Previously, the Russian deputy prime minister in charge of defense, Dmitry Rogozin, referred to the RS-26 as “the ABM killer.”
“Neither modern nor prospective American missile defenses will be able to prevent this missile from being able to hit the bull's eye,” Rogozin explained.
Russia's 10-year state rearmament programme has reached its halfway point but is only one third completed, the deputy chairman of the government's military industrial commission has conceded.
Oleg Bochkarev added in an interview with the Nezavisimaya Gazeta newspaper on 26 December that the updated 2016 to 2025 armament programme is likely to be ready for signing by Russian president Vladimir Putin in December 2015.
Russia's current long-term defence plan - the 10-year Gosudarstvennyi Programme Vooruzheniya, or GPV - runs to 2020. It is the fourth such plan of its type and the most expensive in Russia's history. Formally announced in December 2010, the aim was to bring the proportion of modern weaponry in the Russian armoury to 70% by 2020.
Ours is the best-equipped fighting force in history, and it is incomparably the most expensive. By all measures, today’s professionalized military is also better trained, motivated, and disciplined than during the draft-army years. No decent person who is exposed to today’s troops can be anything but respectful of them and grateful for what they do.
Yet repeatedly this force has been defeated by less modern, worse-equipped, barely funded foes. Or it has won skirmishes and battles only to lose or get bogged down in a larger war. Although no one can agree on an exact figure, our dozen years of war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and neighboring countries have cost at least $1.5 trillion; Linda J. Bilmes, of the Harvard Kennedy School, recently estimated that the total cost could be three to four times that much. Recall that while Congress was considering whether to authorize the Iraq War, the head of the White House economic council, Lawrence B. Lindsey, was forced to resign for telling The Wall Street Journal that the all-in costs might be as high as $100 billion to $200 billion, or less than the U.S. has spent on Iraq and Afghanistan in many individual years.
Yet from a strategic perspective, to say nothing of the human cost, most of these dollars might as well have been burned. “At this point, it is incontrovertibly evident that the U.S. military failed to achieve any of its strategic goals in Iraq,” a former military intelligence officer named Jim Gourley wrote recently for Thomas E. Ricks’s blog, Best Defense. “Evaluated according to the goals set forth by our military leadership, the war ended in utter defeat for our forces.” In 13 years of continuous combat under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, the longest stretch of warfare in American history, U.S. forces have achieved one clear strategic success: the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Their many other tactical victories, from overthrowing Saddam Hussein to allying with Sunni tribal leaders to mounting a “surge” in Iraq, demonstrated great bravery and skill. But they brought no lasting stability to, nor advance of U.S. interests in, that part of the world. When ISIS troops overran much of Iraq last year, the forces that laid down their weapons and fled before them were members of the same Iraqi national army that U.S. advisers had so expensively yet ineffectively trained for more than five years.
Efforts to find Europe's lost comet lander, Philae, have come up blank.
The most recent imaging search by the overflying Rosetta "mothership" can find no trace of the probe.
If you think your office needs a lick of paint and some new furniture, spare a thought for fighter pilots. Those who fly fighter aircraft like the F-16 or the Tornado are still, in effect, working in a 1970s office - because that's when those aircraft were originally designed.
It takes a very long time to build a new fighter jet. Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor is currently the only supersonic stealth fighter in active service ‒ but when the contract for the first prototype was signed in 1986, Apple's top-of-the-range Macintosh Plus computer had a mere 1Mb memory and no hard drive. The F-22 carried out its first combat mission on 22 September this year – three days after Apple released the iPhone 6. Technology has transformed in those intervening 28 years, and nothing dates faster than yesterday’s vision of the future.
Today’s aircraft designers must guess what the world of 40 years’ time might look like – a task that even the innovators in Silicon Valley might baulk at. "At the moment, I'm looking at stuff out to at least 2040," says Mark Bowman, chief test pilot for BAE Systems at Warton, Lancashire.
So how have designers dealt with these issues in the newest generation of fighter aircraft, and what technologies are they preparing for the cockpits of the future?
The most modern jets – such as the RAF’s Eurofighter Typhoon and the Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that is yet to enter service – feature helmet-mounted displays, voice-activated controls and airliner-style control sticks. This is a big change from the cockpits cluttered with dials and buttons that fighter pilots flew in a few decades ago.
But the innovation is not for its own sake – the reason the cockpit has changed is because today's pilots are doing different jobs to the fighter pilots who flew 20 or 30 years ago.
"Due to advances in aerodynamics and automation, the handling of the aircraft is almost becoming a secondary issue," says Bowman, whose job involves helping to design, plan and test new developments on the Typhoon. "So the role of the pilot moves more into mission management: it's about decision-making. Therefore we need to look at what technologies are that are out there that are going to improve his ability to do that."
Multi-tasking
Today's combat pilots may need to be simultaneously tracking an unidentified aircraft, watching live video footage of troops on the ground under fire from enemy forces, and talking to commanders back at base. They shouldn’t have to also be scanning an array of dials and instruments to work out whether they're pointed in the right direction and how much fuel they've got left.
"What we want a pilot to do is to look out of the window, because that's where the mission is," says Bowman. "So that drives us into a philosophy that looks more at what information we can put in front of the pilot's eyes."
Although it first flew 20 years ago, the Typhoon's designers had anticipated many of these needs. None of the navigational or system-status instruments seen in older aircraft appears in the jet's cockpit: instead, information is shown on three full-colour monitors and a HUD, or head-up display ‒ a transparent screen placed at eye level which shows text and symbols that are in focus as the pilot looks through it to the skies beyond.
From crash helmet to sensor
There is a drawback to the HUD: the pilot has to be looking straight ahead in order to see the information projected on it. The logical next step, therefore, was to put the HUD into the visor of the pilot's helmet. The Typhoon helmet ‒ designed and built at BAE's plant in Rochester, Kent, with each one individually tailored to precisely fit the shape of every pilot's head - does just that. Cameras inside the cockpit track dozens of diodes on the outside of the helmet, so the computers always know which direction the pilot is looking: the information projected onto the visor moves to match.
