Wednesday, November 13, 2024
More
    Home Blog Page 341

    Saving Gaza Hamastan For Abu Mazen – Is Not In Israel’s Interest

    President George W Bush’s visit to the Holy Land last week, was seven years too late and leaves both Israel and the Palestinian’s in turmoil. To meet his unrealistic deadline – “Peace by end of Bush’s term November 2008” seems, in simple words, a prescription for political suicide on both sides of the border.

    The facts on the ground are crystal clear: while the mutual shoulder-slapping in Jerusalem’s plush five-star hotel was feted by all the dignitaries present, salvoes of Qassam rockets and mortar shells slammed into Shderot, rudely shaking the two leaders, basking in their illusions- into the stark realities. But these painful events near the Gaza border, only 70 kilometers from the King David Hotel, did nothing to deter the “historic” visit of the American president, who continued spelling out his “vision” of a peaceful Palestinian state, “living side by side with Israel”.

    Only a simple question asked by one of the journalists present at the well orchestrated press conference, seemed for a moment to disturb the optimist atmosphere, which the jubilant duet, Bush and Olmert had maintained sofar.


    Asked, what regarding the issues of rockets, Israel should do to stop the ever-growing rocket threat from Gaza? President Bush replied offhand, quote: “As to the rockets, my first question is going to be to President Abbas, what you intend to do about them? Because ultimately, in order for there to be the existence of a state, there has to be a firm commitment by a Palestinian government to deal with extremists and terrorists who might be willing to use Palestinian Territory as a launching pad into Israel. So I’ll be asking that question tomorrow. And what can we do to help you?” adding: “I believe that he (Abbas) knows it’s not in his interests to have people launching rockets from a part of the Territory into Israel “.

    Mr Bush went even further to hint, that Israel might well use force to protect itself, but keep within acceptable bounds to spare innocent lives in the process. Whether the president repeated his intention to Chairman Mahmound Abbas, during his following vist to Ramallah next day, is totally irrelevant, as Abbas and his Fatah security forces are neither able, nor willing to take over any responsibility in Gaza, not to mention their impotence in controlling the outlaws throughout the West Bank, which is allegedly under their direct authority.

    But there is an even more serious entanglement in store, if Mr Bush’s vision is to be implemented during his remaining tenure in 2008. Unconfirmed reports leaking from the secret meetings in Jerusalem, indicate that President George W. Bush gave Israel the an all-clear ahead nod, for its long-delayed military operation against Hamas in Gaza. It is now common knowledge, that a similar wink was given Olmert on the eve of his botched Lebanon Two adventure, now focus of the oncoming Winograd Commission report later this month.

    It is certain that a military foray into the Gaza Strip will not be a walk- in- the- park for the IDF. Hamas has learnt a lot from Israel’s deplorable conduct during the Second Lebanon War, as well as its past actions in Gaza and the West Bank. It’s rocket offensive into Israel is direct copy of Hezbollah tactics, trying to achieve strategic results with simple means. Having already established a military division-size army, of some 10,000 equipped and trained by Hezbollah and Iranian instructors, they operate soldiers with similar tactics used by the Shi’ite guerilla.

    IDF Southern Command chief Major General Yoav Gallant, warned that Hamas could bolster its forces to include anti-tank units and special forces. Having gained access to advanced weapons systems, including night-vision apparatus and even air defense missiles, could pose great danger to IDF freedom of operations in the Gaza strip, the general told the Knesset committee. Yuval Diskin, the head of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security service, detailed how Palestinian terrorists have smuggled more than 112 tons of explosives into Gaza since Israeli occupation forces withdrew from the strip in 2005, with 70 tons, or roughly 63 percent of the total, coming in, since Hamas’ coup, last June. Brigadier General Moshe (Chico) Tamir, commander of the IDF Gaza Division, told reporters in Jerusalem that Hamas is secretly building a Hezbollah-like bunker system to complement fortified rocket-launching and surveillance positions.

    Hamastan in Gaza is certainly a great catastrophe for Abu Mazen. Half of his Palestinian people are not under his authority and there is near Zero chance that he can regain control over Hamastan, which was taken from his security forces, nearly ten times the size of Hamas, withinn hours, in a bloody coup d’etat, last June. Even in the West Bank, Abu Mazen can boast to be really in control of not much more, than his immediate surroundings of the Mukatta fortress in Ramallah. Taken as a deplorable fact, only the IDF and Israel’s Shin Bet, have sofar prevented Hamas to rout the Palestine Authority (PA) security in the West Bank, which would have suffered a similar fate, that their comrades lived through in Gaza.

    But even for Hamas itself the situation in Gaza is not entirely euphoric. Hamas may have reaped a small and easy victory, over a weakly motivated opponent like Fatah, last June, but by its irresponsible actions, Hamas leadership has already brought about Israel’s declaration of Hamastan as enemy territory, with all its inevitable repercussions in future actions. The Hamas’ occupied Gaza Strip is scooped up, fenced off from Israel and Egypt, their two only exits. They are surrounded by a strong Israeli army and cut off from their homeland in the West Bank. They are isolated from the West, and even regarded with high suspicion, by the majority in the Arab world. Excepting Iran and Syria, they are banned politically from the rest of the world.

    Eliminating Hamas for Abu Mazen’s benefit by an Israeli military action would prove a grave mistake. Operationally, this means the Israeli army could perhaps push back the Qassam missile launching sites from its border region, but the IDF will certainly refrain capturing the main cities, especially Gaza City itself. These will therefore remain ideal launching sites for rockets, shielded by dense population centers, which Israel will hesitate to attack from the air. Occupying only the sparsely populated areas, like the northern pocket of Beit Hanoun, Beit Lahiya and the fringes of the Jebalya refugee-camp; the southern areas east of Khan Younes up to the Sufa and Kerem Shalom crossings; and sections of the Philadelphi border strip with Egypt, will only render temporary respite, if any at all, to the continued bombardment of Shderot. Moreover, after clearing captured areas of Hamas, Jihad Islami and other Palestinian terrorists, the Israeli army would probably be forced to pull out and hand the “cleansed” territory to the forces of Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas. This is what President Bush actually has in mind to solve the Qassam problem, sources say. It means, in “unfettered text” that the “grandiose” Israeli counter-terror operation in the Gaza Strip should actually be exploited to prepare the ground for the Fatah-ruled Palestinian Authority, to regain its control of the lost territory and clear the “last” obstacle for a joint peace declaration by Israel and a reunited Palestine!

