russian do not achieve all their objectives within a short time and Georgia asks for a cease fire to save it’s independence from total disaster.
It would be a serious mistake for the international community to regard the dramatic escalation of violence in Georgia as just another flare-up in the Caucasus. The names of the current flashpoints may be unfamiliar, the territory remote and the dispute parochial, but the battle underway will have major repercussions well beyond this volatile region. The outcome of this struggle will determine the course of Russia’s future relations with its neighbors; it could alter the relationship between the Kremlin and the West and decide the fate of future energy supplies from the strategic Caspian basin .
Whatever the case may be – it will now be up to Washington’s immediate decision as how to react against Moscow’s confronting challenge. If it waits too long it will lose it’s last hold in the Caucasus and the political repercussions, over a dramatic Russian political coup in that strategic region, could be devastating to the next US administration in it’s Middle East policy.
Sejjil-2 was launched successfuly earlier in 2009.
In a briefing at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Uzi Rubin, former head of Israel’s missile defense program and Israel Missile Defense Association (IMDA) Board of Directors member, presented an assessment of the Iranian ballistic missile program and its potential threat to Europe. “Iran is not sparing any effort to develop missiles reaching beyond 2000 kilometers,” said Rubin. “We can assume this push is derived from government policy and strategic objectives, rather than scientific enthusiasm.”
Iran’s missile scientists have graduated through the development of the indigenous Sejjil missile and they now possess all the technologies required for exploiting these capabilities. They currently reach many Asian and Eastern European capitals, and within 18 month time they could extend their reach covering the entire European continent” said Rubin. “Europe may not be threatened by Iran at present, but within a short time, European capitals could face the full weight of the Iranian threat – missiles loaded with nuclear weapons capable of reaching all major cities. “Rapid fielding of an effective missile defense in Europe is not an option, it is imperative.” Said Rubin.
Rubin’s claim contradicts a recent EastWest Institute (EWI) report claiming Iran does not possess ballistic missiles capable of reaching Europe, Rubin quoted the recent Iranian test launch of the Sejjil-2 missile, capable of carrying a warhead of 1,000 kg (representative to be the minimum weight of a nuclear missile warhead). While the Iranians claimed the missile could reach ‘beyond 2,000 km’, Russian sources have estimated its maximum to be 2,460 kilometers, reaching at least six NATO countries. Rubin indicated that with minor modifications to the Sejjil – Iran’s two-stage solid-propelled missile, Tehran can acquire a medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM) covering distances of 3,900 kilometers, reaching all European capitals including London, Paris, Madrid, Berlin and Rome. “Such a missile could use the same 5.78 ton second stage of the Sejjil, and a 1,000 kg warhead, with a 31.8 ton first stage, using slightly increased diameter (1.6 m’, compared to 1.2 m’ of the Sejjil’s). The overall height of the new missile could be 20 meters (compared to 18 of the Sejjil). Such a missile could be as survivable as the Sejjil, transported, stored and launched from hidden mountain-side silos that could store Sejjil-sized missiles.
From information made available through open sources, Rubin assessed, that despite the sanctions imposed on technology transfer, especially regarding missile technologies (MTCR), Iran has managed to surpass the technological levels sofar obtained from North Korea. ‘The student has excelled over the teacher’ said Rubin. “through the past 24 months Iranian scientists and engineers have acquired and mastered all the key technologies required for their ballistic missile programs” said Rubnin, “Within 12-24 months the Iranian engineers have successfully implemented new propulsion technologies indigenously developed in country, reaching mature state of these complex programs.” Said Rubin. In recent years the Iranian missile developers have managed three parallel programs – liquid-fuelled ballistic missiles, solid propelled ballistic missiles and satellite launchers; “in all three programs the Iranian engineers demonstrated a high level of proficiency, despite encountering failures and they have learned from initial failures, effectively acquired and analyzed flight test data to understand the problems, fixed what had to be corrected, resulting in subsequent successful tests” Rubin said.
Sejjil 2 missile carried on its transporter, erector, launcher (TEL) on the military parade in Tehran, September 2009. Photo: FARS news agency
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad begins his second term in high office, undermined by a deepening feud with his fellow hard-liners and under assault from a pro-reform opposition movement that has shown it can bring out again thousands of protesters despite a fierce crackdown.
