Friday, December 19, 2025
More
    Home Blog Page 348

    Is Washington Losing the Gulf to Moscow?

    With only hours to spare, the US organizers of the Middle East conference opening in Annapolis last Tuesday decided to make the best of a forlorn event by switching its key motive, from the intractable Israeli-Palestinian dispute to Iran – and its multiple threats to the Middle East. President Bush and Secretary Rice hoped to form a united Arab front against Ahmadinejad’s Iran. But as it soon turned out, this endeavor will be a daunting task in view of at least two obstacles: King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia no longer seems to recognize the US as the single dominant political and military force in the Persian Gulf; and Syrian participation – albeit at the low level of deputy foreign minister, was hardly a convincing indication, that Damascus was considering a drastic change from its strategic link with Tehran. The first alarm bell announcing that not much has changed sounded only hours after the distinguished Annapolis guests left for their capitals with grave doubts over its sobering outcome.

    In Annapolis, while Bush, Abbas and Olmert were still basking in the sunlight of illusory expectations, Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal and Syrian deputy foreign minister Faisal Mekdad were quietly finalizing a deal over Lebanon – kept secret from the US President, who was fully engaged with the Israeli-Palestinians peace process. Bush and Rice, by inviting Syria to the Annapolis, indeed exceptional, over Washington’s persistent refusals, had intended to buy Damascus off from installing another pro-Syrian puppet candidate into Beirut’s Ba’abda presidential palace. Unfortunately, the Syrian-Saudi secret tête-à-tête move, quite a surprising move by two lesGeneral Michel Suleiman, Elected President of lebanonser friendly nations, based on Syria’s staunch adherence to Saudi’s Sunni rival in Tehran, resulted in getting the 59 year General Michel Suleiman elected as the next Lebanese president. The general, known as pro-Syrian was ‘catapulted’ into commanding the Lebanese Army in 1999, when Lebanon was still very much ‘owned’ by Damascus. After all that Washington and had Paris invested in preventing such a dangerous move in Beirut, Suleiman’s election, if it goes ahead by next week, will be a visible slap in the face of President Bush’s losing his grip on the real makings in the Middle East and not the make-believe ‘dreamworld’ of a Olmert-Abbas peace deal, which will never really work out.

    But that is not all: On December 3, only five days after the Annapolis conference, five Persian Gulf oil states were scheduled to meet discussing critical points in their common relations with Washington. One is whether to continue to keep oil prices linked to the fast-sinking US dollar or adopt a currency basket.

    Such talk in the Persian Gulf must indicate clear signs of waning American influence in this strategic Gulf region. In fact, painfully aware of this trend, President Bush had already decided to take advantage of the broad Arab presence at Annapolis to initiate attempt in turning the tide and cut US losses against Iran influence in the region. But, having almost criminally ignored Russia’s intentions in that very region, matters could be sliding too fast for a radical remedy, depending last minute energic steps to be taken, without delay by Washington. Here are a few examples of Moscow’s latest activities in the strategic Persian Gulf region.

    Saudi Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Deputy Premier, Minister of Defense and Aviation and Inspector General, met Russian president Vladimir Putin in Moscow, November 2007An important event, which was surprisingly ignored by the media, happened in Moscow just shortly before the Annapolis fiasco. Saudi Crown Prince Sultan bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, Deputy Premier, Minister of Defense and Aviation and Inspector General, paid a three-day official visit to Federal Republic of Russia. Prince Sultan held talks with President Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin. Both emphasized the importance of strengthening Saudi-Russian relations in all areas and enhancing coordination to protect mutual interests. The Sultan highlighted the distinguished relations between the two countries. He also commended Russia’s positive stance toward regional and international issues. According to diplomatic sources in Riyadh, the two countries were to reach a “framework agreement for military cooperation” that would open the way for Saudi Arabia to buy Russian arms. Following high-level meetings in Moscow, a large arms transaction with Russia should tightened bilateral relations between Russia and Saudi Arabia. The Sultan’s statements during the visit were a quite spectacular. For the first time, a senior Saudi official called for cooperation between Riyadh and Moscow to halt, what he called the “crazy, illogical and disproportionate” slaughter in Iraq. No one could be happier over such words from a high profile Arab visitor, than Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. Indeed, as unbelievably as it may sound to American ears, at the time already fully engaged in welcoming Abdulaziz’s collegue, Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal in Annapolis, these were the strongest words condemning US actions in the Middle East since King Abdullah referred to America’s “occupation” of Iraq at the Riyadh conference of March 2007.

