A B-2 Spirit refuels from a KC-135 during a deployment to Andersen Air Force Base, Guam.

(Photo: U.S. Air Force, Val Gempis)

November 10, 2011 defpro.com

Redesign Promises to Reduce Maintenance Costs, Improve Aircraft Availability

PALMDALE, Calif. | Northrop Grumman recently won a $109 million contract from the U.S. Air Force to produce a redesigned aft deck for the B-2 stealth bomber, further enhancing the world's most survivable aircraft.

The B-2 Spirit's aft deck, a metallic panel on the bomber's upper surface that shields its composite airframe from the heat of engine exhaust, will be redesigned for long-term reliability and affordability. The retrofit will enable the aircraft to span normal long-term maintenance cycles without additional services or repairs.

The newly redesigned structure reflects Northrop Grumman's thorough thermal and structural analysis of the aft deck, its adjoining structures and the operating environment.

"Implementing a redesigned aft deck is an important part of guaranteeing the long-term viability of the B-2," said Dave Mazur, Northrop Grumman's vice president of Long Range Strike and B-2 program manager. "We are committed to assisting the Air Force in developing and implementing proactive solutions that are in the best interest of the B-2 fleet."

The aft deck enhancement is the latest spares replacement the Air Force, Northrop Grumman and its suppliers have undertaken to ensure the B-2 remains one of the most survivable weapons systems in the world.

"The B-2 industry team is working closely with the U.S. Air Force and the Defense Logistics Agency to improve aircraft availability," said Gary Roehrig, director and program manager for B-2 Product Support. "This is a complex effort, but it's key to fully equipping the warfighter."

The B-2 Spirit stealth bomber remains the only long-range, large-payload aircraft that can penetrate deeply into protected airspace. In concert with the Air Force's air superiority fleet, which provides airspace control, and the Air Force's tanker refueling fleet, which enables global mobility, the B-2 helps ensure an effective U.S. response to threats anywhere in the world. It can fly more than 6,000 nautical miles unrefueled and more than 10,000 nautical miles with just one aerial refueling, giving it the ability to reach any point on the globe within hours.

Work will be conducted at Northrop Grumman facilities in Palmdale, Calif., and St. Augustine, Fla. Northrop Grumman is the Air Force's prime contractor for the B-2, the flagship of the nation's long range strike arsenal.

The U.S. Boeing AH-64D Apache Block III remains the finalist in the Indian Army evaluation of attack helicopters. The planned procurement of 22 attack helicopter is expected to commence soon. Photo: Boeing

25.10.2011 DEFENSE UPDATE

Russian news agency Novosti reported today the Russian candidate for the Indian Army procurement of 22 attack helicopter, has not met Indian requirements and has dropped from the competition, leaving the Boeing AH-64D Apache Block III the only competitor. According to the agency’s Russian sources the Russian Mi-28N ‘Night Hunter’ failed in meeting 20 criteria, mostly on technical ground and maturity issues involving its sensors and combat systems integration. Russia was ready to offer the 22 helicopters at a flyaway cost of $600 million, less than half the value the Pentagon mentioned in the notification to Congress in 2010.

While this may pave the way for New Delhi to select the Apache, being left as a sole bidder could actually delay the process of ordering the U.S. helicopter since sole bidder programs are extensively regulated under new anti-corruption policies. Selecting the AH-64D will also pave the way for India to receive the AGM-114L-3 Hellfire Longbow anti-tank guided missile for the first time. The failure of the Russian helicopter also means a setback for the two companies counting on providing the weapons for the helicopter – European MBDA Missile Systems and Israel’s Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. Both competed on supplying the missiles for the Mi-28N or Ka-52 helicopters, hoping to win a ‘short cut’ into future Indian Army and Air Force programs.

India plans to field one of these missiles another anti-tank guided missile with a weaponized version of the Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH). This ‘Weapon Systems Integrated’ Dhruv Mk.3 (‘Rudra’) is currently being completed at HAL and will be made available for the testing soon. Field evaluation trials (FET) of the MBDA Missile System’s Pars 3 LR and Rafael Advanced Defence System’s Spike-ER, both ‘fire-and-forget’ anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) are expected to commence as soon as HAL delivers the Rudra for testing.

India is expected to field another ‘third generation’ missile with its Light Combat Helicopter (LCH) fleet, slated to replace the Mi-25/35 currently in service with the Air Force and Army. The Indian MOD determined that as a fully indigenous program, the missile to be used with the LCH will be the NAG, developed by India’s Defense research & Development Organization (DRDO).

India plans to field over 179 Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (HAL) Light Combat Helicopter (LCH), configured to carry the NAG anti-tank guided missile. The Indian Army plans to buy 114 such helicopters with the Air Force fielding 65. Photo: Defense-Update

October 20, 2011: STRATEGY PAGE

U.S. soldiers and marines are using a new magazine for the 40mm grenades they fire from their single shot M203 and M320 grenade launchers. The MAG-D looks like a large rifle magazine. It is spring loaded and holds five 40mm rounds. Troops can easily pull a 40mm grenade from the MAG-D and load it into their weapon. A loaded MAG-D weighs less than three kg (6.6 pounds) each and is designed to hang from the webbing of the protective vest, and make additional rounds quickly available to troops carrying a rifle with a M203 or M320 attached (under the barrel). In the past, the 40mm rounds were carried loose or in bandoliers, and often got dirty or damaged. MAG-D also eliminates confusion about where different types of 40mm grenades are (high explosive, flare, smoke, tear gas, fuel-air explosive). U.S. Marines were the first to use MAG-D (which was invented by a former marine) and want more of them.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Army has replaced the M203 40mm grenade launcher with the M320, while the marines are still using the M203. The both launchers fit under the barrel of the M16 rifle (and similar weapons), and have been in use for forty years. The army bought 71,000 M320s (for about $3,500 each) to replace the 50,000 M203s it was using. The M320 is similar to the M203, but easier to use, has its own pistol grip, is more accurate and can be used separately from an M16 with the addition of a stock.

The biggest improvement with the M320 is its sighting system, which features a laser range finder. At night, an infrared range finder enables a soldier wearing night vision goggles to see the light beam. In over a year of testing, the M320s sighting system was seen to make the weapon much more accurate than the older M203. This was particularly the case with new users. With the M203, you got better after you had fired a hundred or so rounds. That took time, and was expensive (the 40mm grenades cost about $28 each). The 40mm grenades weigh 543 grams (19 ounces) each and have a range of about 400 meters. The grenade explosion can kill within five meters, and wound up to ten meters or more.

The marines also use the M32, a six round 40mm grenade launcher. It looks like a cross between a shotgun and a revolver type pistol. Most marine units are equipped with the M203, usually two or three per squad.

October 10th, 2011 DEFENCE TALK AFP

Kevlar underwear, enhanced night-vision goggles and portable solar panels: the US military is seeing a gear revolution, thanks to the lessons learned during 10 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The M4 rifle remains the basic firearm of the American GI, but the addition of many gizmos now makes the soldier look more like Inspector Gadget than GI Joe: the typical gear kit includes 73 items, from clothes to weapons.

Program Executive Office Soldier, the military unit responsible for inventing and producing army equipment, says some items are designed to better protect soldiers on the ground, while others help them understand the terrain.

Since 2004, every soldier has been issued a bulletproof vest with extra protection panels.

But the increased use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), responsible for more than half the deaths of US soldiers in Afghanistan, has led to the development of new protective gear.

Over the next two months, "tens of thousands" of Kevlar outergarments to protect the pelvic area will be sent to US soldiers in Afghanistan, according to Colonel William Cole, who is part of the PEO Soldier unit.

"It protects soldiers if they step on an anti-personnel IED. It can really mitigate their injuries," he told reporters.

The protective outergarment is worn over the soldier's fatigues.

Soldiers in Afghanistan also will have a Kevlar undergarment, similar to a pair of biker shorts, which helps protect them against infections caused by dirt and stones kicked up in a blast.

"When you keep the wound area clean, you prevent follow-on infections," Cole said.

To combat the frequent traumatic brain injuries suffered by troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, which doctors say often lead to cases of post-traumatic stress disorder, helmets are being tricked out with sensors.

"When a soldier is caught in an IED event, we will be able to immediately download the data from his helmet to determine what kind of impact the helmet got to help the medical community correlate that to what kind of brain injury he might have," Cole said.

Colonel Stephanie Foster, the program manager for the unit's Soldiers, Sensors and Lasers project, expresses her pride in the new "Individual Gunshot Detector" system, which will help soldiers locate hidden snipers.

"You can wear it on the shoulder or other parts of your equipment," Foster said of the IGD sensor, 5,000 of which are already being used on the ground.

