Le secrétaire général de l'Otan, Anders Fogh Rasmussen (G), le secrétaire américain à la Défense, Leon Panetta(C) et le ministre britannique de la Défense, Liam Fox Liam Fox (D), à Bruxelles le 5 octobre 2011. REUTERS/Yves Herman

05 octobre 2011 Par RFI

C'était la première visite en Europe du secrétaire américain à la Défense, Leon Panetta, depuis sa prise de fonction en juillet dernier. Il a participé ce mercredi 5 octobre à une réunion des ministres de la Défense des pays membres de l'Otan à Bruxelles. Il est venu mettre en garde l'Alliance atlantique à ne pas trop dépenser alors que le Pentagone se prépare à des coupes budgétaires.

Les pays européens membres de l’Otan ont démontré de sérieuses lacunes en matière de renseignements mais aussi de munitions, de drones et de ravitaillement en vol.

Pour cette première rencontre avec les homologues ministres de la Défense de l’Alliance, l’Américain Leon Panetta a dressé un constat sans phare, des défis avant tout budgétaires auxquels l’Otan doit désormais faire face.

« Ne faites pas l’erreur de croire que le budget défense des Etats-Unis peut absorber tous les chocs et combler les lacunes des alliés européens sur les dix prochaines années. Ce budget sera réduit de 450 milliards de dollars », a-t-il déclaré.

Leon Panetta a ainsi abondé dans le sens de tous ceux qui estiment que l’Europe ne peut plus se permettre de dépenser pour sa défense moins de la moitié de ce que font les Etats-Unis.

Une opinion partagée par le secrétaire général de l’Alliance atlantique, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, qui affirmait en outre il y a un mois que les alliés européens manquaient aussi de moyens aériens pour les transports de troupes. Ce constat, c’est celui qui résulte des leçons apprises par les alliés en Afghanistan et surtout en Libye.

Les Etats-Unis, qui appellent de leur vœu un plus large partage des tâches, se félicitent de ce que l’opération libyenne a pu démontrer comme capacité des Européens à prendre la direction d’une opération d’envergure, en particulier la France et le Royaume-Uni. Mais cette opération n’aurait pu être menée sans un soutien majeur des Etats-Unis.

USS Lake Champlain, a Ticonderoga-class Aegis  

guided missile cruiser, launched in 1987

2011-10-06 13:46:41  CRIonline - xinhua

L'Espagne et les États-Unis ont trouvé un accord pour que l'Espagne accueille les navires américain Aegis, une « étape importante » pour le système de défense antimissile de l'OTAN en Europe, a annoncé mercredi le secrétaire général de l'OTAN Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

« Cet accord marque un étape importante pour la progression de nos efforts communs en vue de défendre les populations, les forces et les territoires de l'OTAN contre les menaces de missiles ", a-t-il déclaré lors d'une conférence de presse commune entre le Premier ministre espagnol José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero et le secrétaire américain de la Défense Leon Panetta.

Alors que la Roumanie, la Pologne et la Turquie ont déjà donné leur accord pour accueillir des éléments essentiels du bouclier anti-missile de l'OTAN, ce nouvel accord « nous rapproche d'une étape supplémentaire de notre objectif de capacité opérationnelle », a-t-il dit.　

Selon l'accord, les Etats-Unis vont déployer quatre navires équipés du système Aegis dans la base navale de Rota, sur la côte médiaterranéenne espagnole, a indiqué M. Zapatero.

"Cela signifie que Rota va devenir un centre de soutien à des navires, leur permettant de rejoindre les forces multinationales ou de mener des missions de l'Otan dans les eaux internationales, en particulier dans la Méditerranée", a dit le Premier ministre espagnol.

Selon M. Panetta, cette annonce envoie "un message très fort" que les Etats-Unis vont continuer à investir dans l'Otan et à défendre l'Europe, bien qu'ils fassent face à des contraintes budgétaires.

"Pour leur part, les Etats-Unis sont pleinement engagés à bâtir une capacité de défense antimissile pour couvrir et protéger toutes les populations européennes de l'Otan, leurs territoires et leurs forces contre la menace croissante de missiles balistiques", a affirmé le secrétaire américain à la Défense.　

BAE Systems’ Bradley Operation Desert Storm Situational Awareness vehicle

06 Oct 2011 | Ref. 197/2011 BAE Systems

YORK, Pennsylvania – BAE Systems will purchase material items in preparation for the conversion of 245 Bradley Operation Desert Storm Situational Awareness (ODS-SA) vehicles through a $270 million contract from U.S. Army Contracting Command – Warren.

The company will use the acquired items to upgrade the vehicles to have improved situational awareness ability, which highlights BAE Systems’ robust support and technical services capabilities in supporting customers’ requirements.

“As one of the most survivable vehicles in theater, the Bradley has remained a vital asset to our armed forces for several decades,” said Joe McCarthy, vice president and general manager of Combat Vehicles at BAE Systems.  “The items purchased through this contract will help ensure that our soldiers are operating a vehicle that has updated technological enhancements and capabilities.”

The Bradley ODS-SA vehicle features the latest digitized electronics for optimum situational awareness, network connectivity and communication within the Heavy Brigade Combat Team.  Bradley ODS-SA’s proven durability and commonality of design reduces the logistics burden, while enhancing battlefield performance to meet a variety of mission requirements.

The contract for material procurement has been awarded in advance of the Bradley ODS-SA vehicle conversions effort, anticipated to take place at the beginning of 2012. 

The work will be performed by the existing workforce at BAE Systems facilities in York and Fayette, Pa., and is anticipated to be complete in April 2014 if all options are exercised. A portion of the vehicle teardown efforts will be performed at the Red River Army Depot in Texarkana, Texas.

