2012/11/10

Armada 3/12

.
This time I'll comment on an entire issue of Armada International; issue 3 / 2012. Just for fun. Well, and to show how poorly aligned I am with mainstream and especially the arms manufacturer view on military affairs.
No, really, 99% for fun. Have fun!

Btw, I was a subscriber for this publication long ago, but became weary of it repeating the same blather about the very same topics over and over again. It appeared as if someone at Armada was fully employed only for writing medium AFV articles, for example.


p.6 "Where do modern soldier programmes now stand?"
related: 2009-09 Soldiers of the Future (programs)

This article is essentially about the status quo of the industry's discovery of infantry forces as cash cows. It's peanuts for big arms manufacturers, every piece of kit is only in the five-digit range. They ignored this market for long, but squeezed by the end of the Cold War they finally became interested.

The fundamental problem with these projects is even visible on the article's photos; the equipment is unwieldy and heavy. We'll probably find a way to make night vision less unwieldy than those flip-up night vision devices and heavy batteries will sooner or later be replaced by energy supply with a better energy/weight ratio, but the problem remains. It remains simply because all these gadgets are to be carried in addition to armour, weapons, ammunition, drinks, clothes, shelter, bandages and food.

It would be sensible to finally communicate that this kind of gadgetry is really for leaders and coordinators only. A mortar fire control NCO may have great use for it, an infantry platoon leader may have great use for it. Most others can only carry very much reduced electronic gadgetry sets, mostly a tiny intra-small unit radio and maybe one night sight (mounted on helmet for one eye, to be used in conjunction with weapon-mounted IR laser then or removed from helmet and attached to the weapon's sight for distances beyond ~30 m).

By the way; the Batlskin face armour advert on the other page is telling: In the old times, soldiers were trained to use their senses such as smell and hearing at night. They would be brought to a field or woods at night and asked for what they smell and hear. Some would pick up the diesel fumes smell. Then next a Leopard tank would activate its headlights, standing only 20 metres away.
Can you imagine that infantry equipped with total smell and hearing shutdown helmets would do this kind of training? Would they be sensitive to the potential ability of hostiles to detect them in the woods by the smell of tobacco or different diets as happened in Vietnam?

The ancient Romans knew better, and I think I kind of did, too.


p.20 "Today's 'must-have' assets" (about AEW&C aircraft)

This one has a funny editor glitch on page 21, where the editor has apparently marked a false info, but neither removed the marking nor has the false info been corrected. Boeing 707 models including the E-3 can cruise higher than 30k ft, of course.

The article is a typical Armada International article; an overview over the hardware on offer in a specific niche, totally devoid of any thought or critique. It's pleasant on the eyes, though.
What thought would be possible? Well, for starters AEW&C have become an almost indispensable component of sophisticated air power, with long-range air search ground or ship radars and cooperative employment of long-range heavy fighter radars from fighter chains as only real alternatives.
AEW&C remained largely unchallenged in regard to soft and hard kill countermeasures during the small wars in which it was employed, and everybody seems to have become used to this.
The Russians were fully aware of AEW&Cs potential and paid a lot of attention to countering such a  capability, though. They have very long range surface2air and air2air missiles to deal with AEW&C aircraft (push them farther back at the very least, limiting their contribution to offensive actions). They also have -and seem to offer on the international arms market- various jammers developed to jam AEW&C as well as other aerial long range radar capabilities (such as E-8 with its SAR and GMTI radar capabilities).

An air war against a power which you couldn't easily stomp on without AEW&C would probably see AEW&C badly degraded in its utility. This makes datalinks between fighters and security efforts for fighters (fighters following fighters in order to keep their flanks under surveillance) even more important, and consequently datalink problems such as the initial lack of Link 16 upload capability of F-22s a really big deal.

Then again, that might turn into an actual journal article, not a mere super-superficial presentation of what's on offer.

p.28 "Swiss knife for Jack-of-all-trades whirlybirds"

Note to self: There's apparently some funny stuff to smoke out there. Wonder how entertaining my blog post titles would be if I smoked it.

