Monthly Archives: January 2020

]]> Royal Tank Regiment upgraded Challenger 2s. Credits: Elbit Systems UK. Sign-up to the Army Technology newsletter

The upgrade, which delivers an urbanised Challenger 2 variant, was developed by the Royal Tank Regiment to meet soldiers needs and identifies and fills the capability gap between the British Armys forces and adversaries in urban combat.

Supported by Army HQ, project Streetfighter II is aimed at adding modifications to the existing Challenger II Main Battle Tank (MBT) to improve lethality, situational awareness and infantry-tank cooperation of ground forces.

The vehicle was recently trialled at the UKs urban operations facility at Copehill Down Village on Salisbury Plain, where the Streetfighter was put through its paces in an urban combat environment testing a range of upgrades from industry partners.

This year Streetfighter demo built on earlier experience of the project that began in 2018 and saw the upgrades showcased to a range of senior military figures and officials from the Defence Science Technology Laboratory (Dstl).

The Streetfighter II MBT demonstrated by the British Army featured a range of lethality upgrades including heavier, more lethal machine gun systems to provide dismounted infantry better support fire.

The most notable upgrade was one of the two urbanised Challengers being equipped with a Brimstone anti-tank guided missile system designed to neutralise the threat of heavily armoured, highly survivable land platforms at long-range.

The Brimstone, made by MBDA, is designed to destroy fast-moving vehicles alongside tanks and other lighter-armoured vehicles as well as fixed positions like bunkers and can be fired from a range of platforms.

On the situational awareness front, the Streetfighter concept greatly improves the ability of mounted and dismounted personnel to communicate and understand their environment, with communications improved to let personnel on the ground directly communicate with those inside the tank.

The upgraded Challenger features a host of cameras to provide a 360-degree view of the area outside the tank; the original Challenger 2 has a limited field of view and the upgrades mean the commander and gunner can now see everything around them.

The Streetfighter II variant also features a barrel-mounted camera to enable the tank commander and crew to see around corners before they approach them, alerting them and the following personnel in advance of any previously hidden threats.

A major situational awareness upgrade comes in the form of Elbit Systems UKs IronVision platform which uses a heads-up-display (HUD) to provide tank crews with full 360 situational awareness.

The zero-latency system allows the crew to have a full picture of their operating environment despite being under armour by feeding in a picture from outside the tank into the HUD.

Elbit Systems UK CEO Martin Fausset said: It is great to see Elbit Systems UK supporting the UK Armed Forces as they enhance their battlefield protection systems for urban environments. We relish the opportunity to protect our servicemen and women in the field and are pleased to see the IronVision system delivering in this capacity.

IronVision pulls together the feeds from the various cameras outside the MBT and then converts them into a single picture where the tank operator only needs to turn their head to see a different view of outside the vehicle, rather than cycle through cameras on a screen.

Elbits IronVision system. Credits Elbit Systems UK.

On the slightly more low-tech front, the MBT also supports infantry by physically lightening the load on personnel by carrying extra gear from medical equipment to ammunition, and the addition of a storage rack to carry an urban assault kit.

The improved Challenger 2 is also fitted with steps built into the side of the vehicle allowing personnel to mount and dismount the platform more easily. One of the tanks is also fitted with a plough to clear obstructions from the urban environment allowing personnel to continue moving forward and acting as a makeshift stretcher to transport injured personnel out of the combat environment.

It is unclear whether the upgrades made by the Royal Tank Regiment will be employed across the wider fleet of Challenger 2 vehicles. However, in the British Armys wider plans for tanks, the life-extension programme continues to be a priority, in order to continue the service life of the vehicle and maintain the ability of the UK to deploy MBTs into battle.

Current plans for the Challenger 2 life extension programme are slowly drawing to a close after first being tabled in 2013. Any decision on the future of the Challenger 3 will now likely become wrapped up in the planned UK Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) which will look at the needs of the Armed Forces and help guide their future shape.

At Defence IQs International Armoured Vehicles 2020, British Army director capability, Major General Jez Bennett reaffirmed the commitment to the vehicle and outlined the scope of the current life extension programme.

Bennet said: The Challenger 2 programme aims to deliver an enhanced main battle tank, with greater lethality and survivability that will provide precision direct fire and intimate support to the infantry until well into the next decade.

View original post here:

Streetfighter and the future of the Challenger 2 - Army Technology

Diverse Marine has signed a contract with Turner Iceni for the modification and upcycling of the Iceni Courage crew transfer vessel.

The UK-based refit and repair provider has won the contract following a competitive tender procedure.