    Last February, President of Russia Vladimir Putin paid his historic visit to Saudi Arabia, the first trip by a Russian leader to the Sunni Arab kingdom, to discuss energy projects and the situation in the Middle East. Speaking after Putin’s visit to Riyadh, Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal said that the Kingdom was in talks with Russia over the possible purchase of Russian weapons. Surprisingly, the final communiqué issued after Sultan’s visit did not mention anything about an arms deal. However an official source, who requested anonymity, said Sultan’s talks with Putin would lead to an understanding on the sale of about 150 Russian T-90 battle tanks to the Kingdom. The source said tests were carried out on the T-90 in Saudi Arabia last year to determine the tank’s suitability for harsh desert conditions, and Russia is also looking to sell Mi-17 helicopters. It is well known, that Saudi Arabia has been a traditional buyer of US and other western military equipment but has recently signaled that it may be considering diversifying its arsenal.


    Whether by coincidence, or strategic planning, Washington retaliated quickly last July, proposing a mammoth arms sale package to the Persian Gulf states and primarily Saudi Arabia. Surpassing some 20 billion US dollars in value, the proposed package could include satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to first-line fighter aircraft and new naval vessels. But, as usual, under the already prevailing pre-election environment Washington administration officials remained concerned that the size of the package and the advanced weaponry it contains, as well as broader concerns about Saudi Arabia’s role in Iraq, could prompt Saudi critics in Congress to oppose the package when Congress is formally notified about the deal. Such quite natural democratic hesitations could well pave the way for Moscow’s arms deal.

    Russian Strategic Ambitions in the Persian Gulf

    Several factors account for a recent growth in Russia’s assertive policy in the Persian Gulf. One has to do with Moscow’s and primarily President Putin’s reestablishment of Russia as a great power. Another issue directly affects Russian stability and security; the Arab Middle East which is closely linked with ex-Soviet Muslim nations in central Asia and the Caucasus. Nevertheless, it seems clearly, that Putin’s overall strategic aim is to challenge the predominant U.S. security position in the Gulf, which in the pre-Iraq occupation fiasco era, was totally unthinkable.

    But there were already first signs of change in Moscow’s feelers to this region, when following Operation Desert Storm, then Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin toured Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Oman in November 1994. Being the first visit by a Russian prime minister to an Arab state Moscow it already had far- sighted goals. It was an invitation to long-term cooperation and to positions more appreciative of the Russian market and its export capabilities. Nevertheless, the time was not right and not much was achieved until Putin’s muscle-flexing speech at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy on February 2007. Normally any speech by a Russian high-profile personality is listened to very carefully, by Western politicians and Putin’s out-right challenge was no exception. The carefully phrased rhetoric did not break new ground; indeed, it only repeated things that the Russians have been saying for quite a while. But the venue in which it was delivered, the timing and the confidence with which it was asserted, signified Moscow’s new strategic direction. While the Cold War had not returned, Russia now officially asserted itself as a great power, and started behaving accordingly. The Russians are arguing that the uni-polar world is becoming unacceptable and President Putin now clearly intends to escalate the confrontations with the United States along key focal points, mainly in the strategic Middle East, which has for decades been under Washington’s full patronage. Putin believes that, due to America’s involvement in the deep Iraq insurgency quagmire, the time is right to challenge the Middle East Muslim arena, which is the pressure point to which the United States is most sensitive.

    The primary goal, though not the only one, are Russian energy interests in Middle East. Russia is not only a major exporter of energy supplies, it is currently the world’s top oil producer. The Russians have a need to maintain robust energy prices, and working with the Iranians and Saudis in some way to achieve would be directly in line with Moscow’s interest. Putin knows perfectly well how vitally important a geo-strategic commodity energy is. Energy supply issues have become a primordial part of international economic policy today. Not surprisingly then, Putin selected Russia’s extensive oil and gas resources and pipelines, as well as national champion companies, as the key policy instruments in playing a ruthless chess game in world energy geopolitics. And the figures are impressive. As far as natural resources are concerned, Russia’s position is extremely strong: holding 6.6 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves and 26 percent of the world’s gas reserves, it currently accounts for 12 percent of world oil and 21 of recent world gas production. According to 2007, statistics, Russia was the world’s largest oil and gas producer. Under these conditions, it would seem only natural that with energy demand constantly on the rise, Russia wants to use its position as a major energy producer of both oil and gas in order to regain geopolitical significance. And gaining a strong foothold in Middle-East politics, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, could well become a prime objectives for Moscow’s new global ambitions.