I am actually questioning my "editor fault" hypothesis, for these blue markers keep appearing.

OK, the 'article' is a superficial overview on what kind of armament you can put on a helicopter. All known to me, and the only interesting thing was the photo of a firing 57 mm rocket pod of Soviet / Russian origin: It appears that the solid fuel rocket burns out before it leaves the pod, similar to Bazookas. Good for them, for this eliminates the rocket propellant debris problem once and for all: A couple years ago it was determined that Hellfire missiles could damage the launching helicopter (most likely the glass surfaces of its sensors) by ejecting high speed propellant fragments backwards. This is at most a problem for the horizontal tail if the rocket was burning out immediately.

It's interesting that the article ignores the Russian development of lots of thermobaric warheads for guided (formerly anti-tank) missiles. This warhead is meant to make such missiles more versatile. Guided 70 mm missiles may be able to occupy much of that niche, but the alternative Russian approach deserves notice if your only ambition is to give an international overview.

p.38 "Situational awareness: A lifesaver for vehicle crews"

"Situational awareness" has become a buzzword about a decade ago, as part of the "Revolution in Military Affairs" (RMA) fashion. The idea was that if you know everything around you, you can defeat your enemy easily by exploiting this (allegedly superior) knowledge. It's a stillborn on the levels of battalion up for a fundamental reason why I reserve for a certain book, but the buzzword was recycled by hardware suppliers on the vehicular level once it was largely worn out on the higher tactics levels.

As usual, this article is merely meant to deliver a superficial overview on what's on the market.
I didn't expect them to include gunshot location sensors, for they're really not about what "situational awareness" really means. Situational awareness implies that you are aware of the rifleman before he shoots, not only afterwards. A laser-based optics detector (exploiting the reflection on the glass) as it was popular in development projects about 15-20 years ago would be more fitting. Anyway, such gunshot locators are only noteworthy if the gunshots are few; they're meant against harassing fires during occupation duty. They're not going to be really relevant during a conflict with a great power's army.

The drawing on page 40 attracted my interest: IR illuminators? Really? They're not going to be a good idea if you're dealing with well-equipped opposition; such illuminators give your position away to standard night sights over very long range.
Moreover, the depicted arrangement of sensors appears to lack redundancy and an unnecessarily large quantity of sensor emplacements has been used at the same time.
How to do it better? Well, emplace four spinning (around the vertical axis) sensors on all four corners. VoilĂ , 360° coverage with 2x redundancy. The spinning means some moving parts and thus probably a shorter mean time between failure, but who cares? 2x redundancy! Besides, the sensor could be built such that even if the spinning mechanism is defect you could still fix the sensor in one direction with a screwdriver. Said spinning sensor would need to have a quick refresh rate, of course. This might be a challenge at night (and only at night).

p.50 "Accessorise tactically"

Oh, I get lucky. The fun was just going away, the whole writing became dull when Armada did me a favour and provided an example of how much it likes to delve into pretty much the same topic over and over again. This article could really be joined with the soldier modernisation programmes article and nobody would have wondered about it. Well, at least it's not the gazillionth article about 8x8 AFVs.

Intro: I cannot understand analogue radio traffic. Seriously, it doesn't work for me. Therefore I hail the introduction of digital radios, which happened during about the last decade. Can you imagine that only 20 years ago we still had no practical means of audio compression and thus no good music on our computers? MIDI music ftw was the battlecry then. All hail some researchers (among them many Germans) for giving us music on our digital devices!

The digitization and compression of audio as well as certain radio technology advances allowed for a huge increase of radio chatter by the military, and this was one of the RMA drivers. Prior to the late 90's, RMA was about guided munitions more than about all the communications and sensor stuff. What are sensors good for if you cannot tell others about what you're sensing?

OK, enough intro. The article has the usual overview of hardware *yawn*. What's really missing is some information about how well the stuff works. Skull-listening microphone? WTF!? They insist on keeping me from understanding radio voices even in the digital age!

