Technical Intelligence Bulletins Nov

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.

The Department of Defense announced today the results of an assessement of two separate manufacturing process-related accidents in August and September 2003 at Pratt & Whitney's missile propellant mixing facility in San Jose, Calif. These incidents affected three key components of the Missile Defense Agency's (MDA) missile defense development effort, as well as other DoD programs. MDA is currently finalizing its evaluation of potential impacts to the overall missile defense development program, but for the near-term, the program most affected is a booster rocket for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS).

The three-stage booster, in development by Boeing Co. subcontractor Lockheed Martin, uses propellant mixed at the San Jose facility for its second and third stages. MDA implemented a dual-booster development strategy more than two years ago as a risk reduction measure. As a result, a proven boost vehicle built by Boeing subcontractor Orbital Sciences will provide the booster rockets necessary for GMD deployment of up to 10 ground-based interceptors at Ft. Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., on the existing schedule, and for at least four boost vehicles for planned flight tests.

Orbital's booster configuration is a derivative of the company's flight-proven Pegasus, Taurus and Minotaur space launch vehicles, designed to be ground-launched from an underground silo. Two successful flight tests of the booster have been conducted this year from Vandenberg Air Force Base, and two integrated flight tests designed to validate system performance are scheduled to take place from the Reagan Test Site, Kwajalein Atoll, in early 2004.

Lockheed Martin will continue its development program as a subcontractor to Boeing as soon as possible, and is scheduled to conduct a flight test of its booster configuration from Vandenberg Air Force Base later this year. MDA remains committed to a dual-booster strategy, and will continue to work closely with Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Orbital Sciences to ensure effective, high-performance launch vehicles are available for operations and testing of the GMD element in order to provide an active defense against long-range missile attack.

The other two missile defense components affected by the accidents are the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), a ground-based interceptor missile being developed for the Army, and the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) sea-based interceptor now in development for use by the Navy aboard Aegis-class warships. Both interceptors are designed to intercept and destroy short to intermediate range ballistic missiles. MDA is finalizing its evaluation of the long-term impacts to these two BMDS components, but projections indicate there is no schedule impact to the first THAAD intercept flight test scheduled for 2005. There could be a delay of a few months to THAAD first flight (non-intercept test) in 2004. There are currently 40 rocket motors in the inventory for the SM-3. MDA and the Navy are assessing these motors to support SM-3 requirements for future operations and testing.

Despite what you read in other sources, a shaped charge jet is physically a "warm solid". Not a "plasma". As such it would indeed maintain a linear path without much damage to surrounding objects. Eventually the jet breaks up into discrete particles, at which point penetration basically stops. The giveaways here are the hits on the far side of the interior, consistent with impacts from the elements of the broken-up jet, and the mention of a gold-colored metallic residue, consistent with the copper of the SC liner with other metals entrained. Everything about this hit is consistent with a shaped charge. Recall that the PG-7M has more than double the penetration of the original PG-7, with a warhead 15mm smaller in diameter. Newer ones do even better. And when you optimize for penetration, you lose both exterior and behind-armor effects. This was seen when LAWs were used against light armor in Grenada.

NewsMax.com has obtained exclusive photos of a buried Iraqi jet fighter being recovered by U.S. Air Force troops. The Iraqi jet, an advanced Russian MiG-25 Foxbat, was found buried in the sand after an informant tipped off U.S. troops. The MiG was dug out of a massive sand dune near the Al Taqqadum airfield by U.S. Air Force recovery teams. The MiG was reportedly one of over two dozen Iraqi jets buried in the sand, like hidden treasure, waiting to be recovered at a later date. Contrary to what some in the major media have reported, not all the jets found were from the Gulf War era.

The Russian-made MiG-25 Foxbat being recovered by U.S. Air Force troops in the photos is an advanced reconnaissance version never before seen in the West and is equipped with sophisticated electronic warfare devices. U.S. Air Force recovery teams had to use large earth-moving equipment to uncover the MiG, which is over 70 feet long and weighs nearly 25 tons.

