Slashdot Mirror

http://defense-update.com/2014...

A phased array low frequency Chinese radar.

F35 200 million a pop http://defense-update.com/2014..., can do an awful lot with that money, other than burning resources, generating pollution, blowing people up and then tossing it on the scrap pile. Scrap the whole thing and you could build a whole series of industrial plants to make anything you want but hey, you want to burn resources, generate pollution, blow people up and then toss it on the scrap pile, then go right ahead, good luck to you and the people you take with you, you'll need it.

a fraction of a fighter jet for that!

"These helmets are designed to utilize cameras on the outside of the aircraft to project the pilot's surroundings onto his mask. This way, if the pilot needs to look at the ground directly below him, he no longer has to roll the aircraft. He can simply look straight down, essentially looking through the floor and his own body!"

Not just visible light, either, so you can see at night and through clouds...

It's not on a HUD though, you have to wear the helmet mounted display system.

Japan is at a crossroads and drones are not the only form of military expansion that is being considered. They are giving a lot of thought to the task of guarding their trade routes along with the protection of disputed islands and areas of sea close to home rich in oil, minerals and fish http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jan/08/china-japan-drone-race http://defense-update.com/20120917_uas-on-maritime-surveillance-pacific.html and so are seeking to modernise and change the mix of the JMSDF http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/ship.htm assets. This has resulted in the 22DDH a new light aircraft carrier http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/cv-newcon.htm built upon ideas gained from the existing Hyuga-class helicopter carrier http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hyuga-class/. Some are already beating the drum be it only in model form http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/06/jmsdf-in-action.html but others in the area may well have other ideas of the future http://blogs.defensenews.com/intercepts/2012/12/what-china-wants-for-christmas/

They make MILITARY news sites for this sort of thing.

Hey, much love on my part for modern weapons tech, but on Slashdot this is clutter.

Any techies who are interested know how to keep track of such events.

Anyone interested also knows any missile systems sold to Syria can be countered by standoff weapons launched from outside Syrian airspace in most cases. Extended range JDAMs and Spice kits mean expensive anti-aircraft missiles would have to be used against small, relatively inexpensive, "smart bombs".

Those can also be used to destroy Syrian aircraft in their shelters as well as SAM sites.

http://defense-update.com/20130505_israeli-standoff-attack-capability-against-terrorists.html

funding 100% American arms production

That's not quite true. Some of those funds go into research indiginous to Israel. As this article makes oblique mention of, Israel does its own research and modifies the weapons that it recieves. Some of these improvements may make their way into arms wielded by the USA.

I want to stress that I don't support military or other financial support of any nation. I just want these facts to be straight.

This isn't quite true any more. There are a number of system now in use that use sound and muzzle flash characteristics to pinpoint and identify the direction and gun the shot came from.

I believe those systems fall into the "wait for the bang" category mentioned, which, of course, is less than an ideal combat situation.

We need tech that can spot snipers and control large sections of urban landscape where hostiles and non-combatants co-mingle and sometimes even co-habitate as well. The only way to spot them right now is either to wait for the bang (and we sure love those bangs), or drive around in a semi-truck with some backscatter x-ray equipment stuffed in the back that's busy giving the operators and innocent passerbys on the street cancer looking for hidden weapons.

This isn't quite true any more. There are a number of system now in use that use sound and muzzle flash characteristics to pinpoint and identify the direction and gun the shot came from.

There is already different levels of testing/fielding of this technology. See:

http://defense-update.com/products/q/quickmeds.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAI_RQ-7_Shadow

Shhhhhh, not so loud.

