The latest most advanced Weapon systems in the world

[The SC]

The latest most advanced Weapon systems in the world .

This thread is to discuss the latest in military equipments for Space, Air, Sea and land defences that are available on the world market.

Space weapons: the new debate
by Taylor Dinerman
Monday, June 20, 2005

On May 18th an article in the New York Times set off a thunderstorm of controversy over “space weaponization.” The Air Force is seeking some changes and clarifications to the soon-to-be-released updated version of the 1996 national space policy. This, in fact, left open the door for US space weapons but didn’t do much else. The space weapons fight may have more to do with the politics of liberal think tanks and their fundraising skills than with anything the Pentagon is actually planning to do, at least in the near term.

In early 2001, the Rumsfeld Commission, established before he was named Secretary of Defense, warned that America was vulnerable to a “space Pearl Harbor.” Since then, little has been done to protect the US government’s space assets while our forces have, more and more, come to rely on satellites for navigation, communications, and intelligence. Our potential foes have come to see these systems not just as vulnerable but, essentially, defenseless.

Currently, the US has between sixty and seventy major military satellites in orbit. Thirty of these make up the GPS navigation constellation that is vital for missiles, bombs, lost drivers, yachtsmen who never learned to use a sextant and, more recently, robots in factories and warehouses. The Pentagon has a wide variety of special communications satellites but these have never been able to fill the huge bandwidth demands of modern warfare. The DoD is the world’s number one purchaser of commercial communications satellite capability. There are also about a dozen remote sensing spacecraft—for missile launch warning, weather forecasting, and intelligence gathering.
Our potential foes have come to see these space systems not just as vulnerable but, essentially, defenseless.

Together, these systems constitute America’s military spacepower. They provide the leverage that allows pilots in Nevada to control armed Predator drones in the skies of Afghanistan and Iraq. They allow a battalion commander in Baghdad to keep track of every vehicle in his unit at a glance from a screen inside his command tank. The Secretary of Defense and the President use it to keep track of any major military operations, worldwide. Comprehensive military spacepower defines what it means to be a superpower in the 21st century.

For the moment, the US has extremely limited options when it comes to defending its satellites. If a space object is detected and confirmed as hostile, the US operators could order the US spacecraft to move out of the way. Even if successful, this is a limited and ineffective way to defend a satellite, since it uses up precious onboard maneuvering fuel. Even a primitive enemy antisatellite (ASAT) weapon could cut years off the lifespan of a multi-billion dollar asset.

The US has a few near-term antisatellite options. There is an existing satellite jamming weapon called the Counter Communications System. This Earth-based device stops a satellite’s operation but does no permanent damage. Very little information has been released on its effectiveness. Since it operates from the ground and its effects are supposedly reversible, it has not generated the controversy associated with “space weapons.”

There has been talk that the Airborne Laser (ABL) could be used as an ASAT weapon. The ABL is a 747 equipped with a chemically-powered laser, designed to shoot down Scud-type missiles as they are taking off. This is called the “boost phase,” and it is the time when ballistic missiles are most vulnerable. It has been suggested that the ABL may be able to blind or seriously damage a satellite in low orbit. This weapon could also conceivably be used to help deorbit pieces of space debris.

Other possible antisatellite weapons are the Ground-based Missile Defense (GMD) interceptors, now being deployed in Alaska and California. These are the first stage of a very rudimentary, national missile defense. The recent test failures have been well publicized, but while the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) claims that the problems that caused the failures have been identified, they are reluctant to announce when they plan to resume testing. The GMD interceptors could be modified to attack low orbiting enemy satellites.
Since the early 1990s, there has been almost no work done on space-based missile defense systems and, according to recent reports, the MDA does not plan to ask for any money before 2008.

Traditionally, it has been the prospect of America putting antiballistic missile weapons into orbit that has most excited the left, both internationally and at home. In March 1983, when Ronald Reagan called on the scientific community to make nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete,” everyone leaped to the conclusion that he was talking about space weapons, and Ted Kennedy immediately called the whole idea “Star Wars.” In fact, Reagan was thinking primarily about space systems, but was mostly interested in beginning the process of technology development. He was not wedded to any one concept or system. His Strategic Defense Initiative began as an effort to answer the question: could America be defended from a Soviet missile attack and what would it take to do so?

In 1991, under then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, the DoD announced that it was planning to deploy something called Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS). This was to have consisted of at least 2000 orbiting Brilliant Pebbles—small satellites with a heat seeking guidance system, designed to hit enemy missiles in the boost phase. It was based on the military principle that it’s easier to be “up” and shoot “down,” a phenomenon well understood by nine-year-old boys equipped with water balloons. The whole project, however, was canceled by Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, with the words, “I’m taking the stars out of Star Wars.”

Since then, there has been almost no work done on space-based missile defense systems and, according to recent reports, the MDA does not plan to ask for any money before 2008. Under current plans, the Pentagon will not even think about deploying any sort of “son of Brilliant Pebbles” until around 2015. Instead, they are working on a ground-based system, called the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI): a missile that would only be launched after an enemy missile has left its silo or launch pad, and would then chase until hopefully hitting and destroying it; that is, being “down” and shooting “up.” Not only that, but the KEI’s would have to be based in nations near the sites from which enemy missiles might be launched. This gives those nations where these interceptors would be based an effective veto over whether the US could or could not defend itself.

