World’s 1st para-drop air defense complex to protect Russian forces

An air-droppable missile defense complex is being developed for Russia’s airborne forces to ensure that after landing, troops have the means to secure the skies and prevent inbound airstrikes. The system will be the first operating version of its kind in the world.

Russia’s airborne troops will soon have the means to effectively establish local no-fly zones with the help of a mobile crawler-mounted Ptitselov (Fowler) air defense complex, a hybrid of the well-known Pantsir-S1 (NATO designation SA-22 Greyhound) cannon-missile system mounted on an air-droppable BMD-4M armored vehicle.

The Russian Army is going to become the very first to obtain air-droppable SAM complexes,” Viktor Murakhovsky, a member of the advisory council of the Military-Industrial Commission, told TASS.

Until now, paratroopers could only defend themselves from air assault using close-range Igla and Verba MANPAD systems.

The Fowler complex will become a “long hand” for airborne troops, ready to engage targets at medium and high altitudes, Murakhovsky said.

The characteristics of Pantsir-S1 suggest it can engage targets at altitudes of 15 meters to 15km at a distance of up to 20km. The Pantsir-S1’s missiles intercept airborne objects traveling at speeds of up to 1,000 m/s (3,600 km/h), meaning it is capable of downing any aircraft, cruise missile or drone. The complex also effectively engages “smart” air bombs, and was specifically designed to take down assault helicopters using its two independently-operated 30mm cannons. Its radar spots targets at a distance of up to 36km.

To make the Fowler complex more compact, the combat module of the Pantsir-S1 could hold fewer launch-ready missiles than its prototype, which holds 12 rockets.

Another remarkable feature of the Fowler is that its crew will be air-dropped inside the vehicle, as is already the case with all other Russian paratrooper vehicles.

The BMD-4M armored airborne assault vehicle went into service a short while ago. It looks like a small tank armed with two cannons - one 100mm and the other 30mm calibre - and a machine gun. It has been fully tested for parachuting, so the principal task for engineers is to adopt the battle module of the Pantsir-S1 for problems that could emerge with the airdropping of the precise electronic and missile systems.

An Ilyushin Il-76 military cargo plane can take on board two BMD-4Ms and securely deliver them to a desired destination using the parachute retrorocket airdrop system.www.rt.com

Turkey Setting Sails on Big Naval Ambitions

ANKARA, Turkey — Turkey has just officially begun constructing its first landing platform dock (LPD) but the country’s president already is talking about future production of an aircraft carrier and even a nuclear vessel.

The production of the TCG Anadolu, Turkey’s first amphibious assault ship, kicked off last month at a high-profile ceremony attended by defense and procurement VIPs and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Speaking at the ceremony, Erdogan praised efforts for Turkey’s all indigenous development programs, including the LPD, although he called the ship’s production “a belated move.”

He said that Turkey’s dependence on foreign arms systems has dropped from 80 percent in 2002 — when his government came to power — to 40 percent. “We must aim at zero dependency by the year 2023,” he said.

Erdogan said that the LPD program would hopefully be the first step toward producing a “most elite” aircraft carrier. Then he upped Turkey’s naval ambitions.

“I see it as a major deficiency that we still do not have a nuclear vessel,” he said.

But officials and experts are cautious.

“I am not sure if we can afford such ventures in the short-run,” said one procurement official. “I am not sure, either, if such grand designs would fit our security threat perceptions.”

A London-based Turkey specialist said: “The idea [about a carrier and a nuclear vessel] goes in line with Turkey’s political ambitions. All the same, I’d say, it is as much over-ambitious as Turkey’s political designs.”

In 2013, Turkey announced that it had selected the local shipyard Sedef for its LPD program. In the LPD contract, Sedef is partnered with Spain's Navantia.

The planned amphibious assault vessel will carry a battalion-sized unit of 1,200 troops and personnel, eight utility helicopters and three unmanned aerial vehicles; it also will transport 150 vehicles, including battle tanks.

It also may have an aircraft platform for vertical takeoff and landing. A ski jump at the front of the deck can be used to launch fighter aircraft.

Metin Kalkavan, chairman of Sedef, told reporters that it was not clear at this stage whether the TCG Anadolu would feature a ski jump. “We’ll decide on that at later stages of the program,” he said.

Industry sources estimate the cost of the contract at over $1 billion.

Under the original production plan the 231-meter-long vessel will be completed within 5½ years. But Erdogan urged Sedef to deliver the vessel within four years.

“That way,” Erdogan said during the ceremony, “you can win further contracts from foreign customers as well as from our government.”

The TCG Anadolu will be deployed on the Aegean Sea, Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, as well as on Turkish Navy's operations in the Atlantic and Indian oceans.

Turkey will be the third operator in the world of this ship type after Spain and Australia.

Last year, two Turkish defense firms won more than €200 million (US $343 million) worth of subcontracts in the LPD program

The companies, Aselsan and Havelsan, both state-controlled, announced that the contracts they signed with Sedef involve warfare and electronic systems and their integration.

Military electronics specialist Aselsan, Turkey's biggest defense company, signed a deal for €127 million. Its work includes communications, satellite and IFF systems, 12.7mm STAMP and 25mm STOP guns, acoustics, sonars, radars, electronic warfare systems, infrared tracking systems, laser warning systems, and cruise systems.

Havelsan's work, worth €87 million, includes a network-supported warfare management system (ADVENT), ship data distribution, a CCTV system, the Link 11/16/22 tactical communications system, an amphibious mission force command center, a landing force command center, and a command, control and information system.

A naval industry official said that programs like LPD would significantly benefit the local industry in earning them capabilities which they did not possess before.

