X-47B Will Pair With Manned Aircraft in Testing Later This Year

An X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System (UCAS) demonstrator conducts a touch and go landing on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush (CVN-77). US Navy Photo

The U.S. Navy plans to take the Northrop Grumman X-47B Unmanned Combat Air System-Demonstrator (UCAS-D) aircraft out to sea onboard an aircraft carrier this summer to test how well it operates together with manned aircraft around the ship and on the flight deck.

“We also plan later this summer—later this year—to do dedicated blending and what we call cooperative operations of manned carrier aircraft and the X-47B,” Rear Adm. Mat Winter, Naval Air Systems Command’s program executive officer for unmanned aviation, told USNI News during a Jan. 30 interview in Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md.

During the two previous X-47B at-sea periods onboard USS George HW Bush (CVN-77) and USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) in 2013, while the unmanned demonstrator had a Boeing F/A-18 chase aircraft, the two types did not operate together on the carrier flight deck. This time around the manned F/A-18 and X-47B will operate from the carrier together cooperatively.

“We are going to do that, we are going to start to mature and discover and understand the best way to do what we call CONOPs—concept of operations—of manned and unmanned aviation in the carrier environment,” Winter said. “That’s very important.”

The testing would cover how the X-47B would integrate with manned aircraft both in the marshal stack in the airspace around the carrier and on the flight deck.

However, the 2014 summer at-sea period will not involve a full carrier air wing, because the Navy plans to use a crawl, walk, run approach to integrating unmanned aircraft onto the flight deck. Initially, the service will test the X-47B with the F/A-18, Winter said.

The plan is for fleet operators to understand exactly how an unmanned aircraft would work around the carrier flight deck and develops standard operating procedures, Winter said.

The idea is to reduce the risk for the operational follow-on to the X-47B called the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft, which is slated to arrive on the flight deck around 2020. “And when we do start doing flight tests with the UCLASS, it is not the first time that they have done that and we’re already ahead of the game,” Winter said.

Meanwhile, the X-47B will continue to fly at Patuxent River to refine the aircraft’s precision navigation technology, landing algorithms, ground handling and the bandwidth of its data-links, Winter said.

The Navy will keep the X-47B flying over the next two to three years to mature and verify technologies for the UCLASS program. Among the most important of those technologies are the line-of-sight and beyond line-of-sight data-links for the UCLASS program. “We need to make sure we perfect beyond line-of sight control,” Winter said.

Beyond that, there might eventually be further technology maturation endeavors the X-47B program might be tasked with—the data from which will be transferred to the UCLASS program. “We will identify other elements that we want to use this for, and we will have the flexibility to do that,” Winter said.By: Dave Majumdar  http://news.usni.org/

How Washington is losing Asia to China

Beijing’s massive military buildup threatens region’s balance of power

The constantly recycled line that the United States spends as much on defense as the next 13 nations combined seems a comforting statistic for those looking for strategic reassurance in a world fraught with potential dangers.

Yet in the world’s most economically dynamic region, the Asia-Pacific, Washington’s military dominance is being challenged on a daily basis in the form of an arms buildup that within 10 years or less could potentially force America out of the Pacific entirely unless concrete action is taken.

During the past two decades, the People's Republic of China has undertaken an extraordinary military modernization and that is transforming the global balance of power. Having studied America’s technologically enhanced combat operations in the Balkans and the Middle East — dubbed a “revolution in military affairs” — China has rebuilt its armed forces along similar lines.

Beijing has focused on capabilities that would turn the near seas around it into a virtual no man’s land. Going by the name Anti-Access/Area Denial, China’s fearsome arsenal includes cruise and ballistic missiles that can sink surface vessels on the high seas, more than 80,000 sea mines, ultraquiet diesel submarines, along with cyber- and anti-satellite weapons.

When combined together in a highly coordinated fashion, Beijing could seek to deny American forces entry into a combat zone such as in a conflict with Taiwan or in the tense waters of the East and South China Seas. China’s forces have evolved to such a point that a recent study by Taiwan’s military concluded that by 2020, China will be able to hold off U.S. forces and invade the island democracy by 2020 if it so chooses.

As though all of this is not bad enough, China’s armed forces are developing an even more potent batch of military technologies. When combined with existing weapons, Beijing’s buildup could not only exasperate tensions throughout the region, but also negate American security guarantees to nations such as Japan, the Philippines and others.

In an effort to dominate the skies of the Asia-Pacific, Beijing is working on multiple fifth-generation fighter jets that, if successfully deployed, could defeat allied radars and challenge older America fighters for dominance in the skies.

On the high seas, China is slowly developing a blue-water navy capable of deploying further and further away from its coastline. In the next decade, China may sport the capability to deploy multiple aircraft carriers. While it will take Beijing a number of years to train the crews necessary to harness the power of such a complex weapon of war as well as the supporting vessels that are needed to deploy a true carrier battle group, Beijing will join only a handful of nations able to count on such a capability.