Bradley Fighting Vehicles continue to provide outstanding survivability, mobility and lethality to U.S. soldiers in various urban combat situations.  The Bradley fulfills five critical mission roles – infantry fighting vehicle, cavalry fighting vehicle, fire support vehicle, command vehicle and engineer squad vehicle – for the U.S. Army’s Heavy Brigade Combat Teams.

BAE Systems will display the Bradley Fighting Vehicle at the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) Annual Meeting & Exposition in Washington, D.C., Oct. 10-12.

Germany’s Puma IFV exemplifies the trend for heavier vehicles and use of modular armour – but are we on the right path? Photo: MilitaryPhotos.net

10/05/2011 Richard de Silva - defenceiq.com

Defence IQ’s Richard de Silva hosts the debate with authors and academics Professor Richard Ogorkiewicz and Christopher Foss (Jane’s) on the future of armoured vehicles post-Afghanistan.

Richard de Silva:  Today, we’re taking our first steps into a very important topic, perhaps the most important topic, particularly for coalition forces – we’re asking, what’s next for armoured vehicles after Afghanistan? How should militaries be restructuring their strategies for procurement and vehicle design? What will the requirements be? Is it even worth trying to predict these things, or should we be looking for a solution in some other way?

Weighing in on the debate with some authority on the subject are two of Britain’s leading experts on Armoured Vehicles today.

We have first, Professor Richard Ogorkiewicz, academic, scientific advisor, lecturer, and author of three books and more than 500 published articles on military engineering. Good afternoon, Professor.

Richard Ogorkiewicz:  Good afternoon.

RdS:  And alongside him, we welcome Christopher Foss, Editor of Jane’s Armour and Artillery, and of Jane's Defence Weekly’s Land Forces publication. He is also an author of multiple books on vehicles and weapons systems, and we’re honoured to have him here today. Good afternoon to you, Chris.

Christopher Foss:  Good afternoon to you. Looking forward to the discussion.

RdS:  Thank you both for joining us.

So, this is the outlook that many militaries face, and to which the wider industry is watching with anticipation to see the route that it’ll take. What are the key questions that need to be asked in this scenario, and if you have to prioritise, what’s the one question that comes at the top of that list?

 

 

RO:  Well, the first thing to look at is the general situation and I can see a major difference between what is happening in the East to what is happening in the West.  And, therefore, depending on which part of the world we consider to be important, the answers will vary.  In particular, the West, as you well know, is running down its armoured forces.  In some cases, some countries have got rid of all the tanks.  Whereas In the East, we have at the moment perhaps the most advanced tanks being developed in Korea and Japan and possibly in China.  So, it’s a very varying situation from the two parts of the world.

 

RdS:  So, you’re saying that if we’re looking at this problem, let’s say, as a jigsaw puzzle, the first thing to do is to look at the pieces we have on the table and take stock of the fleets in the shape that they are today.  Chris, can you offer some perspective on that from the European or North American front?

 

CF:  Well, I think I would concur that if you take, for example, the Royal Netherlands Army who once had a huge tank fleet this year de-commissioned its last two battalions.  The Belgian Army will soon pull out of its last Leopards.  Countries like Germany, the UK and France are also reducing not only their main battle tanks, but also some of their other fleets as well.  If you look at the Middle East, there is no sign of any of the countries in the Middle East making any significant reductions in their tank fleet.  I think it’s really driven by what’s happened since the Cold War.  People in Europe see there is no need for heavy armour.  We’re now gearing up in some cases to more of a counter-insurgency campaign, but if you look back at Gulf War I, Gulf War II, and even Chechnya, heavy armour was used.  The Russians didn’t drive into Chechnya in pickup trucks. And if Bosnia had gone wrong, that would really be a conventional ground manoeuvre action, but economics come into it.  Most countries in Europe are slashing their defence budgets.  Something’s got to give.  In the UK, we gave up our carrier capability and we’re going to give up a lot of our heavy armour capability and our artillery capability.

 

RdS:  Well, there’s a lot of aspects there that we’ll probably drill into a little bit more in detail as we go along.  In theory, would you say that with the current fleets currently operating in Afghanistan – stretched as they are – if another conflict were to break out next week or in a couple of weeks’ time, would we be able to deal with that in terms of a land force engagement?  Chris first.

 

CF:  Yes and no.  I think the type of vehicle we deployed in Afghanistan was for one particular mission; like the Americans put a lot of heavy MRAPs in there.  But the terrain conditions in Afghanistan are quite different.  So, some of the heavier vehicles were not suited to that terrain.  I think the problem people are going to have is that in the case of UK we have procured hundreds and hundreds of... well, we don’t call them MRAPs.  We call them ‘protective patrol vehicles’.  They are funded under urgent operational requirements (UoRs) and once that conflict draws down, the army will have to decide if they go into their core defence budget, in which case the army pays for them, or they scrap them.  And if you look at UK, ground manoeuvre has been under-funded for well over 15 years and we are left with a lot of obsolete equipment which is now getting on in urgent need of replacement.

 

RdS:  Professor Ogorkiewicz, could you elaborate a little bit more perhaps on exactly how much of a difference a variety of terrain makes to a land force engagement?  And do you think that this trend in heavier vehicles is sustainable?