    Whether Ehud Olmert’s government has accepted this extraordinary “plan”, remains enigmatic, but based on leaks from the recent utmost friendly dialogue and Olmert’s overacting flattery towards his visitor, this astounding plan, unfortunately, cannot be ruled out entirely as feasible. Whatever the case may be, any adoption of such a controversial idea, will no doubt stir considerable outrage within the Israeli political community and certainly in the IDF Brass and the security establishment. The very idea of Israel’s national army being pressed into service to capture a territory on behalf of a foreign entity, and that of an openly declared hostile one, will be regarded as abhorrent. That such an idea is circling at all, virtually only days before the Winograd Commission report, must present the ultimate nightmare to Olmert’s closest entourage.

    But should the Israeli military even succeed pulling Abu Mazen’s “chestnuts out of the fire” in Gaza, it is common knowledge that once inside the strip, Palestine Authority security forces will quickly disintegrate once again, only to be swallowed up by the far more resolute Hamas. In fact, the Bush-Olmert policy, of placing all their bets for a Middle East breakthrough, on the inept Mahmoud Abbas, condemns any plan of theirs to certain failure.

    But Israel is on the horns of a most difficult dilemma. With more Qassam Rockets flying out from Gaza, some with longer and more accurate range, more Israeli towns and cities are now coming under fire. This was correctly predicted even before Israel retreated from the Gaza Strip two years ago. Defense Minister Ehud Barak has been saying for months that with every day that passes, Israel draws closer to a large operation in Gaza in face of the incessant Qassam rocket attacks and the unprecedented Hamas military buildup there. The Qassam rocket being a “statistical” weapon, it has no in-built guiding system, nor any accuracy, as to where it is going to impact. Any minute a rocket could hit a prime target, such as an over-crowded kindergarden in Shderot, killing hundreds of innocent children- and what then?

    Assuming the IDF eventually does go into Gaza, what are its chances of its success? The current improvement in the ongoing situation is not much of a predictor. The IDF is returning a lot of fire, from the air, in concert with the accurate firing of missiles from the ground, with limited and tightly controlled, tactical engagement on the ground, with the Palestinian forces. In focused actions, it is easy for the army to maintain Israel’s technological superiority, but the deployment of large scale forces deeper into the Strip and for an extended period, would involve infinitely more costly contact. Merely “softening up” the opposition inside the urban areas, prior to the introduction of the forces, will require massive artillery fire and air support that is almost guaranteed to cause scores of civilian casualties as well. Moreover, fighting in the closed, dense and highly populated Gaza refugee camps will quickly erode any technological superiority, which the IDF wishes to exploit and force the infantry and armor to fight a costly urban combat, in which Hamas will be able to operate with substantial skill and motivation.

    Israel cannot allow its army to suffer another fiasco after the Second Lebanon war 2006. IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi solemnly declared that under his leadership the IDF will not suffer another defeat such as the Second Lebanon War failure. The army chief’s desire to prompt the prime minister and his government to allow him and the IDF to embark on a large-scale Gaza operation, in order to improve the situation of Shderot and other regional communities, may be understandable. But the army’s inability, sofar, to bring about a complete cessation of Qassam fire directed at Gaza-region communities is a challenge which has to be taken up with extreme care.

    Even if Israel is able to reoccupy the Strip without suffering too many losses, which is disputed within and outside the army, and even if the IDF kills or detains Hamas and Jihad leaders, commanders and activists –the IDF will not be able to eliminate the resistance and the eventual re-launching of Qassam and mortars. Moreover, a new occupation of the Gaza Strip will result in bloody guerilla warfare, inflaming the Palestinians not only in the Gaza Strip, but also spilling over into the West Bank, with all its implications, in both Israel and Palestine.

    Retired Brigadier General Shlomo Brom of the Institute for national security studies (INSS), said recently that, as a result of the Second Lebanon War there is a negative mood among the Israeli public and that the lack of confidence in the government is unprecedented. The chief lesson from the war, emphasized in the Winograd Commission’s interim report, is the need to weigh carefully, whether decisions on military operations are compatible with the ability of these operations to achieve realistic military objectives that will realize Israel’s strategic goals. All of these were added to the basic Israeli reluctance, dating from even before the war in Lebanon, to be drawn back into the “Gazan swamp”. According to General Brom, Israel would do well to be cautious and not succumb to the illusion that there is a comprehensive solution to the Gaza Strip problem. In the past even an Israeli presence in the Philadelphi Corridor (on the Egyptian border at Rafah) did not prevent weapons smuggling and only limited it to some extent. One lesson Israel would do well to learn from the war in Lebanon is that the unsatisfactory results of the ground war, stemmed largely from the lack of sufficient preparedness by Israel.

    Based on such somber assessments, it seems that the time has come to disengage the Israel- Palestinian process from wishful thinking illusions and concentrate on more realistic solutions in order to prevent another, even more painful catastrophe, threatening to engulf the people on both sides of the holy-land borders.

    F-15 Crash Under New Investigation

    An F-15D fighter jet crashed Friday (February 1, 2008) while on a training mission over Hawaii. While on a training mission over the Pacific ocean, the pilot could not control the plane and started to lose altitude and, managed to eject safely before the aircraft hit the sea. Brig. Gen. Peter Pawling, Hawaii Air National Guard’s 154th Wing commander said the cause does not appear to be related to structural problems that grounded the Air Force’s entire fleet of F-15s in November as Friday’s crash was ‘in one piece’. But Pawling said it’s too early to link the plane’s age to the crash, pending the ongoing investigation. Hawaii’s F-15s are about 30 years old and were acquired in 1987.

    Air Combat Command officials cleared a portion of the F-15 Eagle A through D model aircraft Jan. 9 for flying status and recommended a limited return to flight for Air Force units worldwide following engineering risk assessments and data received from multiple fleet-wide inspections. However, almost 200 aircraft are still grounded, some may never fly again.