"We've moved away from the helmet being a crash helmet and a walkie-talkie into it being a sensor," Bowman explains. "It's now actually one of the integral part s of the system.” Lockheed took this philosophy a stage further on the F-35, which doesn't have a HUD at all. The information that would have been displayed on the HUD, as well as video taken from cameras placed all around the aircraft exterior, is displayed in the helmet, enabling the pilot to "see through" the fuselage, and even to look at the ground below, through the floor of the cockpit
The cockpits of 1950s-era fighters like the Soviet MiG-15 (left) were much more haphazard and poorly laid-out compared to the F-35's (USAF/Boeing)
The BBC's Katia Moskvitch tries out BAE Systems' Striker helmet model, used in the Eurofighter Typhoon, on a simulator.
If you think your office needs a lick of paint and some new furniture, spare a thought for fighter pilots. Those who fly fighter aircraft like the F-16 or the Tornado are still, in effect, working in a 1970s office - because that's when those aircraft were originally designed.
It takes a very long time to build a new fighter jet. Lockheed Martin's F-22 Raptor is currently the only supersonic stealth fighter in active service ‒ but when the contract for the first prototype was signed in 1986, Apple's top-of-the-range Macintosh Plus computer had a mere 1Mb memory and no hard drive. The F-22 carried out its first combat mission on 22 September this year – three days after Apple released the iPhone 6. Technology has transformed in those intervening 28 years, and nothing dates faster than yesterday’s vision of the future.
Today’s aircraft designers must guess what the world of 40 years’ time might look like – a task that even the innovators in Silicon Valley might baulk at. "At the moment, I'm looking at stuff out to at least 2040," says Mark Bowman, chief test pilot for BAE Systems at Warton, Lancashire.
So how have designers dealt with these issues in the newest generation of fighter aircraft, and what technologies are they preparing for the cockpits of the future?
(Ahunt/Wikimedia Commons)
(Ahunt/Wikimedia Commons)
The most modern jets – such as the RAF’s Eurofighter Typhoon and the Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that is yet to enter service – feature helmet-mounted displays, voice-activated controls and airliner-style control sticks. This is a big change from the cockpits cluttered with dials and buttons that fighter pilots flew in a few decades ago.
But the innovation is not for its own sake – the reason the cockpit has changed is because today's pilots are doing different jobs to the fighter pilots who flew 20 or 30 years ago.
"Due to advances in aerodynamics and automation, the handling of the aircraft is almost becoming a secondary issue," says Bowman, whose job involves helping to design, plan and test new developments on the Typhoon. "So the role of the pilot moves more into mission management: it's about decision-making. Therefore we need to look at what technologies are that are out there that are going to improve his ability to do that."
Multi-tasking
Today's combat pilots may need to be simultaneously tracking an unidentified aircraft, watching live video footage of troops on the ground under fire from enemy forces, and talking to commanders back at base. They shouldn’t have to also be scanning an array of dials and instruments to work out whether they're pointed in the right direction and how much fuel they've got left.
(Ray Troll/BAe Systems)
(Ray Troll/BAe Systems)
"What we want a pilot to do is to look out of the window, because that's where the mission is," says Bowman. "So that drives us into a philosophy that looks more at what information we can put in front of the pilot's eyes."
Although it first flew 20 years ago, the Typhoon's designers had anticipated many of these needs. None of the navigational or system-status instruments seen in older aircraft appears in the jet's cockpit: instead, information is shown on three full-colour monitors and a HUD, or head-up display ‒ a transparent screen placed at eye level which shows text and symbols that are in focus as the pilot looks through it to the skies beyond.
From crash helmet to sensor
There is a drawback to the HUD: the pilot has to be looking straight ahead in order to see the information projected on it. The logical next step, therefore, was to put the HUD into the visor of the pilot's helmet. The Typhoon helmet ‒ designed and built at BAE's plant in Rochester, Kent, with each one individually tailored to precisely fit the shape of every pilot's head - does just that. Cameras inside the cockpit track dozens of diodes on the outside of the helmet, so the computers always know which direction the pilot is looking: the information projected onto the visor moves to match.
"We've moved away from the helmet being a crash helmet and a walkie-talkie into it being a sensor," Bowman explains. "It's now actually one of the integral part s of the system.” Lockheed took this philosophy a stage further on the F-35, which doesn't have a HUD at all. The information that would have been displayed on the HUD, as well as video taken from cameras placed all around the aircraft exterior, is displayed in the helmet, enabling the pilot to "see through" the fuselage, and even to look at the ground below, through the floor of the cockpit.
(USAF/Boeing)
The cockpits of 1950s-era fighters like the Soviet MiG-15 (left) were much more haphazard and poorly laid-out compared to the F-35's (USAF/Boeing)
The traditional centre stick has also gone, replaced by a side stick on the right of the pilot. There are no cables connecting the controls to rudders or flaps, but the side stick is programmed to vibrate as if it were attached - enabling the pilot to feel the aircraft's flight behaviour through the stick.
Future fighter cockpits look likely to take these ideas far further.
Anything that will allow the pilot to be fully aware of what’s going on around them without having to break away from the mission to check something inside the cockpit is likely to improve performance, so will be considered.
Virtual cockpit
"Eye tracking; gesture control; neuro control; augmented reality - these sorts of things are being looked at," says Bowman. "If we go to an extreme, there might be something like an avatar with you in the cockpit, potentially helping you with decision-making."
The Typhoon and F-35 may offer the best clues as to what the fighter cockpits of the future will look like, but there is another aircraft which points an intriguing direction forward. The Reaper unmanned aircraft ‘cockpit’ isn't inside the aircraft: the crew ‒ a pilot and a sensor operator ‒ sit in front of an array of screens in a ground control station, which may well be thousands of miles away. In the future, that remote cockpit might not need to be on the ground: it could be inside a fighter jet, with one pilot controlling their own aircraft and a number of other unmanned ones at the same time. This wouldn't necessarily just be about gaining numerical advantage.
