Defence Industry Reports – Advanced Missile Warning Systems for Military Fighter Aircraft – Terma

SPECIAL REPORT

Advanced Missile Warning Systems for Military Fighter Aircraft Advanced Missile Warning Systems for Military Fighter Aircraft Tension and High Uncertainty Pressure Obama to a More Robust Defense Posture Force Protection for Military Aircraft Balancing the Benefits of Types of Missile Warning Systems The Future is Now: It’s Integrated and Digital

Published by Global Business Media

Missile Warning System Integration on Fighter Aircraft

COMMON CONTROL FROM ALQ-213 ELECTRONIC WARFARE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PROVIDES Combat proven automatic threat response and decision support system Reduced pilot work load Maximum survivability Integration with Terma’s 3D-Audio system State-of-the-art in-flight rangeless training

STRUCTURAL INSTALLATION F-16 Pylons Adding Missile Warning System (MWS) and additional dispensers Retaining all weapon stations No or minimum aircraft modification/downtime Very affordable solution Seek Eagle certified and operational Modular Countermeasures Pod Flexible and modular solution MWS and dispensers in one pod Rotatable modules provide flexible dispense orientation Operational on several fighter and transport aircraft platforms

www.terma.com

SPECIAL REPORT

Advanced Missile Warning Systems for Military Fighter Aircraft Advanced Missile Warning Systems for Military Fighter Aircraft

SPECIAL REPORT: ADVANCED MISSILE WARNING SYSTEMS FOR MILITARY FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

Contents

Tension and High Uncertainty Pressure Obama to a More Robust Defense Posture Force Protection for Military Aircraft Balancing the Benefits of Types of Missile Warning Systems The Future is Now: It’s Integrated and Digital

Foreword

2

Mary Dub, Editor

Advanced Missile Warning Systems for Military Fighter Aircraft

3

Terma

Published by Global Business Media

Published by Global Business Media Global Business Media Limited 62 The Street Ashtead Surrey KT21 1AT United Kingdom Switchboard: +44 (0)1737 850 939 Fax: +44 (0)1737 851 952 Email: info@globalbusinessmedia.org Website: www.globalbusinessmedia.org Publisher Kevin Bell Business Development Director Marie-Anne Brooks Editor Mary Dub Senior Project Manager Steve Banks Advertising Executives Michael McCarthy Abigail Coombes Production Manager Paul Davies For further information visit: www.globalbusinessmedia.org The opinions and views expressed in the editorial content in this publication are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily represent the views of any organisation with which they may be associated.

Material in advertisements and promotional features may be considered to represent the views of the advertisers and promoters. The views and opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily express the views of the Publishers or the Editor. While every care has been taken in the preparation of this publication, neither the Publishers nor the Editor are responsible for such opinions and views or for any inaccuracies in the articles. © 2015. The entire contents of this publication are protected by copyright. Full details are available from the Publishers. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

Threat from MANPADS ALQ-213 Electronic Warfare Management System Three Dimensional Audio System MWS Operational in RDAF and RNoAF F-16s Royal Air Force Harrier UK RAF Tornados An Affordable and Flexible Solution Terma

Tension and High Uncertainty Pressure Obama to a More Robust Defense Posture

7

Mary Dub, Editor

North Korea Displays New Russian Missiles The Impact of These Developments on the Obama Administration Defining the Threat Facing the Threat from MANPADS and Other Insurgent Missiles

Force Protection for Military Aircraft

9

Don McBarnet, International Security Correspondent

Defending Civilian and Military Aircraft Protecting US Forces from MANPADS Third Generation Missile Warning System from BAE Systems

Balancing the Benefits of Types of Missile Warning Systems

11

Don McBarnet, International Security Correspondent

The 2005 RAND Report on Introducing Missile Warning Countermeasures for Civilian Aircraft The RAND Report Consideration of the Types of Countermeasures Available and Their Benefits The Benefits and Drawbacks of Flares The Disadvantages of Flares Laser Jammers Classification Issues