    The return to fly order and recommendation applies only to those F-15 aircraft, about 60 percent of the total Air Force F-15 A through D fleet, that have cleared all inspections and have met longeron manufacturing specifications. The order and recommendation follows more than two months of stand-down actions after an Air National Guard F-15C aircraft experienced catastrophic structural failure and broke apart in flight during a basic fighter maneuver training sortie in Missouri Nov. 2, 2007. (see video animation)

    Technical study of the F-15’s recovered wreckage determined that the component in question did not meet the manufacturer’s structural specifications and had developed cracks that caused it to fail, according to the report. According to the investigation’s findings, the upper right longeron – one of four metal beams that help hold the cockpit to the main fuselage – was found to have manufacturing defects, said Col. William Wignall, the head of the accident investigation. The one longeron, already not up to design specifications, cracked apart under the stress of a 7G turn, the colonel said. This led to the other longerons failing as well, which then caused the cockpit to separate from the rest of the fuselage. The pilot was able to eject, but suffered a broken arm when the canopy snapped off.

    The long-term future of the F-15 is in question

    Much of the U.S. Air Force’s 665 F-15s had been grounded since the incident. 441 F-15s in the Air Force inventory are model A through D. During the fleet’s grounding, every F-15 base conducted a series of detailed inspections. After the preliminary examination, 224 F-15E aircraft were returned to service as they were not affected by this specific problem. As of Jan. 9, the Air Force approved 260 of these aircraft (60 percent) to return to service with no flight restrictions. The remaining 182 of the aircraft, manufactured between 1978 and 1984 are remained out of service pending additional tests. Inspections determined that these aircraft have at least one longeron that does not meet blueprint specifications. Deviations in these longerons will be analyzed at the Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center. The analysis is expected to take approximately four weeks to complete. Once the analysis is complete, Air Combat Command will be able to better determine which aircraft will need further inspection, or repair, before returning them to flight.

    Sofar nine of the inspected F-15s have been found to have longeron-fatigue cracks and have been grounded. The Air Force is scheduled to retire some of these aircraft this year as it may be cost-prohibitive to repair them. “We’re going over each and every aircraft to make a determination,” Gen. John D.W. Corley, the commander of Air Combat Command said. “We will take some F-15s out of the inventory. It just doesn’t make sense to spend the time and money if it won’t be worth it for some aircraft.”

    The difficulty is that issues have been found with F-15s built between 1978 and 1985, across A through D models at several bases, so no one source of the problem can be isolated,. “This isn’t just about one pilot in one aircraft with one bad part,” General Corley said. “I have a fleet that is 100 percent fatigued, and 40 percent of that has bad parts.”

    The Air Force first began flying the F-15 eagle in 1972. The Eagles are currently being replaced by the fifth generation F-22 Raptor, currently in production with active squadrons at Langley Air Force Base, Va., and Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. As F-15s operations were brought to ‘stand down’, F-22 Raptor, F-16 Fighting Falcon and F-15E Strike Eagle pilots have picked up the F-15s usual mission of patrolling and defending American airspace and interests. According to Gen. Corley, that has had a ripple effect among those pilots’ missions, General Corley said. “We don’t have a full and healthy fleet, so we’ve gotten behind on training missions, instructor certifications, classes and exercises,” he said. “And in the meantime, our pilots have to be ready to deploy.” Foreign air forces operating the F-15 Eagle followed the USAF and reduced operations of their Eagles to the minimum.

    While the US Air Force may have other alternatives for air superiority fighters (such as the F-22 Raptor), the Japanese, Saudi and Israeli air forces face a major problem regarding their fleets of first line aircraft.

    (Updated: January 11, 2008)

    Northrop Grumman Leads an Industry Team Pursuing Army ACS

    Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC – News) announced today that it will lead a team to compete for the U.S. Army’s Aerial Common Sensor (ACS), an airborne platform that will provide the warfighter with actionable intelligence, reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition capability.

    Northrop will serve as prime contractor and overall systems integrator for ACS. Other team members include AAI Corporation, an operating unit of Textron Systems Corporation; General Dynamics C-4 Systems, Scottsdale, Ariz.; and L-3 Communications Corp., New York.

    ACS will be a unique, next-generation intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and target acquisition aircraft, which will-from the moment it arrives over the battle field-provide commanders in theater and troops on the ground with critical situational intelligence. ACS will detect troop movements and intercept communications and radar transmissions, allowing the Army to direct dominant and effective firepower before enemy forces know they’ve been detected. The Army has yet to determine the platform of choice for ACS.

    Previous plans to use the Embraer EMB-145 could not accommodate the entire systems suite required by the Army.

    BAE Systems’ RG-33 Selected for US Army MMPV

    BAE Systems has been selected by the U.S. Army to be the sole producer of the new Medium Mine Protected Vehicle (MMPV), and has been awarded an initial $20 million delivery order under the $2.288 billion MMPV program. The MMPV contract envisions production of up to 2,500 vehicles for use by U.S. Army Engineers and Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams through 2015.

    MMPV is a multi-purpose, mine protected, 6×6 wheeled vehicle based on BAE Systems’ next generation RG33 family of vehicles which U.S. Army engineers will use to conduct route and area clearance missions, command and control, mount mine clearing systems, and conduct explosive hazards reconnaissance. MMPVs will also be used by Explosive Ordnance Disposal teams to neutralize Improvised Explosive Devices, mines and other unexploded ordnance.

    Under the initial order, 9 MMPV test vehicles, test support, armor testing packages, vehicle basic issue items, such as first-aid kits and repair tools, training, and various contract data are due for delivery between May and August 2008.

    “Our MMPV design is tailored specifically for the roles and missions of its users, and we believe it possesses the best balance of payload capacity, protection and performance,” said Michael E. O’Connor, BAE Systems MMPV program manager.

    Northrop Grumman to Lead JLTV Team with Oshkosh Truck Corp.

    Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE: NOC) and Oshkosh Truck Corporation (NYSE: OSK) have teamed to compete for the U.S. military’s next-generation family of lightweight vehicles. According to the teaming agreement, if selected, the prime contractor for the program will be Northrop Grumman’s Mission. Oshkosh Truck’s Defense Group will be responsible for designing, engineering and manufacturing the vehicle. Other bidders planning to compete on Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) include the Boeing-Textron Systems team, Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems Mobility & Protection Systems, General Dynamics and AM General (the GTV team) and BAE Systems and International Military and Government company.


    Unlike MRAP, the next generation tactical vehicle should provide superior protection and survivability without sacrificing mobility and situational awareness. This requirement challenges the vehicle and armor designers to provide innovative approach to vehicle development. “Oshkosh Truck has proven its vehicles work in actual rugged conditions – and not just on a tradeshow floor. By working together with Northrop Grumman and our partners, Oshkosh can provide the total package to meet the military’s vehicle needs and ultimately help protect soldiers and Marines,” said Robert G. Bohn, chairman and chief executive officer of Oshkosh Truck Corporation.

