1/31/2012 STRATEGY PAGE

U.S. Marines conduct insertion exercises from a CH-53E Super Stallion helicopter in the Arabian Sea, Jan. 19, 2012. The Marines are assigned to the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is embarked aboard the amphibious assault ship USS Makin Island. The ship is supporting maritime security operations and theater security cooperation efforts in the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility. U.S. Navy photo by Petty Officer 2nd Class Alan Gragg

Photo: C-27J Team

Jan 26, 2012 By Amy Butler - aviation week and space technology

Washington - U.S. military officials are keen on saying they never intend to fight the last war. This is their way of indicating a focus on future conflicts, not on the past.

Apparently, this sentiment does not apply to the interservice skirmishes at the Pentagon. The U.S. Army and Air Force are in the final throes of hashing out an updated agreement on the time-sensitive, direct-support airlift mission, the latest chapter in a years-long saga over how to ship supplies to remote soldiers despite two wars and one stunted buy of Alenia’s C-27J.

The agreement is being made between the chiefs of staff of both services. At issue is how the time-sensitive airlift mission will be handled; this includes the shuttling of small loads of supplies to forward Army units in the field.

The outcome of this cargo rub between the two services could be the first of many such roles-and-missions scrapes. As the Pentagon looks to save money by killing some programs or nixing new ones, the Army and Air Force are also on a crash course regarding the small fleets of tactical, fixed-wing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft that each have procured since the start of the Iraq invasion in 2003. In the case of the General Atomics Gray Eagle and Reaper UAS, the developmental Enhanced Medium-Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance System (Emarss) and MC-12W Project Liberty aircraft, the services operate very similar systems. In at least one case—with Emarss and the MC-12W—lawmakers have suggested that only one service manage a unified fleet.

As it did with its rotary-wing fleet, the Army is trying to reduce the number of unique airframes in its tactical ISR fleet, says Maj. Gen. Anthony Crutchfield, who heads up the Army Aviation Center of Excellence at Fort Rucker, Ala. “We have a plan to divest of some of the different types of aircraft [and shift to] fewer single airframes.” Without saying which aircraft would be let go, Maj. Gen. Tim Crosby, the Army’s program executive officer for aviation, says the service must “pick those that have been the best bang for the buck.”

Though Crosby notes there is still more work to be done on this, the airlift debate is raging.

“The concern is the logistics part,” says Crutchfield. “What we have to sort out is: ‘Who does that?’”

If this sounds familiar, it is.

The last installment of this tug-of-war took place in 2005 when, during his first major speech to the Air Force Association, the then Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen. T. Michael Moseley, announced he wanted a new light cargo aircraft. This was considered odd as the Army was in the midst of setting up its future cargo aircraft program, which was then crafted to replace old C-23 Sherpas and provide more immediate access to commanders for cargo support. At the time, the Army moved ahead with its own program because it felt that it had lackluster support by the Air Force to properly back its needs.

Underscoring the need for direct-support activities were the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that called for distributing supplies around small, remote Army outposts. Not only were the Sherpas aging, they lacked pressurized cabins, making it difficult to operate them at high altitude in places such as Afghanistan, says Col. Patrick Tierney, director of the Army’s aviation directorate.

Moseley’s push, along with his similar and later move to take over the Army’s burgeoning UAV force, was seen as an abrupt roles-and-missions grab by the Air Force in the midst of these two wars. In the case of the cargo aircraft role, the USAF won.

At the direction of then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in 2009 the Air Force took over authority for the C-27J buy and control of the direct-support mission; service officials said they would combine the use of C-27Js and C-130s to provide cargo lift for the Army (though Army officials had long complained that C-130 support was inefficient owing to underloading of these larger aircraft).

Army officials say that in actuality, the CH-47 Chinook fleet has been unduly burdened in providing timely support because the helicopters are used to shuttle goods from C-130s that land at hubs to the remote locales where soldiers are stationed.

“The major rub to us is responsiveness and not efficiency,” says one Army official who requests anonymity. “When a part is needed at the front line, it flies” and shouldn’t have to wait for enough requests to fill a C-130, the official adds. “We are more about effectiveness than efficiency, and [the Air Force is] more about efficiency than effectiveness.”

So, the questions now are: What is the right number of small cargo-lifters for the direct-support role, and how should the mission be managed?

Though both branches agreed to USAF control of the mission in the 2009 pact, the Army is now insisting that language be added to clarify its needs—specifically emphasizing responsiveness, especially when parts or supplies are called for at forward-operating locations.

USAF Lt. Gen. Herbert Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for operations, acknowledges what he calls a “natural tension” for Army commanders wanting quick support.

The outcome of this deal will directly impact how soldiers at such sites are supported in Afghanistan.

Army officials had long argued that an Army officer must oversee this mission to ensure that its commanders’ needs take priority; the fear is that the USAF will de-emphasize Army unit requirements against the more strategic priorities of regional cargo movements. USAF, however, has long countered that it best knows how to provide airborne logistics support across a fleet of aircraft, including the C-27J, C-130 and C-17.

In 2009, the Air Force conducted a demonstration of the direct-support mission using C-27Js and C-130s in Iraq; this validated the service’s plans for a mix of the two for the mission.

