Sunday, November 10, 2024
More
    Home Blog Page 344

    Israel’s moment of truth: bracing for a nuclear environment

    Israel's moment of truth: bracing for a nuclear environment - By David Eshel: On Thursday (Nov. 15, 2007) Reuters news agency quoted a source close to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as saying there were long-term ramifications to be addressed, like how to maintain Israel's deterrent and military response capabilities and that he instructed his ministers to draft proposals on how to cope with a nuclear Iran. Whether Olmert's prime minister's office will confirm or deny this report, it now seems quite obvious, that Israel is preparing itself for a nuclear armed Iran. Indeed, as the issue stands, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Tehran's Shi'ite clerics, will sooner or later achieve their goal: to become the proud owners of a "shi'ite nuclear bomb".

    There is no argument whatsoever, that any government’s job is to prepare for all contingencies and in Israel, being under constant threat from a still hostile Muslim world, this issue must be fully addressed by its defense community. Iran has officially declared its intention to destroy the Jewish state and, if Israel wishes to survive, it must prepare itself for even the worst case scenario of a nuclear Iran- which, once having the capability will also try to use it.

    The question is not whether Israel has the will to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions – no doubt it would like to, but has it really the means to implement this intention? On the other hand, the US certainly has the means, but will Washington give the order and prevent Iran from becoming an unpredictable nuclear power? At this time, barring a lot of tough talk, no such action seems imminent and nearing the end of George W Bush’s second term in the White House, determined action seems highly questionable. So Iran will probably become the first “rogue” nation to have a nuclear bomb in its arsenal. By all means this itself represents an abhorrent prediction – but unfortunately has to be taken at its realistic face value.Iran's Shihab-3 missile can strike targets in Israel when launched from central Iran. Photo: Iran TV

    Last Thursday, the UN nuclear watchdog Mohammed El-Baradei’ presented his report on Iran. Singing its praise, the Vienna placed UN office found Iran to be “generally truthful” about key aspects of its nuclear history, but warned that its knowledge of Tehran’s present atomic work was shrinking. Unfortunately, like such former reports, this one contained more questions than answers: “The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) remained unable to ascertain that Iran did not have a secret, parallel military enrichment program because Tehran was still denying inspector visits to anything but its few declared nuclear facilities” it concluded.

    There is no doubt that one man in Tehran was very happy with El-Baradei’s report! “We welcome this, that the International Atomic Energy Agency has found its role and with the publication of Mohammed El-Baradei’s report the world will see that the Iranian nation has been right and the resistance of our nation has been correct,” President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said glibly.

    • In fact, based on it’s past achievements, the International Atomic Energy Agency’s operational record is rather, to say the least, highly problematic:
      Before the 1991 Gulf War (before Dr El-Baradei’s appointment), the IAEA failed to detect Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program. After the war, it was startled by the scale of his work to make fissile material.
    • Under Dr El-Baradei, the IAEA totally missed the Libyan nuclear program, which Libya only chose to reveal after the 2003 Iraq war.
    • It missed, or ignored Iran’s long-time covert nuclear research program, which was already exposed by Iranian dissidents three years ago.
    • Its biggest shamble was probably failing to uncover the “nuclear supermarket” run by the “”father of the Islamic bomb” Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, the notorious Pakistani scientist who sold plans and components to Libya, North Korea and finally Iran.

    Israel's Arrow-2 ballistic missile  interceptor is well capable of intercepting Iran's current Shihab 3 missiles. (Photo: Israel Aerospace Induustries)Whether Israel, or in fact, any other well armed and prepared nation facing a nuclear threat should however tremble with fear from such a horrible doomsday weapon remains debatable, if the facts be carefully examined and assessed.

    There is little argument, that a nuclear warhead can destroy an entire city, or even much more. A small, but increasing, number of nations already possess nuclear missiles. However, no nation has ever launched a nuclear missile against an enemy. Moreover, nuclear war isn’t something one decides en-passant some morning and initiating it on the following afternoon. Such highly complex and dangerous action requires intensive pre-planning and preparation over a period of months and even years. Therefore, special tasks must be carried out to assure post-war recovery, which will not remain one-sided, to assure, what Russian strategists named “nuclear rocket supremacy.” For example, an attacker must quietly move key factories to secret underground locations. An attacker must also stockpile strategic supplies, raw materials, food, fuel, and machine tools for rebuilding vital industries. In fact, the most dramatic advanced measures would no doubt be leaked in vigilant press reports. During the Cold War Russian generals believed that only an extensive disinformation campaign could mask such preparations.

    Sofar Israel has staunchly maintained its so-called nuclear ambiguity policy, which has served the nation’s strategic options extremely well. However, should Iran, or for that matter other Arab countries, opt for a nuclear weapon, it seems only logical that the Jewish state would have to adapt a different nuclear strategy in order to maintain its viable deterrent fully convincing. There are some signs that this process is already under new scrutiny. Despite all recent denials by the PM advisory entourage, following last Thursday’s Reuter report, one of the topics of Olmert’s ordered “secret memorandum was being prepared for “the day after” Iran owned atomic warheads”, could perhaps re-assess Israel’s ambiguity policy, coming to terms with the new evolving regional circumstances.

    Defensive and Offensive Options

    All realistic assessments indicate clearly, that Israel cannot afford to create, neither passive nor a hermetical active defense layer to totally prevent a nuclear warhead-tipped ballistic missile to strike its major cities. In order to create a viable and convincing deterrent ensuring its very survival, Israel has to establish the following strategies:

    • Create a mixed defensive-offensive strike capability – based on long term technological assessments of enemy capabilities
    • Establish a political system, under which critical strategic decisions can be reached and implemented within minutes, once a nuclear strike warning becomes imminent, based on totally reliable real-time intelligence.
    • Maintain “no-fail” rapid reaction infrastructure system of constant high-alert defensive and offensive means – on minute stand-by to implement political decisions once issued, verified and authenticated.
    • Persistent long-range and round-the clock real-time intelligence assets constantly monitoring high-resolution space imagery, covering potential and suspected high-profile launch sites in enemy territory, transmitted through high-security data networks to operational command centers, manned by experienced professionals on 24 hour alert status.
    • Deploy reliable early-warning network giving adequate alert, getting maximum people in potential high-risk targets into some sort of shelter before missile impact, or, as an emergency contingency- implement mass evacuation, if time permits safe implementation.

    While passive or active defenses can prevent an accidental or limited attack, and reduce a massive attack, defensive measures have limitations when facing a determined nuclear strike:

    • Passive “fortification doctrine”, supposed to absorb an attack by minimizing the damage of a missile attack on the home front is regarded by experts as illusory, if not totally insupportable through economic constraints. Atomic shelters are considered ineffective, as they can neither fully protect the population against modern nuclear weapons, nor enable those seeking shelter under the attack itself, to emerge unscathed while the radioactive fallout “cloud” is still hovering over the attacked environment.
    • Active defenses by missile interceptors cannot provide ‘hermetic’ defense against massive, determined saturation attacks. Yet, under Israel’s stringent geo-political constraints – even a single nuclear explosion can reap catastrophic, if not actual existential human and economic consequences.

    Pre-emptive First or Second Strike Option

    Retired Major General Yitzhak Ben-Yisrael, former head of the Israel Ministry of Defense ‘Defense Research and Development Directorate’ specified that although Israel’s nuclear deterrent policy remained important in the country’s defense doctrine, developing a pre-emptive strike capability is also necessary. “As a small country,” Ben-Yisrael said, “we cannot go into battle for lengthy periods of time and the option of a preemptive strike is in line with this.”

    According to the prestigious London newsletter Foreign Report, published in 2007, the Israeli Defense Ministry is reportedly pressuring government officials to authorize a policy that would allow Israel to retaliate with nuclear weapons, in the event that it suffers a nuclear first-strike attack. The newsletter also reported that the Israeli government is “coming to terms” with the possibility that Israel’s nuclear deterrent will be inadequate, because an Iranian nuclear first strike could disable or destroy Israel’s capability to retaliate.

    Much has been written lately in the open Israeli media over Israel’s potential “second strike” option by a submerged submarine fleet, led by the German delivered Dolphin subs. A second strike option may be a viable option, as long as the active defense barrier is considered fully reliable, establishing a ‘full proof’ barrier against a nuclear attack, or keeping their damage within “acceptable” proportion. However, given the geographic and demographic situation of the country, Israel cannot tolerate any nuclear incident anywhere in or near its territory. In other words, Israel cannot absorb or tolerate any ‘lesser’ nuclear strike, weather it is aimed at its heavily populated center or attack strategic or military targets.