They mention hearing protection, but I didn't see a reference to hearing amplification. Yes, sometimes it would be interesting to listen into the night with help of some electronics (especially if some monster helmet obstructs your ears). Microphones could pick up the sound, electronics amplify it, filter out irrelevant noises to some degree, limit it to what doesn't damage your ear and then play the sound with almost no delay with the earphones you're wearing anyway. Among all the gadgetry displayed, I wondered why this one wasn't included. Especially as it could even be turned into a rudimentary gunshot locator without additional weight.

p.60 "Fighter market in frenzy"

I'm always irritated by such articles. This one is *surprise* yet another hardware overview. The question is: Whom does it address? I believe there are almost no people with professional interest in its information (for the ones who need it already have it). The publication does usually address a professional audience, though - as evidenced by the advertisements.

There are interesting things you could write about fighter hardware, of course. The most interesting stuff is usually in the details. One fascinating example are pylons (the things you attach munitions and drop tanks to) with a second job, such as chaff and/or flare dispenser, radar warning antennae, or even jamming equipment.
Kits for short take-off and landing (STOL) such as RATO (rocket-assisted take-off), hooks, piston engine-driven catapults and semi-mobile ski jumps are largely out of fashion, which is a pity. A high-end fighter operating from a 200 m strip of highway is a fascinating subject, especially in face of all the efforts directed at airfield attack munitions and the attention garnered by the STOVL capability of the F-35B.
The actual performance of wide field of view sensors such as the F-35's DAS is very interesting, too.

p.67 "C295 sales hit the 108 unit mark, and introduces a wealth of improvements"

I will skip this, for it appear to be a 'sponsored' article. The official author is the editor-in-chief of Armada international.

________________________

It is a pity that many military professional journals of the hardware-oriented kind (and there are dozens; I was astonished by how many poor publications advertise their issues at Eurosatory!) are so perfectly devoid of thought or commentary. Armada international is among the less horrible examples, some of them have an advertisement to the product mentioned in the article right next to the article - without exception.
I wonder what utility such journals have for professionals. JED journal (on electronic warfare and stuff) at least goes down to the component level, with advertisements for what can only be identified as spare parts by a common soldier. Such a publication has at least some actual professional audience focus, while 'newsy' overview articles as in Armada do not appear to have much value. Anyone who is working in the field knows about 95% of the journal's content without reading it.
What's the point of a publication if it's not informative, doesn't offer at least uncommon interpretations or views?
I guess there's a market for this kind of publication that consists of beginners with an initial need for superficial infos and of people who simply enjoy all the graphics and stuff.

There's an Einstein quote, which can be translated as "A smart head doesn't fit under a steel helmet."; it could be interpreted as accusing the military of a lack of intellectualism. Publications such as Armada certainly don't help the military sector's defence against this accusation.

S Ortmann
.

13 comments:

  1. Everyone needs to get information and give information in visual and audio.
    Quality observation tools will always be heavy, expensive and limited.
    What gadgets are necessary to enhance directing the observation of the few high performance platforms?
    What kind of observation capability is necessary for translating the situational awareness into successful targeting solutions?
    I would go for self-locating (GPS or local system) tablets with a touch screen and headphones plus micro. These need secure data links. Digital data links profit from encryption, compression, digital information clarity and parity bits. A lot of the wireless radio noise will be an open book for information and manipulation, so adding some fibre-optic connected relay r
    Other than hearing amplification, human echolocation can be improved to better recognize objects and terrains without visual feedback. There are a number of guys famous for this ability that needs some weeks training for starters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation#Notable_individuals_who_employ_echolocation

    A rocket burning in the pod is no longer a rocket, but a shell. This reduces weight of munitions as shells are more fuel efficient. It can profit in range from having some base bleed when leaving the pod.

    You’re right that a magazine must sell things on paper on a regular basis. Foremost customers of articles and advertising would be nitwits in the procurement business, who need a supportive feedback from other nitwits in order to connect the dots and buy that thing. Decibel and repetition make things truer.


