Search - Gallery

Chat Room

Home · Search · Register

72 result(s) to your search. (Times)

David
Thu January 16, 2003 11:24pm

GBU-24 Paveway III

Description: The GBU-24 Paveway III represents the next step beyond the GBU-10 series of Laser Guided Bomb. Reacting to increased air defense lethality, which force attack aircraft to penetrate the target area in a nap of the earth (NOE) profile, as well as provide a low level LGB option in the event of poor battlefield visibility or low ceiling, the GBU-24 was specifically designed for low altitude deliveries. Utilizing the same principles as the GBU-10, the GBU-24 uses either the Mk. 84 2,000 pound bomb or the BLU-109 penetration bomb with an improved seeker head optimized for low-level release. To increase standoff range and improve low level glide characteristics, the GBU-24 is equipped with significantly larger guidance fins. As with the Paveway I and II, targets may be designated by either the launching aircraft or another aircraft in the area, by an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), or by personnel on the ground. In addition, since the GBU-24 orients itself on the reflected laser, rather than the target, it can be directed towards a different target after launch simply by pointing the designator at a different target.

The Guided Bomb Unit-24 (GBU-24) Low Level Laser Guided Bomb [LLLGB] consists of either a 2,000-pound MK-84 general purpose or BLU-109 penetrator bomb modified with a Paveway III low-level laser-guided bomb kit to add the proportional guidance in place of the bang-bang type used in the Paveway II. The LLLGB was developed in response to Sophisticated enemy air defenses, poor visibility, and to counter limitations in low ceilings. The weapon is designed for low altitude delivery and with a capability for improved standoff ranges to reduce exposure. The GBU-24 LLLGB/Paveway III has low-level, standoff capability of more than 10 nautical miles. Performance envelopes for all modes of delivery are improved because the larger wings of the GBU-24 increases maneuverability. Paveway III also has increased seeker sensitivity and a larger field of regard.

The operator illuminates a target with a laser designator and then the munition guides to a spot of laser energy reflected from the target. One way to deliver LGBs from low altitude is a loft attack. In this maneuver, the aircraft pulls up sharply at a predetermined point some miles from the target and the LGB is lofted upward and toward the target. However, if the LGB guidance system detects reflected laser energy from the target designator too soon after release, it tends to pull the LGW down below its required trajectory and the bomb will impact well short of the target.

This bomb is not nearly as delivery parameter sensitive as is the Paveway II LGB, nor is it affected by early laser designation. After a proper low altitude delivery, the LLLGB will maintain level flight while looking for reflected laser energy. If it does not detect reflected laser energy, it will maintain level flight to continue beyond the designated target, overflying friendly positions, to impact long, rather than short of the target.

Unlike the Paveway II LGB, the LLLGB can correct for relatively large deviations from planned release parameters in the primary delivery mode (low-altitude level delivery). It also has a larger delivery envelope for the dive, glide and loft modes than does the earlier LGB. The wide field of view and midcourse guidance modes programmed in the LLLGB allow for a "Point Shoot" delivery capability. This capability allows the pilot to attack the target by pointing the aircraft at the target and releasing the weapon after obtaining appropriate sight indications. The primary advantage of this capability is that accurate dive/tracking is not required to solve wind drift problems.

The Multi-Segment Hard Target Penetrator (MSHTP) concept has been designed to use the penetration capability of a BLU-113 or BLU-109 linked to the void counting hard target smart fuse. This weapon detonates a copper cutter charge upon entering the target and cuts the rear portion of the bomb off, which then detonates. The rest of the weapon continues down to the next level.

BLU-116 Advanced Unitary Penetrator [AUP] GBU-24 C/B (USAF) / GBU-24 D/B (Navy)

Air Force Research Laboratory Munitions Directorate engineers have completed development of a new warhead known as the Advanced Unitary Penetrator, or AUP. The warhead was successfully transitioned to the Precision Strike System Program Office at Eglin AFB, Fla. for Engineering Manufacturing Development (EMD) and production. The AUP was developed in less than three years at a cost of less than $8M. AFRL's emphasis on operational suitability as part of AUP weapon design will allow the EMD program to be completed in less than half the time of a normal EMD program.

The Advanced Unitary Penetrator [AUP] hard target penetrator features an elongated narrow diameter case made of a tough nickel-cobalt steel alloy called Air Force 1410. With the official designation of BLU-116, and designated the GBU-24 C/B (USAF) and GBU-24 D/B (Navy), is designed to provide at least twice the penetration capability of existing BLU-109 2000-pound bombs. The AUP is being demonstrated with Boeing as prime and Lockheed-Martin as subcontractor. Penetration capability is directly proportional to the warhead's sectional density--its weight divided by its cross section. The AUP maximizes sectional density by reducing the explosive payload and using heavy metals in the warhead case. Lower explosive payload will diminish dispersion of NBC agents to help reduce collateral effects. The AUP will retain the carriage and flight characteristics of the BLU-109, and it will be compatible with the GBU-24, GBU-27, and GBU-15/AGM-130 series of precision-guided bombs. Thus, the AUP will be capable of delivery from a wider inventory of aircraft, including stealth platforms, than the BLU-113/GBU-28. A proposal to replace the current CALCM warhead with an AUP warhead provides 2.5 times BLU-109 penetration capability.

The AUP development effort was conducted in support of the Counterproliferation Initiative (CPI) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD). The program objective was to develop and demonstrate a weapon that could be rapidly transitioned for Air Force and Navy use against hardened targets associated with the production, storage, and weaponization of chemical or biological agents. Normally, the introduction of a new weapon is a very long, expensive, and tedious process - as long as ten years or more. The associated cost may be tens of millions of dollars.

The 1700-pound AUP warhead is tucked inside a lightweight aerodynamic shroud. This "outer skin" gives the AUP the exact physical and aerodynamic characteristics of the BLU-109. The shroud strips away from the internal penetrator when the weapon impacts the target. Compared to the BLU-109, the AUP has thicker case walls, a tougher case material, an improved nose shape, and a smaller explosive charge. The cross-sectional area of the AUP penetrator, however, is only half as great as the cross-sectional area of the BLU-109. A smaller explosive charge reduces collateral damage potential by reducing blast overpressure that could expel chemical or biological agents from the target. A long testing series demonstrated AUP's compatibility with the Munitions Directorate-developed Hard Target Smart Fuze (HTSF). The HTSF allows the AUP to be detonated at the optimal point within a target to inflict maximum damage. That ability compensates for the reduction in explosive charge.