The 2009-built 15m Iceni Courage will embark on an life extension project to catch up with the fast-progressing offshore wind sector and to avoid sale or repurposing.

The vessel will go through stretching of the hull, deck and superstructure by 3.6m. It will also be repowered to Volvo Penta IPS900.

Furthermore, Diverse Marine will relocate and replace Iceni Courages generator, relocate the fresh water and grey water tanks with all new plumbing, cut in a forward side door to the saloon, cut in an additional third crew position on the bridge and fully refit the interior.

The refit will include the Iceni Gen 3 upgrades with new, lighter and more accommodating linings, all new heads compartment, all new galley with modern appliances and all new windows and doors. In addition, the vessel is to be repainted from top to bottom, according to Diverse Marine.

In 2019, upcycling and life extension refits were carried out on the Iceni Warrior (former MCS Maestro ) and on Iceni Revenge (former MPI Don Quixote).

Following the success of the two Iceni life extension projects last year we are very pleased to have won this competitive tender and to further our experience in this important sector, said Ben Colman, Director of Diverse Marine.

See the original post here:

Iceni Courage to Be Revamped - Offshore WIND

In another sign that the nuclear arms race is heating up, the U.S. is ramping up production of nuclear bomb cores.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has announced that it plans to increase theproduction of plutonium pits to 80 per year. The grapefruit-sized pits contain the fissile material that give nuclear weapons such tremendous power.

Production will center on the Mixed-Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility at Savannah River site in North Carolina, which would be modified to manufacture at least 50 pits per year, and Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, which would generate at least 30, by 2030.

Americas nuclear weapons cores are aging, with some pits dating back to the 1970s, leading to concerns about the reliability of the U.S. nuclear stockpile.

The U.S. lost its ability to produce pits in large numbers in 1989, when the Rocky Flats Plant near Denver, Colorado, was shut down after the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Environmental Protection Agency investigated environmental violations at the site, noted Physics Today magazine in 2018. Up to 1,200 pits per year had been manufactured there.

Since then, only 30 pits for weapons have been fabricatedall at LANL [Los Alamos National Laboratory], the sole U.S. facility with production capability. Weapons-quality pit production ceased in 2012, when LANL began modernizing its 40-year-old facilities, although several practice pits have since been fabricated. The oldest pits in the stockpilewhich now numbers 3,882, according to DOEs National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)date to 1978.

In its 2018 Nuclear Policy Review, the Trump administration called for 80 new plutonium pits per year. Congress has also allocated large sums, with $4.7 billion alone allocated in FY 2019 for maintenance and life extension of the nuclear stockpile. The NNSA says it is legally mandated to ensure a capacity of at least 80 pits per year.

Though the production of nuclear cores has been an issue for years, a looming U.S.-Russia arms race makes the situation even more sensitive. Russia is fielding a new generation of strategic nuclear weapons, including a hypersonic nuclear-armed glider and an air-launched ballistic missile. The Trump administration has withdrawn from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty with Russia, alleging Russian violations, leading to fears that a new competition will beget the return of nuclear-armed, medium-range ballistic and cruise missiles.

Anti-nuclear groups are furious. Expanded pit production will cost at least $43 billion over the next 30 years, argues the Natural Resources Defense Council and other groups. Yet the Defense Department and NNSA have never explained why expanded plutonium pit production is necessary. More than 15,000 plutonium pits are stored at NNSAs Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas. Independent experts have concluded that plutonium pits have reliable lifetimes of at least 100 years (the average pit age is less than 40 years). Crucially, there is no pit production scheduled to maintain the safety and reliability of the existing nuclear weapons stockpile. Instead, proposed future pit production is for speculative new-design nuclear weapons, but those designs have been canceled.

Introducing a new generation of nuclear weapons could adversely impact national security because newly produced plutonium pits cannot be full-scale tested without violating the global nuclear weapons testing moratorium.

Michael Peck is a contributing writer for the National Interest. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook.

More here:

The U.S. is Boosting Production of Nuclear Bomb Cores (For More Nuclear Weapons) - The National Interest Online

Key point:America's F-16 has lasted a long time and has been given many upgrades. However, the F-16 might not be as good against the very best that Beijing and Moscow can throw at it.

You May Also Like: 5 Best Submarines of All Time, 5 Best Aircraft Carriers of All Time, 5 Best Battleships of All Time and Worst Submarine of All Time.