Two C-27Js were deployed to Afghanistan in late July 2011 and quickly started flying operational direct support missions, Gen. Raymond Johns said last fall. The C-27Js are apportioned to Army officials there via Tacon (tactical control), although USAF pilots fly the missions, but the C-130s are not. This means the C-27Js are specifically set aside only for intratheater/direct-support missions under Army authority. Though C-130s are used for this mission, they can be reassigned elsewhere in the area, if needed, Johns said.

Army officials are less than satisfied with the Air Force’s delays in delivering C-27Js to the field. At least six were to be in Afghanistan by now, and why they have not been deployed is the “golden question,” the anonymous Army official said.

One industry official says the Army is “trying to hold the Air Force’s feet to the fire to do what they signed up for” in the 2009 pact.

Alenia has delivered 13 of 21 C-27Js on contract. Originally, Alenia officials projected the U.S. market for the C-27J (including Army/Air Force buys) to support as many as 125 aircraft. Tierney said that in 2005, the Army’s projections set a low risk of handling the mission with a fleet of 78 C-27Js and a moderate risk at 54. When Gates shifted the C-27J program from Army control to the Air Force, the buy shrank to 38 aircraft.

The sharp reduction in procurement numbers prompted Alenia to scrap its plans to open a final assembly facility in Florida; the aircraft are being delivered from a plant in Italy.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz indicated during a recent testimony to Congress that the C-27J faces termination—possibly before all 38 are delivered—due to fiscal pressure. Service officials contend that maintaining a separate fleet for this mission adds to its spending for unique training and logistics, whereas a C-130-based mission could build off of an existing infrastructure. It is unclear whether the service would keep the C-27Js already delivered or divest of them entirely.

Numerous lawmakers and governors associated with states slated to host C-27J Guard units have written to Schwartz, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter advocating the program. Some of them argue not only for the national security advantages of the aircraft but also note that without those units, jobs in their districts will be in jeopardy.

Meanwhile, Crutchfield notes that the Army’s C-23 Sherpas still support war operations. Without better direct support from USAF, the Army would have to pay $350 million to keep old C-23s operating, and they would still lack a pressurized cabin, Tierney says. Carlislie expects the updated pact to be signed in days.

01/17/2012 STRATEGY PAGE

A Marine Corps MV-22B Osprey flies in the sky above Helmand province, Afghanistan, Jan. 17. This was the last mission flown during Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 162's six-month deployment in Helmand province, Afghanistan. Photo by Cpl. Justin Boling

9 Jan 2012 By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS Defensenews

The Military Sealift Command (MSC) announced Jan. 9 a reorganization of its operating forces in a move to increase efficiency.

"We are proactively streamlining," Rear Adm. Mark Buzby, MSC's commander, said in a statement.

MSC operates virtually all the U.S. Navy's support and auxiliary ships, crewing them with civilian mariners working for the government or civilian contract crews. The 110 ships operated by the command provide fleet services, take on special missions and carry and store military equipment.

Under the reorganization, the ships will operate under five mission programs, including a new Service Support program. Continuing in operation are the Combat Logistics Force (CLF), Special Mission, Prepositioning and Sealift programs.

The former Naval Fleet Auxiliary Force (NFAF) is no more, its ships operating now under the CLF or Service Support programs.

Also, MSC's 12 worldwide Ship Support Units, which previously reported to the Military Sealift Fleet Support Command in Norfolk, Va., now report to MSC's operational area commands: MSC Atlantic in Norfolk; MSC Pacific in San Diego; MSC Europe and Africa in Naples, Italy; MSC Central in Bahrain; and MSC Far East in Singapore.

Three of MSC's six civilian Senior Executive Service (SES) officials are being "repositioned," according to a press release. One SES will oversee MSC's government-operated ships, another will be in charge of contract-operated ships, and another will oversee total force manpower management.

The new Service Support program includes 14 government-operated ships, including the submarine tenders Emory S. Land and Frank Cable, command ship Mount Whitney and the cable laying ship Zeus, all formerly operated by the Special Mission program. Ten more ships previously operated by the NFAF operate now under the Service Support program, including the hospital ships Mercy and Comfort - designated T-AH - T-ATF fleet ocean tugs and T-ARS rescue and salvage ships.

The Combat Logistics Force, previously a subset of the NFAF, comprises 32 government-operated fleet underway replenishment ships, including T-AKE dry cargo/ammunition ships, T-AOE fast combat support ships, T-AO fleet replenishment oilers and T-AE ammunition ships.

The Special Mission program maintains 24 contract-operated ships, including 8 chartered submarine- and special warfare-support ships; 6 T-AGS oceanographic survey ships; 5 T-AGOS ocean surveillance ships; 2 T-AGM missile range instrumentation ships; the navigation test support ship Waters; and the SBX-1 Sea-based X-Band Radar platform with its towing vessel Dove. The program also manages harbor tug contracts on behalf of the Navy's Installations Command.

The prepositioning program maintains 31 large ships positioned worldwide to store military equipment for the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps and Navy, and the Defense Logistics Agency. Prepositioning ships are a mix of government-owned and chartered ships. The program also includes the high-speed vessels Swift and WestPac Express, the Marine aviation support ships Curtiss and Wright, and the offshore petroleum distribution system ship Vice Adm. K. R. Wheeler.