Because it is a "twin" to the BLU-109, the AUP can utilize a proven system of hardbacks, guidance units, and tail fin kits. The costs associated with developing new kits is eliminated. The operational users - pilots, weapon handlers and load crews - will gain the improved war fighting capabilities of the AUP without the costs associated with retraining support personnel or the acquisition of new delivery systems and support equipment. Battle commanders will also have increased ability to neutralize deeply buried hardened targets.

GBU-24E/B

GBU-24E/B, an Enhanced Paveway Laser Guided Bomb, is a precision-guided hardened target penetrator used to destroy hardened aircraft hangers and underground bunkers. It integrates a Global Positioning System and a ring laser gyro inertial measuring unit (IMU) to the already fielded GBU-24B/B "Paveway III" with the existing laser guidance. A new guidance and control unit has been modified to incorporate GPS electronics, GPS antenna, IMU and software for precision GPS/INS guidance. Testing of this system began in late 1999.

Background: Precision-guided munitions (PGM) can trace their origins back to World War Two. These early weapons, such as the QB-17G "Aphrodite" were essentially airframes packed with explosives and guided via radio direction signals to their target, where they would crash and explode. While guidance was extremely crude by today's standards, these weapons were more accurate than conventional dropped munitions, and did not expose aircrews to deadly enemy anti-aircraft fire. Unfortunately, such weapons were unwieldy, unsuitable for small targets, and were themselves subject to defensive fire. The first truly precision-guided munitions did not appear until the Vietnam War. Serving as a major supply conduit for North Vietnam, the mile long Paul Doumer Bridge over the Red River was the most important ground target of the war. Unfortunately, it was also one of the most heavily defended, its approaches ringed with anti-aircraft guns and surface to air missile emplacements. While American pilots were able to attack the bridge using conventional munitions, such missions were extremely hazardous and casualties were high. In 1967 the Rockwell International Corporation was tasked with producing a precision munition using electro-optical guidance technology. The end result was the GBU (Guided Bomb Unit) 8 or Homing Bomb System (HOBOS), a conventional Mk. 84 2,000 pound bomb with a TV like electro-optical guidance package in the nose to provide direction and a modified tail fin assembly in the rear to provide lift. To launch the GBU-8 the pilot aligned the TV camera sight in the bomb with the target and the weapons officer locked the bomb's seeker onto the target. Once aligned, the bomb could be released well away from the target area and it would guide itself into the target with a high degree of accuracy.

David
Thu January 16, 2003 11:48pm

M93 Hornet

Description: The M93 Hornet is an anti-tank off-route munition made of lightweight material (35 pounds) that one person can carry and employ. The Hornet is a non-recoverable munition that is capable of acquiring targets by using sound and motion detection methods. It will automatically search, detect, recognize, and engage moving targets by using top attack at a standoff distance up to 100 meters from deployment site. It is employed by combat engineers, rangers, and SOF.

The RCU is a hand-held encoding unit that interfaces with the Hornet when the remote mode is selected at the time of employment. After encoding, the RCU can be used to arm the Hornet, reset its self-destruct (SD) times, or destroy it. The maximum operating distance for the RCU is 2 kilometers.
High winds, heavy rain, snow, ice, extreme cold, and extreme heat reduce the Hornet's ability to detect targets at maximum range. Radio-frequency (RF) jamming devices (such as the hand-emplaced, expandable jammer [HEXJAM]), limit the Hornet's communication capabilities if they are placed in the munition field, but they will not affect the Hornet's ability to engage targets and will not damage the system. RF jamming devices will also affect the remote arming of current Hornet systems.

The Hornet's active battery pack is inserted during pre-arming and has an estimated life of four hours. The active battery pack powers the munition from the time it is inserted until the end of the safe-separation time, when the built-in reserve battery is activated. To prevent munitions from becoming duds, do not pre-arm them too early. Allow adequate time for traveling to the obstacle site, emplacing mines, throwing arming switches, and expiration of safe-separation times.

Once the Hornet is armed and the self-test is performed, the munition will remain active until its SD time expires or until it is encountered. The SD time (4 hours, 48 hours, 5 days, 15 days, or 30 days) is determined by the user. The munition will self-detonate after the SD time has expired.

Hornet munitions have an employed life of 60 days in the pre-armed mode (remote arming) and 30 days in the armed mode. If the temperature exceeds 100?F, the employed life drops to 15 days in the pre-armed mode and 30 days in the armed mode.

David
Sat January 18, 2003 9:40am

SR-71B , Congress appropr

SR-71B , Congress appropriated funds and directed the Air Force to recommission a small fleet of SR-71's, two A models and one B model. The aircraft are assigned to the 9th Reconnaissance Wing's Detachment 2 at Edwards Air Force Base, California. The SR-71 flys at more than three times the speed of sound at altitudes in excess of 80,000 feet (approximately 15 miles high). Three times the speed of sound (Mach 3) is more than 2,000 miles per hour or about 3,100 feet per second. By comparison, the muzzle velocity of a .30-06 rifle bullet is only 3,000 feet per second.

David
Tue February 11, 2003 2:04pm

AN/ALQ-135

Function: Internal countermeasures set.

Description: The F-15 TEWS consists of the AN/ALR-56C radar warning receiver (RWR), the AN/ALQ-135 internal countermeasures set (ICS), the AN/ALQ-128 electronic warfare warning set, and the AN/ALE-40/45 countermeasures dispenser. The TEWS provides electronic detection and identification of both surface and airborne threats. In addition, it allows for activation of appropriate countermeasures to include electronic jamming and dispensing of expendables such as chaff and flares Integral to the F-15 TEWS, the ALQ-135 ICS is an internally mounted responsive jammer designed to counter surface to air threats with minimum air crew activity. The system is sized to fit into the limited space of the F-15E interdiction aircraft's ammunition bay although upgraded components have also been retrofitted into the F-15C air superiority variant. The system has an improved reprogramming support capability to rapidly change pre-flight message (PFM) software in response to changing threat parameters and mission requirements. The ALQ-135 ICS has been fielded in several phases to provide incremental improvements to jamming coverage. Phase one has provided an initial Band 3 capability that includes integrated operation with both the F-15E fire control radar and the ALR-56C RWR. ALQ-135 ICS Band 3 capability currently allows full interoperability and robust jamming techniques against modern pulse Doppler radar. Full system capability requires the installation and integration of Band 1.5 hardware to provide coverage against threats operating in the lower frequency range. . The F-15 TEWS AN/ALQ-135 Band 1.5 contributes to full-dimensional protection by improving individual aircraft probability of survival through improved air crew situation awareness of the radar guided threat environment, cueing of both active and passive counter measures in Band 1.5 frequency spectrum, and waveform select feature for jamming optimization against specific threats.