"Basically you have the ability to have counter-sniper situational awareness. With its acoustic device, you'll be able to get the range and direction of the incoming fire."

For night-time combat, modern armies have the upper hand over insurgents thanks to night-vision goggles. The new-generation eyewear, which is just reaching the field, will allow troops to more easily detect enemy fighters.

Other gadgets in the works -- like the lightweight Joint Effects Targeting System -- will allow soldiers to use a laser target to guide an air strike.

The US military currently uses a laser designator weighing several kilos (pounds) which is mounted on a tripod.

The use of too many electronic gadgets can be cause for concern.

"When you're in an hostile environment, how do you recharge your batteries?" wonders Bill Brower, a deputy project manager, displaying a box as big as a pack of cigarettes.

"It's basically a power manager. With it, I can take power from virtually any source. If I come across an old car battery, I can plug this in."

If there are no power sources around, soldiers can always use a portable solar blanket covered with mini-solar panels, which can be used to charge up a small computer.

In March 2011 USS Monterey (CG 61) deployed for a six-month independent deployment to the U.S. 6th Fleet area of responsibility. On this voyage, the AEGIS cruiser provided the first ballistic missile defense under the European Phased Adaptive Approach. The cruiser is seen here on one of its Mediterranean port visits in Greece, in May 2011. Photo: U.S. Navy

October 6, 2011 by Tamir Eshel - defense-update.com

The U.S. Navy is relocating four AEGIS destroyers to be stationed at port of Rota, spain on the Atlantic Ocean coast. “The alliance is significantly boosting combined naval capabilities in the Mediterranean, and enhancing our ability to ensure the security of this vital region.” The move comes just seven months after the Pentagon sent another AEGIS ship, USS Monterey, to the Mediterranean, marking the first of the administration’s four-phase plan to put a missile defense system in Europe by 2018.

Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta said. These AEGIS ships will support NATO’s missile defense effort, alongside the planned positioning of radar stations and, eventually, land-based AEGIS missile systems in Romania, Poland, and Turkey. “Spain’s decision represents a critical step in implementing the European Phased Adaptive Approach, as our leaders agreed to in Lisbon. For its part, the United States is fully committed to building a missile defense capability for the full coverage and protection of all our NATO European populations, their territory and their forces against the growing threat posed by ballistic missiles.” Panetta added.

According to Spanish President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, by 2013, Spain would “decisively support a large part of the naval portion” of the [European missile defense] system. The system, the Spanish president added, will have a positive economic impact on Rota, requiring the presence of 1,100 military staff and their families, representing 1,000 jobs.

In addition to supporting the new missile defense capability, these Aegis ships will support the Standing NATO Maritime Groups, and maritime security cooperation activities in the Mediterranean Basin and the Atlantic Ocean. The agreement also enables the United States to provide rapid and responsive support to the U.S. Africa and U.S. Central Commands, as needed.

Anti-ship missile development and testing - including that of the Dong Feng 21 –

has remained a high priority for the PLA. Image: vostokstation.com.au

09/27/2011  Contributor:  Nick Young - Defence IQ

Since the introduction of the contemporary anti-ship missile (ASM) by the Soviet Navy, ASMs have been developed to come in all shapes, sizes and guidance methods. Without a doubt, the largest contributor to this field is the former Soviet Navy (now the Russian navy), which developed no fewer than 12 systems of varying delivery methods (submarine, air or surface launched), only two of which have been combat tested.  So far, the Russian ASMs include some of the most feared systems to threaten naval platforms due to a varying combination of velocity, manoeuvrability, warhead and physical size. 

To date, the conventional ASM threat has focused on three key integers - high velocity, high manoeuvrability, low signature - that have concerned various navies around the globe. Now, a newer, potentially more potent anti-ship capability has been developed by the Peoples Liberation Army Navy (PLAN). The challenge remaining, then, is to explore this system in detail - its validity and potency in the current naval environment - with access only to information within the public domain. 

Many press outlets have reported the development of the ‘D’ variant of the Dong Feng 21 (DF-21D) anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM), (NATO reporting name CSS-5), which is a missile equipped with what is believed to be a single manoeuvrable re-entry vehicle (MaRV), with the sole mission of striking ships at sea.  DF-21 is a mobile, medium range ballistic missile that has reportedly achieved its initial operating capability (IOC). 

The Department of Defence (DOD) believes that the system has a range in excess of 1500km (>800nm), while Chinese sources claim a 2700km (1400nm) range. This latter range could  potentially provide a sea denial ability against any navy within range of the system.  For the purpose of analysis, 2000km will be assumed. It is reported that total flight time is around 12 minutes (720 seconds). It boasts a reported maximum velocity of between 3000 and 3500 ms-1, assumed to be during ballistic descent and re-entry.

The reported use of MaRVs will provide a capability to perform midcourse ballistic correction manoeuvres and this compounds the problem of intercepting a ballistic target. Such manoeuvrability coupled with any number of countermeasure capabilities makes a successful intercept difficult. 

System detection, classification & identification

To achieve this goal, the DF-21D system has to go through a standard sequence: detection, classification, identification and engagement. While sounding relatively straightforward, the technicalities of engaging a fleet of ships at sea is never quite that easy. Detection of ships at sea can be achieved by several methods including, patrols, over the horizon (OTH) radar (like the Australian Jindalee operational realisation network JORN system) or by satellite.  Each of these has advantages and disadvantages. 

Patrols are long and expensive and have coverage limited to the sensor range of the platform (airborne or surface). OTH radars are a much cheaper alternative long-term; however, their resolution is generally measured in hundreds to thousands of miles, hence not providing the level of quality to launch such a weapon.  Satellites, while initially expensive do offer an immediate long-term wide coverage, which is exactly how the DF-21D weapon system is reportedly targeted.

The detection of ships at sea from space is not new; the Soviet Union used ‘radar ocean reconnaissance satellites’ (RORSAT) from the late 1960s onward. Since then, technology has progressed and the capabilities of such systems are much greater. While it is possible to hide naval platforms or a fleet of naval platforms from satellites, such manoeuvres severely restrict movement, thus reducing their utility. Detection from space can be augmented with more locally based systems such as OTH radars and patrols or other assets such as electronic surveillance measures (ESM) that may help reduce the ability to hide from a targeting system. 

Classification, or even determining that the detected ship is a naval platform rather than a large merchant vessel such as super tanker or cruise liner, becomes a little more difficult. While the size of the ship can be estimated based on wake size and velocity, many oil tankers and cruise liners are as large as (or larger than) many warships, including aircraft carriers. 

The typical fleet composition (i.e., many ships in a small area) may give away the nature of the detected vessels since many fleets (especially the US Navy) sail with several ships surrounding the high value unit (HVU) - usually the aircraft carrier. Choke points may confuse the issue since many ships may be passing through such areas at once, although choke points provide an advantage to the DF-21D system to be augmented by other intelligence sources. Fleets could disperse more widely and this could cause problems for classification issues, although tracking all objects in a specific area should filter out fleet composition. 

Identification of the correct target for the DF-21D system can only reasonably be confirmed electro-optically, although contextual information may assist. Once a ship or set of ships have been classified as potential targets, an electro-optic satellite can be tasked to carry out specific identification reasonably easily. The use of visual or passive milli-metric wavelength (mmW) systems could perform this quite adequately, however precipitation (clouds, fog etc.) may be a concern. Once identification has occurred, the DF-21D missile can be launched. 

Initial threat flyout

Throughout the boost phase, it is likely that target positional data is continuously supplied to the warhead from the targeting and guidance sensors.  Whether a single communications link provides this data or whether the warhead performs organic data fusion is unknown. In terms of complexity, the former is less complex, requiring less on board processing. However, it potentially becomes a single point failure and opens up the potential for electronic attack. Organic data fusion, while overcoming the communication single point failure, will require the ability to receive multiple signals and process them, thus requiring more hardware and increasing overall launch weight. When initially exploring this missile’s capability, digging into the actual methodology is largely irrelevant, the only caveat being vulnerability to electronic attack to any communications link. 

Once the DF-21D is exo-atmospheric, it is assumed that various booster separations occur and the payload continues until it reaches its apogee -reportedly around 500km. Around the apogee, the MaRV is likely to separate from the main body (decoys could also be deployed at this stage to attempt to confuse any surveying sensors). The MaRV then begins its ballistic descent, rapidly accelerates to the peak speeds discussed earlier, taking around 155 seconds to reach the intercept point from the apogee. 