    Everyone needs to get information and give information in visual and audio.
    Quality observation tools will always be heavy, expensive and limited.
    What gadgets are necessary to enhance directing the observation of the few high performance platforms?
    What kind of observation capability is necessary for translating the situational awareness into successful targeting solutions?
    I would go for self-locating tablets with a touch screen and headphones plus micro. These need secure data links. Digital data links profit from encryption, compression, digital information clarity and parity bits.
    The more wireless data traffic, the more information leaks and vulnerability, so data relays with fibre optic connections over certain routes will be a must.
    Other than hearing amplification, human echolocation can be improved to better recognize objects and terrains without visual feedback. There are a number of guys famous for this ability that needs some weeks training for starters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation#Notable_individuals_who_employ_echolocation

    A rocket burning in the pod is no longer a rocket, but a shell. This reduces weight of munitions as shells are more fuel efficient. It can profit in range from having some base bleed when leaving the pod.

    You’re right that a magazine must sell things on paper on a regular basis. Foremost customers of articles and advertising would be nitwits in the procurement business, who need a supportive feedback from other nitwits in order to connect the dots and buy that thing. Decibel and repetition make things truer.

    Einstein gets quoted out of biographical context way too much. The guy was clever and had great achievements, but his pacifism and anti-militarism have an astonishing double standard. He was the one urging for nuclear weapons to exterminate threats to peace, including all kinds of civilians during WWII. After WWII he was all against the nuclear bomb because it threatened peace. It's the usual problem of finding truly peaceful pacifists.
    There are many preaching an ideology in order to claim a high moral ground for themselves until their supremacy enables them to go beyond their own established “ethics” in order to enforce their “ethics” on others.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sven, you are driven by the thoughts of continental war and defence. Germany is a member of an alliance of naval powers and most dependent on sea lines of communications (to East &South East Asia and across the Atlantic and Mediterranean). It was never capable to withstand an enemy with sea lines of communication control. Prussia was allied with Denmark, the Netherlands and England in order to make sure their sea routes were secured. As member of a sea power alliance, Germany is obliged to participate in some operations of strategic conquest since 9/11 (post-First Punic War Carthaginian conquest of Spain would be a historic parallel for these post-Cold War operations). Germany can opt out if they think their global sea lines of communication are safe enough without the US navy (not terminate the alliance, but tell them: “It’s nonsense.”). I concur with you, whether maritime or continental, war should not be endemic and peacetime military has the role to secure the state against threats, not act as a global invasion force that creates insecurity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "As member of a sea power alliance, Germany is obliged to participate in some operations of strategic conquest since 9/11"

    You don't seem to consider the actual treat text here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, I don't consider the actual NATO treaty and the defence clause used for Afghanistan.
      The wars since 9/11 have no connection whatsoever to necessary legal acts, they are strategic conquests of territorial alignment working on a list that was made known to any interested(negligible) public well in advance. For each country, we have an enticing pretext as we move along.

      Nor do I consider post-Cold War Germany to be honest about their role in Yugoslavia. Germany opted for a course that makes sense from a strategic point of view and encouraged the civil war parties by earliest recognition at least, including differing levels of other support. It's double standard if you bash the US for their current "sins".

      The legal aspects of treaties and casus belli are usually stimpacks that get activated by a master of ceremony, because the real reasons don't work as well. Our international system of offically sanctioned wars is rigged in favour of select MC, but the US showed even willing to circumvent that.

      As for the US navy, no one has more capability to exercise blue water control of the sea lines of communication. Sea lines of communication are not only the place across which almost any kind of physical goods get transported, but it's also the global data highway that runs in cables at the seafloor or through satellites above sea (from a naval ASAT solution perspective).
      Germany is part of the US alliance and profits from the US capability to manipulate the flow of goods. Germany and the rest of Europe have no chance to exercise blue water (but lots of green water) control independent of, let alone against, the US. German contribution to the naval security of this alliance is diminutive. I'm not for trying to buy US support through commitment to their foolish adventure schemes, but to say no, you must be in a position of some strength.

      Manipulation of communication lines is a very complex issue of exercising power for one's own advantage that does work in peace time (with more subtle methods than trade war) and even more so in war time.
      Taking a popular moral stance does have a price tag. German policy in Libya is a good example of supplying munitions while opposing the route taken and how one can navigate these waters. Another one would be the BND intelligence delivery during the latest Iraq war.