“It is not just the amount of money that will flow into local companies. More importantly it will be the technological capabilities they will learn to produce and improve in further contracts of this type,” he said. http://www.defensenews.com/

Japan's East China Sea Military Buildup Continues

He who lives by the military buildup, dies by the military buildup. Though the recent visit to Beijing by Japan’s Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida suggests athaw in Sino-Japanese diplomatic relations, there remains a gulf—or more accurately, a sea—between the two Asian powerhouses.

China’s growing naval activism in the East China Sea has inevitably sparked reaction from Japan, as Tokyo is busy raising a defensive wall along its southern flank, coinciding with one of the most vulnerable sections of the so-called first island chain, to control and deter possible aggressive moves by the Chinese navy.

On the heels of new security legislation allowing Japan’s Self-Defense Forces to engage in armed conflicts overseas for the first time since the end of World War II, evidence is mounting that Tokyo is intent on closing in on China through a variety of ISR (intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) and antimissile facilities. Key to this strategy is the militarization of the Nansei Island Chain, Japan’s southernmost territories, which includes the prefectures of Okinawa and Kagoshima.

In late March, Japan’s Ground Self-Defense Force (GSDF) opened a radar installation on Yonaguni Island, near Taiwan’s eastern seaboard and the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, administered by Tokyo but claimed by China (and Taiwan). The new GSDF surveillance station is expected to monitor Beijing’s activities in the East China Sea and, possibly, the northern sector of the South China Sea, where China is locked in territorial disputes with a string of neighbors that receive support from the United States and Japan.

The intelligence-gathering post on Yonaguni has also the potential to be used for military operations, and is part of Japan’s plan to activate a series of coastal and amphibious security units on the country’s southwestern islands. It is worth noting that Tokyo’s militarization of the Nansei Islands goes hand in hand with the strengthening of the country’s coast guard. Indeed, on April 16, the Japan Coast Guard launched a special unit of twelve large ships to patrol waters in the East China Sea around the Senkakus/Diaoyus, in an evident response to the China Coast Guard’s decision to assign its giant new patrol vessel, the CCG 2901, to its eastern division, which monitors the disputed area.

In addition to increasing the number of listening posts to intercept Chinese communications in the mainland and surrounding waters, Tokyo intends to reinforce its anti-missile system by 2020. The Japanese military plans to upgrade two of its six Aegis ships, so that all will be equipped with SM-3 interceptors, and construct two more. Tokyo is also interested in buying the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), the U.S. missile interceptor system; by adding the THAAD unit to shipborne SM-3 interceptors and the land-based PAC-3 Patriot rockets, Japan would set up a three-tier ballistic defense against any potential enemy.

Japan’s recent military steps in the East China Sea should be seen in combination with the United States’ moves, including Washington’s design to deploy a THAAD system in South Korea amid vehement Chinese opposition. Beijing fears that the presence of one or more THAAD batteries on the South Korean soil, apparently in response to North Korea’s latest nuclear and rocket tests, could limit its strategic deterrence capabilities, as the U.S. antimissile system includes radar with a range extending far beyond the Korean peninsula into the Chinese territory.

The functioning radar station on Yonaguni and the eventual THAAD unit in South Korea appear to be, respectively, the southern and northern tips of a prospective geostrategic barrier that Tokyo and Washington aim to build to prevent Beijing from projecting power beyond the East China Sea—as the Nansei Islands could also work as a springboard for attacks on the Chinese mainland in case of war. It is doubtful that Beijing will ignore it, meaning that the ongoing process of militarization and countermilitarization in East Asia is bound to escalate, to the detriment of what Yoichi Funabashi calls “the coast guard-maintained peace” across the region, namely the preservation of the status quo around the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands through law enforcement operations conducted by both nations’ coast guards.http://nationalinterest.org/

New U.S. Navy testing of Norwegian missile

he U.S. Navy plans to issue a contract to Norway's Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace for equipment and missile flight test support services.

The equipment and services are for an additional Foreign Comparative TestingPhase II demonstration of Kongsburg's Naval Strike Missile conducted from a U.S. Littoral Combat Ship.

Kongsberg will supply missiles and ship equipment -- including deck-mounted launchers and command systems -- and installation and integration services for the testing, which is expected to end by the final quarter of FY 2018.

"We are very pleased that the U.S. Navy continues and expands the test and evaluation of the NSM missile," said Harald Annestad, president of Kongsberg Defense Systems. "The NSM is operational in the Norwegian and Polish Navies from both ships and land-based coastal defense.

"It is an off-the-shelf and non-developmental 5th-generation strike missile system that can be rapidly deployed for operational use."

The Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile is a long-range precision weapon that uses an inertial navigation system aided by a military GPS receiver and laser altimeter. Its stealthy design, passive infrared and imaging sensor makes it hard to detect.

The U.S. Navy first fired the NSM from a Littoral Combat Ship in 2014.http://www.upi.com/

The $46 Billion Tie That Binds China and Pakistan

A billboard in Islamabad features pictures of Chinese President Xi Jinping (L) and Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. (FAROOQ NAEEM/AFP/Getty Images)

Forecast

• Issues with regionalism, security and implementation will ensure that the eastern corridor of CPEC infrastructure project is prioritized over the western corridor.

• The nature of the obstacles the project must overcome means that progress will move forward in fits and starts.

• Whatever the status of the CPEC, the relationship between China and Pakistan will strengthen, enhancing China's presence in South Asia.