"We fly people in Typhoons up to +9G and down to -3G, and you don't really want to go beyond that," Bowman says, referring to the multiples of the force of gravity that a pilot experiences during hard manoeuvres and which can cause pilots to black out. "But if you were linked to some sort of unmanned combat aircraft, that may give you higher levels of agility.” With no human in the cockpit to lose consciousness from excess Gs, the sky really could be the limit.
If you would like to comment on this article, or anything else you have seen on Future, head over to our Facebook or Google+ page, or message us on Twitter.
The Laser Weapon System (LaWS) was mounted atop the bridge of the USS Ponce for an operational demonstration while deployed to the Persian Gulf. It is self-contained, but a special power generator was fitted to the ship for the trial. (US Navy photo)
With remarkably little fanfare, the US Navy in December deployed a high-tech weapon that could change the face of warfare more than any other invention since gunpowder. And, simply by the performance demonstrated in initial trials this autumn, it has already rendered obsolete a wide swathe of existing weapons, which it will soon replace, thanks to capabilities that are superior by any measure.
The weapon is the 30-kilowatt Laser Weapon System (LaWS) that the US Navy installed aboard USS Ponce this summer as part of a joint $40 million research and development effort by the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) to test the operational viability of directed energy weapons.
LaWS is by no means the first laser weapon to be tested or demonstrated, but it is the first to have actually attained Initial Operating Capability (IOC) by virtue of being deployed in a combat theater even though this milestone has not been officially recognized.
In the short term, the LaWS will likely pose a mortal threat to makers of medium-calibre artillery and short-range air-defense missiles, but if the technology can be adapted to a bigger scale it could eventually replace all line-of-sight weapons in military inventories.
Given LaWS’s potential, it is surprising that it has attracted so little attention in the media, and so little reaction from the makers of the weapons it so obviously suited to replace. A plausible explanation is that, after large, high-profile lasers failed to live up to their promise and were canceled, many considered that there was no realistic prospect for any type of laser weapon, and the idea faded away from public attention.
Less than a dollar a shot
But laser weapons are not a distant prospect. Under ONR's Solid-State Laser-Technology Maturation program, industry teams have already been selected to “develop cost-effective, combat-ready laser prototypes that could be installed on vessels such as guided-missile destroyers and the Littoral Combat Ship in the early 2020s,” the US Navy stated in its Dec. 10 release on LaWS testing.
In addition to its capabilities, the LaWS has an irresistible edge over existing weapons: "At less than a dollar per shot, there's no question about the value LaWS provides," ONR chief Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder told reporters Dec 10. "With affordability a serious concern for our defense budgets, this will more effectively manage resources to ensure our sailors and marines are never in a fair fight." Other media report Klunder as saying each shot costs $0.59.
Videos taken during operational tests in the Persian Gulf show a weapon that is already remarkably effective, capable of punching through admittedly thin steel plate, and of destroying with a single pulse a small weapon fitted to a small boat moving at high speed. At can also, at low power, be used to “dazzle” a target and its sensors.
The US Navy said that during the tests “LaWS hit targets mounted aboard a speeding oncoming small boat, shot a Scan Eagle unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) out of the sky, and destroyed other moving targets at sea,” and “performed flawlessly, including in adverse weather conditions of high winds, heat and humidity….[and] exceeded expectations for both reliability and maintainability.”
Although weaponized lasers still face major hurdles before they can completely replace small- and medium-calibre cannon, this weapon is revolutionary is many respects, and notably by its accuracy, its end effects, and its lack of collateral damage. And it is now, demonstrably, operational.
“The captain of that ship has all of the authorities necessary if there was a threat inbound to that ship to protect our sailors and Marines [and] we would defend that ship with that laser system,” ONR chief Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder told reporters Dec 10.
Once its basic suitability is fully demonstrated, the prospects for laser weapons will be virtually unlimited.
Christopher Harmer, a naval analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, told Russia’s Sputnik news service that "The existing naval weapons systems, small-calibre cannon, large-calibre naval guns, and missiles, are at or near the limits of their potential capability. Guns and missiles just aren't going to get much more accurate or lethal [while] lasers have significant potential for increases in range, accuracy, lethality, reliability, and cost-effectiveness".
The Guardian reported Dec 10 that ONR’s Klunder said while LaWS is not powerful enough to destroy “frigate-sized vessels [there is] a 150 kilowatt laser weapon – five times as powerful as the one mounted on the Ponce – currently in development,” so the race to greater power has already begun.
Lasers better than cannon
One of the more remarkable aspects of the Ponce trials is the high accuracy evidenced in the video below.
Accuracy obviously depends on the quality of the weapon mount, of targeting sensors and of pointing mechanisms, and in the case of a laser the absence of recoil forces, of the ammunition feed and of empty cartridge ejection means the entire assembly can be made lighter, faster and more economical.
Accuracy also is a factor of the speed of the projectile. A 25mm round travels at about 1,100 meters per second, and during that second a speed boat running at 30 knots will have moved about 15 meters – making it a difficult target to hit, especially if the firing ship is cosseted by the sea.
A laser fires at the speed of light – 300,000 meters/second – so that same boat will have moved only 5 centimeters between the time the laser is fired and the time it hits –-making a bull’s eye almost a certainty.
In many respects, the LaWS is the exact opposite of the Phalanx Close-In Weapon System, which fires a constant stream of 20mm rounds at incoming missiles at a rate of 4,500 rounds per minute. Each round costs about $3-4, so a 100-round burst will cost about $350 on average, and the Phalanx assembly, with its own radar, weighs around 6 tonnes and has to absorb the recoil while keeping the gun aimed at the target.
By comparison, the LaWS costs $0.6 per shot, is nearly always on target, and generates no recoil, so it is clearly the superior weapon. Achieving the level of accuracy described above at this level of cost opens a dazzlingly wide range of operational options.
The Laser Weapon System (LaWS) installed aboard the USS Ponce is controlled through an operator station that, in many respects, resembles a personal video gaming set-up with a similar two-handed controller. (US Navy photo)
In the case of a small, attacking boat, a ship-mounted laser can disable its outboard engine, hole its hull or even, as shown in the US Navy’s video, disable only its weapons and/or its sensors, thereby rendering it inoffensive without destroying it or its crew. Such a laser could even defend a ship against a swarm of small boats thanks to its speed, its accuracy and its ability to immediately re-target.