The Future is Now: It’s Integrated and Digital

13

Mary Dub, Editor

Future Upgrades on Track Northrup Grumman Developing a Competitive Product Aircraft Self-Protection Equipment (ASE) for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps A Modular Approach to Architecture with the Goal of an Interchangeable System The Aircraft of the Future – The Joint Strike Fighter F-35

References 15

WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM | 1

SPECIAL REPORT: ADVANCED MISSILE WARNING SYSTEMS FOR MILITARY FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

Foreword T

HE RECEIVED wisdom about defense

In an era of persistent irregular warfare by non-

spending in early 2015 is that NATO

state actors armed with man portable anti-aircraft

budgets are heavily constrained by austerity

systems, there is a constant and changing threat

cuts and sequestration. However, despite the

to the movement of military aircraft throughout the

great reluctance of the Obama administration to

world from this type of attack. This, combined with

decide the criteria when the use of force would be

other pressures, is an important catalyst for constant

appropriate, international events in the Ukraine,

updating of missile warning systems. This is the

Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan are providing strong

subject of the third piece.

pressure for the use of deterrent capabilities and

There are various different types of missile

for the United States to work with partner countries

warning systems with different key features. The

to demonstrate a much more robust posture. This

now slightly dated 2005 RAND Corporation report

is new.

looking at different types of systems offers an

The opening article in this Special Report looks at

insightful contribution to the debate on what type of

the changes in threats to fighter aircraft that have

missile warning system should be used. Now most

taken place since the Radio Frequency (RF) threats

contractors use a multi layered approach to integrate

of the 1970s. Man-Portable Air Defense Systems

the features of all of the various types to optimize

(MANPADS) have been developed which are, typically,

protection. But it is revealing to assess the properties

self-contained and can be operated by one man

of each type.

without any infrastructure. This has led to the necessity

There is a very high level of investment in training and

of developing Missile Warning Systems (MWS) on

development of pilots and crew of military aircraft in

fighter aircraft. In turn, this prompted Terma A/S, a

NATO countries. So, despite the cuts, it is commonly

leading Electronic Warfare (EW) systems integrator

acknowledged that force protection is vital. This means

with close to 30 years’ experience in providing combat

that constant updating to the highest standards in

proven survivability solutions, to identify affordable

missile warning technology is critical for an effective

answers to the structural integration of MWS.

fighting force. This Special Report concludes with a

The second article in provides a cool assessment of

brief glimpse at what that will entail in the future.

the extent of the sea change in political feeling that is beginning to emerge in the face of the war in Ukraine.

The way that the insurgents in the Ukraine have been conducting their fight demonstrates how critical missile warning systems are for all types of aircraft, fixed wing, rotorcraft and unmanned.

Mary Dub Editor

Mary Dub is the editor of this Special Report. She has covered the defence field in the United States and the UK as a television broadcaster, journalist and conference manager.

2 | WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM

SPECIAL REPORT: ADVANCED MISSILE WARNING SYSTEMS FOR MILITARY FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

Advanced Missile Warning Systems for Military Fighter Aircraft Terma

The Infra-Red (IR) threats were few and not very sophisticated so the IR self-protection was limited to the pilot visually (hopefully) seeing the hostile

THE ALQ-213 ALSO PROVIDES A 3D-AUDIO SYSTEM – ILLUSTRATION, TERMA

S

EVERAL OF today’s fighter aircraft such as F-16, F-18, Tornado, Harrier etc. were developed in the 1970s timeframe.

At that time the Electronic Warfare (EW) world was centered on Radio Frequency (RF) threats meaning that this generation of fighters typically was equipped with Radar Warner Receivers, Electronic Counter Measures/Jammers and Chaff/ Flare Dispensers – which was a good suite at that time.

The Infra-Red (IR) threats were few and not very sophisticated so the IR self-protection was limited to the pilot visually (hopefully) seeing the hostile missile approaching his aircraft and then he could dispense flares and perform evasive maneuvering to decoy the homing missile.