Warhead guidance & target acquisition

Only on its decent is the MaRV able to unmask its sensor and attempt to detect the target. The nature of the sensor is unknown; however, it is likely to be a radio frequency (RF), either passive or active. While an electro-optical sensor is feasible, it would not be usable due to the nature of the re-entry phase. The size of the MaRV will dictate the frequency of the sensor, which will probably require that it is small enough and light enough to fit into the MaRV, making it likely that it is no lower than J-band (10-20GHz) and maybe as high as M-band (94GHz). If we assume the seeker head is approximately half the size of the missile diameter, then the beamwidth for these two frequency bands will be between 1.64 and 0.26 degrees, respectively. Ignoring atmospheric absorption and other losses, at these beamwidths, the available coverage - at 500km - is between 820km and 130km. If a target, travelling at 30 knots, is located at the ballistic intercept point, (i.e. the ideal ballistic arc intercept with the sea surface), assuming the MaRV does not manoeuvre, then the target will remain inside the beamwidth of the sensor throughout its decent. 

Generally, the higher the sensor frequency, the greater the atmospheric absorption limiting the effective range of the sensor. Active sensors, as would be required for J and K bands, would suffer from two-way absorption. M-band could be passive, suffering only one-way absorption; however, the absorption levels at this frequency are much greater than for J and K bands. Since the sensor is likely to be limited in physical size, it is unlikely that it incorporates the level of output power necessary to overcome the absorption. Hence, it is unlikely that the sensor, in any of the probable frequencies, will detect the target if it is unmasked at an altitude of 500km. The nature of the Earth’s atmosphere means that the thickest part of the atmosphere will be nearer to the target, meaning that the sensor is unlikely to detect the target until quite late in the re-entry phase, requiring continuous updates from the surveillance and targeting system. 

As the MaRV hits the Kármán line, at an altitude of 100km, it would be expected that a communication blackout might occur. This is caused by the signals being reflected and absorbed by free electrons making up the plasma shield that envelopes the re-entry vehicle, created by the extreme heating of air by a strong shock wave created by the MaRV leading edges.  The attributes of this plasma shield will vary according to the altitude and shape of the re-entry vehicle. However, assuming the re-entry velocity equates to the maximum velocity of 3500ms-1, then, by coincidence, the re-entry temperature can be estimated as ~3500°K. The Saha equation may be used to determine the frequency cut-off for penetration of the plasma shield, which, for the MaRV, is around 0.5GHz, meaning that it is likely that communications can continue at this frequency and higher, further indicating that the DF-21D surveillance and targeting system can maintain contact with the MaRV during the re-entry phase. 

While relevant frequencies are able to penetrate the plasma shield, the MaRV still has to protect any seeker from the heating effects. This requires specialised materials to allow the RF energy to penetrate the heat shield. A composite material comprising boron nitride, silica and boron nitride yarn able to withstand temperatures of up to 4000°K, would also facilitate RF transmissions. As the MaRV begins to undergo negative acceleration, the electron density, and therefore plasma shield, decreases allowing the reestablishment of communications at frequencies below 0.5GHz. 

Summarising the re-entry phase - the phase of most concern from the DF-21Ds perspective - any onboard sensor will be limited until quite late in the re-entry phase (potentially 100km or less). However, the surveillance and targeting system can maintain contact with the target and the MaRV, providing uninterrupted targeting data. 

Destructive capability

The nature of MaRV has not been widely reported, but given that other DF-21 versions can carry a 600kg warhead, it probably is safe to say that DF-21D should be able to carry a similar weight. The amount of kinetic energy this would produce while travelling at 3500ms-1 is 3.6 terra joules, or about 5% of the power of the Hiroshima nuclear bomb, without the use of an explosive warhead. 

This is more than enough to destroy any naval platform up to destroyer size and enough to significantly damage or destroy something as large as a US Navy super carrier. If the MaRV contained a warhead, when coupled with the kinetic energy, it is likely that it would destroy something the size of a US Navy aircraft carrier. 

Defensive measures

The DF-21D will be at its most vulnerable during its boost phase. This is the phase from engine ignition until it is exo-atmospheric. During the boost phase, it is relatively easy to engage the missile with conventional hardkill effectors (surface-to-air missile) to achieve this. The launch must occur within the range of the hardkill effectors, which, for most systems, is around 80-120km. Placing such a SAM system in such a position exposes that platform to a pre-emptive attack. Hence, it is likely that the majority of the boost phase will occur relatively unhindered. Another possible solution is the use of something similar to the recently abandoned airborne laser (ABL); however, the limitation identified by the ABL programme would need to be overcome to develop a viable system. 

Intercepting the MaRV during the descent phase presents a number of difficulties. First among these is having suitable sensor coverage to detect and track the MaRV with fire control quality. Systems like SPY-1 are limited in their zenith coverage by the physics of the antenna, which can only electronically scan to 60° off the antenna boresight, (a characteristic of physics that afflicts all phased array antennas). Given that the SPY-1 scans at an angle of no more than 10 or 15° from the horizontal, this results in a cone shape blind spot of around 30-40° around the zenith. 

The reported range of the SPY-1 is approximately 200km. There are two aspects to this figure: the instrumented range, defined by the selected waveform known as instrumented range; and that of the basic physics, which is dependant on the effective radiated power (ERP) and the radar cross section of the target (RCS). Modification of the waveform, increasing the spacing between pulses, will change the instrumented range to encompass any particular range. The angle at which the MaRV descends means that there is very little clutter to interfere with the detection of the target. Hence, a normal radar, single pulse system can be utilised, rather than a complex waveform that requires processing such as Doppler filtering often used in high clutter environment (e.g. littoral regions). 

Based on physical size, the estimated MaRV RCS is around 2.2m2, meaning it is probable that SPY-1 could detect the MaRV at between 150km and 200km, or between 43 and 60 seconds, assuming the sensor is not distracted by any potential decoys. Giving a second or so for a targeting process, an intercepting missile can be launched travelling at a typical velocity of 1000ms-1, resulting in an intercept range of around 18km (or 18 seconds to go), with a combined velocity of 4500ms-1. This Mach 15 combined intercept speed would make it incredibly difficult for even an optimised fusing mechanism and blast fragmentation warhead to detect, initiate and distribute fragments against the MaRV. 

This suggests that using an ordinary SAM effectively against the MaRV would be near impossible - even a vaunted SM-2. Hence, intercepting the MaRV in the terminal phase is unlikely, so once the MaRV is in its ballistic fall, the likelihood of it hitting its target is very high. Guns are of little use against this type simply because of their limited range and accuracy, not to mention the lack of effect. 

A viable defensive solution

Once exo-atmospheric the DF-21D is potentially susceptible to attack from systems such as the US Navy’s standard missile (SM)-3, typically based upon a Ticonderoga cruiser. As the threat breaches the horizon, the platforms sensors (SPY-1) will acquire the rising target and commence tracking, facilitating the calculation of an engagement solution. The solution will incorporate a ‘window’ of opportunity, bounded by the very first time the missile can launch and achieve a suitable probability of intercept and a very last time. Once the threat enters this window, the SM-3 can be launched. 

The SM-3 is a three-stage missile comprising:

    Initial stage: A Mk72 booster that incorporates a four-nozzle thrust vector control, providing pitch, roll and yaw control for the missile - used for the initial launch

    Second stage: A Mk104, dual thrust rocket motor (DTRM)

    Third stage: A Mk136 third stage rocket motor (TSRM)

The initial stage propels the SM-3 from the launcher, accelerating it to around 1000ms-1. On burnout, the booster separates and is discarded and the DTRM ignites, accelerating the missile further. After MK 104 burnout and separation, the TSRM ignites, propelling the third stage out of the atmosphere, which includes the kinetic warhead (KW). The TSRM contains two separate propulsion pulses allowing optimisation of the engagement. 

Throughout its flight, the SM-3 receives in-flight target information, constantly updating the predicted intercept solution. During the third stage, approximately 30 seconds prior to intercept, the TSRM pitches over and ejects the nose cone, exposing the KW which starts its search for the target using its long-wave infra red (LWIR) seeker, augmented with received target data. The KW uses the solid divert and attitude control system (SDACS) to manoeuvre the KW to enable a hit-to-kill intercept. 

As the KW closes on the target, the LWIR seeker tries to determine the area where the MaRV is located, shifting its aim towards this area to increase the probability of a successful intercept. The KW collides with the target with a reported 130-mega joules of kinetic energy, equating to a 10 tonne truck travelling at 600 miles per hour. Such a strike is highly likely to destroy the target. 