The F-16 fighter was originally conceived as a lightweight fighter for the United States and her NATO allies. In the U.S. Air Force, the Fighting Falcon would comprise the low end of a high-low mix of super-capable F-15s and cheaper, less capable F-16s. Among NATO allies, it would be a frontline fighter to replace aging planes like the F-104 and F-15.

Inevitably, the capable little single-engine fighter was pushed towards a more diverse array of missions. Originally conceived as just carrying short-ranged AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, it gained the ability to launch the beyond visual range AIM-7 Sparrow and AIM-120 AMRAAM. Over time it gradually evolved into a versatile air-to-ground platform with the ability to accomplish close air support, battlefield air interdiction and air defense suppression missions with a variety of precision-guided missiles, including the AGM-65 Maverick missile, AGM-88 HARM anti-radar missile and Joint Directed Attack Munition precision-guided bomb.

A confluence of eventsincluding a series of budget-draining wars in the Middle East for which the F-16 has been good enough and delays in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programhave conspired to keep the F-16 flying much longer than originally intended. Why the F-16 is still in service is fodder for another article, but the bottom line is that it is serving today and is seriously outmatched by a new generation of Russian and Chinese fighters.

First, lets look at one of the most recent and popular versions of the F-16, the Block 50 variant. Block 50 features a AN/APG-68 V(5) radar, F100-PW-229 afterburning turbofan engine, and the AN/ALE-47 threat adaptive countermeasure system. The Block 50 has a maximum sustained speed of Mach 1.89, a range of 360 miles on internal fuel, and a ceiling described as above 50,000 feet. It can carry up to six AIM-9 Sidewinder short-range infrared homing missiles or six AIM-120 AMRAAM beyond-visual-range missiles, or some combination of either.

Despite the F-16s longevity, obsolescence was inevitable. The F-16 will not fare well against a powerful new generation of Russian and Chinese fighters. The Moscows Su-35 Flanker and PAK-FA fighter and the Beijings J-20 stealth fighter, all previously described here, have rendered the Fighting Falcon obsolete.

Although based on an contemporary of the F-16, the original Su-27 Flanker, the Su-35 has been more thoroughly updated than the spunky American fighter. The Su-35 may not be stealthy, but it can detect and engage the F-16 before the F-16 can detect it, and this puts the American plane at a big disadvantage. In a one-on-one fight, the F-16 will probably not even be able to get the Su-35 into dogfighting range, where the smaller fighters legendary maneuverability would come into play.

The new Russian PAK-FA and Chinese J-20 fighters will have similar advantages, except their stealthy design will ultimately mean F-16s wont even detect their adversaries before they realize they are being targeted by beyond-visual-range guided missiles, launched by aircraft that only visible on radar for the brief moment their internal weapons bay doors are open.

What could be done to give the F-16 better odds? The latest variant of the Fighting Falcon, the F-16V, will have the APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR) radar, the first AESA radar retrofitted into the platform. SABR has been described as fifth-generation fighter technology, and indeed promises earlier detection, tracking and identification of targets sooner than older radars. The Republic of China Air Forces F-16s will be the first to be brought up to -V standard. The U.S. Air Force is pondering a service life extension program (SLEP) for select aircraft in the F-16C fleet, and the SABR radar is an obvious candidate for inclusion.

Yet improving the F-16s detection ability is only half the problem. While stealth has its disadvantages and countermeasures are inevitable, its also true that, like radar and electronic countermeasures, stealth is now permanently part of the essential feature set of modern combat aircraft. While China and Russia tout new anti-stealth measures, they are also making certain their own new aircraft are as stealthy as possible. That both countries, struggling to catch up with the United States, are still willing spend on stealth is a ringing endorsement of its value.

While SABR will likely improve the F-16s ability to detect fifth-generation fighters such as PAK-FA and the J-20, it will still be easy for enemy aircraft to detect. The F-16s lack of stealth is not something that can be addressed with upgrades to the airframe or an electronics package. The only solution is a new aircraft.

The F-16 still has a great deal of value against smaller, less technologically advanced air forces and air defenses, as well as low- to mid-intensity conflicts such as Libya and Syria. Its also useful as a bomb truck, carrying long-range munitions such as the JASSM cruise missile behind a protective wall of F-22 and F-35 fighters. But thanks to PAK-FA and the J-20, its days as a day-one frontline fighter are over. As the F-35 enters service with the United States and with its NATO and Asian allies, the F-16 begins its long, well-earned flight into the sunset.

Also From TNI: Donald Trump: The Worst President Ever?

Also From TNI: Donald Trump: Best President Ever?

Also From TNI: Why Japan Really Lost Pearl Harbor

Also From TNI: What Happens if North Korea Nuked Washington?