With oppositionists still claiming the election marred by fraud, even some of his government members are unhappy. Culture Minister Mohamed-Hussein Saffar-Harandi has quit, citing “the recent events showing the government’s weakness”. On that very day, Ahmadinejad sacked Intelligence Minister Gholam Hussein Mohseni Ejeie. Furthermore, Ahmed Tavakkoli, a prominent conservative politician, criticized Ahmadinejad for the intelligence minister’s dismissal, saying that “there was no logical justification” for it. Although Ahmadinejad has frequently replaced his cabinet members over the past four years, then latest firings and resignations were significant, because the ministers were especially close to Iran’s Supreme Guide Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, itself an ominent sign of what may be in store.
Thirty years after the Islamic Revolution, the Islamic Republic of Iran – if one can still call it a republic – is at a crossroads. What has been manifesting itself on Iran’s streets since the disputed presidential elections is not only the electorate’s collective feeling of injustice and rage, but also the religious-political elite’s underlying divide over the future of the velayat-e faqih (Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists) and its entire political system.
Ahmadinejad’s problems could indicate that some of his supporters are seeking greater control in the controversial president’s second term. He was frequently criticized during his first term for what was seen as his tendency to reserve power for a small clique of associates. But the continuing turmoil is making things much more complicated. Dozens of Iranians have been killed and hundreds arrested in clashes between protesters and security forces since the disputed elections.
In a sign of the growing challenge which Ahmadinejad also faces from some in the religious establishment, an influential clerical group at the seminary in the holy city of Qom called for the opposition to continue its campaign against the election results. While supreme leader Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hoseyni Khameni has stuck by his protégé Ahmadinejad – this seems not so much by sheer love for him, but because doing otherwise would be a blow to his own prestige after he declared the election clean. . But there may even be much more trouble ahead, for the newly re-elected president.
In a rare event, several grand ayatollahs like Ali Montazeri, Nasser Makaram Chirazi, Assadollah Zanjani, Moussavi Ardebili or grand ayatollah Sanaïe have expressed their concern as to the loss of legitimacy of the regime. Some, like grand ayatollah Ali Montaezeri, even openly supported the demonstrators. Indeed, those who know the Shiite world know that the religious and moral authority of these grand ayatollahs is by far superior to that of the “Guide” Khamenie. In the doctrinal system of Shiism, these are “marjaas”, poles of imitation for the faithful. This is not the case with Ali Khamenei who was raised politically, to the rank of Ayatollah, so as to accede to the post of “Guide”, by his then mentor Grand ayatollah Rouhollah Mousavi Khomeini. Although the “Guide’ maintained his powerful position, with support of the Republican Guards and other security forces, for decades, the clerical establishment has silently, criticized Khomeini’s choice, but refrained intervening actively.
These positions taken by the higher clergy are currently witness to the importance of the present crisis, which broadly transcends the “simple” issue of electoral fraud. Iranian analysts warn that the current situation is only the culmination of a long and complex process which has taken place inside the clerical regime on the one hand, and in Iranian society on the other.
The public mass trial of Iran’s top reformist leaders during last July, on charges that include conspiring to overthrow the regime, signals that a process is under way to eventually outlaw the reformist party and ban its members and supporters from political activity. This unprecedented move could actually spell acute danger to the higher ranks of the clerical regime leadership. The dynamic of popular mobilizations deeply destabilizes the edifice of the Islamic Republic and for the first time the “Supreme Guide” has become the target of the demonstrators.
In his supporting Ahmadinejad well before the vote itself and characterizing his re-election as a “divine miracle”, Ali Khamenei had dealt a significant and highly dangerous blow to his own function. The Supreme Guide is the first personage of the state. He directs the key organs of the regime, the armed forces, notably the Guardians of the Revolution (Sepah-e Pasdaran) and the Islamist militias (Bassidjis), the state media, the legal apparatus, and he monitors the executive power.
The constitution of the Islamic Republic is based on the Velâyat-e faghih, the government of the legal experts, actually, the incarnation of divine power and the domination of the religious over the political. As a general rule, the “Guide”, who traces the guiding lines of the regime’s policies, has the mission of arbitrating between the different factions. But in taking part in the coup d’état against the “reformist” camp Khamenei has thrown all his weight into the balance and exposed himself to popular rejection. He thus strengthens the position of his long-time adversaries, who think that the regime is not reformable and might now challenge the leadership of the supreme leader.
