David
Tue February 11, 2003 12:53pm
|
LGM-30 Minuteman III
Function: The LGM-30G Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) is an element of the nation's strategic deterrent forces.
Description: The Minuteman is a strategic weapon system using a ballistic missile of intercontinental range. Missiles are dispersed in hardened silos to protect against attack and connected to an underground launch control center through a system of hardened cables. Launch crews, consisting of two officers, perform around-the-clock alert in the launch control center. A variety of communication systems provide the National Command Authorities with highly reliable, virtually instantaneous direct contact with each launch crew. Should command capability be lost between the launch control center and remote missile launch facilities, specially-configured E-6B airborne launch control center aircraft automatically assume command and control of the isolated missile or missiles. Fully qualified airborne missile combat crews aboard airborne launch control center aircraft would execute the NCA orders. An extensive life extension program is under way to keep the missiles safe, secure and reliable well into the 21st century. These major programs include: replacement of the aging guidance system, remanufacture of the solid-propellant rocket motors, replacement of standby power systems, repair of launch facilities, and installation of updated, survivable communications equipment, and new command and control consoles to enhance immediate communications.
History: The Minuteman weapon system was conceived in the late 1950s and Minuteman I was deployed in the early 1960s. Minuteman was a revolutionary concept and an extraordinary technical achievement. Both the missile and basing components incorporated significant advances beyond the relatively slow-reacting, liquid-fueled, remotely-controlled intercontinental ballistic missiles of the previous generation. From the beginning, Minuteman missiles have provided a quick-reacting, inertially guided, highly survivable component to America's nuclear Triad. Minuteman's maintenance concept capitalizes on high reliability and a "remove and replace" approach to achieve a near 100 percent alert rate. Through state-of-the-art improvements, the Minuteman system has evolved to meet new challenges and assume new missions. Modernization programs have resulted in new versions of the missile, expanded targeting options, improved accuracy and survivability. Today's Minuteman weapon system is the product of almost 35 years of continuous enhancement. The current Minuteman force consists of 500 Minuteman III's located at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., Malmstrom AFB, Mont., and Minot AFB, N.D. The last round of base realignment and closing decisions has forced a realignment of Minuteman missiles from Grand Forks AFB, N.D., to Malmstrom AFB. The possible implementation of Start II, means that Minuteman III will become the only land-based ICBM in the Triad.
General Characteristics, LGM-30 Minuteman III
Contractor:
Boeing Corporation
Power Plant:
Three solid-propellant rocket motors
First stage: Thiokol
Second stage: Aerojet-General
Third stage - United Technologies Chemical Systems Division
Thrust:
First stage, 202,600 pounds
Length:
59.9 feet (18 meters)
Weight:
79,432 pounds (32,158 kilograms)
Diameter:
5.5 feet (1.67 meters)
Range:
6,000-plus miles (5,218 nautical miles)
Speed:
Approximately 15,000 mph (Mach 23 or 24,000 kph) at burnout
Ceiling:
700 miles (1,120 kilometers)
Load:
Re-entry vehicle: Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space MK 12 or MK 12A
Guidance System:
Inertial system: Boeing North American
Ground electronic/security system: Sylvania Electronics Systems and Boeing Co.
Inventory:
Active force, 500
ANG, 0
Reserve, 0
Date Deployed:
June 1970, production cessation: December 1978
Unit Cost:
$7 million
|
|
David
Tue February 11, 2003 1:14pm
|
Milstar Satellite Communi
Function: Global surviving and enduring military communications system.
Description: Milstar is a joint service satellite communications system that provides worldwide secure, jam resistant and low probability of detection nuclear-event resistant communications for all forces across the spectrum of conflict.
The multi-satellite constellation will link command authorities with a wide variety of resources, including ships, submarines, aircraft, land vehicles and manned-portable systems.
Milstar is the most advanced military communications satellite system to date and represents the future of the U.S. communications capability. The operational Milstar satellite constellation will consist of four satellites positioned around the Earth in geosynchronous orbits. Each mid-latitude satellite weighs approximately 10,000 pounds (4,536 kilograms) and have a design life of 10 years.
Each Milstar satellite serves as a smart switchboard in space by directing traffic from terminal to terminal anywhere on the Earth. Since the satellite actually processes the communications signal and can link with other Milstar satellites through crosslinks, the requirement for ground controlled switching is significantly reduced. The satellite establishes, maintains, reconfigures and disassembles required communications circuits as directed by the users. Milstar terminals provide encrypted voice, data, teletype or facsimile communications. A key goal of Milstar is to provide interoperable communications among the users of Army, Navy, and Air Force Milstar terminals.
Geographically dispersed mobile and fixed control stations provide survivable and enduring operational command and control for the Milstar constellation.
The Milstar system is composed of three segments: space (the satellites), terminal (the users), and mission control. Air Force Materiel Command's Space and Missile Systems Center (SMC) at Los Angeles AFB, CA, is responsible for development and acquisition of the Milstar space and mission control segments. The Electronics Systems Center (ESC) at Hanscom AFB, MA is responsible for the Air Force portion of the terminal segment development and acquisition. The 4th Space Operations Squadron at Schriever AFB, CO, is the front line organization providing real time satellite platform control and communications payload management.
History: The first Milstar satellite was launched Feb. 7, 1994 aboard a Titan IV expendable launch vehicle. The second was launched Nov. 5, 1995. Beginning with the fourth launch in 2000, the satellites will have greatly increased capacity because of an additional medium data rate payload. A total of three launches remain.
General Characteristics, Milistar Satellite Communications System
Primary Contractor:
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Space
Power Plant:
Solar panels generating 5,000 watts
Payload:
All satellites: Low data rate communications (voice, data, teletype and facsimile) at 75 bps to 2,400 bps
Medium data rate communications (voice, data, teletype, facsimile) at 4.8 kbps to 1.544 bps (Satellites 4 through 6 only)
Weight:
About 10,000 pounds (4,536 kilograms)
Orbit Altitude:
22,300 nautical miles (inclined geostationary orbit)
Launch Vehicle:
Titan IVB/Centaur upper stage
Inventory:
2
Unit Replacement Cost:
$800 million
|
|
David
Tue February 11, 2003 1:14pm
|
Defense Support Program S
Function: Primary mission: Strategic and tactical missile launch detection.
Description: Air Force Space Command-operated Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites are a key part of North America's early warning systems. In their 22,000 miles-plus geosynchronous orbits, DSP satellites help protect the United States and its allies by detecting missile launches, space launches and nuclear detonations.
DSP satellites use an infrared sensor to detect heat from missile and booster plumes against the earth's background. In 1995, a new means of processing DSP data called Attack and Launch Early Reporting to Theater (ALERT) was brought on line. This capability provides improved warning of attack by short-range missiles against U.S. and allied forces overseas.
Numerous improvement projects have enabled DSP to provide accurate, reliable data in the face of evolving missile threats. On-station sensor reliability has provided uninterrupted service well past their design lifetime. Recent technological improvements include enhanced sensor resolution, increased on-board signal-processing capability to improve clutter rejection, and enhanced reliability and survivability improvements. In the 21st century, the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS) will replace DSP.
The 21st Space Wing, located at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo., has units that operate DSP satellites and report warning information, via communications links, to the North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Space Command early warning centers within Cheyenne Mountain, located near Colorado Springs, Colo. These centers immediately forward data to various agencies and areas of operations around the world.
The 50th Space Wing at Schriever AFB, Colo., provides command and control support for the satellites.
The Defense Support Program is managed by Space and Missile Systems Center (Air Force Materiel Command), Space Based Infrared System Program office at Los Angeles AFB, Calif. The office is responsible for development and acquisition of the satellites.
Typically, DSP satellites are launched into geosynchronous orbit on a Titan IV booster and inertial upper stage combination. However, one DSP satellite was launched using the space shuttle on mission STS-44 (Nov. 24, 1991).