Threat from MANPADS Since then, the threat scenario has changed dramatically. Several generations of IR missiles have been developed, including ManPortable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) which include shoulder borne missiles. These

missile approaching

missiles are typically self-contained and they can be operated by one man without any other infrastructure. They are often sold on the black market and thus totally un-controlled.

This means that, when NATO or other coalitions deploy to secure peace, the threat from MANPADS represents a very clear and present danger since the missiles can be anywhere outside the deployed base, and they are almost impossible to detect before they are launched. With the above in mind, requirements for Missile Warning Systems (MWS) on fighter aircraft had to emerge and so they did.

As integration of EW subsystems is a core Terma competence it was natural to included MWS on fighter aircraft in the company’s portfolio of solutions.

Typically MWS needs to be electronically integrated with other on-board systems: interface to aircraft core avionics, interface to other EW systems such as flare dispensers, and interface to video and audio displays.

The structural integration of MWS, especially on fighter aircraft, will typically be a major challenge

his aircraft and then he could dispense flares and perform evasive maneuvering to decoy the homing missile

WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM | 3

SPECIAL REPORT: ADVANCED MISSILE WARNING SYSTEMS FOR MILITARY FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

ROYAL AIR FORCE HARRIER WITH MODULAR COUNTERMEASURES POD

as there is never any room for the MWS linereplaceable units (LRU’s). So modification of fighter aircraft structure can be prohibitively expensive and very time consuming. But, as Terma was already familiar with dispenser system installation on fighters, the company was able to identify, also, affordable solutions for the structural integration of MWS .

Terma has been integrating MWS on fighters since the mid-1990s where the F-16 European participation air force (EPAF) countries and U.S. Air National Guard performed a technology demonstration program to evaluate the feasibility of installing a MWS in Terma modified F-16 wing weapon pylon. The program was a success, even though it revealed that the MWS systems needed improvements to be compatible with the fighter environment.

core aircraft avionics. The system was initially developed in the 1980s and it was later a baseline in the F-16 Mid Life Upgrade programs. The ALQ-213 is installedon several platforms including Fighters, Transport Aircraft and Helicopters. Worldwide, more than 2,000 aircraft are equipped with the ALQ-213 solution.

In 2014, a new generation of ALQ-213 was launched. The new version features state-ofthe-art processing, memory and improved communications including a third MIL-STD-1553 MUX bus and Ethernet.

The ALQ-213 also features “Electronic Combat Adaptive Processing “capability. This is a decision support solution which provides selection of the optimum response by coordinating sensor input and a library of tactics into a computer aided response.

Embedded Training is another feature of the system. The ALQ-213 can be put into training mode where the pilot can perform range-less training, basically anywhere. As part of the mission planning, artificial threats can be loaded into the system and the pilots will experience the same indications as if they were exposed to a real threat. The threat indications and responses are recorded and can be replayed after the mission for evaluation. This provides a very inexpensive and realistic training for the pilot.

ALQ-213 Electronic Warfare Management System

Three Dimensional Audio System

All the fighter MWS solutions have the Terma AN/ ALQ-213(V) Electronic Warfare Management System (EWMS) in common. As the name implies, the ALQ-213 is an EW management system which integrates and controls the EW subsystems and provides interface to the

The ALQ-213 also provides a 3D-Audio system which will alert the pilot by generating a warning tone in the true direction of a missile threat. This allows the pilot to focus his vision on the situation and perform his evasive maneuvers by “listening” to where the threat

This means that, when NATO or other coalitions deploy to secure peace, the threat from MANPADS represents a very clear and present danger since the missiles can be anywhere outside the deployed base, and they are almost impossible to detect before they are launched

F-16 FROM ROYAL DANISH AIR FORCE

4 | WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM

SPECIAL REPORT: ADVANCED MISSILE WARNING SYSTEMS FOR MILITARY FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

TERMA MODIFIED WING WEAPON PYLON ON RDAF F-16

is rather than having to look at a display to determine and react to the scenario. This will save 1-2 seconds in reaction time, and when a missile typically takes 3-6 seconds to reach the target this is a major improvement.