Having proved the principle – and the video is ample proof – all that remains is for the laser weapon to be refined, by improving its targeting sensors, its aiming servos and its stabilization in addition to boosting its power output.
Also feasible in the short term are variants to meet other military requirements, such as defending against enemy helicopters, tactical missiles, rockets, artillery and mortar rounds, UAVs and loitering weapons.
A laser could also find many other applications on the battlefield, from neutralizing enemy laser designators to disabling soft-skinned or lightly armored vehicles and other targets, and when necessary by hitting their engines, wheels or tracks instead of destroying them outright. It would thus prove extraordinarily useful for peacekeeping forces or even to control hostile crowds.
And an added advantage is that defenses and countermeasures will be tricky to develop, as a laser ray is not visible, can be detected only on impact, and is near-impossible to decoy or spoof.
Limits remain power generation and beam dispersion
In fact, the only obstacle standing in the way of the laser’s takeover of the modern combat arena is elementary physics, in the form of the physical laws that govern power generation and the dispersion of light.
Given today’s technology, it is difficult to generate (and re-generate) enough electric power to engage and to destroy large targets, especially if they are heavily protected. Power generation is the first major technological obstacle that industry will have to solve if lasers are ever to become operationally effective weapons.
But lasers are not the perfect answer to all military requirements. Their light beams, for example, are affected by impurities in the air, ranging from humidity to dust, and from salt to smoke. However, the US Navy reported that the LaWS “performed flawlessly, including in adverse weather conditions of high winds, heat and humidity,” but did not provide any details.
China, Russia Advance in Lasers, Europe Lags
Given their potential, the US is not alone is working to perfect laser weapons. Russia and China have similar programs, while Israel is completing development of its first such system, but Europe seems to have been taken by surprise by the pace of development, and to be lagging.
The business end of the Laser Weapon System, mounted on top of the ship’s bridge, is relatively compact, with few moving parts and, most importantly, no recoil. It can thus be positioned where required on the ship, or on a shipping container inside which could be installed its power generator. (US Navy photo)
At the Singapore Air Show in February 2014, Israel’s Rafael unveiled the Iron Beam, a laser-based air defense system it said can incapacitate missiles at ranges of up to two kilometers. According to Rafael’s CEO, the weapon is “able to bring down mortars like flies," and its development is still ongoing.
China also says it has successfully developed a laser defense system that can shoot down small-scale low flying drones within a two kilometer radius in five seconds, Xinhua news reported Nov. 2.
It said China’s laser system with its precision, speed and low noise can shoot down drones at an altitude of 500 meters and a speed of 50 meters per second (180 kilometers per hour), citing a statement published by the China Academy of Engineering Physics.
The NATO Science & Technology Organization board has approved the stand-up of an SCI Task Group, SCI-264, to examine the tactical implications of these next-generation laser weapons with a focus on issues associated with employment in the shared NATO battlespace. The kickoff meeting for SCI-264 was held on 5-7 November 2014 at the STO Collaboration Support Office facilities in the Paris suburb of Neuilly-sur-Seine.
“The meeting was very productive and the group achieved consensus to pursue a 3-year program of work that will have several main products. First will be a briefing suitable for senior NATO leadership to provide better awareness of the rapid advancement in HEL weapon capabilities, the tactical scenarios that are likely to be suitable for employment of such systems, and the implications for collaborative military operations,” NATO said in a Dec. 8 statement.
It added that the next meeting of SCI-264 will be hosted by the UK in the March 2015 timeframe, and that the group is still open for participation from additional interested countries.
Russia’s work on laser weapons is focused on air-defense, but reportedly also comprises an aircraft-based system. Izvestia daily reported in November 2012 that the Russian Defense Ministry “had placed an order with the defense industry to resume development of combat lasers. It quoted well-informed sources in the defense industry as saying that the order focused on modernization of an A-60 flying laboratory on the basis of the Ilyushin-76 airlifter,” Itar-TASS reported Dec. 12.
“It is clear as daylight now that the transformation of Star Wars scenarios into reality has flopped but laser weapons should develop as part of tactical air defense strategies now,” Alexander Khramchikhin, a deputy director of the Institute of Political and Military Analysis told TASS Dec. 12. “That’s the only niche but there’s no alternative to lasers in it.”
He added that “It’s more or less clear today that lasers don’t have any other combat use, as the problems of energy and dispersal of the beam at long distances cannot be resolved at the current stage.”
It quoted Russian weapon expert Igor Korotchenko as saying that "Russia has similar developments, but we are also supposed to develop and create an aircraft-based laser weapon. I should say such research needs a large amount of money, but it is needed to be done in order to maintain a technological balance with the US."
"For the first time, we've been able to provide an accurate estimate of total methane emissions from the Los Angeles basin, whatever their sources," said senior research scientist Stanley Sander of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California, the new instrument's principal investigator. "Altogether, it's a very significant increase in the estimate."
Methane is extremely efficient at trapping heat and warming the planet. Its urban sources include gas pipeline leaks, landfills, wastewater treatment plants and transportation.
Now I know the reason for warmy summer and coldy winter.Although the study was not specifically designed to find out where the methane is coming from, "certain areas seem to be more significant emitters than others," Sander said. "The ones we have been able to identify are -- perhaps coincidentally, but perhaps not -- located near large landfills. That is consistent with our understanding that landfills have the potential to be methane sources under certain conditions." The highest concentrations were recorded at ground sites in eastern Los Angeles County and near the Rose Bowl in Pasadena.
The mountaintop instrument is part of the pilot Megacities Carbon Project to monitor emissions from urban areas with populations of more than 10 million. Cities are the source of about 70 percent of the world's carbon emissions, and Earth's 22 megacities are responsible for about half of that 70 percent. Sander noted that a setup like CLARS would work equally well in other megacities that are overlooked by mountains, such as Rio de Janeiro, Seoul and Mexico City.