    Unlike other teams, the Oshkosh-Northrop Grumman team does not have in-house armor expertise. However, Oshkosh gained extensive armor experience working with a number of armor specialists, including PVI, Ceradyne, Thales Australia and Israel’s Plasan. Oshkosh is currently teamed with Ceradyne to build the BULL, to compete on future Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP II) deliveries. Under a previous cooperation with Plasan, the companies developed armor suites for the MTVR and LVSR all-terrain vehicles, used by the US Marine Corps. Plasan itself is involved in the development of the B-kit armor suite for the Combat Tactical vehicle, a technology demonstrator developed by the Nevada Automotive Test Center, as part of the U.S. Marine Corps JLTV technology evaluation program. Plasan is the armor designer and armor suite subcontractor for International Military and Government’s MaaxPro MRAP vehicle, over 4,400 vehicles are on order for the US Army.

    The U.S. Department of Defense plans to acquire the JLTV for use by the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps. As currently envisioned, the JLTV will be stronger and more survivable than current tactical vehicles in its class. It also will be more mobile and maneuverable than the mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicle, or MRAP, being widely deployed in Iraq.

    ATK, ADG team to Modernize Stocks of Aging Tank Ammo

    Alliant Techsystems (NYSE: ATK) and Allied Defense Group, Inc. (AMEX:ADG are teaming to modernize tank ammunition introducing Insensitive Munition (IM) based propellants and explosives. The team will initially focus on propellant replacement for aging tank rounds, produced in the 1980s, as they reach their 20 year shelf life limit. The introduction of IM has been mandatory in Europe, and will improve safety of ammunition in storage and during transportation, improve the mobility of supplies, both on land and at sea, and improve safety and survivability of armored vehicles carrying the ammunition.

    According to ADG, the technology being introduced has the added benefits of reducing gun barrel wear and reducing overall stress to the platform, while providing higher energy for added range, accuracy and lethality. In addition to propellant replacement, the team also plans to introduce IM improved explosives to replace standard explosives currently used in the warheads of current tactical ammunition.


    ADG is the owner of Mecar SA – the Belgian gun and ammunition maker and its US based sister company Mecar USA. The company plans to leverage the technology developed and demonstrated in the U.S. and Europe on similar ammunition types, to accelerate the introduction of the new process. According to ADG, by reducing maintenance cost to the platform and utilizing proven low cost production techniques, the overall cost of the ammunition is comparable to that of the current ammunition.

    According to Major General (Ret) John J. Marcello, ADG’s Chief Executive Officer and President, the new collaboration should open new channels and new markets for both companies. “This alliance will help ADG offset our reliance on our traditional customers and contributes to our efforts to smooth out the cyclical nature of our ammunition business.

    ATK, a US$4 billion weapons and space company, is a major ammunition supplier for all US forces. In September 2007 ADG reported its order backlog exceeded $140 million, primarily from international customers. Mecar produces various types of ammunition, including 105mm howitzer rounds, 76mm gun cartridges, 81mm and 120mm mortar bombs, 25mm ammunition and proprietary Mk8 cartridges for the 90mm cannon, developed by the company and used by a number of armies worldwide. Mecar is also developing new ammunition for the Russian 115mm tank gun, a 120mm Multi-Function Urban Combat tank round, which will be available shortly.

    Serious Implications of the Hurmoz Naval Incident

    Small craft suspected to be from the Islamic Republic of Iran Revolutionary Guard Navy (IRGCN), maneuver aggressively in close proximity to U.S. Navy vesels - January 6, 2008. Photo: US NavyAt 08:00 am local time on Sunday as a US Navy cruiser, destroyer and frigate were on their way into the Gulf when they were buzzed by the speedboats, which dropped several unidentified boxes in the water in front of them. Five Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps Navy (IRGCN) speedboats then made threatening passes against three US Navy vessels passing the strategic Strait, at the mouth of the Persian Gulf which is one of the world’s most sensitive strategic choke points, with at least a fifth of the world’s crude oil supply passing through it.

    Mid East sources warned that the near-shooting provocation, was timed precisely by Tehran for the eve of President George W. Bush’s Middle East tour. A Pentagon official said that US forces were “literally” on the verge of firing on the Iranian boats and had moved to man their guns when the Iranians turned and sped away.

    This is how the US Navy Serious Implications of the Hurmoz Naval Incident described the incident: “Following a routine transit through the Strait of Hormuz, Jan. 6, three U.S. Navy ships operating in international waters in the Persian Gulf were approached by five Iranian small boats that demonstrated irresponsible confrontational behavior near the U.S. ships.


    The U.S. Navy formation included U.S. Navy ships USS Port Royal (CG 73), USS Hopper (DDG 70) and USS Ingraham (FFG 61) were sailing i bound the Gulf via the Strait of Hormuz on a routine transit. U.S., sailing about three nautical miles outside the 12 nm off Iran’s territorial waters. “The five Iranian boats approached the formation on the formation’s starboard bow in international waters slightly inside the gulf from the apex of the strait, broke into two groups, one to one side of the formation, one to the other. The groups maneuvered aggressively in the direction of the U.S. ships.” 5th Fleet Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff told reporters at the Pentagon yesterday. He added that in some situations, the Iranian boats were closing up to a distance of 500 yards from the U.S. ships. Following standard procedure, Hopper issued warnings, attempted to establish communications with the small boats and conducted evasive maneuvering. The whole incident lasted about 30 minutes. “The behavior of the Iranian ships was, in my estimation, unnecessary, without due regard for safety of navigation and unduly provocative in the sense of the aggregate of their maneuvers, the radio call and the dropping of objects in the water.” said Adm. Cosgriff. He added that the U.S. crews “stepped through the procedures carefully, with good discipline, with due regard for all the factors, while at the same time taking the reasonable precautions to place their ships in conditions of readiness consistent with the environment in which they were entering… we take the potential for a small craft to inflict damage against a larger ship seriously, and we would be irresponsible if we didn’t” Adm. Cosgriff concluded.