The partnership between Pakistan and China is one of the strongest in Asia. Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif once said that his country's ties with Beijing are "higher than mountains" and "deeper than oceans." In May 2015, those sentiments were given form when Chinese president Xi Jinping, on his first visit to Pakistan, signed $28 billion worth of agreements as part of the proposed $46 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.
The ambitious project, which when complete would link China with two Pakistani ports, faces an array of challenges. But if completed as planned, it will help stimulate Pakistani economic growth, particularly in its more impoverished western region. It would also further strengthen Chinese influence in the region and give it an export corridor to the Arabian Sea.
Foundations of the CPEC
The two branches of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) consist of a network of roads, railways, energy pipelines and other infrastructure projects that will run from the city of Kashgar in China's western Xinjiang province through each of Pakistan's major cities before terminating at the Arabian Sea ports of Gwadar, near Iran, and Karachi, to the east. The initiative demonstrates the expansion of the already-deep partnership between the two nations. The CPEC, which, broadly speaking, is divided into eastern and western corridors running the length of Pakistan, fits into the Chinese trade diversification strategy dubbed the Belt and Road Initiative.

Analysis

The project is vital to Pakistan's economic ambitions and could provide the basis for an economic boom. Estimates suggest that the country's current 4.5 percent annual growth rate could climb three percentage points if the country can overcome the energy supply problems plaguing the nation. Available electricity, for instance, falls short of peak demand by some 7,000 megawatts, leading to daily blackouts. Energy infrastructure investments associated with the CPEC are meant to ameliorate a portion of that shortfall. The CPEC can also help Pakistan achieve its goals of becoming a major regional energy hub connecting the Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia and China. The project would give China access to energy supply routes linking Central Asia with South Asia as well.
Notably, the United States has pursued this same objective for two decades, seeking to connect energy-abundant Central Asia to energy-deficient South Asia by promoting the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline. But its construction has languished under the enduring threat of militancy throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan. Beijing fears that the militancy could spill across its border gives it an incentive to stabilize the region, hence its investment in Pakistan.
CPEC constitutes the largest proposed investment package in Pakistan's history and is being branded as a solution for the country's economic problems, one that will create jobs, grow the economy and reform the energy sector. But unless Pakistan implements structural reforms — further democratizing the country, uprooting corruption, strengthening civilian institutions and bolstering the economy of its largest and poorest province, Balochistan — the effect of those benefits could be blunted.
Implementation Difficulties

While CPEC has been touted as a "game-changer" for Pakistan, Islamabad will need to overcome several problems standing in the way of its implementation. The first is regionalism. Rivalries among Pakistan's provinces of Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), Sindh and Balochistan — each with its own strong cultural identities — have long stood in the way of forging an overarching national identity. In particular, Balochistan, the country's least-populous province, has long accused Punjab, the wealthiest and most populous province, of marginalizing its people. One grievance Balochis hold is that Punjabis expropriated the operations of the Gwadar port, which is being expanded under the CPEC, and delegated the port authority's administration, cutting Balochis out of the equation. (In November 2015, a Chinese firm signed a 43-year lease for the rights to operate the port.)

Those regional rivalries have taken on a political dimension in regard to the CPEC. In November, the Pakistani Senate Standing Committee on Communication derided CPEC; one senator who represents Balochistan called the project the "China-Punjab" corridor and lamented the fact that its eastern corridor will be prioritized over the western one. Indeed, political considerations could help explain the unequal pace of development: Punjab is the base of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's support, and development there could boost the popularity of his Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz party ahead of 2018 elections.
Difficulties in implementing the CPEC's constituent projects have presented another obstacle. For instance, two high-priority electric power infrastructure projects faced delays or cancellations because of bureaucratic snags. That includes a land-lease issue that imperiled a 1,320-megawatt generation plant planned by the Port Qasim Electric Power Company, a project at the top of the CPEC's priority list. A water project under the Gwadar Port Authority faces a quandary over the source of its funding. Any undertaking on the enormous scale of CPEC will inevitably run into similar obstacles. But the basic nature of the issues hampering these projects suggests systemic problems.

Security concerns pose another challenge. CPEC's western corridor crosses through KPK and Balochistan, which have a history of militancy. Chief of Army Staff Gen. Raheel Sharif assembled a 12,000-troop force to guard Chinese engineers working on CPEC, demonstrating the importance the military gives the project. In 2004, attacks by the Balochistan Liberation Army killed three Chinese engineers, while in 2007 militants bombed a bus carrying Chinese engineers. In 2015, pipelines were targeted 10 times in militant attacks, and in March 2015, attackers set five fuel trucks on fire and kidnapped four of their drivers. But under the military's watch, there have been no reported attacks this year on pipelines in Balochistan. And in April, 144 Balochi militants surrendered to the army.
The military wants to expand its involvement in CPEC beyond handling security, seeking a project management role as well. Because CPEC has been advancing slowly, the military's proposal, which fits squarely into Pakistan's military-civilian dynamic, could be seen as a way to boost progress. However, Ahsan Iqbal, Pakistan's minister of planning, development and reform, argued against giving the military a role in development, saying that the accompanying increase in bureaucracy would only further slow CPEC's progress. Even so, it is likely that the Chinese have requested that the military take on a management role, given the civilian government's difficulties.

Going Forward
Because Pakistan's political, economic, and human capital is concentrated along the Indus River, which runs longitudinally through the country's eastern half, it is natural that the eastern segment of the CPEC will develop faster. Indeed, in fiscal 2015-2016, Islamabad allocated only 15 percent of the 130 billion rupees ($1.24 billion) in CPEC funding to the western route, with the remainder going to the eastern route. The eastern corridor's terminus, the Port of Karachi, is already the country's busiest, processing 60 percent of Pakistan's seaborne cargo. Islamabad recently signed agreements with China worth $4.2 billion for highway construction projects in the eastern corridor. The western route, on the other hand, ends at the underdeveloped port at Gwadar, which is expected to process about 1 million tons of cargo next year, a fraction of its envisioned capacity of up to 400 million.
The large troop contingent deployed along the western route of development may contain the immediate security concerns there, but it is only a temporary solution to a longer-term problem. If underlying issues in Balochistan, including political and economic exploitation and a lack of autonomy, are not addressed, the region will grow even more restive. Concerns about unrest give politicians from the more powerful and influential Punjab and Sindh regions an excuse to push more development east, leaving western provinces to languish. This in turn means that Balochistan would remain underdeveloped, sustaining the grievances of the Balochi secessionists.
Whether or not the proposed CPEC projects materialize, it is important to consider that such an undertaking, massive though it may be, is only one of the many ties that bind Pakistan and China together. The strategic interests of both nations dictate that their relationship, especially in economic development, will only improve.www.stratfor.com

Simorgh First Launch – an Iranian Success or Failure?