The 16 ships of the Sealift program are also a mix of government-owned and long-term charter vessels, including large roll on/roll off ships, dry cargo ships, and tankers. The Ready Reserve Force, a group of 48 support ships maintained in various states of readiness, is also part of the Sealift program.

Iran's navy conducting the Velayat-90 naval war games in the strait of Hormuz on New Year's Day.

Photograph: Mohsen Shandiz/Corbis

6 January 2012     Julian Borger, diplomatic editor - guardian.co.uk

Surge in military activity in the region comes amid threat of EU embargo on Iranian oil and possible closure of strait of Hormuz

Tensions on the oil shipping lanes in the Gulf have escalated with the announcement of new naval exercises by Iran's Revolutionary Guards and news that Israel and the US are planning to carry out extensive joint manoeuvres in the region.

The naval commander for the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), Rear Admiral Ali Fadavi, said the drill in February would be "different compared to previous exercises held by the IRGC". The Iranian navy finished 10 days of exercises in the Gulf on Monday, during which it tested a range of new missiles. It warned that Iran could close the strait of Hormuz, the narrowest point in the Gulf, through which a fifth of the world's traded oil passes.

On the same day, the Israeli military said it was preparing for joint exercises with the US to rehearse missile defence and co-operation between the forces. The manoeuvres involve thousands of troops, have been planned for some time and were hailed by Israeli and US officials as their biggest joint drill.

Associated Press quoted an unnamed Israel official as saying the drill would test multiple Israeli and US air defence systems against incoming missiles and rockets in the next few weeks. Israel has developed the Arrow anti-ballistic system, which is designed to intercept Iranian missiles in the stratosphere, with the US.

The military activity in the region comes at a time of high tension. At the end of this month, EU foreign ministers are expected to agree to impose an embargo on Iranian oil imports, after a report in November by the UN's nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), confirmed western allegations that Iran had worked on nuclear weapon design.

Iranian officials have made clear they would view an oil embargo as an act of aggression, and could respond by closing the strait. The US and UK have said they would act to keep the shipping lanes open. Philip Hammond, the British defence secretary, said during a visit to Washington: "Disruption to the flow of oil through the strait of Hormuz would threaten regional and global economic growth. Any attempt by Iran to close the strait would be illegal and unsuccessful."

The sabre-rattling over the strait drove the price of crude to more than $100 a barrel. Meanwhile, there is continual speculation that Israel might attack Iran's nuclear programme, which Tehran says is for peaceful purposes, and which the west and Israel allege is a front for acquiring nuclear weapons, or at least a capacity to make them. Observers say all sides are flexing their muscles to deter their adversaries from taking aggressive action, but warn that heightened activity will increase the chances of an unplanned clash.

Mark Fitzpatrick, a former US state department official now at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, said: "I'm not predicting there is going to be a skirmish, but in the absence of established communications, the tensions and the activity raises the possibility of an unintended exchange of fire."

The USS John Stennis, a US aircraft carrier deployed to the region, is outside the Gulf and an Iranian navy commander has warned Washington not to bring it back. The US navy said it would continue to patrol the Gulf as normal.

Fitzpatrick said he did not think Iran would attack shipping through the strait of Hormuz "as it would be an invitation to the US to take wider action and attack its nuclear sites".

Another flashpoint could come in June, when US sanctions on the trade in Iranian oil come into effect. Gary Sick, an Iran expert and former White House policy adviser now at Columbia University, said such measures were "the equivalent of a military blockade of Iran's oil ports, arguably an act of war".

"The main reason why Iran's putative threat to close the strait of Hormuz was dismissed is because Iran also relies on the strait to export its own oil," Sick wrote in his blog. "But if Iran's oil revenue – 50% of its budget – is cut off, they would have little to lose by striking out at those they hold responsible, including passage through the strait of Hormuz.

"Iran cannot defeat the US navy, but the swarms of cruise missiles they could fire, both from shore and from their fleet of speedboats, could create havoc, as could the flood of mines they could put into the fast-moving waters of the strait."

Fitzpatrick said even under sanctions, Iran would still have "multiple markets for its oil", and would therefore still have a lot to lose by closing the strait.

Photo: Boeing

Dec 28, 2011 By David Eshel - defense technology international

Tel Aviv - Regional threats to stability, growing tension over the exploitation of natural resources in economic exclusion zones (EEZ), the impact of piracy and terrorism, and criminal activities in the littorals are among factors driving demand for advanced airborne maritime surveillance assets.

Maritime surveillance is one of the fastest-growing defense markets, with countries seeking a range of technologies to improve their ability to monitor traffic in territorial waters and secure ports and other shore facilities from threats. For naval forces, airborne assets are needed to track and warn of submarine activities and protect disputed territories. Strong and effective surveillance is also a key component in assembling international coalitions for stability operations and in fighting piracy.

Effective and far-reaching maritime monitoring is a priority in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific. In the eastern Mediterranean, deep-sea drilling has yielded major deposits of oil and natural gas off Israel and Cyprus, and shown the importance of defending offshore rigs (DTI November, p. 22). In Asia the dramatic growth of the Chinese navy has increased tension with countries such as India over energy sources and territorial claims, and led to a surge in submarine fleets, and with it demand for maritime patrol and antisubmarine-warfare (ASW) aircraft.