The Foxbat is known to be one of Iraq's top jet fighters. The advanced electronic reconnaissance version found by the U.S. Air Force is currently in service with the Russian air force. The MiG is capable of flying at speeds of over 2,000 miles an hour, or three times the speed of sound, and at altitudes of over 75,000 feet.

The recovery of the advanced MiG fighter is considered to be an intelligence coup by the U.S. Air Force. The Foxbat may also be equipped with advanced Russian- and French-made electronics that were sold to Iraq during the 1990s in violation of a U.N. ban on arms sales to Baghdad.

The discovery of the buried Iraqi jet fighters illustrates the problem faced by U.S. inspection teams searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is larger in size than California, and the massive deserts south and west of Baghdad were used by Saddam Hussein to hide weapons during the first Gulf war.

U.S. intelligence sources have already uncovered several mass grave burial sites in the open deserts with an estimated 10,000 dead hidden there. In addition, Iraq previously hid SCUD missiles, chemical weapons and biological warheads by burying them under the desert sand.

However, in recent days the critics have fallen silent as word quietly leaked from Iraq that major discoveries have already been made and are now being documented completely. Bush administration officials are keeping any such discoveries secret for the moment.

The tank had been loaned to a Museum in Germany under an agreement years ago. There were some difficulties when it's return was requested (partialy because refurbishment that had bee agreed upon was not being done) However things were eventually worked out and the tank is now in the UK at a well respected restoration shop. It is in the midst of a multi year restoration but will return to Aberdeen when it is completed. The original schedule called for completion by this fall BUT that was predicated on the Museum getting funding to have a new museum building not only for the Tiger but for the other exhibits as well. This funding has been cut from the budget many times over the years, inspite of the Museum trimming the scale back to cut the budget. The most recent proposal does little more than build modernised 'quonset hut' type buildings to hold the collection but I understand that even tis is again in budgetary trouble.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 20, 2003 -- New, reinforced helmets and body armor being fielded to the military today represent just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what's on the drawing board for protecting warfighters of the future. Tomorrow's fighting force will have far superior protective systems that provide enhanced capabilities while imposing less weight on the user, according to officials at the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center [http://www.natick.army.mil/] at Natick, Mass. The center conducts research and product development for all the military services.

Robert Kinney, director of Natick's Individual Protection Directorate, said engineers are looking at new materials and composites that offer enhanced protection with less weight. Already, the Marine Corps is fielding a new helmet that, thanks to new materials, offers 6 percent more fragmentation protection and the ability to stop 9 mm rounds, Natick officials said. The helmet, at just over 3 pounds, weighs about a half-pound less than the previous Kevlar helmet, introduced in the early 1980s.

A similar but somewhat streamlined helmet developed by the Army for special operations forces, the MICH or "modular integrated communication helmet," also provides increased ballistic protection. Kinney said the Army has expressed "tremendous interest" in fielding the new helmet to other forward-deployed troops, including the 82nd Airborne Division in Iraq.

Warrior [http://www.natick.army.mil/soldier/WSIT/] program - which LeeAnn Barkhouse, business liaison for the program, describes as a "system of systems" the Army is developing for warfighters in 2010 and beyond - integrates thermal sensors, video cameras and chemical and

biological sensors within the helmet. It also includes a visor that can act as a "heads-up display monitor" equivalent to two 17-inch computer monitors in front of the wearer's eyes, Barkhouse said. Similarly, Natick officials said new technology is improving warfighters' body armor systems. The new Interceptor body armor system is in wide use by the Army and Marines in Afghanistan and Iraq, where it "is saving lives left and right," Kinney said.