A line up of Iran's ballistic missiles, from the clearly military weapons such as Shihab, to the white colored Safir and Simorgh 'satellite launchers', that could provide Tehran's with strike potential many thousands of miles from its borders.

Iran conducted the first launch of the ‘Simorgh’ last week, Tehran’s largest satellite launch vehicle, and what the Pentagon views as a key element of its effort to build long-range missiles. Although Iran has not confirmed the test flight, both US and Russian sources reported the event, but the sources are not in agreement whether it was a success, part success or failure.

Iran’s Simorgh launcher is designed to lift a 100kg payload into orbit at 500 km. The design can be enhanced to lift up to 350 kg to this ordit. Illustration: Norbert Brügge

The Russian Ministry of Defence confirmed the launch event, as a ‘suborbital launch of unknown ballistic missile has been occurred at 09:33 UTC on April 19th”. The Russian source said that, according to preliminary data, the launch was successful, as the burned out rocket impacted in the southern part of Iran. US sources are more ambiguous; U.S. intelligence agencies described the event to be ‘partly successful’, as the payload did not reach orbit, said defense officials familiar with reports of the test. The missile was launched from the new Imam Khomeini Space Center (map).

“Strategic Command’s Joint Functional Component Command for Space, which tracks thousands of orbiting objects in space, did not monitor any new objects reaching orbit on Tuesday”, the command’s spokesman Lt. Col. Martin O’Donnell said. ‘It was either an unsuccessful launch, or a test of ‘third stage’, not meant to place a satellite in orbit, said a U.S. defense official familiar with reports of the test.’ (The Simorgh launcher has only two stages – T.E.)The large liquid-fueled rocket has been under close surveillance by U.S. satellites and other intelligence assets at a launch pad at Iran’s Semnan satellite launch center, located about 125 miles east of Tehran. The Simorgh launch had been anticipated since March and comes amid growing worries about Iran’s development of long-range missiles. The Simorgh also is assessed as having enough lift to carry a nuclear warhead, a throw-weight greater than the 100 kg payload capacity claimed by Iranian officials.

According to Iran’s Space Agency officials, the first generation of the satellite carrier is capable of carrying communications and sensing satellites as heavy as 100 kg to orbits some 500 km above the earth. Head of Iran’s National Space Center Manouchehr Manteqi described last month the planned Simorgh test program having three phases – two test launches will be carried out in spring and late summer of 2017, and a third launch, planned for early 2017. The objective of the tests is to place Iran’s Toloo satellite in orbit.

Toloo is the first of a new generation, hexagonal shaped satellites designed for remote sensing and Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) reconnaissance, being built by Iran Electronics Industries (IEI). Toloo has a base diameter of 86 cm and height of 100 cm. The EO payload will be able to acquire images of earth at a resolution of 50 meters. Unlike Iran’s first experimental satellites that remained in space for days, Toloo is expected to remain in orbit for 1.5 years. Another mission of Simorgh is to lift the 80kg Autsat scientific satellite to LEO. Autsat is designed for a mission lifespan of 3-5 years.

Simorgh, also known asSafir-2, is designed to be able to lift a payload of 350 kg to low earth orbit (LEO), using a 27 meter long, 2.5 meter wide launcher weighing 87 tons. The first stage has four main engines (likely North Korean Nodong engines, also used with the North Korean Unha satellite launcher), developing a lift off thrust of 130 tons, this thrust is four times more powerful than the Safir, which was used to lift Iran’s experimental satellites to orbit. Simorgh uses an extended upper stage of the Safir as a second stage.

Simorgh is believed to be based on North Korean missile technology, used extensively in Iran’s medium-range Shahab-3 missiles. U.S. intelligence agencies believe North Korea supplied Iran with design data, stage separation technology, and booster equipment for the Simorgh and other rockets.http://defense-update.com/  By Tamir Eshel 

Iranian defense industry presents its new Shahram NRBC 8x8 vehicle based on BTR-60PB APC.

 Iranian defense industry presents its latest technology of NRBC (nuclear, radiological, biological and chemical) vehicle with its new home-made "Shahram" mobile nuclear detection lab Wednesday, April 13, 2016, during a ceremony on the occasion of the Army Day, attended by the Ground Force Commander Brigadier General Ahmad Reza Pourdastan.

The Shahram is based on the Soviet-made BTR-60PB 8x8 armoured vehicle personnel carrier, but with some modifications as the single door on the left side of the hull.There is no turret, and the roof of the hull is fitted with a wide range of detection and optics as a camera mounted on a mast. On each side at the front of the hull, there is a bank of four smoke grenade dischargers.For its self-protection the Shahram is equipped with a remote weapon station located at the front top of the crew compartment armed with a 7.62mm machine gun.The hull of the BTR-60P is of all-welded steel armour with the driver and commander seated at the front of the hull, the open-topped personnel compartment behind them and the engine compartment at the very rear of the hull.

The driver sits on the left with the vehicle commander to his right. Both have a windscreen in front of them which, when in action, is covered by a flap hinged at the top.The BTR-60PB is motorized with two GAZ-49B 6-cylinder in-line water-cooled petrol engine developing 90 hp. at 3,400 rpm coupled to a manual transmission with 4 forward and 1 reverse gears. The BTR-60PB can run at a maximum road speed of 80 km/h with a maximum road range of 500 km.