 

RO:  Well, the major difference, I think, is our vision of the future insofar as the urbanisation is concerned.  If we’re considering operating in urban environments, that calls for one kind of vehicle.  If we’re thinking of operating in open warfare, open terrain warfare, then that leaves the ground suitable for other vehicles.  So, that’s the first thing.  Exactly what is likely to be wanted is very difficult to forecast.  I take the view that the heavy armoured vehicles in general will be required by those countries which face or expect to have some territorial problems, border problems, and so on and so forth.  Those who are away from that sort of thing, like the Netherlands, for instance, they adopt the view that there is no need for heavy equipment.  On the other hand, if you think in terms of conflicts in general terms, the less intense they are, the less likely they are to call for armoured vehicles.  Ipso facto, they’ll require light armoured vehicles of the kind that we’ve seen employed in Afghanistan and light in terms of armour, that is.

 

RdS:  So, more or less as we’ve seen with Libya.

 

RO:  Yes.

 

RdS:  And we’ve not engaged from the ground at all.  Had we have done, would you envision that in that more urbanised environment we would have encountered quite a few problems, given that the fleets that we’ve been spending the last ten years plus developing have been geared solely to desert terrain, mountainous terrain, and so on?

 

RO:  Well, Libya is not perhaps a good example to take because it’s not a very urbanised society.  There are towns, obviously – there is Tripoli. But, by and large, it’s open terrain, as British and Allied forces encountered in the campaigns of North Africa in the 40s.  I think the urban terrain is more likely to be exemplified by Iraq, which involved fighting in cities to a very large extent and very little in the open terrain.

 

RdS:  Yes, and, Chris, I believe you’ve mentioned in the past to us that there has been quite a big gulf in the type of warfare we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The simple fact that we’re not in combat operations currently in Iraq anymore should lead to the fact that it was a successful campaign at least in comparison to the Afghanistan campaign, which we’ve seen being dragged out for quite a while and many would argue primarily because we haven’t been equipped and perhaps still aren’t.

 

CF:  Yes, I think that’s probably true.  Certainly, in the early days of Iraq, we didn’t have the equipment.  Then we started fielding some of the protective patrol vehicles.  If you look at what we’ve got in Afghanistan today, we are probably almost there in terms of what equipment we’ve got.  We’ve got the Mastiff.  We’ve got the Ridgeback.  We haven’t deployed tanks, unlike some other countries.  And even Warrior is out there and CVRT out there.  I think Warrior is a good case.  That was originally developed for conventional manoeuvre warfare some… over 20 years ago.  That was deployed successfully in Gulf War I, in the Balkans, Gulf War II, and is now out in Afghanistan.  That’s probably gone through 100 modifications and we’re on the latest one, theatre-standard Herrick, which pushes the weight of the vehicle over 40 tons, but it’s still got fairly good mobility.  So, I think a vehicle in the future, you’ve got to buy a vehicle or procure a vehicle which is going to have a great deal of stretch potential because it will probably stay in service for 25 or 30 years.  It’s going to get heavier because they’re going to put extra things on it.  So, people are looking today at vehicles which have plenty of stretch potential and an electronic architecture so you can upgrade that vehicle in the future much more than you can in the past.  Certainly, as far as Afghanistan goes, we’ve at last got almost all of the equipment that we want.  Some of it has had to be modified once, twice, or even three times as the threat changes or as new technology evolves.

 

Modular specifications, like those to be incorporated into the British-made Ocelot, may

prove to be the most viable future for armour development.

Image: Crown Copyright/MOD 2011

 

RO:  I agree wholeheartedly with Chris that the Warrior type vehicle is a very good example of the sort of general purpose, if you like, vehicle which is likely to be wanted whatever the conflict.  It’s a very adaptable vehicle.  It’s tending to get a little bit heavy if you look at the general world trend exemplified by the German Puma and the general growth in the weight of the Warrior itself, which has gone from 20 to 30 tons, but that kind of vehicle, I think is going to be perhaps the basic vehicle of the future.

 

CF:  I think also, if we were talking ten years ago, everybody had the great vision. America had the future combat system; we had the future rapid effect system.  And, certainly, in those early days everything had to go on a C-130.  That’s really gone out the window now because people used to say, “fly light, die first”, because a Hercules sometimes can only take 12 or 14 tons.  So, I think that C-130 element has gone.  So, a lot of the new vehicles, even the 8x8s, some of them in the old days were about 14 tons.  Some of the 8x8s like Boxer are pushing at 30 tons.  So, the only aircraft you can transport them rapidly in, when it comes in, in the case of Europe, is the A400 or the C-17, but the sheer cost of transporting those vehicles into Afghanistan is not cheap.

 

RdS:  That’s a very good point.  I spoke recently with a representative from the Czech Army and they said that they had found great use in MRAPs – I think they had borrowed the MaxxPro – but they’d also seen a lot of value in the light vehicles for transporting snipers up into the hills.  In a time when some are saying, “light armoured vehicles have had their day”, is that something that either of you would agree with?

 

RO:  No.  Light armoured vehicles will have a role to play whatever the conflict.  From the very low-intensity conflicts right up to the full interstate wars.  I think light armoured vehicles will be needed whatever happens.

 

CF:  Yes, I think there will be an enduring requirement for light armoured vehicles.  I think in the future they are going to become more complex and I think if you look at some countries round the world, they want very simple vehicles.  Yet if you want… some of the Western nations, those vehicles are very complicated and I think there are training and logistic problems, but there will always be a need for light vehicles and I think some countries around the world are going to go to a balanced force of tracked vehicles like CV-90, like the Swedes have got CV-90 and they’re also buying a fleet of Patria 8x8 armoured modular vehicles and they’re also buying some all-terrain track carriers.  So, I think some countries are really going down the route... will only almost have a gendarmerie and counter-insurgency force.  Other countries are going to a more balanced fleet which will be capable of undertaking a wide range of roles across the full military spectrum.