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami. This first appeared in September 2016.

Image: Reuters.

See the article here:

How Does the Air Force's F-16 Stack up Against the Best Chinese and Russian Fighters? - The National Interest Online

Rangers baseball broadcasts will remain on 105.3 The Fan (KRLD-FM) after the club signed a multi-year extension with the stations parent company, Entercom. The deal was announced Friday morning.

The Rangers have been on 105.3 The Fan for the past five seasons and 22 of the past 26 seasons. The length of the deal was not disclosed.

The Rangers are very pleased to extend our agreement with Entercom and 105.3 The Fan, said John Blake, the teams executive vice president for communications. We have enjoyed a great relationship with 105.3 The Fan over the last five years. As we move to Globe Life Field in 2020, we are looking forward to working with Entercom and 105.3 The Fan to provide the best in baseball coverage to all Rangers fans. We really appreciate this partnership.

Eric Nadel and Matt Hicks will remain in the broadcast booth, and Jared Sandler will retain duties hosting the pregame and postgame shows.

Were ecstatic to continue our rich history with the Texas Rangers and Hall of Fame broadcaster Eric Nadel on 105.3 The Fan, said Brian Purdy, the regional president and market manager of Entercom Dallas. This year is extra special for Entercom Dallas-Fort Worth and North Texas fans with the opening of the New Globe Life Field. As the unrivaled leader in local sports coverage, we are looking forward to continuing to provide fans with robust coverage of the team on and off the field.

Read the rest here:

Rangers broadcasts to remain on 105.3 The Fan (KRLD-FM) after club signs multi-year extension - The Dallas Morning News

The scaly-foot snail is one of Earths strangest creatures. It lives more than 2,300 metres below the surface of the sea on a trio of deep-sea hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the Indian Ocean. Here it has evolved a remarkable form of protection against the crushing, grim conditions found at these Stygian depths. It grows a shell made of iron.

Discovered in 1999, the multi-layered iron sulphide armour of Chrysomallon squamiferum which measures a few centimetres in diameter has already attracted the interest of the US defence department, whose scientists are now studying its genes in a bid to discover how it grows its own metal armour.

The researchers will have to move quickly, however, for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature has just added the snail to its list of threatened species. German and Chinese industrial groups have revealed plans to explore the seabed around two of the three vents that provide homes for scaly-foot snails. Should they proceed, and mine the seabeds veins of metals and minerals, a large chunk of the snails home base will be destroyed and the existence of this remarkable little creature will be threatened.

On land, we are already exploiting mineral resources to the full, says Jean-Baptiste Jouffray, of Stockholm University. At the same time, the need for rare elements and metals is becoming increasingly important to supply green technologies such as wind and solar power plants.

And so industrialists are looking to the seabed where it is now technologically and economically feasible to mine for minerals. Hence the arrival of threats to creatures like the scaly-foot snail.

Jouffray is the lead author of an analysis, published last week in the journal One Earth, which involved synthesising 50 years of data from shipping, drilling, aquaculture, and other marine industries and which paints an alarming picture of the impact of future exploitation of the oceans.

This threat comes not just from seabed mining which is set to expand dramatically in coming years but from fish farming, desalination plant construction, shipping, submarine cable laying, cruise tourism and the building of offshore wind farms.

This is blue acceleration, the term that is used by Jouffray and his co-authors to describe the recent rapid rise in marine industrialisation, a trend that has brought increasing ocean acidification, marine heating, coral reef destruction, and plastic pollution in its wake. As they state in their paper: From the shoreline to the deep sea, the blue acceleration is already having major social and ecological consequences.

Another illustration of blue acceleration is provided by seabed grabbing, state the authors. Article 76 of the UN convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS) allows countries to claim seabed that lies beyond the 200 miles of a nations exclusive economic zone. Since the first claim under Article 76 was made in 2001, 83 countries have made submissions. Put together, these claims account for more than 37 million sq km of seabed, an area more than twice the size of Russia.

Many seabed grabbers include small island states that are trying to become large ocean states in the process. For example, the Cook islands in the South Pacific has claimed an area of seabed that is 1,700 times its land surface. The extension of the continental shelf is therefore not only transforming the geopoltical landscape, it is also substantially shrinking the area designated as the common heritage of humankind, states the report.

Examples of the conflicts that could ensue because of the blue acceleration include the disruption of key fish stocks by drilling for gas or oil offshore; pipelines that prevent trawl fishing; and offshore wind farms that disturb tourism.