The country and the regime stand more divided than ever in the 30-year history of the Islamic Republic, Iranian analysts say. Criticism has spread from targeting the president to the powerful Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself, an unprecedented occurrence, in this Islamic clerical-ruled state. Earlier calls by demonstrators to respect their vote have morphed into angry demands for an overhaul of the entire system, preferably one that separates religion from state and curbs the powers of the so-far unchallenged supreme leader. Sofar, though the top leadership, assisted by the powerful military, has weathered the storm- but dangerous undercurrents and still in motion.
In fact, the more serious grounds for the regime’s present concern are the depths of the unrest and its future challenges to the powerful clerical rulership. The election results were only a catalyst for the sudden outburst, but the roots of crisis lie in the desire of a large part of the Iranian public, mainly young people and women, for drastic and fundamental changes in the regime. They demand less repression and intervention by the dominant religious leadership, in personal lives and more liberalization of the political system. The public pressure calls for greater freedom of expression, an improved economic situation, and eradication of government corruption. This demand has already grown under the Ahmadinejad presidency, when over the last four years the regime restricted individual freedoms further and intensified the repression – this with the backing of the religious leadership and mainly with support of the ever powerful and ruthless Revolutionary Guards, which in military, political, and economic terms have become the dominant force in Iran. The regime apparently did not correctly assess the depth of frustration and anger, and did not expect such a powerful outburst from a large section of the Iranian public.
It is too soon to determine if the demonstrations are actually subsiding, as it appears now, or whether they will gain new momentum. In the current circumstances, the more likely albeit not certain scenario is that the riots will continue to die down gradually in the coming days or weeks, even if there may be some further outbursts of protests. Yet even if the demonstrations diminish, the pressure for changing the regime will remain active under the surface and will likely erupt again, sooner or later. Moreover, the crisis has battered and scarred the regime; its standing has been damaged, both domestically and externally. The cameras have shown, to the regime as well as to the world at large, that millions of Iranians do not want the regime, its policy, or its present leadership.
But changes will not happen overnight in a powerful regime like the Iranian Islamic Republic, ruled with an iron grip by a highly complex multi-layer “overwatch -control” system, which the Islamic clerical rulership has established to maintain its firm hold on all domains of the regime. Here, changes will need time – much time. Only a drastic change of heart in theleadership of the sofar loyal Islamic Republican Guards, and their ruthlessBassidjis offshoots, could bring any change in this ever suspicious regimeleadership. Such drastic developments are not in sight, even if the earth in Tehran will tremble from time to time.
IAI Heron flys over over San Miguel de Iguacu in the region of Parana, Brazil. During the demonstration the Heron regularly operated among civil air traffic, demonstrating full coordination with civil and military air traffic control systems.
Heron IAI concluded a successful demonstration of the Heron unmanned aerial system in Brazil. Performed for the Brazilian federal police, the Heron demonstrated its capabilities to perform border protection, counter-smuggling, drug interdiction and protection of natural resources.
The demonstration took place over San Miguel de Iguacuin the region of Parana, under rapidly changing, tropical weather conditions that frequently limit manned flights. Throughout its mission the Heron was operated within civilian controlled airspace demonstrating effective integration into the local civil and military air traffic control.
IAI Heron flys over over San Miguel de Iguacu in the region of Parana, Brazil. During the demonstration the Heron regularly operated among civil air traffic, demonstrating full coordination with civil and military air traffic control systems.
The successful demonstration was the culmination of two years of preparations by a select team established by Brazil’s federal police to evaluate unmanned aerial systems operations. According to IAI, the Brazilian team evaluated several platforms offered by different suppliers and selected IAI’s Heron for the demonstration, particularly for its multi-payload carrying capability, autonomous takeoff, landing and mission handling, and on-board satellite communications capability. The Brazilian team has expressed its satisfaction from the system’s performance.
IAI’s Heron have participated recently in a number of demonstrations in el-Salvador, the Mediterranean sea and South Pacific, where they were evaluated, primarily on maritime surveillance missions, by the U.S. Special Operations Command, the Spanish Navy and Australian Customs service.