    Moscow clearly realizes that the two main Islamic powers between the Levant and the Hindu-Kush are Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Russians have things they very would much like from each of these, but Saudis and Iranians have different strategic and religious interests at stake. Saudi Arabia — an Arab and predominantly Sunni kingdom — is very rich but militarily relatively weak. Iran — the largest Persian Shiite power — is not nearly as rich as Saudi Arabia but militarily very powerful, with nuclear ambitions making it a strategic contender for Gulf domination. Moreover, there exists a tremendous geopolitical asymmetry between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Riyadh’s Saudi princes are extremely concerned with Tehran’s Shi’ite clerics’ strategic ambitions would very much like to limit these into acceptable proportions. For this aim, the Saudis however need foreign power assistance- primarily American, at least sofar. This creates internal unrest which places the Saudi Royalty in severe dilemma. Dependence on US military power to keep Iran within bounds, conflicts with internal interest to deny, or at least, limit foreign military presence in the country. The other dilemma which can also affect Russian interests is the oil price. Encouraging high oil price tags, may be of local interest to fill the already packed Saudi coffers, but at the same time strengthen Iran, while efforts to lower these, could affect Russian aspirations, oil being Moscow’s major financial income asset.

    But Russia also has dilemmas, when dealing in Middle-Eastern politics. Russia does not wish to see the Islamic fundamentalist clerics in Tehran becoming a dominant strategic power in the oil-rich Persian Gulf region. In this they might even share Washington’s strategic interests. But the Russians do want to use Iran, within certain manageable proportions, which makes Moscow’s own position an extremely complex one. As the old saying goes: “the Middle East is a graveyard of ambitions”.
    One highly controversial aspect of Russian’s Persian Gulf involvement concerns helping Riyadh and other Middle-East nations with nuclear power development was discussed during the meeting. All major regional players in the Middle East appear eager to gain nuclear energy capabilities, probably to counter Iran’s nuclear ambitions. For example, Putin, in a recent trip to Egypt, offered Russian nuclear knowledge to Cairo. Putin’s latest activism in the nuclear diplomatic power game within the Middle East is not only highly dangerous, but must be extremely challenging to Israel and the United States of America. On the one hand, it is Moscow’s ideal instrument for gaining influence over the regional dynamics; this is in fact the Russian strategy toward Iran. It is possible that Moscow does not really want a nuclear Iran close to it’s border region and because relations between the two countries are complex and often disturbed by diverging interests, especially in the Caspian sea, they are approaching this issue with extreme caution. Therefore, Russian support for Iran on the nuclear issue is instrumental, actually representing a rather shrewd approach, trying at the same time to limit Iran’s strategic independence.

    Despite all recent endeavors by Moscow to assert its strategic presence in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East as such, the undeniable fact remains, at least for the foreseeable future, that the United States is still the prominent power in the region. It will be extremely difficult for Moscow to replace Washington’s role as the main ally of major Middle East nations. Although Moscow is attempting such a move, it seems realistic, that as long as the United States remains the hegemonic power in the region, maintaining its overwhelming military presence in the Gulf, it will be extremely difficult to implement its aspirations.

    ShieldAll Armor

    ShieldAll armor system, developed by Battelle and produced by PVI is an advanced material system using customized composites and materials including metals, ceramics, reinforcing and patented binders. The armor can be tailored to meet specific threats and is designed as modular system, for ease of installation, repair, replacement, and modification. In a relatively lightweight and compact application this armor offers effective protection against a wide range of threats while being 1/3 lighter than steel armor. This armor provides EFP protection which standard steel armor does not offer. The new armor recently completed a series of testing where it demonstrated its resilience against IED effects.

    At less than 37 percent the weight of steel armor, the Battelle material alone is capable of stopping multiple armor piercing projectiles exceeding a 7.62mm threat as a stand-alone component. When combined with Protected Vehicles, Inc. armoring methodologies, the complete system is capable of stopping threats from 50-caliber armor-piercing shells without the weight associated with conventional metal or ceramic armor.