The latest addition to the array of possible space weapons are the so called “space strike weapons.” The most advanced of these space strike weapons is the Common Aero Vehicle (CAV). Work on the CAV began during the Clinton administration. This effort was mostly confined to a few “blue sky” studies, including the 2002 Rand publication, “Space Weapons—Earth Wars.” Among other things, this study concluded that these weapons would not be effective against “runways, deeply buried bunkers, bridges and long low buildings.” According to this study, a notional weapon weighing 100 kilograms would only be able to penetrate 1.5 meters of steel, or 3 meters of clay and stone—hardly enough to reach the deep bunkers we believe the Iranians have built to hide their nuclear weapon development facilities. In spite of their capability to hit targets at velocities of anywhere from 2 to 10 kilometers a second, it would take a very large weapon indeed, or several smaller ones, to hit the type of deeply-buried targets expected to exist in Iran and North Korea.
After all, why not fight wars in space? There’s lots of room there and not a lot of civilians to get in the way.

This has excited foes like Center for Defense Information and the New York Times. The CDI’s space expert, Theresa Hitchens, has been a leading lobbyist against all sorts of space weapons for the last few years. Since the DoD is moving with glacial bureaucratic slowness towards a possible decision to begin work on space-based missile defense weapons, let alone on “Rods from God,” the CDI’s recent effort may have more to do with fundraising than with the actual politics of military strategy or procurement. The trigger for this burst of activity was the request by the DoD that the new space policy consider the need to actively defend US satellites.

This issue, rather than “Rods from God,” is the real subject of the current debate inside the administration. There is an urgent need to equip the next generation of major American military satellites with effective self-defense systems. These could include low-power solid-state lasers that could blind, or even fry, enemy ASAT weapons or, even small, kinetic, last-ditch defense systems analogous to the Navy’s Phalanx rapid-fire guns. There is even a possibility that high-powered microwave weapons might be deployed to defend large US spacecraft, but this would present a difficult problem since it would create a electromagnetic shock that might damage the spacecraft which the system was trying to protect.

If built and deployed, these weapons would indeed constitute unilateral “space weaponization.” The opposition believes that, like virginity, space would somehow lose its purity once orbital weapons of any sort were deployed. Officials in China, Russia, and France speak as if their national security depends on the continued defenselessness of America’s military space infrastructure.

The nature of space technology, and of space itself, as the ultimate high ground, means that there will be weapons, and future battles, outside Earth’s atmosphere. No matter what actually happens, it is almost certain that some will find a way to blame America. Therefore, any decision regarding the building of any space warfare system should be made strictly on the basis of military utility. Since no argument or foreign threat will likely change the minds of those who are against space weaponization, any change in US space policy, no matter how mild or hedged with caveats, will be portrayed as opening the doors of hell. Rather, under current circumstances, President Bush should authorize the pursuit of more and better space assets, including weapons, and Donald Rumsfeld should be pushing the Air Force to radically improve the way it designs and builds all its space systems.



The Space Review: Space weapons: the new debate

 

[The SC]

Top 10: Space Weapons

Large nations are now racing for space age weapons. These are some of the most advanced and sophisticated weapons built to take the arms race to the next level.

No. 10: anti-satellite Missile:
The ability to destroy man-made satellites in orbit around Earth has already been demonstrated by China, who used an anti-satellite (ASAT) device against one of their own weather satellites. The US likewise shot down a crippled spy satellite in 2008 with a sea-based missile. India has said they wish to develop similar capabilities. The problem: Huge swarms of space debris generated by blowing up objects remain in orbit, and threaten manned spacecraft.

No. 9: Warm Jets:
Does a device that uses electromagnets to shoot a stream of molten metal at incredible speed toward enemy targets sound far-fetched? The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is already working on one, with the appropriately aggressive-sounding name of "MAHEM" (Magneto Hydrodynamic Explosive Munition). Pictured is Earthlight, an Arthur C. Clarke novel that presaged exactly this device.

No. 8: A Deadly Ray:
Directed-energy weapons utilize lasers, high-powered microwaves, and particle beams. Projects in development by the US have names like Airborne Laser, the Active Denial System, and the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL). However, before these weapons can "stun" or "kill" like a Star Trek phaser, engineers need to do much work to weaponize the various forms of energy under consideration.

No. 7: Star Stronghold:
Weapons in space need not be so exotic. Take the former Soviet Union's Almaz Space Station of the 1960s and '70s. The military space station reportedly carried a cannon to destroy satellites or incoming spacecraft. It was even reportedly tested (while no one was aboard the spacecraft) to demonstrate its feasibility. Other space-based conventional weapons could include more exotic packages of destruction, such as radio-frequency or high-power-microwave munitions.