Beijing’s warships below the waves, its submarines, deserve special attention. With a large purchase from Russia in the 1990s and continued indigenous development today, Beijing’s submarines are becoming quieter and are armed with some of the world’s most powerful cruise missiles.

In 2006, a Chinese submarine came within nine miles of the U.S. aircraft carrier U.S.S. Kitty Hawk. The submarine was not detected until it breached the surface.

Even more frightening is China’s recent tests of a Mach 10 hypersonic glide vehicle. Such a weapon, according to experts, could be the next generation of Beijing’s mighty “carrier-killer” suite of weapons. While Beijing is a number of years away from possibly deploying such a system, recent information suggests defending against such new technology could be a challenge.

While the future certainly seems grim for America’s prospects in Asia, it is in Washington’s national interest to retain its place as the guarantor of the status quo in a region that has enjoyed unparalleled peace and economic prosperity.

A peaceful Asia-Pacific that continues its economic rise is vital to America’s own economic success. If Washington were to lose strategic credibility, rendered obsolete by China’s growing military capabilities, a deadly arms race could ensue.

As nations across the Asia-Pacific watch China’s military continue to add capability after capability, they may see no alternative but to build up their own armed forces. The combination of overlapping territorial claims along with a deadly brew of nationalism and state-of-the-art weapons could make Asia a very dangerous place.

The United States has no choice but to meet the challenge of China’s military buildup now through focused action. This means providing clear leadership in Asia — and not just in times of crisis.

Washington must also continue to fund efforts such as its AirSea Battle integrated doctrine to ensure U.S. forces can access all parts of the Pacific Ocean, now and in the future. Our allies must also have access to vital military equipment to ensure their own safety and security.

Washington has options for dealing with China’s growing military muscle. Ignoring the facts, though, is not one of them.By Harry J. Kazianis http://www.washingtontimes.com/

Dassault and BAE Systems welcome Anglo-French UCAV pact

BAE Systems and Dassault Aviation have welcomed the launch by the UK and France of a joint two-year £120 million ($198 million) feasibility study into a future unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV).

The pact was unveiled today at a summit between Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Francois Hollande at RAF Brize Norton in the UK.

Early research on the programme has already been carried out by the two companies, along with partners Rolls-Royce, Safran, Thales and Selex, leading to the recent completion of a joint study presented to both governments. The "preparation phase" work was conducted following the 2010 Lancaster House treaty, which deepened defence ties between the two nations.

Eric Trappier, Dassault chief executive, says: "This launch by the French and British authorities is contributing to the development of the combat air systems sector, and is paving the way for the future in this strategic field."

Ian King, chief executive of BAE Systems, adds: "Given the strong research and development investment and progress in technology that has already been made, continuing work in unmanned air systems will also ensure we maintain the core knowledge and key skills necessary to make a make a long-term contribution to both our national economies.”

Both companies have already been working on UCAV demonstration programmes. BAE's Taranis has conducted test flights in conjunction with the UK Ministry of Defence, while Dassault was the industrial lead on the multination Neuron programme, which made its maiden flight in December 2012.

Technologies from both are likely to be utilised on the future Anglo-French UCAV.http://www.flightglobal.com/

Russia to Give Kazakhstan Air Defense Systems Free-of-Charge

ASTANA, January 31 (RIA Novosti) – Russia is set to supply fellow former Soviet nation Kazakhstan with S-300 air defense systems free-of-charge, a top Russian military official said Friday.

Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov, who was part of a military delegation traveling to the Central Asian state, said five battalions of S-300PS systems would be supplied from the arsenals of the Russian army.

Delivery of the systems will improve protection of Kazakhstan’s airspace as well as strengthen the air defense network of the Moscow-led Collective Security Treaty Organization military alliance, Antonov said.

The S-300PS (SA-10 Grumble) model was introduced to Soviet armed forces in 1985. It features 5V55R missiles with an engagement range of up to 90 kilometers (56 miles) and designed to lock in on a target after launch using an active detection system that steers the missile directly at the target. An S-300 battalion comprises up to six mobile launchers, according to estimates by military experts.

Kazakhstan reportedly has several S-300 systems deployed, mainly around the capital, Astana.

Moscow signed an agreement to set up an integrated regional air defense network with Kazakhstan last year. Russia has such a network with Belarus, while a similar deal with Armenia has been in the works for some time.http://en.ria.ru/

First Turkish "Peace Eagle" AWACS Ready to Service

In the requirement of Turkish Air Forces (TAF), first AWACS aircraft within the “Peace Eagle” programme being carried out by Undersecretariat for Defence Industries (SSM), for initial delivery, take off from TAI facilities to Konya which 3rd Main Jet Base Commands to be deployed on.

“Peace Eagle” AWACS Aircraft will be service into the inventory of Turkish Air Forces at 21 February 2014 at 3rd Main Jet Base Commands (Konya) after the unit acceptance test will be approved. ,Within the scope of Peace Eagle Programme, total 4 aircraft will be deliveried to Turkish Air Forces http://www.defence-turkey.com/

Jordan orders Centurion APC conversions

The Jordan Armed Forces (JAF) has ordered four multi-purpose armoured platform (MAP) armoured personnel carriers (APCs), Jordanian defence sources have told IHS Jane's .