Norway provides a stark demonstration of likely future conflicts. It aims to bring about fivefold rises both in salmon farming and cruise tourism in its waters over coming years while also building more and more offshore wind farms and more and more offshore gas and oil platforms. Seabed mining for minerals is also scheduled to begin. This saturation of ocean space renders Norwegian waters as being highly vulnerable to shocks, states the report.

The South China Sea is another potential flashpoint. It is a key gateway in the regions network of undersea telecommunication cables; a third of the worlds shipping passes through it; while half the worlds fishing boats operate in its waters which are disputed variously by China, Malaysia, Vietnam and others. Should armed conflict break out here over any of these issues, there would be a far-reaching impact on the worlds economy.

The relevance of the ocean for humanitys future is undisputed, states the report. However, addressing the diversity of claims, their impacts and their interactions, will require effective governance.

To achieve this, the authors call for greater accountability to be imposed on those financing the fundamental changes that are now being made to Earths oceans. These include both banks and governments.

In addition, the vulnerability of small island states needs to be addressed, it adds: Navigating the blue acceleration in a just and sustainable way requires particular emphasis on the implications of increased ocean use across the globe and how these claims could have an impact on the economic safety and wellbeing of vulnerable communities and social groups.

Here is the original post:

Race to exploit the worlds seabed set to wreak havoc on marine life - The Guardian

Politicians, it seems, are not so principled

ISLAMABAD

DURING AN EXCITED exchange on a Pakistani talk show earlier this month, a government minister produced a well-polished boot and placed it on the studio desk. Scorning the oppositions claims to champion civilian authority over the armed forces, he accused them instead of laying down and kissing the boot. Even in the confrontational world of Pakistani politics shows, Faisal Vawdas stunt had the power to shock.

Everyone in Pakistan knows the army gives instructions to politicians, not the other way around. But its supremacy is not publicly acknowledged except in coy references to the establishment or the selectors. Imran Khan, the prime minister, is said to have banned Mr Vawda from talk shows for his frankness.

The boot was under discussion because of a febrile few months in Pakistani politics. First came a confusing debate about the extension of the tenure of the countrys top soldier, Qamar Javed Bajwa, the chief of army staff. While no civilian prime minister has ever completed a full parliamentary term in Pakistan, several military chiefs have managed to stay on beyond their allotted three years. Mr Khan, doubtless hoping to prolong his own time in office, approved a second three years for General Bajwa with alacrity.

But that, surprisingly, was not that. The Supreme Court unexpectedly chose to take up an obscure petition challenging the extension, pressing on even when the petitioner got cold feet. Days before General Bajwas original term was due to expire in late November, his fresh stint was put on hold as Asif Saeed Khosa, the chief justice, deliberated. After three days of suspense, the court passed the buck to parliament. It gave MPs six months to legislate more clearly on the tenure of army chiefs, and said General Bajwa could stay on in the meantime.

Parliament, predictably, approved the necessary legislation in record time, giving the government full discretion to extend the army chiefs term and banning legal challenges to such extensions. Even the two main opposition parties, the Pakistan Muslim League (PML-N) and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), which often bemoan military interference in politics, passed up the chance to clip the wings of the generals. Instead, both meekly voted with the government, thereby earning those gibes from Mr Vawda.

Next, in December, a special court handed a death sentence to Pervez Musharraf, a coup-leading former army chief, for suspending the constitution in 2007. The army again bristled. The sentence had been received with a lot of pain and anguish, the high command declared. Earlier this month an appeals court relented, and ruled that it was the set-up of the special court, not the suspension of the constitution, that was illegal.

Why is the judiciary making life difficult for the army when politicians are not? Some think Chief Justice Khosa, who retired in December, had an eye on his legacy. Some of his predecessors, after all, have cast themselves as fearless judicial superheroes. Alternatively, he may have wanted to restore some distance between the judiciary and the armed forces, after the courts were decried for doing the armys bidding by ousting Nawaz Sharif, one of Mr Khans predecessors. Another theory holds that unease at the extension within the army itself emboldened the judges. General Bajwas now lengthy term will impede the promotion of many beneath him.

And the opposition parties? Many believe they have come to the conclusion that they can achieve power only with the backing of the generals, as Mr Khan did. The army is popular, after all. Better to wait for it to tire of Mr Khan than to campaign against military influence. Only this week members of the PML-N began propounding a rumour that it was on the verge of persuading the army to ditch Mr Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party, and put them back in office instead.

This article appeared in the Asia section of the print edition under the headline "Pakistans judges briefly stand up to the army"

Link:

Pakistans judges briefly stand up to the army - The Economist