No. 6: Space Parasite:
Home-grown microsatellite and nanosatellite technologies are being proliferated by a number of nations, hinting at some military uses. In one U.S, Department of Defense report, military officials took at face value a Hong Kong newspaper account in January 2001 that claimed China had developed and tested an ASAT system using a "parasitic microsatellite." Apparently this device could have been a small satellite designed to attach itself to other satellites to destroy or damage them. This neat but unsubstantiated assertion quietly vanished from further DoD reports.

No. 5: The Overload:
High-altitude weapons using electromagnetic energy may destroy and disrupt electronic and electrical devices, causing a burst of electromagnetic radiation (electromagnetic pulse, or EMP) to produce current and voltage surges. These bursts are commonly associated with nuclear explosions, but scientists have produced non-nuclear EMP's. The construction of small "e-bombs" poses a significant terrorist threat against airplanes.

No. 4: Moonraker:
Deploying nuclear bombs in outer space seems like a natural goal of the military. Indeed, in the 1950's the US Air Force planned to detonate a nuclear bomb on the moon. This effort, dubbed Project A 119, included a young Carl Sagan on its team. At the time, an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) carrying a nuclear warhead possessed the capability to reach the moon. Fortunately, the man in the moon was spared.

 

[The SC]

No. 3: Rods from Gods:
Scheduled for a test flight on April 20, 2010, the reusable robotic X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle (OTV) is a small space shuttle-like craft developed by the US Air Force. If such a reusable space plane becomes feasible, it will offer unheard-of capabilities for launch on-demand, surprise, and flexibility. If those benefits aren't enough, the space plane may be outfitted with a weapon to drop tungsten rods on Earth targets from outer space, the so-called "Rods from Gods."

No. 2: You Can't Hide:
In the USAF's Manned Orbital Laboratory (MOL) program of 1965, two astronauts would launch atop a Titan 3 rocket in a spacecraft similar to NASA's Gemini capsules, then conduct reconnaissance missions from orbit using ultra high-resolution telescopes. The project was scuttled in 1969, and unmanned spy satellites proved a better option later.

No. 1: Space Catapult:
Could an orbiting asteroid be manipulated to smash down on an enemy target on Earth? It's possible, but doesn't seem like an efficient way of doing battle, according to a RAND think-tank report. More effort would be required to achieve such a result than was employed to develop the first A-bomb during the Manhattan Project in WWII, they say.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Space Weapon Testing: Giant Lines in Chinese Desert for Targeting?

A former China-desk Army intelligence analyst and co-author of a new book about Chinese-American relations, told HUMAN EVENTS November 15 that the strange giant white lines drawn in western China’s Gobi Desert were most likely practice targets for Chinese space weapons.

Space Weapon Testing: Giant Lines in Chinese Desert for Targeting? | Pakalert Press

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electromagnetic pulse warfare:

EMP Commission Warns Catastrophic Consequences

First, the definition… An electromagnetic pulse (sometimes abbreviated EMP) is a burst of electromagnetic radiation. The abrupt pulse of electromagnetic radiation usually results from certain types of high energy explosions, especially a nuclear explosion, or from a suddenly fluctuating magnetic field (e.g. EMP-bomb). The resulting rapidly changing electric fields and magnetic fields may couple with electrical/electronic systems to produce damaging current and voltage surges.

Public statements by physicists and engineers working in the EMP field of the United States EMP Commission determined that EMP protections are almost completely absent in the civilian infrastructure of the United States, and that even large sectors of the United States military services were no longer protected against EMP to the level that they were during the Cold War.

The following are excerpts from a report titled…

‘Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack (Critical National Infrastructures)’

…which is well worth a few minutes of your time to read. While no one can fully imagine the consequences of such an event, the fact is that the technology exists and weapons exist which could bring it to pass. Please consider the ramifications of your life if it were to be…

The physical and social fabric of the United States is sustained by a system of systems; a complex and dynamic network of interlocking and interdependent infrastructures (“critical national infrastructures&#8221 whose harmonious functioning enables the myriad actions, transactions, and information flow that undergird the orderly conduct of civil society in this country. The vulnerability of these infrastructures to threats — deliberate, accidental, and acts of nature — is the focus of greatly heightened concern in the current era.

The electromagnetic pulse generated by a high altitude nuclear explosion is one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences. The increasingly pervasive use of electronics of all forms represents the greatest source of vulnerability to attack by EMP. Electronics are used to control, communicate, compute, store, manage, and implement nearly every aspect of United States (U.S.) civilian systems. When a nuclear explosion occurs at high altitude, the EMP signal it produces will cover the wide geographic region within the line of sight of the detonation. This broad band, high amplitude EMP, when coupled into sensitive electronics, has the capability to produce widespread and long lasting disruption and damage to the critical infrastructures that underpin the fabric of U.S. society.

Some critical electrical power infrastructure components are no longer manufactured in the United States, and their acquisition ordinarily requires up to a year of lead time in routine circumstances. Damage to or loss of these components could leave significant parts of the electrical infrastructure out of service for periods measured in months to a year or more. There is a point in time at which the shortage or exhaustion of sustaining backup systems, including emergency power supplies, batteries, standby fuel supplies, communications, and manpower resources that can be mobilized, coordinated, and dispatched, together lead to a continuing degradation of critical infrastructures for a prolonged period of time.