    Coalition vessels, including U.S. Navy ships, routinely operate in the vicinity of both Islamic Republic of Iran Navy and IRGCN vessels and aircraft. These interactions are always correct on the U.S. part and reflect a commitment to accepted tenets of international law and common practice.” On the other side, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini referred to the incident as “something normal”. “The case happening on Saturday was similar to the past ones and it was a regular and natural issue” he told Iranian news agency IRNA. ” according to Hosseini, such incidents are routinely settled after identification of the two parties.

    Six hovercrafts are shown on this satellite image, based just north of the at Bandar Abbas naval base, on the coast of the Gulf of Hurmoz.  Image: Google Earth
    Sunday’s incident was the most serious, since the Revolutionary Guard’s seizure of eight Royal Navy sailors and seven Marines from the HMS Cornwall last March in the Shatt al-Arab waterway in the Gulf.

    The U.S. Navy has determined that Iran has amassed a large fleet of fast patrol boats along the 43-kilometer straits, with headquarters based at Bandar Abbas naval port. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, responsible for strategic programs, which leads the effort. The vessels, armed with cruise missiles, mines, torpedoes and rocket-propelled grenades, are up to 23 meters in long and can reach a speed of 100 kilometers per hour. This marks the implementation of Iran’s “swarm” program, where dozens of armed speed boats attack much larger naval vessels from all sides, an official said. Specially trained elite crews are on high alert stand-by status to move on orders. Sunday’s foray was probably testing US naval combat efficiency, which, when it quickly responded, caused them to break contact and withdraw. By learning US naval tactics and reaction timing, the IRGC will no doubt adapt and apply new tactical approaches in future attempts.

    In 2005, IRGC developed its swarm doctrine following Teheran’s assessment that the United States was considering an air strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Officials said the swarm doctrine was designed to exploit the slow pace of U.S. aircraft carriers and destroyers in the shallow waters of the Gulf.

    IRGC swarming tactics envision a group of more than 100 speedboats attacking a target, such as a Western naval vessel or a commercial oil tanker. They said 20 or more speedboats would strike from each direction, making defense extremely difficult.

    The Navy, with at least two carrier groups in the Gulf, has been developing counter-measures to an Iranian swarm attack. These include using minesweepers, unmanned aerial vehicles to monitor Iranian speedboats and the deployment of weapons that could blast Iranian speedboats at standoff range.Such exercises have been conducted over the past few months.

    The Persian Gulf saw several US Navy-Iranian Navy engagements in the past. On April 18, 1988 during Operation Praying Mantis the navy sank no less than six armed Iranian naval vessels in a short offshore battle.

    On the morning of July 3 USS Vincennes, an American Aegis guided missile cruiser, mistakenly shot down an Iranian civilian airliner over the Strait of Hormuz, killing all 290 passengers and crew. The commercial flight had taken off from Bandar Abbas, which served dual roles as airbase for Iranian F-14 operations and as a hub for commercial, civilian flights Vincennes fired two SM-2MR Surface-to-air missiles which both hit Flight 655, which exploded, killing all on-board.

    On October 12, 2000 the USS Cole, was hit by a small explosive speedboat manned by Al Qaeda terrorists, coming from Aden Port OF Yemen, which approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred, putting a 35-by-36-foot gash in the ship’s port side Seventeen sailors were killed and thirty nine others were injured in the blast.

    Whether Sunday’s incident will remain a single test case is questionable. As tension raises constantly in this highly sensitive region, all options are open.

    Kenya Ethnic Chaos Could Provoke Al Qaeda Comeback

    Kenya’s sudden spiral into chaos after years being regarded as a regional stability in the turbulent Black African continent, will no doubt strike a heavy blow on the economies of a wide swathe of neighboring nations. But while the present scale of internecine violence came as quite a surprise, it was not the first time that this African nation became engulfed in chaos.

    From October 1952 to December 1957 Kenya was under a state of emergency arising from the so-called “Mau Mau” rebellion against British colonial rule, over the deprivation of the Kikuyu majority. The official number of Kenyans killed was estimated at 11,503. Much fighting among the various tribes followed, until independence from Great Britain in December 1963, when Jomo Kenyatta, also a Kikuyu became first prime minister of the autonomous Kenyan government. Over the last decade or so, Kenya was regarded an African success story. Beginning to enjoy the fruits of its stability and openness, its economy has grown by more than 6 per cent annually in recent years. But now, in just a few bloody days, since a disputed election on December 27, Kenya has quickly slipped from democratic hopeful, escalating into uncontrollable chaos and brutal murder. From years of prosperity, it threatened to become the scene of just another regional, highly dangerous trouble spot, torn by ethnic bloodletting and prone to outside terrorist intervention.

    Back in 2002, Mwai Kibaki (age 76), a Kikuyu, was elected as president, promising to clean up Kenya after 40 years of corruption. His election was widely praised, after previous polls were marred by irregularities and ethnic violence between the Kikuyu and Luo communities. But now it seemed that Mr Kibaki was determined to hang on to power by those very corrupt means which he has declared fighting.

    Many of the voters actually favored Raila Odinga (62), who is a Luo, a tribe from western Kenya near Lake Victoria on the border with Uganda, comprising about 22 per cent of the population. The present turmoil has already caused dangerous repercussions throughout Africa. Kenya’s port of Mombasa and the single road snaking up to Uganda and beyond are vital for the economies of the entire region and the impact of the ongoing crisis is being felt with petrol pumps already running dry in Uganda and Burundi and with rationing being imposed in Rwanda. Any weakening of democracy in Kenya will have a domino effect across the continent, threatening infiltration of Islamic fundamentalist elements into any unstable state.

    The country, famous for its palm-fringed beaches and wildlife parks, visited by millions of tourists, shares borders with Tanzania, Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia. While its 36 million people are split into more than 40 ethnic groups, Kenya was nevertheless sofar widely regarded as a haven of relative peace and prosperity in a region plagued by conflict, poverty and disease. All this might now change rapidly, if a solution cannot be found immediately to prevent total disaster. By inviting dangerous elements like Al Qaeda or it’s affiliates into the void, these could make their comeback into this little ‘Garden of Eden’. In fact, Kenya’s attorney general Amos S. Wako has warned that his country is “fast degenerating into a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions”. About a third of Kenya’s population are Muslims, many more are refugees, driven by the unrest in neighboring Somalia, creating further problems of the already largely deprived Muslim population in the country.