The MAP was developed by the King Abdullah II Design and Development Bureau (KADDB) from the hulls of the JAF's retired Tariq (Centurion) main battle tanks (MBTs) to create a vehicle with better protection than the M113 APCs currently used by the JAF.

KADDB has also developed other variants including mortar and ammunition carriers.

"KADDB has transformed ex-JAF MBTs into an APC with extra armour and lower costs," KADDB CEO Shadi Majali told IHS Jane's . "We removed the turret, widened the APC by more than 45 cm, put in front and rear doors, and armoured it to be stronger than the M113."

Jordanian defence sources said the four MAPs will be converted by Jordan Manufacturing and Services Solutions (JMSS), a KADDB subsidiary, and are expected to be delivered by June 2014, after which they will be used to support a mechanised battalion. More MAPs are expected to be ordered in the future.

The APC variant can carry two crew and 11 fully equipped dismounts, who can enter the APC either through the rear or the front ramp door.

The Royal Jordanian Army has also shown serious interest in JMSS-modified Scorpion light tanks and Scimitar reconnaissance vehicles, which have new Steyr diesel engines and, in the latter's case, a new 30 mm gun, as well as new fire control and surveillance systems. These would be used to protect air force bases.

According to KADDB sources, Jordan is set to buy about 80 Italian Iveco 105 mm Centauro tank destroyers by June 2014. The vehicles will be rebuilt and requalified by KADDB for the JAF as part of a project that will take between two and three years.Mohammed Najib, Amman - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly

Dutch Navy to buy tugboats in cooperation with FMV Sweden

The Defence Material Organisation of the Royal Netherlands Navy (RNLN) has contracted Damen Shipyards Group for the delivery of five Harbour and Seagoing tugs. The contract has been made in cooperation with its Swedish counterpart: Swedish Försvarets Materielverk (FMV). Responding to current and future developments in emission reduction and environmentally friendly shipping, the RNLN has opted for a new Damen design: the ASD Tug 2810 Hybrid. The FMV has opted for another fit-for-purpose design: the ice-classed ASD Tug 3010 ICE.

Three tugs will enter service for the Dutch Navy and two will enter service for the Swedish Navy. The tugs are Commercial of the Shelf, which means that they are based on a proven design and product. Some alterations allowing optimal use for the respective navies will be implemented. The Dutch tugs will be of a Hybrid type whilst the Swedish tugs will be able to operate in icy waters.

The procurement of the tugs is a combined effort of the Defence Material Organisation and the Swedish Försvarets Materielverk (FMV). The five ASD Tugs will be delivered in 2015 and 2016. For the RNLN they will replace four tugs of the Linge Class.http://www.navyrecognition.com/

Some Embarrassing Details From the Pentagon’s Latest Stealth Fighter Repor

The Pentagon’s latest weapons testing report is not kind to the $400-billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the military’s biggest and arguably most troubled program. The annual report by the Office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation includes 20 pages listing the Lockheed Martin-built JSF’s ongoing problems.

A jack-of-all-trades radar-evading jet meant to replace no fewer than 2,400 existing fighters in the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, the F-35 has been dogged by budget overruns, schedule delays and redesigns. Overly complex in order to satisfy the diverse needs of three military branches, the F-35 is slower, less durable and less reliable than many of the planes it’s slated to replace.

Most damningly, the 2013 test report predicts months of delays in the development of the F-35’s millions of lines of software, which could cause the Marine Corps and Air Force to miss their planned first deployments of combat-ready JSFs in 2015 and 2016, respectively.

But the DOT&E report also includes lots of other embarrassing details.

An F-35B during at-sea testing aboard the USS ‘Wasp.’ Lockheed Martin photo

Only one third of F-35s are flight-ready

The military manages to keep around three quarters of its warplanes ready for flight at any given time. Even the Air Force’s devilishly complex F-22 stealth fighter—another Lockheed product—is ready 69 percent of the time.

But the roughly 50 F-35s in test or training squadrons in Florida, California, Nevada and Arizona are ready just a third of the time, on average. That’s because the jets need frequent design fixes and because Lockheed’s automated supply system isn’t working.

Now, it’s not uncommon for a new warplane to start out a tad unreliable and get more ready over time. But the F-35 has been flying in one form or another off and on for 14 years. “The design is becoming more stable and opportunities for reliability growth are decreasing,” the report notes.

“While the relatively low number of flight hours shows there is still time for program reliability to improve,” the report continues, “this is not likely to occur without a focused, aggressive and well-resourced effort.”

Which is to say, making the JSF more flight-ready is going to also make its development more expensive.

An F-35B during night testing aboard USS ‘Wasp.’ Lockheed Martin photo

The F-35 will get you lost

The JSF is designed to fly and fight against the most determined foe—even a foe capable of jamming or destroying America’s Global Positioning System satellites, depriving U.S. forces of their preferred way of knowing exactly where they are in the world.