Electrical power is necessary to support other critical infrastructures, including supply and distribution of water, food, fuel, communications, transport, financial transactions, emergency services, government services, and all other infrastructures supporting the national economy and welfare. Should significant parts of the electrical power infrastructure be lost for any substantial period of time, the Commission believes that the consequences are likely to be catastrophic, and many people may ultimately die for lack of the basic elements necessary to sustain life in dense urban and suburban communities. In fact, the Commission is deeply concerned that such impacts are likely in the event of an EMP attack unless practical steps are taken to provide protection for critical elements of the electric system and for rapid restoration of electric power, particularly to essential services. The recovery plans for the individual infrastructures currently in place essentially assume, at worst, limited upsets to the other infrastructures that are important to their operation. Such plans may be of little or no value in the wake of an EMP attack because of its long-duration effects on all infrastructures that rely on electricity or electronics.

The ability to recover from this situation is an area of great concern. The use of automated control systems has allowed many companies and agencies to operate effectively with small work forces. Thus, while manual control of some systems may be possible, the number of people knowledgeable enough to support manual operations is limited. Repair of physical damage is also constrained by a small work force. Many maintenance crews are sized to perform routine and preventive maintenance of high-reliability equipment. When repair or replacement is required that exceeds routine levels, arrangements are typically in place to augment crews from outside the affected area. However, due to the simultaneous, far-reaching effects from EMP, the anticipated augmenters likely will be occupied in their own areas. Thus, repairs normally requiring weeks of effort may require a much longer time than planned.

Cold War-style deterrence through mutual assured destruction is not likely to be an effective threat against potential protagonists that are either failing states or trans-national groups. Therefore, making preparations to manage the effects of an EMP attack, including understanding what has happened, maintaining situational awareness, having plans in place to recover, challenging and exercising those plans, and reducing vulnerabilities, is critical to reducing the consequences, and thus probability, of attack. The appropriate national-level approach should balance prevention, protection, and recovery.

EMP Commission Warns Catastrophic Consequences | Pakalert Press

 

[SamranAli]

shocking....there is no limit to deadly weapons.

 

[The SC]

MEADS (Medium Extended Air Defence System)

The medium extended air defence system (MEADS) is scheduled to replace Hawk and Patriot systems worldwide. MEADS will protect manoeuvring forces and fixed installations against attacks from current and next-generation tactical ballistic missiles, low and high-altitude cruise missiles, remotely piloted vehicles, manoeuvring fixed-wing aircraft and rotary wing aircraft. The total system is designed for rapid deployment and tactical mobility.
MEADS missile defence project

In 2003, MEADS International submitted a solicited proposal for the design and development (D&D) phase. The US and Italy approved the project for the D&D phase in July 2004. In April 2005, the Germany approved participation in the D&D phase.

In June 2005, MEADS International received the formal contract from the Nato medium extended air defence management agency (NAMEADSMA) for the D&D phase. The contract extends the MEADS programme for nine years.

A risk reduction effort (RRE) programme was awarded in July 2001. A successful system demonstration in May 2004 concluded a three-year risk reduction effort programme. The demonstration included a prototype of the fire control radar, command centre, launcher and emulated PAC-3 missile.
MEADS missile and aircraft engagement demonstration

MEADS successfully demonstrated its ability to acquire, track and destroy live targets using simulated PAC-3 hit-to-kill missiles. MEADS also managed to identify and engage simulated ballistic missile and hostile aircraft targets, as well as live dedicated and opportunity aircraft.

The demonstration verified BMC4I (battle management command, control, communications, computers and intelligence) capability to control and display surveillance radar, multifunction fire control radar (MFCR) and launcher functions. The launcher's roll-on / roll-off capability for the C-130 transport aircraft was also demonstrated successfully.

In February 2009, Germany requested that MEADS International integrate the IRIS-T SL air defence missile into MEADS, to fulfil a German Air Force requirement for a lower tier element. IRIS-T SL, supplied by Diehl BGT, is a surface-launched medium-range version of the air-launched IRIS-T. It has a range of 30km.

In 1999, NAMEADSMA selected MEADS International, headquartered in Orlando, Florida, to develop the new air and missile defence system.

A multinational partnership, MEADS International's participating companies are MBDA (formerly Alenia Marconi Systems) in Italy, EADS in Germany and Lockheed Martin in the US.

Finances for the design and development programme were provided by the US (58%), Germany (25%) and Italy (17%). Development work is allocated in accordance with national funding.

Mobile surface-to-air missile system

MEADS is a mobile surface-to-air missile system. The multicanister launcher is mounted on a 5t wheeled vehicle. Advanced radars provide 360° coverage and operate in highly stressing jamming environments.

The system is strategically transportable and tactically mobile. It is required to be transportable by C-130 and A400M aircraft and will be quickly deployed to the theatre of operations and airlifted with multiple missiles loaded on the mobile launcher. Once in the forward zone, it is able to move quickly to keep pace with fast-moving manoeuvre forces.