While the Aegis/SM-3 anti-ballistic missile solution seems viable, and indeed tests have demonstrated its capability, it seems to need to engage the target prior to MaRV separation. This is not an issue in itself; however, to achieve this, it is likely that the SM-3 launch platform must be in a specific range to allow the SM-3 to reach the target prior to MaRV separation. Based on maximum reported range of SPY-1, this suggests the system must be within ~200km of the launch point to allow detection.  Even if this range is incorrectly reported, then the launch platform needs to be within 500km of the trajectory. Simply put, this is necessary to ensure that the operating envelope of the SM-3 suitably covers the trajectory path of the DF-21D while it is exo-atmospheric. The need for the launch platform to be in a suitable location to engage the DF-21D potentially exposes it to a pre-emptive attack since the intercept geometry dictates the launch position. 

Assessing threat viability

Based on available information and on first inspection, the DF-21D concept is viable. Whether the fully integrated system is effective – and what the concept suggests - is not something that can be easily verified.  Given the likely low cost of a DF-21D relative to naval platforms (especially the US carriers), the introduction of the DF-21D system is a game changer in terms of strategic naval warfare. The economical offset gives these weapons an unmatched potency almost equivalent to the introduction of the submarine and torpedo combination in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Without a doubt, US Navy aircraft carriers are susceptible to attack by these weapons. 

As this paper has explored, the vast majority of contemporary in-service SAM systems are unable to defend against this threat, while the information on the only potentially viable system suggests that the launch platform has to be exposed to achieve a successful engagement.  However, the Aegis/SM-3 combination is the only known naval system that can possibly negate this threat. Hence, any US moves towards the areas guarded by DF-21D would likely be preceded by the deployment of a Aegis/SM-3 platform. This potentially makes the Aegis/SM-3 platforms strategic assets, worthy of significant defence, themselves, to prevent a pre-emptive attack. 

Even if the Aegis/SM-3 combination is systemically capable of defeating the DF-21D, there is always potential for system failures in any stage of the engagement. While this applies equally to the DF-21D, as usual, the threat will always have the advantage. Given the tight engagement timeline for the SM-3, depending on the system element, failure would be potentially catastrophic. While the launching of multiple SM-3s may overcome some of the potential failures, it is not clear if the Aegis/SM-3 combination can manage multiple engagements of this nature. 

The only assured method of defence against the DF-21D is one of offense.  The DF-21D system relies heavily on its targeting and guidance elements that primarily consist of satellite-based sensors (although probably not exclusively). Hence, were the US to initiate a move into a DF-21D protected area, its best defence would be to incapacitate the targeting and guidance elements, which may be politically unacceptable. Fortunately, the Aegis/SM-3 combination can also engage satellites as demonstrated by operation BURNT FROST, the shooting down of the USA-193 satellite.  Even if the DF-21D system is not as capable as reports suggest, or does not work at all, PLAN has presented a difficult problem for the US in which any move could risk the US losing either political capital (going for the assured route of defence) or losing a significant asset - a US Navy aircraft carrier. This could immediately put the US on the back-foot before any combat occurred. 

In the final analysis, even the threat of introducing the DF-21D, let alone the actual introduction, changes the balance of power in huge areas of strategic importance around Asia. While systems do exist to mitigate this threat, none provides an ideal defence in either concept or execution, but they do form the basis of limited defence ability.

USS Oklahoma City visited Fleet Base West when the United States submarine participated in a Submarine Command Course alongside a RAN Collins Class submarine. (photo : RAN)

09.09.2011 DEFENSE STUDIES

25.08.2011 par Stéphane Dossé et Guillaume Tissier -Billets d’AGS sur le Cyber

La compétition stratégique entre la Chine et les Etats-Unis semble, de plus en plus s’étendre au cyberespace. Stéphane Dossé, Lignes stratégiques, et Guillaume Tissier, Directeur du pôle risques opérationnels de CEIS, nous livrent une réflexion personnelle sur le climat de guerre froide qui semble souffler sur le cyberespace, notamment à la suite de la parution, à l’été, de stratégies américaines dans le cyberespace.

Le 6 août 2011, la Chine par l’intermédiaire de son agence de presse officielle Xinhua[1], condamnait « l’addiction aux dettes » et les « querelles politiques [de Washington] qui manquent de vision à long terme ». Le communiqué ajoutait en réaction  à la dégradation de la note de la dette américaine par Standard & Poor’s (S&P), le 5 août au soir, « La Chine a désormais parfaitement le droit d’exiger des Etats-Unis le réglement de leurs problèmes de dette structurelle et d’assurer la sécurité des actifs en dollars de la Chine ». Cette réaction, qui pourrait être considérée comme un acte d’ingérence dans les affaires intérieures des Etats-Unis, traduit un climat conflictuel entre les deux superpuissances et une montée progressive et tangible des tensions entre ces deux Etats, superpuissances à l’échelle mondiale. Les stratégies américaines de 2011 dans le cyberespace, notamment l’U.S. International strategy for cyberspace et la DoD strategy for operating in Cyberspace, apparaissent ainsi comme le vecteur et le symptôme d’une nouvelle guerre froide

.

 Un contexte stratégique tendu

Les deux véritables superpuissances du XXIème siècle sont la Chine et les Etats-Unis, en raison de leurs poids politiques et économiques mais aussi militaires. Leurs relations plus ou moins tendues se caractérisaient par une coopération, principalement économique, et une compétition politique de plus en plus visible.

Lors de la crise financière de l’été 2011, la Chine a montré un visage plus agressif vis-à-vis des Etats-Unis qui fait quelque peu écho à quelques démonstrations de puissances dans les premières années du siècle, légitimes pour une puissance qui vient d’émerger.

Depuis la rétrocession d’Hong-Kong (1997) et de Macao (1999), la Chine, régime autoritaire à parti unique, membre permanent du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies et seconde économie mondiale, entend montrer le renouveau de sa puissance au monde :

• entrée à l’Organisation mondiale du commerce en 2001 malgré un cours du Yuan manifestement et durablement sous-évalué qui peut s’interpréter comme une concurrence déloyale ;
• vols spatiaux habités depuis 2003, tir d’une arme antisatellite en 2007, station spatiale de recherche à partir de 2011, programme lunaire pour 2020, etc. ;
• jeux olympiques de Pékin en 2008 ;
• défilé militaire du 60ème anniversaire de l’armée populaire de libération (APL) en 2009 (100 000 participants, 8 000 véhicules et 150 aéronefs) ;
• exposition universelle de Shanghai en 2010.
• réduction en 2010 de ses quotas d’exportation de terres rares indispensables pour certaines technologies de pointe, dont elle produit 97% de la consommation mondiale, etc.

Au niveau économique, selon l’économiste Antoine Brunet, l’Etat chinois disposait fin juin 2011 d’un montant de réserves de change supérieur à 4 600 milliards de dollars, si l’on ajoute aux réserves de la Banque populaire de Chine, celles détenues par ses épigones, l’Autorité monétaire de Hong-Kong et les Fonds souverains de la Chine et de Hong-Kong. Cela représente environ deux années de budget fédéral américain, un tiers de la dette fédérale américaine. Un bon moyen de pression politique. La cession du centre de container du port du Pirée, par l’Etat grec au groupe chinois Cosco Pacific Ltd, pourrait apparaître comme l’implantation d’un comptoir au sein de l’Union européenne, tels que l’on pouvait les voir dans la Chine déclinante du début du XIX^ème siècle.

Au niveau militaire, l’APL poursuit sa modernisation en augmentant la qualité de son personnel, en menant une politique de mise en service de matériels majeurs comme un porte-avions, officiellement dans un but de recherche scientifique et d’entraînement[2], ou de numérisation des forces. Le 11 janvier 2011, la Chine aurait fait décoller pour la première fois son chasseur furtif J-20, lors d’une visite de Robert Gates, alors secrétaire américain à la défense. Elle développe également une politique de coopération militaire internationale jusque là inédite par son ampleur. Cette dernière est fondée sur les visites de hauts niveau à l’étranger, la participation à des exercices multinationaux, la promotion de l’image de la Chine dans les milieux de défense et la privation aux opérations de maintien de la paix, comme la FINUL (Liban) et de sécurisation des routes maritimes dans le golfe d’Aden et l’Océan indien, etc. Le budget chinois aurait augmenté de 7,5% en 2010 à 79 milliards de dollars. En augmentation depuis plus de 20 ans, son accroissement annuel moyen dans les années 2000 serait de 11,8% pour une croissance annuelle moyenne de 9,6% du PIB. Néanmoins, les Etats-Unis estiment le budget militaire chinois à plus de 150 milliards de dollars, en raison de l’opacité des finances publiques.