The vest, which the Marine Corps began fielding in late 1999, includes two 4- pound inserts that protect the vital organs against 9 mm submachine gun fire at point-blank range, according to Dee Townes, project officer for Natick's Marine Corps team. The vest also includes removable flaps that cover the groin, throat and neck. Lightweight boron-carbide protective plates make the Interceptor weigh just over 16 pounds, compared to 25 pounds for the flak jacket, the previous body armor.

But Kinney said Natick is exploring different materials and composites of materials that will provide increased ballistic protection while shedding as many as 6 more pounds from the vest. "Sixteen pounds is still too heavy," he said. "Our goal is to get a one-third to one-half reduction in weight. If we can get under 10 pounds, that would more reasonable." The body armor system being developed for the Objective Force Warrior program incorporates next-generation boron-carbide ceramic plates that will weigh 10 to 30 percent less than those in the Interceptor, while delivering equal or greater protection. Dutch DeGay, equipment specialist for the Objective Force Warrior program, said new construction processes are being explored to shape the plates so they fit more snugly against the chest and spine. In addition, he said Natick plans to replace the 20-plus layers of Kevlar in the Interceptor vest with a new M-5 fiber that will weight about one-third less. The self-adjusting vest will position the protective plates about two inches from the torso, DeGay said, to reduce chest injuries or bruising in the event that the wearer takes a hit, he said.

"Our goal is to create a protective system that is lower profile, lower bulk and lower weight," he said. "We want it to be like a second skin, so the warfighter barely even knows that it's there, but that offers the protections needed in a combat environment."

The Pentagon's new Javelin antitank missile received mixed reviews from some US Marines in Iraq, who complained over the summer the $68,000 weapon didn't lock on to targets. In response, several Army Special Forces soldiers praised the system as decisive in another battle.

Such tactical interservice debates often happen in secret. But some details of the weapon's performance are publicly available via the website of Raytheon Co., the Waltham defense contractor that makes Javelin in a joint venture with Lockheed Martin Corp.

"We wouldn't be standing here and be back with our families if you didn't build such a great product," the site quotes Special Forces Sergeant 1st Class Frank Antenori, speaking at a Raytheon meeting at its Tucson, Ariz., missile division in early September. The site also includes maps and photos of the battle, a rare stand by Iraqi forces in the northern part of the country. Based on the fight, "Javelin's accuracy and effective range appeared underrated," Antenori said.

Federal rules prohibit soldiers from endorsing products. But Raytheon executives say they pressed hard for Army clearances to post the material after it became clear the engagement was a success story for the $1.2 billion Javelin system, the latest infantry defense against tanks. The company says it's not an advertisement and not meant to counter the Marines' complaints.

Some outsiders say the Webpackage has the effect of an advertisement, anyway. "It's basically guys in uniforms giving product endorsements," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington research group. He called the Raytheon Web package "peculiar" but said he expects to see more like it as defense contractors emphasize conventional victories rather than the messy unconventional conflict now under way.

Robert Sherman, a weapons specialist with the Federation of American Scientists, said Raytheon's site seemed like a sales tool to promote foreign military sales, where Javelin competes with the Spike series made by an Israeli-European partnership. (Javelin has won several major competitions including sales to Australia and Britain, and Sherman added that Javelin's record in Iraq seemed like "a terrific success" overall.)

Raytheon business-development manager Michael Conti said he might mention the Debecka Pass material in briefings with foreign customers. But he said the website was only "put there so that people who work for the firm and the stockholders can take a look at the site and see the product literature and see a great story." Sabrina K. Steele, a Raytheon spokeswoman, said the company is seeking customer approvals to discuss the military use of other products, such as an infrared missile targeting sight.

Federal rules and customer sensitivities make the creation of any missile marketing or communications material a delicate matter. Military contractors frequently praise their products in trade journals, newspapers, and policy magazines to influence politicians in charge of military spending, but rarely offer specifics of how a system was used. Raytheon's partner on the Javelin, Lockheed Martin, had access to the same Debecka Pass material but chose not to post it on its own website. "We'd prefer not to be that edgy," said a company executive, who asked not to be named.