The Airforce hasn't figured that out and has been using F-16s in ground attack roles for years and years.

http://defense-update.com/features/du-1-04/f-16-upgrades.htm

USAF Block 40/42s and 50/52s and NATO's F-16s will have common core avionics and software. With the recent software upgrade, these aircraft will have the capability to deploy support smart weapons with inertial, GPS and laser guidance systems, supporting advanced weapons such as the GBU-31 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW), CBU-103/104/105 Wind-Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) and EGBU-27 enhanced laser-guided bombs.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0921/Stuxnet-malware-is-weapon-out-to-destroy-Iran-s-Bushehr-nuclear-plant
You have a USB device talking to Microsoft connecting to Siemens "something" then to some industrial system that has to work really well 24/7 and or to exact tolerances.
Microsoft is the way in, at it seem to be looking for something, like a key and a lock.
When it finds a match, interesting a 'new' things may happen over time to some industrial system.
Phone home and uninstaller seem to be part of the deal http://defense-update.com/wp/20100930_stuxnet-under-the-microscope.html
Security certificates would be floating around the web or could be stolen, bought.

Doubtful. Current carrier fleet defenses are pretty impressive (forward to 2:30) already. And the Nimitz class carriers now use RIM-116 point defense systems (a carrier never travels alone).

The laser defense is just the last layer of the strategy and part of the overall big dick swinging contest. The Air Force is working on it, the Army is working on it, and the Navy wants its part.

I could see its use for cooking UAVs and other type stuff where you don't want to be wasting $1M missile shots. It's definitely a more economical weapon (sans development cost). It's also more effective against high trajectory fire, similar to MTHEL's capability.

Any sort of energy that is released in the term of a second or so is useless against anything but stationary targets where you can assume you will hit the same point for that entire second

Northrop Grumman's Mobile/Tactical High Energy Laser system disagrees with your assessment... just ask the mortar shells it shot down. They've been able to shoot down large and small caliber artillery rockets, artillery shells and mortars.

Last I heard someone decided it was too expensive given the current technology and cut funding. NG was working on a less expensive version dubbed Skyguard, which may be able to protect traffic at commerical airfields from shoulder-launched anti-air missiles. (Haven't seen any videos of that system yet).

There's also the YAL-1A, same concept but mounted on a turrent in the nose of a 747.

All these systems use chemical lasers, and while we can fit them into "a few semi-trucks" (or a 747) right now, they're far from being hand-held. In any event, we're past the "Can we shoot down X with a laser" argument and are currently figuring out how to make it smaller and more cost effective. It takes intermediate research programs such as these if we ever want our ships, tanks, or soldiers making pewpewpew noises when they pull the trigger.

We're doing that, too!

Also, this.

We're doing that, too!

Also, this.

I did a little work on MRM, which has an infrared seeker in it, and peak gee-loads were in the 8k-gee range (call it 75,000 m/s^2) as I remember.

Sure, but they're not just paying for the defense, they're paying for the sticker, for the -status- that a Rayethon brings. You cruise around in a lockeed blimp, people ignore you. They see "Raytheon JLENS" and they want to know who you are, the valet makes sure not to scratch the doors.

In seriousness, it looks like raytheon built them. Their wiki page on them lists several controversies that seem pretty typical of the industry.

Another blurb on JLENS I found (http://defense-update.com/products/j/jlens.htm) had this interesting bit

A different concept of an untethered airship is pursued by Lockheed Martin. The program cost is estimated at US $149 million with completion expected by November 2010.

(a page on that airship here http://defense-update.com/products/h/HALE-airship.htm)

I'm not any kind of expert in defense or aerospace, so maybe the key differences would be obvious to an expert or someone who did more than skim over those two product descriptions, but yeah, an order of magnitude. Suspicious...

I think there's a definite irony in that most of the systems that failed are the last descendants of mobile secure and fail safe systems, or fail safe communication routing systems...
Collectively we are dumbed down by the plenty of electronic solutions available, so we disregard good engineering in designing our systems. I bet that most of the redundant/back up lines going in most of the offices are routed through the same physical tubes!!!!!! that's Homer Simpson design team!!!!!

Para-Flite's MegaFly, for example, is a 30,000 lb payload guided parachute system (GPS-steered to land at a designated LZ), with a variant of it being tested up to, IIRC, 42,000 lbs, with 50,000 lbs being a goal. It's still basically a development system, but similar systems are regularly used for 8,000 and 10,000 lb payloads.

Granted, airdrop aerodynamic issues are different than booster recovery issues, but it's still worth noting that 50,000 lbs isn't necessarily as huge as it seems relative to the existing technology.