But the F-35’s independent “inertial” navigation gear—which determines the plane’s position by constantly computing starting point, direction, speed and time—is off by a few degrees. That’s just enough to make it useless in combat. “These errors prevent accurate targeting solutions for weapons employment in a GPS-denied environment,” the Pentagon warns.

A software fix is in the works, but “further flight testing will be required.” Again, that takes time and money.

An F-35 drops a laser-guided bomb. Lockheed Martin photo

The JSF’s main air-to-air missile doesn’t fully work—and it’s not clear why

The F-35 needs three basic weapons in order to be cleared for combat in 2015: a laser-guided bomb, a satellite-guided bomb and the AIM-120 air-to-air missile.

The nav system problems slowed the addition of the satellite bomb—basically, the munition didn’t know where to land. That, at least, was a known unknown—and engineers were able to solve it with a “fix in the mission systems software,” according to the report.

But the AIM-120 isn’t working on the F-35, either. And in contrast to the bomb problem, testers have not been able to resolve the missile issue because they can’t quite duplicate it. “Problems involving integration of the AIM-120 medium-range missile have been difficult to replicate in lab and ground testing,” the report notes.

It is, in other words, an unknown unknown. And who can say what the solution is.

The F-35 confuses itself

To defend against increasingly sophisticated Russian- and Chinese-made air defenses, the JSF includes a cluster of high-tech cameras and sensors able to detect incoming missiles—and automatically deploy heat-generating flares or radar-foiling chaff to spoof the enemy guidance.

But the so-called “Distributed Aperture System” doesn’t work. “The DAS has displayed a high false alarm rate for missile detections during ownship and formation flare testing,” the testing report reveals. Basically, the system cannot tell the difference between an enemy missile and one of the F-35’s own hot flares.

Imagine the feedback loop that could result. An F-35’s DAS detects an incoming missile and pops flares. DAS then mistakes those flares for another missile and pops more flares, then still more flares to spoof them. So on and so on until the F-35 runs out of countermeasures … and is defenseless.

An F-35B in vertical mode. Lockheed Martin photo

It takes just one bullet fragment to shoot down an F-35B

The Marines’ F-35B variant includes a built-in vertical lift fan—basically, a downward-blasting engine—to allow the plane to take off of and land on the Navy’s small amphibious assault ships. But adding a bulky lift fan made the JSF heavier, more complex and easier to shoot down.

That’s especially true for F-35Bs flying low to support Marine infantry on the ground. A lone enemy soldier firing a single bullet could seriously damage an F-35B. “Analysis showed that fragment-induced damage could result in the release of more than 25 percent of a single lift fan blade, resulting in a catastrophic … system failure,” the DOT&E report warns.

And if the F-35B has to fly through high-tech air defenses in order to reach the beachhead, it’s even more likely to get shot down. “More severe threats, encountered at low altitude or in air-to-air gun engagements, will likely cause catastrophic damage.”

All this means that even if the JSF manages to meet its 2015 deployment deadline, it could fly into combat unreliable, confused, defenseless, toothless and vulnerable.https://medium.com

Navy’s Laser Gun Nears Critical Test

A laser gun that looks like a telescope will go to sea later this year aboard a Navy warship. 

Over a 12-month trial deployment in potentially hostile waters, sailors will attempt to prove whether laser beams can serve as legitimate weapons against approaching small aircraft or high-speed boats.

For Navy officials and military contractors, much is at stake in the success of the demonstration. The performance of the fiber solid-state laser — to be installed aboard the USNS Ponce amphibious transport ship — will be seen as a litmus test for the wider use of energy-based weapons.

The Navy has spent about $40 million over the past six years on research, development and testing of laser weapons, although it has been pursuing the technology in various forms for much longer, with modest results. After decades of experimentation, so-called directed-energy weapons have yet to graduate from science projects to big-ticket procurements.

Officials and outside experts believe the Navy now has a real motivation to adopt speed-of-light weapons even though it has an ample arsenal of proven kinetic missiles and warheads. The reason is simple economics. A high-power solid-state laser, if installed on a ship that can generate hundreds of kilowatts of electricity, can provide firepower for as little as a dollar per shot, according to some estimates. By comparison, conventional naval gun rounds and missiles cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a piece. 

The installation of the laser on the Ponce will begin this summer, said Chris Johnson, spokesman for the Naval Sea Systems Command. No firm dates have yet been set. “We are using this deployment as an opportunity to test a weaponized laser in an operationally relevant environment, similar to where future systems would likely be used,” he said. If the Navy decides to move forward with the project, the first operational weapons could enter the fleet sometime between 2017 and 2021.

Since being designated as the test bed for a laser weapon, the USNS Ponce has moved into the spotlight. The ship was taken off commission in 2011 but was resurrected in 2012 as an “afloat forward staging base” and transferred to the Military Sealift Command. Navy officials saw it as a fitting platform to experiment with lasers at sea. 