 

RdS:  Well, you were talking there earlier about having vehicles with a lot of stretch.  Obviously, the argument with a vehicle that’s essentially a ‘jack of all trades’ is that we could encounter a scenario in which we don’t have that, let’s say, ‘superiority’ in that one area in time to be cost-effective or save the lives we need to save before we’re right in the thick of it.  How do we surmount that obstacle?

 

RO:  Well, depending on what premium you place on survivability, I don’t think you can get away from vehicles which are fairly heavy and large.  It would be against the laws of physics if you could devise a vehicle weighing two or three tons and having the protection of a Challenger.  So, I think there will be no escape from having more than one kind of vehicle depending on the nature of the conflict.

 

CF:  It might well be that in the future, like in the artillery, units will be dual-roled.  For example, the US Marine Corps field artillery units... they can take 155mm 777s or they can take 120mm mortars.  If you look at Afghanistan, all the Warthogs are not being driven by the infantry.  They’re being driven by the Royal Armoured Corps.  So, I think there will be flexibility covered, but you need a good industrial base to do that.  In the case of UK, there is no longer a requirement for us to design vehicles.

 

RO:  Or even modify them.

 

CF:  Yes.  So, if you look back 15 years, the amount of R&D capabilities that UK has lost is horrendous.  Most of these MRAP-type vehicles, we’ve had to buy from America and upgrade at fantastic cost in UK.  I think our industrial R&D base for ground combat has already been eroded.  In the space of a couple years’ time, it’s going to go completely and we’ll just have to go to Germany, France, or another country and buy off the shelf and hope it meets our requirements.

RO:  And then have great difficulties in modifying them if we want to.

 

BAE's Scimitar Mark II is a reconnaissance vehicle fielded in response to the MoD's UOR programme. Image: Defence

 

CF:  Correct, because we have modified some vehicles.  We’ve deployed them and they’ve broken down because to take a vehicle and modify it is a complex task and you come in with problems with logistics, training, a supply line which might stretch from Afghanistan all the way round the world to America or somewhere else. It is a problem.

 

RO:  It is indeed.  Very good point, Chris, about the re-roling of units.  If you go back a number of years, our Royal Armoured Corps regiment used to operate Saladin armoured cars at one time and then go back to battle tanks at another time.

 

CF:  Yes.  It does take time, like the Northern Ireland situation.  We had artillery units which stopped being gunners.  They trained for three or six months as infantry, they deployed to Northern Ireland, they come back, and they probably hadn’t touched an artillery system for 18 months.  So, you need to train them.  So, although you can re-role people, it’s very easy to lose that core capability and it takes a long time to get it back.

 

RdS:  If we’re talking about modifying vehicles – and we are saying it does take a lot of effort, a lot of time, and a lot of expense – what about the opportunity to create more modular vehicles, ones that we could retrofit, and ones that could, as we see with the Foxhound that’s going out there – I think, next year – we have a vehicle in which we can transport troops, but we can also have an ambulance there or whatever it may be.  Is a modular approach a workable solution to this problem?

 

RO:  Well, this is a minor example that you just quoted.  This is just using a vehicle which happens to be fairly versatile and you’re not demanding too much of it either.  That’s going to be a change from one role to another, but for heavy vehicles, I doubt if you could have a modular principle.  I personally am very sceptical of the sort of approach that our Swedish friends pursued with the SEP [Fragmentation Protected Standard Platform] programme.  It was an excellent programme in many ways, but I didn’t believe that the modularity, which was to be part of it, was workable.

 

CF:  I think if you look at what the Swedes… and even the Boxer programme has got a removable mission module.  Every vehicle comes with that module and you can take it off, but I think that in the hard light of day that probably won’t [be used].  What some countries are doing is having a modular kit in the back so you can re-role that vehicle. It’s got the rails or the hooks in it.  You can re-role it very quickly as an ambulance or a command post.  Things like the M113, first fielded back in 1960 – there were probably 200 variants of that!  I think that is still there.  The Warrior was an infantry fighting vehicle.  There’s an artillery version and a command version.  There’s an ambulance version.  I think in the near future there will be a multi-role chassis which you can put a bridge on it, mine-clearing roles, or a ‘dozer blade.  So, certainly the medium vehicles, there is already a fair bit of multi-roling there.  Certainly, on 8x8s you can have many different versions, but when you get to a very heavy vehicle like a tank or a really heavy ISE, it is not always that easy.

 

RdS:  But why is that?

 

RO:  Because the vehicles are different.  You want different things.  There isn’t a capsule that you could take out of one vehicle and put into another.

 

RdS:  But isn’t that what we should be working towards a solution on, in order to make there be standards which everyone works from and sort of streamline our entire approach to…

 

RO:  The trouble with that type of approach is, it has been tried with aircraft in some cases.  You end up with an imperfect solution.  The optimised solution is going to elude you if you’re going to try and make it a jack of all trades.

 

CF:  I would agree with the professor.  A tank... you can have a basic tank.  You can then upgrade it for urban operations or even other missions, but the basic thing is there.  When you’ve got some other vehicles, you can take things out the back and put other things in.  You can do that, but with very heavy vehicles it’s very different.  Most of the fleet, like Foxhound is a light protected patrol vehicle.  They’re talking about taking the top off and putting on an open one for Special Forces, like the Italian light module vehicle.  You’ve got the basic one that has five people in it, but you put all the communications in it and you’re lucky to get four.  There’s a two-door version.  There’s a flatbed.  There’s an ambulance.  So, for some of the vehicles, there is all that multi-role that’s there.  You can have it for different missions, but you can’t necessarily re-role it at short notice.

 

Image: pandur.cz

 

RO:  It’s a matter of adaptation more than anything else, isn’t it?  Like the M113 which you’ve quoted... a basic vehicle which you can adapt to a number of roles, but you don’t change the vehicle.