    Israel’s vulnerability is inherent of its small size and densely populated area. Almost half of the nation’s population (2-3 million) reside or work in and around the Tel Aviv metropolis area, which is also the nation’s business and finance center. 50 km to the east Jerusalem, the nation’s capital and religious center for Jews, Moslems and Christians also has a population of around one million while Haifa, the third largest city located less than 100 km to the north. A nuclear strike on or near any of the cities has the potential to kill hundreds of thousands people in the first instant, tens of thousands more would perish from fires and radiation.

    Absence of a ‘retaliatory option’ leaves no other option but ‘pre-emptive strike’, where a nation would launch a preliminary strike against an enemy, once there are clear indications of an imminent attack. A hypothetical, measured pre-emptive strike could use unconventional effects employed as ‘last resort warning’ before attacking sensitive targets. Modern intelligence gathering resources are already available to provide such ‘clear and indisputable indications’ in time for the leaders to take decisive action. When and if such determined action is executed, it should have dramatic, ‘game changing’ effects that could prevent a nuclear collision between democtratic-led moderates and a fanatic rogue statehood.

    Before Israel could take such course, it should be prepared to lift the veil off its true capabilities by aborting its decade-long nuclear ambiguity policy. This policy has served Israel well under a nuclear-free Middle East, but will no longer maintain its true value, when, for example Iran declares its new nuclear weapons capability. It will then become imperative for Israel, to bring its full-scale operational capabilities fully to light, in order to convince any “newcomer” to the nuclear club, that further hostile declarations, moreover actual threat will be dealt with, by decisive and devastating response, making any threats a high-risk adventure, with insurmountable consequences for any potential attacker.

    “Samson Option” is it still valid?

    All Israeli leaders, from every political party have repeatedly sworn that “Never again would the Jewish people be subjected to another Holocaust threat”. Within this solemn pledge, first strikes have characterized the Israeli’s foreign policy. The highly effective Israeli first-strike air assault on June 5, 1967, destroyed the entire Egyptian air force on the ground at the start of the Six-Day War. But more parallel to the urgency surrounding the situation of Iran’s having nuclear weapons is the June 1981 air attack that took out Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor.

    A pre-emptive strike option was mentioned repeatedly when analyzing Israel’s options for a retaliatory strike on hostile nuclear potential, before it is too late. The use of nuclear attack was referred to as a “Samson Option“, described by several fiction and non-fiction authors, as it remind of the famous biblical story of Samson’s war with the Philistines (Judges 16:4-30).

    Israel’s geography needs no reminder what kind of existential threat a nuclear attack could pose on its population centers. A nuclear threat from the Tehran “mullahs with nukes” cannot be tolerated. Any such threat, once imminent, must be forestalled by all means.

    For further reading we recommend:

    Defense Updat Analysis, November 10, 2007:

    Defense Update Analysis December 2006:

    Defense Update Analysis Sept. 14, 2007:

    One Station Ground Control System OSGCS / OSRVT

    Currently in production and fielded with Shadow TUAVsystems, One System GCS has been in Army service since 2001, logging more than 50,000 hours of operation. The US Army is planning to transition all UAV ground control systems system to the One-System’s standard. The system was used to control the Warrior UAV during the ER/MP systems capabilities demonstration in early 2005 and will control the Warrior ER/MP UAVs as they become operational in 2009. The system has also demonstrated control of a U.S. Army Hunter system, and a STANAG 4586 compliant version is scheduled to fly the U.S. Marine Corps Pioneer tactical UAV system in the first quarter of 2006. STANAG 4586 is a NATO standardization agreement that enables various UAVs to share information through common ground stations, thus enhancing interoperability among allied military forces. Future versions of One System GCS will be compatible with this standard. One System(TM) remote video terminal (OSRVT), an addition to the One System GCS is currently in development. The new mobile, manpack- sized unit is capable of receiving, integrating and displaying live video and telemetry data from an array of unmanned aerial vehicles and manned platforms. Soldiers will simultaneously receive live video and geo-location data in separate windows on their small, lightweight video OSRVT terminals. A video “footprint” and icons identifying aggressor units, vehicles, facilities, or natural landscape features will be overlaid on a map in the geo-location window, enabling swift target identification, decision making, and response.

    Simulatiog and Training of Joint Air/Ground Missions

    One of the main drivers for change in the military’s training process is the requirement for better interoperability, or ‘jointness’ among multi-service and multi-national forces. A typical example for how a simulation tool enables better performance of air and ground forces is Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC). The JTAC is the link between the Army and the Air Force when combat requires the aid of close air support. A JTAC must maintain situational awareness, know the supported unit’s plans, and validate and prosecute targets of opportunity. Training JTACs requires equipping them with the skill sets associated with air strike control, which includes in-depth knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of air power and advising the maneuver commander how best to employ it. In addition, the JTAC must determine which actions to take to properly control the ensuing air operations and how best to maximize support, which type of weapons to use, and where to direct the strike. For effective close support missions, anticipating which type of aircraft should be used, and how best to use each one, is crucial.

    The US Air Force is currently developing a simulator for these ground based elements, to be fully interoperable with the A-10C Full Mission Trainers and the Multiple Unified Simulation Environment (MUSE)/Air Force Synthetic Environment for Reconnaissance and Surveillance (AFSERS) program. These systems all use common, real-time 3D visualization software developed by MetaVR.

    Training Tactical Air Operations Simulation (TAOS) aims at the creation and combining virtual theater air assets and key human players to simulate the performance of command and control nodes such as air and space operations centers and other air power managers and users such as Joint tactical air controllers. TAOS combines simulations of strike; command and control; intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets; sensor simulations; and human performance model-based synthetic players to provide scaleable, flexible and adaptable representations of theater air operations with which Warfighters can interact to perform mission tasks. The military can apply the TAOS technology to training, test and evaluation, or mission rehearsal.

    For the training of air crew, different approaches are used in developing individual and cooperative skills among aircrews. SAIC’s new air mission trainer (AMT) is based on our virtual trainer product line. The AMT establishes a flexible technical baseline that can easily support the implementation of both fixed- and rotary-wing flight variants. The AMT immerses the student in a rich and dynamic synthetic environment with more than 20 specific geographic locations and 40 real-world airfields. The AMT is a network simulator that can link pilots together to fly in the same airspace. Ground simulators, such as the Common Driver Trainer (CDT), also can be integrated into the same battlespace, providing the platform to conduct mission training in a Joint environment. The first variant implemented in the AMT program is the rotary wing variant (RWV). The RWV uses a high fidelity, rotary-wing cab that simulates the Bell 206/ OH-1 family of helicopters. The simulator runs on Microsoft ESP and mounted on a full-motion, six-degree-of-freedom platform that provides additional stimuli as participants execute their collective and command-and control tasks.

    AVCATT, built by Link Simulation & Training provides realistic, networkded training for US army air crews . Photo: L3/LinkAn ongoing program designed to improve piloting skills of army aviators, is AVCATT, built by Link Simulation & Training. The system provides a virtual multiple training positions networked in a ‘multiplayer war-game’ like simulator providing an interactive, networked environment to support individual, crew, collective and combined arms training. The system is based on virtual, realistic training environment supported by intelligent, semi-automated forces (SAF). Following the simulated battle exercise, aircrews can review and analyze their mission performance through an After Action Review debriefing process. The system uses reconfigurable simulators supporting a full mission spectrum undertaken by the services’ attack, reconnaissance and utility helicopters, simulating AH-64A Apache, OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, UH-60 Blackhawk, CH-47D Chinook and AH-64D Longbow platforms.

    Other capabilities are required to simulate communications between pilots and air traffic controllers. The ability to automatically generate speech is invaluable in situations where it is required to represent a number of external agencies or operators within a simulated environment. However, voice quality of synthesized speech systems had, up until recently, left much to be desired. Voice generation expert ASTi has introduced improved speech generation algorithms which, backed by the increase in computing power, have resulted in more natural sounding speech. This year, the company integrated off-line speech message generation as a package option to its T4 product suite – a useful feature for Air Traffic Management and flight simulation systems. Further improvements are now available with multiple voices and tones, depicting different accents and language variations. The tight integration of Automated Speech Recognition (ASR) capabilities and synthetic speech, now allows ASTi to look toward the development of exciting new capabilities such as Automated Air Traffic Control systems (ATC). With this system, synthetic ATC controllers can direct live man-in-the-loop pilots sitting in the cockpit of a simulator through an air space crowded with CGF generated traffic, while listening to context relevant radio chatter.

    Advanced Helmet Mounted Display is used by Link for 'helmet worn' simulation. Photo: Link/L3The soaring cost of flight simulators drove system developers to seek alternative display systems that could minimize the space and lower the cost of flight training. One of the latest innovations from Link is the new Advanced Helmet Mounted Display, delivering a 360° field-of-regard to support virtual training and augmented operational reality. The helmet mounted display uses new optics and illumination design, employing solid-state near-eye micro displays, enabling AHMD to provide unmatched contrast, brightness and vivid color for all types of imagery. The system can be coupled with Link’s Night Vision Training System assisting pilots to practice the challenging limitations of development of situational picture using ANVISS night vision goggles. Link’s integrated product solution couples the image generation system, NVG sensor simulation, head tracking, NVG goggle displays and correlated databases to provide the answer to realistic NVG simulation.