Eurofighter Typhoon is an agile, highly maneuverable, twin-engine strike fighter, designed primarily for air superiority and air supremacy missions, with secondary attack capability. The aircraft’s ability to gain air superiority beyond visual range (BVR) and in close combat, and at the same time deliver high sortie rates against air, naval and ground targets in all weathers with a variety of weapons, demands close attention to pilot workload. In Eurofighter the pilot flies through use of a computerized flight control system, which offers full carefree handling.
The Saudi Typhoon order is now secured. Eurofighter GmbH has signed a contract with its shareholder BAE Systems acting as the industrial prime contractor on this government to government contract for the supply of 72 aircraft to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The contract represents the second and most significant export order for the Typhoon, first was the sale of 15 fighters to Austria. Saudia received its first Typhoons in June 2009. The first 24 aircraftbeing delivered to Saudi Arabia are to be withdrawn from the Tranche 2 aircraft originally destined for the RAF.
Including the recent order, the Typhoon order book now totals 707 Eurofighter aircraft. The four Partner nations ordered 620 aircrat: 180 for Germany, 121 for Italy, 87 for Spain and 232 for the United Kingdom. Austria placed an order of 15 aircraft, the first two were delivered in July 2007. To date, 137 Series Production Aircraft, including six Instrumented Production Aircraft operated by industry, have been delivered to the customer Nations: 48 Royal Air Force, 37 German Air Force, 26 Italian Air Force, 18 Spanish Air Force and 2 to Austria. Thirty Tranche 2 aircraft are already in final assembly. Avionics and engine testing has already started for Type Acceptance of Block 8, to be achieved in Spring 2008, with deliveries scheduled to begin in Summer next year.
Air to Ground Role
With the evolving role of aerial attack in modern combat, Typhoon’s strike capability is also being enhanced, with inclusion of relevant weapon systems, sensors, targeting and communications packages as part of the baseline aircraft. An important Typhoon feature is its capability to operate from hastily prepared bases and small runways for worldwide operations. The aircraft is equipped with an advanced multi-mode radar and an extensive range of sensors and electronic countermeasures.
By the end of June 2008, 135 Eurofighter Typhoon have been delivered to seven units in four nations. The nations’ fleets have accumulated over 40,000 flight hours by that date, additon to over 5,600 test flight hours accumulated by the industry fleet. Typhoon units began assuming responsibility for NATO air defence operations in 2007, beginning in Italy and the United Kingdom. Germany has followed since January 2008, commencing Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) operations with Eurofighter Typhoon at Neuburg. Spain is expected to follow soon.
The aircraft is developed and produced by the Eurofigther consortium, which includes Alenia Aeronautica, BAE SYSTEMS, EADS Germany and EADS CASA., of the four partner countries, Italy, United Kingdom, Germany and Spain. 105 production aircraft have been delivered to date including five Instrumented Production Aircraft operated by industry and owned by the NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency NETMA.
The Typhoon began its air force career as an air superiority fighter, but in recent months it is beginning to unlock its multi-role potential. NATO Eurofighter Tornado Management Agency (NETMA) has committed to the first phase of the Tranche 2 forward development program providing for precision attack capability for the Typhoon, introduction of Paveway IV and Enhanced GBU-16 alongside work to integrate a Laser Designator Pod. Combined with the Type Acceptance of the Block 5 aircraft, the enhanced ground equipment for use with the Block 5 standard is now cleared for use, including a more capable version the Ground Support System. Folowing a successful test program seven Typhoons from RAF XI Squadron, based at RAF Coningsby, Lincolnshire participated demonstrated their operational capabilitiesthe at the Green Flag exercise at Nellis AFB in the USA. XI squadron’s Typhoons are expected to be declared ‘combat ready’ by the target date of 1 July 2008. Over the two-week period the Typhoons dropped a total of 67 munitions, comprising 43 Paveway II bombs, eight enhanced Paveway IIIs and 16 1,000 lb (454kg) free fall weapons. Exercise Green Flag West is a joint USAF and Army exercise in which close air support for ground forces is a crucial element aimed at preparing air and ground forces for deployment to overseas operational areas. It is played out in scenarios which simulate the sort of asymmetric combat experienced in conflicts such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Block 5 Capabilities
Block 5 supports full air-to-air and initial air-to-ground capabilities. The aircraft is cleared for the 9g envelope as intended, with additional features such as sensor fusion, the full Direct Voice Input, enhanced GPS, and Defensive Aids Sub-System (DASS) countermeasures including automatic chaff and flare dispensers. The radar air-to-surface modes are enhanced with ground mapping, and the aircraft also provides initial FLIR (Forward Looking Infra-Red) capability. Block 5 Eurofighter Typhoon is cleared to carry AMRAAM, ASRAAM, IRIS-T and AIM-9L air-to-air missiles, as well as Paveway II laser-guided bombs and GBU-16s. External fuel tanks are certified for supersonic flight, while air-to-air refueling is cleared for all customer specified tanker types. The British RAF and Italian Air Force received its first Block 5 aircraft in August 2007.