MEADS has greater firepower and requires less manpower than its predecessors. The components of MEADS are linked by a communications network with netted and distributed architecture enabling the MEADS units to be organised according to the specific task requirements and configured according to predicted threats.

The multiple paths of communications result in the system being very robust against jamming and also allow the units to be dispersed over a wide area. The units have access to sensors from other systems. Interoperability also allows multiple allied air defences to work together.
'Plug and fight' flexibility allowing air defence system integration capabilities

Flexibility is a key characteristic of MEADS. The 'plug and fight' flexibility of its open architecture provides for 21st century air defence system-of-system integration capabilities which allow operational mission-tailoring for homeland defence or defence of manoeuvre forces. MEADS will also provide greater firepower with less manpower than current systems, producing dramatic operation and support cost savings.

The system is able to command a fleet of distributed missile launchers while simultaneously detecting and tracking hostile forces and targets. The missile launchers can be located well away from the ground radar and the battle management units. It is also possible to hand over command and control of the launchers and missiles to a neighbouring battle management unit while management systems are moved.

MEADS is intended for use in standalone and tailorable operational configurations through compatibility with other air defence systems. A minimum engagement capability that relies on a single multifunction fire control radar (MFCR), tactical operations centre and launcher (12 PAC-3 MSE missiles) can be strategically deployed using a single C-5 or tactically deployed in just five C-130 sorties.

Command and control of the MEADS ballistic missile defence system and radar

MEADS ballistic missile defence system BMC4I is a netted, distributed, automated communications network which uses an open systems architecture. All equipment is ruggedised commercial-off-the-shelf / military-off-the-shelf.

The tactical operations centre (TOC) is housed in a single shelter containing three workstations and two operators. One standard TOC is provided to the nations, but each nation mounts it on a chassis or trailer of its selection. Northrop Grumman Italia was selected to provide the MEADS navigation and localisation system in February 2008.

Lockheed Martin Mission Systems & Sensors is responsible for the new truck-mounted surveillance radar for MEADS and, with Selex Sistemi Integrati (formerly Alenia Marconi Systems) and MBDA Italia, will provide the new X-band multifunction fire control radar. Cassidian (formerly EADS Defence Electronics) is responsible for the radar's transmit / receive modules.

Both systems will use a common design for the digital receiver and signal / data processor, allowing for validation using a single prototype. Radars will provide full 360° capability.

MEADS (Medium Extended Air Defence System) - Army Technology

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The S-400 Triumf long- to medium-range surface-to-air missile system can effectively engage any aerial target, including aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, and cruise and ballistic missiles at up to 400 kilometers and an altitude of up to 30 kilometers.

S-300P/S-400/S-500 Air Defence System Vehicles

S-300P/S-400/S-500 Air Defence System Vehicles

 

[The SC]

China's New Fighter Jet Could Pose 'Terrifying' Challenge to U.S. Fleet

Decorated Navy fighter pilot Matthew “Whiz” Buckley, a Top Gun graduate of the Navy Fighter Weapons School who flew 44 combat missions over Iraq, says, “It’s probably leaps and bounds above where we are, and that’s terrifying.”

“As a former Navy fighter pilot, going up against something that’s stealthy, highly maneuverable and with electronic systems more capable than mine -- that’ll keep me up at night,” said Buckley, now chief strategy officer at Fox3 Options LLC.

Buckley said photos posted online of the radar-evading Chengdu J-20 jet fighter lead him to believe the aircraft has great stealth capabilities, based on what appears to be a bumpy exterior possibly housing stealth technology, and the lack of external components, such as a gas tank and missiles.

“It was built to reduce radar signatures. You can tell it has some serious stealth technology,” he said. “My F-18 looks like an 18-wheeler on radar. That thing might not even show up.”

“We used be No. 1 at having the leading technology. ... Now, we’re kind of in catch-up mode, where we’ve never really been before.”

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/07/chinas-new-fighter-jet-pose-terrifying-challenge-fleet/

 

[manofwar]

Found this project...........Seems interesting

 

[The SC]

The Russian Philosophy versus the American one
of
Beyond Visual Range Air Combat BVR

The Russian paradigm of BVR combat has its origins in the Cold War period, when Soviet operational analysis indicated that the low kill probability of missile seekers and airframes, especially if degraded by countermeasures, would be a major impediment to success. By the 1970s the standard Soviet technique in a BVR missile launch was to salvo two rounds, a semi-active radar homing weapon and a heatseeking weapon. To this effect some Soviet fighters even included a weapons select mode which automatically sequenced the launch of two rounds for optimal separation.

The mathematics of multiple round missile engagements are unambiguous - the size of a missile salvo launched is a stronger driver of success than the actual kill probability of the individual missiles. If the missiles are wholly identical by type, then the following curves may be optimistic, insofar as a factor degrading the kill probability of one missile is apt to have a similar effect on its siblings in a salvo. However, where the missiles differ by seeker type and guidance control laws, then the assumption of statistically independent missile shots is very much stronger.