History: The program came to life with the first launch of a DSP satellite in the early 1970s. Since that time, DSP satellites have provided an uninterrupted early warning capability. The original DSP weighed 2,000 pounds and had 400 watts of power, 2,000 detectors and a design life of 1.25 years. In the 1970s, the satellite was upgraded to meet new mission requirements. As a result, the weight grew to 5,250 pounds, the power to 1,275 watts, the number of detectors increased by threefold to 6,000 and the design life was three years with a goal of five years.
DSP's effectiveness was proven during Desert Storm, when DSP detected the launch of Iraqi Scud missiles and provided warning to civilian populations and coalition forces in Israel and Saudi Arabia.
?General Characteristics, Defense Support Program Satellites
Contractor Team:
Thompson Ramo Woolridge (TRW) and Aerojet Electronics Systems
Power Plant:
Solar arrays generate 1,485 watts
Weight:
5,250 pounds (2,386 kilograms)
Height:
32.8 feet (10 meters) on orbit
28 feet (8.5 meters) at launch
Diameter:
22 feet (6.7 meters) on orbit
13.7 feet (4.2 meters) at launch
Design Life:
Block II/IIA: 7.5 years
Block IIR: 10 years
Orbit Altitude:
22,000 miles (35,200 kilometers)
Date Deployed:
1970
Latest Satellite Block:
Sat 23
Inventory:
Classified
Unit Replacement Cost:
$400 million
|
|
David
Fri March 21, 2003 6:17am
|
High-power microwave (HPM
High-power microwave (HPM) sources have been under investigation for several years as potential weapons for a variety of combat, sabotage, and terrorist applications. Due to classification restrictions, details of this work are relatively unknown outside the military community and its contractors. A key point to recognize is the insidious nature of HPM. Due to the gigahertz-band frequencies (4 to 20 GHz) involved, HPM has the capability to penetrate not only radio front-ends, but also the most minute shielding penetrations throughout the equipment. At sufficiently high levels, as discussed, the potential exists for significant damage to devices and circuits. For these reasons, HPM should be of interest to the broad spectrum of EMC practitioners.
Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) and High Powered Microwave (HMP) Weapons offer a significant capability against electronic equipment susceptible to damage by transient power surges. This weapon generates a very short, intense energy pulse producing a transient surge of thousands of volts that kills semiconductor devices. The conventional EMP and HMP weapons can disable non-shielded electronic devices including practically any modern electronic device within the effective range of the weapon.
The effectiveness of an EMP device is determined by the power generated and the characteristic of the pulse. The shorter pulse wave forms, such as microwaves, are far more effective against electronic equipment and more difficult to harden against. Current efforts focus on converting the energy from an explosive munitions to supply the electromagnetic pulse. This method produces significant levels of directionally focused electromagnetic energy.
Future advances may provide the compactness needed to weaponize the capability in a bomb or missile warhead. Currently, the radius of the weapon is not as great as nuclear EMP effects. Open literature sources indicate that effective radii of “hundreds of meters or more” are possible. EMP and HPM devices can disable a large variety of military or infrastructure equipment over a relatively broad area. This can be useful for dispersed targets.
A difficulty is determining the appropriate level of energy to achieve the desired effects. This will require detailed knowledge of the target equipment and the environment (walls, buildings). The obvious counter-measure is the shielding or hardening of electronic equipment. Currently, only critical military equipment is hardened e.g., strategic command and control systems. Hardening of existing equipment is difficult and adds significant weight and expense. As a result, a large variety of commercial and military equipment will be susceptible to this type of attack.
The US Navy reportedly used a new class of highly secret, non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse warheads during the opening hours of the Persian Gulf War to disrupt and destroy Iraqi electronics systems. The warheads converted the energy of a conventional explosion into a pulse of radio energy. The effect of the microwave attacks on Iraqi air defense and headquarters was difficult to determine because the effects of the HPM blasts were obscured by continuous jamming, the use of stealthy F-117 aircraft, and the destruction of Iraq's electrical grid. The warheads used during the Gulf War were experimental warheads, not standard weapons deployed with fielded forces.
Col. William G. Heckathorn, commander of the Phillips Research Site and the deputy director of the Directed Energy Directorate of the Air Force Research Laboratory, was presented the Legion of Merit medal during special retirement ceremonies in May 1998. In a citation accompanying the medal, Col. Heckathorn was praised for having provided superior vision, leadership, and direct guidance that resulted in the first high-power microwave weapon prototypes delivered to the warfighter. The citation noted that "Col. Heckathorn united all directed energy development within Army, Navy and Air Force, which resulted in an efficient, focused, warfighter-oriented tri-service research program." In December of 1994 he came to Kirtland to become the director of the Advanced Weapons and Survivability Directorate at the Phillips Laboratory. Last year he became the commander of the Phillips Laboratory while still acting as the director of the Advanced Weapons and Survivability Directorate.
As with a conventional munition, a microwave munition is a "single shot" munition that has a similar blast and fragmentation radius. However, while the explosion produces a blast, the primary mission is to generate the energy that powers the microwave device. Thus, for a microwave munition, the primary kill mechanism is the microwave energy, which greatly increases the radius and the footprint by, in some cases, several orders of magnitude. For example, a 2000-pound microwave munition will have a minimum radius of approximately 200 meters, or footprint of approximately 126,000 square meters.
Studies have examined the incorporation of a high power microwave weapon into the weapons bay of a conceptual uninhabited combat aerial vehicle. The CONOPS, electromagnetic compatibility and hardening (to avoid a self-kill), power requirements and potential power supplies, and antenna characteristics have been analyzed. Extensive simulations of potential antennas have been performed. The simulations examined the influence of the aircraft structure on the antenna patterns and the levels of leakage through apertures in the weapons bay. Other investigations examined issues concerning the electromagnetic shielding effectiveness of composite aircraft structures.
Collateral damage from E-bombs is dependent on the size and design of the specific bomb. An E-bomb that utilizes explosive power to obtain its damaging microwaves will result in typical blast and shrapnel damage. Ideally, an E-Bomb would be designed to minimize and dissipate most of the mechanical collateral damage. Human exposure to microwave radiation is hazardous within several meters of the epicenter. However, there is a relatively low risk of bodily damage at further distances.
Any non-military electronics within range of the E-bomb that have not been protected have a high probability of being damaged or destroyed. The best way to defend against E-bomb attack is to destroy the platform or delivery vehicle in which the E-bomb resides. Another method of protection is to keep all essential electronics within an electrically conductive enclosure, called a Faraday cage. This prevents the damaging electromagentic field from interacting with vital equipment. The problem with Faraday cages is that most vital equipment needs to be in contact with the outside world. This contact point can allow the electromagentic field to enter the cage, which ultimately renders the enclosure useless. There are ways to protect against these Faraday cage flaws, but the fact remains that this is a dangerous weakpoint. In most circumstances E-bombs are categorized as 'non-lethal weapons' because of the minimal collateral damage they create. The E-bomb's 'non-lethal' categorization gives military commanders more politically-friendly options to choose from.
|
|
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
|
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 6:49am
|
Patriot PAC-3 ERINT
Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) is a high/medium advanced surface-to-air guided missile air defense system. PAC-3 is a major upgrade to the Patriot system. The PAC-3 Operational Requirements Document (ORD) represents the Army Air Defense need to buy back required battlespace lost against the current and evolving tactical missile and air breathing threat. PAC-3 is needed to ounter/defeat/destroy the 2008 threat and to extend Patriot's capabilities to accomplish new/revised missions. In tandem with the upgraded radar and ground control station, PAC-3 interceptors can protect an area about seven times greater than the original Patriot system.