AFOTEC was directed to conduct an interim TEWS OA to characterize the operational capabilities and limitations of the fielded systems and assess readiness for IOT&E. The OA concluded in September 1994 recommended five ALQ-135 improvements: interoperability with the APG-70 radar; system response times; built-in-test (BIT) displays; BIT accuracy; and low band frequency coverage for the F-15E (i.e., Band 1.5).

FOT&E operations conducted by the United States Air Force Air Warfare Center (USAFAWC) concluded in August of 1996, addressed ALQ-135 Band 3 ICS interoperability with the APG-70 radar and improvements in the BIT displays. The USAFAWC is currently conducting FOT&E at the Multi-Spectral Threat Environment (MSTE) range located at Eglin AFB to evaluate intra-flight (wing man) compatibility, the advanced threat de-interleave processor (for improved system response times), and jamming effectiveness and BIT upgrades.

History: The ALQ-135 is an outgrowth of an early 1980s feasibility demonstration and follow-on quick reaction capability (QRC) high band jammer developed to counter rapidly changing threats. Developmental problems precipitated a restructuring of the ALQ-135 ICS program in 1988 to provide incremental capabilities. A TEWS EOA of the Phase I Band 3 ICS was planned in July 1989 to support F-15E IOC. However, technical problems delayed EOA start until July 1990. Fifteen sorties were flown against threat simulators on the Eglin AFB, FL range complex in air-to-air and air-to-ground mission scenarios. The ICS demonstrated the capability to identify and counter most current threats in a limited density environment, but the test indicated additional software and hardware development was needed to achieve desired operational capabilities.

David
Tue February 11, 2003 10:23pm

Armor Branch Insignia

ARMOR

Branch Insignia: The front view of an M-26 tank, gun slightly raised, superimposed on two crossed cavalry sabers in scabbards, cutting edge up, 13/16 inch in height overall, of gold color metal.

The Armor insignia, approved in 1950, consists of the traditional crossed sabers (originally adopted for the cavalry in 1851) on which the M-26 tank is superimposed. The design symbolizes the traditional and current roles of armor.

Branch Plaque: The plaque design has the branch insignia, letters and border in gold. The background is green.

Regimental Insignia: Personnel assigned to the Armor branch affiliate with a specific regiment and wear the insignia of the affiliated regiment.

Regimental Coat of Arms: There is no standard armor regimental flag to represent all of the armor regiments. Each regiment of armor has its own coat of arms which appears on the breast of a displayed eagle. The background of all the armor regimental flags is yellow.

Branch Colors: Yellow. 65002 cloth; 67108 yarn; 123 PMS.

In March 1855, two regiments of cavalry were created and their trimmings were to be of "yellow." In 1861, the designation of dragoon and mounted rifleman disappeared, all becoming Cavalry with "yellow" as their colors. Armor was assigned the colors green and white by Circular 49 on 21 February 1947. When the Cavalry branch was abolished, the present Armor was assigned the former Cavalry color yellow by SR 600-60-1 dated 26 October 1951.

Birthday: 12 December 1775. The Armor branch traces its origin to the Cavalry. A regiment of cavalry was authorized to be raised by the Continental Congress Resolve of 12 December 1775. Although mounted units were raised at various times after the Revolution, the first unit in continuous service was the United States Regiment of Dragoons, organized in 1833. The Tank Service was formed 5 March 1918. The Armored Force was formed on 10 July 1940. Armor became a permanent branch of the Army in 1950.

David
Wed February 12, 2003 9:40pm

Armed Forces Reserve Meda

ARMED FORCES RESERVE MEDAL

1. Description: A bronze medal 1 ? inches in diameter, with a flaming torch in front of a crossed powder horn and a bugle within a circle composed of thirteen stars and thirteen rays. On the reverse is a different design for each of the reserve components. The reverse of all medals have the inscription "ARMED FORCES RESERVE" around the rim. Organized Reserve: On a wreath, the Lexington Minuteman statue as it stands on the Common in Lexington, Massachusetts encircled by thirteen stars. National Guard: The National Guard insignia (two crossed fasces superimposed on an eagle displayed with wings reversed. Air Force Reserve: The crest from the Air Forces seal (on a wreath, an eagle displayed in front of a cloud form). Naval Reserve: The center device of the Department of the Navy seal (an eagle displayed on an anchor in front of a ship in full sail). Marine Corps Reserve: The Marine Corps insignia (eagle perched on a globe superimposed on an anchor). Coast Guard Reserve: The central design of the Coast Guard seal (crossed anchors superimposed by a shield within an annulet).

2. Devices: Bronze hourglass to indicate 10 years service; silver hourglass to indicate 20 years service; gold hourglass to indicate 30 years service; letter "M" to indicate mobilization in support of US Military operations or contingencies designated by the Secretary of Defense; and a numeral to indicate number of times mobilized.

3. Ribbon: The ribbon is 1 3/8 inches wide and consists of the following stripes: 1/16 inch Bluebird 67117; 1/32 inch Chamois 67142; 1/16 inch Bluebird; 1/32 inch Chamois; 1/16 inch Bluebird; 3/8 inch Chamois; center 1/8 inch Bluebird; 3/8 inch Chamois; 1/16 inch Bluebird; 1/32 inch Chamois; 1/16 inch Bluebird; 1/32 inch Chamois; and 1/16 inch Bluebird.

4. Criteria: Award under one of the following conditions:

a. Awarded for honorable and satisfactory service as a member of one or more of the Reserve Components of the Armed Forces of the United States for a period of 10 years within a 12-year period. Upon completion of the fourth 10-year period, a gold hourglass followed by a bronze hourglass shall be awarded.

b. Awarded for mobilization on or after 1 August 1990, to members called to active duty and served under Title 10, United States Code (USC) (Defense Department) or Title 14 USC (Coast Guard) or the member volunteered and served on active duty in support of US Military operations or contingencies designated by the Secretary of Defense. The "M" device is worn to indicate mobilization. Subsequent mobilizations are denoted by the wear of a number to indicate the number of times mobilized. No hourglass is worn unless authorized under the above paragraph.