A critical question which must be asked when assessing the effectiveness of Russian BVR tactics is that of Western tactics and the effectiveness of the AIM-120 AMRAAM, the principal Western BVR fighter weapon. The AIM-120A AMRAAM was introduced at the end of the Cold War to provide a "fire and forget" active radar guided weapon with a midcourse inertial guidance system and datalink support provided by the radar on the launch aircraft, allowing multiple concurrent shots. The AIM-120A was followed by the incrementally improved B-model, and then by the "short span" AIM-120C-3 sized to fit the F-22A weapon bay. The AIM-120C-4 has better kinematic performance introducing a larger rocket motor and shorter control section, and a better warhead, while the AIM-120C-6 introduced a better fuse. The latest AIM-120D introduces a redesigned seeker built for better durability in high vibration carriage environments, a two way datalink, GPS to supplement inertial guidance, incrementally improved kinematics, and better seeker performance against high off-boresight targets.

The Russian Philosophy of Beyond Visual Range Air Combat

 

[The SC]

BVR

Raytheon's AIM-120 AMRAAM missile for beyond visual range engagements.

 

[The SC]

500 MegaWatt Ranets E pulsed microwave beam weapon

Directed energy weapons are another capability which is seen by the Russians and Chinese as critical to defeating massed attacks by US smart munitions and cruise missiles. The Russians have been marketing the 500 MegaWatt Ranets E pulsed microwave beam weapon, using a mobile beam director dish on a 8 x 8 MZKT-7930 truck. This system will be electrically lethal to aircraft avionics and guided munition electronics at a range of 7 nautical miles or greater.

The status of High Energy Laser weapons is less clear at this time. Almaz-Antey developed the Soviet 100 kiloWatt plus class carbon dioxide chemical lasers, and built a system comparable to the US THEL/MTHEL, but highly mobile on an 8 x 8 MAZ-7910 chassis.


The Impact of Russian High Technology Weapons: Transforming the Strategic Balance in Asia

Abstract

Advanced Russian technology exports present a major strategic risk for the US, whether operated by China, or smaller players like Iran or Venezuela. These systems will deny access to most US ISR and combat aircraft, with only the B-2A, the “2018 bomber” and the F-22A designed to penetrate such defences. Until the “2018 bomber” is operational, the US will have only 200 aircraft with any capability to deal with this emerging environment. With its compromised X-band optimised stealth, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will simply not be survivable in this environment. The fallback position of standoff bombardment with cruise missiles is not viable. Only a fraction will reach their targets through such defences, and the economics of trading $500k cruise missiles for $100k interceptors, or hundreds of dollars of laser propellant, favour the defender. The US will require a penetrating capability for ISR collection and for lethal suppression of highly mobile SAM, laser and radio-frequency Directed Energy Weapon batteries. This is over and above the need to deliver saturation attacks with the Small Diameter Bomb against actual targets of strategic or tactical interest. Current planning for 180 F-22As and the legacy fleet of 20 B-2As is simply not credible given the diversity of roles and missions, and sheer sortie count required to deal with anything above a trivial opponent. If the US is to maintain its pre-eminent global strategic position, its force structure planning for the Air Force requires a fundamental rethink. A starting point should be the cancellation of the 'Fulda Gap optimised' F-35 JSF, investment of the freed funding into more F-22s, and further enhancement of the already formidable penetrating ISR and strike capabilites of the F-22. Further technological innovation will also be required across the full spectrum of US air capabilities. If the US chooses to optimise its Air Force for the Global War On Terror, it will only accelerate the relative decline of US global power.


The Impact of Russian High Technology Weapons: Transforming the Strategic Balance in Asia

 

[The SC]

Micro-Drones

Dust sized micro drones that can disable equipment without being detected.

Mosquito robot

 

[GamingLevels]

so cool aaaaaa

 

[The SC]

“Kamikaze drone” Switchblade Drone

An innovative new weapon may mark the end of days when insurgents can run away, hide from or even go toe-to-toe with ground troops.

The switchblade, developed by military contractor AeroVironment, was born out efforts to take drone technology beyond reconnaissance missions and the massive Reaper or Predator assault aircraft being used in Pakistan and elsewhere. What the researchers came up with was a drone that easily fits into a backpack and could also explode on impact.

The way it works is somewhat similar to mortar artillery in that it’s launched from a tube. However, it can hover in the air before homing in on an enemy target. And, should a soldier change his mind, it can be called off at the last minute.

It’s been described as “a smart, remote-control grenade with wings” and a “Kamikaze drone.” I’d say it’s, more than anything else, a miniature guided missile. Whatever you want to call it, the military plans to make sure soldiers are armed with it soon, according to a report by the AFP.

What makes the weapon so deadly is a combination of cutting-edge technologies packed into a missile-shaped capsule that weighs no more than 2 pounds. Inside is a highly-precise guidance and command system and a mechanism that enables explosive material to detonate on impact. A small motor powers the device, enabling it to send real-time video of targets on the ground so soldiers can lock in on the enemy.