OUT OF TIME: DO NOT REVIVE THE F-22

Ever since the House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee revealed its legislative language mandating the Pentagon study restarting the F-22 production line, the defense world has been abuzz with speculation, hopes, and dreams. While there seems to be consensus that truncating the original F-22 production was a bad idea, restarting production now will only make things worse.

How We Got Here

Washington, D.C. collectively possesses the memory of a goldfish. Those left to deal with the repercussions and politically motivated, short-sighted decisions often need to remind others of the original policy sin.

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was most responsible for the termination of the F-22 program. Hisreasoning in 2008: The F-22 had no place in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This contention dismisses the notion that the U.S. military should prepare of wars of necessity — the ones that can literally change our way of life and destroy our nation — and focus instead on wars of choice that, while long and expensive, are not existential. The United States has not fought a war of necessity for decades. The purpose of the F-22 was to ensure the Joint force could reasonably ensure air superiority in these wars. Trying to make a connection between this and a terrorist plotting an attack from a remote cave in Afghanistan is irresponsible at best.

In mid-2008, Secretary of the Air Force Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff of the Air Force General Michael “Buzz” Moseley were fired for advocating the preservation of the F-22 program, and the newly appointed leadership sang an entirely new tune: 187 F-22s were all the Air Force would need.

The dogma of that number itself is telling, considering it is considerably lower than the original planned F-22 buy of750 airframes and less than the 381 aircraft that Air Combat Command (ACC) studies showed would be needed to execute the National Security Strategy under a revised single-front war policy. Then-Air Combat Command commander Gen. John Corley, stated:

[T]here are no studies that demonstrate 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national defense strategy. Air Combat Command analysis, done in concert with Headquarters Air Force, shows a moderate risk force can be obtained with an F-22 fleet of approximately 250 aircraft.

One hundred eighty-seven was the convenient number of F-22s when the plugged was pulled, nothing more.

In a 2011 speech now viewed as tragically prophetic, Secretary Gates pointed out that “when it comes to predicting the nature and location of our next military engagements, since Vietnam, our record has been perfect. We have never once gotten it right, from the Mayaguez to Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the Balkans, Haiti, Kuwait, Iraq, and more—we had no idea a year before any of these missions that we would be so engaged.” In terms of the Pentagon’s failure to predict the next challenge, you can now add the Russian wars of aggression in Ukraine and Syria to that list, as well as the proliferation of potent Russian air defense systems to China and Iran in the past few years.

The pilot adage of “plan the flight; fly the plan” should serve as a historical reminder of why a vetted strategy to meet national security objectives even exists. Now, more than ever, the F-22 provides a stark reminder that acquisitions should be supported by a strategy-driven budget, not a budget-driven strategy. Make no mistake: The U.S. Air Force needed 381 F-22 Raptors, and it needed them yesterday. But the Air Force didn’t get what it wanted or needed, which required money be poured into other programs to bridge the capability gap. Alas, 187 F-22s are all that were built, and all that should be built. Here’s why.

Do Not Revive

While the scars of the F-22 battle remain on the force, reviving production of the F-22 will not help the Air Force with its current challenges. Ignoring the nearly insurmountable effort to find the missing tooling, and somehow finding the money to pay for it, the entire premise of building an obsolete aircraft using an equally obsolete acquisitions process is simply not viable.

The F-22 is based off 1980s requirements, built with 1990s technology, and designed to counter dated threats with dated techniques. First, the F-22 suffers from an overreliance on stealth, which has been technologically outmaneuvered by both Chinese and Russian air defense designers for almost two decades. Second, the F-22 did not markedly improve range or payload from the 1960s F-15C design. A growing web of anti-access capabilities push these exquisite fighters to ranges approaching their fuel limits in real-world application.

The F-22 first flew in 1997, six years after the YF-22 won the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) fly-off competition and 16 years after the program’s requirements were drafted. It subsequently took 18 years from the first F-22 flight to declaring its initial operational capability in 2005. The snail-like pace of production does not inspire confidence: two aircraft per month at peak production at a plant that would need to be sourced to set up the line.

Despite this, even if the Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee inquiry favors restarting F-22 production, the program would have to navigate defense acquisitions roadblocks. Since 1986, acquisitions programs have averaged a lethargic 16 years from contract to combat. A new F-22 would require numerous changes in processing, capabilities, and software coding, all of which would require test and evaluation. All of this makes the timeline a deal-breaker. If you need more proof, look no further than the F-22 increment 3.1 update. It took five years to develop the software and another five years since fielding began, though it’s still not in all six operational F-22 squadrons. That’s ten years and counting. Now envision the time of re-building an aircraft.

The first potential “new” F-22s would field around 2030, only to be dead on arrival by the Air Force’s own estimates. By then, the sixth generation fighter program is expected to begin fielding to replace the original 187 F-22s. This is telling, since studies going back as far as 2009 point to why a replacement F-22/F-35 platform is needed, which culminated under DARPA’s 2013 Air Dominance Initiative.

Designed to last 30 years and 8,000 hours, new F-22s would approach retirement in 2060 if fielded in 2030. While the F-22 will remain the best air-to-air fighter in the world for decades, the same cannot be said for the F-22 as an air superiority fighter. The real threat to the F-22 is probably not a faster, stealthier, more maneuverable fighter. Anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems and highly mobile surface-to-air missiles provide a relatively low-cost asymmetric response with a persistent, enduring, and capable threat that is not easily countered. The most potent of these systems are specifically designed to counter stealth. It should be no surprise that they are being built by rising militaries of Russia, China, India, and now Iran. Not only is this detail lacking in a majority of pro-F-22 arguments, it also ignores the fact that these systems were developed after the YF-22 had won the fly-off competition.  Why launch a fleet of fighters to counter the F-22 when an adversary need only turn on a ground-based system? Jet-versus-jet comparisons are interesting, but not as compelling to an organization primarily concerned with force projection into foreign lands.