Other features of the 3D-Audio system are that it offers a radio channel separation system meaning that the individual radio channels such as VHF, UHF etc. are presented to the pilot from different directions which make it much easier for the pilot to separate and discriminate the different channels. The human ear has the capability to focus the hearing in a specific direction.

A third capability of the 3D-audio system is that it provides Active Noise Reduction. The function is similar to the commercial “noise cancellation” headsets available but this system is focused and optimized for a fighter environment. The 3D-Audio system has been operational for a few years and pilots are very pleased with the performance

The concept of installing MWS in pylons has several unique advantages: • The pylon can still be used as a normal weapon pylon meaning that carriage of all conventional and certified weapons is not affected • There is no or only minor aircraft modification – at maximum, installation of a few harnesses but no structural or aerodynamic changes.

• In many cases there is thus no aircraft downtime or, at maximum, a few days of harness installation depending on aircraft configuration.

The location and orientation of the sensors have been developed to assure maximum coverage in all aircraft load configurations.

The PIDS+ is fully certified by Lockheed Martin / US Air Force Seek Eagle Office on F-16 MLU aircraft so the installation can be executed without need for additional certific ation for many versions of the F-16.

MWS Operational in RDAF and RNoAF F-16s

Like other air forces, the Royal Air Force (RAF) deployed to Afghanistan to support coalition forces and the scenario was as described above. The bases themselves were quite safe but the surrounding area could hide any number of unknown MANPADS so the RAF decided to put MWS on the Harriers. Terma had already executed a similar installation on RAF Nimrod Mk. 2s and the customer was pleased with both the performance and speedy installation of the Nimrod, so Terma was selected to integrate a variant of the Nimrod solution on the Harriers.

On the Nimrod and Harrier the concept is slightly different from the F-16 as the pylons cannot accommodate the MWS. So, for these platforms, a podded solution was selected – the Modular Countermeasures Pod (MCP). This

In the early 2000s when “fighter” MWSs became available, the Royal Danish Air Force (RDAF) launched a program to equip their F-16s with passive UV MWS. The Airbus AAR-60(V)2 was selected and Terma was tasked to integrate the MWS both structurally and electronically. The hardware (sensors and processor) were installed in a modified F-16 Wing Weapon Pylon (PIDS+ - Pylon Integrated Dispenser System) and the MWS was electronically connected with the aircraft through the Terma Electronic Warfare Management System ALQ-213. The Royal Norwegian Air Force (RNoAF) later joined the program and the PIDS+ was US Air Force Seek Eagle certified jointly

by RDAF and RNoAF. The system has been operational since 2013 and is greatly valued.

In today’s ever-changing environment where the threats are many and often unknown, it is essential that fighter pilots are equipped with the necessary tools to detect and decoy an incoming missile

Royal Air Force Harrier

WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM | 5

SPECIAL REPORT: ADVANCED MISSILE WARNING SYSTEMS FOR MILITARY FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

TERMA MODIFIED WING WEAPON PYLON ON RDAF F-16

Terma offers customertailored EW solutions, which are able to control and integrate any combination of sensors and countermeasures systems on any type of aircraft and make these subsystems work as one integrated system

solution has the advantage that it provides room for up to eight chaff/flare dispensers all installed in pairs in rotatable barrel-modules which can be dispensed in any angle, depending on mission payloads etc. The indexing of the modules can be done in minutes. Up to six sensors and the MWS processor are also accommodated in the pod which then provides excellent coverage and, with the up to eight flare dispensers, the likelihood of decoying an incoming missile is very good.

A unique feature of the MCP is that it is equipped with two forward firing flare dispensers; the newer missiles have smart counter-counter measures which makes them difficult to decoy with normal flare dispense, but with the right cocktail of different flares – and firing some of them forward, the aircraft, typically, has the upper hand, so the MCP is equipped with forward firing dispensers thus increasing its performance.