The exact power level of the laser gun that will go on the Ponce is classified. Outside experts speculate that it is probably somewhere between 15 and 50 kilowatts.

Although laser weapons have been derided for years as technological pipe dreams, analysts are now optimistic that the military, and particularly the Navy, intends to deploy these systems and use them in defensive and offensive roles. 

“The Navy has a rich history in this area,” said Nevin Carr, retired Navy rear admiral and former director of naval research. “The current momentum is in the direction of fielding a solid state laser system in an operational context,” he told National Defense.

Ronald O’Rourke, naval analyst at the Congressional Research Service, said high-energy military lasers have reached the point where they are capable of countering some surface and air targets at ranges of about a mile, and could be ready for installation on Navy surface ships over the next few years.

The Navy started shooting down hard targets with megawatt chemical lasers in the 1980s, but these turned out to be impractical for shipboard use. Chemicals are undesirable on ships because of safety hazards and logistics requirements. 



Solid-state lasers are easier to engineer into weapons but do not achieve the high power levels that chemical lasers do. Besides fiber solid-state lasers, the Navy has researched other variants, including slab solid state and free electron lasers. Fiber solid-state lasers are widely used in the manufacturing sector for cutting and welding metal. 

A slab solid-state laser was tested successfully in April 2011 in the Pacific Ocean. A 20-kilowatt “maritime laser demonstrator” built by Northrop Grumman Corp. was fired from a moving decommissioned Navy warship and managed to destroy unmanned boat targets by burning their engines. 

The Army and the Air Force also have developed slab solid-state laser prototypes and continue to test them. 

Only the Navy has invested in free electron lasers, a technology that is commonly used in Department of Energy particle colliders for basic subatomic research. The Office of Naval Research built a prototype that is about the size of a football field and is located in Newport News, Va. O’Rourke noted in a CRS report published in August that the project has been put on the back burner as the Navy focuses on solid- state lasers as the quickest way to get a directed-energy weapon to the fleet. Like chemical variants, free-electron lasers are said to be scalable to megawatt-power levels, but their size makes them inoperable for use on ships or aircraft. 

A key challenge for solid-state lasers at sea are their ability to propagate light through the atmosphere in a wet, maritime environment, or through smoke and fog. Lasers tend to perform better in a vacuum.

Industry engineers who have worked on the Navy’s laser weapon that will go on the Ponce believe those performance hurdles have been thoroughly studied and can be overcome. 

“There are techniques to cope with salt and sea spray,” said Don Linnell, of L-3 Integrated Optical Systems. The company supplies the “beam director,” a subassembly that includes a gimbal and optics to track objects and direct the laser beam. “We are going to learn quite a bit with this first deployment aboard the Ponce,” Linnell said in an interview. 

“We've been working that system for a couple of years,” he said. The Navy launched the program about four years ago. The laser first was restricted to a laboratory, then was moved to a destroyer, the USS Dewey, and now will be headed to the USS Ponce for deployment. The weapon, which uses an existing telescope, can be guided to targets by radar tracks provided by the Phalanx close-in weapon system or other targeting sources. 

“We certainly think the Ponce deployment is going to be a big deal for the future of directed energy,” said Linnell. The financial benefits of laser weapons, once in the fleet, could be huge, he said. A laser ought to be viewed as a bottomless magazine that can be kept loaded as long as there is power on the ship, he said. 

If the Navy chooses to equip more vessels with laser weapons, it will need to expand electricity storage capacity on ships. Greater use of laser weapons could be a boon for companies that supply shipboard energy management technologies. Depending on the size of future lasers, Navy ships will need massive batteries to store electricity, said Eric Lindenbaum, vice president of Navy and maritime programs at DRS Technologies. The company makes energy storage modules that are used in Aegis destroyers as part of a Navy effort to cut down on fuel use. Lindenbaum, like others in the industry, sees “critical mass starting to form” in the Navy’s directed-energy weapons program.

Whether there is big money to be made in this market is still to be determined. Major defense contractors had hoped that, by now, directed-energy weapons would have transitioned to big-ticket procurements. Some firms left the market when they realized the return on investment would be years, or even decades, away. 

Textron Defense Systems in 2009 formed a directed-energy weapons business line with a staff of 100 employees. Company executives at the time estimated the market would reach about $1 billion. But after three years of disappointing sales, Textron shut down the division. The former head of Textron’s directed-energy business, John Boness, said the company was disappointed by the Defense Department’s slow progress in this area. “Textron, like others, were in the game for a long time, making substantial investments, thinking the payoff was around the corner.”



The Defense Department is “very conservative” in adopting new technology, Boness said in an interview. “It takes a while to absorb.”

Contractors that are still in the game are betting that solid-state lasers are ready for use in weapon systems, although the devices have achieved limited power levels so far. Most of the military’s solid-state laser weapons have reached 10 to 20 kilowatts. 