Tranche 2 Production Phase:
251 of the total 620 production Typhoons will be “Tranche 2” standard. These comprise 236 aircraft for the core nations plus 72 Tranche 2 aircraft ordered by the Kingdom of Saudi-Arabia and 15 Tranche 2 replacing Tranche 1 aircraft in the nations that have been delivered to Austria. Early aircraft for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will be taken from the UK final assembly line and the RAF will receive this number of diverted aircraft later.
Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft production will soon progress to the next stage, with the first flight of the Tranche 2 Typhoon which took place at EADS Military Air Systems’ site in Manching on January 16, 2008, piloted by EADS Test Pilot Chris Worning. The significant Tranche 2 capabilities focus mainly on the new mission computers which deliver the higher processing and memory capacity required for the integration of future weapons such as Meteor, Storm Shadow and Taurus. Differences in the build standard to Tranche 1 are related to changes in production technology or obsolescence.
The first aircraft fitted with full Tranch 2 avionics is Instrumented Production Aircraft Seven (IPA7), is a German single seat variant, representing the full Tranche 2 build standard. The aircraft will be used to test and certify ‘Type Acceptance’ for Typhoon Block 8 – the first capability standard of Tranche 2, anticipated for April 2008. This work will be carried out together with the BAE Systems-operated IPA6 Tranch 1 Typhoon fitted with Tranche 2 mission computer suite and avionics features. The first series of EJ200 engine flight testing for Tranche 2 was successfully concluded at the end of November with IPA2 in Italy. Deliveries of Tranche 2 Eurofighter Typhoons to all four Partner Nations will begin in Summer 2008. Deliveries are scheduled to run until 2013.
By July 2009, Tranche 3 is already underway. The initial order for 112 Tranche 3 Typhoon aircraft was awarded by NAMSA on July 31, 2009. These aircraft will be equipped with electrical, cooling and computing power to accomodate future systems, including a new radar, weapons, and electronic warfare systems. The airframe will also accommodate future installation of additional fuel tanks carried under the fuselage, greatly increasing range and endurance. Each of the new Typhoons can carry up to eight air-to-air missiles and up to six air-to-surface weapons. These aircraft are expected to become operational by the year 2013.
Further enhancements are currently considered within the Main Development Contract (MDC), currently in final negotiation, formulating the roadmap for the integration of future capabilities. Another future enhancement will include the fielding of the e-scan AESA radar capability. Recently, the Euroradar consortium conducted the first flights of the CAESAR (Captor Active Electronically Scanning Array Radar) antenna on DA5 at Manching, Germany.
Eurofighter Typhoon: Retrofit and Upgrade Programs
The R2 Retrofit program is intended to bring all the earlier Typhoons up to the Block 5 standard. All 115 Tranche 1 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft will be standardized through a series of “Capability Upgrade” projects. Aircraft in Blocks 1, 2 and 2B, are now being upgraded to Block 5 capability, also known as Final Operational Capability (FOC), in order to maximize the aircraft capability at the national fleet level. Upgrades will be included in scheduled maintenance activities to enhance overall fleet availability.
The first non-Block 5 aircraft to be brought to FOC standard is BS021, the 21st single seater of UK production. Only a few days later, German aircraft GS019 joined the program. Both are Block 2B aircraft. This functionality standard represents the full air-to-air functionality, whereas Block 5 includes this plus the enhanced carefree handling air-to-ground capability to drop laser guided bombs. As of February 2007, six aircraft are undergoing retrofits (three in Germany, two in the United Kingdom and one in Spain) with a seventh aircraft soon to join the project in the UK.