The Lockheed P-3 Orion has compiled a decades-long record of maritime patrol, and is in use with the U.S. Navy and other maritime forces around the world. Modernization programs have kept the iconic aircraft relevant in a rapidly changing world of evolving threats and capabilities. Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) was awarded two contracts worth $37 million to integrate the EL/M-2022A surveillance radar, developed by IAI and its Elta subsidiary, onto P-3s. The contracts were awarded by two undisclosed militaries that are upgrading their patrol aircraft. The radar sets were tailored to fit in the nose and tail. One forward-looking antenna will provide 240-deg. coverage and two additional antennas will provide 360-deg. coverage.

The EL/M-2022A is an advanced, multimode surveillance system incorporating synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and inverse SAR 3-D technology, as well as expertise gained by missions conducted by the Israeli military. EL/M-2022A can be deployed on maritime aircraft in support of ASW, EEZ patrols, coastal defense, drug smuggling and fisheries patrols, and search-and-rescue missions. The radar’s modular architecture permits integration onto rotary- and fixed-wing aircraft including unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). It has a high degree of commonality with Elta’s EL/M-2032 fire-control radar. Excluding the operator’s console, EL/M-2022A hardware weighs less than 100 kg (220 lb.).

A patrol aircraft developed by Boeing, the P-8 Poseidon, will replace the U.S. Navy’s remaining P-3Cs. The P-8A is a long-range multi-mission platform. It has an advanced mission system that ensures maximum interoperability in battlespace. According to Boeing, all sensors on board contribute to a single fused tactical situation display, which is shared over military standard and Internet Protocol data links, allowing for seamless delivery of information among U.S. and coalition forces.

After several years of debate, the Navy decided to replace its specialized versions of P-3 reconnaissance aircraft with UAVs by the end of the decade. Northrop Grumman is team leader and prime contractor for the MQ-4C Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) UAV. The high-altitude, long-endurance (HALE) platform is based on the Global Hawk, and designed to cruise at 60,000 ft. Unlike Global Hawk, which flies only at high altitude, MQ-4C is required to descend to lower altitude to get a closer view of suspected targets. To fly safely with manned and unmanned aircraft, the MQ-4C will be equipped with sense-and-avoid radar, which alerts an operator to air traffic in its vicinity. The MQ-4C will have 36-hr. endurance and operate at 60,000 ft., avoiding strong winds and severe weather. The payload is 3,200 lb. The UAV will have 2-D advanced, electronically scanned array radar for 360-deg. coverage of vast sections of ocean.

Another UAV for maritime use, Northrop Grumman’s MQ-8B Fire Scout, a vertical-takeoff-and-landing rotorcraft, accommodates a variety of sensors. It was deployed for the first time aboard the USS McInerney.

The P-8A and BAMS programs are in their advanced stages. Last January, Boeing received a $1.6 billion contract for low-rate initial production of the first six aircraft. Initial operational capability is slated for 2013. In 2008, the Navy awarded Northrop Grumman a $1.16 billion System Development and Demonstration contract for BAMS.

The P-8A/MQ-4C duo already provides a role model for Asia-Pacific nations that are challenged with covering vast ocean areas from shore bases. The Royal Australian Air Force, currently operating 18 Lockheed AP-3Cs, has expressed interest in the P-8A and its HALE component. As part of Project Air 7000 Phase 1, Canberra is expected to buy eight P-8As to replace its 18 AP-3Cs. The P-8A aircraft will be augmented by seven UAVs to fulfill the remaining roles. Australia completed the last upgrade of its AP-3Cs in 2005, which included the installation of an Elta’s EL/M-2022(V)3 maritime surveillance radar and a FLIR Systems Star Safire II thermal imager.

Israel is investing in its maritime surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities to protect new finds in offshore oil and gas deposits, which have become a security priority for coming years. One segment that will likely get much attention is enhancing unmanned maritime surveillance in the eastern Mediterranean, to guard the gas and oil drilling platforms being moved within Israel’s vulnerable EEZ and in other areas.

Eli Gambash, marketing manager for IAI’s Malat division, says the company’s Heron-1 and Heron-TP UAVs, equipped with the new EL/M-2022 inverse SAR and automatic identification system, are ideal for maritime surveillance, coastal protection and antipiracy missions. The Heron-TP has also been tested with SAR for maritime surveillance, with the antenna stored in a belly fairing. “The Heron-1 with Elta radar covers a 400-nm. radius and identifies objects amid the clutter of the sea with enormous precision,” says Gambash, a captain in Israel’s naval reserve. “With the Heron you can remain in a certain place, completely passive, yet be in full situational control.”

India is rapidly expanding maritime surveillance, targeting and ASW capabilities with acquisitions of advanced systems. The country is a pioneer in the use of unmanned systems for surveillance. Its navy has been operating Israeli Searcher II and Heron I UAVs for years—Searchers carry EL/M-2022U lightweight maritime surveillance radar, and Herons are equipped with a suite of sensors, including radar, electro-optic payloads, sigint, comint and electronic support measures sensors, and line-of-sight or satellite data links. Israel is believed to have offered the newer Heron-TP to India to augment current UAVs.