One defense contractor that has begun offering battlefield specifics is Textron Systems of Wilmington, which describes the first combat use of its Sensor Fuzed Weapon, a tank-killing cluster bomb, in a recent trade press ad. It shows an aerial photo of a smoking line of Iraqi tanks and says: "In combat sorties from 2 April onward, SFW from Textron Systems took out multiple Iraqi combat vehicles . . . Actual battle damage is classified."

Maureen Collins, Textron marketing communications manager, said the point was to remind policymakers of the weapon's combat record. "The best thing to be able to say is, it was used successfully in OIF," or Operation Iraqi Freedom. "Every contractor wants to be able to say that," she said.

In the case of Javelin, at first it wasn't clear Raytheon and Lockheed would be able to say the same. Fired from a shoulder launcher, the heat-seeking missile is designed to soar up and then strike down at the weaker armor plating on the top of enemy tanks. Javelin entered production in 1997 and the companies are in the midst of a four-year, $1.2 billion contract awarded in 2000.

Criticism of Javelin emerged shortly after the ground war began. Sherman said he heard from defense sources that the first combat Javelin shot missed a large building, which he called "a great embarrassment to everyone involved with the program." Raytheon's Conti acknowledges some problems but said that overall "the system worked better than the requirements." Final after-action reviews of Javelin aren't yet available, military officials said.

Then an article appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune on July 22 under the headline "Javelin didn't earn its stripes, Marines claim." The newspaper quoted several who said the system wouldn't stay locked on targets, and complained of a lack of live-fire training with the weapons. "It will either go to the target or it'll be erratic and scare the living bejesus out of you because you don't know where it's going to go," Captain Michael McCready told the newspaper.

Meanwhile, the Army Special Forces soldiers had returned to Fort Bragg, N.C., where they are in demand to give briefings of their dramatic fight. According to Antenori, it began when two 12-man Special Forces teams in unarmored Humvees were confronted by about 150 Iraqi troops and armor including four tanks at a strategic road intersection.

For thirty minutes until warplanes arrived, the Javelins were the only weapon to counter the tanks available to the Special Forces, who like the Marines had little training with the system. Still, 16 of the 19 Javelins they fired scored hits and kept two surviving tanks in defensive positions; their crews fled a few hours later. In a telephone interview this week, Antenori said that without the Javelins, "Either we would have been run over or we would have had to run. And I hate running."

Antenori said he cleared his briefing to Raytheon with Army lawyers and public affairs officers, mindful of rules that prohibit soldiers from making commercial appearances. "I was told that as long as we didn't endorse Raytheon and say, for example, `Raytheon is the greatest company' we'd be good," Antenori said.

JERUSALEM -- Israel's military is phasing out the legendary Uzi submachine gun, calling it antiquated and replacing it with more sophisticated, electronics-outfitted weaponry, an army spokesman said Wednesday. But the Uzi, a national icon and the country's most famous contribution to the arms industry, will still be produced and exported, to the presumable delight of drug dealers, gang members, Secret Service agents and Hollywood action stars alike. Israel's military took the simply constructed, half-century-old weapon out of front line units two decades ago, but continued to issue it to some elite units and soldiers carrying heavy gear who needed a light weapon for self-defense. Now the army says it will dump it altogether. As of this week, "we're no longer training soldiers on the Uzi," said army spokesman Capt. Jacob Dallal. "Basically, it's antiquated," he said of the 9-mm weapon.

State-owned Israel Military Industries has made over 1.5 million Uzis and will continue manufacturing the weapon, which has earned hundreds of millions of dollars from sales the world over, including in the United States, Latin America and Africa. Illegal arms sales have also put

the weapon into the hands of Colombian drug lords. In Israel, the weapon's smaller models are still popular with security guards who favor portability over accuracy. Many private security companies use the original, larger model because it's cheap.