5. Components: the following are components of the Armed Forces Reserve Medal:

a. Medal (regular size): MIL-DTL-3943/231. (Stock number for the full size medal set with ribbon bar.) National Guard: NSN 8455-00-227-1713; USAR: 8455-00-269-5781.

b. Medal (miniature): MIL-DTL-3943/231. Available commercially.

c. Ribbon: MIL-DTL-11589/13. NSN 8455-00-265-4916.

6. Background: The Armed Forces Reserve Medal was authorized by President Truman by Executive Order 10163, dated 25 September 1950. The Executive Order was amended by Executive Order, dated 6 August 1996, to include authorization for award based on mobilization.

7. Wear: If only the "M" device is authorized, it is worn in the center of the ribbon. If both the "M" device and the hourglass are worn, they will be centered with the "M" device to the wearer?s right. If numbers are worn, they will be to the wearer?s left with the hourglass in the center and the "M" device on the right.

David
Fri March 21, 2003 6:21am

Joint Service Lightweight

The Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology or JSLIST consists of a two piece garment designed to replace the Navy's existing Chemical Protection Overgarment (CPO). The JSLIST garment offers a number of advantages over the Navy' s current CPO. The JSLIST garment features state-of-the-art chemical protective lining technology which provides increased chemical protection while allowing more mobility for the wearer, and can be laundered up to three times. The CPO suit contains a charcoal impregnated lining. During wear, this lining is leached onto the wearer causing inner garments to become coated with charcoal dust. The CPO suit would disintegrate if laundered.

In 1993 the U.S. Marine Corps Systems Command, the U.S. Army Aviation and Troop Command, the U.S. Naval Sea Systems Command and the U.S. Air Force Material Command signed a Memorandum of Agreement establishing the JSLIST Program. The program combined development and testing efforts resulting in the procurement of a single U.S. military CBR Garment at a significantly reduced cost.

The U.S. Army Natick Soldier Systems Center is participating in the management, design and development of the next generation chemical/biological protective clothing system. Key requirements of the JSLIST program included protection against chemical/biological agents, a lighter weight, more flexible garment, and the ability to be laundered. Key requirements of the footwear include combined environmental and CB protection, POL resistance, and self flame extinguishing characteristics. In addition, the system is required to be durable, designed to take into account the human factors of (and acceptability to) the user, and reduce the heat stress associated with protective gear.

JSLIST consolidates service programs to develop next generation chemical/biological protective clothing systems into common goal objectives: obtain the best suit possible at the least cost; minimize types of suits in service; maximize economies of scale; and conserve service resources. JSLIST created an avenue for new, potential candidate chemical protective material technologies/prototype ensembles to be evaluated for technical merit and performance. This process screened potential technologies for inclusion into future advanced development programs.

Description:
Components include an Overgarment to be worn over the Battle Dress Uniform (BDU), and the Multipurpose Rain / Snow / CB Overboot (MULO). These items allow complete MOPP and heat stress management flexibility while tailoring the protection levels relative to mission scenarios and threat. Procurement of these items began in FY97.

The JSLIST program developed and is fielding the JSLIST Overgarment and is manufacturing Multi-purpose Overboots (MULO). The JSLIST Overgarment and the Multipurpose Overboot (MULO) were adopted by all four services. These items, when combined with standard CB protective butyl gloves and masks for respiratory protection, allow complete MOPP flexibility. The Joint Firefighter Integrated Response Ensemble (J-FIRE) will also utilize the JSLIST overgarment.

The JSLIST overgarment is designed to replace the Battle Dress Overgarment, the USMC Saratoga, and the Navy Chemical Protective Overgarment. It is lighter and less bulky than the previous Battle Dress Overgarment (BDO) chemical protective garments, is durable for 45 days, can be laundered up to six times and provides 24 hours of protection against liquid and vapor chemical challenges. The overgarment consists of a coat and trousers. The trousers have bellows-type pockets, high-waist, adjustable suspenders, and adjustable waistband. The trousers also have a slide fastener front opening with protective flap and a bellows pocket with flap located on each thigh. Each leg opening has two hook and loop ankle adjustment tabs. The waist-length coat has an integral hood, a slide fastener front concealed by a flap with hook and loop closure, enclosed extendable elasticized drawcord hem with jacket retention cord, full-length sleeves with hoop and loop wrist closure adjustment tabs, and an outside bellows pocket with flap on the left sleeve. The outer shell of both pieces is a 50/50 nylon/cotton poplin ripstop with a durable water repellent finish. The liner layer consists of a nonwoven front laminated to activated carbon spheres and bonded to a tricot knit back. Garments are being procured in 4-color Woodland Camouflage or 3-color Desert Camouflage patterns.

Component Materials: The outer shell is a 50/50 nylon/cotton poplin ripstop with a durable water repellent finish. The liner layer consists of a nonwoven front laminated to activated carbon spheres and bonded to a tricot knit back.

Color: The outer layer is a 40 color Woodland Camouflage pattern or a 3-color Desert Camouflage pattern.

Weight: 2.63 kg (5.8 lbs) per overgarment (Med/Reg)

Size: Coat, 7 sizes, Small/X-Short through Large/Long; Trousers, 7 sizes, Small/X-Short through Large/Long

Basis of Issue: The overgarment will be issued to troops requiring chemical protection.

Price: Coat, Med/Reg $91.80; Trousers, Med/Reg $91.80

NSN: Coat, Med/Reg 8415-01-444-2310; Trousers, Med/Reg 8415-01-444-1238

The JSLIST suit has a five-year shelf life, with an estimated total life of 15 years. Once a production lot of suits has reached five years of age, samples from that lot are visually inspected and chemical agent tested to determine whether the shelf life of that lot should be extended an additional five years with sound confidence of quality / durability. Once the suit reaches ten years of service life it is chemical tested, inspected, and if qualified, is extended annually thereafter. Equipment Assessment Program personnel will perform the visual inspection. The chemical testing will be performed by the Battelle Memorial Institute. Inspection and testing of the JSLIST suits will begin in FY02 (first five year period) for shelf life extension. Representative samples from FY97 production lots will be inspected at that time.