India is also embarking on two maritime patrol programs to upgrade the littoral surveillance capabilities of the navy and coast guard. New Delhi is evaluating a potential buy of six aircraft, as part of the navy’s Medium-Range Maritime Reconnaissance program. These aircraft would cover 500 nm., flying 6 hr. on station, and replace the navy’s Dornier Do-228 aircraft, currently used for littoral surveillance.

A similar platform is being considered to replace the coast guard’s Britten-Norman BN-2B Islanders.

A third program in the planning stage seeks nine amphibious aircraft for surveillance over territorial waters in the Andaman Sea. The platforms likely to meet the requirement are the CASA/IPTN CN235MP—produced and supported in Indonesia—and the Saab 2000 MPA. The latter will be offered with advanced AESA radar from Selex, addressing what Saab considers a new Indian requirement. The plane will be fitted to carry RBS-15 antiship missiles, manufactured by Saab Bofors Dynamics. Optional weapons include the Boeing Harpoon missiles India is buying for the P-8I, the Indian version of the P-8A aircraft.

December 24, 2011: STRATEGY PAGE

The U.S. Air Force has again delayed the retirement of its U-2S reconnaissance aircraft. Now the U-2 may remain in service until 2016 or later. The reason is the continued failure of the Global Hawk UAV to prove it can replace the manned U-2. Congress wants the Global Hawk to pass tests proving it can do everything the U-2 can before the U-2, which entered service 56 years ago, is retired.

For the last five years the U.S. Air Force has been trying to replace its manned U-2 reconnaissance aircraft with the RQ-4 Global Hawk. This has not worked out well. In addition to the problems with Global Hawks' reliability and dependability, another issue has been in the superiority of the sensors carried by the U-2. So why not just install the U-2 sensors in the Global Hawk? The problem here is weight and space. The U-2 is a larger and heavier aircraft, and even with a pilot, has more carrying capacity. Air force suppliers keep promising that they have the problem solved but after several generations of Global Hawk sensor redesigns and improvements, it will still be a few years before the Global Hawk will be competitive and the U-2 will be out of a job.

Then there's the UAV software, which has still not matched the capabilities of pilots. The humans still have an edge over robotic systems, especially when it comes to emergencies. But another advantage that the U-2 has is that it has been around for half a century. Its quirks and foibles are well known. The Global Hawk is not only new but is also the first of a new kind of robotic aircraft.

Global Hawk has crossed the Pacific, from North America to Australia, using onboard computers to run everything. While impressive, Global Hawk still has a tendency to get into trouble unexpectedly and not know how to recover. More work needs to be done on the software and, to a lesser extent, the hardware used by Global Hawk. Since no one can (or at least will) swear when Global hawk reliability will be up to acceptable standards plans are being made to keep the U-2s around for a while longer - just in case.

This popularity is running the U-2s ragged. Two years ago, for example, two 41 year old U-2s achieved a record 25,000 hours in the air. One of these aircraft had made three belly (landing gear up) landings, requiring extensive rebuilding after each incident.

With a range of over 11,000 kilometers, the 18 ton U-2s typically fly missions 12 hours long. All U-2s have been upgraded to the Block 20 standard, so they can be kept in service until the end of this decade. Or at least until the 13 ton Global Hawk is completely debugged and available in sufficient quantity to replace it. The U-2 has been in service since 1955 and only 86 were built, of which 26 remain in service. Less than 900 pilots have qualified to fly the U-2 in that time.

The heavy use of the U-2 has been hard on the pilots. Missions can be as long as 12 hours and pilots operate in a cockpit pressurized to conditions found at 30,000 feet. This puts more strain on the pilot's body. That, and the fact that they breathe pure oxygen while up there, means they tend to be completely exhausted after returning from a long mission. U-2s fly missions daily over the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Korea.

This wasn't supposed to happen. Five years ago the U.S. Air Force wanted to retire its U-2s and replace them with UAVs like Global Hawk. But Congress refused to allow it, partly for political reasons (jobs would be lost, which is always a live political issue) and because some in Congress (and the air force) did not believe that Global Hawk was ready to completely replace the U-2. This turned out to be correct. New Global Hawks continue to appear but there is so much demand for the kind of recon work the two aircraft can do that both pilots and robots will coexist for a while. But eventually the old reliable U-2 will be retired.

source supersonique.blogs.challenges.fr

15.12.2011 Liberation.fr (AFP)

PARIS  - L'armée de l'air américaine maintient en vol soixante drones de surveillance en permanence, les Européens n'en ont toujours pas produit un seul, risquant même de développer deux modèles concurrents.

Cassidian, division militaire du géant européen EADS basée en Allemagne, et Alenia aeronautica, filiale de l'italien Finmeccanica, ont annoncé mercredi un accord pour essayer de répondre aux besoins des armées allemande et italienne en drones de surveillance et de combat.

Cette initiative répond à la décision de la France de développer un drone de surveillance avec la Grande-Bretagne, dans le cadre de la coopération de défense résultant du Traité de Lancaster House (2 novembre).

La France a confié le développement d'un drone MALE (moyenne altitude longue endurance) à Dassault en coopération avec le britannique BAE Systems, excluant de fait le drone Talarion en développement chez EADS.

"Le traité franco-britannique a entraîné les Allemands et les Italiens à se rapprocher, on parle d'un projet de traité germano-italien qui serait dans les cartons", explique Jean-Pierre Maulny, directeur adjoint de l'Institut de relations internationales et stratégiques (IRIS).