Cette montée en puissance de la Chine n’est pas sans causer d’inquiétudes aux Etats-Unis, par l’intermédiaire du DoD, qui font paraître annuellement un rapport de synthèse, à destination du Congrès, sur la puissance militaire chinoise : le Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, de 2002 à 2009, puis le Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China en 2010 et en 2011. La Chine est le seul pays, en dehors de ceux dans lesquels les Américains sont en guerre, à bénéficier d’une telle attention publique. Cela rappelle le Soviet military power de la guerre froide. Dans le rapport de 2010, la doctrine américaine vis-à-vis de la Chine est clairement affichée, sous les mots du président Obama : « [la relation Etats-Unis - Chine] n’a pas été sans désagrément ni difficultés. Mais le concept selon lequel nous devons être adversaire n’est pas inéluctable ». Les Etats-Unis coopèrent avec la Chine, tout en « surveillant » sa puissance militaire et en la dissuadant d’un conflit, notamment dans le cadre d’une action contre Taïwan. Le 29 juin 2011, un avion espion U2 américain[3] aurait été raccompagné par la chasse chinoise vers les eaux internationales en mer de Chine du sud. Le 25 juillet 2011, deux avions Su-27 chinois ont violé l’espace aérien de Taïwan, ce qui n’était pas arrivé depuis 1999, pour intercepter un U2 américain. Le soutien de Pékin au régime totalitaire de Pyongyang reste d’autant plus un sujet de préoccupation que la Corée du nord provoquerait des incidents avec son voisin du sud, parfois très graves comme lors du torpillage du navire sud-coréen Cheonan (46 morts) le 26 mars 2010 et du bombardement de l’île de Yeonpyeong, le 23 novembre 2010.

C’est dans ce contexte de tension qu’il est possible de qualifier de guerre froide que les Etats-Unis et la Chine adoptent progressivement une position conflictuelle dans le cyberespace.

La puissance chinoise dans le cyberspace

Les deux grandes puissances prennent en effet leurs marques dans un cyberespace en plein bouleversement : le nombre d’internautes a explosé (1,7 milliard), mais surtout le centre de gravité d’internet a changé avec la montée en puissance des pays émergents et de la Chine qui compte à elle seule 420 millions d’internautes (dont 277 millions se connectent par téléphone) contre 220 millions aux Etats-Unis. C’est en fait une sorte d’internet parallèle qui se développe en Chine. Le pays dispose maintenant de sa propre architecture DNS avec des noms de domaine constitués d’une série de chiffres, ce qui permet au réseau de fonctionner de manière autonome. L’ICANN a également approuvé en 2010 les TLD (ou domaines de premier niveau) en caractères chinois. Le marché chinois des télécommunications et systèmes d’information est quant à lui en pleine expansion malgré une décennie de retard sur les pays les plus développés numériquement et des disparités régionales très fortes en termes de taux de pénétration internet.

Le point noir reste évidemment la censure systématique dont internet fait l’objet dans le pays. Comme le soulignait, en 2011, Mme Hillary Clinton, secrétaire d’Etat américaine, la Chine est le seul pays non démocratique qui parvient à se développer avec un contrôle strict d’Internet par l’Etat. Cette politique de censure répond en réalité à la fois à des préoccupations politiques et économiques. Cela permet aux sites chinois de se développer à l’abri de la concurrence occidentale à l’image de Baidu, le Google chinois, ou de Renren, le Facebook local qui compte déjà 120 millions d’utilisateurs[4]. De la production de composants à la fourniture de services, le secteur des télécommunications et de l’informatique prospère également, favorisé par une politique volontariste de formation, de soutien à la R&D et de normalisation.

Sur le terrain, la Chine mobiliserait 30 000 à 40 000 agents pour sa police de l’Internet pouvant être épaulés par plusieurs centaines de milliers de Honkers, corsaires informatiques chinois, pouvant assurer le contrôle social du web, sur les forums et les réseaux sociaux. Ces derniers dont la dépendance vis-à-vis du régime reste floue (Red Hackers of China, China Eagle Union, Green Army Corps ou Honkers Union of China) n’ont pas hésité à s’attaquer à des sites à l’étranger, dans les années 2000. Le 8 août 2011, elle a annoncé le développement d’un Plan pour le développement des enfants chinois (2011-2012) qui vise à « assurer un environnement de l’Internet sain pour les enfants en fournissant un accès public gratuit ou à bas prix exclusivement pour les enfants et en mettant en place des logiciels spéciaux pour filtrer toute information nuisible » et à lutter contre les cybercafés illicites. Ceci complète différentes mesure antérieures comme le système de filtrage par mots-clés, mis en place durant les « révolutions arabes », début 2011.

Le paradoxe est que malgré son potentiel de censure et de contrôle et un durcissement récent des mesures de lutte anti-cybercriminalité, la Chine se plaint régulièrement de la cybercriminalité – souvent lorsqu’elle est désignée comme menace-, dont elle serait plus une cible qu’une source. Selon l’agence Xinhua, le 9 août 2011, la Chine aurait été victime de 500 000 cyberattaques en 2010, dont la moitié de l’étranger, en particulier d’Inde et des Etats-Unis, deux concurrents stratégiques. Si cette posture de victime sonne parfois faux, elle témoigne aussi d’une véritable évolution. La situation d’asymétrie dont jouissait le pays vis-à-vis des Etats-Unis au plan informatique est désormais révolue. Compte tenu de la taille de ses réseaux, le pays est désormais vulnérable et ne parvient même plus totalement à empêcher des internautes dissidents de contourner ses murailles numériques.

Pour faire face à la menace, la Chine développe sa capacité de lutte informatique, selon son livre blanc de 2010 car elle considère le cyberespace comme un enjeu stratégique. Elle se doterait d’un boulier cybernétique dans le cadre d’un programme baptisé « Kylin ». En juin 2011, l’APL a déclaré avoir constitué une équipe spécialisée dans le cyber et dispose déjà d’unités de systèmes d’information et de communication et de guerre électronique en grand nombre[5]. Si le pays ne semble pas disposer de doctrine de lutte informatique officielle, la lutte informatique s’intègre dans un concept de « guerre hors limite » en vertu duquel le cyberespace civil peut être utilisé dans une « guerre totale », déclinaison récente de la notion de « guerre du peuple » chère à Mao.

Ainsi, avec une composante symétrique d’action dans le cyberespace, via ses forces régulières, et une composante asymétrique, via les honkers, les Chinois disposent de capacités de cyberguerre significatives pouvant être mobilisées en cas de conflit armé ou non.

Une compétition accrue dans le cyberespace

Le premier affrontement entre la Chine est les Etats-Unis est d’abord idéologique. Les Etats-Unis défendent clairement le principe de liberté d’accès à Internet, comme liberté individuelle et collective et moyen de développement économique. Si dans les faits, les pratiques américaines de contrôle des flux numériques ne sont pas exempts de commentaires, il faut reconnaître que leur attachement au libre échange des idées est bien réel. Le rappel du premier amendement de la constitution américaine, « gravée dans 50 tonnes de marbre du Tennessee », par Mme Hillary Clinton, le 21 janvier 2010, lors d’un forum sur la liberté sur Internet au Newseum, n’est pas anodin. Dans son discours, réagissant à l’opération Aurora, la Chine apparaissait comme sa cible principale – non exclusive. Elle attaqua les pays ne respectant pas la liberté d’expression sur Internet et leur prédisait même une mise à l’écart de la marche du progrès au XXIème siècle. Plus gravement, l’asymétrie d’accès à l’information serait une cause de guerre interétatique…

« Mais les pays qui restreignent le libre accès à l’information ou violent les droits fondamentaux des utilisateurs d’Internet risquent de se murer, en se coupant du progrès pour le reste du siècle. Actuellement, les Etats-Unis et la Chine ont des vues différentes sur cette question, et nous avons l’intention de répondre à ces différences de manière franche et cohérente, dans le cadre de notre relation positive, coopérative et globale. [...] La liberté de l’information soutient la paix et la sécurité, fondements du progrès mondial. Historiquement, l’accès asymétrique à l’information est l’une des principales causes de conflits interétatiques. »

Le 15 février 2011, Mme Clinton reprenait ses critiques vis-à-vis de la censure sur l’Internet chinois et les réseaux d’autres pays cibles régulières des Etats-Unis : Cuba, Iran, et affirmait même qu’aucun développement économique n’était maintenant possible sans liberté sur Internet, à l’exception de la Chine. Une exception de taille, il faut en convenir.