The PAC-3 Program consists of two interrelated acquisition programs - The PAC-3 Growth Program and the PAC-3 Missile Program. The Growth program consists of integrated, complementary improvements that will be implemented by a series of phased, incrementally fielded material changes. The PAC-3 Missile program is a key component of the overall improvements of the Patriot system, it will provide essential increases in battlespace, accuracy, and kill potential.
PAC-3 is a much more capable derivative of the PAC-2/GEM system in terms of both coverage and lethality. The PAC-3 has a new interceptor missile with a different kill mechanism--rather than having an exploding warhead, it is a hit-to-kill system. The PAC-3 missile is a smaller and highly efficient missile. The canister is approximately the same size as a PAC-2 canister but contains four missiles and tubes instead of a single round. Selected Patriot launching stations will be modified to accept PAC-3 canisters.
The Battalion Tactical Operations Center (BTOC) is an M900 series 5-ton expandable van that has been modified by the addition of data processing and display equipment, and utilized by the battalion staff to command and control the Patriot battalion. The BTOC allows the staff to perform automated tactical planning, communications link planning, and to display situational awareness information.
In the 1997 budget DOD added about $230 million for the PAC-3 through the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) and established a realistic schedule to lower the program execution risk by extending the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase of the program by ten months. System performance will be improved by re-phasing the missile and radar procurements; upgrading three launchers per battery with Enhanced Launcher Electronics Systems; and extending the battery's remote launch capability. PAC-3 Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) will begin in the second quarter of fiscal year 1998, and the First Unit Equipped (FUE) date is planned for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1999. The FUE capability will consist of 16 missiles and five radars which will be placed in one battalion. As of 1996, in addition to funds being programmed for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, the Army planned to spend $9.6 billion for all planned purchases of Patriot missiles, $490 million for modifications and $335 million for product improvements.
The Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) began in 2002. The two major objectives of the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) are: (1) To assess the improvements in system performance provided by modifications in terms of operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability; (2) to verify that modifications do not degrade the existing capabilities. The Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) will be the first operational integration and assessment of the complete Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Configuration 3 system.
The 2nd Battalion 43rd Air Defense Artillery/108th Air Defense Artillery Brigade serves as the test unit for the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE). The unit is equipped with the complete package of Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Configuration 3 hardware, PDB-5+ software and the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) missile. The Patriot Project Office has issued the upgraded equipment to 2-43 Air Defense Artillery. 2-43 has completed New Equipment Training (NET) and supports testing necessary to obtain material release of the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Missile equipment.
The Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) is conducted in four phases: (1) The Sustained Operations Phase is a five-day deployment to McGregor Range using approved tactics and doctrine. 2-43 Air Defense Artillery will defend against live aircraft in accordance with threat test support package in a simulated combat environment; (2) The Interoperability Phase is a six-day demonstration of the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) interoperability with current Army and Joint Theater Missile Defense Systems. This phase is conducted using the Joint Common Simulated Missile Defense System Exerciser or actual tactical equipment; (3) The Flight Mission Simulator (FMS) Phase is a 22-day test of simulated air battles. The mobile Flight Mission Simulator (FMS) is a Patriot missile system simulation used to stimulate and evaluate radar performance, engagement decision and weapon assignment (EDWA) processing and test the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3)’s capabilities against a full spectrum of threat targets; (4) The Missile Flight Test Phase consists of four live missile tests conducted at White Sands Missile Range and Kwajalein Missile Range.
The Air Defense Artillery Directorate of the Operational Test Command conducts the planning and execution of the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE). Once Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) is complete, the Army Evaluation Center prepares the system evaluation report. This report provides input for the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) missile Milestone III decision (full rate production) and the materiel release for the complete Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) system.
Four PAC-3 operational tests [some involving more than one interceptor launch] between February 2002 and May 2002 resulted in three launch failures, two misses and one hit that failed to destroy the incoming warhead. A malfunctioning radar and software problems led to the misses, and the launch failures resulted from electrical problems.
The Army received the first 16 PAC-3s -- a full launcher load -- in September 2001. The Army is authorized to produce the missiles at a rate of 72 a year, and Congress authorize an increase to 96 per year in fiscal 2003. The plan is to eventually produce 144 a year, leading to a total inventory of 1,159 interceptors. Unable to certify that the PAC-3 interceptor was ready for stepped-up production, in mid-2002 Pentagon put off the decision for at least a year, and planned on further testing once fixes are in place.
By early 2000 the cost of each PAC-3 missile had increased from $1.9 million to over $4 million, and the estimated total program cost had risen from $3.9 billion to $6.9 billion. After design and manufacturing modifications were initiated to control costs, the estimted cost per missile dropped to about $3 million, and as of mid-2002 program officials expected to reduce the unit cost to $2 million.
Initial reports of a successful intercept of a Patriot missile-as-target by a Pac-3 missile on 25 April 2002 have sinced proven to be incorrect. A US Army statement said that subsequent analysis showed that the Pac-3 impacted the target missile but failed to destroy the warhead, so the intercept was unsuccessful. A second Pac-3 in the same test failed to launch. A PAC-3 missile successfully intercepted a target ballistic missile over Kwajalein Atoll on 30 May 2002. A second missile, however, failed to launch for unknown reasons. A failure to launch also occurred in the last test on 25 April. The target was a modified Minuteman missile with a separating reentry vehicle. This was the last test in the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) program, prior to a Pentagon assessment of PAC-3’s readiness for full-rate production.
As of late October 2002 the Army had taken delivery of 38 PAC-3 missiles, with another 15 due for delivery by December. The military is under contract to receive an additional 126 missiles over the 2003-2004 period. Congress increased the fiscal year 2003 budget request for PAC-3 of 72 missiles by an additional 48 missiles. In late November 2002, DOD approved plans to double PAC-3 monthly production rates, with the number of missiles increasing from four to eight per month after more manufacturing equipment and a second shift of personnel were added. DOD will acquire 108 PAC-3 missiles in FY 2004.
The overall procurement objective of 1,159 PAC-3 missiles remains unchanged. The larger purchases in FY-03 and FY-04 may be offset by lower production in FY-08 and FY-09. Instead of buying 216 missiles in each of those years, DOD would receive 184 units annually.
|
|
David
Fri March 21, 2003 6:49am
|
Patriot PAC-3 ERINT
Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) is a high/medium advanced surface-to-air guided missile air defense system. PAC-3 is a major upgrade to the Patriot system. The PAC-3 Operational Requirements Document (ORD) represents the Army Air Defense need to buy back required battlespace lost against the current and evolving tactical missile and air breathing threat. PAC-3 is needed to ounter/defeat/destroy the 2008 threat and to extend Patriot's capabilities to accomplish new/revised missions. In tandem with the upgraded radar and ground control station, PAC-3 interceptors can protect an area about seven times greater than the original Patriot system.
The PAC-3 Program consists of two interrelated acquisition programs - The PAC-3 Growth Program and the PAC-3 Missile Program. The Growth program consists of integrated, complementary improvements that will be implemented by a series of phased, incrementally fielded material changes. The PAC-3 Missile program is a key component of the overall improvements of the Patriot system, it will provide essential increases in battlespace, accuracy, and kill potential.
PAC-3 is a much more capable derivative of the PAC-2/GEM system in terms of both coverage and lethality. The PAC-3 has a new interceptor missile with a different kill mechanism--rather than having an exploding warhead, it is a hit-to-kill system. The PAC-3 missile is a smaller and highly efficient missile. The canister is approximately the same size as a PAC-2 canister but contains four missiles and tubes instead of a single round. Selected Patriot launching stations will be modified to accept PAC-3 canisters.
The Battalion Tactical Operations Center (BTOC) is an M900 series 5-ton expandable van that has been modified by the addition of data processing and display equipment, and utilized by the battalion staff to command and control the Patriot battalion. The BTOC allows the staff to perform automated tactical planning, communications link planning, and to display situational awareness information.