    Based on advanced materials development program at Battelle, PVI and Battelle joined forces to create a composite armor encompassing ceramics, metals, reinforcing and patented binders that provide exceptional protection against threats from powerful EFP explosions.

    One of the elements composing the new ShieldAll is Battelle’s FlexAll™ hyperplastic material which can absorb high energy impacts without permanent deformation. A FlexAll module will crumple on impact to absorb an incoming force but return to its original shape within minutes. During a series of tests, race cars were driven into honeycomb-like columns mad of FlexAll material, at speeds up to 60 mph. The energy-absorbing structure behaved identically crash after crash, absorbing 92 percent of an impact’s energy each time.

    According to PVI, this new armor solution is based on readily available components and ongoing involvement from a tier one polymer manufacturer. ShieldAll™ is available immediately for large-scale production ramp up.

    Although originally developed for use on PVI’s Golan, Alpha and Protector line of vehicles, ShieldAll utilizes a versatile design which allows it to be used as an up-armor kit on an assortment of other combat vehicles currently being developed and already in the operating theater.

    In addition, Battelle considered personal armor applications for the new material, giving soldiers in the field more mobility while allowing equal or better protection to current body armor.

    Commander’s Digital Assistant (CDA)

    CDA is an application built for militarized personal digital assistant (PDA), which provides situational awareness and mission planning capabilities for field commanders. The pocket PC application runs on a militarized version of an IPAQ, and is intended for the battalion commander and staff, company commanders and platoon leaders. CDA provides dismounted troops the same functionality of the US Army Battle Command, Brigade-and-Below (FBCB2) command and control system, which was sofar available only at stationary command posts or command vehicles. FBCB2 is the principal element in the “Blue Force Tracking” situational awareness system, and this is where CDA becomes a key element, as it integrates dismounted elements into the complete situational picture.

    In 2003 and early 2004, the U.S. Army initially deployed few systems for operational field testing. In 2004 and more significantly 2005, hundreds more CDAs (2005 models) will be deployed in support of dismounted troops in Iraq. The new model CDAs are based on the initial positive experience gained with earlier models. Due to the fast evolution of commercial PC and PDA technology, the Army is planning to deploy new versions of the system every year. The current version uses satellite phone capability and is able to download maps with overlaid graphics. For extended communications, the CDA is connected to a SINCGARS ASIP radio. Other radios may be incorporated in the future, such as the MBITR, the PRC-117F or L-band and Iridium satellite systems. The CDA is designed form automatic communication with other CDAs or supported communications devices, in a peer-to-peer formation. It can also operate in a network when required. Other communications features support “Blue Force Tracking” facility to support situational awareness of all friendly troops.

    In 2006, a new version of Commander’s Digital Assistant (CDA) was introduced by General Dynamics’ for the Land Warrior program. The system is currently available as Version 5, offering a larger color touch screen, hard disk, integral GPS and built-in satellite voice communications, offering the capability to exchange voice messaging with other CDAs. The system uses U.S. Army Standard Battle Command software to provide dismounted leaders with situational awareness picture, derived by FBCB2. The system also maintains constant position reporting for non-line-of-sight blue force tracking.

    The system enables battalion commanders to pass orders within their staff and migrate orders to company and platoon leaders. When deployed with dismounted teams, CDA is providing access to sensors, intelligence and tactical data not available in the past at such tactical levels. This capability is essential in low intensity warfare scenarios, where small forces must contain and manage situations before they escalate into crisis. Situational and intelligence displays also compute the center of mass for a particular units by the aggregation of its individual soldier’s positions, reported by GPS. For reporting, the system is equipped with joint variable message format (JVMF) database into the CDA system for open communications with other units, services and coalition forces.

    At AUSA 2007 Raytheon unveiled some details about its Commander’s Digital Assistant (CDA). A product originally introduced as a ‘spin off’ from FCS has now evolved separately from the program. Raytheon is working on a new version of the Commander’s Digital Assistant (CDA). The new device establishes the smallest, lightest package currently available for dismounted ‘blue force tracking’ applications. The new device weighs 4.5 – 5.6 pounds (depending on configuration) using an internal, rechargeable 10.8 VDC Lithium-ion battery pack sustaining five hours of operation. CDA also offers improved commonality with the Army’s Air Warrior Electronic Data Manager.