Like on the F-16, the Harrier fighter was equipped with ALQ-213. Limitations in cockpit modifications drove the team to an alternate solution for the ALQ-213 installation, but basics were the same with regards to control of the MWS and dispenser system and the interface to the aircraft’s core avionics.

UK RAF Tornados

As part of the deployment plan, the Harriers had to be replaced by Tornado fighters and again Terma was selected for the MWS integration. With the Tornado being a supersonic aircraft, the MCP had to be adapted to the Tornado environment. This was done by updating the aerodynamics and strengthening the structure but retaining the basic capabilities.

The UK RAF selected the AAR-57 UV MWS for all the platforms and the ALQ-213 was used as controller.

6 | WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM

An Affordable and Flexible Solution In today’s ever-changing environment where the threats are many and often unknown, it is essential that fighter pilots are equipped with the necessary tools to detect and decoy an incoming missile.

The Terma controller and structural integration provides an affordable and flexible solution which significantly increases the probability of decoying a missile attack.

Terma Terma is a leading Electronic Warfare (EW) systems integrator with close to 30 years’ experience in providing combat proven survivability solutions on more than 2,000 frontline fighter, transport, and rotary-wing aircraft.

Terma offers customer-tailored EW solutions, which are able to control and integrate any combination of sensors and countermeasures systems on any type of aircraft and make these subsystems work as one integrated system.

Besides EW solutions, Terma develops products and systems for defense, non-defense, and security applications, including command and control systems, radar systems, self-protection systems for ships, space technology, and advanced aerostructures for the international aircraft industry.

The parent company Terma A/S is headquartered at Aarhus, Denmark, and maintains international subsidiaries and operations in The Netherlands, Germany, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom and India. The wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, Terma North America Inc. headquartered in Arlington, VA maintaining offices in Warner Robins, GA, Ft. Worth, TX, and Norfolk, VA.

SPECIAL REPORT: ADVANCED MISSILE WARNING SYSTEMS FOR MILITARY FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

Tension and High Uncertainty Pressure Obama to a More Robust Defense Posture Mary Dub, Editor

While NATO diplomatic attention is focused on defining the appropriate defensive posture to Russia, North Korea is adding its own contribution

I

T WAS a bitter January day (2015) when the Russian ambassador to the UK was summoned to the British Foreign Office in London to explain why two Russian Tu95 bombers had flown into Britain’s area of interest disrupting civilian air traffic without their identifying transponders turned on.

This incident is beginning to form a pattern of behavior by the Russian Federation. In 2014 NATO saw a threefold increase in provocative Russian activity in the air. In February 2015, high-level talks In Washington DC between Russian President, Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel and other Western leaders to try and stop the war in Ukraine, have led to US Secretary of State calling this period a “defining moment.”1 International activity to diffuse the threat presented by what is seen as Russian ‘aggression’ is intense.

To summarize the way the continued Russian activity requires a new NATO response Rory Stewart MP, who chairs the UK parliament’s defense committee, said this incident was “a symptom of a much bigger pattern which means

we got Russia wrong. We tried to convince ourselves Russia would be comfortable as part of the European system, but it has shown in Crimea and now in the Ukraine that it is positioning itself as a potential adversary and that means NATO has got to get much more serious,” he said. “We need to signal we are prepared to defend ourselves. At the moment we are not signaling that.”2 It is incidents like this that indicate that a new seriousness is being given to the process of defending NATO countries. And this is by no means an isolated incident. There has been an escalating series of international events over Ukraine. The shooting down of the Malaysian airline MH-17 in September 2014 was one such, which the BBC attributed to “a Russian-supplied missile fired by rebels.” At the time US officials from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said there was a “solid case” that a SA-11 missile, also known as a Buk, was fired from eastern Ukraine under “conditions the Russians helped create”.3 These incidents can be seen as part of a trend.

WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM | 7

SPECIAL REPORT: ADVANCED MISSILE WARNING SYSTEMS FOR MILITARY FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

North Korea Displays New Russian Missiles While NATO diplomatic attention is focused on defining the appropriate defensive posture to Russia, North Korea is adding its own contribution. To draw attention to recent spending on North Korea’s ‘ultra-modern’ navy, North Korea tested an advanced anti-ship cruise missile that analysts say appears to be identical to a weapon used by Russia.4

The Impact of These Developments on the Obama Administration

There has been a longerterm shift to persistent irregular warfare with non-state actors like Al Qaeda affiliates and ISIL being able to access and use man-portable anti-aircraft systems

What we are seeing is a non-interventionist Presidency with a constrained policy on interventionism, being forced to define the terms when it will intervene and take a more robust posture. This view is articulated in a recent Chatham House paper: “in Eastern Europe and, under very different circumstances, in Iraq and Syria, events have forced the Obama administration to consider more acutely at what point the use or threat of military force is justified. Its responses suggest a continuing reluctance to apply direct American force except as a last resort.

Nevertheless, events have increasingly compelled the administration to consider in more precise terms the question of whether, when and how it may be obliged to intervene, even when it is disinclined to do so.5 ” For the defense industry, primed to defend NATO countries in the context of cuts and austerity, the potential ‘new robustness’ is justification for higher levels of spending on defensive measures.

8 | WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM

Defining the Threat The intense civil war in the Ukraine, the conflict in Syria, the constraint of ISIL in Iraq and Kurdistan are all issues that have forced their way to the top of the diplomatic and military agenda. However, there has been a longer-term shift to persistent irregular warfare with non-state actors like Al Qaeda affiliates and ISIL being able to access and use man-portable anti-aircraft systems.

These are also called MANPADS. According to the reputable Arms Control Association in Washington DC, MANPADS were first deployed in the 60s. The United States and the Soviet Union first deployed the Red Eye and Strela systems respectively to provide their infantries with portable anti-aircraft weapons. The US government estimates that approximately 500,000-750,000 MANPADS remain in stockpiles around the world, though it is difficult to estimate the number of operable systems.6

Facing the Threat from MANPADS and Other Insurgent Missiles To confront the threat of MANPADS and other missiles, the US has vigorously enacted a triple track approach to protect civilian and military aircraft: stiffening global export controls and transparency, funding MANPADS stockpile security and destruction worldwide, and researching defensive countermeasures. It is this last strategy – the long-term support, research and funding for defensive countermeasures that is becoming both more necessary and integral to US defense policy.

SPECIAL REPORT: ADVANCED MISSILE WARNING SYSTEMS FOR MILITARY FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

Force Protection for Military Aircraft Don McBarnet, International Security Correspondent

A civilian aircraft loaded with passengers or a military pilot plus navigator and crew in a US built F-35 or British

I

N TIMES of high uncertainty it can be difficult to define the threat precisely. The opponent is always both ingenious and adaptive. But there has been an undoubted trend towards the proliferation of MANPADS to irregular groups.7 This was led, ironically, by the US supply of MANPADS to anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

The U.S. supply of Stingers to anti-Soviet Afghan fighters during the 1980s illustrates how MANPADS spread. Between 1986 and 1989, Afghan forces used the missiles to down an estimated 269 Soviet aircraft and helicopters.

Many Stingers, however, remained unaccounted for after the conflict, despite U.S. efforts to have unused missiles returned to U.S. control. Some of the missiles made it into the international black market and the hands of terrorists. Estimates of black market prices for MANPADS range from just a few hundred dollars for basic technology models to thousands for more advanced units.

The internet provides an easy access marketplace for such weapons.

This Russian training video is one such.8 Now some of the US supplied weapons have been used against American forces. U.S. Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, commented to the Wall Street Journal, “There is no question when you

start passing MANPADS around, that becomes a threat, not just to military aircraft but to civilian aircraft. That is an escalation.�9 And the use of MANPADS by insurgent groups has returned to haunt the United States. In 2002, al-Qaeda affiliated terrorists in Mombasa, Kenya, fired two MANPADS at an Arkia Israel Airlines plane. Both missiles missed, but the act marked the first attack on a civilian airliner outside a conflict zone.