    The fact is that many corrupt African governments, porous borders, widespread poverty and discontented Muslim populations have created a region ripe for Islamic fundamentalism, Kenya, and Tanzania just to its south, have already been victims of al-Qaeda terrorism. Kenya itself borders with the highly volatile and Al Qaeda infected Somalia. Moreover, as Al Qaeda is currently coming under pressure in Asia, any lawless African nation must now be considered their obvious target.

    Already in 2005 such warning came from Major General Douglas Lute, then director of operations at US Central Command “There will come a time when Zarqawi will face too much resistance in Iraq and will move on,” the general predicted, referring to the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. (Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born Islamist who was later killed in an American airstrike). Al-Qaeda has spent years operating in Kenya and is widely remembered by the 1998 twin bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi and in neighboring Tanzania, that killed 224 Kenyans, Tanzanians and Americans and injured over 4,000 more. This bloody attack was followed shortly by a 2002 suicide car bombing targeting a hotel popular with Israelis near Mombassa and the attempted destruction of an Israeli airliner by shoulder fired missiles, from near its airport. It had awakened U.S. security officials to the dangers posed by militant Islam in East Africa. In the years since, the Horn of Africa, and Kenya in particular, has come into new focus of U.S. counterterrorism.

    Fazul Abdullah MohammedWhat is little known was that a radical Palestinian group was already implicated in the bombing of the Jewish owned Norfolk Hotel in Nairobi on New year’s eve in1981. It was then, that Kenya had already been considered as a soft target by international terrorism experts, but little attention was given. A prime target of U.S. counterterrorism forces in the region for nearly a decade was one Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, who was indicted for planning the 1998 embassy bombings, the Paradise Hotel in Kikambala near Mombasa and the attempt on the Israeli Arkia airliner in 2002. Early 2004, the Kenya Anti-Terrorist Police, trained and financed by the United States, were raiding mosques on a tip-off, detaining suspected terrorists all along the Swahili coast. However Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, warned in time, escaped to Somalia, where radical Islam was establishing its strongest beachhead in the Horn of Africa.

    But Al-Qaeda operatives had already settled themselves into several communities along Kenya’s Indian Ocean coast. In 2004, US Marine Brigadier General Martin Robeson, then commander of the regional US-led anti-terror task force based in neigboring Djibouti warned that hundreds of new Al-Qaeda members had been recruited in Kenya, despite stepped-up anti-terrorism efforts. American intelligence officials mentioned repeatedly, that apprehended suspects included members of Al Qaeda and Al Itihaad al Islamiya, considered the most powerful radical band in the Horn of Africa, which has been funded by Al Qaeda. Counter terrorist intelligence reports have identified the Dabaab refugee camp on the Somalia-Kenya border as a training ground for Islamic extremists, through a Muslim charity, called al Haramain, that sponsored religious schools and social programs in that area.

    Kenya long maintained informal military alliances with the United States and the United Kingdom (UK). Since 1980 Kenya has supported U.S. military commitments in the Indian Ocean by permitting use of Mombasa port and air base facilities, in exchange for U.S. military assistance. Kenya is a valuable point of entry and staging platform, for U.S., British, and German aerial and naval search operations targeting Al-Qaeda–linked Somalia-based groups. Currently, Kenyan and U.S. officials are discussing a new U.S. military command, Africa Command (AFRICOM), destined to control U.S. military operations in Africa. Announced in 2007, AFRICOM will be carved out of the three combatant commands responsible for the continent: European Command, Central Command, and Pacific Command. AFRICOM will initially operate from Germany at the European Command headquarters and become fully established in late 2008 somewhere in Africa. Kenya is among the 10 countries being considered for AFRICOM’s main base. But this may well change under the present circumstances, as anti-US sentiments could increase with the ongoing instability. In fact, extending military relations with the US could be foreboding premonition for an escalating anti-American violence Al-Qaeda style, which would only increase regional instability and especially in an inter-ethnic fighting Kenya.

    As for Kenya’s own efforts to fight terrorism – these have been sporadic and sofar insufficiently effective to stem any serious influx of subversive elements, as the present chaos clearly demonstrated. In 2004 The Kenyan government had established the African continent’s first counter-terrorism center to help develop and coordinate strategies in east Africa. The new National Counter-Terrorism Center was headquartered in Nairobi, but it seemed sofar totally incapable to overcome the bureaucratic hurdles, obstructing any successful operational function.

    US Sells TOW-RF Missiles, Guided Weapons for Persian Gulf States

    Missiles Arms sales rally continues in the Persian Gulf, this week, sales of advanced versions of the TOW missiles to Kuwait and various aerial weapons to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were reported by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

    The aerial weapons to be ordered by the UAE will equip their F-16 Block 60 aircraft, and include 224 AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM air/air missiles, 450 GBU-24 Paveway III laser guidance kits and 200 GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) tail kits for Mk-84 bombs (2,000 pounds), and 488 GBU-12 Paveway II guidance kits for Mk-82 (500 pound) bombs. The order, $326 million will also include 224 MK-84 2,000 pound bombs.

    Kuwait will be upgrading its TOW missile systems, as their missiles are nearing the end of their shelf life. Kuwait is buying 3,510 TOWs of the latest Tow-2A/B Radio Frequency (RF) models, a wireless version of the TOW. The $328 million order will include 2,106 TOW-2A RF missiles and 1,404 TOW-2B Radio Frequency missiles. The Kuwaiti Army operates 118 vehicle mounted TOW systems. The country’s National Guards has additional systems, mounted on armored cars.

    Counter MANPADS system to be Evaluated Under Regular Airline Operations and Maintenance

    The jeteye Counter-MANPADS system, developed by BAE Systems was installed on a cargo aircraft ioperated by American Airlines. Three more passenger aircraft will be equipped with the Jeteye and be used for evaluation of the missile defense system. Photo: BAE Systems


    BAE Systems has received a $29 million award from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to test an infrared aircraft missile defense system on passenger aircraft. The tests will evaluate the system’s compatibility with daily passenger airline operations and maintenance.

    This award funds the third phase of the DHS counter-MANPADS program’s research development activity. The current phase will not test the system’s missile-defeating capability, a task already demonstrated in an earlier phase of the program. The JETEYE missile defense systems will be installed on up to three American Airlines aircraft. The DHS counter-MANPADS program is designed to commercialize proven military technology and gauge its suitability for protecting U.S. commercial aircraft by evaluating its performance, impact on aerodynamic drag, weight, reliability, maintainability, and system cost.