 

CF:  No, that’s it.  You can add extra armour or change the inside.  You can pop on different things... but the actual structure you cannot change it and you shouldn’t really because that would be another can of worms.

 

RO:  Quite.

 

RdS:  Well, if it’s a case where it’s the heavier vehicles that are perhaps the brick wall to that solution, is it that we should be looking beyond just increasing the weight of the armour?  Should we be looking at more active protection or different solutions in terms of blast dispersal or whatever it may be?  Is that the innovation that we need?  As you were saying earlier, Chris, with the R&D disappearing from this country, should we really be looking at other solutions to the IED issue and everything else?

 

CF:  Well, I think the new generation of vehicles like the Puma. That’s got a modular armour system.  You can put it in an A400, and when it gets there, you put the armour on.  I think, Professor, it’s already got a soft-kill DAS.  Hasn’t it, the Puma?

 

RO:  Yes, it has.

 

CF:  Certainly, other people are... Merkava’s got the Trophy active defence system.  So, active defence systems are there.  It’s just that the land segment is probably 20 years behind the air force side because a pilot wouldn’t take off in something that didn’t have [the required defence]. And it costs money.  These things aren’t cheap and the ground environment is so different than the aerial threat.  I think the Professor is far more qualified than me – the ground threat is so diverse.  It’s not easy to develop a system that can cope with everything.

 

RO:  And even if you can afford an active protection system, that doesn’t necessarily mean you can get rid of the armour because there will be bits of stuff flying around.  It’s going to hit you.  Unless you’re fairly robust to take the secondary effect, your active protection system will not have done its job.

 

CF:  No.

 

RdS:  Fair enough.  We’ve spoken a lot about what we can’t do.  Is there – at least from a starting point, do you think – a way in which we can find a solution?  What would you do if, given you had the budget you needed – or working with the MoD’s budget as it is today –what would be your first avenue to approach a workable solution for this issue?

 

CF:  Well, I think we’ve got another project out there.  The trouble is, in the past, the UK has probably spent between half a billion and a billion pounds on programmes that have never come to fruition.  You go back to the future family of light armoured vehicles, Tracer, Boxer, Future Rapid Effect System... all of those failed because either they were international or the user changed the requirements.  They just take too long.  When you start a development programme, it can take ten years, by which time the threat will change.  I think the Professor might agree that you’ve really got to try to cut down that development period.

 

RO:  Hear, hear.

 

CF:  I think the Americans with the old Blackbird reconnaissance aircraft – that went from concept to first flight in under four years because it was a very tight development.  If you see the stages they have to go through and the amount of committees and paperwork, it all takes time.  Every two years, the program manager changes.  So, they change it, but we’ve really got to try and speed up the whole cycle from when we want the vehicle to when we get it into service.  It just takes too long at the moment.

 

RO:  Chris is absolutely right because the situation changes.  In ten years’ time, what seemed reasonable at the beginning of the ten years will probably become quite unreasonable by the end of the ten years.

 

CF:  Yes.  Like FRES... if we had FRES now – the original concept – we probably wouldn’t deploy because it would probably be a death trap for the lads.

 

RO:  Right.

 

RdS:  Any closing thoughts from either of you, predictions, or things you would like to see?

 

CF:  Professor?

 

RO:  Well, I can see a continuing role for these two types of vehicles.  One is what I would consider a general purpose infantry fighting vehicle; the vehicle that we talked about already, which can be adapted to a number of roles.  At the bottom end of the scale, I think we need something like the Ocelot or vehicles of that kind to do the patrolling and quasi-police work.

 

CF:  I would concur with that.  I think once Afghanistan runs down, we will have to decide what we will take into core.  Some of those vehicles were very good five years ago.  We’ll probably just leave them behind.  The other ones, you’re going to have to bring back and upgrade.  In order to do that, it’s going to cost a lot of money.  As UK only spends 2% of GDP and we’ve got to fund other programmes, it is going to be very difficult, but armoured fighting vehicles are still required and I think there is still an enduring requirement for ground manoeuvre capability.

 

RdS:  Christopher Foss and Professor Richard Ogorkiewicz, thank you both very much for weighing in on the discussion.  Some very good points indeed from you both, excellent food for thought, and we hope to hear more from you soon.  Thank you!

CV90 tanks could soon be rendered invisible to infrared.

27 September 2011 army-technology.com

Cloaking, advanced mine detection and even full autonomy are amongst capabilities vaunted for the army’s future vehicle.

Aggressive defence cuts, differing combat environments and technological advancements have placed new and emerging expectations on the capabilities of military vehicles. The demands placed upon today's vehicles are shaping the design of vehicles still in development, and this year's Defence & Security Equipment International (DSEi) exhibition, held in London, UK, provided defence contractors with the platform to demonstrate just what they have to offer for tomorrow's military vehicle of choice.

Blending into the background

Using BAE's Adaptiv technology, a vehicle can be covered in a 'skin' of hexagonal panels that, using an undisclosed technology, can change temperature at a rapid rate. This allows the vehicle to adapt to the temperature of its surroundings, rendering the vehicle invisible to infrared or thermal imaging. Alternatively, the cells can copy the heat signature of other vehicles, or even animals, in order to mislead enemy combatants. Added to this, the cells can capture images of the surroundings and project the background scenery, helping the vehicle to blend into the background.

The hexagonal panels can also be hardened, providing an armour plating capability that has been absent from previously cloaking technologies. Developed in Sweden by BAE, in cooperation with the Swedish Defence Material Administration (FMV), this particular adaptation manages to succeed where others have failed due to a comparatively low energy consumption and adequate armour plating capability, due to the robustness of the cells.