Beyond the avionics, the only things warranting improvement in a new F-22 are range and payload. Those also happen to be the only two things that can’t be changed, thanks to the mold-line restriction inherent in maintaining any semblance of stealth. Addressing these limitations broaches the FB-22 concept, further fragments the discussion, and starts looking more like an entirely new aircraft.

The current low-density, high-demand Raptor fleet is an evolution of preparation for air supremacy, but the character of air warfare is changing rapidly. The F-22 should not be resurrected; instead, the Air Force should continue its evolution to match the pace of the world. Time marches on; it’s time to get in step.

Maj. Mike “Pako” Benitez is an F-15E Strike Eagle Weapons Systems Officer stationed in Europe. He has over 2,000 flight hours, including 250+ combat missions spanning five combat deployments in the Marine Corps and Air Force, and is well-versed in F-22 combat integration. Maj Benitez is a graduate of the US Air Force Weapons School and a former Defense Advanced Research Agency (DARPA) fellow. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Air Force or the U.S. Government. http://warontherocks.com/

What Is THAAD, What Does It Do, and Why Is China Mad About It?

Over the past months–and particularly in the days since North Korea’s latest nuclear and satellite tests–there has been a lot of ink spilled on South Korea’s interest in deploying what is known the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system. A lot of mainstream coverage of the issue, which has China and South Korea at loggerheads, correctly notes that China is worried about the system, but doesn’t quite get at what exactly THAAD is, what it does, and why its deployment on the Korean peninsula is so threatening to China. China’s anxiety over THAAD has gotten to the point where its ambassador to South Korea would suggest that its implementation would destroy their bilateral relationship in “an instant.”

THAAD is a relative recent addition to the United States’ anti-ballistic missile/interceptor toolkit. It entered production in 2008 and is primarily tasked with taking out threatening ballistic missiles in what’s known as their “terminal” phase (the ‘T’ in the acronym). This is actually the first part where a clarification is due. As Jeffrey Lewis recently highlighted in a Foreign Policy column, THAAD, and systems like it, including the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC-3) interceptor, are designed to hit things as they zoom downward toward the earth–not as they go up.

This may seem like a trivial point, but Japan made a show of deploying its PAC-3 interceptors in Tokyo ahead of North Korea’s latest satellite launch. Of course, the Kwangmyongsong satellite had a one-way ticket out of the atmosphere and wouldn’t be coming back, making PAC-3, or hypothetically THAAD, useless. (North Korea does have a bunch of short- and medium-range SCUDs that THAAD would be great against, though.)

THAAD is particularly well-suited to intercept and destroy short, medium, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase. Rod Lyon, in a recent post at the National Interest, helpfully catalogues some of THAAD’s tried-and-tested abilities, which attest to that fact. THAAD’s overall operation is similar to many other missile interceptor and surface-to-air missile systems: an X-Band active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar (AN/TPY-2) kicks off THAAD’s interception, detecting the target projectile. THAAD’s fire control and support equipment identifies, verifies, and initiates the launcher. The launcher–a road-mobile erector launcher, to be precise–finally releases the infrared seeker head-equipped THAAD missile which, according to the system’s manufacturer, then uses “kinetic energy to destroy [the] incoming missile.” In plain English, missile meets missile in mid-air; both missiles go “Boom.”

There’s a lot more to THAAD’s feature set. The “high altitude” part of the acronym isn’t there for show: THAAD is able to intercept incoming missiles at endo- and exo-atmospheric altitudes, with a maximum engagement altitude of roughly 93 miles above the earth’s surface. The missile itself can travel at speeds over Mach 8, placing it in the “hypersonic” category. Indeed, THAAD manufacturer Lockheed Martin is interested in developing an extended range THAAD variant to counter hypersonic glide vehicles, including China’s own WU-14.

Keeping this feature set in mind, why is China so upset about a potential THAAD deployment? The answer, I think, has to do more with the monitoring capabilities that are part of the THAAD package. Beijing isn’t, for instance, worried that a THAAD deployment in South Korea would threaten any ballistic missiles it would plausibly fire at the United States–again, THAAD only works against ballistic missiles in the terminal phase and not against inter-continental ones anyway. Lyon evaluates China’s concerns:

China’s right to believe that THAAD surveillance data could be transferred to other BMD assets protecting [the continental United States (CONUS)]. Indeed, one of THAAD’s missions would be to strengthen U.S. defenses against the possibility of North Korean ballistic missile attack on CONUS. So it has to be able to transfer data to CONUS-based radars and interceptors. But the United States already has a THAAD battery deployed on Guam, two AN/TPY-2 radars deployed in Japan (at Shariki and Kyogamisaki), space-based assets, plus a range of ship-borne radars and larger land-based radars in other parts of the Pacific theatre. Would a THAAD deployment in South Korea change much? The short answer is that it could improve early tracking of some Chinese missiles, depending on their launch point. Still, that might not make actual interception of those missiles much easier. ICBM warheads move fast. And sophisticated penetration-aids help to confuse missile defenses.

So, from the Chinese perspective, a THAAD deployment could shift the strategic stability needle ever so slightly away from its status quo equilibrium and advantage the United States, giving Washington better early warning and tracking of Chinese ICBMs. That, in itself, doesn’t seem like a serious impingement on China’s security or its nuclear deterrent. What’s interesting is reading China’s worries about a THAAD and AN/TPY-2 deployment on the Korean peninsula together with murmurs that Beijing is growing increasingly interested in a launch-on-warning nuclear posture. Does a THAAD deployment affect the credibility of China’s second-strike capabilities by giving the United States a greater early warning edge? Perhaps, but, as Lyon notes above, the difference would be marginal given the AN/TPY-2s already in Japan.