In the 1997 budget DOD added about $230 million for the PAC-3 through the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) and established a realistic schedule to lower the program execution risk by extending the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase of the program by ten months. System performance will be improved by re-phasing the missile and radar procurements; upgrading three launchers per battery with Enhanced Launcher Electronics Systems; and extending the battery's remote launch capability. PAC-3 Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) will begin in the second quarter of fiscal year 1998, and the First Unit Equipped (FUE) date is planned for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1999. The FUE capability will consist of 16 missiles and five radars which will be placed in one battalion. As of 1996, in addition to funds being programmed for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, the Army planned to spend $9.6 billion for all planned purchases of Patriot missiles, $490 million for modifications and $335 million for product improvements.
The Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) began in 2002. The two major objectives of the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) are: (1) To assess the improvements in system performance provided by modifications in terms of operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability; (2) to verify that modifications do not degrade the existing capabilities. The Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) will be the first operational integration and assessment of the complete Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Configuration 3 system.
The 2nd Battalion 43rd Air Defense Artillery/108th Air Defense Artillery Brigade serves as the test unit for the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE). The unit is equipped with the complete package of Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Configuration 3 hardware, PDB-5+ software and the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) missile. The Patriot Project Office has issued the upgraded equipment to 2-43 Air Defense Artillery. 2-43 has completed New Equipment Training (NET) and supports testing necessary to obtain material release of the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Missile equipment.
The Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) is conducted in four phases: (1) The Sustained Operations Phase is a five-day deployment to McGregor Range using approved tactics and doctrine. 2-43 Air Defense Artillery will defend against live aircraft in accordance with threat test support package in a simulated combat environment; (2) The Interoperability Phase is a six-day demonstration of the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) interoperability with current Army and Joint Theater Missile Defense Systems. This phase is conducted using the Joint Common Simulated Missile Defense System Exerciser or actual tactical equipment; (3) The Flight Mission Simulator (FMS) Phase is a 22-day test of simulated air battles. The mobile Flight Mission Simulator (FMS) is a Patriot missile system simulation used to stimulate and evaluate radar performance, engagement decision and weapon assignment (EDWA) processing and test the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3)’s capabilities against a full spectrum of threat targets; (4) The Missile Flight Test Phase consists of four live missile tests conducted at White Sands Missile Range and Kwajalein Missile Range.
The Air Defense Artillery Directorate of the Operational Test Command conducts the planning and execution of the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE). Once Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) is complete, the Army Evaluation Center prepares the system evaluation report. This report provides input for the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) missile Milestone III decision (full rate production) and the materiel release for the complete Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) system.
Four PAC-3 operational tests [some involving more than one interceptor launch] between February 2002 and May 2002 resulted in three launch failures, two misses and one hit that failed to destroy the incoming warhead. A malfunctioning radar and software problems led to the misses, and the launch failures resulted from electrical problems.
The Army received the first 16 PAC-3s -- a full launcher load -- in September 2001. The Army is authorized to produce the missiles at a rate of 72 a year, and Congress authorize an increase to 96 per year in fiscal 2003. The plan is to eventually produce 144 a year, leading to a total inventory of 1,159 interceptors. Unable to certify that the PAC-3 interceptor was ready for stepped-up production, in mid-2002 Pentagon put off the decision for at least a year, and planned on further testing once fixes are in place.
By early 2000 the cost of each PAC-3 missile had increased from $1.9 million to over $4 million, and the estimated total program cost had risen from $3.9 billion to $6.9 billion. After design and manufacturing modifications were initiated to control costs, the estimted cost per missile dropped to about $3 million, and as of mid-2002 program officials expected to reduce the unit cost to $2 million.
Initial reports of a successful intercept of a Patriot missile-as-target by a Pac-3 missile on 25 April 2002 have sinced proven to be incorrect. A US Army statement said that subsequent analysis showed that the Pac-3 impacted the target missile but failed to destroy the warhead, so the intercept was unsuccessful. A second Pac-3 in the same test failed to launch. A PAC-3 missile successfully intercepted a target ballistic missile over Kwajalein Atoll on 30 May 2002. A second missile, however, failed to launch for unknown reasons. A failure to launch also occurred in the last test on 25 April. The target was a modified Minuteman missile with a separating reentry vehicle. This was the last test in the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) program, prior to a Pentagon assessment of PAC-3’s readiness for full-rate production.
As of late October 2002 the Army had taken delivery of 38 PAC-3 missiles, with another 15 due for delivery by December. The military is under contract to receive an additional 126 missiles over the 2003-2004 period. Congress increased the fiscal year 2003 budget request for PAC-3 of 72 missiles by an additional 48 missiles. In late November 2002, DOD approved plans to double PAC-3 monthly production rates, with the number of missiles increasing from four to eight per month after more manufacturing equipment and a second shift of personnel were added. DOD will acquire 108 PAC-3 missiles in FY 2004.
The overall procurement objective of 1,159 PAC-3 missiles remains unchanged. The larger purchases in FY-03 and FY-04 may be offset by lower production in FY-08 and FY-09. Instead of buying 216 missiles in each of those years, DOD would receive 184 units annually.
|
|
David
Fri March 21, 2003 6:49am
|
Patriot PAC-3 ERINT
Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) is a high/medium advanced surface-to-air guided missile air defense system. PAC-3 is a major upgrade to the Patriot system. The PAC-3 Operational Requirements Document (ORD) represents the Army Air Defense need to buy back required battlespace lost against the current and evolving tactical missile and air breathing threat. PAC-3 is needed to ounter/defeat/destroy the 2008 threat and to extend Patriot's capabilities to accomplish new/revised missions. In tandem with the upgraded radar and ground control station, PAC-3 interceptors can protect an area about seven times greater than the original Patriot system.
The PAC-3 Program consists of two interrelated acquisition programs - The PAC-3 Growth Program and the PAC-3 Missile Program. The Growth program consists of integrated, complementary improvements that will be implemented by a series of phased, incrementally fielded material changes. The PAC-3 Missile program is a key component of the overall improvements of the Patriot system, it will provide essential increases in battlespace, accuracy, and kill potential.
PAC-3 is a much more capable derivative of the PAC-2/GEM system in terms of both coverage and lethality. The PAC-3 has a new interceptor missile with a different kill mechanism--rather than having an exploding warhead, it is a hit-to-kill system. The PAC-3 missile is a smaller and highly efficient missile. The canister is approximately the same size as a PAC-2 canister but contains four missiles and tubes instead of a single round. Selected Patriot launching stations will be modified to accept PAC-3 canisters.
The Battalion Tactical Operations Center (BTOC) is an M900 series 5-ton expandable van that has been modified by the addition of data processing and display equipment, and utilized by the battalion staff to command and control the Patriot battalion. The BTOC allows the staff to perform automated tactical planning, communications link planning, and to display situational awareness information.
In the 1997 budget DOD added about $230 million for the PAC-3 through the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) and established a realistic schedule to lower the program execution risk by extending the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase of the program by ten months. System performance will be improved by re-phasing the missile and radar procurements; upgrading three launchers per battery with Enhanced Launcher Electronics Systems; and extending the battery's remote launch capability. PAC-3 Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) will begin in the second quarter of fiscal year 1998, and the First Unit Equipped (FUE) date is planned for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1999. The FUE capability will consist of 16 missiles and five radars which will be placed in one battalion. As of 1996, in addition to funds being programmed for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, the Army planned to spend $9.6 billion for all planned purchases of Patriot missiles, $490 million for modifications and $335 million for product improvements.
The Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) began in 2002. The two major objectives of the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) are: (1) To assess the improvements in system performance provided by modifications in terms of operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability; (2) to verify that modifications do not degrade the existing capabilities. The Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) will be the first operational integration and assessment of the complete Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Configuration 3 system.