      Delete
    2. I understand it's a popular anglophone talking point to complain about Germany's "early" recognition of the independence of Slovenia and Croatia, but that one was fully consistent with the Western idea of people's sovereignty and Germany wasn't THAT early anyway. Multiple European countries recognised these new states at the time (and Germany wasn't the first European country to recognise them either), it's just that Germany got all the bad press because it had dared to have some kind of its own foreign policy and neither London nor Paris were used to that yet.


      In case you meant that Germany exported weapons to Libyan rebels: Provide evidence, please.

      Delete
    3. Not weapons exports to Libyan rebels, but weapon supplies for the European allies conducting the bombing.

      There are multiple points of view on the Yugoslavia issue, but Germany did act not in concert on this one and was quite early and well connected with the rebels.

      Delete
  4. These magazines are used by professionals? I always thought they were a combination of war-porn for the militaristic amateurs, and an ego-puff for various hardware manufacturers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suppose magazines such as Armada are aiming more at civilian and uniformed employees of military forces than at industry professionals.
      The average army captain doesn't necessarily get much info of this kind on the job, especially not with fancy layout and graphics.

      To clarify: I was thinking of industry professionals, procurement specialists and high-ranking officers when I doubted that such magazines offer utility to defence professionals.

      Delete
    2. Industry professionals do not get useful info out of publications like this.
      But companies must pay for the maintenance of the publications. You simply have to be present.
      It is a little bit more complicated to explain why.
      In a different field I even had to write some articles for our specialty magazine.
      If you pay for commercials you get articles. You write them in house or hire outside specialists to write them.
      It is much better to hire. It gives a different aura to the article.
      Very few are really independent articles in specialty magazines.
      It is about presence not about some new information you might give to your future or potential customers or users.

      Delete
  5. In an urban assault scenario, you have four weapons:

    Knowledge: layout, opposition
    Surprise: timing, deception, sensory overload (smoke, flash bangs, irritants)
    Speed: movement, relocation, teamwork
    Firepower

    Basically, situational awareness is the defender's. I understand what you are saying about using our senses, and agree. There are military tasks where this isn't feasible. A bullet resistant mask isn't as silly as it sounds.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Those future infantry man projects are a sort of holy Grail.
    Hard to maintain, hard to use equipments meaning low numbers plus huge logistic tail.
    And the possible advantages are so small - even in theory - they do not justify the use.
    Of course the manufacturing companies will continue to study and to consume cash.
    But this sort of universal soldier gear are basically useless in a real fight. A 19 year old with a few month of training has the same lethality. And he does not need to take the IT department with him if he needs to shoot something. Or blow it up using an RPG.
    This whole IT stuff has become a sort of religion. All kinds of structures public or private have embarked on it.
    From a certain point forward no advantages appear. But there is no way back I belive.
    Even if soldiers will be equiped with such hich tech mumbo jumbo the first thing they'd do in a real life and death fight would be to take it down.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Maybe Armada is useful to industry professionals procurement officials as a quick way find out what new stuff is available. Lot of photos and large headlines makes it fast to flip through which is faster than reading abstracts from a more professional publication.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I do not know how things work in military procurement case. But I suppose it is similar with industry in general , especially very specialised equipments.
    Nobody uses specialty magazines to choose anything. Nobody.
    You have good connections with the suppliers. It is a small world. Everyone knows quite well everyone else and his range of products.
    But still everyone has a subscription. Everyone.
    In the end almost nobody usually reads the magazines.
    I do think the military case is pretty similar.
    Why re things like this I do not know. Human psychology is the reason but I can not make an assessment about this issue.

    In conclusion if we can use similitude the defining facts might be:
    1. All suppliers - important ones of course - pay for comercials.
    Sometimes get articles but it is not a must. Neither is it important.
    2. All aquisition/ech people have subscriptions - their departments has them.
    3. Almost nobody reads the magazines.

    ReplyDelete

Use a nickname and stick to it! I may block anonymous comments. Offensive comments may also be blocked, in part due to the duties of a blogger in Germany.