Lockheed Martin, which acquired laser manufacturer Aculight in 2008, announced Jan. 28 that it has built a 30-kilowatt electric fiber laser. It combines multiple fiber lasers into a single beam of light. The company, which financed the project with corporate R&D funds, plans to market it for use on military platforms such as aircraft, helicopters, ships and trucks."

Most laser weapons that are now available, Lockheed noted in a news release, are inefficient as their demand for power and cooling result in bulky systems that are difficult for the military to integrate into vehicles and maintain. Lockheed’s laser is said to consume 50 percent less electricity than comparable systems. 

The gold standard for weapon-grade lasers is 100 kilowatts, or enough power to destroy soft targets like small boats and drones. Carr said the Navy has demonstrated destructive effects at lower power levels. One of the hardest technical issues in scaling up power is efficient thermal management for the lasing medium, said Carr, as it gets too hot and breaks down. Beam quality and control are also challenging but researchers are making progress, he said. 

To shoot down a hard target like a cruise or ballistic missile, megawatts of power would be needed. “I don't think solid state lasers are going to do that for a long time, if ever,” said Carr.

O’Rourke said technological, engineering and manufacturing challenges should not be underestimated. “In spite of decades of development work … the Defense Department has not deployed an operational high-energy laser weapon system.”

The Navy’s Ponce deployment is a remarkable feat, considering the spotty track record of directed-energy systems, Boness said. “It used to be the Air Force and Army would lead the way in directed energy. Now the Navy is moving up.” One of the military’s highest profile failures was the Air Force’s airborne laser, which sought to equip a Boeing 747 airliner with a missile-zapping chemical laser. After billions of dollars were poured into the program and its utility and cost came into question, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates terminated it in 2010. 

Boness said the high-profile termination has fueled the skepticism. “There has never been a ‘program of record’ for directed energy in the Defense Department,” said Boness. It has only been funded by research and development budgets.

Experts insist that lasers, even at higher power levels, will not displace kinetic weapons. “It comes down to the economic argument, as well as the tactical,” Carr said. “Directed energy will not replace traditional weapons any time soon, but they can complement them and help you get more out of the kinetic weapons that are increasingly expensive,” he said. “We have crossed a line to the point where the challenges are no longer strictly technical. Some of the most daunting challenges are financial and operational.” With the military in a budget crunch, he said, “we can't just keep building more expensive missiles and fewer of them. Threats are becoming faster, smarter and more maneuverable.”


Directed energy is “cool science but really is much more than that,” said Carr. “Lasers can be used for multiple missions, including defense, direct attack, tracking, and communications. Under the right conditions, they can provide accurate tracking at long ranges.”

The ability to scale output power gives commanders less-lethal options when they need to warn approaching small boats and determine potential hostile intent, said Carr. That is one of the hardest scenarios for commanders, and a laser gives them an option that can be less escalatory than warning shots. 

The Navy eventually has to decide if and how it will use lasers, under what conditions and tactics and legal restrictions. The United States signed a treaty that prohibits the use of lasers to blind people. But there are still concerns about accidental blinding. The United States in 1995, and later in 2008, ratified a 1980 international treaty that bans blinding laser weapons.

Loren Thompson, a defense analyst who runs an industry-funded think tank, said the military’s pivot to Asia and concerns about the Navy’s vulnerability to Chinese cruise missiles should serve as motivators. Conventional missile interceptors cost millions of dollars each, with the newest models now carrying price tags of $9 million to $15 million, Thompson wrote in a Forbes.com article. “A single shoot-look-shoot engagement against a maneuvering anti-ship ballistic warhead might cost over $20 million, and the Navy will have to plan for hundreds of such engagements in a major conflict.”

The Office of Naval Research, meanwhile, is pursuing a ship-mounted laser that would go aboard Aegis destroyers and the Littoral Combat Ship. 

Raytheon, BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman are designing concepts for a high-energy laser weapon under a project called solid-state laser technical maturation. 

The Navy plans to tap existing technologies from other military laser programs.

Peter Vietti, spokesperson for the Office of Naval Research, said the potential of laser weapons is significant. They could be used not only as defensive weapons in the traditional sense but also in “electromagnetic maneuver warfare,” he said. ‘In the future, and at higher power levels, lasers may have a capability to defeat air threats including cruise missiles, providing a robust ship area defense capability with nearly endless magazines.”By Sandra I. Erwin  http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/

Russia to Float Out Stealth Sub for Black Sea Fleet in May

MOSCOW, January 29 (RIA Novosti) – A St. Petersburg shipyard said Wednesday it will float out in May the second of six Varshavyanka-class diesel-electric submarines to be delivered to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet in the next two years.

The much anticipated delivery of the submarines, dubbed “black holes in the ocean” by the US Navy because they are nearly undetectable when submerged, is a key part of Russia’s naval strategy in the Mediterranean, where Moscow has recently deployed a permanent task force consisting of some 10 surface ships.

Construction of the second submarine – the Rostov-on-Don – began at the Admiralty shipyard in November 2011, followed by the Stary Oskol in August 2012.