Assessing China’s position on THAAD in light of the system’s real capabilities, we should concede that Beijing does have some legitimate reasons to be upset, but I question if the negative implications for China’s security really outweigh the diplomatic cost to the bilateral relationship with South Korea, which had seen a sharp uptick over the past year. Moreover, it’s clear that South Korea’s security would benefit in important ways from a THAAD deployment–Pyongyang’s Toksa, SCUDs, and No Dong missiles would be a lot less threatening.

China and South Korea should be able to come to an understanding, but this won’t be possible as long as Beijing holds to its maximalist position on THAAD, refusing to abide a deployment of the interceptor on the peninsula. Are there alternatives? If you ask South Korea and the United States, then the answer is yes: China could change its approach to North Korea, making this THAAD business less necessary in the short-term. I wouldn’t count on that happening anytime soon, despite news of the United States and China making some progress on harsher sanctions. By Ankit Panda http://thediplomat.com/

3D printing goes to war

A Tornado aircraft has already flown with 3D -printed Parts

rom the bow to the bunker buster to the hydrogen bomb, new technologies have changed the face of warfare, and 3D printing looks set to be just as revolutionary. It's been around since the 1980s, but as key patents expire and access to the technology becomes more readily available, its effects on the military promise to be considerable – though the biggest and most immediate impact may be from a surprisingly humble quarter.

Mention 3D printing and it's likely to conjure up images of wonky key fobs brought home as trophies from middle school science projects. But the ability to print solid objects in three dimensions (also known as additive manufacturing) is more than just squirting out molten plastic under the direction of a CAD file. Modern printers can now handle metals, wood, fabric, foodstuffs, pharmaceuticals, and even living cells with not only greater precision than ever before, but also in combination with one another in complex patterns that simply cannot be matched by conventional techniques.

With the ability to work with such a range of materials, 3D printing allows engineers to create prototypes of components and even complete devices in a fraction of the time previously needed and at much lower cost. Not surprisingly, such capabilities have attracted the attention of defense contractors and military planners. The question is, how will 3D printing actually change life for the soldier of the 21st century?

Weapons of war

The most obvious area is that of weaponry. When Cody Wilson unveiled his Liberatorprintable plastic gun, it caused a conniption among lawmakers and gun control advocates. Keeping track of firearms so they don't fall into the wrong hands has always been a major headache on the national and international scene, but the idea that anyone with as printer and access to the internet could print a handgun stacks up as a nightmare scenario.

Worse, it soon became apparent that such printable weapons weren't restricted to plastics. Using lasers and electron beams, more advanced printing systems can fuse metal alloy powders layer by layer to form complex objects. A case in point is Solid Concepts' creation of a fully functional 1911 semiautomatic pistol from 3D printed parts. This not only looked identical to a conventional firearm, but it had all the necessary parts and could be fired.

A fully functional 1911 semiautomatic pistol made by 3D printing

If this wasn't enough, modern firearms are sometimes better described as weapons systems built along modular lines, allowing for a remarkable range of customization. TheAR-15, for example, has been the focus of many American efforts at gun control. The AR-15 is really a vast range of parts that are fitted together as the owner desires. The only thing that they all have in common, and the only thing that can be legislated against, is the trigger assembly called a receiver – and that becomes a problem when someone starts printing them.

These examples are all of small arms, but the same problems could apply to armaments of any scale. Imagine a future where terrorists or rogue regimes could simply email one another digital files of bombs, missiles, and other weapons that could be tweaked and printed locally to make a mockery of any arms embargo. And it doesn't even need to be whole weapons. When the US Air Force retired the F-14 Tomcat, the planes didn't end up in museums or storage yards, but were fed into shredders to prevent spares from the aircraft ending up sold to Iran on the black market to keep their own pre-revolutionary F-14s flying. 3D printing would very effectively eliminate the middleman, as is illustrated by BAE Systems equipping a Tornado with 3D-printed parts.

Of course, 3D printing for the military is more than just weapons. The ability to create complex bespoke items on demand opens up a world of possibilities. We now live in a world where the armed forces not only routinely use robots, but we now have the technology to print small, fully functional robots – no assembly required.

3D printing can not only allow defense industries to create new things and old things in a new way, but also acts as a process that can greatly simplify manufacturing. When Boston Dynamics unveiled its latest Alpha robot, it not only showed a remarkable ability to walk and put up with abusive co-workers, but it was an obviously sleeker and more compact design than its predecessors. In part, this is because Alpha was built using 3D printing to incorporate many components directly into the robot's structure, similar to the way the wiring in old Bakelite phones was moulded into the plastic casing.

This is all very exciting and shows the tremendous potential of 3D printing, but it's also a bit misleading. For example, the printed guns mentioned earlier are more of a potential problem than an actual one. Plastic handguns are crude, inaccurate, unreliable, and more likely to kill the shooter than the shootee. Meanwhile, the Solid Concepts point out that the printed 1911 requires experts using state-of-the-art equipment to produce. And neither weapon is cheap. Since a competent machinist with a decent workshop could potentially crank out a workable submachine gun in an afternoon, 3D printing still has a way to go.

Boots on the ground

It can be argued that the real 3D printing revolution in the military will be more subtle, less visible to the casual observer, and much more profound than printed weapons and robots. In fact, it may be that where the revolution will really take off will be in footwear.