"Upon confirming the target using the live video feed, the operator then sends a command to the air vehicle to arm it and lock its trajectory onto the target,” the company told AFP.

One of the Switchblade’s obvious advantages is that with such unprecedented maneuverability and versatility, soldiers can more effectively take out targets and do so without having to put themselves in positions where they are more vulnerable. And with this kind of precision, it also reduces the likelihood of collateral damage, which has been an ongoing criticism of the unmanned drone missions in which bombs are dropped on sites where civilians may reside.

According to a report in Wired: the Army awarded AeroVironment a $4.9 million contract on July 29 for “rapid fielding” of an unspecified number of Switchblades to “deployed combat forces.”

So before too long, they might start seeing some action in Afghanistan.

Tiny missile hunts down, destroys enemies [video] | Smartplanet

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Breakthrough may lead to super-destructive missiles

High-Density Reactive Material

High-Density Reactive Material (HDRM)

If the military has it’s way, missiles, grenades and other military weaponry may soon deliver an even more lethal blow.

That’s because a new material dubbed High-Density Reactive Material, developed by the Office of Naval Research, can be combined with other explosive ingredients to increase a standard weapon’s explosive force by a factor of five. The material, a mixture of several metals, is designed to replace conventional steel casings with little or no compromise in strength or stability.

Manufacturers typically used steel because it provided superior structural rigidity, holding an explosive together until the weapon reached the intended target — though it did little else to improve the destructive effectiveness of the warhead. While that isn’t necessarily a problem, the Navy’s latest advancement represents an entirely novel approach in which the shell can also be detonated to release chemical energy after impact, an added function that increases the likelihood of a catastrophic kill.

Here’s a brief explanation from io9 of how the new technology works:

Instead of solid steel, these new missiles will have shells made out of a combination of metals. Also mixed in is an oxidizing agent. Oxidizing agents help aid combustion, usually by giving oxygen over to the combusting material. When an ordinary missile hits the target, the energy in the steel shell doesn’t go into the explosion. Instead, it’s scattered as shrapnel around the area of the explosion. When this combination of oxidizers and metals hits a target, the materials are combined by the force of the explosion, and they explode themselves. This makes for a bigger localized explosion, but doesn’t send pieces of steel flying over the area. The navy believes that this change will lead to a smaller amount of bystander deaths.

Naval researchers tested the material during a firing exercise at the Army’s Blossom Point Field Test Facility in Maryland at the end of June and around mid-August. Next up is a large-scale demonstration against multiple stationary targets is tentatively planned for September.

Breakthrough may lead to super-destructive missiles | Smartplanet


RM bomb

One of the novel features of the new class of ‘explosive metals’ known as Reactive Materials is that they can be engineered to perform in completely different ways, depending on the initiation. This makes it possible to have a ‘variable lethality’ munition whose effects can be tailored to the situation or the target.

One possible application put forward by arms-maker ATK is in landmines. In a presentation on Reactive Materials In Mines And Demolition Systems (warning, large Powerpoint file), Mark Cvetnic, ATK’s Technical Director of Advanced Programs, describes a versatile RM-based munition:

"Dial-a-yield" effects – Tiered response – reactive materials in a blast weapon can tailor the blast effect to range from non-lethal (disorientation/discomfort/incapacitation) to lethal force.

This means that an untended mine could be set on a variety of non-lethal settings (see picture) depending on requirements, or a human operator could set it to the higher levels. Think:

- Non-lethal disorientation – explosives and reactive materials to create high-intensity light

- Non-lethal discomfort – high temperature impulse, with low pressure blast, create discomfort zone

- Non-lethal blast – using the explosives and reactive fragments to create incapacitating blast wave

The last of these sounds like a high-powered version of the traditional ‘flash bang’ stun grenade. Moving up, the lethal range has two settings:

- Lethal blast combining the blast from the explosives and reactive fragments

- Lethal fragments patterns using reactive fragments

Its effectiveness compared to traditional fragmenting mines is outlined:

- RM fragmentation lethal effects

Equivalent Kinetic Energy as steel fragments – current generation
ATK Thiokol reactive materials have the same density as steel, thus giving RM fragmentation weapons the same fragment kinetic energy

Additional Chemical Energy From RM event – reactive fragments can produce a large amount of chemical energy in the form of temperature, light and/or pressure.

Having a large amount of energy released inside a body by a RM
fragment in the form of heat or pressure would certainly make it significantly more lethal than an inert metal fragment. This means the
RM mine has settings which, like the phasers in Star Trek, really do run from ‘stun’ to ‘disintegrate’.

Of course, this technology is not limited to landmines: any explosive munition could have the same ‘dial-a-yield’ capability. This would apply to everything from grenades to 2,000 lbs, so that depending on requirements the target could be warned, driven away — or destroyed far more effectively than by existing weapons.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/05/reactive-revo-5/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Piloted aircraft transforms into a spy drone

If recent events are any indication, robotic aircraft will play an increasingly significant role in U.S. military operations.

