Friday, December 19, 2025
More
    Home Blog Page 349

    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.

    JLTV Pathfinders: Hybrid Electric Powered JLTV Concept Vehicles Unveilled

    The USMC is expected to publish the JLTV request for proposal (RFP) at the beginning of the coming year, and select manufacturers for the new family of vehicles by the end of March 2008. Initial operational capability originally scheduled for 2010 was recently pushed back to 2012, as the services are focused on the acquisition of heavier and more urgently needed MRAP in the near term. Unlike the Mine Resistant Ambush P rotected (MRAP) vehicles, which are optiized for road mobility, JLTV is designed for all-terrain tactical mobility. The military is considering both diesel and hybrid electric propulsion for these platforms. This article reviews the hybrid versions and their benefits.


    In contrast to the diesel powered vehicles, Textron Systems and General Tactical Vehicles, a joint venture between General Dynamics Lnd Systems (GDLS) and AM General are pursuing more ambitious approaches based on advanced hybrid-electric powered JLTV concept vehicle.

    Advanced Ground Mobility Vehicle (AGMV) from GTV

    GDLS and AM General invested over $10 million for risk reduction development and maturation of this vehicle and its innovative In-Hub Hybrid Electric Drive system. AGMV has unique protection attributes, combining a hexagon shaped armored capsule for mine protection while optimizing also for side blast deflection and small-arms protection. At a gross vehicle weight of 14,000 – 16,000 lbs with integral A kit armor, protecting against small arms, mines, IEDs and blast, the new vehicle can carry payloads of up to 5,000 lbs and be air transportable in C-130, CH-53 and CH-47.

    The vehicle accommodates an adjustable suspension reducing the vehicle’s height to meet sealift transportation clearance of 76″. The variable suspension can also be used to adjust the vehicle’s ground clearance in the range of 8 – 26.5″, thus improving obstacle negotiation. AGMV has a top speed of 70 mph, acceleration (0-30 mph) of five seconds and range of 400 miles (running on hybrid). The vehicle accommodates seven troops meeting the US Army maximum requirement. The baseline vehicle is configured for a crew of two, and can be modified into one of five different configurations. These include a four door, combat tactical vehicle carrying five soldiers (including the driver), armed with a remotely controlled weapon mount, a similar version accommodates a command vehicle with a crew of five. Another version is the utility vehicle which carries a shelter, a reconnaissance vehicle carrying five to seven troops or 6×6 tactical load carrier.


    Light Utility Hybrid (LUV) from MillenWorks

    Another concept vehicle was developed by MillenWorks, displayed at both shows is demonstrating several critical technologies that could be integrated in future military vehicles. The company showed its light utility hybrid (LUV) vehicle, was developed by MillenWorks with support from TRADEC and national Automotive Center (NAC). The vehicle has a gross weight (GVW) of 18,500 lbs (8391 kg) and curb weight of 14,500 lb (6,577 kg). This air transportable vehicle can be carried internally in a C-130 aircraft and CH-47 or CH-53 helicopters.

    LUV uses the Steyr Motors M16 VTI Combat diesel engine as a main engine for the parallel hybrid electric drive-train. The 215 hp engine develops torque of 400 ln/ft, coupled with an Eaton Autoshift 6 speed automated manual transmission in the rear and Klune V two speed gearbox is at the front. Two brushless, permanent magnet electrical engines are coupled in parallel to the transmission boxs, adjacent to each axle, augmenting the drive train with additional torque of 400 lb/ft each.

    The electrical power contribute dramatic power surge for acceleration, obstacle negotiation and survivability, facilitating rapid egress from hot zones and reducing the chance of mobility kill due to combat damage. On idle, road travel or deceleration, the diesel charges two modular lithium ion battery packs which power the electrical drive motors. LUV has a top road speed of 76 mph (122 kph). It can accelerate from 0 to 30 mph (0-48 kmh) in 9 seconds. Its turning diameter is 9.1 meters. With a ground clearance of 18″ (46 cm) the vehicle can negotiate a vertical step of 21″ (60 cm.), gradients of 60% and 40% side slope LUV vehicle offers superior mobility, ride quality, and roll stability, utilizing semi-active Magneto-Rheological (MR) struts developed by MillenWorks.