Au-delà de la liberté d’opinion, les intérêts économiques des Etats-Unis dans le cyberespace sont majeurs. Il comprend environ 2 milliards d’internautes et presque 5 milliards d’abonnés à la téléphonie mobile. Internet représente 5 000 milliards de dollars de propriétés intellectuelles américaines dont 300 milliards sont volés annuellement^[6]. Certains experts soupçonnent souvent la Chine, sans preuves formelles, d’être l’un des grands acteurs de ce pillage. Les opérations Aurora et Shady Rat[7], cyberattaques visant respectivement une trentaine et 72 entreprises, principalement américaines, sont attribuées à la Chine qui a démenti en être à l’origine. Par ailleurs, les entreprises chinoises dans le domaine de l’Internet se développent rapidement et constituent une concurrence parfois à l’échelle mondiale, si l’on pense à Huawei, deuxième fournisseur mondial de réseaux derrière Ericsson mais devant Cisco ou Alcatel-Lucent.

Les Etats-Unis se positionnent comme le leader du « Monde libre » dans le cyberespace, sous entendu « démocratique », pour reprendre les propos du discours de Fulton de Winston Churchill, le 5 mars 1946. Un nouveau rideau de fer aurait séparé le cyberespace, notamment la Chine des Etats-Unis et de leurs alliés. La cyberdétente appelée de leurs vœux par M. Henry Kissinger, ancien secrétaire d’Etat, et M. Jon Huntsman, ancien ambassadeur américain en Chine, en juin 2011, à l’occasion d’un événement organisé par Thomson Reuters, semble confirmer ce climat de guerre froide entre la Chine et les Etats-Unis.

C’est dans ce contexte général et particulier que les Etats-Unis ont publié en 2011 des stratégies qui montrent des similitudes certaines avec celles de la guerre froide, notamment l’initiative de défense stratégique.

Les stratégies d’une cyberguerre froide ?

Presque à chaque fois que les Etats-Unis se sentent menacés militairement ou sont attaqués, ils axent leurs stratégies majeures selon des axes économique, militaire et moral. En raison de leur histoire, ils se pensent comme d’abord comme une terre devant être sanctuarisée et devant être protégée à tout prix contre les menaces extérieures : missiles nucléaires intercontinentaux (dont sous-marins) pendant la Guerre froide, terrorisme jihadiste durant la guerre contre le terrorisme et cyberattaques. Pour cela, ils doivent mobiliser leur formidable outil économique, en assurant une synergie entre le public et le privé, entre le civil et le militaire, entre le citoyen et l’Etat. Ils doivent aussi mettre en ordre de bataille leurs capacités militaires, scientifiques, diplomatiques qui seront leurs moyens d’actions dans le champ des relations internationales.

Par ces politiques ambitieuses et volontaristes, non dénuées d’un risque scientifique et politique assumé, les Etats-Unis organisent la mobilisation du pays autour de projets fédérateurs :

• la course à la Lune contre les soviétiques pour environ 5 milliards de dollars annuels de l’époque (discours du président Kennedy de l’Université de Rice du 12 septembre 1962) ;
• la guerre des étoiles contre les soviétiques pour environ 5 milliards de dollars de R&D annuels (discours du président Reagan du 23 mars 1983) ;
• la guerre globale contre le terrorisme pour 130 milliards de dollars annuels (discours du président G.W. Bush du 20 septembre 2001 devant le congrès) ;
• la stratégie américaine internationale pour le cyberespace pour environ 5,5 milliards de dollars annuels de R&D.

Ainsi, le 16 mai 2011, le président Obama a présenté la publication de la stratégie américaine pour le cyberespace U.S. International strategy for cyberspace (ISC). Elle s’appuie principalement sur trois voies : la diplomatie, la défense et le développement économique. Elles concourent aux objectifs stratégiques : développer l’ouverture et l’interopérabilité du cyberespace, sécuriser et fiabiliser les réseaux et promouvoir la stabilité de l’Internet par l’intermédiaire de normes. Cette stratégie a ensuite été déclinée en stratégies particulières. La maison blanche a également présenté, le 25 juillet, une nouvelle stratégie, Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime, pour combattre la  cybercriminalité transnationale.

Le 14 juillet 2011, le Département d’Etat a publié les priorités de la cyberdiplomatie américaine qui se fixe les objectifs suivants :

• promouvoir l’innovation et l’ouverture des marchés ;
• améliorer la sécurité, la disponibilité et la résilience des réseaux mondiaux ;
• étendre la collaboration juridique et la législation internationale ;
• préparer les défis sécuritaires du 21° siècle ;
• promouvoir des structures efficaces de gouvernance de l’Internet ;
• développer des capacités cyber, la sécurité et la prospérité au travers du développement d’Internet ;
• soutenir les principes de liberté fondamentale et de vie privée.

Le même jour, le Department of Defense des Etats-Unis a publié la version non classifiée de sa stratégie pour le cyberespace : DoD strategy for operating in Cyberspace (DoD SOC). La DoD SOC définit le contexte stratégique et fixe 5 initiatives stratégiques à court et moyen termes :

• Tirer avantage du cyberspace ;
• Etablir de nouveaux concepts de protection des réseaux ;
• Mettre en place un partenariat interministériel, interagences et public-privé ;
• Construire un système de sécurité collective dans le cyberespace ;
• Développer  les capacités technologiques et humaines pour opérer dans le cyberespace.

L’objectif de ces stratégies est clair : le « cyber power », lequel agit à la fois comme un multiplicateur de puissance « conventionnelle » mais constitue aussi un champ d’expression de la puissance à parts entières.

De la guerre des étoiles à la menace fantôme ?

Des similitudes importantes existent avec l’Initiative avec l’initiative de défense stratégique lancée le 23 mars 1983 par le président Reagan, et formalisée dans la Strategic defense initiative (SDI) du 6 janvier 1984. Si dans la SDI, l’Union soviétique était clairement visée, aucun adversaire n’est nommément mentionné dans les stratégies cyber ; la menace est cette fois étatique ou non. Néanmoins, au regard des thèmes abordés et des capacités chinoises étatiques et non étatiques dans le cyber, la Chine apparaît clairement comme l’un des adversaires principaux. Le cyberespace devient un vecteur de la confrontation stratégique avec la Chine, comme par exemple l’Espace l’avait été avec l’Union soviétique.

De manière générale, la SDI et la DoD SOC ont été présentées comme des politiques défensives, ayant pour but de mettre en échec une capacité offensive, respectivement nucléaire et cyber, pouvant porter gravement atteinte à la sécurité des Etats-Unis et de leurs alliés. La SDI voulait créer une capacité de dissuasion défensive active, tout comme la SOC veut renforcer la résilience et la défense active des réseaux. Elles partent toutes deux du postulat que les capacités des adversaires sont peu connues et qu’il est nécessaire de surveiller leurs activités.

L’initiative n°1 du DoD SOC vise à organiser l’action militaire des Etats-Unis dans le cyberespace. Une bonne partie de la National security decision 119 pour la SDI faisait brièvement de même dans son point 3 qui mena à la création de la SDI organization en avril 1984.

La SDI étant en soi un nouveau concept de défense contre les missiles soviétiques, notamment dans son point 4, qui devait s’intégrer dans des concepts stratégiques plus globaux préexistants par ailleurs (point 2). Cette recherche de la nouveauté est présente dans l’initiative n°2 qui a le but de développer des concepts novateurs de protection active et passive.

La mobilisation, dans une approche globale, du secteur public et du secteur privé pour le DoD SOC, dans l’initiative n°3, fait écho au point 1 de la SDI et surtout au discours du président Reagan qui avait appelé la communauté scientifique à se mobiliser.

L’initiative n°4 a pour but de renforcer la sécurité collective dans le cyberespace, autour d’alliés et de partenaires poursuivant les mêmes buts et adhérant aux mêmes valeurs que les Etats-Unis. Dans le cadre de la guerre froide, le système de défense collective existait déjà, en particulier par l’intermédiaire de l’Alliance atlantique. Néanmoins, le président Reagan a précisé dans son discours que son pays allait poursuivre ses engagements sécuritaires vis-à-vis de ses alliés. Ceci a été repris dans le point 6 de la directive SDI qui vise à évaluer les conséquences pour les Etats-Unis et leurs alliés du programme.

Finalement, il est nécessaire de constater que, parmi les principales difficultés scientifiques de la SDI, la mise en réseau des armes antimissiles et de l’alerte avancée était bien présente. La SDI était déjà partiellement un programme qui serait actuellement qualifié de cyber. Selon un sondage de la Peter Hart organization, seulement 17% des physiciens américains pensaient que le projet était réaliste en 1986[8]. En particulier, certains informaticiens en 1983 estimaient qu’il fallait plusieurs dizaines de millions de lignes de code pour soutenir le programme, ce qui était hors de portée des capacités américaines du moment. La fiabilité des codes était également en question. Des erreurs de programmation avaient en 1979 et en 1980 auraient même pu entraîner une riposte nucléaire américaine à la suite de fausses alarmes[9]. Néanmoins, en raison du computer gap depuis les années 50 entre l’URSS et les Etats-Unis (10 fois moins d’ordinateurs souvent obsolètes en URSS), une réussite dans le domaine informatique, « monstre de l’impérialisme et de la pseudoscience » pour les soviétiques des années 1950, pouvait donner un avantage stratégique décisif aux Américains[10]. La SDI permettait de distancer des soviétiques cherchant à relever le défi de la révolution de l’informatique personnelle (IBM PC en 1981, Macintosh en 1984 et scission d’ARPANET en MILNET et INTERNET en 1984), avec l’arrivée au pouvoir de Mikhail Gorbatchev en 1984 et la création de l’organisation Inter-robot[11].