    Further improving its application for aviators and ground troops, the new CDA is designed to be sunlight readable and compatible with night vision devices (ANVIS/NVG). CDA communicates with existing networks such as the FBCB2 or Interactive Situational Awareness System (ISAS), using an integral satellite communications L band transceiver and GPS receiver set with anti-spoofing capability (SAASM). Both antennae are combined into a single, external device. It will also interface smoothly with most tactical radios. Raytheon designed the CDA to integrate with its Microlight radio currently configured for the Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS) waveform and tied into the tactical internet, carrying standard Joint Variable Message Format (JVNF) digital messages to users across the network. The system also supports Voice over IP communications. The CDA uses removable hard drive to ease data transfer and management of classified information. It runs on Linux RedHat or Windows 2000/XP operating systems.

    Post Annapolis: Hamas Targets Abu Mazen’s West Bank And challenges Israel

    Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in Sharm e-Sheikh last Tuesday that one cannot talk about possible failure at Annapolis because its existence is itself an achievement. Indeed, the Arab foreign ministers meeting in Cairo Friday which agreed to send ministers to Annapolis on behalf of the League’s Follow-Up Committee, is in itself an unprecedented gesture. But expectations should be kept within realistic bounds: Saudi foreign minister Saud al Faisal said: “We are not going for handshakes or a display of emotions… We are there only to reach a peace which safeguards Arab interests and safeguards the Palestinian, Syrian and Lebanese lands. Put in clear: at best it would signal a more-of-the-same attitude towards Israel-or better phrased- let us see what Olmert is willing, or able to deliver. The sober fact is that neither Olmert nor Abu Mazen can deliver ANYTHING – based on their own political dilemma, which exists on either side. Moreover, all three (including President Bush) are already widely regarded as “wingless lame ducks” in their own entourage.

    Based on such unfortunate facts, obviously, the fatuous Annapolis “peace process” will fall apart, as it did before in similar, alas, countless events, since it was never bound to achieve anything anyway. This is what usually happens when delusional ideas confront reality.

    But, delusional thinking is very tenacious – politicians with no valid ideas are loath to abandon even some of the most ridiculous policies, since, having invested so much political capital in its futile effort- they are adamant that something must come out of this. Unfortunately, Annapolis is already on the path to follow this same fiasco again.


    But there may be more to Annapolis, than meets the eye: President George W. Bush needs more from the long-awaited and oft-discussed event than just launching rather hopeless negotiations. He needs this conference to show the Arab world that progress is actually being made on the Israeli-Palestinian track, so that the Arab countries at the summit will coalesce and deal with other, much more pressing problems in the region: Iran, for instance, and the spread of Shi’ite extremism and Ahmadinejad’s ambitious Shi’ite Crescent to conquer the Sunni Arab Middle East. Bush’s game plan is that signaling real progress will, at last, cement together a coalition of “moderate” Muslim states and harness them behind US backing sanctions against Iran. The Israel-Palestinian issue is just a marginal bi-product, so it seems.

    Israeli analysts believe that this trend could solidify, if the Arab delegation will include senior participants. It may well be the start in creating an impressive Sunni Arab opposition axis led by the US and Western alliance against Shi’ite Iran. If Syria should be included, this could be the first significant set-back for Ahmadinejad’s Shi’ite crescent. But this would inevitably force him to act in order to derail this process before it is too late.

    In fact, the entire Annapolis meeting could have been a rather clever move by President Bush and Condoleezza Rice ( a last minute effort to save the administration dilemma in Iraq’s future) to initiate a political comeback into Mid Eastern affairs, after the Iraq fiasco and the bungling democratization process in Egypt and Palestine. If indeed this is the case, then Olmert and Abu Mazen, would have been only pawns in this ruthless game political chess- the outcome of which is not clear- as we wait for Tehran for its next challenge in Lebanon and Palestine in order to derail this entire process. Indeed, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being a very shrewd operator, his reaction could no doubt prove surprising and very deadly

    Over the last two months various Palestinian spokesmen have warned that failure at Annapolis would lead to yet another round of violence, perhaps a third intifada. Israeli officials, including Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gadi Ashkenazi, however, are skeptical, saying that the Palestinians have been badly weakened by the last seven years, are suffering from deep division and could not wage another terrorist war right now, even if they wanted to. But the Palestinians are not the only players in this game. In fact, as matters stand- Iran and Syria are the established sponsors of Palestinian violence and will no doubt remain at the hub of such future events.