It's also still a mainstay with some of the world's police forces and security services guarding VIPs, said Yiftah Shapir of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. The Uzi, while still used by the U.S. Secret Service, is also beloved of gangs in the United States because of its reputation as "a macho weapon," said gun expert Tim Brown of Globalsecurity.org. But he added the Uzi "is not a very good gun -- it's very inefficient, inaccurate. ... It's mostly used in bad Hollywood action movies."

In 1984's "The Terminator," for example, a gun shop owner commends Arnold Schwarzenegger's cyborg for ordering the "Uzi nine millimeter" before his murderous rampage. Whatever its qualities as a weapon, the Uzi arouses nostalgia and pride in Israel, where it was developed around the same time as the country's war-rattled birth in 1948. "It was the first Israeli weapon after 2,000 years of diaspora," Shapir said. Recalling his own days in the military in the late 1960s, he added, "I can still disassemble an Uzi with my eyes closed, hands tied behind my back, even if you wake me in the middle of the night." Elite Israeli fighting units found it useful because of its resistance to mud and water, giving the weapon a further mystique -- and marketing cachet.

The Uzi again made headlines when the weapon's creator, Uzi Gal, 79, died in September 2002. At 15, Gal developed a bow that could automatically fire arrows, and later he secretly made weapons in a metal workshop for the Jewish underground. When the first Arab-Israeli war erupted in 1948, he was asked to develop a submachine gun for Israel's army, which faced weapons embargoes and had little cash. The Uzi first found its way into soldiers' hands in 1954, and it swiftly proved its deadly effectiveness two years later in the Sinai campaign against Egypt. Among various models are Uzi Carbine, with a long barrel, the Micro-Uzi, which is smaller, and the Uzi Pistol, a semiautomatic weapon slightly larger than a regular handgun and weighing less than 4 pounds.

The Uzi -- whose modified single-shot pistol version can be bought for some $500 in the United States -- is one of the most copied weapons in the world, with knockoffs produced in China and several eastern European countries, according to Israeli media reports. Through its long years of service in the Israeli military, soldiers revered it for its hardiness and ease of operation -- but at the same time lamented its limited range and disturbing tendency to fire itself when dropped or struck. Its short barrel gave it an accurate range of just 50 yards. The weapon was taken out of use by front line units in Israel in the early 1980s. It was replaced with standard and short versions of the American-made M-16, which can accurately hit a target at 1,000 yards. This year, Israel announced the development of the Tavor, a new, compact assault rifle to be issued to soldiers starting in January. The rifle comes in three designs: a basic assault rifle, a sharp-shooting model and a shorter version for

The Tavor, like the Uzi, is small enough to be useful in street combat, but it can also be outfitted with high-tech electronics, such as sights that can provide real-time data on targets a soldier might not be able to see with his own eyes. The simple Uzi, by comparison, is greatly outdated,

The KY-67 (Bancroft) is a crypto piece. The set you have is missing all of the important parts so there should not be any problem having it. It is the only radio I know that has embedded encryption and a KY number. I don't believe there is any relationship between the KY-67 and SINCGARS. If someone knows of a connection to SINCGARS I would be very interested in hearing about it. AKAIK, the KY-67 was only built for the Marine Corps and not too many were made. Good luck finding parts.

There are 2 different nomenclature systems, that is why you see the KY designation on crypto and non-crypto equipment. JETDS is the one we are most familiar with (e.g., AN/PRC-25). TSEC is used for communications security equipemnt, (e.g., KY-57).

a. The BANCROFT TSEC/KY-67 and TSEC/KY-67A secure transceivers are half-duplex, integrated, tactical, voice security radios. They are fully compatible in cipher text (CT) operation with the VINSON family of COMSEC equipment. They are compatible in plain text (PT) with other VHF/FM radio equipment operating over the 30 to 76 MHz range. The TSEC/KY-67A model will eventually replace the TSEC/KY-67. Hereinafter, the TSEC/KY-67 and the TSEC/KY-67A will both be referred to as KY-67, except where specific differences exist.