When it comes to the single most important piece of kit that a foot soldier has, it's probably a toss up between his rifle and his boots – with the latter having a slight edge. Ever since the days of the Roman legions, armies have been confounded by how to keep up supply of durable, inexpensive combat boots that also fit. Napoleon Bonaparte was obsessed by the problem and on his retreat from Moscow, the French troops were notorious for looting shoes from their dead comrades to replace their worn out ones.

Even today, finding a pair of boots that fit right is high on a soldier's list of priorities because badly fitting boots can literally cripple someone on the march – as I can attest from personal experience. When it comes to boots and many other bits of personal kit, many armies provide soldiers with the option of either accepting government issue or buying it personally from an outside vendor, so long at it meets military specifications. Needless to say, boots are a big ticket item.

With 3D printing, a minor miracle could be in store for the infantry. With its ability to quickly create items to exact specifications, 3D printing's first big impact could well be that every soldier could have a bespoke boot that fits every bit as well as a handmade shoe from an exclusive London cobbler.

But the implications go beyond putting a lot of army chiropodists out of business. 3D printing also implies what is known as "4D" printing. That is, the ability to create materials that change their behavior automatically based on their environment. In other words, boots that are waterproof and retain heat in a northern winter, yet breathe and remain cool in the tropics.

This 4D property is also on display in the 3D-printed uniforms that the US Army is experimenting with that could one day alter their camouflage to fit the terrain. In addition, such uniforms could fit better, have a simpler construction, and, especially in helmets, could be tailored for a particular mission and could include built-in sensors to monitor the soldier's health.

In fact, the biological aspects of 3D printing open some rather daunting possibilities – being able to heal wounds by inserting cells and knit together tissues, creating new organs to replace damaged ones, and even enhancing capabilities to alter warriors into real-life Captain Americas.

3D printing can also blend with robotics to form elegant exoskeletons that allow soldiers to carry immense loads without tiring, build prostheses that work like robotic arms, or meld human and machine to create the cyborg of science fiction.

Dinner time

Another area of 3D printing that the military is looking at is food. An army travels on its stomach, as the saying goes, and new things can affect morale more than poor rations. Keeping hundreds of thousands of soldiers fed is an incredible task, and Christmas dinner is planned months in advance with all the care of a battle campaign. Being able to print food items, such as pizzas or special diet items, at the point of order would greatly simplify things.

The 3D printed food could also be linked with embedded uniform sensors. According to the US Army, the ability to monitor each soldier's health on a continual basis could mean that individual rations could include something like a protein bar that's laced with supplements and even medications to meet individual needs on a daily basis. A six-foot soldier with a sinus infection who's on a combat patrol, for example, could be fed a bar with extra calories, nutrients, caffeine, and antibiotics. Meanwhile, a slightly-built computer programmer with mild anemia would receive a different nutrient mix with vitamin and iron supplements.

It all boils down to logistics

The military is more than just combat forces. Those are just the tip of a much larger body dedicated to getting a vast array of food, weapons, ammunition, spare parts, and thousands of other things from storerooms overlooked by paranoid quartermasters to the soldiers in the field. It's the injection of 3D printing into all of these areas that could change everything.

3D printing is already having a small impact as manufacturers experiment with printed parts, using the technique to make complex antennae, for example. These exercises have shown that 3D printing can not only make components, but actually improve on them with its ability to make very complex forms on the cheap,

As this capability matures, it could mean a revolution in logistics. Instead of moving things from factories to stores to depots, armed forces will be able to create more and more things where they are needed and the only thing that needs to be sent is a CAD file. More to the point, the ability to print items will alter how those items are designed. It's entirely possible that weapons of the future could be disposable or recyclable with much less need for spares or repair facilities.

Essentially, all this would mean that the supply line would start to short circuit. Instead of trains, lorries, cargo ships, air transports, and forward-positioned supply dumps, armies could rely on portable printing facilities and the simplest of raw or recycled materials.

In the Antarctic, a Royal Navy ship recently tested the first 3D printed drone to help navigate the ice floes. This particular drone was printed in Southampton, but the day may not be far off when the Navy will print out UAVs as required, and customize them to fit each mission. This sort of technology has already attracted the US Army, which is developing its own system of using off-the-shelf parts to create bespoke, mission-specific drones. In fact, some research has indicated that drones that can be printed in 24 hours, and some are even jet powered.

Meanwhile, the US Army is looking into the prospect of a "black box" that could be sent ahead of the troops, which would use robots and 3D printers to build a base that would be ready and waiting as the soldiers arrive. This is much more than just a "someday" thing. Space agencies are already so confident in the technology that they want to try printing bases on the Moon. At the same time UC Berkeley is playing with printable concrete, so the printable fortress or combat post may not be so far away.

The implications of such a logistical shift goes far beyond the warrior in the field. The economics of the military are based on conventional manufacturing and distribution. Contractors rely on steady orders of parts to remain in business and the prospect of armies printing their own parts, or even complete weapons, uniforms, and vehicles, could reduce many defense corporations to little more than design bureaus selling blueprints.

Certain uncertainty

What the actual impact of 3D printing on the military of the future will be remains to be seen, but one thing is certain – there will be one and it will be substantial. The examples above are only the tip of a very large iceberg and there are so many more, such as blanketing a warzone with printed sensors or tiny robots, that are yet to be explored. The impact could be as great as the introduction of the breech-loading rifle or as devastating as the discovery of iron. It will be one for the history books.

As to when this is all taking place, it's sooner than you think, because yesterday is very soon. As we said at the beginning, the technology behind 3D printing is over 30 years old. Access is increasing and the original key patents are expiring, so a gold, plastic, composite, and stainless steel rush is on. Nuclear missiles are flying with 3D printed parts, the next generation of hypersonic missiles will have them, and 3D printed medical parts are becoming increasingly common.

The revolution may not be televised, but it's already being printed.http://www.gizmag.com/      David Szondy