JSLIST suits in packages with some loss of vacuum, but no clearly visible holes or tears, are considered fully mission-capable. If a bag is opened or accidentally torn, and has not been exposed to any petroleum, oil, or lubricant (POL) products or possible contaminants and not damaged in any way, it can be immediately re-packaged or carefully repaired with high quality adhesive tape, "duct tape", or some similar product to re-create the seal, and it will maintain its original shelf life. Repair procedures to the inner bag should not obliterate surveillance data. If a package is visibly torn or punctured with no determination as to when it was damaged or to what contaminants the suit was exposed, the suit should be used for training only. The words training only must be stenciled 2.5 inches high or larger on the outside of a sleeve or leg of the item, in a contrasting colored permanent ink.

The Multi-purpose Overboots (MULO) will replace the black vinyl overboot/ green vinyl overboot (BVO/GVO). The MULO is a 60 day boot that provides 24 hours of chemical protection. The boot has increased traction, improved durability, petroleum, oil, and lubricant (POL) and flame resistance, and better chemical protection than the BVO/GVO.

The focus of Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology Pre-Planned Product Improvement (JSLIST P3I) is to leverage Industry for mature fabric technologies for use in garments. The existing JSLIST design will be used as the baseline, with minimum modification as necessary for improvement. Mature fabric technologies and designs for gloves and socks will be sought as well to address the glove and sock requirements that were not met in JSLIST.

A market survey was conducted in FY97. Materials received from responding forms were evaluated, and material screening was scheduled to be completed in 4FQ98. Field evaluation was projected to start 1QFY99, and technology insertion in 1QFY00.

The JSLIST P3I is a follow-on to the existing JSLIST program which developed a joint service chemical protective ensemble. It will address the JSLIST objectives (i.e. desired) requirements and those that were not met. This joint program will include full participation by the US Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy.

The JSLIST Block 1 Glove Upgrade (JB1GU) Program is seeking an interim glove to replace the current butyl rubber glove. The follow on to the JB1GU will be the JB2GU program that will be produce gloves for both ground and aviation units. The Joint Protective Aircrew Ensemble (JPACE) will be developed to provide aviators with the same advantages and improved protection as JSLIST provides to other warfighters. Similarly, clothing systems for Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) personnel and firefighters are required to enhance existing chemical protection systems.

In an attempt to encourage competition and lower costs, the Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology (JSLIST) program solicited in 4QFY00 for JSLIST overgarments in alternate materials, but having the exact same design as the original JSLIST. The purpose of the JSLIST Additional Source Qualification (JASQ) program is to qualify additional manufacturers to provide JSLIST overgarments. Manufacturers could also submit Industry Initiated Demonstration Products (IIDP) in alternate materials that might require a different design. These though will be evaluated for potential use in future garments and can not be qualified for use as a substitute JSLIST overgarment. After release of Request for Proposal in FY00, four candidate materials and two IIDP candidates were received. All have completed field-testing at 29 Palms, Cold Regions Test Center, and Tropic Test Center 4QFY01 – 2QFY02. Due to funding shortfalls, chemical agent swatch testing has been postponed until 1QFY03. Upon completion of agent testing, the candidates will be evaluated for inclusion on the Qualified Products List (QPL).

Suit shortages are projected to escalate in the next few years because the majority of suits in the current inventory will reach the end of their useful life and expire by 2007, and new Joint Service Lightweight Integrated Suit Technology (JSLIST) suits, along with other new generation protective ensemble components such as gloves and boots, are not entering the inventory as quickly as originally planned. Consequently, the old suits are expiring faster than they are being replaced.

Some ensemble components, particularly suits, may not be available in adequate numbers to meet near-term minimum requirements. As of August 30, 2002, DOD had procured about 1.5 million of the new JSLIST suits, of which the majority were issued to the military services. Others are held in Defense Logistics Agency reserves, provided to foreign governments under the Foreign Military Sales program, or allocated to domestic uses. Together with the existing inventory of earlier-generation suits, it was estimated that DOD had a total of 4.5 million suits.

David
Fri March 21, 2003 6:25am
Rating: 10

David
Fri March 21, 2003 6:25am

David
Fri March 21, 2003 6:30am

M1A2 MBT

The mission of the M1A2 Abrams tank is to close with and destroy enemy forces using firepower, maneuver, and shock effect. The M1A2 is being fielded to armor battalions and cavalry squadrons of the heavy force. In lieu of new production, the Army is upgrading approximately 1,000 older M1 tanks to the M1A2 configuration. Going from the M1A1 to M1A2, the Army did several things that significantly reduced ballistic vulnerability, adding dual, redundant harnesses components, redundant data buses, distributing electrical power systems so all the power controls are not in one place.

During the Army's current M1A2 procurement program about 1,000 older, less capable M1 series tanks will be upgraded to the M1A2 configuration and fielded to the active forces. There is currently no plan to field the M1A2 to the ARNG. The Army has procured 62 new tanks in the A2 configuration and as of early 1997 completed the conversion of 368 older M1s to M1A2s. The first three years of M1A2 Abrams upgrade tank work, between 1991-1993, delivered 267 tanks. A multi-year procurement of 600 M1A2 upgrade tanks was run at Lima [Ohio] Army tank plant from 1996 to 2001.

Further M1A2 improvements, called the System Enhancement Program (SEP), are underway to enhance the tank's digital command and control capabilities and to to improve the tank's fightability and lethality. In FY 1999, the Army began upgrading M1s to the M1A2 System Enhancement Program (SEP) configuration. In 1994, the Army awarded a contract to General Dynamics Land Systems to design system enhancements to the M1A2, and awarded GDLS another contact in 1995 to supply 240 of the enhanced M1A2s, with delivery scheduled to begin in 1999. M1A2 SEP started fielding in 2000. It adds second generation forward looking infrared technology to the gunner's and commander's thermal sights. This sensor also will be added to older M1A2s starting in FY 2001.

A multi-year contract for 307 M1A2 Abrams Systems Enhancement Program (SEP) tanks was awarded in March 2001 with production into 2004. The current Army plan allows for a fleet of 588 M1A2 SEP, 586 M1A2 and 4,393 M1A1 tanks. The potential exits for a retrofit program of 129 M1A2 tanks to the SEP configuration between 2004 and 2005. Initial fielding of the M1A2 to the Army's 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas, was complete by August 1998. Fielding to the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, Ft. Carson, Colorado ended in 2000. Fielding of the M1A2 (SEP) began in spring 2000 with the 4th Infantry Division, Fort Hood, Texas, and continues. Rolling over of the 1st Cavalry Division's M1A2 tanks to new M1A2 (SEP) tank began in 2001 and continues.