Typhoon is a valuable platform for the terrorists to hit in terms of the size of the event

Defending Civilian and Military Aircraft A civilian aircraft loaded with passengers or a military pilot plus navigator and crew in a US built F-35 or British Typhoon is a valuable platform for the terrorists to hit in terms of the size of the event. Limiting the frame of reference to military aircraft, these aircraft plus their highly trained crew represent an enormous resource, leaving aside, which one should not, the value of human life. And it is these military fixed and rotor-wing aircraft that continually updated Missile Warning Systems are protecting. In 2012, BAE Systems announced a new contract for Boldstroke, a lightweight, reliable and low-cost infrared laser countermeasure designed to protect aircraft from infraredguided missiles and other evolving threats. It synthesizes the best attributes of previous laser WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM | 9

SPECIAL REPORT: ADVANCED MISSILE WARNING SYSTEMS FOR MILITARY FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

There is no question when you start passing MANPADS around, that becomes a threat, not just to military aircraft but to civilian aircraft

jamming systems to meet the size, weight, and power requirements of rotary-wing and light fixed-wing platforms and is also compatible with BAE Systems’ field-proven Common Missile Warning System, already deployed on most of the US Army’s rotary-wing fleet. It uses also flightproven hardware and algorithms tested at BAE Systems’ advanced flight simulation laboratory to combat existing and future threats.10 Pithily, Bill Staib, Director of BAE Systems Survivability & Targeting Solutions Business summed up the BAE’s corporate philosophy, which in turn justifies Missile Warning Systems: “Our motto is ‘We Protect Those Who Protect Us’”.11

Protecting US Forces from MANPADS Following through from the 2012 contract for Boldstroke, BAE Systems announced the variant Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures (ATIRCM) system to protect helicopters and crews from shoulder-fired weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan. “With the latest plans that the ATIRCM system will be in the field until at least 2023, we know the significance of continuing to fund the types of technology that make for easy capability upgrades,” said Terry Crimmins, vice president and general manager of BAE System’s Survivability and Targeting Systems.12 Boldstroke works by the Common Missile Warning System (CMWS), which can cue either ATIRCM’s laser response or a flare dispenser.

These heat-seeking missiles home in on the infrared energy generated by the heat of an aircraft’s engine, making helicopters ideal

10 | WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM

targets. ATIRCM was designed as the countering component of an integrated suite, which includes, its “eyes,” the Common Missile Warning System (CMWS).

Third Generation Missile Warning System from BAE Systems To reassure British forces that the most recent missile warning systems are in use, at the end of May 2014 the British government signed a contract with BAE Systems for the latest generation system. The “Gen 3” system combines hostile-fire indication, missile warning and data recording capability into a single unit.

The system protects against infrared missile threats; with the addition of hostile-fire indication, it enables helicopter crews to detect and avoid small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades.

Earlier generations of BAE’s CMWS have nearly a decade of combat experience. In January, the company announced a $39 million contract from the U.S. Army for 300 Gen 3 units, bringing its overall procurement of third-generation systems to 1,300. In-theatre installations started immediately on Army Apache, Kiowa and Black Hawk helicopters in Afghanistan.

The January order was the first of a proposed $496 million indefinite-delivery, indefinitequantity contract from the Army. The deal was marked by a statement by the British minister of defense for equipment, support and technology, Philip Dunne, he said: “The Ministry of Defence is committed to providing battle-winning technology to our military.”13

SPECIAL REPORT: ADVANCED MISSILE WARNING SYSTEMS FOR MILITARY FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

Balancing the Benefits of Types of Missile Warning Systems Don McBarnet, International Security Correspondent

M

ISSILE WARNING systems are now integrated into modular units that aim to deliver a multi-layered defense. To refine the coverage further, the warning systems are integrated with sensors generating data controlled by algorithms, which are remodulated to take on new assessed threats.