En 1985, les progrès techniques dans les architectures réseaux permettaient de fractionner la gestion informatique du système en ensemble en éléments de moins de 10 000 lignes de codes, ce qui fut possible dans les années suivantes. Ceci a permis de développer la recherche permettant de distribuer le traitement informatique, principe de l’Internet actuel, dans les réseaux qui étaient à l’époque généralement centralisé[12]. Dans le cadre de l’initiative n°5 du DoD SOC, avec le développement de CORONET, réseau devant remplacer Internet en développant des technologies optiques, et du National cyber range, réplique du réseau Internet pour l’entraînement et l’expérimentation, les Etats-Unis semblent chercher à recréer artificiellement le computer gap avec la Chine. Les sommes consacrées à la R&D pour le cyber sont par ailleurs tout à fait comparables à celles de la SDI.

Tout comme la SDI, en son temps, les stratégies américaines pour le cyberespace, qui ne s’appliquent pas qu’aux menaces étatiques majeures mais également à la cybercriminalité quotidienne – c’est en cela qu’elles diffèrent franchement de la SDI, sont à considérer comme un catalyseur de la puissance et des compétences américaines, sous l’impulsion de l’Etat fédéral pour tenter d’annihiler une menace jugée insupportable.

Conclusion

Au-delà des affrontements « techniques » dont il est le théâtre, le cyberespace est, qu’on le veuille ou non, devenu un véritable enjeu de puissance. A l’Internet universel et homogène que l’on connaissait succède progressivement un cyberespace fragmenté, gouverné par une logique de blocs ou de zones d’influence. Faut-il pour autant y voir comme certains la fin de l’Internet ? Il s’agit plutôt de la fin « d’un » internet et d’une évolution naturelle, déjà à l’œuvre depuis plusieurs années, qui a vu le « politique » envahir cet espace et les Etats chercher à y exprimer, légitimement ou non, leur souveraineté.

Il était donc logique que la rivalité stratégique entre les Etats-Unis et la Chine gagne également ce territoire, voire se concentre à terme sur cet espace qui offre de nombreux avantages d’un point de vue stratégique. Le cyberespace favorise tout d’abord les affrontements clandestins et de basse intensité, ce qui permet en théorie d’éviter des conflits directs et ouverts. Il est ensuite transverse aux environnements physiques et constitue le « ciment » permettant de coordonner des capacités d’action dans ces différents milieux. Comme le souligne Joseph S. Nye, « le cyber power peut être utilisé pour créer des résultats au sein du cyberespace mais il peut aussi utiliser des instruments cyber pour produire des résultats dans d’autres domaines en dehors du cyberespace »[13]. Enfin, les technologies qu’il implique sont par essence duales et utilisables indistinctement dans le monde civil et militaire. C’est là l’un des axes clés de la nouvelle stratégie américaine dans le cyberespace : les Etats-Unis ont été à l’origine du développement d’Internet, ils doivent non seulement maintenir mais accentuer le fossé technologique avec leurs adversaires en imaginant et en construisant les réseaux de demain. Quitte, pour ce faire, à instrumentaliser quelque peu la menace.

[1] Dette américaine : « la Chine, en tant que créancier, doit rester vigilante », La Tribune, 8 août 2011 consulté le 9 août 2011.

[2] Geng Yansheng, porte-parole du ministère chinois de la défense, Pékin,  27 juillet 2011.

[3] En 2001, un avion de surveillance EP-3 américain avait été contraint de se poser d’urgence dans le sud de la Chine, après une collision avec un avion chinois venu l’intercepter en Mer de Chine. Collision entre deux avions chinois et américain, 1er avril 2001, Nouvel observateur, site consulté le 8 août 2011.

[4] La société a d’ailleurs été créée par un Chinois formé aux Etats-Unis et la société est depuis peu cotée à New York…

[5] L’APL pourrait détenir plus d’une centaine de bataillons de transmissions ou de guerre électronique selon le rapport de la RAND. The People’s Liberation Army as Organization, Dennis J Blasko, 2000. L’auteur fut officier de renseignement dans l’US Army, spécialisé dans les affaires chinoises.

[6] Statement of general Keith b. Alexander, commander United States Cyber Command before the House committee on armed services, 23 septembre 2010. www.defense.gov, consulté le 2 mai 2011. Garamone Jim, Cybercom Chief Details Cyberspace Defense, American forces press service, 23 septembre 2010.

[7] Noms donnés en 2010 et 2011 par Dmitri Alperovitch, Vice Président de McAfee chargé des menaces.

[8] MIGLAUTSCH Thomas, Little scientific defense for Star Wars, Milwaukee journal, 10 juillet 1986.

[9] HALLORAN Richard, Computer signals 2nd mistaken report of USSR nuclear attack, Youngstone Vindicator, 6 juin 1980. Ces incidents furent repris dans le film War games de 1983.

[10] FULTON Lewis, Soviet face computer lag, Lakeland Ledger, 10 décembre 1962. SHABAD Theodore, Soviet concedes a computer gap, The New York times, 4 mai 1971. Computer cargo to USSR seized, New York Times in The Milwaukee Journal, 21 novembre 1983.

[11] GEROL Ilya, Soviets are missing out on computer revolution, Ottawa citizen, 27 décembre 1985.

[12] MORRING Franck, Star wars defense plan run by computer called possible, The Deseret News, 25 décembre 1985.

[13]NYE Jospeh S. Jr,  Cyber Power,Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School,mai 2010. Source : http://web.mit.edu/ecir/pdf/nye-cyberpower.pdf.

Jul 15, 2011 By Bradley Perrett aviation week and space technology

Beijing - For more than a century, surface warships have been struggling to survive against mines, submarines, aircraft and, more recently, cruise missiles. Now China’s rapid development of a sophisticated anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) raises the threat to a new level.

The U.S. Navy, mindful of the threat and no less focused on advancing its technologies to protect its fleet, remains confident in its ability to project naval power globally on the surface as well as under water. But for less technologically advanced navies of the Asia-Pacific region, it is becoming difficult to see how in the decades ahead they can stand up to an opponent that can target surface ships with hypersonic homing warheads that can range more than 1,500 km (900 mi.)—and perhaps much farther.

China Daily is citing a range of 2,700 km for the revolutionary missile, the DF-21D, presenting the crucial data point in a report based on comments by the chief of the Chinese general staff, Gen. Chen Bingde. The Pentagon said last year the DF-21D’s range is “in excess of 1,500 km.”

If not a journalistic error, the statement means that U.S. aircraft carriers launching strike missions while keeping clear of DF-21Ds would need aircraft with even longer ranges than thought. It means that the DF-21Ds can be safely kept further inland. And, for Asian navies, it means the whole South China Sea can be covered from Guangdong, a Chinese province where DF-21Ds are based.

China’s second key revelation about the DF-21D is that it is still in development, though the U.S. has said it is in service.

“The missile is still undergoing experimental testing and will be used as a defensive weapon when it is successfully developed, not an offensive one,” says Chen. “It is a high-tech weapon and we face many difficulties in getting funding, advanced technologies and high-quality personnel, which are all underlying reasons why it is hard to develop this.”

Adm. Robert Willard, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, said in December that the DF-21D had reached the equivalent of initial operational capability. Taiwan has also said China has begun to deploy the missile. Yet Chen’s comments, made after a meeting with his U.S. counterpart, Adm. Michael Mullen, imply that any DF-21Ds that have been deployed are not regarded as fully developed.

“It’s possible that an initial ASBM variant could be more basic,” says Mark Stokes, executive director of the Project 2049 Institute, an Asia-focused think tank in Arlington, Va. “Then maybe a follow-on variant could integrate some of the more sophisticated technologies, such as a high-altitude radar system.”

U.S. Naval War College Prof. Andrew Erickson says the tone of Chen’s remarks “could be interpreted to reflect a high level of uncertainly and ambivalence about the missile’s immediate prospects, directed at a Chinese audience through Chinese media.