Surveyors, military, and police folks often find uses for kit like this. If you have the cash, it is not too difficult to find binocular devices with integral laser rangefinder, camera, gps, compass, etc. I have often thought that there would be high demand for a consumer grade version - automated location tagging and sizing features would seem fairly desirable. A quick survey of some of the current military devices can be found here.

> why don't you start up your own company and start selling these cheap UAV's you can make to the military.
Well, because it's already been done.

Mosquito 1, produced by: Israel Aircraft Industries
The miniature saucer shaped plane weighs 250 gram and as a wing span of about 30 cm. The vehicle carries a miniature video camera and already performed several flights with up to 40 minutes endurance each. Mosquito 1.5 micro UAV made by IAIThe Mosquito is launched by hand and lands on its skids at the end of its mission.

Amateur rig, by Pict'Earth
"video showing a guy launching a small unmanned remote control aerial vehicle with a digital camera used to capture images and then show the images in Google Earth."

...
> People don't make UAV drones capable of being flown from the other side of the world...
Sorry, are physics different in Iraq that cause planes that fly over here to not fly over there?

> ...for up to 24 hours at a stretch all the time.
The article was about small hand-held webcams being thrown like grenades. Somehow, I don't think a 24 hour flight or use time was a priority for this project.

The Army is getting its own Predator variant, the Sky Warrior (ERMP): http://www.defense-update.com/products/e/ermpUAV.htm

A humvee hauling military cargo wouldn't put 400 lbs in the trunk per trip, it'd put 1500 lbs on a trailer.

These are the beginnings toward a good concept since cargo hauling is dull, dirty & dangerous. But VSTAR needs to scale up considerably instead of racking up expensive flight hours with 4 round trips when comparing to a Humvee's operating cost. The key is not the round trip speed but its servicing to keep it flying.

"Scaling up" to the reality tends to be a gotcha for many novel concepts.

So they've implemented semi-active laser guidance. Not exactly revolutionary, we've been doing it in missiles for years ...

Yes, of course because all series hybrid vehicles are similar. (omg)

And by the way the US Army is not the first with that idea:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/sep/
http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/sep.htm
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/hybriddrive-se p-vehicles-receive-votes-of-confidence-from-sweden -bae-02446/ The Swedish SEP ran for the British FRES program:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europ e/fres.htm
Unfortunately, recently it was excluded due to (perceived?) lower maturity of the technology than the competitions offers.

http://www.defense-update.com/features/du-1-05/NLW -DEW.htm
LRAD should work, although it would have to be aided by real soldiers to capture it's prisoners.

Hmm, I'd say the directed acoustic weapons on the parent page are more interesting actually. Impressive stuff, and somewhat scary given its abuse potential.

Hummvee does 7 points Sonic damage
*Protestor attempts save (DC: 11) ... failure
*Protestor is stunned

This is not a new concept. I recall hearing about this class of device twenty years ago when I worked the door at a couple of bars - always wished I had one (it's a hard way to make cash to fund your education, letting people beat on your head so you can learn to make a living with self-same head). Never saw one though.

Here's a reference from 2005 to such a device, with a different name. I don't know if it is the same company, or a different development: http://www.defense-update.com/products/s/sabershot .htm

One of the most common military batteries is the BA 5590, a lithium/sulfur dioxide primary battery with a good combat record over fifteen years. 24VDC at 200mA for 28 hours, or 135 watt-hours in a 1 Kg package. There's an upgrade to lithium manganese dioxide in the same form factor, for 333 watt-hours. The original article says that the competition requires a battery with 1290 watt-hours in a 4Kg package, or 323 watt-hours per kilogram. That's where the primary batteries are now. So this isn't a big advance over existing technology. It's more of a packaging issue.

The competition makes no mention of cost. Those military non-rechargeable batteries cost about $100 each. They store about 3 cents worth of power at utility rates.

Interestingly, the competition doesn't require a rechargeable battery. Rechargeable batteries aren't that popular for infantry equipment. Finding a power source, place, and time to charge batteries is tough in combat. While most military vehicles can provide external power, it ties down a vehicle and crew to use it as a power source.

