Technical Intelligence Bulletins July

A non-profit publication about the veterans of Technical Intelligence in war and peace, the current operations of the National Ground Intelligence Center, the Technical Intelligence Unit at Aberdeen Proving Ground and news items of interest to the technical intelligence community.

"...as a long time OPSEC honcho in a government program office, attended the IOSS intra-agency updates in Washington from around 1985 to 1991 before I retired. We received briefings from all intel agencies and law enforcement agencies plus agencies with defense programs. After the old USSR imploded, there have been two major fears ... one is that while the big boomers can pretty well be accounted for, the smaller tactical nukes have not .. second, all those nuclear and bio scientists who were top dogs in the USSR with all kinds of perks and such in the Communist world suddenly were out on the street and available to whoever would pay the salary. My own private nightmare is knowing that Warsaw Pact/Soviet troops had chemical weapons right down with front line troops (spent 3 years wondering when I would be in the Fulda Gap watching all the Russians in the world coming across the border).... artillery units had chemical agent rounds amounting to around 15% of their basic load right with the guns ... where did all those nerve and blister agent stuff go? I never got a straight answer on that question although I asked several times. The way the USSR fell apart, I doubt there is anyone in Russia these days who know where all this stuff is ... so much having been deployed in border Soviet states now independent States. Any record keeping was definitely on the iffy side...

I've worked on precisely these matters between '94 and '97, and I am reasonably confident Russians do have a good handle on their nuclear stockpile, both tactical and strategic. With chem and bio stuff, Russians are not as open with us as we'd like, in large part because if they were, we'd find out just how badly they've violated relevant arms control agreements in the past. It seems they've greatly understated their CW stockpile, which is the reason why they are behind their elimination schedule. Likewise, they've had an active BW program throughout '70s and '80s, which may or may not have been fully terminated by Yeltsin (Gorby, apparently, let it slide), so for obvious reasons they are trying to avoid embarrassment. At the same time, they are as concerned about leakage of technologies or ready-made weapons as they are, because if something happened Russia's credibility would be totally shot.

But going back to the issue of "loose nukes", I can confidently say that a smuggled tac nuke is not a likely "nightmare scenario". It's probably a good thing that the press is dedicating an inordinate amount of attention to this issue, because otherwise it might cue the terrorists to what Russia's real weak spots are.Mike J.

The Mounted Combat System, the "replacement" for the Abrams, will certainly not lack in offensive capability. However, in order to be readily deployable by air, it is to be armored against only 30mm projectiles. Protection against larger caliber threats is to be through a combination of advanced composite armor and active protection systems (APS), the latter intended to shoot down incoming projectiles. There was a nice display on US APS programs at the NDIA symposium in NJ last month. Pretty impressive stuff. HEAT projectiles, whether from RPGs or tank guns or missiles, would be dealt with by a combination of advanced armor, and fragmentation munitions fired from the vehicle. They've even got a way to knock down high performance kinetic energy projectiles: a blast munition is fired at it, and the resultant blast destabilizes the penetrator, which tears itself apart in mid-flight. So I asked the earnest young scientist what his system could do against an old fashioned full-bore solid shot armor piercing proje ctile, which is invulnerable to fragments and by virtue of being short and spin stabilized cannot be deflected in the way newer rounds are. He thought about it and said: Not much!

It used to be that no foreign weapon, no matter how good, was ever adopted by the US Army or Marine Corps-the infamous "it wasn't invented here syndrome." That syndrome fortunately has largely died with the effort to reduce research, development, and procurement costs, introduce NATO standardization, and the recognition that there are many good ideas developed across the seas. Additionally, it is a two-way street, for example, when the US adopted the Belgium 7.62mm MAG as the M240 coaxial machine gun to replace the US-designed, problem-riddled 7.62mm M73 and M219 tank machine guns, Belgium agreed to purchase American F-16 fighters. What US Army and Marine Corps weapons and equipment today are produced under license, copied, based on foreign designs, or purchased directly from foreign countries?