    Among the key technologies demonstrated with the new vehicle are the flexible drive-train, offering unique all-wheel drive reduced fuel consumption in urban driving and silent watch capability. Extensive onboard power is available to run electronic systems. LUV is fitted with basic armor (A kit) which can be upgraded with B-kit appliqué armor to meet advanced threats. The hull is designed as an interchangeable ‘safety cell’, protected by an integral armor and blast resistant V shaped hull.

    Textron Marine and Land Systems is planning to utilize this platform to develop advanced component technologies for future tactical ground vehicles. The company recently announced teaming with Boeing to compete for the future JLTV production. Boeing is also the prime contractor for the US Army’s Future Combat Systems program, which includes seven manned ground systems to be powered by electric drive systems.
    The U.S. Army Future Combat System (FCS) ground vehicle hardware development is already advancing to the next phase as the Army begins testing state-of-the-art hybrid propulsion technology on a new, fully loaded, fully integrated test bed called the “Hot Buck” developed by BAE Systems. Designed to test the US Army’s next generation hybrid electric destined for all Future Combat Systems vehicle platforms, the “Hot Buck” creates the same conditions that will exist in FCS ground vehicles, including space constraints, all of the anticipated primary and non-primary power load components, electric control, energy storage, cooling, filtration and other systems that will propel and power tomorrow’s fleet of Army ground vehicles. Subsequently to the “Hot Buck” testing, the new propulsion will be installed into an FCS Maneuver Ground Vehicle (MGV)-like platform known as the Hybrid Electric Reconfigurable Movable Integration Test bed or “HERMIT.”

    Continued JLTV Pathfinder article – (part I): Combat Tactical Vehicle

    Other topics covered in this review:

    Light but Protected – Near-Term HMMWV Replacements

    Vehicles and armor protection: Considering the excessive weight and challenging issues confronting strategic and tactical mobility, vehicle manufacturers are realizing that there is a potential gap between the ‘light’ up-armored HMMWV and the heavy MRAP, which could be exploited by a lightweight, ‘compact’ mine-protected armored vehicle, offering improved mobility without compromising protection. Two companies introduced such vehicles at MDM – Protected Vehicles with the new Protector and Force Protection, displaying the Cheetah.

    Protected Vehicles Inc. introduced at Modern Day Marine 2007 the Protector – lightweight 4×4 mine-protected armored vehicle designed to replace up-armored HMMWVs for high threat missions. At maximum gross vehicle weight (GVW) of 14,500 lbs in the hard top version, the Protector, accommodating a crew of 8 (driver, commander and six troops) is optimized for missions where up-armored HMMWVs are not adequately protected, while the heavier MRAP does not have the required mobility and maneuverability to perform a wide diversity of missions. These could include urban combat, reconnaissance and patrol, transport for combat engineering teams, command and control and casualties evacuation.

    Protector offers good off-road and cross-country mobility and a turning radius of about 5 meters. According to sources at PVI, the Protector is ready for production and although not yet meeting the full specs of JLTV, it has substantial growth-potential to meet such requirements in the future.

    Unlike current MRAPs, the Protector is designed to operate equally on and off-road, is lightweight and small enough to be transportable in a C-130 and CH-47. Maximum road speed of 70 mph can be maintained even carrying maximum payload, with an operational range of up to 500 miles. The Protector comes with a choice of two diesel engines, a GM Duramax 6.6L turbo-diesel V8 developing 300 hp, delivering 540 ft/lbs torque, or a Cummins QSB 6.7L diesel, delivering the same torque.

    The vehicle is offered in both, hardtop (fully protected) and soft top configurations. The hardtop version carries a payload of 7,000 – 9,500 lbs while the soft top can carry up to 12,000 lbs of payloads. Despite its low weight, Protector provides full protection from mines, IEDs and small arms. It is fitted with basic armor (A kit) protecting against small arms for the body and windows. Protector carries a weapon mount for 0.50 or M240/249 machine guns and provides rifle ports on all sides. The vehicle can be fitted with Hutchinson runflat tires and is protected from mine explosions, both under the wheels and centerline. Protection level can be enhanced to meet specific requirements. For example, a B kit protecting up to 0.50 Cal weighs about 1,100 lbs, and full IED, FSP and EFP protection would weigh up to 5,000 lbs.