    Other topics covered in this review:

    THe Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) simulator is designed to train and provide effective pre-mission rehearsal for JTAC officers. Photo: USAF

    Training the First Responders

    Deployment of sophisticated homeland security systems at the federal, state and even the municipal levels open new opportunities for simulation and training and simulation companies. “Our overall objective is to improve emergency management services for a community while offering improved job satisfaction for first responders,” said Marc Parent, CAE’s Group President, Simulation Products and Military Training & Services. Traditionally the EMS market has not been exposed to simulation for operations and training. “We plan to develop a range of simulation-based solutions that will support emergency management teams in planning, testing, training, and deploying for response operations.” said Parent.

    Training solutions are being fielded with first responders and at strategic levels of the homeland security hierarchy, aiming to improve the quality and effectiveness of decisions made at the various levels of command, and optimal use and prioritization of available resources. Among the companies demonstrating new simulators for homeland security, were CAE which announced its ‘Deploy’ training system, designed to assist decision-support with Emergency Management Service (EMS) organizations, facilitating faster, more effective deployment of first responders, such as police, fire departments, medical care, and NBCR to better respond to emergencies and improve public safety and security. The simulator integrates intelligent resource management, traffic prediction, and simulation-based visualization tools used for decision support. When integrated with existing operational systems, CAE Deploy offers real-time team positioning data and enhanced situational awareness. Using sophisticated scheduling, optimization and prediction models developed by Actenum Corporation, CAE Deploy will anticipate response times, monitor EMS team workloads and break periods, and help enhance coverage. CAE has worked closely with the EMS and first responder community to develop the CAE Deploy solution, which includes commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) simulation software from Presagis, CAE’s COTS software company.

    Alion also presented an Emergency Command System-Training and Exercising Tool (ECS-TET), supporting the Department of Homeland Security methodology for training and exercising emergency managers and other personnel at the county, state and national level. Northrop Grumman demonstrated its suite of training simulation, control, interface and visualization tools called ‘ The Emergency Preparedness Federation’ that offers comprehensive solutions to help planners, strategists, emergency responders and post-disaster recovery teams prepare for and handle emergency situations. It is executed with the company’s proprietary TouchTable, allowing collaborative control and enhancing after-action review.
    Elbit Systems introduced at I/ITSEC a new, multi-disciplinary simulation system designed for training first responders and emergency agencies. Elbit’s Home-Land Security Simulation (HLS2) presents trainees with a wide spectrum of scenarios, including hazardous materials events, rescue operations in massive-destruction situations, “mega-terror” and unconventional threat events, border and crossing controls, air and seaport security, strategic facility defense, accidents and natural disasters.

    By training in virtual environments that replicate actual occurrences, trainees practice different missions and arrive on duty with sharper operational skills.
    The simulation is based on a Synthetic Virtual Arena based on geo-specific urban environment. It recreates urban area terrain features such as streets, houses and electrical poles. It simulates urban traffic, with humans, vehicles, traffic lights and junctions. Also represented are realistic command, control and communications, elements, combined to create virtual replications of the operational arena and prepare trainees for real-life situations. The HLS2 incorporates a variety of advanced simulation models, including artificial intelligence human behavior, population movement and behavior characteristics.

    Other topics covered in this review:

    Populating the Virtual Worlds

    Rapid re-construction of complex urban environments presents a challenge, already addressed by an automated, urban scene-generating process, performed by specialized systems developers such as TerraSim, Inc. The company demonstrated its TerraTools terrain generation and visualization software at I/ITSEC, highlighting new capabilities made available through their new Core 3.5 release.

    Operating within the simulator’s synthetic environment are computer-generated Semi-Automatic forces (SAF), drawing their behavior characteristics and modes of operations from computerized libraries, such as SAIC’s OneSAF – a simulation development environment enabling users to develop training scenarios simulating combat; combat support; combat service support and C4ISR applications. Utilizing this tool kit, users can compose new entities, units, groups, behaviors and scenarios with little to no pre-programming. The system builds on SAIC’s Synthetic Environment Core (SE Core) – as a set of virtual components, common to multiple simulation systems, helping services to reduce redundancy, increase realism and interoperability, while lowering development costs, operation and support. Among the features provided by these components, are common services such as after-action reviews, command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) capabilities; scenario generation; and exercise management tools. The system also integrates with the U.S. Army’s OneSAF environment, providing enhancements, such as ultra-high-resolution buildings.

    Presagis AI.Implants artificial intelligence driven objects are populating the  virtual worlds simulating realistic urban environments. Image: Presagis


    These virtual landscapes can be ‘populated’ with objects such as vehicles and warfighters, partly controlled by the trainees and others, controlled by computer generated forces. These models must also be maintained as realistic and as close as possible to ‘real world’ systems. Most recently, an example is the introduction of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles, planned to replace many missions currently carried out by HMMWVs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Mission simulators, such as urban warfare trainers, convoy trainers must be modified to include the new vehicle, its typical performance and associated operational procedures. While the vehicle manufacturers are constructing the new vehicles, simulators are being updated with new 3D vehicle libraries created by MetaVR. These models depict the primary MRAP vehicles that have been committed to production as 3D entities for simulating counter IED activities, or route-clearance operations by Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) teams. The new vehicles are represented with their distinctive V-shaped hull, assisting deflection of mine or IED blast away from the vehicle’s interior. With their appropriate markings, accurate geometry, and damage states, the new models can be used in counter-IED training scenarios.

    Specializing in the development and presentation of adversary entities, SAIC’s RealTime Adversarial Intelligence and Decision Making (RAID) anticipates and represents enemy actions in tactical ground operations. The RAID program has developed key technologies and tools capable of producing in-execution running estimates and analysis of an enemy’s probable activity. A primary focus is on tactical urban operations against irregular combatants. RAID leverages novel, approximate game theoretic and deception-sensitive algorithms, to predict enemy actions, detect likely deceptions and provide tactical commanders with real-time enemy estimates. RAID also produces improvised explosive device (IED) threat regions and complex ambush estimates.

    Further increasing realism are virtual ‘entities’, employing complex behavior characteristics. Designers can create more realistic and compelling simulations in urban settings. AI.implant is advancing the state of visual simulation. AI.implant from Presagis provides visual authoring tools for the creation of computer-controlled characters, including humans and vehicles, These Artificial Intelligence (AI) based characters are used to ‘populate’ virtual environments in video games, simulations, and training applications. AI.implant enables these simulated characters to create sophisticated context specific decisions, to move in realistic fashion within their environment. The system enables users to designate the rules for motion and decision-making logic of the characters. It also creates an ‘AI world’ used for the character’s perception and path planning. The system is available as a plug-ins for Autodesk 3ds Max and Maya, as well as a stand alone application called the Artificial Intelligence Development Environment (AI.DE) for authoring and debugging for Windows, Linux, Xbox 360, and Playstation3 applications. These characters can represent civilians, friendly or hostile elements as well as complex and illusive ‘terrorist’ characters, which can assume ‘innocent’ or ‘hostile’ characteristics in complex asymmetric warfare scenarios.

    Elbit Systems unveiled artificial-intelligence controlled 'smart-entities' representing terrorist  teams. Image: Elbit Systems
    Characteristic of such new trends is Elbit Systems’ Smart Entities artificial intelligence-driven presentation of terrorist elements, unveiled at I/ITSEC 2007. These interactive, Terrorist Computer Generated Forces (TCGF) embedded into computer models implements decades of operational experience and research, conducted with Israel Ministry of Defense. “Smart Entities” incorporate a broad range of terror and urban warfare scenarios, providing Israel’s Defense Forces with a level of high fidelity training, presented as real as it gets. These models are based on Israel Defense Forces validated operational experience in counter-terror and insurgency warfare, as well as in-depth research, conducted with Israel’s Ministry of Defense on terrorist behavior, under low intensity conflict (LIC) and homeland security (HLS) scenarios. It is also an outcome of collaboration with professionals in cognitive Human Behavior Research & Modeling using unique AI technologies.

    Interacting with such ‘smart entities’, warfighters can utilize immersive displays, applying the new ExpeditionDI Un-Tethered, Man-Wearable Immersive Training (MWIT) Platform currently available from Quantum3D. This battery-powered, wearable simulation suite is equipped with multiple positional trackers and is powered by Quantum3D Thermite man-wearable Tactical Visual Computer, providing high-fidelity real-time graphics to eMagin’s Z800 3Divison. ExpeditionDI allows researchers and training system providers to integrate solutions with a wide variety of software, synthetic environments and toolsets, in order to evaluate new training technologies and deploy training systems for dismounted infantry and first responders.