“Viewed in this light, the three factors Gen. Chen outlines—funding, technology, talent—may be viewed as serious constraints, even bottlenecks, in the challenging task of successfully maturing and integrating an ASBM system of systems.”

China’s idea of “operational” may be closer to the U.S. concept of full operational capability, adds Erickson.

The appearance of Chen’s statement in China Daily, an English-language newspaper acting as a government mouthpiece directed at the outside world, is itself meaningful. The paper’s reports on sensitive subjects often appear to be carefully written to deliver Beijing’s message.

The DF-21D is one such sensitive subject, as the U.S. considers how it would counter Chinese attempts to dominate nearby seas and forcibly regain control of Taiwan. In the view of some analysts, surface warships—above all, aircraft carriers—are fundamentally too vulnerable to such a weapon, because their signatures are so large and the missile is very difficult to intercept.

In the May 2011 issue of the U.S. Naval Institute journal Proceedings, two Pentagon strategists, Navy Capt. Henry Hendrix and Marine Corps Lt. Col. Noel Williams, urge immediate cessation of U.S. aircraft carrier construction. Noting such threats as the DF-21D, they write, “the march of technology is bringing the supercarrier era to an end, just as the new long-range strike capabilities of carrier aviation brought on the demise of the battleship era in the 1940s.”

Skeptics respond that the DF-21D’s kill chain can be broken in several places—for example, in target detection and tracking before launch, communication of targeting data or final homing descent. Still, considering the crews and costs of surface ships, especially carriers, the stakes are high.

“Yes, the [U.S.] Navy would want to have a high degree of confidence that they could break a link in the kill chain, but there are no certainties here,” says Eric Hagt of the World Security Institute. “It’s a game of measures, countermeasures, counter-counter-measures, et cetera. Having said that, the U.S. remains a superior, technologically capable fighting force, so it stands to reason they are able to conceive of and develop sophisticated countermeasures to the ASBM.”

However, there are no guarantees, he stresses, adding that the real mission of the DF-21D is deterrence. “It could and probably will give the U.S. Navy much more pause for concern when getting involved in any potential scenario in the western Pacific closer to China’s shores.”

The views from China’s neighboring countries and Australia are even more sobering. From there, attacking the DF-21D kill chain must look like a challenge ranging from enormous to unthinkable. Over the past few years, the Asia-Pacific-region navies have increasingly shifted their resources to submarines. Japan intends to enlarge its submarine fleet to 24 from 18 and Australia, to 12 from six.

Recounting Chen’s remarks, China Daily says: “He did acknowledge . . . that Beijing is developing the Dongfeng-21D [DF-21D], a ballistic missile with a maximum range of 2,700 km and the ability to strike moving targets—including aircraft carriers—at sea.”

The range of 2,700 km has previously been attributed to earlier DF-21s built to attack fixed targets, raising the possibility that the figure has appeared in the paper only as a result of sloppy journalism. That would be quite an error, however, considering that the report was supposed to convey a message abroad.

China’s military, with a seemingly atavistic aversion to public statement, tends to reveal its capabilities by just letting the world see them. Examples include its demonstration of anti-satellite technology in 2007, when it blasted away an old weather spacecraft, and the seemingly casual rolling out of the so-called J-20 fighter prototype in view of an airfield fence at Chengdu in December 2010.

“My impression is that an ASBM range requirement is driven by the maximum range of U.S. weapon-delivery platforms associated with a carrier battle group,” says Stokes. “The 2,700-km requirement seems a bit more than what’s needed.”

Nonetheless, it is clear that extra range, whether immediately available or in a future version of the DF-21, would give China greater flexibility in basing and targeting. Hagt notes that fixing targets becomes more difficult and increasingly reliant on vulnerable satellites as the range rises.

China itself evidently sees a continuing role for aircraft carriers. In the same report, China Daily says the incomplete carrier China bought from Ukraine in 1998, Varyag, “is expected to serve primarily as a training vessel for pilots and deck crews.” Such training has always been assumed as the initial role of the ship, since China has little or no experience in the difficult business of operating fixed-wing aircraft at sea.

“China is a big country and we have quite a large number of ships, but they are only small ships,” Chen says. “This is not commensurate with the status of a country like China.” The U.S. is “a real world power” because it has 11 aircraft carriers, he adds. The general also says much Chinese military technology is at the level of U.S. equipment used 20-30 years ago.

Jun 15, 2011 By Amy Butler AviationWeek.com

WASHINGTON - Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter has sliced 11 Block 30 Global Hawks from the planned buy of 42, further reducing the total number of the aircraft in the project only months after the U.S. Air Force cut 11 from the Block 40 program.

The decision is outlined in a June 14 acquisition decision memorandum that details a restructuring of the entire RQ-4A/B program; this includes all four blocks of the aircraft (10-40). Also in this document, Carter outlines his plans to certify that the Global Hawk may move forward despite its latest cost overrun, which breached the Nunn-McCurdy statute limits and triggered a massive review of the project. He states that “continuation of the program is essential to national security . . . there are no alternatives to the program,” and new cost estimates have been established to move forward.

An April selected-acquisition report sent to Congress that includes the Global Hawk cost overrun notes a total program tally of $13.9 billion. The Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) pegs the new price at $12.4 billion, according to Carter’s memo. Northrop Grumman is the prime contractor, with Raytheon playing a role in some sensor work.

Carter also directs the Air Force to break up the massive project into subprograms: one each is outlined for “Baseline,” or Block 10/20; Block 30 (with the Enhanced Integrated Sensor Suite and Airborne Signals Intelligence Payload); and Block 40, including the aircraft and the Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program active, electronically scanned array ground surveillance system. A new subprogram will be established for the Ground Segment Re-Architecture and Communications Systems Re-Architecture, Carter says in his memo.

The intent is to more clearly account for the numerous different efforts in the Global Hawk program by breaking them out into separate line items. These different projects were the byproducts of the earlier “spiral acquisition” strategy, which called for infusing new technologies—such as sensors—into the program when they became mature. However, some in Congress have found these efforts difficult to monitor.

Also, this accounting approach is designed to better illuminate any shortfalls. In earlier budgets, Pentagon and industry sources say shortfalls in the spares accounts went unaddressed. They are now being funded, some say, at the sacrifice of total numbers of Block 40 aircraft.

Program officials appear accepting of the 11-aircraft reduction in Block 30s. These were originally slated to be attrition-reserve platforms, and one program official notes that the aircraft are lasting longer than expected thus far.

Also included in the acquisition decision memo is a directive from Carter that requires the Air Force to ask his permission before “obligating any funds beyond the specified amounts identified [in his memo], even on existing contracts.”

It is unclear how this could affect the program’s ability to be agile in responding to urgent warfighter needs. The quick integration of the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node onto two Block 20s, for example, was not originally included in the program plan. But senior Pentagon officials have praised program officials for quickly deploying the system, which is helping provide tactical communications to soldiers in Afghanistan.

[Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story reported different numbers for planned Global Hawks due to an error in the Defense Department’s acquisition decision memorandum. This version has been updated.]

May 15, 2011, THE TIMES OF INDIA

NEW DELHI: India has started working on a network of air-defence systems which would be able to shoot down any enemy missile even at a distance of 5,000 kms, before it can enter the Indian air space.

The Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has already developed a missile that can intercept an incoming aerial threat 2,000 kms away under the Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) System and is now working on the second phase.

Under the second phase, missiles are being designed and developed in a manner that would enable them to shoot down any incoming missile at a distance of 5,000 kms, DRDO chief V K Saraswat said here.

The 5,000 kms interceptor missile is targeted to be ready by 2016, he said.

"It is well on schedule and we are already on initial design and testing stage," Saraswat said.

"Presently, our missiles are designed to engage targets within 2,000 km range. Later on, we will be making 5,000 km range class of interceptor missiles. That will be Phase-II of the BMD system," he added.

Last July, DRDO successfully tested the Phase-I of the indigenously developed interceptor missile from the Integrated Test Range (ITR) at Wheeler Island off Orissa coast.

On possibility of any tie-up with the US or any other country for development of the BMD systems, Saraswat said, "Our process of international collaboration is only to accelerate our own development process. Whenever we feel the need of a new technology, we may go for collaborations."

On the US offering India the Aegis Missile Defence Systems, he said, "These are market forces and will always remain there. There would always be market forces trying to sell the available equipment. In India this is not just a R&D effort but an actual programme, so I don't think we should worry about this."

India is also developing the Long Range Tracking Radar (LRTR) for the BMD systems. While the radars used for the Phase-I experiments were built with equal partnership from Israel, the Phase-II will have 80 per cent indigenous component.

"Only some of the equipments and consultancy would be provided by Israel," Saraswat said.