Karan sir, I suspect French already were tracking radical elements but could not predict its target, all came as surprise. Otherwise how can some agency track them within no time of terror attack, after sometime real story might unravel!Karan M wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... olice.html
Col Tim Collins: We can learn from the deadly tactics of France’s elite police
The French forces managed the equivalent of two drop-goals in rugby under great pressure, writes Col Tim Collins
In the world of counter-terrorism and special forces, it must be said that the French carried out an amazing feat on Friday. They deserve the grateful thanks of their nation and the admiration of the international community.
Here sir got a link which explains a little bit about the actual situationWithin minutes of the mass murder at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, the French intelligence services had identified the suspects, their accomplices and instigated a nationwide manhunt. I would not be giving anything away by saying that electronic eavesdropping and sophisticated internet trawls probably delivered the information.
Ramp space was limited in late September 2014 at an undisclosed operating base in Southwest Asia as the F-15E Strike Eagle and F-22 squadrons located there prepared to change out.
In fact, group and wing leaders at the undisclosed base had "asked and received permission" to let the F-22s head home to the 1st Fighter Wing at JB Langley-Eustis, Va., a week early to help ease the congestion on the ramp. The aircraft were configured for the long trip, complete with two extra fuel tanks, the normal configuration to fly across the ocean, when word came from the combined air operations center that the jets were needed for combat.
Maintenance immediately got to work, and within 24 hours airmen had downloaded and reconfigured the Raptors with two 1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions and everything else the pilots might need to face either an air-to-air or surface-to-air threat.
Up until that point, no one expected the F-22 unit, which was in the Middle East for strategic deterrence and as a safeguard for possible contingency operations, would make its combat debut against ISIS. The brutal-but-primitive terrorist organization lacked an air force for the predominantly air-to-air Raptor to destroy.
"It was awesome to see them work and get the jets reconfigured, and then we kind of sat in that mode, not sure if we were going to execute or not," one of the pilots involved in the operation told Air Force Magazine. The unit received notice a day or two later that the operation would take place late on Sept. 22 through the early morning hours of Sept. 23 local time, he said.
The F-22 was part of the initial US-led air campaign against ISIS in Syria, which was conducted in three waves. The US did not know, at first, what Syria's response would be to the presence of American combat aircraft in its airspace. Although ISIS lacks an air force, the Syrians certainly have one—and a fairly advanced integrated air defense system as well.
The USAF crews started doing some generic planning, mapping out the closest airfields and coming up with a basic fuel plan, but the real planning couldn't begin until the airmen received their targets about 24 hours before takeoff. They were tasked with hitting an ISIS command and control facility about 50 miles from Aleppo.
There is a "joint team that looks at those targets and then says what's going to be the best resources to put against that target," said Maj. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, assistant deputy chief of staff for operations, plans, and requirements on the Air Staff. It made sense to use the F-22s "in the areas where they're concerned about being highly defended, and originally, the first couple nights that was a concern until we understood how the Syrian integrated air defenses would work."
Although the F-22, as a platform, didn't have any combat experience, the crews "had been preparing since Day One," said the pilot, who asked not to be identified because of security concerns.
Early in the deployment, the F-22s trained with the F-15E Strike Eagles based in the area, until President Obama authorized the use of force against ISIS in Iraq in early August and the Strike Eagles' operational tempo significantly ramped up.
Heating Up
"They were busy all through August and in to September, so [the F-22 unit] stopped participating. We were doing a lot of training with them prior to this time and we basically were on our own at that point, doing our own training in-house with the limited number of aircraft we had," added the pilot.
The aircrews also had spent some six months leading up to the initial air campaign studying Syria's surface-to-air missiles and aircraft. "We would try to generate all of our scenarios around those specific mission sets. … A lot of our training when we got in theater was focused specifically on countries we were concerned with: Iran and Syria," he said.
Around June or July, "as things started heating up," the F-22s also shifted from a daytime training schedule to a night flying schedule. "We weren't sure what would happen, [and] it made sense for us to at least start preparing," said the pilot.
The F-22s were one of three cells scheduled to launch around 9 p.m. Eastern Standard Time Sept. 22. The lead group included F-15Es, the second group consisted of partner aircraft, and the third included the Raptors, all from an undisclosed base in the region. Each cell was made up of four fighters and a tanker, said the pilot.
Anticipation was high and everyone wanted to be part of the historic event.
"The weapons folks don't often get a chance to load live munitions on the F-22, so those guys were out there, very excited," said the pilot. "We had four weapons crews total and three of the four were out there on the line. All of them wanted to be out there."
There was supposed to be a five-minute separation between each of the cells, but the first F-15E had an engine malfunction on takeoff and had to execute a high-speed abort that ended up closing the runway for about 20 minutes, said the pilot.
"It's a 1,200-mile drive to get from where we were to the target. It took a little over two hours to drive direct … to the target area and we had planned about 30 minutes of slop to allow for contingencies and various other things," he said. "So we lost almost all of that [flexibility] on the ground before we even got airborne. … That was our biggest challenge out the door on the F-22 side, being the back end of the train as the front end is starting to have problems."
At that point, the flight plan was still on track, but the time line was compressed. Everybody was rushed to make up time and that caused some problems for air traffic control, which was trying to deconflict the aircraft and reconnect the three cells of fighters with the tankers.
The F-22s were held low and slow, delaying the mission another four to six minutes. Once the Raptors climbed to their cruising altitude of 28,000 feet, they were met with another challenge: The winds were "significantly higher" than they had expected, said the pilot.
"We had been flying there for six months and there had been virtually no wind at altitude the entire six months, then once we got to altitude the winds were about 60 to 80 knots [70 to 92 mph], which is not a big deal for short distances, but when you are flying 1,200 miles and you've got a two-hour drive, that creates a significant difference in your flight plan route."
The unexpected wind speeds added another five or 10 minutes, making it more challenging to meet the planned time on target.
Avoiding an "incident"
"To make matters worse," Iraqi air traffic controllers "started vectoring us toward Iran instead of toward Syria," said the pilot, who said the Iraqis were not organized to deal with that many aircraft simultaneously operating in their airspace.
The US pilots had to figure out a way to meet the mission objectives without causing an international incident by blatantly ignoring host nation directives.