    Force Protection introduce the Cheetah

    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.

    Other topics covered in this review:

    Personal Gear at the Modern Day Marine Expo

    Personal Gear & Weapons: Advancement in personal protection and new assault rifle were two of the topics at teh 2007 Modern Day Marine expo. The new design considered for te future advanced combat helmet (ACH) utiizes face protection and improved ergonomics, contributing to better performance.

    Protected Head Gear

    The new trend in protective headgear offers face and eye protection, provided with future helmet designs and as add-on for current Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH). A typical system is the CM130 designed by Eye Tactical, and associated with Point Blank’s body armor. The mask provides additional facial and head protection from fragmentation and other debries caused by IEDs. The CM130 also provides level II and II 9mm bulletproof protection, augmenting the PASGT and ACH helmets. US Marines Systems Command is also evaluating a future Advanced Combat Helmet that will offer increased performance by adding face, neck and increased head protection. The new helmet uses a split-shell design featuring an air vent across the top, for heat stress reduction. It also employs a novel suspension, designed for improved stability, reducing weight adding comfort and impact protection. Interchangeable face armor components will make this future helmet adaptable to increasing threat levels. Among the latest protection device, one of the products bringing relief to many warfighters is the new ballistic groin protector from ArmorWorks, based on a similar, non-ballistic groin protector cup widely used by baseball players. The new ballistic cup is made from Kevlar is designed to protect warfighter’s sensitive body organs against fragments, small arms fire and impact. The product is anatomically shaped for the male and female groin area and its design ensures comfort over extended use.

    Magpul Introduces the Masada Adaptive Combat Weapon

    Magpul military industries, sofar ssociated with weapon’s accessories, unveiled their latest Masada assault rifle. The new weapon unveiled earlier this year at the Shot-Show was developed in only four months from scratchpad to a working prototype as a Magpul privately funded initiative. An evolution of the proven AR180 platform Masada utilizes a lightweight package optimized for mass production, This Adaptive Combat Weapon System can be rapidly configured to suite specific user’s requirements adjusting length, caliber, magazine compatibility, stock type, and fire-control setup. The current design is intended for assault rifle class cartridges including 5.56 NATO, 6.8 Remington and 7.62×39 (AK).

    Other topics covered in this review:

    Counter IED Technologies at the Modern Day Marine Expo

    Counter IED systems and solutions were premier highlights at MDM 07 but, since most IED exhibits were excluded from the media, Defense Update cannot elaborate further on this important topic. Yet, several systems did make it through to the public eye. One of the most popular systems, deployed by the thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan is the CREW IED jammer. CREW is one of the counter-IED programs managed by the DOD’s Joint IED Defeat Organization (JIEDDO). This vehicle-mounted electronic-warfare jammer is designed to prevent activation of Radio-Controlled Improvised Explosive Devices (RCIED) by disrupting radio communications over frequencies commonly used with wireless control devices such as car alarms, garage doors and cellular phones. CREW systems are one element of the DoD’s Joint Counter RCIED Electronic Warfare program.

    Over a thousand CREW systems of an earlier version are currently operating in theater. These systems were delivered last year by EFW, as part of a rapid fielding effort made by JIEDDO. At MDM 07 and AUSA 07 the company displayed the latest upgraded version of the system, offering more sophisticated programming and power management enabling efficient operation of collocated communications systems. The new system utilizes the same antenna payload and mast of current CREW systems.

    As threats are constantly evolving, counter-IED systems are also undergoing continuous evolution through a continuously ‘spiralling’ process. The current version is the CREW 2.1, produced by EDO Corporation. In 2007 the company won four orders for a total delivery of over 8,500 units to be delivered by mid 2008. Currently deployed in Iraq, vehicle mounted CREW systems will eventually be fielded with each of the military services of the Central Command Area of Responsibility.