The first boat in the batch, the Novorossiisk, will begin dock trials on February 1, while construction of the fourth vessel, the Krasnodar, is expected to start on February 20, the shipyard said.

All six submarines will be deployed at the Novorossiisk naval base by 2016, according to the Russian navy.

The Varshavyanka-class (Project 636) is an improved version of the Kilo-class submarines and features advanced stealth technology, extended combat range and the ability to strike land, surface and underwater targets.

The submarines are mainly intended for anti-shipping and anti-submarine missions in relatively shallow waters.

The vessels, crewed by 52 submariners, have an underwater speed of 20 knots and a cruising range of 400 miles (650 kilometers) with the ability to patrol for 45 days. They are armed with 18 torpedoes and eight surface-to-air missiles.

The Russian Black Sea Fleet has not received new submarines for decades and currently operates only one boat: the Kilo-class Alrosa, which joined the navy in 1990.http://en.ria.ru/

F-35 faces familiar dogfight with competing facts

More than 12 years after launching development, a now-familiar scenario for the Lockheed Martin F-35 programme is playing out again: a team of outside government evaluators predict a major new delay for entry into operational service, while programme insiders insist that no such thing will happen.

Only time will tell which side’s predictions prove most accurate, but the history of the F-35's thrice-delayed operational debut favours the Federal team.

The latest debate focuses on the newly-released annual assessment by the office of Michael Gilmore, director of the office of test and evaluation (DOT&E).

Last July, Gilmore told Congress that he expects the Block 2B software required for the US Marine Corps to declare the F-35B operational will be delivered eight months late. His latest assessment extends the delay by another four months until July 2016: one full year behind the USMC’s schedule.

The Marine Corps, however, says the programme remains on track to declare initial operational capability with the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the F-35 in July 2015. The US Air Force and US Navy have decided to wait at least another year for the Block 3F software release before declaring IOC.

Lockheed, meanwhile, criticises the DOT&E’s assessment of a one-year delay as being based on an inflated test point growth rate.

Block 2B development testing experienced a 120% increase in test point growth in 2013, and the DOT&E assumed the same rate will be required this year. Lockheed, however, points out that 41% of the test point growth was blamed on re-testing fixes for the F-35’s glitch-prone helmet-mounted display system. Curiously, the DOT&E report claims that the helmet caused only 22% of the extra test points in 2013. The document also points out that the one-year delay prediction is based on a growth rate that excludes re-testing activity for the helmet-mounted display.

Getting the F-35’s impressive helmet to work, however, remains a problem, according to the report. The F-35 test team dedicated 42 flights to investigating and addressing problems with the system – and the bugs are not new. The joint programme office threatened last year to switch suppliers, but ultimately decided to stick with Vision Systems International, a joint venture between Elbit Systems andRockwell Collins.

Some problems will require the F-35’s long-unrequited customers to spend more money to fix them. The DOT&E report concludes that night vision acuity on the helmet display will only improve if the programme decides to upgrade to a third-generation version of the same helmet, which features a better night vision camera.

But the F-35’s development problems have always been broader than any single system. Software to manage the F-35’s flight controls and mission systems has been a particular issue.

While the USMC waits for the Block 2B software, Lockheed is running months behind schedule on the preceding Block 2A package. Despite being installed on dozens of aircraft procured in the programme's fourth and fifth lots of low-rate initial production, Lockheed delivered the Block 2A software with nearly half of the contractually required software functions incomplete, the report says. Even as Lockheed continued working on Block 2A, the company handed over the initial increment of Block 2B software on time last February.

A second increment of Block 2B software arrived in October 2013, but the initial results did not seem encouraging. The software still has function problems with fusing sensor information and operating the F-35’s many sensors – including its APG-81 radar, ASQ-236 Barracuda electronic warfare systems, electro-optic targeting system and the distributed aperture system.

Three more increments of the Block 2B software will be released this year, with each one expected to gradually improve the maturity of the software and fix the bugs.

More promising has been the pace of testing intended to clear the F-35's flight envelope. The DOT&E report shows that all three variants remained generally on track in 2013 despite a variety of distractions, ranging from a weeks-long government shutdown and temporary fleet-wide groundings caused by component failures on the F-35A and F-35B.

Although the teams are making progress, the F-35’s engineers are still struggling with overcoming the aircraft’s tendency for transonic roll-off and buffet, according to the report. The condition affects all supersonic fighters to some degree, but has appeared particularly acute on the carrier variant F-35C. Programme engineers have exhausted options for altering the flight control laws to compensate. Testing is still under way to decide if using leading edge spoilers on the F-35C will be necessary, the report says.By: STEPHEN TRIMBLE http://www.flightglobal.com/

Uparmored Bradley Could Be Tough Enough For AMPV: Testers

Massive government documents typically hide some gold nuggets of information. Intoday’s report from the Pentagon’s independent Director of Operational Test & Evaluation, a famously tough grader known as DOT&E, there’s one detail that is going to make defense contractor BAE Systems very happy:

“Results from the third underbody blast test also demonstrate that the Armored Multi-purpose Vehicle survivability requirement is achievable with a Bradley-like platform.”