b. The KY-67 secure transceiver has been designed using modular, microminiature, solid state techniques to be a rugged, lightweight, all environment, vehicular-mounted radio. In addition, the KY-67 features automatic resynochronization, automatic antenna matching, and the capability of transmitting digital data at 16 kilo bits per second (kbps).

a. General. The KY-67 is an integrated COMSEC, secure voice, VHF/FM transceiver. It functions as an automatic point-to-point net radio. The KY-67 operates over the 30 to 76 MHz frequency range. The BANCROFT and NESTOR (TSEC/KY-28 and TSEC/KY-38) equipments are incompatible.

b. New Equipment. The BANCROFT family of COMSEC equipment consists of the major components; the KY-67 Secure Transceiver, the HYP-67/TSEC Vehicular Amplifier-Power Adapter, and the RYQ-67/TSEC Spares Kit. The HYP-67A/TSEC and RYQ-67A/TSEC will be referred to as HYP-67/TSEC and RYQ-67A/TSEC respectively, except where specific differences between models exist.

(1) Secure Transceiver, TSEC/KY-67. The KY-67 is capable of storing five crypto-variables and a rekeying variable. It is a lightweight, rugged, all environment, vehicular mounted radio. The HYP-67/TSEC is the vehicular amplifier-power adapter for the KY-67. A small fill battery

The HYP-67/TSEC (hereinafter referred to as the HYP-67), is the primary power source for the KY-67. It provides TEMPEST and EMI filtering, as well as providing a mechanical connection with which to adapt a vehicular power source to the KY-67. The HYP-67 provides the necessary interfacing of the KY-67 (mounted in a shock mount, MT-1029/VRC), with vehicular power, intercom, remote frequency selector control (C-2742/VRC), antenna control, and antenna RF connections.

(3) TSEC/KY-67 Printed Wire Assemblies (PWA's). The PWA spares kit, RYQ-67/TSEC (hereinafter referred to as the RYQ-67), contains a complete set of KY-67 and HYP-67 replacement plug-in modules. These replacement modules may be used by a qualified repairer during the testing and/or troubleshooting of a KY-67 or HYP-67 and may be used to repair a defective KY-67 or HYP-67. The contents of each RYQ-67 kit are listed in an enclosure .

Who's got the best tank? Most people would say the American M-1 Abrams. Their reasoning would be simple; the M-1 has actually fought in two wars since 1991 and handily defeated whatever was sent against it. Tank buffs, however, tend to look more closely at details casual observers ignore. The buffs tend to consider the German Leopard 2A6 as superior to the latest model M-1A2. The Leopard 2A6 has a longer 120mm gun barrel, giving it's shells greater penetration. The Leopard also has reactive armor for the top of the tank, where the latest top-attack missiles seek to penetrate the thinner armor there. The Leopard also has a number of other novel touches, like a video cam facing to the rear of the tank, and hooked up to a screen in the drivers compartment. This allows to driver to go into reverse more quickly and confidently. Backing up quickly is a frequently used combat maneuver. The Leopard also has a diesel engine, rather than the fuel guzzling gas turbine (jet engine) of the M-1. Thus the M-1 has a little more zip, but the Leopard gets much better gas mileage.

But a tank does not stand by itself. It is part of a combat force, and the most important component is the crew. In this department, the M-1 has several advantages. Most importantly, American tank crews have had a lot of combat experience since World War II, German crews have had none. While German training is good, they are still using conscript crews, while U.S. tankers are all volunteers and in service longer. American combat doctrine has also developed more rapidly than Germany's and currently makes heavy use of the battlefield Internet and superior situational awareness. All of this makes an enormous difference. A tank is not the sum of all it's parts, it's only as good as the system it

operates within. Here the M-1 has a big edge. Moreover, the Americans get an additional slight edge because of their willingness to use depleted uranium in their composite armor, and tank shells. Then again, if the U.S. and German switched tanks, the Leopards with American crews would be superior.