    The JETEYE system is based on BAE Systems’ existing directable infrared countermeasures technology, used to protect military aircraft. With this award, JETEYE will be the only system installed on both cargo and passenger aircraft.

    Israeli Infantry Battalions to Improve Fire Support

    Keshet 120mm self-propelled mortar utilizes the M-106 (M-113) chassis configured with the Cardom mortar system from Elbit Systems (formerly Soltam).

    The Israeli Army is planning to complete the fielding of CARDOM mortar systems and remotely controlled weapon stations, equipping the regular infantry brigades and some reserve infantry units this year (2008).


    According to Lt. Col. Eran Granit, IDF Land Forces’ Head of Weapon Systems, the CARDOM version selected by the IDF is a more advanced version of the vehicle mounted 120mm mortar system developed by Soltam, and fielded with the US Army Stryker brigade combat teams. The Israeli version designated “Keshet” is fully integrated with brigade’s command and control system, enabling automatic mortar aiming, (traversing and elevation) to rapidly target targets with high precision. The manually loaded system will enable battalion commanders to employ autonomous fire support which was previously available at brigade level and above.

    In 2008 Infantry battalions are also expected to receive the Samson armored, remotely controlled weapon stations (RCWS). Some of the vehicles, such as the Achzarit AIFV are equipped with mechanical ‘Overhead Weapon Stations’ (OWS), also developed by Rafael. The externally mounted Samson will free some space inside the fighting compartment and improve situational awareness and target acquisition and engagement capability with the introduction of electro optical day/night sensors and stabilized weapon mount. Similar systems are already installed on elevated sites along the Israeli border with the palestinian gaza strip, providing persistent coverage, by visual observation and firepower, along this sensitive borderline.

    Harris Unveils a New Wearable Tactical Radio

    A new member of the Falcon III family, the RF-300S, is positioned by Harris as a lightweight, wearable tactical radio supporting the dismounted soldier. This UHF radio (225 MHz to 470 MHz) provides wideband data transfer for situational awareness applications, in addition to narrowband voice capabilities. It is designed to establish squad-level networking based on software-defined radios with built-in GPS.


    “The Falcon III RF-300S will deliver new levels of voice and high-bandwidth data connectivity to the entire squad,” said George Helm, vice president and general manager, U.S. Government Products, Harris RF Communications. “By combining P25 and the Soldier Radio Waveform, the radio offers great operational flexibility, ease of migration as standards change, and interoperability.” The new radio is designed to address the emerging requirements of the U.S. Department of Defense, such as the Rifleman Radio program. The radio also supports APCO Project 25 (P25) waveform, allowing secure interoperability with currently deployed squad radios as well as with first responders in non-military operations. Interoperability with currently deployed narrowband radios is critical to allow a smooth transition to a networked force until adequate spectrum is available to support a large number of users.

    It also operates the Soldier Radio Waveform (SRW) and the Harris Advanced Wideband Networking Waveform (ANW2) for networked tactical communications. The new radio is secured using the Suite-B algorithms, including AES for encryption, allowing interoperability with other Suite-B enabled communication products. Properly implemented Suite-B algorithms can provide protection of information up through the classified SECRET level in a non-cryptographic controlled item (CCI) environment, eliminating the need for every soldier to have a security clearance. Harris plans to submit the RF-300S to the U.S. Government for evaluation for use in non-CCI, Secret and below applications.

    At the LandWarNet exhibition Harris also demonstrated how another member of its Falcon III family of radios, the AN/PRC-117G can operate with JTRS-developed Soldier Radio Waveform (SRW), transferring wideband tactical networking. SRW will serve as the principal Department of Defense waveform for creating battlefield communication networks for individual soldiers.
    At the exhibition, the radios transmitted combat net radio voice, streaming video and situational awareness data over a network using the SRW waveform. “This demonstration validates the ability of the Falcon III radios to host wideband networking waveforms developed under the JTRS program, thus providing warfighters with secure access to the network and high-bandwidth applications, such as streaming video,” said George Helm, vice president and general manager, U.S. Government Products, Harris RF Communications.

    The Falcon III AN/PRC-117G, now in production and fielded by the Department of Defense, is the first radio to provide both secure wideband data and narrowband voice capability. The radio allows the mobile warfighter access to secure IP data at on-air rates up to 5 Megabits per second, dramatically improving situational awareness by supporting networked data-intensive applications. It features mobile ad-hoc networking, automated network establishment and maintenance, and integrated Type 1 security. It is based on SCA-compliant software-defined architecture, offering legacy interoperability with currently fielded radios, incorporating SINCGARS, Havequick, the High Performance Waveform (HPW), as well as Tactical Satellite (TACSAT).

    F-15E Strike Eagle

    The Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle is a dual-role fighter designed to perform air-to-air and air-to-ground missions. An array of avionics and electronics systems gives the F-15E the capability to fight at low altitude, day or night, and in all weather. The aircraft has a crew of two – pilot and weapon systems operator. Its avionics suite include an advanced multi-mode air/air/ air/ground radar (APG-70), navigation system based on laser gyro, and an electro-optical targeting system (Originally equipped with LANTIRN, the Strike eagle recently received the Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod). The aircraft retained the LANTIRN’s radar navigation pod, to provide low-altitude terrain following flight at night and under difficult visibility conditions.

    The F-15E is the US Air Forces’ combat command’s ‘platform of choice’ for new capabilities is the F-15E. This aircraft is currently suited to carry Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Joint Air to Surface Strike Missile (JASSM) and Small Diameter Bomb (SDB). The Strike Eagle can carry 20 SDBs which can be targeted individually to attack different targets.

    McDonnell Douglas F-15E First production F-15E (SN 86-0183) in flight

    A near-term capability enhancement planned for the SDB is the use of ‘Focused Lethality Warheads’, which will further reduce the risk of collateral damage and enable shorter safety margins for attack. In the longer term, a new radar (most probably a variant of the APG-63V3 AESA radar will replace current APG-70 radar as part of the Eagle’s Radar Modernization Program (RMP).

    Other improvements included in the Suite 6 avionics upgrade include a new digital video recorder and mission planning to offer much faster and more efficient mission planning using smart weapons. The aircraft will be fitted with modern IFF Mode 5, AIM-120D medium-range BVR AMRAAM missiles, satellite communications link and VHF/UHF ARC-210.