    Fighting smart entities in an immersive virtual reality battlezone? Can it be more realistic than that? Strategic Operations, Inc. (St/Ops) is offering hyper-realistic training environments for military, law enforcement and other organizations responsible for homeland security, using state-of-the-art movie industry special effects, role players, techniques, training scenarios, facilities, mobile structures, sets, props, and equipment. St/Ops is part of Stu Segall Productions, a large independent TV/movie studio. Since most combat casualties are suffered by few, but highly critical errors, frequently caused already early in combat engagements, by less experienced personnel, new training systems are becoming imperative in preventing the notorious fratricide scourge, which haunts every combat commander. Strategic Operations, Inc. (St/Ops) is promoting its “hyper-realistic” training and rehearsing environment to practice combat before it actually happens. St/Ops realistically simulate the look, feel, smell, sounds, and effects of the battlefield in a high degree of fidelity in a training environment that participants willing suspend disbelief so as to emotionally (and physiologically measurably) become totally immersed and eventually stress inoculated.

    Other topics covered in this review:

    Training & Simulation technologies at I/ITSEC 2007

    Defense Update’s covers some of the latest trends and technologies at the Interservice, Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation & Education Conference (I/ITSEC) exhibition.

    Parallel to the development of defense technology, the military profession has become more complex. Besides mastering combat skills, soldiers must be qualified as computer operators, capable to rapidly learn and absorb complex new systems, such as new weapon, protective equipment, versatile radios, cameras, lasers, precision-guided weapons and targeting systems, remote controlled systems and complex command and control networks. Soldiers must be absolutely proficient with these systems, as even the smallest mistake could become devastating, making the difference between victory and defeat.

    US Navy pilots undergoing 'post flight' debriefing after a training flight in a Link F-18C simulator. Photo: LInk/L3

    Modern simulation and training systems are being integrated into the platforms and weapon systems, becoming part of routine operations and sharpening skills and performance, far beyond basic training, which still follows traditional guidelines. Such techniques were optimized for operators using synthetic environment for operation. There are many examples for such special trade applications, including signal and image intelligence analysts, mission payload operators, air defense specialists, air controllers, operators of unmanned aerial, ground or underwater vehicles, etc. Such ‘on the job’ training is embedded in their routine missions and integrated into operational consoles, providing fresh trainees and even seasoned operators with rapid, yet gradual introduction, to more complex tasks, viewed within their operational working environment. Warfighters and support personnel operating under active combat conditions, especially those engaging the enemy with direct fire, must rely on a ‘realistic combat presentation’ training environment, recreating terrain, friendly forces, simulated weapons and systems, enabling trainees to practice their individual, team and collective skills in realistic simulated combat drills.

    Limited by existing graphical engines and displays, basic simulators used sofar have supported specific tasks that could adequately and realistically represent real situations with limited details, such as aerial engagements. Examples for such applications were emergency procedures and weapon systems trainers for pilots, communications systems trainers, and tank gunnery simulators. More challenging requirements were met by much more complex flight simulators that could be afforded only by few air forces, to sharpen their fighter pilot’s skills.

    Lockheed martin's Close Combat Tactical Trainer – Reconfigurable Vehicle Simulator (CCTT-RVS) complements the traditional combined arms CCTT family with the representation of a wide variety of wheeled vehicles, including multiple variants of the High-Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) and Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT), all equipped with precision small arms simulators.   Phot: Lockheed MartinTo provide such capabilities, the military has recently begun using gaming technology with the idea that today’s soldiers are more apt to learn from and use the technologies driving today’s XBox and Playstation games. The advancement of games and availability of low-cost PC/graphics processors have evolved to the point of near parity with high-end imaging graphics systems used in high-end simulators, providing the armed forces with viable, effective and exciting video games-based training techniques, used for recruitment and training of specialist warfighters. Different goals and technical challenges are met by current simulators, developed for convoy-infantry trainers, designed specifically to instruct mounted and dismounted infantry fighting in asymmetric, mostly urban warfare. The new training objectives were beyond the capabilities offered by the closed architecture of existing systems. Furthermore, trainees are required to train on realistic urban models, involving detailed geographic representation of the area, where pathfinding and urban navigation can be drilled. Implementing realistic human behavior during riot control, as well as hostile individuals, in addition to correct representation of enemy tactics, techniques and procedures, is becoming top priority in modern asymmetric counter-insurgency operations.

    To provide such capabilities, the military has recently begun using gaming technology with the idea that today’s soldiers are more apt to learn from and use the technologies driving today’s XBox and Playstation games. The advancement of games and availability of low-cost PC/graphics processors have evolved to the point of near parity with high-end imaging graphics systems used in high-end simulators, providing the armed forces with viable, effective and exciting video games-based training techniques, used for recruitment and training of specialist warfighters. Different goals and technical challenges are met by current simulators, developed for convoy-infantry trainers, designed specifically to instruct mounted and dismounted infantry fighting in asymmetric, mostly urban warfare. The new training objectives were beyond the capabilities offered by the closed architecture of existing systems. Furthermore, trainees are required to train on realistic urban models, involving detailed geographic representation of the area, where pathfinding and urban navigation can be drilled. Implementing realistic human behavior during riot control, as well as hostile individuals, in addition to correct representation of enemy tactics, techniques and procedures, is becoming top priority in modern asymmetric counter-insurgency operations.

    Other topics covered in this review:

    IDF to Upgrade and Expand Hermes 450 UAV Fleet

    On top: Hermes 900. Above: Hermes 450. Photos: Elbit Systems

    Elbit Systems Ltd. (NASDAQ: ESLT) will supply the Israel defense Forces (IDF) with additional Hermes class UAVs and will upgrade existing Hermes 450 type UAVs currently in service. The company announced yesterday the receipt of a three year contract worth about $30 million system improvement program, which will enhance and expand the IDF’s existing Hermes 450 based platform. Earlier this year the IDF officially acknowledged that the Hermes 450 is operational with its UAV units for several years. During the recent war in Lebanon its UAVs flew many combat sorties providing ISR and combat support for air and ground operations.

    The Hermes 450 UAVs are operated by various military forces worldwide and are deployed in battlefields such as Iraq and Afghanistan to the full satisfaction of the customers. Since the first deployment of the Hermes 450, the aircraft was successfully marketed worldwide, and was selected by several international customers, including the UK and Singapore. Elbit recently introduced an enhanced version known as Hermes 450B, designed for the Watchkeeper program. This platform provides more robust airframe, increased payload capacity and extended endurance. In addition to the airframe enhancements, Elbit recently introduced more advanced ground control system which can simultaneously control multiple aircraft. Other improvements included enhanced automatic landing and takeoff capability and advanced mission equipment and payloads offering better performance.

    A larger platform known as Hermes 900 is currently in final development and is expected to undergo flight testing in the coming months. This aircraft will share the same infrastructure and systems of the Hermes 450. It is assumed that the IDF will eventually field the Hermes 900.

     

     

    Smart Parachutes

    A commando team of paratroopers is dropped at night from an altitude of 32,800 feet (10,000m) ready to take up position in an ordered group around a target 31 miles (50 km) away. A few seconds later, the aircraft proceeds to drop their all-terrain vehicles and equipment in a controlled manner. Suspended from rectangular parachutes equipped with an automatic guidance system, they land close to the troops. The commandos and their equipment reach the area exactly as planned and can start operations without delay.

    It may sound like science fiction, but this scenario is likely to become reality in the near future thanks to ParaFinder and ParaLander, two mission systems allowing paratroopers and their equipment to land with exceptional precision in time and space, even if dropped far away from their target from a high altitude of up to 10,000 meters. Forces using ParaFinder and ParaLander can intervene remotely from any airfields in zones lacking any handling and transport infrastructures. ParaLander can be used equally well for civil and humanitarian operations. The German army received the first ParaFinder systems in 2006, supplied under a €7.45million contract awarded in 2003.. Initial deliveried were destined to the special operations division (DSO), the Special Forces command (KSK) as well as units of paratroopers and naval frogmen.

    “A paratrooper using ParaFinder “is essentially equipped with all necessary flying instruments,” observes Jens Gönnemann, head of systems development and testing at EADS Defence & Security Systems. The first country to acquire this system, Germany, decided in the fall of 2003 to equip its special forces with it. ParaFinder and ParaLander. Using satellite based GPS navigation and automatic guidance and control, these autonomous precision aerial delivery systems could covertly guide men and materials precisely to predefined landing zone keeping the transport aircraft remote from this area, operating outside the reach of the enemy’s air defenses. The paratroopers and their loads are silent, have a small radar reflection and are virtually impossible to detect, especially at night. Utilizing the new navigation systems, insertion can be performed under all weather conditions, assuring soft, risk-free landing.