The M1A2 SEP (System Enhancement Package), is the digital battlefield centerpiece for Army XXI. It is the heavy force vehicle that will lead Armor into the next century and transition the close combat mission to the Future Combat System (FCS). The M1A2 SEP is an improved version of the M1A2. It contains numerous improvements in command and control, lethality and reliability. The M1A2 System Enhanced Program is an upgrade to the computer core that is the essence of the M1A2 tank. The SEP upgrade includes improved processors, color and high resolution flat panel displays, increased memory capacity, user friendly Soldier Machine Interface (SMI) and an open operating system that will allow for future growth. Major improvements include the integration of the Second Generation Forward Looking Infared (2nd Gen FLIR) sight, the Under Armor Auxiliary Power Unit (UAAPU) and a Thermal Management System (TMS).

Increased funding for Stryker and Future Combat Systems (FCS) came as a result of Army decisions in 2002 to terminate or restructure some 48 systems in the FY '04 - '09 Program Objective Memorandum (POM) long-term spending plan. Among the systems terminated were: United Defense's Crusader self-propelled howitzer and the A3 upgrade for the Bradley Fighting vehicle, GD's M1A2 Abrams System Enhancement Program, Lockheed Martin's Army Tactical Missile System Block II and the associated pre-planned product improvement version of Northrop Grumman's Brilliant Anti-armor (BAT) munition, Raytheon's Stinger missile and Improved Target Acquisition System, and Textron's Wide Area Mine.

The 2nd Generation Forward Looking InfraRed sighting system (2nd Gen FLIR) will replace the existing Thermal Image System (TIS) and the Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer. The incorporation of 2nd Gen FLIR into the M1A2 tank will require replacement of all 1st Gen FLIR components. From the warfighter perspective, this is one of the key improvements on the SEP. The 2nd Gen FLIR is a fully integrated engagement-sighting system designed to provide the gunner and tank commander with significantly improved day and night target acquisition and engagement capability. This system allows 70% better acquisition, 45% quicker firing and greater accuracy. In addition, a gain of 30% greater range for target acquisition and identification will increase lethality and lessen fratricide. The Commander's Independent Thermal Viewer (CITV) provides a hunter killer capability. The 2nd GEN FLIR is a variable power sighting system ranging from 3 or 6 power (wide field of view) for target acquisition and 13, 25 or 50 power (narrow field of view) for engaging targets at appropriate range.

The UAAPU consist of a turbine engine, a generator, and a hydraulic pump. The generator is capable of producing 6 Kilowatts of electrical power at 214 Amps, 28 vdc, and the hydraulic pump is capable of delivering 10 Kilowatts of hydraulic power. The UAAPU can meet the electrical and hydraulic power to operate all electronic and hydraulic components used during mounted surveilance operations and charge the tank's main batteries. The UAAPU will reduce Operational and Support cost by utilizing the same fuel as the tank at a reduced rate of 3-5 gallons per operational hour. The UAAPU is mounted on the left rear sponson fuel cell area and weighs 510 pounds.

Another improvement in the M1A2 SEP is the Thermal Management System (TMS) which keeps the temperature within the crew compartment under 95 degrees and the touch temperature of electronic units under 125 degrees during extreme conditions. By reducing the temperature in the crew compartment for the crew and electronic units, this increases the operational capability for both soldiers and the vehicle. The TMS consists of an Air Handling Unit (AHU) and a Vapor Compression System Unit (VCSU) capable of providing 7.5 Kilowatts of cooling capacity for the crew and Line Repairable Units (LRUs). The AHU is mounted in the turret bustle and the VCSU is mounted forward of the Gunner's Primary Sight (GPS). The TMS uses enviromentally friendly R134a refrigerant and propylene glycol/water mixture to maintain the LRU touch temperature at less than 140 degrees Fahrenheit. The TMS is mounted in the left side of turret bussel and weighs 384 pounds.

The Army requires that all systems operate in the Army Common Operating Environment (ACOE) to improve combined arms operations. Digitization and information dominance across the entire Army for tactical elements is accomplished using Force XXI Battle Command for Brigade and Below (FBCB2) software. In Abrams, FBCB2 software is hosted on a separate card that enables situational awareness across the entire spectrum of tactical operation. It improves message flow, through 34 joint variable message formats, reports ranging from contact reports to logistic roll ups, as well as automatically providing vehicle location to friendly systems. The SEP allows for digital data dissemination with improved ability to optimize information based operations and maintain a relevant common picture while executing Force XXI full dimensional operation. This enhancement increases capability to control the battlefield tempo while improving lethality and survivability. Finally to ensure crew proficiency is maintained, each Armor Battalion is fielded an improved Advanced Gunnery Training System (AGTS) with state-of-the-art graphics.

Changes to the M1A2 Abrams Tank contained in the System Enhancement Program (SEP) and "M1A2 Tank FY 2000" configuration are intended to improve lethality, survivability, mobility, sustainability and provide increased situational awareness and command & control enhancements necessary to provide information superiority to the dominant maneuver force. The Abrams Tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle are two central components of the dominant maneuver digital force.

System Enhancement Program upgrades are intended to:

improve target detection, recognition and identification with the addition of two 2nd generation FLIRs.
incorporate an under armor auxiliary power unit to power the tank and sensor suites.
incorporate a thermal management system to provide crew and electronics cooling.
increase memory and processor speeds and provide full color map capability.
provide compatibility with the Army Command and Control Architecture to ensure the ability to share command & control and situational awareness with all components of the combined arms team.
Additional weight reduction, embedded battle command, survivability enhancement, signature management, safety improvement, and product upgrade modifications to the M1A2 will comprise the "M1A2 Tank FY 2000" configuration fielded to units of the digital division beginning in FY 2000.

The M1A2 IOT&E was conducted from September-December 1993 at Fort Hood, TX and consisted of a gunnery phase and a maneuver phase. The Director determined that the test was adequate, the M1A2 was operationally effective, but not operationally suitable and unsafe. That assessment was based on poor availability and reliability of the tank, instances of the uncommanded tube and turret movement, inadvertent .50 caliber machine gun firing, and hot surfaces which caused contact burns.