It's funny, but there's a Russian anti-air missile 'Tor-M1' ( http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/tor.htm ).

So you're not far from truth :)

No: that's what they *want*, not what they have.

I know the guys who build:

ERGM
Excalibur
MRM

ERGM and Excalibur are GPS-guided, MRM has a dual mode SAL/IR seeker (SAL is semi-active laser). I've held MRM in my hands and seen it after a flight test (them things is *sturdy*). Wrote some of the test interface software.

Surviving launch shocks of 12-14 kilogees is no joke, and is only now becoming reliable. I sooooooo doubt that there is anything that will survive 45kgee.

Not to say they shouldn't try: definitely go for it. Hell, it would probably easier just to further harden a few of the existing projectiles than develop from scratch a new one (though they fly a lot faster than what the existing things go, so aerodynamic constraints might necessitate a redesign).

What interests me is how well electronics inside a shell will survive that intense a magnetic field. Monstrous Faraday shield around the round? Can you really seal the whole round but yet make it possible to deploy fins or canards for maneuvering?

Even more super dooper: will you have to make the round both super acceleration safe (launch shock) and then also rad-hard (it's not in space long, but neither is EKV and that's rad-hard). Course an EKV firing might be during a, uhm, "excitable" period when space has rather more radiation than normal.

What I especially like is that basically every defense contractor is on the front page of that Powerpoint presentation except the people who've gotten rounds to fly. In fact, ATK was found guilty of fraud while developing their version of MRM. They claimed to have hit a tank, but they ballistically dialed the round in beforehand: no guidance was needed to hit.

Oh God, Rockwell Collins is on that list. Well, if their GPS "expertise" is being utilized, no worries about the round hitting a goddamn thing. Yay, nothing like getting Segmentation Faults from your navigation unit during flight. We really enjoyed that. Nice job you clowns. L3's not much better.

I'm just a lowly Electrical Engineer who works in RF.

So am I.

There is no way that a working transmitter can be fitted into a mockup coin.

Sorry, but you're dead wrong here.

You'll have to have some kind of processor.

No you don't. Although some people may find it hard to believe there are tons of electronic devices that have no computers in them at all.

It's actually really easy and really simple to build a small AM transmitter. You're talking less than ten parts. This doesn't even consider more exotic possibilities such as the "Great Seal Bug".

So how does this work, again?

Money. Lots and lots of money.
Think custom battery, and construction techniques similar to a MMIC.
I think you need to understand the type of resources a gov't can put towards projects like this.

If I was to build something like this, I'd have a guy designing the battery, a guy making cases, a guy designing the antenna, and a guy doing the actual circuitry.
-The battery guy would give me the highest energy density in the smallest package he could. It would probably be some custom lithium manganese dioxidecell.
-The case guy would take pairs of coins and mill them down to half thickness, then mill out a cavity inside each one.
-The antenna guy would design something similar to a Yaego 4311-127-00500. (Digikey part 311-1230-1-ND) The size for that part is only 3.5mm x 2.7mm x 0.9mm.
-The circuitry guy would probably be fabbing a custom IC.

Months later, take all these parts, hook them toghether, glue the coin shut and hand it off.
You could probably do $4 million for a thousand bugs. I'd suggest that's easily within the price range of any first world nation.

Sure it's not something I could accomplish on the weekends with no budget, but you just needed to apply some imagination to the situation.

US casulties are a good thing? I'm not even going to touch that one.

What most people don't realize is that the terrorists are flocking to Iraq because they can be very effective there. People like to blame the US for that. Personally I'm glad that Bush and Rumsfeld made Iraq the target for terrorists. There have been many terrorists attacks in Iraq, UK, and many other countries in the past 5 years. But how many in the US?

You think that is an accident? You also seem to think that our recent actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are police actions. Have you already forgotten 9/11?

BTW, the iRobot corporation has invented the remote-controlled PacBot robot that was used very effectively in urban warfare. http://defense-update.com/products/p/pacbot.htm

You everybody seems to forget that nations are soveriegn. There is no inherent immorality about invading any sovereign nation. The nation is the highest entity. The UN is nothing. It's a place where nations can cooperate if and when they feel like it.