- While both the M60 and MAG 58 (M240) machine guns were under development in the late 1950s, the MAG (Mitrailleuse d'Appui Generale) was not seriously tested by the US. The vehicle-mounted M240 was adopted to replace the problem-ridden US-made M73 and M219 coaxial machine guns in 1976 and the ground versions of the M240 were adopted to replace the M60-series in 1994 (USMC) and 1995 (US Army). Only six other countries have made wide use of the M60: Australia, El Salvador, the Philippines, South Korea, South Vietnam, and Thailand. The MAG is practically a worldwide standard general purpose machine gun.

METAL STORM A new ballistic technology that can fire burst rates in excess of one million rounds per minute from a 36-barrel weapon was one of the reasons Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld canceled the $11 billion Crusader artillery system. The technology is known as "Metal Storm," which is also the name of the Australian research and development company that owns it.

Admiral Bill Owens, a retired former deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and author of "Lifting the Fog of War," a controversial book about defense modernization, is the chairman of the board of Metal Storm Ltd. With multimillion-dollar contracts, Metal Storm works closely with the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Australian Defense Science and Technology Organization. Chuck Vehlow, a former general manager of the Boeing helicopter division, is the company's new chief corporate officer. Vehlow has negotiated big-ticket procurement contracts and technology licensing agreements with the Pentagon.

Most of Metal Storm's work is top secret. Already under development is an "area denial weapons system," including an unmanned aerial combat vehicle that will carry twelve 40-mm mortar boxes comprising a total of 1,200 tubes, and armed with 7,200 grenades. The system's unprecedented firing capabilities can lay down a continuous 50-meter-wide carpet of grenades for about two miles, firing all its grenades simultaneously with a five-yard separation on impact.

Another gun under development for a small combat aerial vehicle is multi-barreled and can fire 270 rounds onto a target in just .001 seconds without stress on the air frame or any drop in air speed. The company's advanced individual combat weapon program is destined to replace small arms throughout the western alliance, said Mike O'Dwyer, company chief executive officer. The prototypes now being developed have a dual barrel capability to fire both 20-mm and 40-mm bursting munitions and standard 5.56-mm NATO ammunition. The weapon will also fire "less-than-lethal" projectiles for riot control. The future infantry weapons hardware replacement program for Australia's small defense forces alone is estimated to be worth $700 million.

Metal Storm's submachine gun will be capable of firing multiple barrel rapid-fire bursts at 45,000 rounds per minute per barrel. The technology is 100 percent electronic. Its electronically variable rate of fire has been confirmed to one million rounds per minute. The technology allows barrels to be grouped in any configuration required for a particular application because it has no moving parts, no separate magazine, no ammunition feed or ejection system. The only moving parts in this revolutionary ballistic technology are the bullets or other projectiles. Next to "Metal Storm's" firepower, said a senior Pentagon acquisition official, the lumbering, 45-ton Crusader artillery tube would be obsolete equipment.

At the core of the new technology is a projectile design that allows multiple high-pressure ammo to be stacked in-line in a barrel, then electronically fired in sequence. In turn, multiple barrels can be grouped together to form compact weapons systems of unprecedented conventional firepower. These new weapons will have all-electronic access control systems to ensure that only authorized personnel use them. The dual function will also allow on-board selection at the press of a button between a non-lethal response capability and the kind of lethality that will deny an area to the enemy without having to use anti-personnel landmines.

Metal Storm also makes the Vle, a handgun with a 64-digit electronic keying system that conceals a transponder. An electronic message confirms when the weapon is set to fire and which fire setting is selected. U.S. defense sources said the Metal Storm technological breakthrough will produce a new generation of weapons that will "accelerate out-of-atmosphere ballistic missile interdiction as well as biological and chemical cloud neutralization." The technology is not just used for firing projectiles. It is an electronically controlled delivery system that has potential applications in fire fighting, fireworks displays, aerial advertising in the night sky, precision chemical distribution in agriculture, and seismic surveying for minerals and oil.

Pizeo crystal fuze makes contact with two elements, outer warhead case and innter liner. These are insulated from each other by a bakelite ring at the fat portion on the warhead. Coming on back, the electrical circuit moves along the outer warhead case to the Base fuze, through the base fuze to the cone shaped charge liner. Inside the explosive is a shock wave shaper.