Tests carried out with a CV90 tank fitted with the system have concluded that the technology is most effective at distances between 300m and 400m, although smaller or larger panels could be fitted onboard smaller or larger vehicles to produce similar results.

BAE believes that the technology could be ready for production within two years. FMV project leader Peder Sjolund also backed the vehicle, adding: "Our panels can be made so strong that they provide useful armour protection and consume relatively low levels of electricity, especially when the vehicle is at rest in 'stealth recce' mode and generator output is low."

Operating autonomously

BAE’s Land Autonomy Reference Kit is capable of adapting most military vehicles to act with various levels of autonomy.

BAE also used DSEi to unveil its new Land Autonomy Reference Kit (LARK), which it says can offer varying levels of autonomy to vehicles. The kit, which can be fitted onto almost any land vehicle currently in operation, is capable of adapting and converting a vehicle to act completely autonomously through the adaptation of various sensors and processors.

Developed by BAE's Advanced Technology Centre, the kit combines a 'brain box', which includes the system's processing power and algorithms, with a tailored sensor suite and an operator interface in order to transform the vehicle into a programmable, autonomous platform.

While retaining its capabilities of standard function, various levels of autonomy can be programmed into the vehicle - ranging from remote operation using an interface to waypoint following on a predetermined route and through to complete autonomous action. Additional sensors and software can be added in order to allow the vehicle to operate throughout GPS-restricted locations.

Possible uses that BAE has vaunted for the development include transforming vehicles to act as 'mules' for carrying supplies or equipment, or even providing armed forces with a means of evacuating personnel from dangerous scenarios without endangering lives of other soldiers.

Mine detection

US forces learn to operate a Husky vehicle-mounted mine detector

Also present at the exhibition was Husky's second generation vehicle-mounted mine detection vehicle, which includes several upgrades over its predecessor.

The latest variant includes a sophisticated, high-sensitivity low metal content detector, accompanied by alternative sensors such as ground-penetrating radar. The hi-sense pulse induction metal detection system has been designed in response to the emerging threat of sophisticated improvised explosive devices witnessed in combat zones like Afghanistan and Iraq. As the IED threat evolves, so does the technology with which they are constructed - an increasing amount of devices are now constructed with low amounts of metal and are dug deeper in order to avoid detection.

The technology induces more energy into the terrain in order to detect objects at greater depths, and improvements have also been made to the signal-to-noise ratio of the reflected wave. Digital filtering has also seen a marked improvement, enabling the system to be used more effectively with the alternator on. The alterations made have resulted in a 30% improvement in efficacy over the pulse induction system.

The vehicle's protection has also been ramped-up, retaining its 'V' angle hull to deflect blasts but with the added protection provided by bolt-on ceramic tile armour plates. The increased mass has led to a new 550mm-wide overpass tire to be developed, allowing the vehicle to achieve a 12.5 psi mean ground pressure.

Special vehicles for special prices

Iveco Defence Vehicles was also busy at DSEi, exhibiting the new version of its successful light multirole vehicle (LMV), designed especially for use in special forces operations following expressions of interest from the special force units of several countries.

The special forces variant differs from the traditional LMV in terms of its ballistic protection, which has been reduced to only include a light anti-mine plate in order to maximise payload and capability whereas slight changes have been made to the onboard weaponry. Four smoke grenade launchers are attached to the front of the vehicle with a pivot mount for a 7.62mm MG for the vehicle commander.

Although the variant is currently under evaluation by Special Forces from a number of countries, a larger ring mount capable of supporting a gunner platform is currently under development. Fitted onto the vehicle's roll bar is a mount for the mean support weapon, capable of accepting a 12.7mm MG or 40mm AGL which is collapsible for transport.

Transport capabilities are an important consideration for the design of the special forces LMV, with transportability inside a CH 47 Chinook helicopter integral to the vehicle. This has been resolved with the addition of a foldable-roll bar concept that is currently in the design stages, and a vehicle solution with a width less than 1.98m has been identified.

05.10.2011 MDAA

BRUSSELS — The Obama administration has agreed to base Aegis Cruisers on Spain’s coast, as part of the anti-ballistic missile defense system to protect Europe against a potential Iranian nuclear threat, U.S. defense officials said Wednesday.

Officials said the plan will make it easier to maintain a continuous naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea, and also provide security in the eastern Atlantic. The move comes just seven months after the Pentagon sent the USS Monterey, a special radar-equipped warship, to the Mediterranean, marking the first of the administration’s four-phase plan to put land- and sea-based radars and interceptors in several European locations over the next decade.

The plan was described by U.S. defense officials on condition of anonymity because it has not been made public. Officials expect to make the announcement later Wednesday at the NATO defense ministers’ meeting.

U.S. and Spanish officials agreed to base the ships at Naval Station Rota, on Spain’s Mediterranean coast.

Developed to protect Europe from a potential Iranian nuclear threat in 2009, the broad missile defense shield was approved by NATO last November.

Under the arrangement, a limited system of U.S. anti-missile interceptors and radars already planned for Europe – to include interceptors in Romania and Poland and radar in Turkey – would be linked to expanded European-owned missile defenses. That would create a broad system that protects every NATO country against medium-range missile attack.

Article Link

October 4, 2011 informationdissemination.net

The Dutch have decided to go ahead with modifying the SMART-L radar on board their Zeven Provinciën class frigates for ballistic missile defence.

And why I'm calling it the next European step is because the Germans are using them as well, as will Denmark when their Ivar Huitfeldt class will be operational. And the derivative S-1850 is in use by the UK, France and Italy. So that's 6 European countries, with between them 14 active ships and a planned total of 24.