    Operating as a high power RF jammer, CREW is causing major disruption to friendly communications. Therefore, their use requires strict operational discipline, coordination and synchronization with other systems and nearby forces. Effective training is an essential step implementing such discipline. To enable realistic simulation of IED, counter IED operations, and minimizing unintentional jamming of friendly communications, Sierra Nevada Corp. designed the Jamming Effects Training Module, which replicates the congested RF environment already impacting friendly forces
    communications. The company also provides other simulation devices simulating IED-triggering radios and devices, assessing countermeasure effectiveness and conducting casualty MEDEVAC procedures.

    Integrated Sensor/Weapons for IED Defeat

    Countermeasures are only one facet of combating IEDs. An RG-33 MRAP displayed at MDM 07 demonstrated another step forward in the defeat of IEDs, based on the location, identification and disruption or initiation of the suspected object from a safe distance.

    AAI introduced here an IED standoff detection system based on a lightweight, mobile ground-penetrating radar installed on a manned route-clearing pathfinder or robotic platform. The system can locate metallic objects hidden beneath the surface or at the roadside, these include mortar bombs or artillery shells rigged as IEDs. The radar can detect such objects at a significant distance ahead and around the vehicle (about 300 ft 100 meters)providing standoff safety and ample early warning for intervention by explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) neutralization elements.

    The engagement of IED from a distance requires an integration of powerful electro-optical payloads and remotely operated weapon stations, Two systems were demonstrated here – an RG-33 MRAP based system utilizing an observation and surveillance mast produced by Gyrocam systems and BAE Systems’ Lemur remotely operated weapon station and a system integrating two of Elbit Systems products, a mast-mounted EO payload and the ILWS remotely operated turret, integrated on a counter-IED HMMWV technology demonstrator, which also employed a new version of teh CREW Counter-IED jammer.

    Other topics covered in this review:

    Vertical Lift at the Modern Day Marine Expo

    Among the aviation programs promoted at the 2007 Modern Day Marine expo were the new CH-53K Sikorsky, and FireScout Vertical Takeoff and Landing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (VT-UAV) from Northrop Grumman, which was presented for the first time as a weaponized platform, loaded with a quad launcher carrying Viper Strike weapons. Models of Sikorsky’s future helicopter versions based on the X2 coaxial rotor propulsion system included a VT-UAV, an attack helicopter which could become a future successor for the AH-1W Cobra and an assault helicopter platform, a potential successor to the UH-60 helicopter. A new concept from Boeing highlighted a future pulsejet powered hevy lift VTOL platform, capable of carrying medium armored vehicles weighing up to 30 tons. Advanced PulseJet Vertical Lifters Boeing is studying a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft that could lift heavy payloads of up to 30 tons, utilizing innovative ‘advanced pulsejet’ propulsion. While basic pulsejet is well understood (it was implemented in the 1940s with the V-1 flying bombs) Boeing patented this concept for vertical takeoff and lending applications, combining separate axial and vertical propulsion sources. The vertical propulsion source includes pulsejet engines located in separate augmentor bays fitted with having apertured walls to equalize pulsejet thrust. Embedded within the aircraft structure, multiple PulseJet engines ‘banks’ will be used to control the aircraft attitude, ascent and pitch and support the structural loads. By using separate axial and vertical thrust sources and pulsejet engines for vertical thrust, aircraft speed, payload and operating range are improved while a loss of one or more lift engines is mitigated by the remaining engines offering redundant and resilient VTOL capability over any terrain. According to Boeing, typical operating distance of such aircraft could be in the 500 – 1,500 nm range, cruising at a speed of 300 – 450 mph. Boeing considers various platforms utilizing the novel VTOL propulsion, including manned aircraft lifting payloads of 20 – 30 tons, and small manned or unmanned platforms, lifting payloads of 1,500 – 10,000 lbs (0.75 – 5 tons).

    X2 VT-UAV

    Sikorsky released preliminary details about a new unmanned aerial vehicle designed for vertical take-off and landing (VT-UAV) based on its latest X2 technology. The helicopter-like attributes and high speed (up to 250 kt cruise speed) enable multi-mission flexibility and grouth potential. This aircraft will be designed to carry mission equipment payloads of 300 lbs at a maximum gross takeoff weight of 5,600 lbs. (enhanced up to 6,200 lbs GTOW). The vehicle will utilize Sikorsky’s X-2 technology comprising twin four-blade counter rotating rotors and a pusher propeller, both powered by a single 1,800 shp engine. The VT-UAV will be able to operate autonomously at ranges of 200 nm, performing ISR missions of 4 hours (time on station). Alternatively, an armed/attack version could carry 14 advanced precision kill weapons (APKWS) or four Hellfire missiles on armed recce missions or perform crisply missions, carrying up to 1,000 lbs or cargo over 100 nm radius of action.