    In the following pages, Defense Update reports how the USAF plans to maintain its ‘Shooters’ effective for years to come.

    MQ-8B Fire Scout – Vertical takeoff UAV (VTUAV)

    An enhanced version of the FireScout Vertical Takeoff UAV (VTUAV) completed an initial series of flight testing conducted by the U.S. Navy and Northrop Grumman.


    The new model offers a significant capability increase over the first generation RQ-8A Fire Scout. It has a four blade rotor, and other enhancements giving the aircraft longer endurance (over eight hours) greater payload carrying capacity of up to 600 pounds (272 kg).

    With vehicle endurance greater than six hours, Fire Scout will be capable of continuous operations providing coverage 110 nautical miles from the launch site. A baseline payload that includes electro-optical/infrared sensors and a laser designator enables Fire Scout to find tactical targets, track and designate targets, accurately provide targeting data to strike platforms and perform battle damage assessment. FireScout was also selected for the US Army FCS Class IV UAV, offering future units of action a flexible, weaponized ISR and attack platform.

    With additional fuel capacity, the MQ-8B can stay on station for six hours at 110 miles (176 km) from launch site. The Navy plans to use Fire Scout on board the Littoral Combat Ship, where sailors will operate both manned and unmanned helicopters to support operational requirements.

    FireScout conducted a series of flight tests that culminated in two successful launches of a 2.75-inch Hydra-class rocket from the Fire Scout Vertical Takeoff Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VTUAV). Fire Scout is programmed to become operational in fiscal year ’09 and deploy aboard the littoral combat ship. The Fire Scout was re-designated MQ-8B, which reflects the aerial vehicle’s multi-mission functionality. The Navy is acquiring the MQ-8B Fire Scout UAV to fulfill the service’s requirement for a tactical UAV capable of operating in the shipboard environment.

    On May 30, 2007 The U.S. Department of Defense awarded Northrop Grumman Corporation’s (NYSE:NOC) $13.6 million for the procurement of long lead items, in support of the low-rate initial production of MQ-8B Fire Scout Vertical Takeoff and Landing Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VTUAV). “The Fire Scout program is on track to conduct payload flights this fall and enter initial operational evaluation and then achieve initial operational capability in 2008 as planned,” said CDR Rob Murphy, Navy VTUAV program manager. The Fire Scout’s operational requirements include real-time video imagery collection, intelligence gathering, communications-relay capability, precision targeting and battle damage assessment from the Littoral Combat Ship. The Navy has nine Fire Scouts currently on contract with Northrop Grumman. The first was delivered in November to Naval Air Station Patuxent River. The successful series of first flights was completed just weeks later. All nine are expected to be delivered by the end of 2008.

    FireScout Industry Team

    System design work on the Fire Scout is performed at the Integrated Systems Unmanned Systems Development Center in San Diego, Calif. The Fire Scout is assembled at the Unmanned Systems Center in Moss Point, Miss. The VTUAV is based on a commercial-off-the-shelf Schweizer 333 manned helicopter manufactured in Horseheads, N.Y. The baseline design has proven a highly reliable and effective platform with extensive operating history.

    With Northrop Grumman as prime contractor, the MQ-8B Fire Scout industry team also includes Schweizer Aircraft Corporation, the platform’s designer and airframe manufacturer and Rolls-Royce Corporation, delivering the engine.

    Avionics providers include Rockwell Collins supplying avionics, GE Fanuc produces produced the vehicle management computer, Kearfott Inc. supplies the guidance and navigation systems and Cubic Defense Applications delivering the communications systems. The BriteStar II EO payload is supplied by FLIR Systems.

    Ship integration is performed by Lockheed Martin Corporation, which integrated the unmanned common automatic recovery system from Sierra Nevada Corporation. Raytheon Company supplied the tactical control system.

    MQ-8B Complete First LRIP Deliveries for the U.S. Navy

    By November 2009 Northrop Grumman delivered the first three production MQ-8B Fire Scout Vertical Takeoff and Landing Tactical Unmanned Air Vehicle (VTUAV) produced for the U.S. Navy. The delivery completes the program’s first year of Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) program. Two of the three vehicles were deployed aboard the USS McInerney for use on a scheduled operational deployment to complete a Fire Scout Military Utility Assessment (MUA). Prior to the current deployment, Fire Scouts have been aboard the USS McInerney four times since December 2008, completing 110 ship takeoffs and landings and 45 landings with the harpoon grid, accumulating over 47 hours of flight time.

    Diehl’s Sky Sphere set to Defeat UAS, OWA Drones Head-On

    0
    Diehl Defence has teamed up with Skysec to develop a drone interceptor. Diehl works with Skysec’s subsidiary, Skysec Defence, to modify the original civilian-oriented net-arresting interceptor into a hard-kill system suitable for military missions....

    Defense Update Weekly News Summary

    0
    Welcome to the latest episode of Defense-Update News Summary! In this episode, we dive into this week’s developments in defense technology, military acquisitions, and strategic partnerships worldwide. Some of this week's highlights include: Elbit Systems...

    Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle Program Launches as Part of Rafale F5 Standard

    0
    The French Ministry of Armed Forces has officially launched the Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) program as part of the Rafale F5 standard development. This event marks the beginning of a new era in...

    Air Defense & C-UAS Innovations at the AUSA 2024 Exhibition

    0
    Army Air Defense Undergoes Significant Modernization to Counter Drone Threats The U.S. Army's air defense branch has experienced its most substantial modernization and growth in over four decades, primarily driven by the need to counter...

    Elbit Systems Address US Army Artillery Modernization with Sigma 155×52 Wheeled Howitzer

    0
    Elbit Systems of America showcases the Sigma Next Generation Howitzer at AUSA 2024, where competing systems from Sweden, South Korea, France, and Germany are likely to be presented, some in models, others in full...

    Defense-Update Weekly News Summary

    0
    Welcome to the latest episode of Defense-Update News Summary! In this episode, we dive into this week’s developments in defense technology, military acquisitions, and strategic partnerships worldwide. Some of this week's highlights include: Elbit Systems...

    Israel Revamps Aerial Bomb Production

    0
    Elbit Systems has signed a 1.5-billion-shekel (approximately $400 million) contract with Israel's Ministry of Defense to establish an aerial bomb manufacturing bombs for the Israeli Air Force. In the past, the government-owned IMI operated...