"Fortunately, we managed to get going in the direction I needed to go and I didn't need to ignore their direction. It just took another minute here, another minute there, but it's all cumulative, and it all adds up, and it all gets us much further behind than what we can afford," he said.
The original plan was for the F-22s to fly toward the northern "two-thirds" of Iraq where they would hit an air-refueling track, then flow in to the west and hold on the western border of Syria. However, once they passed Baghdad it became clear that wasn't going to work.
"Even going direct [to the target], I wasn't going to make it unless I started going much, much faster," said the pilot.
The four-ship of F-22s got as much fuel as possible from a KC-10 circling midway through Iraq, then peeled off and started to climb directly toward the target area.
About 200 miles from the Syrian border, the F-22s went to afterburner, accelerating to Mach 1.5, and started the climb up to 40,000 feet—the intended cruising altitude for the 15-minute flight into Syria.
"We were pulling the power back to try to keep the jet from accelerating past 1.5 because 1.5 was actually the sweet spot for us to hit the time on target exactly on time," said the pilot.
The CAOC did not want the F-22s to get there early. Although it was not "overly crucial" for all three cells to simultaneously hit their targets, that was definitely the "desired impact," the pilot said.
Despite all the delays early on, things were starting to come together. The timing was actually looking good and the F-22s had enough fuel to strike the target and get out of Syria before they had to hit up another tanker.
The plan was for two Raptors to go in and take out a command and control center while the second two provided air cover. All four were configured the same way and could switch roles if necessary.
"My two-ship was the first in the country and the farthest into the country at that point. We were the leading edge, making sure there was no air threat for the follow-on package," said the pilot. "Then my three and four would follow up in that max-range airspeed … and they would hang out as long as possible to ensure we have actors on station in case Syria launched any airplanes."
With the F-22's advanced integrated avionics, the pilots had "very good situational awareness" and "we were not ever worried about being attacked [by] the Syrians," said the pilot. "It was obvious when we got about halfway through Syria that [their air force was] not going to respond to us," the pilot said. He "wasn't convinced" that air defenses would stay dark, though, until the mission aircraft actually got to the target area and didn't see any air or surface threat become active.
Despite Syria's passive defenses, the F-22 pilots kept their guard up throughout the entire operation, keeping an eye out for threats not only to themselves, but also to the F-15Es, F-16s, and B-1s operating nearby.
Around 4 a.m. local time, within five seconds of the desired time-on-target, the JDAMS hit the target, an impressive feat given the distance and repeated delays the F-22s encountered.
During a Sept. 23 briefing at the Pentagon, Army Lt. Gen. William C. Mayville Jr., director of operations on the Joint Staff, showed before and after pictures of the command and control facility. He noted that the GPS guided munitions hit only the right side of the building, where
the command center was located. That area was completely destroyed.
In a Sept. 25 press conference, Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby said the F-22s did "very, very well the other night, very well."
Raptor Eyes on Site
Adrenaline was still running high as the first two F-22s quickly left Syria and headed to a tanker to fill up. The third and fourth F-22s stayed on station for about 60 minutes and continued to provide offensive counterair for the remainder of the strikes.
The assumption was that because of the long drive back to the tanker, the first two Raptors would top off just before the third and fourth F-22s would start running out of fuel and had to head to the tanker themselves. That way there were always Raptor eyes on site, said the pilot.
"It was a relatively uneventful night. We saw a lot of flashes with [night vision goggles] as the bombs were going off in various target areas, but we didn't see a whole lot of action from Syria or their ground forces," said the pilot. "It looked like the vast majority of the action was coming from the coalition bombs."
With the sun just starting to rise in the east, the Raptors had successfully made it out of Syria and Iraq and were heading back toward the Persian Gulf when they got a call from an AWACS saying the CAOC needed them to turn around.
Although they didn't immediately know why, a B-1 needed an escort as it went in for a reattack, but at this point the F-22s had just enough fuel to get back to their home station. The tankers they had launched with were in the same boat.
"Gas is always my biggest concern. We had looked at the fuel plan early on and we knew that there was extra gas available for contingencies, but we were completely off the script now … so I had no idea where the tankers were," he said.
They quickly determined that only two F-22s were needed for the B-1 escort follow-on mission, so the third and fourth jets headed back without the tanker.
The remaining two pilots started running through a list of nearby airfields in case they had to divert. Though there were plenty to choose from, there weren't many where the pilots felt comfortable landing an F-22, given the security concerns associated with the aircraft.
"A lot of that is going through my mind as we turn north, not really knowing where to go, knowing that I have to support the mission, … but then may very well be going to a divert someplace where I don't want to go," he said.
After flying north for about 10 minutes, the AWACS controller informed the pilots there was a KC-135 "over on the Iranian border" with enough fuel for them to top off. It wasn't until they got to the tanker that the two pilots learned the details of their new mission: Escort a B-1 to the western side of Syria so it can reattack some targets missed during the initial bombing campaign. The new target was the farthest point west so far for the pilot.
The first of the initial air campaign's three waves was mostly unmanned and included more than 40 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles fired collectively from USS Arleigh Burke and USS Philippine Sea, striking targets in the vicinity of Aleppo.
The F-22s participated in the second wave along with F-15Es, B-1s, and F-16s, striking ISIS headquarters, "training camps, barracks, and combat vehicles," said Mayville in September.
Carrier-based aircraft from the Persian Gulf and partner F-16s made up the third wave and focused on "targets in eastern Syria, to include [ISIS] training camps and combat vehicles" in the area around Dayr az-Zawr," stated Mayville.
By the time the F-22s left the KC-135 along the Iranian border, the third wave was just kicking off, said the pilot.
Deconfliction was not a problem for the F-22s, which were operating solely in an air-to-air capacity now, because they could climb higher than the other aircraft, but the B-1 had to worry about the other aircraft taking off.
The Raptors provided air coverage for the B-1 for another 30 to 45 minutes before refueling for a third time and then heading home.
"There was a lot going on in the mission, a lot to deal with, a lot of changes and contingencies that I didn't have to deal with in my previous combat experience, as limited as it was," said the pilot, who previously flew F-15s. "It was a great experience all in all."