    ParaFinder has been designed around two components: the mission planning calculator and the navigation assistance unit. The calculator processes the main jump parameters such as wind direction as a function of altitude. “For the paratrooper, the navigation assistance unit takes the form of an interactive visor which guides him to his planned landing point,” adds Jens Gönnemann who has already jumped with the demonstration prototype. The ParaFinder and ParaLander concept will certainly find other applications, not just by virtue of its satellite navigation system. Infantrymen acting within a network-centric operations architecture may also benefit from the technologies developed for the two systems, particularly the interactive visor.

    The same architecture and mission planner is used to deploy light, medium or heavy loads ranging from 2,200 to 13,000 lbs (1 to 6 ton) with the ParaLander. The system entered operational use with eth German Army in 2006.


    Time to Call Ahmadinejad’s Provocative Bluff

    A year ago, Iran inaugurated its experimental uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. This facility is an underground site that, according to Iranian claims, houses 3,000 centrifuges. According to Israeli intelligence sources and foreign reports, Iran has encountered technical difficulties in connecting the centrifuges and operating them at high speed – which is imperative in order for the uranium enrichment procedure.

    Natanz is a small quite tranquil mountain town located forty-nine miles from Kashan, famed for its bracing climate and fruit orchards. Vulture Mountain looms over the town, and local residents point in its direction telling how the troops of Alexander killed the Achaemenian King, Darius III, nearby. Many small shrines dot the mountain side like the Shrine of Abdas-Samad as shown below. The elements in the present complex date from 1304 with subsequent additions and restorations. The lofty minaret is dated 1325. The pyramidal roof is over the tomb of the Shaykh which is dated 1307. But near Natanz also exists one of the more dangerous places in the world, where in deep underground bunkers, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s nuclear scientists are at hard work to try and produce the Islamic doomsday weapon- Iran’s prestigious Shi’ite nuclear bomb. But how far is this frightening project really on its way to threaten world peace and especially Israel- which Ahmadinejad already officially targeted for extinction?


    Sofar, world attention has focused on Iran’s uranium enrichment program. This process is far from being simplistic affair. Basic uranium enrichment involves increasing the concentration of fissile U-235 found in uranium, which must be enriched to about 3.5 percent for a controlled nuclear reaction, however weapons-grade uranium requires enrichment to over 90%. The entire process requires passing uranium through a series of centrifuges, which are 1.8cm-high spinning tubes creating centrifugal force separating the different uranium isotopes. By connecting 164 of the centrifuge machines together in a cascade, the gas is successively enriched in several individual stages, providing the basic module for an enrichment facility.

    In early April 2006, Iran proudly announced that it had mastered the uranium enrichment process. By January 2007, Iranian scientists boasted their achievement claiming they came twice as fast as foreign analysts had predicted. Alas in their haste and almost reckless hurry proving this, the Iranians had skipped many of the intermediate testing steps. Bearing in mind that assembling 2,952 centrifuges (18 cascades) and getting them working together smoothly, would have taken some time – (experts estimate at least three years) which would include performing all the diagnostic, calibration and sustainability testing stages, each being a highly complex and sensitive process, it seems that Iran may have skipped these over, severely degrading this highly sensitive process.

    Thus, not surprisingly, western intelligence sources reported on a series of mysterious malfunctions at Natanz apparently resulting from the supply of flawed components, probably purchased wholesale on the notorious A.Q. Khan’s black market. Some of these actually exploded upon their installation. At the time, there was no evidence that Iran was capable of mass producing its own nuclear-related components and thus was frantically searching suitable material on the world market. Since, they may have made some progress, but it seems highly likely that, due to more stringent sanctions enforced recently, the Iranians themselves might not know how well their domestically produced components will actually function and what technical problems they may still encounter in their attempt to produce a military grade nuclear device. The simple fact remains that in order to build a nuclear bomb, Iran needs to run its centrifuges continuously. But according to intelligence estimates, it seems that the Natanz centrifuges were running at best only 20% of the time!


    Ahmadinejad’s repeated triumphant and provocative claim that Iran has joined the club of nuclear nations must be taken seriously, but at the same time be examined cautiously – based on known and estimated factual and realistic assessments.
    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad felt it necessary to claim, during his last year’s visit to the new underground Natanz enrichment facility that the Islamic Republic was already capable of uranium enrichment on an “industrial scale”, which being in direct contravention of United Nations resolutions, could be taken as an attempt to bluff the West.

    That such claims should be treated as highly suspicious, warned an Israeli disarmament expert, Dr Emily Landau from the Institute for National Security Studies, quote: “I don’t think that it is really indicative of Iran being at that point of no return or a technical threshold where it can go it alone and start industrial-scale production.”
    Israeli intelligence officials have cast great doubt on the veracity of Ahmadinejad’s repeated claims, but one should certainly not underestimate Iran’s technical skill. Nevertheless, a leading Israeli analyst, Gerald Steinberg Professor of Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University is more outspoken on this issue: “Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime are bluffing,” the professor claimed recently, “Iran is indeed advancing, all the time, in its uranium enrichment project, but even once the centrifuges work as they should it would take a long time to produce the material needed for a nuclear bomb”. In fact other analysts argue that Ahmadinejad’s latest boast is more likely to be read as a political tactic than a statement of Iran’s technological capability.

    President Ahmadinejad might still remain confident of continued backing from Russia, following Vladimir Putin’s recent “blitz” visit to Tehran, but his confidence could shatter, if a new understanding between Moscow and Washington, will erase the pending tension over Bush’s determination deploying his missile defense on Putin’s doorstep. Then an Iranian bomb threat could very much become Moscow’s nightmare, just like everybody else’s concern. The newly developing alliance between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and George W Bush, joining the Anglo-US anti-Iranian entity – could substantially encourage the hesitating anti-Shi’ite Crescent, led by Saudi Arabia and other moderate Sunni nations-all deeply concerned by the Shi’ite bomb threat from Tehran. No doubt that Ahmadinejad, who might be seen, superficially as a rhetoric madman, but is no fool – may already be losing some sleep over the newly developing trend, which is already shaping up by his Sunni adversaries. If pressure will be building up in New York’s UN Headquarters and Russia takes another direction- the Peoples Republic of China, might also take another step in blocking Iran’s nuclear ambition, perhaps before it is too late to avert another military conflict, with its inevitable global repercussions.

    But there is another angle to Ahmadinejad’s reckless bravado rhetoric: With the Iranian economy tottering and growing criticism within senior circles in Teheran on his reckless diplomatic conduct, Ahmadinejad’s grip on power seems far from firm.
    Mr Ali Larijani unexpected resignation from the dominant position of Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator and the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and a personal friend of Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, left the Iranian political system in a state of shock. Several important politicians, including Ahmad Tavkoli, the head of Majles’ Research Center, and Mohsen Rezaie, the Expediency Council’s secretary, have already expressed their concern and unease about Larijani’s resignation as well as his replacement by a novice, Saeed Jalili, Ahmadinejad’s close associate. This latest move has already raised questions regarding Ayatollah Khamenei’s sofar undisputed control over the nuclear file which could well unsettle the already shaking domestic political scene.

    There are already rumors in Tehran over growing uneasiness among political heavyweights, led by Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, joined by Mohammed Khatami, Hojjat ol-Eslam Mehdi Karroubi and now Ali Larijani. Analysts believe that it may still be too early to predict an upsurge of Ahmadinejad’s regime, at least as long as his former mentor Khamenei decides to support him. But even the Grand Ayatollah may already be losing his patience with his younger protégé, who may well be viewed as wielding too much ambition for total power, in the still clerical-dominated establishment. Another outspoken opponent of Ahmadinejad is Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, an architect of the 1979 Islamic Khomeni revolution, who recently criticized the president’s handling of Iran’s nuclear policy- warning that in order to avoid a catastrophe; the nuclear issue should be resolved through direct negotiation with Washington.

    Meanwhile in Israel in a briefing to the Knesset’s Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee Tuesday, Brigadier General Yossi Baidatz, head of research at Military Intelligence, updated senior government officials on the strength of Israel’s foes. According to press reports, the brigadier-general indicated that Iran’s current regime is not in actual danger of collapsing and may even go nuclear by the end of 2009. However this doomsday prophesy is disputed by other intelligence assessments, which consider several more years for Iran’s nuclear weapons operational capability to extend for at least into the next decade.

    Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Alternatives

    General Baidatz’s comments may have been directed at secret information, indicating that Iran is engaged in secret production of plutonium for nuclear weapons as well as radioactive materials for a “dirty bomb”, in parallel to its uranium enrichment projects. Sources indicate that Israeli intelligence has monitored this dangerous trend for over three years. Israeli intelligence sources reported that these developments could throw new light on the role of the Iranian heavy water plant at Arak, whose capacity to produce plutonium places it at the center of Iran’s alternative nuclear program. Intelligence reports indicating Iran’s efforts to buy a large heavy-water reactor had already set off alarm bells. It is well known that when adequately reprocessed, fuel rods irradiated in such reactors could yield high-quality, weapons-grade plutonium. Experts estimate that when the Arak reactor is completed, which the Iranians say could happen as early as 2009, it will be capable of producing enough plutonium for about two bombs a year. This could well be what the Israeli officer hinted at.