    Iran has two established aces in its hand to play this game: Hamas and Hezbollah. Both of these may becoming more and more isolated, but remain still highly dangerous operators. Hezbollah is holding a trump card in the Lebanese elections- which have already entered into a dangerous cliffhanger situation on Friday Midnight. Barring a miracle, which seldom happens in this unpredictable region, Lebanon could well be on its way into a catastrophic abyss. A civil war in Lebanon, could derail not only any US-backed Sunni effort, but actually chase out the European 1701 UNIFIL contingent, as it did in 1983. Moreover, with the Lebanese national army disintegrating into rival factions again, Hezbollah would regain the Israel border region to restart conflagration, on Tehran’s time and will.

    To Israel’s south – Hamas is already on its way to create a substantial military force, ready and highly motivated to confront any IDF incursion into the well prepared Gaza Strip defense. Based on experiences gained from last year’s Lebanon war, with able assistance from Iranian and Hezbollah experts, Hamas will offer a bloody fight to the Israeli army. Moreover, whatever the outcome of the Annapolis meeting, analysts are convinced that Abu Mazen’s inability to implement any concessions to the Israelis, will recreate the deadlock further aggravating discontent in the West Bank, which will only bolster Hamas’ influence and power base there. The inevitable result would be that Hamas will eventually exploit PLO weakness and take over the West Bank in the same manner in which it defeated 60,000 Fatah activists and security forces in last June’s shocking Gaza fiasco.

    BRDM 2 Armored cars donated to the Palestinian security forces were burned by Hamas when it took over the Gaza Strip. Now, Israel plans to award the Palestinians with 50 more... This time. Hamas may be more cautious preserving these vehicles for future use... (Photos: reuters)Sofar, what prevented this from happening is the presence of the IDF in most of the Palestinian townships, which otherwise would long have joined Hamas. Israeli defense analysts have already warned of allowing any concessions that PM Olmert has in mind, for example, handing over security to Abu Mazen’s security forces in dangerous West Bank focal towns. First such concessions, allowing Fatah police into Nablus have already demonstrated their inability to restore even public order against the local warlord domination. Olmert’s latest “gift” of 50 Russian BRDM-2 armored cars with 14,5mm turret mounted heavy machine guns, is another of those futile gestures, which could endanger low flying helicopters supporting counter-terror operations in the West bank Hamas hideouts. In Gaza, Hamas took charge of similar cars, provided with US assistance, but within hours, with nearly a shot fired by Fatah security forces- ten times Hamas strength these became coveted weapons for Hamas. A similar situation could happen in the West Bank- as all these weapons fall into Hamas hands- and then what?

    Here then are the seeds in what could become Ahmadinejad’s move to derail the Sunni Arab anti-Shi’ite axis before it matures into shape: Create total chaos in Lebanon, enhancing the Qassam offensive against southern Israel, with longer range rockets- against which the IDF still has no technological answer- with aim to draw Israel into an unwanted and costly ground attack. Challenge Abu Mazen’s frail government- through elections or physical take-over of its territory- at the same time confronting the IDF with new suicide attacks- actually a second front. If Qassam rockets will be fired from vantage positions in close-border villages at lucrative strategic installations and heavily populated urban targets, all coming within range in the heart of Israel, this would become a strategic challenge to the IDF. Furthermore, with Hezbollah again deployed along its northern border, Israel would have to mobilize all its military power to fight off a three-frontal war on its rear. By delivering such a clear message, that a full scale Middle East conflict is in the offing, with unpredictable consequences, would be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s challenge to Washington’s latest gambit. It is common knowledge that this turbulent region is already filled to the brim with some of the world’s most highly sophisticated and lethal weapons which East and West has created. Is this scenario, actually what President George W Bush warned off, hinting on World War Three?

    Update: Nov. 25, 2007:

    Syria to attend Annapolis conference

    Syria accepted today the US invitation to the peace conference in Annapolis; Heading the Syrian deligation will be the deputy Foreign Minister Fayssal al-Mekdad. According to the Reuters news agency, the Syrian statement did not give Syria’s reasons for attending or say why it will not be sending its foreign ministers like the other Arab participants. At a meeting of Arab foreign ministers in Cairo, Friday (Nov. 23, 2007) , participating Arab countries agreed to attend the peace conference in Annapolis, Maryland. The recent Syrian move could signal Bashar Asad hesitatingly making a first move oward a Sunni axis against Iran’s Shi’ite regional ambitions. Although too early to singnify a definite change of direction towards the US initiative, Damascus could have second thoughts, as to its adherence to the Tehran Shi’ia dictate. It remains to be seen, how Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will react to Damascus’ latest move, which is certainly challenging his strategy towards Syria. Perhaps the tense situation in Beirut, Syria and Iran’s strategic interest sphere, will be next on the top agenda.