As of Dec. 10, 2014, F-22s had flown less than 100 total combat sorties from their undisclosed operating base, including about a dozen strikes in which multiple weapons were employed, said Air Forces Central Command spokesman Lt. Col. Edward T. Sholtis.
Though it took nearly a decade for the fifth generation aircraft to see combat, the pilot said he doesn't think the Air Force will suddenly start using the aircraft more freely. The fact is the Raptor is still intended primarily to respond to threats in the air, not on the ground.
"I don't think it's going to change the perspective. When there is a threat that requires the F-22, whether it's an air threat or a surface-to-air missile threat, they will continue to use it. That's my guess," he said. "I don't think it will be as big of a deal [next time it participates in a contingency], but I don't think that means we're just going to start using F-22s for any mission, and I think that's held true in the time since I left."
Going to the Mountain Top
In early August a distraught Iraqi Yazidi made an emotional appeal to parliament in Baghdad on behalf of her people—a mostly Kurdish-speaking religious minority group—who had been brutally pushed from their homes by ISIS terrorists and were now isolated and starving on top of a barren mountain in northern Iraq.
"An entire religion is being exterminated from the face of the Earth," she said, according to the Washington Post.
Almost immediately after the plight of the Yazidi became known, the US began flying humanitarian assistance operations in support of those stranded on the mountain. Air Force C-130s and C-17s dropped thousands of pounds of food and water, as US, coalition, and partner aircraft conducted strikes on the ISIS fighters.
Months later, however, there were still many Yazidis calling Mount Sinjar home and despite the humanitarian operations, they still needed help.
On Oct. 25, 2014, a U-2 Dragon Lady took to the sky above Mount Sinjar, tasked with using its optical bar camera to not only update the enemy order of battle, but also the location, layout, and disposition of the nine refugee camps still scattered around the mountain, Lt. Col. Jason Arnold, director of operations for the 480th Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Wing at JB Langley-Eustis, Va., told Air Force Magazine in December.
The U-2's OBC is a film-based system that produces incredibly high-resolution images. "Because it's film, and it's an older system, it's inherently unclassified," allowing the US to share the gathered information with partner nations capable of helping with the airlift operations, said Arnold.
The 9th Intelligence Squadron at Beale AFB, Calif., is the only unit in the Defense Department capable of processing such film, and for some unexplained reasons, the film was delayed in getting there.
The 10,500 feet of negatives—nearly two miles' worth of extremely delicate film—arrived at Beale six days later, said Arnold. The airmen knew they didn't have much time if they were going to provide relevant information to mission planners. What normally takes 12 to 24 hours to process, took just six.
The film then went to a group of geospatial intelligence analysts, who quickly looked through all 1,500 frames of the Mount Sinjar area "looking for refugee locations, the camp layout, and doing an analysis of the slope of the group, and the surrounding areas to figure out where it was safe to airdrop those food and supplies," he said.
In just over 12 hours, the geospatial analysts were able to put together 47 intelligence products. They were sent electronically to the combined air and space operations center downrange.
"It was really inspiring," commented Arnold.
More Air Strikes, More Intel, More Partners
For the Air Force, the operation to degrade and ultimately defeat the ISIS terrorist organization actually began on June 11, 2014—some three months before the launch of the initial air campaign—when President Obama first authorized intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance flights over Iraq.
It had been nearly three years since combat operations in Iraq ended and most of the 480th Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Wing at JB Langley-Eustis, Va., had long since moved on to other operations across the globe. The 480th is the lead wing for the service's Distributed Common Ground System and is responsible for exploiting the majority of the intelligence coming from Iraq and Syria. However, at the time there were few Iraq experts left.
"We maintained our current level of support to all the combatant commanders cross the globe. ... All we did was layer on an additional set of requirements for our airmen. They took it with great aplomb," said Lt. Col. Jason Arnold, the wing's director of operations. "Those airmen were asked to exploit missions that they hadn't really seen before, but that didn't decrease the quality of products we were providing."
Within 24 hours of the first medium-altitude ISR operations over Iraq, the airmen of the 480th successfully sorted through the information and created a set of intelligence products that were then handed over to the Kuwaiti crown prince. In the weeks that followed, thousands more intelligence products were exchanged with five other Gulf partner nations.
"We didn't have the same basing rights or overflight rights back in June that we did when [the Iraq war] was in full swing several years ago, so we were really building those relationships anew," said Arnold. "We certainly aren't in there doing this alone. Those intel products were used as a type of currency to buy us the basing rights and access we needed so eventually the F-22 [and other aircraft] could go across the border into Syria."
The rate of overall air strikes has increased since air operations expanded to Syria from some five per day to around 15 per day. Both the number of deliberate and dynamic targets also has increased, Air Forces Central Command spokesman Lt. Col. Edward T. Sholtis told Air Force Magazine.
As partner nations began contributing more aircraft and aircrews to the mission, the USAF burden has decreased. Overall, Air Force support has declined from about 70 percent of all sorties in late September to about 60 percent in late November.
As of Nov. 25, US and coalition aircraft had flown more than 10,000 sorties—some 45 percent of them kinetic close air support or interdiction sorties, 30 percent of them tanker sorties, 15 percent ISR, and 10 percent "other types of support sorties, not including intertheater airlift," said Sholtis.
Partner nations have conducted about one-third of the close air support or interdiction sorties, while the US continues to fly about 90 percent of the air refueling sorties.
"Overall, air refueling represents nearly a third of all aircraft sorties and remains an essential component of wide-ranging and persistent air operations against [ISIS]," he said. "The majority of the US Air Force tanker presence in the CENTCOM area of responsibility historically has been in the Gulf region, and that remains the case."
KC-135s from the 340th Expeditionary Air Refueling Squadron at Al Udeid AB, Qatar, are among the tankers flying "many sorties per day." The squadron is operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, said squadron commander Lt. Col. Van Thai.
"As the linchpin in most air operations, manning and jets have increased," said Thai, adding that the squadron tries to support everyone, though it must prioritize where the fuel goes.