    While the nuclear threat from Tehran must be taken with utmost caution and strategic foresight, certainly not all in Israel are overmuch concerned by Ahmadinejad’s provocative bravado speeches.

    Professor Martin van Crevelt, one of Israel’s most prominent military historians, claims that Ahmadinejad’s fulminations should not be taken too seriously, as the Islamic Republic will not even be an existential threat to Israel. The latter has long had what it needs to deter an Iranian attack. But should deterrence fail, van Crevelt warns, “Jerusalem can quickly turn Tehran into a radioactive desert – a fact of which Iranians are fully aware“. Efraim Halevi former Mossad chief and Israel’s National Security Committee also stated categorically that “Israel cannot be destroyed for many reasons, some of which are known and others you can presume“, stressing that “There is a chance that something serious will happen here, but I tend to say the following when I am abroad: Israel cannot be destroyed. If you do not believe this, then don’t, but I suggest that you do not try it.” In other words – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be warned against taking his sofar rhetorical bravado, into action-one step too far.

    For further reading we recommend:

    Defense Update Analysis December 2006:

    Defense Update Analysis Sept. 14, 2007:

    Time to Call Ahmadinejad’s Provocative Bluff

    A year ago, Iran inaugurated its experimental uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. This facility is an underground site that, according to Iranian claims, houses 3,000 centrifuges. According to Israeli intelligence sources and foreign reports, Iran has encountered technical difficulties in connecting the centrifuges and operating them at high speed – which is imperative in order for the uranium enrichment procedure.

    Natanz is a small quite tranquil mountain town located forty-nine miles from Kashan, famed for its bracing climate and fruit orchards. Vulture Mountain looms over the town, and local residents point in its direction telling how the troops of Alexander killed the Achaemenian King, Darius III, nearby. Many small shrines dot the mountain side like the Shrine of Abdas-Samad as shown below. The elements in the present complex date from 1304 with subsequent additions and restorations. The lofty minaret is dated 1325. The pyramidal roof is over the tomb of the Shaykh which is dated 1307. But near Natanz also exists one of the more dangerous places in the world, where in deep underground bunkers, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s nuclear scientists are at hard work to try and produce the Islamic doomsday weapon- Iran’s prestigious Shi’ite nuclear bomb. But how far is this frightening project really on its way to threaten world peace and especially Israel- which Ahmadinejad already officially targeted for extinction?


    Sofar, world attention has focused on Iran’s uranium enrichment program. This process is far from being simplistic affair. Basic uranium enrichment involves increasing the concentration of fissile U-235 found in uranium, which must be enriched to about 3.5 percent for a controlled nuclear reaction, however weapons-grade uranium requires enrichment to over 90%. The entire process requires passing uranium through a series of centrifuges, which are 1.8cm-high spinning tubes creating centrifugal force separating the different uranium isotopes. By connecting 164 of the centrifuge machines together in a cascade, the gas is successively enriched in several individual stages, providing the basic module for an enrichment facility.

    In early April 2006, Iran proudly announced that it had mastered the uranium enrichment process. By January 2007, Iranian scientists boasted their achievement claiming they came twice as fast as foreign analysts had predicted. Alas in their haste and almost reckless hurry proving this, the Iranians had skipped many of the intermediate testing steps. Bearing in mind that assembling 2,952 centrifuges (18 cascades) and getting them working together smoothly, would have taken some time – (experts estimate at least three years) which would include performing all the diagnostic, calibration and sustainability testing stages, each being a highly complex and sensitive process, it seems that Iran may have skipped these over, severely degrading this highly sensitive process.

    Thus, not surprisingly, western intelligence sources reported on a series of mysterious malfunctions at Natanz apparently resulting from the supply of flawed components, probably purchased wholesale on the notorious A.Q. Khan’s black market. Some of these actually exploded upon their installation. At the time, there was no evidence that Iran was capable of mass producing its own nuclear-related components and thus was frantically searching suitable material on the world market. Since, they may have made some progress, but it seems highly likely that, due to more stringent sanctions enforced recently, the Iranians themselves might not know how well their domestically produced components will actually function and what technical problems they may still encounter in their attempt to produce a military grade nuclear device. The simple fact remains that in order to build a nuclear bomb, Iran needs to run its centrifuges continuously. But according to intelligence estimates, it seems that the Natanz centrifuges were running at best only 20% of the time!


    Ahmadinejad’s repeated triumphant and provocative claim that Iran has joined the club of nuclear nations must be taken seriously, but at the same time be examined cautiously – based on known and estimated factual and realistic assessments.
    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad felt it necessary to claim, during his last year’s visit to the new underground Natanz enrichment facility that the Islamic Republic was already capable of uranium enrichment on an “industrial scale”, which being in direct contravention of United Nations resolutions, could be taken as an attempt to bluff the West.

    That such claims should be treated as highly suspicious, warned an Israeli disarmament expert, Dr Emily Landau from the Institute for National Security Studies, quote: “I don’t think that it is really indicative of Iran being at that point of no return or a technical threshold where it can go it alone and start industrial-scale production.”
    Israeli intelligence officials have cast great doubt on the veracity of Ahmadinejad’s repeated claims, but one should certainly not underestimate Iran’s technical skill. Nevertheless, a leading Israeli analyst, Gerald Steinberg Professor of Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University is more outspoken on this issue: “Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime are bluffing,” the professor claimed recently, “Iran is indeed advancing, all the time, in its uranium enrichment project, but even once the centrifuges work as they should it would take a long time to produce the material needed for a nuclear bomb”. In fact other analysts argue that Ahmadinejad’s latest boast is more likely to be read as a political tactic than a statement of Iran’s technological capability.

    President Ahmadinejad might still remain confident of continued backing from Russia, following Vladimir Putin’s recent “blitz” visit to Tehran, but his confidence could shatter, if a new understanding between Moscow and Washington, will erase the pending tension over Bush’s determination deploying his missile defense on Putin’s doorstep. Then an Iranian bomb threat could very much become Moscow’s nightmare, just like everybody else’s concern. The newly developing alliance between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and George W Bush, joining the Anglo-US anti-Iranian entity – could substantially encourage the hesitating anti-Shi’ite Crescent, led by Saudi Arabia and other moderate Sunni nations-all deeply concerned by the Shi’ite bomb threat from Tehran. No doubt that Ahmadinejad, who might be seen, superficially as a rhetoric madman, but is no fool – may already be losing some sleep over the newly developing trend, which is already shaping up by his Sunni adversaries. If pressure will be building up in New York’s UN Headquarters and Russia takes another direction- the Peoples Republic of China, might also take another step in blocking Iran’s nuclear ambition, perhaps before it is too late to avert another military conflict, with its inevitable global repercussions.

    But there is another angle to Ahmadinejad’s reckless bravado rhetoric: With the Iranian economy tottering and growing criticism within senior circles in Teheran on his reckless diplomatic conduct, Ahmadinejad’s grip on power seems far from firm.
    Mr Ali Larijani unexpected resignation from the dominant position of Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator and the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and a personal friend of Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, left the Iranian political system in a state of shock. Several important politicians, including Ahmad Tavkoli, the head of Majles’ Research Center, and Mohsen Rezaie, the Expediency Council’s secretary, have already expressed their concern and unease about Larijani’s resignation as well as his replacement by a novice, Saeed Jalili, Ahmadinejad’s close associate. This latest move has already raised questions regarding Ayatollah Khamenei’s sofar undisputed control over the nuclear file which could well unsettle the already shaking domestic political scene.

    There are already rumors in Tehran over growing uneasiness among political heavyweights, led by Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, joined by Mohammed Khatami, Hojjat ol-Eslam Mehdi Karroubi and now Ali Larijani. Analysts believe that it may still be too early to predict an upsurge of Ahmadinejad’s regime, at least as long as his former mentor Khamenei decides to support him. But even the Grand Ayatollah may already be losing his patience with his younger protégé, who may well be viewed as wielding too much ambition for total power, in the still clerical-dominated establishment. Another outspoken opponent of Ahmadinejad is Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, an architect of the 1979 Islamic Khomeni revolution, who recently criticized the president’s handling of Iran’s nuclear policy- warning that in order to avoid a catastrophe; the nuclear issue should be resolved through direct negotiation with Washington.