This warhead is attached to the rocket motor assembly. This contains the actual rocket motor and iniating charge. The rocket motor is a solid propellant with the gases exhausting through the nozzels which are at the front, near the base of the warhead. The iniating charge also ignited the propelling charge. This is the tail fin assembly which has strips of single base nitrocellulose propellant. This fires the rocket out of the launcher and about 11 meters down range, the main rocket motor kicks in and moves the round to the target.

Chain link fence will defeat the sharped charge effect by either detonating the round before it hits the target or by crushing the front of the war head, thus causing a short circuit. The time delay element of the fuze will go off and the round explodes but with out the shaped charge penetrating very much. During WW II the Russians used bed spring on the sides of their tanks to defeat the panzerfaust.

Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition. Controversial anti-tank shells tipped with depleted uranium may be phased out if an alternative material proves its worth. The US Army is expected to award a contract this week for the manufacture of prototype ammunition incorporating a "liquid metal" alloy. The new rounds could be in service within two years. Campaigners have complained for years about the potential health effects of DU - it has been linked to everything from Gulf War syndrome to birth defects. But the health connection is disputed and the military defends its use of DU.

All the same, the US Army's Tank-automotive and Armaments Command is looking for alternatives in case political pressures force it to abandon DU. DU has been the material of choice for anti-tank ammunition since the 1970s because it has twice the density of lead. And it has two key advantages over pure tungsten, which has a similar density. Tungsten shells flatten on impact, forming a mushroom shape. But DU rounds self-sharpen as they deform because material breaks away in a way that preserves the shell's shape, a phenomenon known as "adiabatic shear banding". DU rounds are also pyrophoric - the fragments ignite in air, torching the interior of the target vehicle.

Now Liquidmetal Technologies, an R&D company based in Tampa, Florida, says it can get comparable performance from penetrators made of an exotic alloy of tungsten. Normally, solid metals are a lattice of tiny crystals. The size of the crystals affects the properties of the material, which tends to fracture along the boundaries between them. Instead of such a metal, the company wants to use an amorphous alloy that has a random arrangement of atoms, as in a glass or liquid. Amorphous tungsten alloy has many of the properties that make DU such an effective penetrator: it is self-sharpening and it should also be pyrophoric, says Steve Collier, president of Liquidmetal's defence arm.

The new contract is for a test batch of 30-millimetre ammunition of the type used by American A-10 "tank buster" aircraft, which fired some 75 tonnes of DU during the recent Iraq conflict. While many will welcome an alternative to DU, questions remain over the safety of tungsten. Fragments of tungsten embedded in flesh have been shown to cause tumours by Alexandra Miller and her colleagues at the Armed Forces Radiobiology

"Clearly, tungsten is not radioactive like DU, so there is no hazard from radioactivity," says Peter Collins, director of the Royal Society's Science Policy Group. But most casualties will be caused in battle, he says: "The most obvious health hazard from any of these things is being hit by one."

The Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center and the Special Operations Command jointly hosted a demonstration of modular payload systems on robotic platforms from July 14 -17 at Avon Park Bombing Range, Fla. ARDEC's contribution to this demonstration consisted of modular armament payloads which include the M202, the 40mm grenade launcher and the Telepresent Rapid Aiming and Pointing system -- all of which can be mounted, individually, on the Talon robot, thus the name "modular" - plug and play..

Five non-commissioned officers from ARDEC's Explosive Ordnance Disposal Unit participated in the demonstration and highlighted the capabilities of armed, unmanned ground vehicles in tactical operations. The soldiers accomplished the goal of this technology demonstration, which was to show the operational utility of arming robots and to generate user interest in the concept of armed robots on the battlefield.

The robot platforms demonstrated were the Talon robot developed by Foster-Miller Inc. This robot was a logical choice since it is already in service with joint service EOD units and soldiers are experienced with its operation. Additionally, the Talon robot has an articulating arm that facilitates attaching and aiming weapons. The robots were integrated with one of three armament systems: an M202 Light-Anti-tank Weapon (four 66mm rockets), a 6 barrel 40mm grenade launcher, or a small arms weapon mounted on the TRAP) system produced by Precision Remotes. While many people are fearful that armed robots will run amok on the battlefield, this was not an issue for the demonstration. The robots employ a "man in the loop" where the robots are always under the direct control of a soldier.