Maj. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, assistant deputy chief of staff for operations, plans, and requirements on the Air Staff, said airpower has been "indispensable" to the anti-ISIS operation, since dubbed Operation Inherent Resolve.
In Iraq, the coalition air campaign is providing Iraq's new government time to stand up and for the Iraqi security forces to recapture "several tactical operational objectives," giving them the confidence they need to defeat ISIS, said Harrigian.
Syria has provided an opportunity for airpower to show what it can do. After 13 years of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, "we became very, very good at what we were doing in an environment where we owned the airspace," said Harrigian. "We could develop targets, we had several forces on the ground. This environment is different."
This new campaign required "innovative" targeting, he said, noting the Air Force had to rethink how it was going to determine where to strike, where the enemy was located, and how it would use its capabilities. Then it had to educate the joint force on how to leverage those capabilities and "develop these updated target decks."
For example, in northern Iraq, where the mostly Kurdish Peshmerga is based, joint terminal attack controllers are working from an air operations center trying to develop an understanding of the environment and then they are relaying that information to an MQ-1, MQ-9, F-16, or various other platforms.
In the south, however, the relationship is different because the JTACs are working "hand-in-hand" with their Iraqi counterparts, who are pointing out where their forces are, so the JTACs can call in a Predator or Reaper to get eyes on the ground, and they can determine the appropriate weapon to deliver, said Harrigian.
There are fundamental differences in how airpower supports the Iraq portion of the joint operations area and Syria, Harrigian said, "but from an airman's perspective, whether it's Iraq or Syria, we're able to do that really on the same mission if we have to, and that's what we bring to the fight and that's how we operate."
Without boots on the ground, the onus falls on the airmen of the 480th to quickly and accurately process available intelligence and get that information to the supported commanders for target discovery, said Arnold.
The 480th also has been exploiting weapon systems video from the targeting pods of aircraft "with pointy noses," a job that previously would have been done at the fighter units or wings.
"When we have a JTAC on the ground, they can point across the street and say, 'That is the building that the bad guys are in.' In this case, we're using persistent ISR, many different flavors, in order to identify the targets for strikes," said Arnold. "Our airmen are the ones exploiting it as it comes off the jet, so we are able to layer many different types of intelligence on top of one another. I'm talking about signals intelligence, geospatial intelligence, ground moving target indications—all the different types of ints that are out there, we layer them all together and we do analysis fusion and we provide a finished product."
The asteroid that flew close to Earth Monday didn't come alone.
NASA images released Monday reveal the asteroid, officially known as 2004 BL86, has its own small moon. The grainy, black and white photos show the asteroid, about a third of a mile in size, spinning through space, with its 230-foot-wide moon trailing behind.
The Pentagon has finished a secret analysis of alternatives (AoA) for the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) project, a cruise missile to replace today’s AGM-86 Air-Launched Cruise Missile, Global Strike Command leader Lt. Gen. Stephen Wilson said today, and its recommendations are being reviewed at top Pentagon levels.
Wilson gave no details of the options considered or selected under the AoA, except to say that different missile speeds were under study. LRSO is intended to be carried by the new Long-Range Strike Bomber and the B-52H (which the Air Force plans to re-engine and fly until at least 2040) and will be delivered first as a nuclear weapon and later in a conventional variant, according to earlier statements.
The Air Force has also issued a request for information (RFI) covering the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) replacement for the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile. According to the RFI, the Air Force plans to build a completely new "rocket stack," comprising motors, guidance and control systems, that will carry today’s Mk12A and Mk21 re-entry vehicle in both single and multiple configurations, and will also introduce a new command-and-control system to replace buried copper lines that date back to the 1960s. The new missiles are to be delivered between 2027 and 2034.
However, the GBSD program also includes the restoration of the ICBM infrastructure — launch control centers and silos — to "as new" condition, and this part of the program is to start in 2022. The RFI notes that "no significant assessment has been conducted to validate the health and viability of the facilities necessary to meet mission needs, now through 2075," so the renovation program will be preceded by a major survey project, to start in 2016.
China buys six S-400 missile battalions from Russia: report
Staff Reporter 2015-01-27 12:01 (GMT+8)
China has purchased six battalions of Russian-built S-400 surface-to-air missile systems to enhance its air defense capability against the United States and its allies in the Western Pacific, reports the Washington-based Strategy Page.
Each battalion has eight launchers, a control center, a radar and 16 missiles available as reloads. A launcher can fire two missiles simultaneously and all equipment is mobile. The cost of each battalion is US$500 million. Originally known as the S-300PMU-3, SA-21 or Triumf, the system was renamed the S-400 because the missile turned out to be far more than just another upgrade of the S-300. Russia deployed its first S-400 battalion in 2010.
The development of the S-400 was undertaken particularly with electronic countermeasures in mind. Compared to its US counterpart, the Patriot system, the S-400 is physically larger and has a longer range but is very expensive, according to the report. With a range of 400 kilometers, the S-400 missile can hit targets at altitudes as high as 31,000 meters and its radar can acquire targets 700 kilometers away.
Two types of missiles are compatible with the S-400. The smaller missile has a shorter range of 120 kilometers. Four of those missiles can be deployed to a launcher, similar to the S-300 systems. The larger missile has two versions as well. One is designed with a range of 250 kilometers while the more expensive one has a range of 400 kilometers.
however, without real combat experience the system's performance still remains unknown, said the report.
Obama proposed this last year as well. The problem is that the proposals do not find support with the Republicans who want spending discipline if they are to roll back sequestration. Having said that, there would obviously be back and forth discussions and the Pentagon would get money from the Congress over and above the congressional budget on a per-project basis rather then in one lump sump. That won't be as much as Obama has asked for but would be plenty for them to do some of the things they want.NRao wrote:The last laugh.
Obama to propose 2016 budget that ends mandatory spending cuts
Including the Defense sector.
Not out of the woods, but "spending" is not an issue. Paying of the debt is.
That is the MC-12 followed by a KC135 :Singha wrote:brar sir what is the 3rd and 4th a/c in this video, the ones which launch after the E2...seems like some kind of airborne comms/sigint platform.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyfXmHU4-KQ