    New developments there are due by the end of this week.

    For further reading we recommend:

    Sherpa Parafoil Based Aerial Delivery System

    TM/MC, developed and produced by the Canadian company Mist Mobility Integrated Systems Technology, Inc. (MMIST) represents a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) ‘freefall rig’ designed for super-sized cargo, rather than a human sky diver. The system uses a rectangular, 900-square-foot parachute, which can be steered, like a classic round chute. It also incorporates a small drogue parachute to help stabilize the cargo pallet, keeping it facing upward so the main chute opens properly after freefalling. Sherpa can accommodate rigged weights from 50 to 2,200 pounds (one ton) deployed from an altitude 25,000 ft and offset distance of up to nine miles from the target. Several Sherpas could be dropped during one pass, saving time and fuel, and each could soar to a different unit at a different location stretched over several miles.

    While in flight, Sherpa constantly checks its position using a GPS receiver, and makes flight adjustments as necessary, pulling on two steering lines to position the parachute on the correct flight path. Before takeoff the system is programmed with the altitude and speed, the cargo’s weight, drop zone location and wind speeds predicted for the various heights. The system will calculate its flight plan autonomously.

    Sherpa can also be programmed to maneuver around known obstacles or enemy locations. The system can operate autonomously or guided by a human operator, from an aircraft, by a parachutist or from the ground. The handheld remote controller provides manual over-ride and adjust the landing point in-flight. The system is compatible with current airdrop platforms such as C-130, C-141, C-17, C-123, C-23, C-160 and is also capable of drops from rotary wing aircraft (i.e. CH-47, CH-53). At a cost of about US$60,000 per unit, Sherpa can be recovered without special tools and be reused within a 45 to 90 minute time frame.

    Sherpa is currently operational in Iraq as part of Combat Services Support Delivery, of supplies to soldiers throughout the vast portion of Iraq. It is operated by the U.S. Military, Canadian forces and a number of NATO forces. The Sherpa versions deployed since 2003 with the US Marine Corps in Iraq can carry only 1,200 lbs (545 kg) of cargo. By 2008, the corps expects to get larger versions, capable of supporting 2,200 (1 ton) and 10,000 lbs. (4.5 ton). The US Special Forces Command operates the CQ-10A “Snow Goose” powered paragliders, also developed by MMIST.

    Lightweight Machine-Gun – LSAT

    Lightweight Small Arms Technology (LSAT) rifle is under development by AAI, as an Army Technology Development initiative since 2004.The new weapon is designed to replace light machine guns, such as M249 and M240. LSAT with 600 rounds of ammunition will weigh 23.8 pounds, representing 38% reduction from the current 38.3 pounds.

    It will fire new case telescoped (CT) which promises to save between 35 to 40% of the ammunition weight. Caseless telescoped (CL) ammunition also under development promises to save up to 50% of the ammunition weight along with 40% reduction in volume. He use of High Ignition Temperature Propellant (HITP) allows the complete elimination of the cartridge case. The cartridges will be linked to each other using a flexible full loop polymer links. This system improves feed efficiency and minimizes mechanical jams, resulted from bent or damaged links. The weapon’s design will also have improved reliability; utilizing rotating chamber provides in-line push through feed and ejection.
    AAI is leading an industry team including ARES of Port Clinton, Ohio, ATK of Independence, MO, Battelle from Ohio, Omega Training Group of Columbus, Ga and general Dynamics from FL. The prototype development is expected to continue over 24 months. The new weapon is scheduled to complete development by 2010.