The soldier issues commands to the robot and the small arms weapons through the robot's operator control unit, and the soldier issues commands to the rocket and grenade launchers through a newly developed Remote Firing and Control System (RFACS). The RFACS, developed by a company called Duke Pro, allows a single soldier to control up to five separate firing systems using a 40 bit encryption security system. Adding to the overall safety of the system, Picatinny engineers completed a variety of tests on the system including software operation, electromagnetic effects and shock and vibration. The demonstration started with a Talon robot driving over anti-personnel land mines to place an explosive charge on an anti-tank mine.

This was followed by a live fire of all three armament systems engaging targets out to 450 meters in single fire and automatic fire modes. Visitors to the demo watched the live fire events and then received detailed briefings on the operation of the systems. The EOD soldiers learned much about the performance of the system and identified a number of potential improvements to make the system even more lethal.

BAQOUBA, Iraq - An American soldier stands at the side of an Iraqi highway, puts his AK-47 on fully automatic and pulls the trigger. Within seconds the assault rifle has blasted out 30 rounds. Puffs of dust dance in the air as the bullets smack into the scrubland dirt. Test fire complete.

The soldiers based around Baqouba are from an armor battalion, which means they have tanks, Humvees and armored personnel carriers. But they are short on rifles. A four-man tank crew is issued two M4 assault rifles and four 9mm pistols, relying mostly on the tank's firepower for protection. But now they are engaged in guerrilla warfare, patrolling narrow roads and goat trails where tanks are less effective. Troops often find themselves dismounting to patrol in smaller vehicles, making rifles essential.

"We just do not have enough rifles to equip all of our soldiers. So in certain circumstances we allow soldiers to have an AK-47. They have to demonstrate some proficiency with the weapon ... demonstrate an ability to use it," said Lt. Col. Mark Young, commander of the 3rd Battalion, 67th Armor Regiment, 4th Infantry Division.

"Normally an armor battalion is fighting from its tanks. Well, we are not fighting from our tanks right now," Young said. "We are certainly capable of performing the missions that we have been assigned, there's no issue with that, but we do find ourselves somewhat challenged." In Humvees, on tanks - but never openly on base - U.S. soldiers are carrying the Cold War-era weapon, first developed in the Soviet Union but now mass produced around the world.

The AK is favored by many of the world's fighters, from child soldiers in Africa to rebel movements around the world, because it is light, durable and known to jam less frequently. Now U.S. troops who have picked up AKs on raids or confiscated them at checkpoints are putting the rifles to use - and they like what they see. Some complain that standard U.S. military M16 and M4 rifles jam too easily in Iraq's dusty environment. Many say the AK has better "knockdown" power and can kill with fewer shots. "The kind of war we are in now ... you want to be able to stop the enemy quick," said Sgt. 1st Class Tracy S. McCarson of Newport News, Va., an army scout, who carries an AK in his Humvee. Some troops say the AK is easier to maintain and a better close-quarters weapon. Also, it has "some psychological affect on the enemy when you fire back on them with their own weapons," McCarson said.

Most U.S. soldiers agree the M16 and the M4 - a newer, shorter version of the M16 that has been used by American troops since the 1960s - is better for long distance, precision shooting. But around Baqouba, troops are finding themselves attacked by assailants hidden deep in date palm groves. Or they are raiding houses, taking on enemies at close-quarters.