If you're going to call me a conservative then I guess I'll call you a liberal. The problem with liberals is that they think that everybody should share everything evenly. The problem is that liberals have never had to fight for anything. They don't want to fight for their freedom. They don't want to fight to break out of the poverty level or the middle-class. The just want all of the benefits of those who have fought for what they believe in. The USA was created by people who were fed up with the status quo. We toughted it out and fought battles for our freedom. If some nation threatens our freedoms even in the tiniest way you're dang right we're going to kick their butt, occupy, and police them till we are satisfied that they don't pose a threat to us.

Don't even make us believe you've got a weapon we don't like. If you so much as even talk about nukes, guess what? You just might get one. Right up your a$$. Don't threaten our friends either (Israel, Britian, Canada, etc.). They help us. We help them. That makes us more secure. More free. If you want to mess with a friend of the US we're going to show you why that's a bad idea. We'll come over to your country, blow up your millitary installations and leave you unable to make good on your threats.

In highschool the complete obviousness of why this is totally fine is apparent. If any of my buddies got harrassed by a bully we'd all come to his defense. Sometimes that meant giving somebody a black eye. I played the, "Kill them with kindness" game for way too long in school. Many times that does zero good whatsoever. A black eye, however is extremely effective. They may hate you and not talk to you after you give them the black eye. But they don't infringe on your rights anymore.

Too many errors in your post, I think it's bullshit.

The F-117 is being retired as of 2008 (instead of 2011).
The F-22 replaces some of the F-15's (air superiority role). The F-22 can also perform some ground attack roles with the inception of the 250lb Small Diameter Bomb(SDB).
The F-35 replaces some of the F-16/Harrier ground attack missions. The USAF/Reserve/Air Guard will still have a bunch of F-15 and F-16 to go along with the F-22's, and the Navy/Marines will still have a bunch of Harriers to go along with the F-35's.

"In fact, recently, somewhere near Africa (I think) there was a cruise ship that was attacked by pirates (real pirates). They used some kind of acoustic defense to repel the attack."

The system you are referring to was an open-air sonic defense, nothing to do with water other than it is sometimes mounted on ships. http://defense-update.com/products/l/LRAD.htm

The suggestion I made was referring to the possiblity that it could be used as an under-water torpedo defense. The pirates were using fast-attack boats and were repelled by pain from the incredibly loud sound that was projected at them.

The USMC developed the Dragon Eye and has been using it in IRAQ. See for example http://www.defense-update.com/products/d/dragoneye s.htm Note for simplicity there are no control surfaces. Control is performed by adjusting the power of the two electric motors. I have seen it fly and it is very quiet, which is the key for not being detected. Often at demos the sponsors were shown a TV screen showing themselves looking at the TV and then they would look up for it. The most useful TV camera is placed looking down and sideways and the GPS controller is programmed to have the Dragon Eye circle the target co-ordinates. This way the camera is always looking at the target of interest from different directions. It can fly a preprogammed pattern or be redirected by the person in charge. It also qualifies as a "model airplace" so you don't have to get the FAA involved in approving your flight plan.

Compound 18 is real enough. It was found that Spectra weave liberally treated with plain ol' SuperGlue (tm) or some other similar resin is able to absorb much more KE than just plain Spectra, which after some more research gave rise to composite materials like the Spectra Shield.

I was in the midwest (one of those mostly rural states that usually has more sense)

But you are often dealing with stolen guns...which have serial numbers...which need to be moved frequently else tracked. If I sell you a $500 gun (retail) for $200 when I paid 0 I still come out way ahead. I also now have $200 cash instead of a hot item with a serial number likely to be trackable

Now...automatic weapons...not exactly easy to come by...handguns and rifles...dirt cheap.

Coarse as previously stated..."right to bear arms" has little to do with being able to protect yourself from your fellow citizens..."right to bear arms" is about being able to protect yourself from the government

Call the Israelis. That Trophy system isn't quite a shield, but it sure looks like one on the video (wmv).