    Meanwhile in Israel in a briefing to the Knesset’s Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee Tuesday, Brigadier General Yossi Baidatz, head of research at Military Intelligence, updated senior government officials on the strength of Israel’s foes. According to press reports, the brigadier-general indicated that Iran’s current regime is not in actual danger of collapsing and may even go nuclear by the end of 2009. However this doomsday prophesy is disputed by other intelligence assessments, which consider several more years for Iran’s nuclear weapons operational capability to extend for at least into the next decade.

    Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Alternatives

    General Baidatz’s comments may have been directed at secret information, indicating that Iran is engaged in secret production of plutonium for nuclear weapons as well as radioactive materials for a “dirty bomb”, in parallel to its uranium enrichment projects. Sources indicate that Israeli intelligence has monitored this dangerous trend for over three years. Israeli intelligence sources reported that these developments could throw new light on the role of the Iranian heavy water plant at Arak, whose capacity to produce plutonium places it at the center of Iran’s alternative nuclear program. Intelligence reports indicating Iran’s efforts to buy a large heavy-water reactor had already set off alarm bells. It is well known that when adequately reprocessed, fuel rods irradiated in such reactors could yield high-quality, weapons-grade plutonium. Experts estimate that when the Arak reactor is completed, which the Iranians say could happen as early as 2009, it will be capable of producing enough plutonium for about two bombs a year. This could well be what the Israeli officer hinted at.

    While the nuclear threat from Tehran must be taken with utmost caution and strategic foresight, certainly not all in Israel are overmuch concerned by Ahmadinejad’s provocative bravado speeches.

    Professor Martin van Crevelt, one of Israel’s most prominent military historians, claims that Ahmadinejad’s fulminations should not be taken too seriously, as the Islamic Republic will not even be an existential threat to Israel. The latter has long had what it needs to deter an Iranian attack. But should deterrence fail, van Crevelt warns, “Jerusalem can quickly turn Tehran into a radioactive desert – a fact of which Iranians are fully aware“. Efraim Halevi former Mossad chief and Israel’s National Security Committee also stated categorically that “Israel cannot be destroyed for many reasons, some of which are known and others you can presume“, stressing that “There is a chance that something serious will happen here, but I tend to say the following when I am abroad: Israel cannot be destroyed. If you do not believe this, then don’t, but I suggest that you do not try it.” In other words – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be warned against taking his sofar rhetorical bravado, into action-one step too far.

    For further reading we recommend:

    Defense Update Analysis December 2006:

    Defense Update Analysis Sept. 14, 2007:

    Reapers Gather in the Afghan Sky

    Poland is considering replacing its Su-22 strike fighters with armed UAVs.

    Since September 2007 Sky Warrior and MQ-9 Reaper weaponized UAVs began flying combat sorties in support of coalition forces operations in Afghanistan. Currently, the USAF 42nd UAV attack squadron and US Army 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade are flying the armed UAVs while RAF No 39 squadron fly unarmed ISR missions in support of coalition forces in theater.

    The first of three British Royal Air Force (RAF) Reapers arrived in Afghanistan in early October and has since made several flights in theater. These unmanned aircraft were acquired by Britain from General Atomics to meet an urgent operational requirement for set by the Royal Air Force (RAF) for all-weather, persistent Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) capability 24 hours a day over a wide geographical spread.

    A fully armed MQ-9 Reaper taxis down an Afghanistan runway Nov. 4. The Reaper has flown 49 combat sorties since it first began operating in Afghanistan Sept. 25. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Brian Ferguson)

    Unlike the USAF Reapers, used as ‘hunter killer’ platforms, loaded with guided bombs and Hellfire missiles, the RAF Reaper UAVs are currently unarmed but the RAF is planning to fly armed missions as soon as by 2007 year’s end.

    The primary mission of USAF Reapers is as a persistent hunter-killer against emerging targets in support of joint force commander objectives. The MQ-9’s secondary mission is to act as an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance asset, employing sensors to provide real-time data to commanders and intelligence specialists at all levels. The aircraft was engaged in combat for the first time on October 27, 2007, targeting enemy combatants in Deh Rawod with a hellfire missile. The strike was reported as successful.

    Lt. Gen. Gary North, commander of U.S. Central Command Air Forces, who said the Reaper was a perfect complement to the Air Force’s existing manned airborne platforms. He added that he expects the Reaper to bring a significant impact to military operations throughout the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility. “The enemy knows we track them and they know that if and when they commit acts against their people and government, we will take action against them.”

    Army Maj. Gen. David Rodriguez (right), 82nd Airborne Division commander, with Army Col. Kelly Thomas (second from right), 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade commander, recognizes members from the control team for the Sky Warrior-A unmanned aircraft system. Task Force Charger, the team that falls under 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, is responsible for missions conducted using the Sky Warrior-A, an Army unmanned aircraft, from Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan. Photo by Spc. Aubree Rundle, USA  The USAF Reaper are operational in Afghanistan since September 2007 averaging about one sortie per day. As practiced with Predator As, Reapers are operated by the 42nd Attack Squadron based at Creech AFB, Nev., with pilots and weapon systems operators seated in Nevada, controlling the aircraft remotely over Afghanistan. Meanwhile, beginning September 2007, the US Army has also deployed the first Sky Warrior to Afghanistan. The aircraft designated Sky Warrior-A are assigned to the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade ‘Task Force Charger’, responsible for operating the UAVs on operations throughout the theater.

    Unlike the Air Force’s remote operation concept, the Army operates its Sky Warriors from facilities in theater, claiming better responsiveness and coordination with ground operations. However, the US Army and Air Force are in disagreement about who will be controlling these UAVs in theater.

    The RAF’s participation in the joint US/UK Combined Predator Task Force gave them a unique insight into the USAF (US Air Force) Predator A operations, which allowed a seamless transition to the RAF’s use of Reaper, the UK variant of Predator B.

    Training for pilots and sensor operators is provided by the USAF, building on the experience of No 1115 Flight operating Predator A. This squadron was formed in 2004 and was embedded with the USAF since its establishment operating Predator A. No 1115 will continue to operate Predator As, while administratively becoming part of No 39 Squadron – predominantly an RAF unit, the squadron also have Army and Navy personnel working in a number of functional areas.

    The aircraft is flown on operational and training missions, providing capability assessment and doctrine development. The RAF expects steady build up to a full UK capability as more experience is gathered.

    Rafale F1 / Rafale M Dassault’s Omnirole Fighter

    Responding to operational demands, Dassault is not lagging behind – the company announced plans to extend the capabilities and roles of the Rafale ‘omnirole’ fighter and In 2007, following an accelerated integration of some weapons, the first multi-role Rafales were sent to Afghanistan where they demonstrated high mission availability and impressive combat capability. Another major milestone was passed recently with the official award of Active Electronic Active Array (AESA) radar development by the Ministry of Defense.

    The RBE2 AESA radar will improve the aircraft performance and make it more appealing on the export market. The RBE2 variant will be fully compatible, in terms of detection range, with the new Meteor beyond-visual-range (BVR) missile currently under development for several European air forces. Except of the AESA radar, Rafale will also receive a new missile launch detector and an optronic search and track (IRST), improving target detection and identification performance while maintaining low observability and minimum emission by radar. These systems will become operational with Rafale aircraft delivered to the French Air Force and French Navy beginning 2012.

     

    Beginning in March 2007, French Rafale fighters operated from the French Navy aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle’ and from the Dushanbe airbase in Tadzhikistan, in support of NATO operations in Afghanistan. The operation necessitated some ad-hoc adaptations of the air-defense fighters, preparing them for the ground support role. To meet this requirement, Dassault Aviation integrated two versions of 500 lbs (250kg class) guided weapons – the GBU-12 and GBU-22 laser guided bombs. The flight envelope expansion including fifteen firing trials were conducted in less than three months, clearing the aircraft for precision strike role in early March 2007. Each aircraft was cleared to carry a total of six GBU-12 or GBU-22 bombs. By the end of March 2007, a total force of 15 aircraft were deployed to the theatre, comprising of nine F1 Rafale air-defense fighters, flying combat air patrols in support of the Charles de Gaulle’s carrier air group while the modified Navy Rafales were committed to precision strike, ground support role.

    The first GBU-12s were dropped on 28 March 2007 in support of Dutch troops. Two days later, Air Force Rafales, operating from Tadzhikistan were also engaged against enemy forces. According to French records, throughout the deployment the Rafales were 100% mission ready, demonstrating excellent availability and support.

    As of late 2009 Rafales are being proposed to India (126), Brazil (36), UAE (60) and Libya with potential prospects luming in Greece. The aircraft failed prospective sales to Singapore and Morocco.

    Egypt Going Nuclear – More than Meets the Eye?

    Last Monday, 79 year-old Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak announced his readiness to begin a national nuclear program, but carefully emphasizing it would invoke the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency watchdog and “international partners”, when describing his plans for “several” nuclear power stations.
    “We believe that energy security is a major part of building the future for this country and an integral part of Egypt’s national security system,” said Mubarak, adding that the civil program would work “within a framework of transparency and respect of commitments to the nuclear non-proliferation system.”