FOT&E #1 was conducted in September-October 1995 in conjunction with the New Equipment Training for two battalion sized units. Despite assurances from the Army that all corrective actions were applied, numerous instances of uncommanded tube and turret movement, Commander's Independent Display (CID) lockup and contact burns continued during FOT&E #1. The follow-on test was placed on hold and the Army "deadlined" the two battalions of M1A2 tanks at Fort Hood for safety reasons. The PM isolated 30 "root causes" of the safety problems and completed hardware and software upgrades in June 1996 which were assessed in FOT&E #2.

The M1A2 TEMP was approved during 2QFY98. This TEMP includes a coordinated plan for FOT&E #3 of the M1A2 in conjunction with the IOT&E of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle in FY99 at Fort Hood, TX. This combined operational test will consist of 16 force-on-force battles between a Bradley Fighting Vehicle System-A3/M1A2 SEP combined arms team and M1A1/ Bradley-ODS combined arms team. Additionally, it will serve as the operational test for the 2d Generation FLIR. This approach implements the Secretary of Defense theme of combining testing in order to save resources and ensure a more realistic operational environment.

The Army and DOT&E completed vulnerability assessment efforts and concluded that the "M1A2 Tank FY 2000" is a significant change from the original M1A2 design and will require a system-level survivability evaluation. This evaluation will rely on full-up system level testing of two systems, component and sub-system level testing, modeling and simulation, existing data, and previous testing to assess susceptibility and vulnerability of the "M1A2 Tank FY 2000" and its crew to the expected threat and to assess battle damage repair capabilities.

The M1A2 Abrams Tank with the corrective actions applied by the Program Manager during FY96 is assessed to be operationally effective and suitable. The availability, reliability, fuel consumption, and safety problems observed in previous testing have been corrected. FOT&E #2 was adequately conducted in accordance with approved test plans and the Abrams TEMP. There were no observed instances of the uncommanded tube and turret movement, inadvertent .50 caliber machine gun firing, and hot surfaces which caused contact burns in previous testing.

The largest area of technical risk to the program is the development of the Embedded Battle Command software which is intended to provide friendly and enemy situational awareness and shared command & control information throughout the combined arms team. This software is being developed as a Horizontal Technology Insertion program and will be provided to the weapon systems and C2 nodes of the combined arms team in FY00. This development schedule is high risk and could adversely impact the M1A2 schedule.

In late 2002 the Army experienced a tragic accident involving the M1A2 Abrams main battle tank. While the crew of the M1A2 was operating the vehicle, a failure within the vehicle's Nuclear, Biological, Chemical (NBC) main system occurred which resulted in an NBC filter fire. One soldier died and 9 others received injuries. While there are numerous factors involved in this accident, the primary cause of the NBC Filter fire is an air cycle machine seizure, caused by dirt ingestion.

The M1A2 tank provides various warnings and cautions to crewmembers in the case of an NBC system problem. These warnings and cautions are displayed visually at the Commander's Integrated Display (CID) and at the Driver's Integrated Display (DID); additionally, an Audio tone is transmitted to each crewman via the Vehicular Intercommunication Set (VIS). The audio warning is generated from the tank's Analog Input Module (AIM) by way of the 2W119-5 wiring harness (Y-cable) which is connected to the driver's station, full-function, control box (AN/VIC 3). This Y-cable must be connected to the driver's control box at the J3 connector with the driver's CVC plugged into the P4 end of the Y-cable. Failure to properly hookup the 2W119-5 cable will not interfere with vehicle communications, but it will result in NO NBC warning tone being heard. In addition to the accident vehicle, several other M1A2 tanks at this installation were found to have the same incorrect connection. Commanders should ensure that each M1A2 in their command is inspected to ensure that this system is correctly connected. The NBC system should not be used until the inspection is complete.

If an NBC warning message is given (visually or audio), crews should immediately press NBC MAIN pushbutton on the CID to turn off the NBC main system. Continued use of the NBC main system will result in an NBC filter fire.

The NBC system is a critical component of the M1A2; it provides crews with increased protection when operating in a combat environment. This system requires proper servicing and checks as outlined in the technical manual. Ensure that all NBC sponson bolts and hardware are properly mounted and secure at all times. Failure to do so can result in the build up of dirt and dust within the NBC sponson box with the potential of damaging the Air Cycle Machine (ACM) and other components.

David
Fri March 21, 2003 6:30am

David
Fri March 21, 2003 6:41am

Arrow TMD

Israel began work on a potential theater missile defense (TMD) system in 1986, with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United States. While the threat posed by ballistic missiles has been a concern for Israel since the mid-1980s, Iraqi ballistic missile attacks during the Gulf War underscored the danger posed by the buildup of missile technology in the region. Given the lack of available Israeli resources for TMD development, the United States agreed to co-fund and co-develop an indigenously-produced Israeli TMD system. In 1988, the US and Israel began what was to evolve into a three-phase program to develop the ARROW series of Anti-Tactical Ballistic Missiles (ATBMs).

Arrow II is intended to satisfy the Israeli requirement for an interceptor for defense of military assets and population centers and will support US technology base requirements for new advanced anti-tactical ballistic missile technologies that could be incorporated into the US theater missile defense systems. The Arrow missile, a joint international project with Israel, is a long-range interceptor that offers the United States technology infusion, including lethality data; development of optical window technology applicable to both THAAD and Navy Area Defense programs; data from stage separation at high velocities and dynamic pressures; and, interoperability development that will allow synergistic operations of Arrow with US TMD systems, if required in future contingencies.

The Citron Tree battle management center, built by Tadiran, guides the Arrow 2 interceptor, developed by Israel Aircraft Industries' MLM Division. The entire anti-tactical ballistic missile project is called Homa.

The Arrow 2 system can detect and track incoming missiles as far way as 500 km and can intercept missiles 50-90 km away [some sources suggest the engagement range is 16 to 48km]. The Arrow 2 uses a terminally-guided interceptor warhead to destroy an incoming missile from its launch at an altitude of 10 to 40km at nine times the speed of sound. Since the missile does not need to directly hit the target--detonation within 40-50 meters is sufficient to disable an incoming warhead. The command and control system is designed to respond to as many as 14 simultaneous intercepts.

Comprised of three phases, this intiative began with the Arrow Experiments project (Phase I) that developed the preprototype Arrow I interceptor. Arrow I provided the basis for an informed GOI engineering and manufacturing decision for an ATBM defense capability.