Two weeks ago, Sgt. Sam Bailey of Cedar Falls, Iowa, was in a Humvee when a patrol came under rocket-propelled grenade and heavy machine gun fire. It was dark, the road narrow. On one side, there was a mud wall and palms trees, on the other a canal surrounded by tall grass. Bailey, who couldn't see who was firing, had an AK-47 on his lap and his M4 up front. The choice was simple. "I put the AK on auto and started spraying," Bailey said. Some soldiers also say it's easier to get ammo for the AK - they can pick it up on any raid or from any confiscated weapon. "It's plentiful," said Sgt. Eric Harmon, a tanker who has a full 75-round drum, five 30-round magazines, plus 200-300 rounds in boxes for his AK. He has about 120 rounds for his M16. Young doesn't carry an AK but has fired one. He's considered banning his troops from carrying AKs, but hasn't yet because "if I take the AK away from some of the soldiers, then they will not have a rifle to carry with them." Staff Sgt. Michael Perez, a tanker, said he would take anything over his standard issue 9mm pistol when he's out of his tank. And the AK's durability has impressed him. "They say you can probably drop this in the water and leave it overnight, pull it out in the morning, put in a magazine and it will work," Perez said.

The Army, which rebuts the report's findings, plans to send 300 Stryker armored vehicles and 3,600 soldiers to Iraq. This first Stryker brigade will help put down the resistance that has killed more 60 American troopers since May 1. It will also be a preview of a lighter, more mobile Army for the 21st century.

But a report prepared for Rep. James H. Saxton, New Jersey Republican, says the vehicle is ill-suited for such warfare. "Poorly armored and entirely vulnerable to RPGs," states the glossy, 108-page report prepared July 18 by consultant Victor O'Reilly. An Army spokesman, however, said the Strykers are being fitted with added armor. This will "drastically increase their protection against kinetic energy weapons and increase RPG protection," said Lt. Col. Stephen Barger, spokesman for 1st Corps at Fort Lewis, Wash., where the brigade is being developed. As part of an accelerated development, the Army did not require Strykers to immediately feature anti-RPG armor. The brigade going to Iraq is now being fitted with slat armor. It works like a big catcher's mask, stopping a grenade before it reaches the Stryker's main body, thus keeping the explosion at a distance. Eventually, the Strykers will be fitted with more permanent armor now being tested.

The Stryker has successfully passed live-fire tests against rifle and machine-gun fire. The slat armor system has also shown in tests that it protects against grenade blasts. Mr. O'Reilly, who said he did the report at his own expense, says even with the added armor the Stryker's top and wheel wells are susceptible to RPGs that could kill all 13 soldiers inside the Stryker's infantry carrier version.

The Pentagon this year signed off on a plan to procure enough Stryker vehicles to equip the first four of six brigades, which would become the vanguard of a lighter, quicker deploying Army. Despite Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's program approval, a number of Stryker skeptics remain within the active Army, and among former soldiers and members of Congress. None is more vocal than Mr. Saxton, a House Armed Services Committee member. He succeeded during debate on next year's defense budget to "fence" $300 million in procurement funds until the Army answers operational questions.

Mr. Saxton fears the Stryker is not only vulnerable to RPG fire, but is also overweight and cannot easily fit into a C-130 transport plane - a feat that is supposed to be one of its best selling points. The Stryker is actually a family of 10 vehicles that gets around on wheels, not the traditional rolling tracks. They include the infantry carrier vehicle, the mobile gun system, the anti-tank guided missile, the mortar carrier and the reconnaissance vehicle. After the Army took weeks to deploy a relatively small Apache helicopter unit on the Kosovo border in 1999, Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the chief of staff, moved to lighten the force. One of his answers was to develop a family of light, wheeled vehicles that eventually became the Stryker family.

Col. Barger, the Army spokesman, rebutted these criticisms. He ticked off a list of Stryker tests and exercises. These included loading the system on the C-130 and C-17 transport planes, as well as on ships and trains. The vehicle also has cleared readiness training at Fort Irwin, Calif., and Fort Polk, La. "For the past three weeks, in California's barren Mojave Desert, the Stryker Brigade Combat Team proved its speed, versatility and lethality against a world-class opposing force at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin," an Army press release said earlier this month.

Built by General Dynamics, the Stryker is designed as a medium-weight armored system to fill the gap between light infantry units such as the 82nd Airborne Division and heavy armored units that can take weeks to get to battle. "It does fit on a C-130," said Kendall Pease, vice president of communications for General Dynamics in Falls Church. "It's been on a C-130. They have deployed it on exercises in a C-130. It fits. It meets all the requirements that the Air Force has given. Yes, it's true that it is fast, mobile, survivable, deployable and lethal. It meets all the expectations of the young soldiers that are required to use it in battle."