Pourtant, dit-il, "personne aujourd'hui n'a intérêt à faire un drone MALE sur une base nationale". D'autant que le marché européen du drone MALE est estimé à 50 ou 60 appareils maximum, souligne-t-il.

Pourtant, les drones sont devenus indispensables dans la guerre moderne.

L'US Air Force maintient en permanence 60 patrouilles de drones au-dessus de l'Irak et de l'Afghanistan, d'après l'hebdomadaire spécialisé DefenseNews. La Chine dispose déjà d'une gamme de 25 drones différents.

Comment l'Europe en est-elle arrivée là malgré sa volonté affichée de rapprocher ses industries de la défense ?

Aux différences d'approche des gouvernements s'ajoutent les rivalités industrielles et les querelles de personnes qui deviennent des querelles d'Etat.

Ainsi le projet Talarion avait été lancé pour répondre aux besoins des armées françaises, allemandes et espagnoles. Mais face aux hésitations de Berlin à soutenir le projet, Paris a répondu aux sollicitations des Britanniques.

Après les déboires de l'avion de transport militaire A400M, Paris comme Londres préfèrent lancer des projets sur une base bilatérale, quitte à les ouvrir ensuite à d'autres partenaires. Conçu pour satisfaire huit pays différents, l'A400M a accumulé retards et dépassements de coûts et sera livré en 2013.

Rivalités industrielles: EADS et Dassault sont à couteaux tirés. Le géant européen, né de la coopération industrielle franco-allemande, n'a pas avalé la décision de Paris de choisir Dassault pour développer un drone MALE.

"EADS a beau détenir 46% du capital de Dassault aviation, nous n'avons pas voix au chapitre", explique un de ses dirigeants.

Querelles personnelles: au sein des quatre divisions d'EADS, les différends entre Allemands et Français tournent vite aux tensions entre Etats.

"Mais ce n'est pas la fin de l'histoire", estime M. Maulny. Les cartes peuvent encore être redistribuées.

EADS continue à financer sur ses propres fonds le Talarion, auquel Turkish Aerospace Industries est associé depuis un an.

Le secrétaire d'Etat allemand à la Défense, Stéphane Beemelmans, s'est prononcé récemment pour une coopération avec la France dans le domaine des drones. "Je ne crois pas à deux projets de cette envergure au niveau européen", a-t-il déclaré.

A Paris, le ministère de la Défense s'inquiète de la vision britannique de la coopération. Pour Londres, il s'agit moins de construire un nouvel appareil MALE que d'en acheter un en commun: et pour le moment les seuls qui existent sont américains.

December 2, 2011 By Stephen Trimble - The DEW Line

Lockheed Martin has quietly launched two new variants of the 57-year-old (and counting!) C-130 Hercules. The C-130XJ and the C-130NG both appeared in a presentation by Ralph Heath, executive vice president of Lockheed's Aeronautics division, on 1 December at the Credit Suisse aerospace and defense conference in New York.

Few details of both configurations have been made available so far. The C-130XJ is aimed at the export market, and is designed to make the aircraft affordable to a broader set of foreign buyers, Heath said. The "X" in the designation stands for "expandable", Heath added, and buyers can upgrade to the C-130J's full capability.

It appears the C-130NG, which includes winglets and a redesigned nose and tail, will be offered after 2020 to replace the C-130H fleet. See a comparison between the old and new versions of the C-130J and C-130NG below.

Nearly 60 years has passed since Lockheed designer Willis Hawkins first unveiled the C-130 design. His legendary boss, Clarence L. "Kelly" Johnson, instantly hated the aircraft, warning Lockheed chief engineer Hal Hibbard the C-130 would "ruin" the company. Johnson was right about many things, such as his designs for the U-2 and SR-71, but he was completely wrong about the C-130. Rather than ruining the company, the C-130 series will be produced for at least 65 years, and possibly longer.

In the last several years, the C-130's reign over the tactical airlift market has been challenged like never before. The Airbus Military A400M and Kawasaki C-2 offer a larger platform as airlift demand increases, although the latter is forbidden to be sold outside of Japan. Meanwhile, the Embraer KC-390 and the Antonov An-178 are designed to compete directly against the C-130, albeit with a jet-powered aircraft.

photo Israel Sun/Rex Features

TEL AVIV, Israel, Dec. 2 (UPI)

The U.S. Army will decide in the next few weeks whether it will buy Israel's Iron Dome anti-rocket defense system, developed by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, to protect bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Rafael and the U.S. Raytheon Co., which produces the Patriot air-defense system, teamed in August to market Iron Dome, currently used to defend against Palestinian rockets, in the United States.

Iron Dome is designed to counter rockets and artillery shells with a range of 2-43 miles. It's the first system of its type to be used in combat.

Yossi Druker, head of Rafael's Air-to-Air Directorate, said Wednesday that the winner of the tender issued by the Pentagon is expected to be announced in January.

"Iron Dome is said to be compatible with the U.S. Army's Counter-Rocket and Artillery and Mortar system, or C-RAM, as part of layered defense for military bases," The Jerusalem Post observed.

Iron Dome made its combat debut in April in southern Israel against Palestinian rockets and the military says it has notched a success rate of 85 percent against Palestinian rockets it sought to intercept.