    Other topics covered in this review:

    Panoramic Vision Systems at the Modern Day Marine Expo

    Panoramic Vision is becoming a common requirement for modern combat vehicles. A number of systems were displayed at the Modern Day Marine expo, most systems are based on an integration of video images provided from multiple staring cameras (CCDs) into a panoramic view of the vehicle’s surrounding. Panoramic vision systems are considered an essential element for perimeter protection and situational awareness. SA can be further enhanced with the addition of gunshot detection systems and remotely operated weapon stations (RWS) covered in a separate section of this report.

    Boomerang III Acoustic Gunshot detector

    The latest version of the Boomerang acoustic sniper detection system operates on stationary or moving vehicles (up to 60 mph), detecting fire sources by processing the gunshot’s haracteristic acoustic signature, determining the relative shooter’s bearing, elevation and distance. Boomerang III usually processes a gunshot solution within less than a second. To minimize false alarms, the system responds only to gunshot trajectories passing within 30 meters of the sensor mast and shooters firing at maximum effective weapons ranges. The system also filters gunshots fired from the vehicle, signals picked from road bumps, door slams, vehicle backfires, firecrackers, wind effect and radio noise etc.

    MPSVS from EDO

    Multi-user Panoramic Synthetic Vision System (MPSVS) from EDO Corp offers 360 visual situational awareness for crew collaboration and threat engagement. The system uses multiple video cameras installed in a ring mount attached to the base of standard CROWS weapon stations. The system enables the crew to remain ‘buttoned up’ while being fully visually aware and engaged. The system provides 360 stereo 3D images in day and night, under all visibility conditions. A unique capability offered by the system is the use of video change detection for route clearance missions, where previously collected video streams ‘change detection’ algorithms are employed to past (recorded) and live feed, detecting suspicious objects along the route of march. MPSVS can be integrated with counter-sniper systems such as the Boomerang III, to facilitate effective sniper engagement. It also performs passive target designation, which can be use to direct the weapon station or remote weapons. The panoramic coverage enables the crew to constantly survey their perimeter, regardless of the weapon’s line of sight. They can track multiple targets simultaneously in queue for engagement by the weapon station. The system has an integral ‘combat playback’ capability, enabling review of critical events, allowing for the identification of suspicious elements in real-time or during debrief.

    ODR HV from ODF Optronics

    Another omni-panoramic vision system was displayed by ODF Optronics through their US representative Mistral. The system uses multiple cameras integrated in a bulky sensor pod installed on the vehicle’s roof. The system includes four to six cameras and a single, rotatable high resolution camera, which provides ‘close-up’ viewing of targets of interest. The capture of the omni-directional scene is performed simultaneously from all cameras, staring over a 360 deg. without the need to rotate an imaging device. The system, an evolution of the omni-panoramic mast-mounted camera introduced in 2004, enables multiple users to watch the vehicle’s surroundings simultaneously, each with a specific region of interest or allows for single user surrounding assessment. The rapid ‘stitching’ of pictures, performed in real time and on the move, require significant image processing. Pre-processing is performed on the sensor pole while the remaining is performed on the system’s ‘black box’ or operating computer, which can also be utilized for video motion detection, enabling perimeter protection for ‘silent guard’ mission, offer obstacle avoidance when driving or reversing in narrow urban terrain and offering ‘close-up’ views of specific areas of interest, regardless to where the vehicle or sight is pointing at. This camera is controlled by the operator, and is aimed at locations designated by the controller. Panoramic vision systems are currently considered for installation in various combat vehicles, including the MRAP.