Gen. John Keane, the Army vice chief of staff, told reporters last month that the Iraq-bound Stryker brigade faced "the toughest opponent our forces have ever faced" at combat training centers. "We've put them through their paces and they're ready to go," he said. The Army plans to buy 2,100 vehicles, enough to put about 300 in each brigade. Mr. O'Reilly says it will cost between $12 billion and $15 billion to equip six brigades. The Pentagon has funded the first three and made a down payment on the fourth. The Stryker is a pathway to the Army's ultimate transformation goal: a family of high-tech vehicles and aircraft called the Future Combat System. The objective is to get a Stryker brigade any place in the world in four days. But a June General Accounting Office report said that benchmark is not being met. The GAO credited the Army with reducing the logistics load, as compared with a 68-ton M-1A1 tank. "However, meeting the 4-day worldwide deployment goal of a brigade-size force would require more airl ift than may be possible to allocate to these brigades; at present, it would take from 5 to 14 days, depending on destination."

The Army announced last month it was sending the first Stryker unit, the 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, from Fort Lewis to Iraq. The Stryker unit will join the 3rd Cavalry Regiment in October. The regiment will leave Iraq in April and May, leaving the Stryker Brigade in Iraq until October 2004. Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely said he has been following development of the Stryker for several years. "It's been a very controversial issue," said the Fox News military analyst in an interview. "This report really calls in to question whether this is the combat vehicle for the Army in the future." Gen. Vallely said the Stryker seems designed more for peacekeeping operations than for combat. He noted that the Army still has not decided what size gun to deploy on the Mobile Gun System variant. "The other thing is that it does not appear to be as efficient and effective as a tracked vehicle in combat operations," said Gen. Vallely, an infantryman. "It is also very vulnerable to [rocket-propelled grena des] and sniper fire at its wheels."

Gen. Vallely said retired Gen. Shinseki initially wanted the 19-ton Stryker to be lighter and more mobile than current combat vehicles. "But it's a heavier vehicle and harder to move than what is required for very speedy mobility and transportability to areas of combat operations," he said. •Bill Gertz contributed to this report.

The army wants to spend more than $300 million on a fleet of 100 tanks. The request comes in a capability report to Defence Minister Robert Hill. The army says without the "hardening" influence of tanks, Australian land forces would be suited for only limited combat roles or peacekeeping duties. If approved, the move would represent a major Government backdown. The 2000 Defence white paper ruled out heavy armoured forces as too expensive and unlikely to be needed to defend Australia. The report recommends buying German Leopard 2A4s to replace the army's Leopard 1s, which are nearly 30 years old and not considered capable of deployment. The report says the new Leopard is the most suitable option because of its mobility, firepower and protection. The other tank considered was the American M1 Abrams, which would cost about $4 million each, compared to about $2 million for the Leopard. Buying the Leopard would also work against the Government's move to increase interoperability with the United States by buy ing new equipment from the US. Once training, logistic support and spare parts are taken into account, the total budget for the new tanks would be more than $300 million. In its report to Senator Hill, the army says the cost could be met by cutting other programs in its budget

This year's defence budget is believed to have blown out by $2 billion, but Senator Hill has indicated he is prepared to consider the tank request. After the war in Iraq, army chief General Peter Leahy said the conflict proved that tanks still had a role. "We've seen the ability of tanks to go forward quickly, take a few hits and deal death blows," he said. "The mythology that you can't use them in urban environments has been debunked." Senator Hill has delayed the release of a defence capability plan outlining purchases for the next 10 years, amid concerns that budget blow-outs and commitments emerging from the need to fight alongside the US would require cuts to major weapons programs. A spokeswoman for Senator Hill said it would be months before the new plan was submitted. She refused to comment on the tank proposal. - Australia's Collins class submarines have again been taken out of service because of safety concerns. Maritime Command chief of staff Nigel Perry said the six submarines' underwater valves needed safety checks after the Australian Submarine Corporation said valve maintenance had not been done properly. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/08/1060145874173.html