The system's computer can distinguish which rockets will hit populated areas and those that won't. It only fires on those that endanger Israeli lives.

The Israeli air force, which is responsible for air defense, has three Iron Dome batteries operational, primarily in the south to counter short-range rockets fired by militants from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.

But the military acknowledges that it needs 15-20 Iron Dome batteries to effectively provide protection from short-range missiles and rockets along the northern border with Lebanon and the southern frontier with Gaza.

So the Israelis may find themselves on the horns of a dilemma if the Americans decide they want Iron Dome: Who will get priority, homeland defense or developing a potentially lucrative export market for this unique system, the first operational short-range air-defense system in the world?

The Israelis say they face missile threats on several fronts, from Syria, Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and its allies in Gaza.

These threats range from intermediate-range ballistic missiles from Iran and Syria, with shorter-range weapons from Hezbollah and the Palestinians.

The nightmare scenario is that if a new conflict erupts in the Middle East, every inch of the Jewish state will be exposed to a sustained and unprecedented bombardment by these foes.

Military planners say this could last for weeks, with up to 200 missiles and rockets a day hammering Israel, including the massive urban conurbation around Tel Aviv in the center of the country.

Every Iron Dome battery will be needed but Israel's defense industry, like those in the United States and Europe, is increasingly dependent on export sales to keep production lines rolling amid global cutbacks in defense spending.

Singapore has reportedly bought Iron Dome, although no details are available and the Israeli Defense Ministry hasn't confirmed the sale. India and South Korea have also shown interest.

The air force expects to take delivery of David's Sling, another anti-missile system developed by Rafael, within the next year, Brig. Gen. Doron Gavish, commander of the air force's Air Defense Division, said Thursday.

This system, also known as Magic Wand, is designed as the middle-tier of Israel's planned multilayer missile defense shield. It's designed to counter missiles and rockets with ranges of 25-185 miles.

Meantime, The Jerusalem Post reports that state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries is building a third battery of the Arrow-2 high-altitude, long-range missile interceptor to be deployed near Tel Aviv.

The Israeli air force has two Arrow batteries deployed in southern and northern Israel. The system is designed to counter Iran's Shehab-3b, Sejjil-2 and Soviet-designed Scud ballistic missiles. Syria also has Scuds.

Central Israel was chosen for the site of the new battery "because it provides the best protection for long-range threats which Israel faces from a number of directions," a military spokesman said.

IAI and Boeing in the United States are developing the Arrow-3, which will extend the range and altitude of the missile, which allows it to intercept ballistic missiles earlier in their trajectory and further from Israel.

The Arrow-3's first fly-out test is scheduled within the next few months. The United States contributed the bulk of the funds to develop the Arrow system.

U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Shelly Burroughs

November 26, 2011: STRATEGY PAGE

For the last two years, one of the most popular electronic gadgets in Afghanistan was not the iPad or satellite phone, but Rover 5, otherwise known as the fifth generation ROVER (Remote Operations Video Enhanced Receiver). This is small (14cm/5.5 inch wide) handheld video device provides ground troops with UAV video feeds. Each Rover 5 costs about $35,000 and is the size of a seven inch tablet. Rover is more than three times heavier than a tablet (at 1.6 kg/3.5 pounds). But Rover can still be hand held, and enables the user to direct the camera on the UAV supplying the video. A stylus is used for this. The additional weight in the ROVER is for all the electronics needed to receive a wide variety of signals and display several different video types, plus a larger battery. Rover 5s are more often mounted in vehicles, giving convoys a top-down view of the terrain ahead. This has made it more difficult to ambush American troops. Commanders use Rover 5 to check UAV feeds and their own troops.

ROVER allows troops to view real-time video from a UAV or aircraft overhead. Aircraft with targeting pods (like Litening and Sniper) or surveillance gear (like AC-130 gunships) are much more effective when the guys on the ground have a ROVER unit that can receive that video feed.

 This kind of real-time, "common picture", capability makes air power much more effective, and reduces friendly fire incidents. U.S. Special Forces troops and infantry unit commanders use ROVER to obtain a larger view (than their low flying Raven UAVs can provide) of the surrounding area. This ROVER devices use a built in antenna to get the video from overhead UAVs or aircraft. The original ROVER system, as well as the current one, was developed and sent to the troops in record time. So don't let anyone tell you this sort of thing can't happen. However, except in wartime, such rapid technology development usually does not happen.

ROVER came to be nine years ago, when a Special Forces soldier, just back from Afghanistan, walked into the Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, and asked the technical people why his guys could not have a device that would allow them to watch the video being generated by a Predator, AC-130 or other aircraft overhead. In particular, the soldiers wanted the capability of the AC-130 getting video from a Predator that had spotted something the AC-130 was being sent to destroy. Since it was the Special Forces troops on the ground who were running, and fighting, the ground battle, it would help them a lot if they could see the real time video from Predators and combat aircraft. At that time, the video was being viewed by people in the aircraft, or the UAV operators (who were back in the United States, running things via a satellite link.) The ground troops had to ask the air force what could be seen on the video, and there was usually a delay in getting that information. It would be much better for all concerned if the ground troops could see that video in real time.