In November and December 2006 HNLMS Tromp joined an American tracking excercise to test a software modification that would allow for the tracking of ballistic missiles. That test was succesfull. The range of the SMART-L during the 2006 test was around 480km (300 miles). This was up from a instrumented range of 400km. The Dutch MoD is now using maps showing a 2000km (1250 miles) range. That means that the Dutch can effectively guard the whole of Europe alone with their 4 ships.

So why has it taken so long to take this step?
I think the answer is quite simple: money.

The Dutch have been trying to get the above mentioned countries aboard, with the Germans being the most serious partners and Denmark as an observer. Recently France has also indicated they are interested.
Meanwhile we were also funding Thales' I-Mast, to be used on the Holland class OPV. Certain parts developed for the I-Mast can also be used in the SMART-L modification.
The Dutch apparently didn't want to wait any longer and have decided to go ahead and see who will join them eventually.

Modifications will be done during regular maintenance on the ships. That means one ship a year, starting in 2017.

Next thing would be buying SM-3's, but as of yet the Dutch haven't decided to buy them.

03 October 2011 – Thales

Weston, FL –  Thales, leader in information systems and communications security, announces that products from its family of Datacryptor network encryptors have been approved for inclusion on the US Department of Defense (DoD) Unified Capabilities Approved Products List (UC APL) by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). DoD agencies and military services can now confidently deploy a solution that is approved by the DoD to protect sensitive and mission critical data against cyber attacks. Datacryptor is the first standalone AES 256-bit encryption device approved for use across Department of Defense network infrastructures on the DISA UC APL.

The Datacryptor product line offers a range of high-speed standalone security platforms that provide full duplex bulk and tunnel encryption at Ethernet speeds of up to 10G and SONET speeds up to OC-192. The encryptors deliver high speed point-to-point and multipoint-to-multipoint security for data in motion over wide area network (WAN) backbone infrastructures, internal networks and carrier-based MPLS networks, protecting the confidentiality of sensitive and high value data, voice and video. Unlike multipurpose devices like firewalls and switches that incorporate encryption as an add-on feature, Datacryptor is a standalone, single function device with significant performance advantages over embedded alternatives.

“We are proud to have the first standalone encryption solutions listed on the DISA UC APL. This milestone validates not only our commitment to the Federal marketplace but also our extensive experience deploying military-grade network encryption,” says Cindy Provin, President of the Americas at Thales e-Security. “It is vital our customers, both Federal and commercial, have a high level of confidence in the products they buy and with Datacryptor they can rest assured that they are selecting a world class solution tested to the highest standards.”

Thales has long championed best practices and industry standards with a commitment to achieving internationally recognized standards and compliance requirements. Thales Datacryptor high-speed encryptors are certified to Common Criteria EAL3 and Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 140-2 level 3. FIPS is a standard defined by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology and widely adopted as a security benchmark for cryptographic solutions in government and commercial enterprises. Thales’s participation in both the Common Criteria and FIPS programs gives customers the assurance that products have been developed in accordance with internationally recognized best practice. The addition to DISA UC APL is further independent validation that our products meet the highest security standards.

Thales’s complete line of Datacryptor Layer 2 network encryptors appear on the DISA UC APL, including SONET OC3/12/48/192 and Ethernet 1Gbps and 10Gbps solutions, Products approved for use on DoD networks are available at: https://aplits.disa.mil/processAPList.do/. When searching by “Device Type,” Thales Datacryptor is listed under Virtual Private Network Concentrators.

September 30, 2011 defpro.com

Company Provides Live Training for DoD Training Requirements

NEWPORT NEWS, Va. | United States Air Forces in Europe (USAFE) has selected ATAC (Airborne Tactical Advantage Company) to win a heavily competed Joint Terminal Attack Controller contract in Germany. ATAC, the U.S. leader in outsourced tactical airborne services for 16 years, has been awarded the flying contract for Close Air Support (CAS) Joint Terminal Attack Controller (JTAC) training in support of USAFE, Warrior Preparation Center (WPC), and Air Ground Operations School (AGOS). Flying will be conducted primarily in Germany over the course of the 4-year contract.

Joint Terminal Attack Controllers (JTACs) have become crucial links in the targeting chain for US forces overseas and ongoing contingency operations, often meaning the difference between life and death for troops on the ground. ATAC's services will be pivotal in the qualification of combat JTACs authorized to perform terminal attack control and the recognized experts in directed release of ordnance during covert and non-covert operations. ATAC anticipates offering Intelligence, Reconnaissance and Surveillance (ISR) in the future to complement training.

ATAC currently trains JTACs for the USAF in Hawaii, Joint Special Operations Units at MCAS Yuma, Arizona, for the USMC at multiple locations within the United States, and for the USN at Naval Air Station Fallon, NV. From ATAC's President, Jeffrey Parker, "We're pleased to have been selected by USAFE and look forward to deploying our experienced team to support the Air Force in Germany." ATAC operates a fleet of 22 tactical aircraft and anticipates simultaneous operations both in Europe and the United States in support of Air-to-Ground training requirements. This award confirms ATAC's vision "To be the recognized industry leader for tactical aviation training to US and allied militaries worldwide, delivering cost-effective, continually advancing capabilities."