The 2nd Battalion 43rd Air Defense Artillery/108th Air Defense Artillery Brigade serves as the test unit for the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE). The unit is equipped with the complete package of Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Configuration 3 hardware, PDB-5+ software and the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) missile. The Patriot Project Office has issued the upgraded equipment to 2-43 Air Defense Artillery. 2-43 has completed New Equipment Training (NET) and supports testing necessary to obtain material release of the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Missile equipment.
The Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) is conducted in four phases: (1) The Sustained Operations Phase is a five-day deployment to McGregor Range using approved tactics and doctrine. 2-43 Air Defense Artillery will defend against live aircraft in accordance with threat test support package in a simulated combat environment; (2) The Interoperability Phase is a six-day demonstration of the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) interoperability with current Army and Joint Theater Missile Defense Systems. This phase is conducted using the Joint Common Simulated Missile Defense System Exerciser or actual tactical equipment; (3) The Flight Mission Simulator (FMS) Phase is a 22-day test of simulated air battles. The mobile Flight Mission Simulator (FMS) is a Patriot missile system simulation used to stimulate and evaluate radar performance, engagement decision and weapon assignment (EDWA) processing and test the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3)’s capabilities against a full spectrum of threat targets; (4) The Missile Flight Test Phase consists of four live missile tests conducted at White Sands Missile Range and Kwajalein Missile Range.
The Air Defense Artillery Directorate of the Operational Test Command conducts the planning and execution of the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE). Once Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) is complete, the Army Evaluation Center prepares the system evaluation report. This report provides input for the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) missile Milestone III decision (full rate production) and the materiel release for the complete Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) system.
Four PAC-3 operational tests [some involving more than one interceptor launch] between February 2002 and May 2002 resulted in three launch failures, two misses and one hit that failed to destroy the incoming warhead. A malfunctioning radar and software problems led to the misses, and the launch failures resulted from electrical problems.
The Army received the first 16 PAC-3s -- a full launcher load -- in September 2001. The Army is authorized to produce the missiles at a rate of 72 a year, and Congress authorize an increase to 96 per year in fiscal 2003. The plan is to eventually produce 144 a year, leading to a total inventory of 1,159 interceptors. Unable to certify that the PAC-3 interceptor was ready for stepped-up production, in mid-2002 Pentagon put off the decision for at least a year, and planned on further testing once fixes are in place.
By early 2000 the cost of each PAC-3 missile had increased from $1.9 million to over $4 million, and the estimated total program cost had risen from $3.9 billion to $6.9 billion. After design and manufacturing modifications were initiated to control costs, the estimted cost per missile dropped to about $3 million, and as of mid-2002 program officials expected to reduce the unit cost to $2 million.
Initial reports of a successful intercept of a Patriot missile-as-target by a Pac-3 missile on 25 April 2002 have sinced proven to be incorrect. A US Army statement said that subsequent analysis showed that the Pac-3 impacted the target missile but failed to destroy the warhead, so the intercept was unsuccessful. A second Pac-3 in the same test failed to launch. A PAC-3 missile successfully intercepted a target ballistic missile over Kwajalein Atoll on 30 May 2002. A second missile, however, failed to launch for unknown reasons. A failure to launch also occurred in the last test on 25 April. The target was a modified Minuteman missile with a separating reentry vehicle. This was the last test in the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) program, prior to a Pentagon assessment of PAC-3’s readiness for full-rate production.
As of late October 2002 the Army had taken delivery of 38 PAC-3 missiles, with another 15 due for delivery by December. The military is under contract to receive an additional 126 missiles over the 2003-2004 period. Congress increased the fiscal year 2003 budget request for PAC-3 of 72 missiles by an additional 48 missiles. In late November 2002, DOD approved plans to double PAC-3 monthly production rates, with the number of missiles increasing from four to eight per month after more manufacturing equipment and a second shift of personnel were added. DOD will acquire 108 PAC-3 missiles in FY 2004.
The overall procurement objective of 1,159 PAC-3 missiles remains unchanged. The larger purchases in FY-03 and FY-04 may be offset by lower production in FY-08 and FY-09. Instead of buying 216 missiles in each of those years, DOD would receive 184 units annually.
|
|
David
Fri March 21, 2003 6:49am
|
Patriot PAC-3 ERINT
Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) is a high/medium advanced surface-to-air guided missile air defense system. PAC-3 is a major upgrade to the Patriot system. The PAC-3 Operational Requirements Document (ORD) represents the Army Air Defense need to buy back required battlespace lost against the current and evolving tactical missile and air breathing threat. PAC-3 is needed to ounter/defeat/destroy the 2008 threat and to extend Patriot's capabilities to accomplish new/revised missions. In tandem with the upgraded radar and ground control station, PAC-3 interceptors can protect an area about seven times greater than the original Patriot system.
The PAC-3 Program consists of two interrelated acquisition programs - The PAC-3 Growth Program and the PAC-3 Missile Program. The Growth program consists of integrated, complementary improvements that will be implemented by a series of phased, incrementally fielded material changes. The PAC-3 Missile program is a key component of the overall improvements of the Patriot system, it will provide essential increases in battlespace, accuracy, and kill potential.
PAC-3 is a much more capable derivative of the PAC-2/GEM system in terms of both coverage and lethality. The PAC-3 has a new interceptor missile with a different kill mechanism--rather than having an exploding warhead, it is a hit-to-kill system. The PAC-3 missile is a smaller and highly efficient missile. The canister is approximately the same size as a PAC-2 canister but contains four missiles and tubes instead of a single round. Selected Patriot launching stations will be modified to accept PAC-3 canisters.
The Battalion Tactical Operations Center (BTOC) is an M900 series 5-ton expandable van that has been modified by the addition of data processing and display equipment, and utilized by the battalion staff to command and control the Patriot battalion. The BTOC allows the staff to perform automated tactical planning, communications link planning, and to display situational awareness information.
In the 1997 budget DOD added about $230 million for the PAC-3 through the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) and established a realistic schedule to lower the program execution risk by extending the engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase of the program by ten months. System performance will be improved by re-phasing the missile and radar procurements; upgrading three launchers per battery with Enhanced Launcher Electronics Systems; and extending the battery's remote launch capability. PAC-3 Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) will begin in the second quarter of fiscal year 1998, and the First Unit Equipped (FUE) date is planned for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1999. The FUE capability will consist of 16 missiles and five radars which will be placed in one battalion. As of 1996, in addition to funds being programmed for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, the Army planned to spend $9.6 billion for all planned purchases of Patriot missiles, $490 million for modifications and $335 million for product improvements.
The Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) began in 2002. The two major objectives of the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) are: (1) To assess the improvements in system performance provided by modifications in terms of operational effectiveness, suitability, and survivability; (2) to verify that modifications do not degrade the existing capabilities. The Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) will be the first operational integration and assessment of the complete Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Configuration 3 system.
The 2nd Battalion 43rd Air Defense Artillery/108th Air Defense Artillery Brigade serves as the test unit for the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE). The unit is equipped with the complete package of Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Configuration 3 hardware, PDB-5+ software and the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) missile. The Patriot Project Office has issued the upgraded equipment to 2-43 Air Defense Artillery. 2-43 has completed New Equipment Training (NET) and supports testing necessary to obtain material release of the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) Missile equipment.
The Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) is conducted in four phases: (1) The Sustained Operations Phase is a five-day deployment to McGregor Range using approved tactics and doctrine. 2-43 Air Defense Artillery will defend against live aircraft in accordance with threat test support package in a simulated combat environment; (2) The Interoperability Phase is a six-day demonstration of the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) interoperability with current Army and Joint Theater Missile Defense Systems. This phase is conducted using the Joint Common Simulated Missile Defense System Exerciser or actual tactical equipment; (3) The Flight Mission Simulator (FMS) Phase is a 22-day test of simulated air battles. The mobile Flight Mission Simulator (FMS) is a Patriot missile system simulation used to stimulate and evaluate radar performance, engagement decision and weapon assignment (EDWA) processing and test the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3)’s capabilities against a full spectrum of threat targets; (4) The Missile Flight Test Phase consists of four live missile tests conducted at White Sands Missile Range and Kwajalein Missile Range.