The Phase II ARROW Continuation Experiments (ACES) Program was a continuation of Phase I, and consisted of critical lethality tests using the Arrow I interceptor with the Arrow II warhead and the design, development and test of the Arrow II interceptor. The first phase of ACES, completed in the third quarter FY 94, featured critical lethality tests using the Arrow I interceptor with the Arrow II warhead. Since program initiation in 1988, Israel successfully improved the performance of its pre-prototype Arrow I interceptor to the point that it achieved a successful intercept and target destruction in June 1994. The ACES resulted in a successful missile target intercept by a single stage ARROW-1 interceptor. The second phase of ACES consisted of the design, development and test of the Arrow II interceptor, which achieved two successful intercepts of simulated SCUD missiles on August 20, 1996 and March 11, 1997. The ACES Program ended in FY 1997, upon the completion of ARROW intercept tests.

The third phase is the Arrow Deployability Project (ADP), which began in FY96, aimed at integrating the entire ARROW Weapon System (AWS) with a planned User Operational Evaluation System (UOES) capability. Continuing through 2001, the ADP will be the cornerstone for US/Israeli BMD cooperation. The Arrow Deployability Program involves a total commitment of $500 million over five years, with $300 million contributed by Israel and $200 million from the United States. This will allow for the integration of the jointly developed Arrow interceptor with the Israeli developed fire control radar, launch control center and battle management center. This project will pursue the research and development of technologies associated with the deployment of the Arrow Weapon System (AWS) and will permit the GOI to make a decision regarding deployment of this system without financial participation by the US beyond the R&D stage. This effort will include system-level flight tests of the US-Israeli cooperatively developed Arrow II interceptor supported by the Israeli-developed fire control radar and fire control center.

After US planning activities in FY 94/95, the Arrow Deployability Project (ADP) pursued the research and development of technologies associated with the deployment of the Arrow Weapon System and to permit the Government of Israel to make a decision on its own initiative regarding deployment of this system without financial participation by the US beyond the R&D stage. This effort included three system-level flight tests of the Arrow II interceptor and launcher supported by the Israeli-developed fire control radar and battle management control center. Studies will be done to define interfaces required for Arrow Weapon System interoperability with US TMD systems, lethality, kill assessment and producibility.

Prior to obligation of funds to execute ADP R&D efforts, the President must certify to the Congress that a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) exists with Israel for these projects, that each project provides benefits to the US, that the Arrow missile has completed a successful intercept, and that the Government of Israel continues to adhere to export controls pursuant to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). Subsequent US-Israeli cooperative R&D on other ballistic missile defense concepts would occur in the future.

Although there is a general policy of denial for Category I missile programs as defined in the the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) guidelines, an exception has been made for the Arrow theater missile defense program. In the Arrow program, the challenge the United States faces is to transfer capabilities to defend against missile attacks without releasing technologies for manufacturing missiles.

In a test in September 1998 the Arrow 2 simulated an intercept against a point in space 97 seconds after being fired from the Palmachim military base south of Tel Aviv. The first integrated intercept flight test was successfully conducted in Israel on 01 November 1999. The Green Pine radar detected a Scud-class ballistic target and the Citron Tree battle management center commanded the launch of the Arrow II interceptor and communicated with it in-flight to successfully destroy the incoming missile.

On 27 August 2001, Israel successfully tested the Arrow-2 anti-missile missile in the ninth test of the anti-ballistic missile system. The target was a missile, called the Black Sparrow, which was dropped from an IAF F-15 fighter jet at high altitude. The Arrow-2 Green Pine radar detected the missile, and the Citron fire-control center launched the Arrow-2 interceptor. The target was intercepted about 100 kilometers from the coastline, the highest and farthest that the Arrow-2 had been tested to date.

An interface has been developed and delivered in Israel for AWS interoperability with US TMD systems based on a common JTIDS/Link-16 communications architecture and message protocol. The BMDO-developed Theater Missile Defense System Exerciser (TMDSE) will conduct interactive simulation exercises to test, assess, and validate the JTIDS-based interoperability between the AWS and US TMD systems. Once the TMDSE experiments are completed in FY01, the AWS will be certified as fully interoperable with any deployed US TMD systems.

Israel planned to defend itself against short- and medium-range ballistic missile attacks with two Arrow 2 batteries located at only two strategic sites. According to its original 1986 schedule, the Arrow system was supposed to enter operational service in 1995. By 2000 Israel was reported to have deployed several batteries of Arrow-2 anti-missile missiles. According to some [probably erroneous] reports, these were along the Israeli- Lebanese borders.

The first Arrow Weapon System (AWS) battery was deployed in Israel in early 2000. The first battery of the Arrow missiles is deployed in the center of the country, with the newly developed missile defense system entering operation on 12 March 2000. According to some reports, the first Arrow battery was operational at the Palmachim base [some reports suggest that the first battery was in the southern Negev desert at the Dimona nuclear facility].

Israel is built a second state-of-the-art anti-missile battery in the center of the country to fend off missile attacks. A second battery is to be placed at Ein Shemer east of Hadera, but was delayed by strong opposition from residents who claim its radar would be hazardous to their health. The new battery, about six miles from the central town of Hadera, was officially "for training purposes" as of mid-2002, but the sources said it already had operational capability. By late 2002 Israel was trying to make the second battery operational before any American attack on Iraq. The Arrow missile launchers from the second battery could be linked to the Green Pine radar of the Palmachim battery to improve its effectiveness.

Israel had originally planned to deploy two Arrow 2 batteries but has since sought and won promises of funding for a third battery. The US Congress approved the funding of $81.6 million toward the cost of a third batteries. Each battery reportedly costs about $170m.

The joint US-Israeli project, which includes missiles, interceptor launcher batteries, the Green Pine radar and the Citron Tree fire-control system, cost $1.3 billion to develop. The final bill is expected to be double the billion dollars spent so far. This cost could be reduced if the Arrow 2 is sold to other countries which have expressed interest - such as Great Britain, Turkey, Japan and reportedly India.

The Green Pine radar used by the Arrow 2 was sold to India with US approval, and was deployed in India in 2001. In early 2002 American officials sought to stop Israel from selling the Arrow 2 interceptor missile to India, arguing that the sale would violate the Missile Technology Control Regime. Although the Arrow 2 interceptor could possibly achieve a range of 300 km, it is designed for intercepts at shorter ranges, and it is unclear whether it could carry a 500-kg payload to the 300-km range specified in the MTCR.

David
Fri March 21, 2003 6:41am

Prev Page · Next Page

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:05 AM.