    Wasp III MAVs for Marine Corps’ Platoons

    The US Marine Corps selected the ‘Battlefield Air Targeting Micro Air Vehicle’ (BATMAV) system for its ‘Tier I’ micro UAV requirement. Sofar the corps was using two mini UAVs at the battalion level – the BAI DragonEyes and the Raven from AeroVironment. Both were fielded at the Marine Expeditionary Units (MEU) level. The smaller Wasp III will be deployed at the platoon level. “The small size and light weight of Wasp make it ideally suited for deployment directly to platoons, where flexibility, portability and reliability are critically important.” said U.S. Marine Corps Major James Roudebush, Tier I UAV Program Manager, PMA-263. Storekeeper 1st Class Michael Lake, attached to Mobile Insure Undersea Warfare 109, prepares to launch an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) during Field Exercise (FEX). The UAV system is designed to provide persistent intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance data, battle damage assessment, and communications relay. FEX is aimed at improving the overall combat readiness and preparing forces for deployment in support of Joint Logistics Over the Shore, 2008. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Daisy Abonza

    “We have been evaluating Wasp for some time, and believe that it offers a unique new capability to support our Marines’ missions around the world.” The Marine Corps will procure the BATMAV systems through the Air Force BATMAV contract, which was awarded to AV in December 2006 and provides a means for other U.S. armed services to procure these systems. The Air Force Special Operations Command plans to use these systems in support of ground combat contriller teams.

    This week AeroVironment (NASDAQ: AVAV) announced it was awarded a $19.3 million order for the supply of the miniature drones. Each of the Corps’ BATMAV systems will consists of two Wasp III micro air vehicles (MAV), a hand-held ground control unit, a data-link assembly and a battery charger. Wasp III has a wingspan of 29 inches and weight of one pound. Its payload consists of a static infrared camera, and a pair of color video cameras, one looking forward and the other – sideways. All cameras transmit streaming video directly to the hand-held ground controller for display on an integrated monitor.

    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.

     

     

    Skunk Works and XTEND Simplify Multi-Drone Command

    0
    Lockheed Martin Skunk Works® and XTEND have achieved a major milestone in JADC2 by integrating the XOS operating system with the MDCX™ autonomy platform. This technical breakthrough enables a single operator to simultaneously command multiple drone classes, eliminating the friction of mission handoffs. From "marsupial" drone deployments to operating in GPS-denied environments, explore how this collaboration is abbreviating the data-to-decision timeline and redefining autonomous mission execution.

    From Ukraine to Taiwan: The Global Race to Dominate the New Defense Tech Frontier

    0
    As traditional defense primes face mounting competition from agile “neoprimes” such as Anduril, Palantir and Helsing, the balance of innovation is shifting toward software-defined warfare and scalable, dual-use technologies, while global industry consolidation—marked by Boeing’s integration of Spirit AeroSystems and other strategic mergers—signals an intensified race to secure control over the defense technology value chain. Our Defense-Tech weekly report highlights these trends.

    Europe’s “Drone Wall”

    0
    In early October 2025, a coordinated wave of unmanned aerial system (UAS) incursions—widely attributed to Russia—targeted critical infrastructure across at least ten European nations. The unprecedented campaign exposed the fragility of Europe’s air defenses...

    Weekly Defense Update & Global Security Assessment

    0
    Executive Summary The past week (September 18-25, 2025) represents an inflection point where strategic defense concepts have transitioned from doctrine to tangible reality. An analysis of global events reveals four primary, interconnected trends shaping an...

    U.S. Air and Space Forces Push Next-Gen Programs at the AS&C 2025 Conference and...

    0
    At the 2025 Air, Space & Cyber Conference, U.S. Air Force and Space Force leaders unveiled major updates on next-generation fighters, bombers, unmanned systems, and space initiatives, highlighting both rapid innovation and critical readiness challenges as the services race to outpace global competitors. A short version is available here, with a more detailed version for subscribers.

    TADTE 2025: Reflecting Taiwan’s Strategic Themes

    0
    The Taipei Aerospace & Defense Technology Exhibition (TADTE) 2025 crystallized around four dominant strategic themes that collectively illustrate Taiwan's comprehensive approach to defense modernization amid escalating regional tensions. Based on a detailed report by Pleronix (available upon request). Includes a Podcast discussion on TADTE 2025's highlighting Taiwan's four strategic themes beyond the post's coverage.

    Iron Beam 450 Completes Testing, Soon to Join With Operational Air Defense Units

    0
    Israel’s Iron Beam 450 high-power laser system has completed final testing, marking a major leap in air defense. Developed by Rafael, it offers precise, cost-effective interception of rockets, UAVs, and mortars, and is set for IDF deployment by 2025.