Drones such as the Predator and Reaper have already proved their mettle as difference makers against insurgents in Libya and Pakistan. And earlier this year, the armed forces gave a sneak peak of what the next generation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) will be capable of when the Phantom Ray X-45C and X-47B stealth bomber both completed test flights, respectively. Now a more versatile robotic aircraft hopes to turn the heads of battlefield commanders who are continually seeking ways to upgrade their arsenal.

The Firebird optionally piloted aircraft (OPA), developed by Northman Grupman, is a 34 foot-long, 5,000-pound spy vehicle that can not only operate as an autonomous drone, but as a piloted airplane as well. It can reach heights of 40,000 feet and has a cruising altitude of about 230 mph, with enough fuel capacity to stay airborne for 24 to 40 hours.

It comes equipped with high-resolution cameras, synthetic aperture radar (SAR), communications relays and eavesdropping technology. Also, the ability to convert into a piloted aircraft gives it an advantage over drones in that unmanned planes aren’t allowed to venture into American airspace unattended.

The company is confident that these features will leave an favorable impression on government officials when the Firebird is demonstrated during the Pentagon’s Empire Challenge, a showcase for military contract hopefuls that’s held later this month.

Video: Piloted aircraft transforms into a spy drone | Smartplanet

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BAE Systems’ Taranis: $214 million unmanned stealth jet can strike targets across oceans

The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence on Monday unveiled a prototype unmanned combat aircraft that’s intended to strike targets on different continents.

The drone, made by BAE Systems and called Taranis (after the Celtic god of thunder — really), is one step on the way to developing the world’s first autonomous, stealth Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) with long-range capability — far enough to strike targets on another continent.

The aircraft is controlled by military crews on the ground, and comes with a £142.5 million, or approx. $214 million USD, price tag, according to the UK’s Daily Mail.

A few quick stats about Taranis:

It’s nearly invisible to ground radar.
It’s designed to travel at “jet speeds.”
With onboard sensors, it’s intended for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance in enemy territory.
It can also carry weapons, including bombs and missiles.
It can be controlled from anywhere in the world using satellite communication.
The plane began development in December 2006.
It’s the U.K.’s answer to U.S. supremacy in the stealth aircraft sector.

“Taranis has been three and a half years in the making and is the product of more than a million man-hours,” said Nigel Whitehead, managing director of BAE Systems’ Programmes & Support business, in a statement.

“It represents a significant step forward in this country’s fast-jet capability. This technology is key to sustaining a strong industrial base and to maintain the UK’s leading position as a center for engineering excellence and innovation.”

Initial ground-based testing began this year. The first flight is expected to take place in 2011.

The aircraft is the product of an informal partnership of the UK Ministry of Defence and BAE Systems, Rolls Royce (propulsion), QinetiQ (autonomy systems) and GE Aviation (vehicle systems).

A tell-tale glimpse of China’s stealth technology | Smartplanet

 

[Pak47]

Lasers on Planes..

 

[The SC]

Rheinmetall demonstrates laser weapons

German company Rheinmetall Defense says it has successfully combined a powerful laser weapon with an advanced air defense system.

The demonstrator systems were recently tested at a proving ground in Switzerland, the company said, and downed an unmanned aerial vehicle used as a target and engaged and defeated other threats as well.

"Having recently used a high-energy laser weapon to down an unmanned aircraft at a proving ground in Switzerland, Rheinmetall has demonstrated the operational potential of combining a powerful laser weapon with an advanced air defense system," Rheinmetall said in a news release.

"This event provides compelling proof of the (Rheinmetall) group's 360-degree competence in relevant technologies -- ranging from military lasers and target recognition and identification, to target tracking and fire control units -- and its unrivalled ability to weld them into a single, forward-looking, fully functional full-scale demonstrator."

The live-fire laser demonstration was conducted at Rheinmetall's Ochsenboden proving ground.

One weapon system -- two 5-kilowatt laser weapon modules -- was integrated into an air defense system using an Oerlikon Skyguard 3 fire control unit and a Skyshield gun turret. The second, a 1-kW laser weapon module, was mounted on a TM 170-type vehicle.

Both laser weapon demonstrators were used in different scenarios: protecting against asymmetric, terrorist-type threats; countering incoming rockets, artillery and mortar rounds; and defending against an aircraft target.

Rheinmetall said the 1-kW laser weapon demonstrator successfully sank a moving rubber raft (substituting as a speedboat) and was also effective in destroying improvised explosive devices and in neutralizing unexploded ordnance.

In the artillery, mortar and rocket scenario, the 10-kW laser demonstrator showed that the doubling the laser output from the 5-kW of the 2010 design improved performance and reduced the time to engage a target by half.

The 10-kW weapon in the anti-aircraft scenario successfully detected, tracked, engaged and destroyed a UAV in flight.

The live-fire demonstration at the Ochsenboden proving ground, the company said, shows the company has the skill and expertise to develop complex laser weapon systems.

Rheinmetall said it expects to have a 100-kW a laser weapon system available for customers in three to five years but, even today, the modular, scalable design of the lasers demonstrated are able to meet a variety of military weapon requirements.

Rheinmetall demonstrates laser weapons