Priority in the R2 programme is on the upgrade of Block 2B aircraft, as less work is required to bring these aircraft to the higher performance level. By the end of 2007, the combination of Block 5 new aircraft deliveries and upgraded R2 aircraft will enable the Partner Air Forces to meet their NATO commitment goals.
Following on from Block 2B aircraft, Block 2 Eurofighter Typhoons with the initial air-to-air capability will be upgraded. Finally early Block 1 aircraft (all of them twin seaters) will enter the program. All Tranche 1 aircraft are scheduled to complete upgrade to Block 5 FOC standard by early 2012.
Eventually, all Tranche 2 aircraft will also go through the Phase 1 Enhancement program beginning 2011, covering new software architecture, enhanced multirole man-machine interface (MMI), integration of a new targeting pod, enhancements of MIDS (Multifunctional Information and Distribution System) datalink, Global Positioning System (GPS) navigation system, Defensive Aids Sub-System (DASS), communications, improving ‘network centricity’ and expanded weapon support including Paveway IV and Enhanced GBU-16.
A second batch of future enhancements has been submitted during the Berlin Air Show this year. “Phase 2 Enhancement (P2E)” is targeted to be implemented by the end of 2014. It focuses on the introduction of enhanced weapons expected at this time, like enhanced Storm Shadow, Taurus, supersonic delivery of Paveway IV weapons, Brimstone, Small Diameter Bomb, AMRAAM C-5/7, and Meteor. Other improvements of subsystems are also expected, including further enhancement of DASS. Further enhancements are expected for Tranche 3.
Note: By mid- 2008 all Block designations have been deleted from the Typhoon program, except for Block 9 which has been instituted as a placeholder for future capabilities, to be more flexible in adapting future customer requirements.
Lockheed Martin Skunk Works® and XTEND have achieved a major milestone in JADC2 by integrating the XOS operating system with the MDCX™ autonomy platform. This technical breakthrough enables a single operator to simultaneously command multiple drone classes, eliminating the friction of mission handoffs. From "marsupial" drone deployments to operating in GPS-denied environments, explore how this collaboration is abbreviating the data-to-decision timeline and redefining autonomous mission execution.
As traditional defense primes face mounting competition from agile “neoprimes” such as Anduril, Palantir and Helsing, the balance of innovation is shifting toward software-defined warfare and scalable, dual-use technologies, while global industry consolidation—marked by Boeing’s integration of Spirit AeroSystems and other strategic mergers—signals an intensified race to secure control over the defense technology value chain. Our Defense-Tech weekly report highlights these trends.
In early October 2025, a coordinated wave of unmanned aerial system (UAS) incursions—widely attributed to Russia—targeted critical infrastructure across at least ten European nations. The unprecedented campaign exposed the fragility of Europe’s air defenses...
Executive Summary
The past week (September 18-25, 2025) represents an inflection point where strategic defense concepts have transitioned from doctrine to tangible reality. An analysis of global events reveals four primary, interconnected trends shaping an...
At the 2025 Air, Space & Cyber Conference, U.S. Air Force and Space Force leaders unveiled major updates on next-generation fighters, bombers, unmanned systems, and space initiatives, highlighting both rapid innovation and critical readiness challenges as the services race to outpace global competitors. A short version is available here, with a more detailed version for subscribers.
The Taipei Aerospace & Defense Technology Exhibition (TADTE) 2025 crystallized around four dominant strategic themes that collectively illustrate Taiwan's comprehensive approach to defense modernization amid escalating regional tensions. Based on a detailed report by Pleronix (available upon request). Includes a Podcast discussion on TADTE 2025's highlighting Taiwan's four strategic themes beyond the post's coverage.
Israel’s Iron Beam 450 high-power laser system has completed final testing, marking a major leap in air defense. Developed by Rafael, it offers precise, cost-effective interception of rockets, UAVs, and mortars, and is set for IDF deployment by 2025.
Moreover, Russian politics have become so utterly opaque that it is not easy to say why this particular “frozen” conflict has erupted right now. It may have to do with Moscow’s recent upsurge in its naval and air activities in the Baltic, Atlantic and Arctic regions – demonstrating a comeback of its global strategy, challenging Washington’s resolve in President George W Bush’s waning political tenure.