 The air force geeks went to work, and in two weeks had a ROVER prototype that Special Forces personnel could take back to Afghanistan. ROVER I was not terribly portable, but the Special Forces could haul it around in a hummer, and see what any Predators overhead were seeing. This proved very useful. A few months later, Rover 2 appeared which allowed troops to view UAV vids on a laptop computer. By late 2004, Rover 3, a 5.5 kg (12 pound) unit built to be carried in a backpack, was put into service.

 Although Rover 3s cost $60,000 each, they addressed dozens of suggestions and complaints from the troops who used earlier ROVERs. Some 700 Rover 3s entered service within a year. They were used in Afghanistan and Iraq, and can grab video feeds from army, marine and air force UAVs and bomber targeting pods (which have great resolution, even when the aircraft are 20,000 feet up.)

 The Rover 4 appeared in 2005. It allowed users to point and click on targets to be hit. With Rover 3, the guys on the ground could see what they want bombed, or hit with a missile, but had to talk the bombers to it. This happens often, especially when the target is behind a hill or buildings, preventing the ground troops from using their laser range finders to get a GPS location. With Rover 4, the bomber pilot, or UAV operator, is looking at the same video as the ground troops, and can confirm that the indicated target is what is to be hit. This is particularly important in urban warfare, where the building next door might be full of innocent civilians.

Shortly after Rover 5 appeared two years ago, Tactical Rover appeared. This is a 440 gram (one pound) hand held device that uses a variety of display devices (like helmet monocle, laptop, PC or tablet). Tactical Rover was popular with the Special Forces, who often sneaked into hostile territory on foot, and need to minimize their weight load.

 The original ROVER gear was initially operated, mostly, by air force ground controllers. The larger number of ROVER units out there now allows platoon leaders and company commanders access, as well as Special Forces teams and some army or marine ground patrols.

 Without the wartime pressure, it would have taken a decade or more to get ROVER to where it got in only a few years. Special Forces frequently get special equipment made, as they have a "mad money" fund just for that sort of thing. But these new ideas do not always travel so quickly to the rest of the army. A decade ago, army planners did not see anything like ROVER being available until the 2020s.

November 17, 2011: STRATEGY PAGE

One side-effect of the world-wide recession is that lots of the idle helicopters have found work in Afghanistan. There, the U.S. has been prodding other NATO nations to provide helicopters for their own troops. But too many of these nations either do not have helicopters to send or don't want send what they have into such a hostile environment. This is sometimes because the helicopters available are old, or not equipped for service in such a hostile environment.

The constant pressure from the United States, which has to supply emergency helicopter service when called on, has persuaded NATO allies to lease helicopters. Over the last five years this has led to the leasing several hundred helicopters for use in Afghanistan. Initially, many of them were Russian models from Eastern Europe. These were Cold War surplus machines from firms that had gone into the leasing business in the 1990s for foreign aid and peacekeeping operations. Three years of economic recession has made a lot of helicopters available in the West, and now more of these are headed for Afghanistan.

The basic problem, however, remains. European nations either don't have helicopters suitable for service in the hot and high (and dusty, and freezing in the Winter) conditions of Afghanistan, or their helicopter units are not organized and trained for service overseas, or the politicians don't want to send their helicopters abroad. These nations are content to lease helicopters, including crews and support personnel, from civilian firms.

Russian firms paved the way here. Russian and Ukrainian companies were already supplying heavy jet transports for NATO forces since the 1990s. These same companies had helicopters available as well. The Russians know their choppers will work in Afghanistan, because of their experience during the 1980s. Many of the same helicopter types are still in service, although with updates. Safety and reliability standards for Russian helicopters have also increased. There are also many non-Russian firms that offer helicopter leasing for "challenging environments" (mainly oil field or mining operations support). But the Russians were cheaper, and are less concerned with getting shot at. In the end, however, the pleas from the NATO troops for more helicopter support could not by the politicians back home and the demand for leased helicopters remained strong.

15.11.2011 DEFENSETECH

Rogue states with nascent nuclear weapon programs (cough, Iran, cough), consider yourselves on notice. The Air Force has started taking delivery of Massive Ordnance Penetrators. Yup, the 30,000-pound bunker busters, known as MOPs, designed to penetrate 30 stories of reinforced concrete.

(Oh, and the massive bomb’s name is almost as charged as the term, Pre-Dawn Vertical Insertion, if you get what I’m sayin.)

The service apparently got its first production MOP in September and has been stockpiling them ever since. That’s a decent turnaround since April when the Air Force gave Boeing a $28 million contract to deliver eight MOPs and their associated loading equipment. The service gave Boeing a follow-on $32 million contract for eight more MOPs in August. No word on why that deal cost an extra $4 million when it appears otherwise identical to the April contract.

The Air Force has modified several B-2 stealth bombers to carry two of the GPS-guided bombs, apiece. This pretty much tells you all you need to know about the type of mission the MOP will be used for; a super bunker-buster carried by our most survivable heavy bomber. It’s meant to threaten nations like Iran and North Korea with the prospect of an air strike that can take out their most hardened targets.

I’ve got to say, this is pretty timely, given the recent flood of publicity surrounding Iran’s alleged progress toward building a nuclear weapon. While the MOP is big and costly, the West may have more subtle ways of putting kinetic pressure on states like Iran.