The other tanks in the "top ten" are remarkably similar. Most have composite armor, and often reactive armor as well. All have guns similar to the M-1 and Leopard's 120mm smoothbore. The British Challenger 2 is usually ranked third. But, again, because the British armor units have had combat experience since World War II and use volunteers, they have an edge. Because the Americans have more proven combat technology, the M-1 would still be first, but the Challenger 2 would be second and the German Leopard third.

Things really get interesting when you try to fill the fourth place slot. There are a lot of high tech tanks out there. The French have the LeClerc, the Japanese have the T-90, the South Koreans have the Type 88/120 and Israel has the Merkava 4. Again, the edge should go to the tank that has the best crews and the most combat experience. That would be the Merkava 4. While lacking a lot of the gadgets of the other tanks mentioned above, the Merkava has an edge because of combat experience and crews with years of working together. Although most Israeli tank crews are reservists, many of the troops have combat experience and the crews often stick together for decades. This makes for very

Fifth place belongs to the South Korean Type 88/120. This tank was developed by the same people who created the M-1. Some call it the "Baby M-1", as it is a bit lighter than the M-1 (51 tons versus nearly 70 tons), but otherwise uses the same design principles. Most important is the fact that the South Korean crews know that they have a deadly foe just to the north. This provides a little pucker factor to the training, which is run using a lot of American techniques.

Sixth place is tricky and is a toss up between the French LeClerc and the Japanese Type 90. The edge goes to the Japanese tank. Both vehicles weigh about the same and use similar weapons. But the Japanese have better electronics and crews that have been together longer. Plus, all things considered, I be a little more fearful of a bunch of Japanese crews in their Type 90s than French crews in their LeClercs.

Eighth place would be the Russian T-80UM2. This tank uses a lot of new protective technology (to detect and defeat anti-tank missiles), several armor systems and lots of electronics. Unfortunately, the workmanship is slipshod and the crews mostly conscripts and poorly led.

Ninth place goes to the new Chinese Type 98. This is another of those "improved T-72s." Lots of improvements, though, many of them similar to what's found in the Russian T-80UM2. The workmanship on these vehicles is a little better than on the T-80UM2, but the Chinese don't have as much experience building tanks. This has shown itself in the numerous technical glitches that have shown up. The Chinese are moving to volunteer crews and more intensive training.

Tenth place goes to the Russian T-90, which is actually an upgraded T-72. Not as effective an upgrade as the T-80UM2 or the Chinese Type 98. Most of the remaining tanks in the world are Russian T-72s and T-55s, and US M-60s and M-48s. China builds clones of these Russian tanks, and other countries build variations on the T-72 and older British tanks. The M-60s, with the latest upgrades (thermal sights and computerized fire control systems) and well trained crews could be contenders for the 8-10 positions. But all those T-72s and T-55s serve largely as targets. However, as experience in the Arab-Israeli wars and World War II amply demonstrated, technically "inferior" tanks with

John Rollins, CMEC Vietnam has been very ill, nearly died. Was in the hospital for all sorts of problems such as blocked arteries. It was suggested we send John some humorous cards to cheer him up. He is now home from the hospital. His wife, Linda retires from work on Dec 5, 2003.

I was assigned to the Combined Material Exploitation Center in January of 1970 as assistant Ordnance Intel officer under Cpt Lyons, and later became Chief of Field Team # 1 in Phu Bai when Ltc de Lorenzo was director. After the Viet Nam tour, I went to the U.S. Army Foreign Science and Technology Center in Charlottesville, Va., and worked as the MI Officer in Armor Systems, and as a Briefing Officer for the various System Reviews. I retired out of the Army Reserve in 1988 as an 04 and Chief of CENTCOM Rail Operations. Add me to your list of former CMEC soldiers. V. Roger duPont jr. Purchasing Manager M.D.Moody & Sons, Inc.