    Strangely, Israeli media was noticeably quiet next day and the following, even after Mubarak announced his plan to build nuclear power plants – a proposal heralded in the Egyptian press as a major national project. Nor was there any comment from official sources in Jerusalem. Analysts believe that a new pattern is shaping in Sunni Arab nations, expressing growing interest in so-called nuclear programs, allegedly for “peaceful requirements” due to the spiraling oil prices, but the main focus seems to be Shi’ite Iran’s determined nuclear weapons ambition, which is already haunting Sunni Arab nations in the Middle East and not only in this region itself.

    Egyptian President Hosni MubarakPresident Mubarak’s announcement just one week before his National Democratic Party’s conference is regarded as no surprising coincidence. Used as a means to bolster the president’s flagging popularity, since the Moslem Brotherhood managed to strengthen its power in Parliament (thanks to President George W Bush’s catastrophic “democratization” policy), Mubarak needs everything in the book to strengthen his image in the eyes of his public. There can be no better way to achieve this by a dramatic declaration on such a highly prestigious national project. That this issue is very much ‘en vogue’ these days in Cairo seems to stem from Mubarak’s son Gamal’s call last September revealing plans for an Egyptian nuclear program – a call that reversed a policy by shelving such plans as a result of the 1986 Chernobyl accident. Incidentally, Gamal Mubarak’s 2006 speech also took place around the time of the party’s convention.

    While Israel should of course be carefully monitoring these developments, but publicly is saying nothing, a nagging thought must be bothering the Israeli intelligence community, what could happen to Egypt’s new nuclear technology if, for instance, Islamic radicals took power or, if the 1969 Peace Agreement should then be cancelled under much different strategic circumstances? Being an issue of real concern, but certainly not one which is being discussed publicly by Israeli decision-makers it remains, this certainly remains a big question mark!

    A view of the Egyptian reactor facility at Inchas.

    Egypt’s Budding Nuclear Program – a Continuing Dilemma

    In March 2004, US and British intelligence officials reported on evidence found that Libya traded nuclear and missile expertise with Egypt. It appeared that Egypt could been using Libya as a way-station for obtaining nuclear and missile technology and components from North Korea. Earlier, in 2002, Egypt denied US allegations that Cairo was conducting secret missile and WMD trade with Libya. The allegations were based on CIA satellite photographs.

    In January 2005, the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, warned the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, that there were indications on several Middle East states other than Iran – including Egypt and Syria – working at varying stages in development of indigenous nuclear programs.

    Days after, former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy expressed fears that Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia might have acquired some kind of nuclear capability via an illicit weapons trafficking network run by Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, the chief architect of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb. Israeli military sources recently told The Jerusalem Post that, thanks to Khan, one of those three Arab states now has the potential to achieve a “significant nuclear leap.”

    Since the early Eighties, Egypt is the annual recipient of about $2 billion in aid from the U.S. foreign assistance program, and this year the Bush administration has agreed to increase the amount to $2.3 billion. The United States had expressed concern about reports that Egypt has a secret uranium research program and said it supports further investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Indeed, the UN nuclear agency also claimed in its recent report, that Egypt might have conducted secret nuclear experiments in violation of international non-proliferation treaties.

    Egypt previously had obtained technology directly from Pyongyang, intelligence officials said, but the U.S. blocked a shipment of missiles in 2001. Nevertheless, the House subcommittee on terrorism learned a year later Egypt received 24 No-Dong missile engines from North Korea. These reports emerged following the dramatic changes in Libya’s strategy, when Muammar Qaddafi allowed western experts to visit his secret weapons locations. When experts from the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) came upon blueprints for a 10-kiloton atomic bomb in the files of the Libyan weapons program earlier this year, they also discovered some disturbing documents, pertaining to sofar suspected, but not proven intelligence rumors. The documents also confirmed U.S. suspicions of secret trade between Cairo and Tripoli in strategic weapons obtained from North Korea.

    On the evidence found the experts gained new appreciation on the audacity of the rogue nuclear network led by the notorious Pakistani nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan. Intelligence officials had watched Dr. Khan for years and suspected that he was trafficking in machinery for enriching uranium to make fuel for warheads. But the detailed design represented a new level of danger, particularly since the Libyans disclosed that he sold them $100 million worth of nuclear gear. Among documents seized in Libya, Investigators learned, that Dr Khan had traveled extensively throughout the Middle East and among others, secretly visited Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, on what they believed were business trips, either to buy materials like uranium ore or even sell atomic goods.

    American intelligence officials had Dr. Khan under surveillance for nearly three decades, since he began assembling components for Pakistan’s bomb, but apparently missed some of his crucial transactions and secret negotiations in the Middle East.
    The Libyan findings further cooled the already straining relations between Washington and the United Nations atomic agency and its director general, Mohamed El-Baradei, whom they are trying to replace this year.

    Ever since Egypt first came to perceive Israel as having launched a nuclear program, and later (some time in the early 1970s) as having most likely crossed the nuclear threshold, Egypt has been struggling to come to terms with the regional implications of this development.

    Dominating Egypt’s efforts over the past decades is its pursuit of an intense and ongoing diplomatic process to bring Israel to sign the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and place its nuclear facilities under the IAEA safeguard regime. Egypt’s own nuclear program is a delicate balance of championing nuclear nonproliferation in the Middle East, developing civilian nuclear industry to address its economic and electricity needs, while at the same time seeking some guarantee of security against the Israeli nuclear threat.

    A view inside the Egyptian reactor at Inchas.At the center of Egypt’s nuclear program is the Inshas Nuclear Research Center in Cairo. Inshas hosts a 2-megawatt, Soviet-supplied research reactor that started in 1961 and runs on ten-percent-enriched uranium fuel. The reactor was shut down for renovation during the 1980s, but started up again in 1990. In 1992, Egypt had signed a contract with Invap, Argentina’s leading nuclear organization, to build a 22-megawatt research reactor at Inshas. According to statements by an official at Argentina’s embassy in Washington, DC, construction began in March 1993.

    Egypt’s Nuclear Materials Authority has directed uranium exploration to concentrate on four areas in the eastern desert: Gabal Gattar, El Missikat, El Erediya and Um Ara. A new uranium-bearing area, Gabal Kadabora, has been discovered in the central eastern desert and is now under evaluation. Egypt has not in the past and does not presently appear to be aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons, however a recent increase in calls by military officers, government officials, and scholars to develop an Arab deterrent to Israel signals a growing frustration with what it perceives to be the international community’s double standard regarding nuclear proliferation in the region.

    Statements made by high-level Egyptian officials and various media reports overwhelmingly target Israel as Egypt’s major concern in the nuclear realm. Embedded in these latest statements, however, are clear hints of Egypt’s broader regional considerations, which make its agenda on nuclear issues more varied and complex. Egypt is particularly concerned how nuclear development and potential proliferators in the Middle East impact on its own regional prominence.

    Looking at what has happened more recently with India and Pakistan since they became declared nuclear states, Egypt could conclude that the implications of going nuclear might not be that serious, especially in light of American-Pakistani cooperation since September 11. In this context, Egypt will most likely be very interested in U.S. policy toward North Korea and dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

    The Egyptian leadership has not closed the door on the atomic option altogether. The most prominent of these came from President Hosni Mubarak. In an interview with the London Arabic-language daily Al-Hayat in early October 1998, Mubarak said: “We do not think now of entering the nuclear club because we do not want war… We are not in a hurry. We have a nuclear reactor at Inshas, and we have very capable experts. If the time comes when we need nuclear weapons, we will not hesitate”.

    Cheetah 4×4 Highly Protected Medium Vehicles

    Cheetah, developed by Force protection Inc. is a 4×4 light armored protected vehicle designed for reconnaissance, forward command and control and urban operations. The vehicle uses a monocoque V shaped hull, external lightweight armor, internal spall liners and blast mitigation materials are used to protect the crew and vehicle from explosion by heavy mines under the vehicle or wheels (7.5 – 15 kg of TNT explosives).

    It also protects against roadside improvised explosive devices (RSIED). The basic vehicle is bulletproof against 7.62/51 cal. gunfire. The armor is upgradable to protect against larger calibers, including 0.50 Cal AP. Cheetah has a curb weight, (with basic armor) of 14,000 pounds, allowing for 10,000 pounds of payload. Its weight and dimensions allow for two vehicles to be air-transported inside a single C-130 Hercules. The vehicle is powered by a Cummins ISB series 300 HP engine running at 2800 rpm, accelerating the vehicle to 50 Mph in 13.5 seconds. At cruising speed of 65 Mph the vehicle can travel for 700 miles without refueling.

    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...