The Air Defense Artillery Directorate of the Operational Test Command conducts the planning and execution of the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE). Once Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOTE) is complete, the Army Evaluation Center prepares the system evaluation report. This report provides input for the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) missile Milestone III decision (full rate production) and the materiel release for the complete Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) system.
Four PAC-3 operational tests [some involving more than one interceptor launch] between February 2002 and May 2002 resulted in three launch failures, two misses and one hit that failed to destroy the incoming warhead. A malfunctioning radar and software problems led to the misses, and the launch failures resulted from electrical problems.
The Army received the first 16 PAC-3s -- a full launcher load -- in September 2001. The Army is authorized to produce the missiles at a rate of 72 a year, and Congress authorize an increase to 96 per year in fiscal 2003. The plan is to eventually produce 144 a year, leading to a total inventory of 1,159 interceptors. Unable to certify that the PAC-3 interceptor was ready for stepped-up production, in mid-2002 Pentagon put off the decision for at least a year, and planned on further testing once fixes are in place.
By early 2000 the cost of each PAC-3 missile had increased from $1.9 million to over $4 million, and the estimated total program cost had risen from $3.9 billion to $6.9 billion. After design and manufacturing modifications were initiated to control costs, the estimted cost per missile dropped to about $3 million, and as of mid-2002 program officials expected to reduce the unit cost to $2 million.
Initial reports of a successful intercept of a Patriot missile-as-target by a Pac-3 missile on 25 April 2002 have sinced proven to be incorrect. A US Army statement said that subsequent analysis showed that the Pac-3 impacted the target missile but failed to destroy the warhead, so the intercept was unsuccessful. A second Pac-3 in the same test failed to launch. A PAC-3 missile successfully intercepted a target ballistic missile over Kwajalein Atoll on 30 May 2002. A second missile, however, failed to launch for unknown reasons. A failure to launch also occurred in the last test on 25 April. The target was a modified Minuteman missile with a separating reentry vehicle. This was the last test in the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) program, prior to a Pentagon assessment of PAC-3’s readiness for full-rate production.
As of late October 2002 the Army had taken delivery of 38 PAC-3 missiles, with another 15 due for delivery by December. The military is under contract to receive an additional 126 missiles over the 2003-2004 period. Congress increased the fiscal year 2003 budget request for PAC-3 of 72 missiles by an additional 48 missiles. In late November 2002, DOD approved plans to double PAC-3 monthly production rates, with the number of missiles increasing from four to eight per month after more manufacturing equipment and a second shift of personnel were added. DOD will acquire 108 PAC-3 missiles in FY 2004.
The overall procurement objective of 1,159 PAC-3 missiles remains unchanged. The larger purchases in FY-03 and FY-04 may be offset by lower production in FY-08 and FY-09. Instead of buying 216 missiles in each of those years, DOD would receive 184 units annually.
|
|
David
Sat January 3, 2004 9:38pm
|
MiG-21 Fishbed
Function: High performance Cold War era air combat and air superiority fighter.
History: Originally designed as a replacement for the MiG-19 Farmer, the Mikoyan-Gurevich Design Bureau passed on sophisticated technology in favor of pure airframe performance using solid, reliable technology which was easy to maintain. The end result was Soviet workhorse capable of performing a wide variety of missions, from close air support, to tactical aerial reconnaissance to air superiority and air combat. The MiG-21 design has been so successful that more MiG-21s have been produced than any other fighter aircraft and, 25 years after its introduction, it is still in production in a number of countries. The first prototype flew in 1955 and its existence was made public in 1956. Conceived as high performance daylight fighter-interceptor, the Fishbed sacrificed endurance and all weather capability for pure speed and aerobatic performance. Although the MiG-21 lacked the ordinance capacity of its contemporaries, the F-4 Phantom II and the F-105 Thunderchief, it was more maneuverable, and because of its simple design, it was both easier and cheaper to maintain by the cash poor countries which purchased it.
Since its introduction over 15 different variants of the Fishbed have been produced. Initial prototypes MiG-21s (Fishbed-B) were armed with two NR-30 30mm cannons but this was reduced to one in later (Fishbed-C) production runs as the Soviet Union followed the West in converting fighters from gun to missile platforms. In addition to eliminating one of the cannons, the Fishbed-C had an increased internal fuel capacity and launch rails for two AA-2 Atoll IR Missiles or rocket pods for ground support missions. The Fishbed-D eliminated the internal cannon armament while increasing internal fuel load as well as redesigning the Spin Scan radar located in the movable nose cone. The Fishbed-E is essentially a sub variant of the D model, incorporating a number of minor modifications, including the reintroduction of a cannon armament in the form of a GP 9 gun pod. The Fishbed-F was the final "first generation" production aircraft. In addition to improvements in the fuselage, internal fuel capacity and control surfaces, the F model incorporated a new radar which allowed it to fire semi-active medium range radar homing air to air missiles.
The "Second Generation" MiG-21s represented a divergence from the original lightweight fighter concept. These aircraft would be characterized by larger fuel loads, more advanced electronics, greater ordnance capacity, and better performance. The first of the "Second Generation" aircraft were the Fishbed-H, a dedicated reconnaissance and offensive electronic warfare variant, and the Fishbed-J, which dispensed with the GP 9 pod in favor of a single, internally mounted GSh-23L 23mm cannon. Wing pylons were also increased from two to four. The last of the "Second Generation" MiG-21s introduced was the Fishbed-H which was similar to the J but featured a greatly enlarged dorsal spine which housed additional fuel. Unfortunately this increased weight so reduced performance that its carrying capacity had to be cut by 50 percent.
"Third Generation" Fishbeds represent the final iteration of MiG-21 evolution. Though "Third Generation" aircraft represent a real improvement over earlier versions, in comparison to current aircraft, the lack of a Beyond Visual Range (BVR) missile capability, poor endurance and poor slow speed/high G handling limit its combat utility. The Fishbed-L was the first of the next generation aircraft, incorporating numerous technological improvements, and was designed with low altitude performance in mind. Though the MiG-21 remains in limited production in a number of countries, the Fishbed is likely to remain in service for many more years, thanks to an aggressive aftermarket product improvement program. Many countries, such as Israel, Russia, India, and China offer aftermarket upgrade packages, where countries can refit older versions of the MiG-21 with more advanced, to include Western technology, components.