Why should BAE care? Well, because BAE builds the M2 Bradley, a tank-like troop carrier, and because they’re entering a Bradley variant in the Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle competition. With the much heavier, more powerful, and more expensive Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) apparently in programmatic limbo due to budget cuts, the humble AMPV is the biggest game left in town for anybody who builds armored vehicles for the US military. That boils down to BAE and its competitor General Dynamics, which is offering a variant of its Stryker vehicle.

Why should anybody else care? The answer has to do with the deadliest single threat to US troops today, the improvised explosive device (aka the IED or just plan “roadside bomb”), and with how the Army can address that threat.

The Bradley looks like a tank — tracks, turret, gun, the works — but it is technically an “infantry fighting vehicle” because it carries half-a-dozen passengers into combat in addition to its three-man crew. The Bradley has been the Army’s frontline troop carrier since the 1980s, but like every other vehicle, it struggled to catch up to the ever-escalating IED threat in Iraq. While the uparmored Humvee and its replacement, the MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected truck), are the most famous cases, all sorts of other vehicles got extra armor, including the Bradley.

But even that wasn’t always enough. At the height of the surge, when sophisticated Iranian-designed IEDs called “explosively formed projectiles” were punching slugs of molten copper through American armor plate, one young officer told me he had to keep his Bradleys in the back of the column and lead with massive M1 Abrams tanks, because the Bradleys were just too vulnerable.

The Bradley undergoing the “underbody blast test” that DOT&E mentions, however, was partially upgraded to a new standard called “Engineering Change Proposal 1.” ECP1 doesn’t just add extra armor on the outside: It also changes the passenger compartment, especially the flow, and rearranges how ammunition is stored to minimize potential damage to the troops inside.

“The blast test revealed that significant improvements to the Bradley Fighting Vehicle Systems (BFVS) level of force protection and vulnerability are feasible,” DOT&E said. That’s good news for BAE, which wants to keep getting contracts to upgrade the Bradley, and it’s good for the Army, which isn’t going to replace its Bradleys any time soon now that the Ground Combat Vehicle is being put on hold.

Instead of buying Ground Combat Vehicles to replace Bradleys, the Army is now focused on buying Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicles to replace M113s, a lightweight tracked vehicle whose design predates the Vietnam War and which is considered so vulnerable the Army didn’t let them off its bases in Iraq. Back in the 1980s, the Bradley replaced the M113 in the mission of carrying infantry soldiers into combat, but the Army still has thousands of M113 variants serving support roles from armored ambulances to mobile command posts. Those vehicles aren’t just old: In the IED era, when enemies can attack your support forces more easily than your frontline troops, they’re also dangerously vulnerable.

The Army’s aspiration — more a hope than a plan given the current budget crunch — is to buy almost 3,000 AMPVs for $6 billion. BAE has to convince the Army that the Bradley design can be made survivable to have a shot at that contract.

The DOT&E report has some good news for BAE’s rival General Dynamics Land Systems, as well. GDLS builds the Stryker, a eight-wheel-drive armored transport. The Stryker troop carrier’s troubled brother is the Mobile Gun System, a Stryker variant fitted with an almost comically overlarge 105 millimeter gun, the kind of weapon normally reserved for battle tanks twice its size:

A Stryker Mobile Gun System (MGS) fires its 105 mm main gun.

After years of development problems, the Army ultimately bought 142 Mobile Gun Systems and sent MGS to war. As late as 2008, however, the Pentagon issued a report going through the MGS’s flaws. But it’s got better: “The Army has mitigated, by either material fixes or tactics, techniques, and procedures, 22 of 23 deficiencies identified in the 2008 Secretary of Defense report to Congress,” DO&TE wrote. What’s more, “in live fire testing,” an upgraded set of “Stryker Reactive Armor Tiles” (SRAT II) showed it could make MGS and a wide range of other Stryker subtypes more survivable without the expense of totally rebuilding the hull.

That gives the Army a cheaper option to upgrade older Strykers that to rebuild them entirely as “double-V-hull” vehicles. It also makes the MGS a more attractive option for the Army’s light infantry units, which are looking for a new light tank to support foot troops and even be flown in quickly to reinforce paratroopers.

By contrast, the lightest and most nimble part of the military, the Special Operations Forces, got some bad news in DOT&E’s report. SOF wants its own souped-up version of the most mobile type of MRAP truck, the M-ATV (MRAP All Terrain Vehicle), but it’s had problems and recent tests show that ” the most significant deficiencies were not resolved.” While the special ops M-ATV is nimbler and quieter than the standard version, DOT&E says, it’s too hard for the commandoes inside to see out in all directions: The rear windows are too small and the video camera on the remote-controlled rooftop weapon, called CROWS, has too limited a field of view. And if there’s one thing stealthy special operators hate, it’s for someone else to sneak up on them.SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. http://breakingdefense.com/