    Other topics covered in this review:

    Unmanned Ground Systems at the Modern Day Marine Expo

    Robotics and remotely Controlled Weapons: A number of unmanned ground vehicles, remote weapon stations (RWS), panoramic vision systems and ancillary equipment were on display at MDM and AUSA, representing the growing interest in these systems. RWS are becoming integral element in modern combat platforms – not only on armored vehicles, but also on tanks, aircraft, and naval crafts and even robotic platforms, where RWS are empowering telepresence with lethal power, as robots are assuming more and more combat roles.

    Mobile Fusion’s Scout Ball

    Lockheed Martin hosted several robotic platforms. One of these applications was the Scout Ball, a baseball size sphere made of LEXAN, weighing less than one kilogram. Scout Ball is equipped with visual and IR cameras, microphones, position sensors, signal processing and data recording. This ball can see, hear and store information as it monitors its surroundings. The Scout Ball was developed by MobileFusion and is designed for military, law enforcement and firefighting applications. The Scout Ball system includes two spheres and a monitor based on a Toughbook 30 laptop and a battery charger. The Scout Ball can also be used as an unattended mobile sensor, attached to an aerial or ground robot. (See also Eyeball-1 and SpyBall)

    VIPeR from Elbit Systems

    Elbit Systems introducing at MDM 07 the latest version of its Versatile, Intelligent, Portable Robot (VIPeR). This small robot was developed for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) within the framework of its Portable Unmanned Ground Vehicle (PUGV) program, and in close cooperation with The Israeli Ministry of Defence’s Directorate of Defense R&D (DDR&D). Following operational evaluation, the IDF plans on fielding VIPeR in its infantry platoons. The VIPeR is one of te robotics platforms considered for the IDF future dismounted combat team. It will be able to carry a small electro-optical payload, acoustic sensors and light weapons. (See also SpyRobot RW and PacBot Early)

    Segway RMP Another robotic platform displayed at LM was the Segway Robotic Mobility Platform (RMP). Segway offers several platform models, from the lightweight (70 lbs/32 kg) two-wheeler RMP50, designed for smooth, flat indoor or outdoor surfaces, to heavy duty 157 lb (71 kg) dynamically stable two-wheel RMP 200 ATV and the RMP 400, a 240 lbs (109 kg) four wheel robot designed for extremely tough operating conditions, over rugged terrain. One of the unique characteristics of the Segway robots is their high payload to weight ratio. For example, the small RMP 50 weighs only 70 lbs (32 kg), but has a maximum payload capacity of 75 lb (34 kg). The RMP 400 has even better ratio – at a curb weight of 240 lbs (109kg) it can carry 400 lbs of payload (181 kg). These robots are designed to operate at a range of 10 – 15 miles (16-24 km) at an off-road speed of up to 18 mph (29 km/h). The RMP robot is powered by 48 NiMh batteries while the larger models use multiple Saphion lithium-ion battery packs. Both versions require battery recharging for 8 – 10 hours. Although these are well adapted to harsh field conditions, the batteries temperature tolerance limit their operational use from -10 to +50 C. This range could be expanded by using different batteries, which could be more suitable for sub-freezing conditions. (Some Saphion cells operate as low as -20C).

    MAARS Weaponized RobotFoster-Miller, Inc. (QinetiQ North America subsidiary) introduced at AUSA the Modular Advanced Armed Robotic System (MAARS), representing the company’s mature concept for operational, weaponized combat robot. MAARS is powerful and agile system designed specifically for the military and first responders. Compared with the company’s current SWORD and TALON robot, MAARS packs a more powerful platform, designed to carry heavier loads including the fully functional Small Caliber UltraLight (SCUL) remote weapon system from Precision Remote, mounting a 7.62 M240B machine gun or a 0.5 Cal Barret high power anti-material sniper rifle. MAARS also introduces significantly improved Digital Control Unit offering improved situational awareness, command and control. The controller provides improved weapon control functions, better aneuverability, mobility, lethality and safety.

    The complete MAARS system weighs about 350 pounds. The chassis is constructed as a uni-body frame fitted with easier battery and electronics accessibility. Other features include a larger payload bay, higher torque, creating faster ground speeds and improved braking. An EOD MAARS will be equipped with a new manipulator arm having a nominal 100 lb lift capability. The arm can quickly replace the turret mounted M240B weapon, literally transforming from a remote weapons platform to an Improvised Explosive Device (IED).

    Other topics covered in this review:

    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.