General Characteristics, MiG-21 Fishbed
Designer:
Mikoyan-Gurevich Design Bureau
Power Plant:
Fishbed-F: one Tumanskii R-11F2S-300 turbojet rated at 8,600 pounds thrust dry and 13,613 pounds thrust on afterburner
Fishbed-J: one Tumanskii/Gavrilov R-13-300 turbojet rated at 8,972 pounds thrust dry and 14,307 pounds thrust on afterburner
Fishbed-L: one Tumanskii R-25-300 turbojet rated at 9,038 pounds thrust dry and 15,653 pounds thrust on afterburner; the R-25-300 is capable of producing 21,825 pounds of thrust above Mach 1 and up to 13,000 feet for periods of up to three minutes
Length:
12.285 meters (40 feet, 3.9 inches)
Height:
4.125 meters (13 feet, 6.2 inches)
Wingspan:
7.154 meters (23 feet, 5.7 inches)
Speed:
Fishbed-F: 2,125 kmh (1,320 mph) at 11,000 meters (36,090 feet)
Fishbed-J: 2,230 kmh (1,385 mph) at 11,000 meters (36,090 feet); maximum level speed at sea level 1,300 kmh (807 mph)
Fishbed-L: 2175 kmh (1,351.5 mph) at 13000 meters (42,650 feet)
Ceiling:
Fishbed-F: 19,000 meters (62,335 feet)
Fishbed-J: 18,200 meters (59,711 feet)
Fishbed-N: 17,500 meters (57,415 feet)
Weight:
Fishbed-F: 5,350 kilograms (11,795 pounds) empty
Fishbed-J: 5350 kilograms (11,795 pounds) empty
Fishbed-N: 5450 kg (12,015 pounds) empty
Maximum Takeoff Weight:
Fishbed-F: 9,080 kilograms (20,018 pounds)
Fishbed-J: 9,400 kilograms (20,723 pounds)
Fishbed-N: 10,400 kilograms (22,928 pounds)
Range:
Fishbed-F: Maximum ferry range with one external fuel tank 1300 kilometers (808 miles)
Fishbed-J: Maximum ferry range with three external fuel tanks 1,800 km (1,118 miles)
Fishbed-N: Maximum ferry range with one external fuel tank 1,470 km (913 miles)
Crew:
One
Armament:
Fishbed-F: One NR-30 30mm cannon in an external pod plus either two AA-2 short range Infrared homing air to air missiles or up to 500kg (1,100 pounds) of external ordnance on two pylons
Fishbed-J,N: One GSh-23L internally mounted 23mm cannon plus either four air to air missiles or up to 2000 kilograms (4,409 pounds) of external ordnance carried on four pylons
Date Deployed:
1956 (Fishbed-C)
|
|
David
Sat January 3, 2004 9:38pm
|
MiG-29 Fulcrum
Function: High speed, high altitude, long range interceptor.
Description: Designed in 1972 to replace the aging MiG-21 and MiG-23, the Fulcrum represented a revolutionary devlopement in Soviet fighter aircraft performance. Though lacking the sophisticated electronics and "fly-by-wire" systems of contemporary Western aircraft like the American F-16 Falcon and the F-15 Eagle, the MiG-29's agility and maneuverability make it their equal in term of performance. In addition, the MiG-29 incorperates a unique forward looking infrared target aquisition system which allows the Fulcrum to aquire and engage targets with heat seeking missiles or its internally mounted cannon without being detected by radar-detecting threat warning recievers. To take advantage of the MiG-29's incredable turning ability, the pilot is equiped with a helmet mounted target designation reticle which can be used to designate and engage targets outside of the fighter's forward plane of travel.
Entering service in 1984 as the Fulcrum-A, the current production model is the Fulcrum-C, which incorperates a redesigned fuselage and increased internal fuel capacity.
General Characteristics, MiG-29 Fulcrum-A
Designer:
Mikoyan-Gurevich Design Bureau
Power Plant:
Two Sarkisov RD-33 afterburning turbofans
Thrust:
18,300 pounds each
Length:
17.32 meters (56.83 feet)
Height:
4.73 meters (15.5 feet)
Wingspan:
11.36 meters (37.25 feet)
Speed:
2,455 kmh (1,520 mph) at 30,000 feet
Ceiling:
17,000 meters (55,775 feet)
Weight:
15,240.7 kilograms (33,600 pounds) empty
Maximum Takeoff Weight:
18,499.8 kilograms (40,785 pounds)
Range:
2,100 kilometers (1,300 miles)
Crew:
One
Armament:
One GSh-30-1 30mm internally mounted cannon with 150 rounds of ammunition
3,000 kilograms (6,614 pounds) of external ordinance including missiles, rockets, gravity bombs, and guided munitions carried on six hardpoints
Date Deployed:
1984
|
|
David
Sat January 3, 2004 9:38pm
|
Shenyang J-8 (F-8 Finback
Function: Twin-engined, single-seat aircraft is primarily used for air combat, with the capability of ground attack.
History: Introduced in 1964, the J-8 was the first People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) aircraft utilizing a wholly Chinese design. While similar in configuration to the Soviet MiG-21 or the Chinese J-7, the J-8 airframe has been enlarged to accommodate two engines. Although the design was approved in 1964, prototype production was not completed until 1969. Because of the civil unrest caused by the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), the prototypes would see only limited flight activity through 1976, delaying production further. Production of the J-8 began in December 1979, with very few airframes actually entering service. These first-run aircraft were equipped with a single axial air intake supplying air to both engines, with a centrally mounted ranging radar, which gave the aircraft an appearance similar to the Mig-21/J-7. These aircraft were also equipped with two Type 30 30mm cannons and four under wing hardpoints, capable of firing the PL-2B short-range air-to-air missile. First-run production was completed in 1987.
The second run J-8 I "Finback A" entered production in 1985. Similar to the original J-8, the J-8 I had an improved radar which gave it all-weather capability. In addition, the two 30mm cannons were replaced by a single twin-barreled 23mm cannon. Production was halted in 1987 after some 100 aircraft were built (including original J-8 aircraft converted to the J-8 I design).
The completely redesigned J-8 II "Finback B" was first flown in 1984 and made public in 1986. The forward section of the airframe has been completely redesigned, replacing the single combination air intake-radome with two separate intakes, mounted laterally on the fuselage just aft of the cockpit, and a solid nose housing the aircraft's search radar. The solid nose also increases the amount of space available for additional after-market avionics. The J-8 II also incorporates a ventral stabilizer fin for increased maneuverability, which can folded for takeoff and landing. The export model of the J-8 II, designated the F-8 II, has improved avionics, to include digital electronics, a Heads Up Display (HUD), and Doppler radar, and engines, along with leading edge slats and in-flight refueling capabilities, giving it improved performance characteristics.
The J-8 IIM is a private venture (sponsored by Shenyang Aircraft Company) to improve the performance, and marketability, of the Basic J-8 II design. The J-8 IIM is capable of launching a variety of air-to-air and air-to-ground ordnance, including the PL-8, R-27/AA-10 and PL-5B. In addition, conventional iron bombs can be carried on seven hardpoints. The J-8 IIM also incorporates the advanced Russian made Zhuk-8II (FG-8) look-down, shoot-down radar, which replaces the older Chinese Type-208 radar. The Zhuk-8II has a range of 70 nautical miles, is able to track up to 10 targets at once and engage 2 targets simultaneously with radar-guided missiles such as the AA-10, as well as to launch anti-ship missiles such as the Kh-31. While the J-8 IIM also incorporates improved engines, the J-8 IIM is actually heaver than the baseline model, so aircraft range and performance are down slightly. Though the J-8 IIM completed its first test flight in 1998, none have been exported.
The most recent variant of the J-8 introduced, the J-8D, appears to be a basic J-8 II modified with a fixed in-flight refueling probe. In addition, it would seem that the avionics package has been upgraded to allow the ability to fire the PL-8 IR missile and the PL-11 semi-active radar guided missile.
Description: The basic J-8 design is very similar in appearance to the Soviet MiG-21 and Chinese J-7 aircraft, with the modified delta wing, swept horizontal and vertical stabilizers and central combination air intake-radar housing. The J-8's laterally mounted twin engines, however, readily give it away, the twin exhausts easily visible below and aft of the vertical stabilizer. The J-8 II replaces the MiG-21 forward section with a completely new design, incorporating the same single seat stepped cockpit, but with a solid nose and two laterally mounted, one on each side of the fuselage, square air intakes. The back half of the J-8 II, however, remains largely unchanged from the original J-8 design.