I'm not an expert on anything even close to lasers, but I suspect the people capable of building these kind of lasers systems are well aware of the issues you bring up. You logic would imply that you can't get lasers powerful enough to do anything due to the plasma cloud problem, yet there are real laser systems out there now that are examples contrary to your assertion. Take the M-THEL system for example:

http://www.defense-update.com/directory/THEL.htm

It shoots down missiles at fairly decent distances. Now, we aren't talking in-orbit distances, but we aren't talking in a lab either. The amount of energy generated by that laser would seem to be enough to create your plasma cloud right in front of the laser, yet it seems to make some distance. It would seem to me that a beam like that reaching space would still have at least a little bit of energy...then you simply multiply that by a few hundred using an array and you have yourself a ASAT weapon. Plus I doubt that M-THEL laser is operating at the maximum energy that can be achieved without your dreaded plasma cloud.

Common guys, "mysterious" force fields? if ed's had bothered to google the facts there wouldn't be a need for this post(same for that ABL article- currently neutered as a tech demonstrator).

Wired, aug/2002
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,54641, 00.html

SecDef's Force Transformation
http://www.oft.osd.mil/

more info on Trophy(Rafael)
http://www.defense-update.com/products/t/trophy.ht m

similar effort using AESA(Raytheon's Quick Kill)
http://www.edefenseonline.com/default.asp?func=art icle&aref=02_14_2006_OM

info on AESA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Electronically _Scanned_Array

the need for such a system(fuel cost IS a factor but it's a fixed cost. See fob.gov
SP0600-06-R-0033 for example):
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2004 /Dec/SurvivalInCombat.htm

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned this system used by Carnival cruise lines:
http://www.atcsd.com/lrad.html
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/ 2005-11-07-cruise-blast_x.htm

"mysterious" force fields? LOL. I'm moving my slashdot bookmark next to collegehumor and dumpalink.

It's not reactive armor at all. Because it's not armor - it's an hybrid mechanical/electronic countermeasure. Armor protects you if and when you get hit, indeed. The one being mentioned doesn't make you take a hit.

It sounds very similar to the Russian Arena-E active protection system. Read here for more details: http://www.defense-update.com/products/a/arena-e.h tm

Aha! I have defeated your information cloaking to see the secrets within:

Global Hawk http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=17 5

Desert Hawk http://www.defense-update.com/products/d/deserthaw k.htm

Verrry tricky, appending an extra '/' to the end of the URL to make us think it was a broken link. I have added this to my bag of tradecraft for future use, at a time when you least expect it.

Good day.
</neurosis>

FYI, those links are both dead. Both are giving 'file not found' errors.

I did some quick Googling:

Desert Hawk:
http://www.defense-update.com/products/d/deserthaw k.htm

Global Hawk:
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=17 5

So, they do not want to compete with the expensive Global Hawk http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=17 5/ made by Northrop Grumman. Instead, their interested in the cheap Notebook controlled Desert Hawk http://www.defense-update.com/products/d/deserthaw k.htm/ models deployed in Iraq. They are pretty cool. Designed and delivered in 4 months.

Seems like a good idea. However, if these were deployed in other arenas, where the enemy had the ability Jam the "cheap" communication, those drones would be...well...long gone. How do military communication systems handle jamming?

Interesting article here about some of the anti jamming techniques used.

I'm not convinced that an exoskeleton will enable a footsoldier to take on a tank of the same tech level.

A foot soldier can already take on a tank. http://www.defense-update.com/products/r/rpg.htm

Imagine a soldier carrying a ton of armour, yet able to move almost as quickly as a man, yet impervious to most weapons...

Well, based on other posts, it looks like armor ain't what it used to be. But imagine a soldier carrying a hornet's nest of anime-style swarming missiles. He'd be a like a mobile squad-level point defense station.

Woah, calm down. I'm in Iraq. For the second time.

We have these armored IED hunting vehicles. They save lives. And I guess things have changed in the HMMWV department too: ours have been up-armored. I don't want to down play your experience here in Iraq, but things are getting better everywhere, every day.

-t