Le Béarn est un radar utilisé à Biscarosse pour la trajectographie (crédit : DGA)

28/09/2011 Par Jean-Marc Tanguy - sldinfo.com

Des Américains sont venus avant l’été sur le site de la DGA de Rennes, afin de faire expertiser des matériels militaires par des ingénieurs français. La DGA, qui a révélé l’information hier à Cazaux (Gironde), ne livre pas plus d’informations sur cette étude qui serait en lien avec le domaine très discret de la guerre électronique. Des précédents avaient déjà eu lieu, à l’époque de l’Irak, qui employait des systèmes de défense français. Il pourrait y avoir un lien avec les opérations en Libye, mais la DGA n’a pas commenté. Des Néerlandais sont également venus faire expertiser des matériels. Ces essais ont été réalisés dans le centre de Rennes, où se sont tenus récemment les universités d’été de la défense, et dont les activités sont connues mondialement dans le domaine très critique de la maîtrise de l’information. Il regroupe les compétences issues de l’ex-CELAR et du LRBA (Laboratoire de recherches balistiques et aérodynamiques) de Vernon (Eure) en cours de fermeture. Ce centre regroupe 950 spécialistes, et génère l’équivalent de 80 MEUR de chiffre d’affaires.

Le système de visualisation en temps réel permet de fusionner

les données de tous les capteurs du site de Biscarosse. (crédit : DGA)

Cette coopération pourrait permettre d’analyser, par exemple, la vulnérabilité de certains aéronefs à certains types de missiles : un exercice entier se déroule ainsi actuellement dans le sud-ouest français, pendant trois semaines. Cent cinquante spécialistes de l’OTAN ont en effet élu domicile pour quatre semaines dans les Landes, à Biscarosse, dans le cadre d’une campagne d’essais de leurrage infrarouge d’avions et d’hélicoptères baptisée Enbow. La DGA a déjà organisé deux fois cette campagne, qui permet de déterminer les meilleures contre-mesures infrarouges contre ce qui est présenté comme le danger n°1 : les MANPAD (missiles portables), catégorie qui prolifère le plus. Tous les capteurs mise en œuvre sur le site de DGA Essais de missiles permettent d’observer le comportement des autodirecteurs de missiles adverses, basés au sol, et des aéronefs qui les survolent. Une fois “accrochés”, ces derniers effectuent des séquences de leurrage, et le comportement des systèmes est ensuite longuement analysé.

Pour la première fois, un avion français, en l’occurrence un Casa 212 de DGA Essais en vols, est équipé d’un MWS (missile warning system, détecteur de départ missile, fonctionnant dans l’infrarouge et l’ultraviolet) couplé à un DIRCM (direct infrared counter measure). Ce système réactif permet de détecter la phase propulsée d’un MANPADS (en général 3 secondes), de verrouiller le DIRCM sur l’autodirecteur, puis de le pousser en butée, grâce à un laser de puissance.

photo baesystems.com

28 Sep 2011 | Ref. 191/2011 BAE Systems

ARLINGTON, Virginia – BAE Systems recently received four contracts from the U.S. Navy totaling more than $63 million to upgrade seven Mk 45 Gun Systems to the Mod 4 configuration. The Mod 4 is an upgrade to the Mod 2 design, which significantly enhances overall mission performance. Once produced, the gun systems will join 42 previously delivered Mk 45 Mod 4 systems currently in service with the U.S. Navy.

“Orders for the Mk 45 Mod 4 represent the U.S Navy’s continued commitment to equipping its ships with the most modern, reliable and precise major caliber naval gun systems,” said Mark Signorelli, vice president and general manager of Weapon Systems for BAE Systems. “The Mod 4 includes new digital features that provide for enhanced accuracy and reliability.”

Five gun systems will be installed on the CG-47 Ticonderoga-Class Cruisers as part of the Cruiser Modernization Program. Two gun systems will be installed on newly constructed DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-Class Destroyers. This 5-inch 62-caliber Mk 45 Mod 4 includes strengthened gun and mount subsystems, advanced control system enhancement, a modern touch-screen user interface and a low maintenance gun shield. The DDG configuration also includes a reduced signature that makes it more difficult to detect via radar .

BAE Systems has more than 40 years of design and OEM experience with Mk 45 Mods 0-4, with 240 shipboard applications in the U.S. Navy and nine fleets worldwide. Work on these contracts will be performed in Louisville, Ky. and Minneapolis, Minn. with completion scheduled for May 2014.

source kongsberg.com

22 Sep 2011 Stephen Trimble - flightglobal.com

Washington DC - Norway's Kongsberg has warned that the country needs a commitment from the US government within six months to integrate a national-specific missile on the Lockheed Martin F-35.

So far, Norway has received no assurance that the Kongsberg joint strike missile (JSM) will be integrated as part of the Block 4 software update on the F-35 in 2019.

The absence of such a commitment could prompt the Norwegian parliament to reject an expected request early next year from the nation's defence ministry to buy as many as 54 F-35s. Norway has already announced plans to order four F-35s to launch training activities in 2016.

"That is what I think is the critical issue [for the parliament's decision]", said Bjorne Bjune, Kongsberg vice president of business development, speaking at the Air Force Association's annual convention in Washington DC on 20 September. "That decision needs to be forthcoming."

Integrating the JSM as the Norwegian F-35's primary weapon against surface vessels is considered an absolute requirement by Oslo, Bjune said. Norway has already invested $1 billion to adapt the naval strike missile into the air-launched JSM, and is planning to spend a further $200 million.

Norway wants the US Department of Defense to spend $20 million annually over five years to integrate the JSM on the F-35 Block 4, with Norway to contribute an equal amount.

Tom Burbage, Lockheed's executive vice president for the F-35, said that the JSM integration decision must be made by a committee of operational advisers to the F-35 joint programme office.

But Bjune said that the committee's decision-making process will be too slow to support the Norwegian parliament's vote next year.

Kongsberg and the Norwegian government want the office of the US secretary of defence to commit to the JSM integration, ahead of the committee's process.

If the missile is approved, Kongsberg plans to launch flight tests of the JSM in 2015 and 2016, Bjune added.