General Characteristics, Shenyang J-8 (F-8 Finback)
Country:
People's Republic of China
Designation:
Jian-8 Finback
Type:
Intercept
Builder:
Shenyang Aircraft
Power Plant:
Two open 13A-II turbojets at 14,815 pounds thrust
Length:
70 feet, 10 inches (21.6 meters)
Wingspan:
30 feet ( 9.3 meters)
Weight:
Empty: 21,600 pounds (9,820 kilograms)
Normal Takeoff: 31,500 pounds (14,300 kilograms)
Maximum Takeoff: 39,200 pounds (17,800 kilograms)
Speed:
Maximum Speed: 1,450 mph (2,340 kmh, Mach 2.2)
Cruising Speed: 800 mph (1,300 kmh)
Ceiling:
18-20,000 meters
Range:
Combat Radius: 2,500 miles (800 kmh)
Cruise Radius: 800 miles (1,300 kilometers)
Ferry Range: 1,400 miles (2,200 kilometers)
Internal Fuel Capacity:
3994 kilograms
Armament:
Two 23mm cannons (J-8 only; not found on J-8II)
One underfuselage hardpoint
Six underwing hardpoints for fuel, bombs, rockets or missiles
Four PL-2 or PL-7 and 800 L drop tank (680 nm)
Two PL-2 or PL-7 and two 480 L drop tanks and one 800 L drop tank (741nm)
Sensors:
Izmurd raging radar
RWR
Ballistic bomb sight
Crew:
One
|
|
David
Sat January 3, 2004 11:33pm
|
DDG51 - Arleigh Burke Cla
Function: Multiple-mission capable Aegis guided missile destroyer.
Description: Technological advances have improved the capability of modern destroyers culminating in the Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) class. Named for the Navy's most famous destroyer squadron combat commander and three-time Chief of Naval Operations, the Arleigh Burke was commissioned July 4, 1991 and was the most powerful surface combatant ever put to sea. Like the larger Ticonderoga class cruisers, DDG-51's combat systems center around the Aegis combat system and the SPY-lD, multi-function phased array radar. The combination of Aegis, the Vertical Launching System, an advanced anti-submarine warfare system, advanced anti-aircraft missiles and Tomahawk ASM/LAM, the Burke class continues the revolution at sea.
Designed for survivability, DDG-51 incorporates all-steel construction and many damage control features resulting from lessons learned during the Falkland Islands War and from the accidental attack on USS Stark. Like most modern U.S. surface combatants, DDG-51 utilizes gas turbine propulsion. These ships replaced the older Charles F. Adams and Farragut-class guided missile destroyers.
General Characteristics, Arleigh Burke Class
Cost:
About $1 billion each
Builders:
Bath Iron Works, Ingalls
Shipbuilding
Power Plant:
Four General Electric LM 2500-30
gas turbines; two shafts, 100,000 total shaft horsepower
Date Deployed:
July 4, 1991 (USS Arleigh Burke)
Length, Overall:
466 feet (142 meters)
Beam:
59 feet (18 meters)
Displacement:
8,300 tons (8,433.2 metric tons) full load
Speed:
30+ knots (34.52+mph, 55.55+ kph)
Crew:
23 officers, 300 enlisted
Guns:
One Mk 45 5"/54 caliber Lightweight Gun Mount
Torpedoes:
Two Mk 32 Mod 14 triple torpedo tubes firing either the Mk 46 Mod 5 or the Mk 50 ASW torpedo
Missiles:
56 Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missiles (TLAM)
Eight Harpoon anti-ship missiles
Standard SM-2MR (DDG54 - DDG71) SM-2ER (DDG72 - DDG76) surface-to-air missile
Aircraft:
None; LAMPS III electronics installed on landing deck for coordinated DDG 51/helo ASW operation
Ships:
USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51), Norfolk, VA
USS Barry (DDG 52), Norfolk, VA
USS John Paul Jones (DDG 53), San Diego, CA
USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG 54), Yokosuka, Japan
USS Stout (DDG 55), Norfolk, VA
USS John S. McCain (DDG 56), Yokosuka, Japan
USS Mitscher (DDG 57), Norfolk, VA
USS Laboon (DDG 58), Norfolk, VA
USS Russell (DDG 59), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Paul Hamilton (DDG 60), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Ramage (DDG 61), Norfolk, VA
USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62), San Diego, CA
USS Stethem (DDG 63), San Diego, CA
USS Carney (DDG 64), Mayport, FA
USS Benfold (DDG 65), San Diego, CA
USS Gonzalez (DDG 66), Norfolk, VA
USS Cole (DDG 67), Norfolk, VA
USS The Sullivans (DDG 68), Mayport, FA
USS Milius (DDG 69), San Diego, CA
USS Hopper (DDG 70), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Ross (DDG 71), Norfolk, VA
USS Mahan (DDG 72), Norfolk, VA
USS Decatur (DDG 73), San Diego, CA
USS McFaul (DDG 74), Norfolk, VA
USS Donald Cook (DDG 75) , Norfolk, VA
USS Higgins (DDG 76), San Diego, CA
USS O'Kane (DDG 77), Pearl Harbor, HI
USS Porter (DDG 78), Norfolk, VA
Oscar Austin (DDG 79), under construction
Roosevelt (DDG 80), under construction
Winston S. Churchill (DDG 81), under construction
Lassen (DDG 82), under construction
Howard (DDG 83), under construction
Bulkeley (DDG 84), under construction
McCampbell (DDG 85), under construction
Shoup (DDG 86), under construction
Mason (DDG 87), under construction
Preble (DDG 88), under construction
Mustin (DDG 89), under construction
Chafee (DDG 90), under construction
|
|
David
Sun January 4, 2004 12:31am
|
NR-1 Deep Submergence Cra
Function: A nuclear-powered ocean engineering and research submarine.
History: NR-1, the first deep submergence vessel using nuclear power, was launched at Groton on Jan. 25, 1969, and successfully completed her initial sea trials August 19, 1969. It maneuvers by four ducted thrusters, two in the front and two in the rear. The vehicle also has planes mounted on the sail, and a conventional rudder. NR-1's missions have included search, object recovery, geological survey, oceanographic research, and installation and maintenance of underwater equipment. NR-1's unique capability to remain at one site and completely map or search an area with a high degree of accuracy has been a valuable asset on several occasions. Following the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger in 1986, the NR-1 was used to search for, identify, and recover critical parts of the Challenger craft. Because it can remain on the sea floor without resurfacing frequently, NR-1 was a major tool for searching deep waters. NR-1 remained submerged and on station even when heavy weather and rough seas hit the area and forced all other search and recovery ships into port. Today, NR-1 continues to provide a valuable service to the Navy and many research and educational institutions.
Description: The NR-1 performs underwater search and recovery, oceanographic research missions and installation and maintenance of underwater equipment, to a depth of almost half a mile. Its features include extendable bottoming wheels, three viewing ports, exterior lighting and television and still cameras for color photographic studies, an object recovery claw, a manipulator that can be fitted with various gripping and cutting tools and a work basket that can be used in conjunction with the manipulator to deposit or recover items in the sea. Surface vision is provided through the use of a television periscope permanently installed on a mast in her sail area. NR-1 has sophisticated electronics and computers that aid in navigation, communications, and object location and identification. It can maneuver or hold a steady position on or close to the seabed or underwater ridges, detect and identify objects at a considerable distance, and lift objects off the ocean floor. NR-1 can travel submerged at approximately four knots for long periods, limited only by its supplies. It can study and map the ocean bottom, including temperature, currents, and other information for military, commercial and scientific uses. Its nuclear propulsion provides independence from surface support ships and essentially unlimited endurance. NR-1 is generally towed to and from remote mission locations by an accompanying surface tender, which is also capable of conducting research in conjunction with the submarine.
General Characteristics, NR-1
Builders:
General Dynamics Electric Boat Division
Power Plant:
1 nuclear reactor, 1 turbo-alternator; 2 motors (external), 2 propellers, 4 ducted thrusters (2 horizontal, 2 vertical)
Date Deployed:
Oct. 27, 1969
Length, Overall:
150 feet (45.72 meters)
Displacement:
400 long tons (406.42 metric tons)
Diameter:
12 feet (3.66 meters)
Maximum Operating Depth:
2,375 feet (723.90 meters)
Crew:
2 officer, 3 enlisted, 2 scientists
Armament:
None
|
|
|
The Patriot Files Forums