The 2005 RAND Report on Introducing Missile Warning Countermeasures for Civilian Aircraft This Report, delivered in 2005, is useful because it delineates the types of missile warning countermeasures at the time, and considers the arguments for protecting civilian as well as military aircraft with missile warning countermeasures. It argues that a multi-layered approach is important because no single countermeasure technology can defeat all possible MANPADS attacks with high confidence. Nonetheless, substantial protection can be achieved. Laser jammers, for example, it argues, would be commercially available for installation aboard aircraft soon and should be able to divert single or possibly dual attacks by the relatively unsophisticated MANPADS accounting for most of those now in the hands of terrorists. Ground-based highenergy lasers (HELs) intended to destroy approaching missiles could counter MANPADS of any degree of sophistication, but they would not be ready for deployment in the next few years and have significant operational challenges to overcome. Pyrophoric flares, used reactively, offer the promise of a cheaper alternative with better potential to handle multiple attacks than laser-based systems, but their effectiveness at protecting large transport aircraft from any MANPADS attack is not well established, and they would be most likely ineffective against sophisticated future systems.14

The RAND Report Consideration of the Types of Countermeasures Available and Their Benefits In the Report, RAND considers three types of missile countermeasures: flares, laser jammers, and high-energy lasers (HELs). The first two aim to confuse the IR seeker of an infrared missile,

while the HEL aims to destroy the missile, regardless of how it is guided.15 The criteria the report uses to assess each type of warning system are – basic operation, effectiveness, robustness vis-à-vis counter-countermeasures, and sensor support requirements.

The Benefits and Drawbacks of Flares The RAND Report describes three kinds of flares: conventional, advanced, and covert. Conventional flares were fielded initially to counter first and second-generation passive IR missiles employing so-called seeker reticles – spokelike masks that rotate in the seeker’s optical field of view and permit homing in on the target. Conventional flares are intended to produce an IR signature so large that the target signature is overwhelmed, and the seeker locks onto the flare instead of the target. In quantitative terms, the aim is to achieve a high jammer-to-target ratio in order to capture the seeker.

Conventional flares are intended to produce an IR signature so large that the target signature is overwhelmed, and the seeker locks onto the flare instead of the target

The Disadvantages of Flares Flares, whether conventional or advanced, have little prospect of countering imaging seekers which may be fielded by technologically advanced nations. Flares are also ineffective against existing laser beam riders, which home in on a laser spot placed on the target by the SAM operator. SAMs that are radio-frequency (RF) command- guided (CG), like Blowpipe, also are largely immune to flares. Since conventional flares could cause ground fires if released below about 1,000 feet, missile-warning system (MWS) used in conjunction with flares must generate few false alarms. Ultraviolet (UV) sensors, which are prone to false alarms, are thus not good candidates.

Fusing multiple, independent phenomenologies (e.g., IR and Doppler radar sensors) have been proposed as a means of achieving an acceptable false-alarm rate. A Doppler radar measures the missile’s radial velocity (i.e., its speed in the direction of the sensor). When viewed from the target aircraft, the missile’s radial velocity shortly after launch is an unambiguous discriminant.

WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM | 11

SPECIAL REPORT: ADVANCED MISSILE WARNING SYSTEMS FOR MILITARY FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

A multi-layered approach is important because no single countermeasure technology can defeat all possible MANPADS attacks with high confidence

However, if a Doppler radar is deployed on the ground, it may face some delay before discriminating between SAMs and ground vehicles on a neighboring highway. Sensors looking normal to the missile’s trajectory plane will initially measure zero Doppler, and seconds may be lost before the radial velocity exceeds the upper limit for vehicular traffic. This is particularly of concern if the aircraft is attacked at low altitude, which offers little time to respond. Employing steeper take-off and landing profiles for aircraft could be used to shrink the region susceptible to low altitude attacks.

by the target, and then to substitute a specially modulated signal transmitted by the laser, so as to divert the missile. The laser signal must emit at the color the seeker expects to see, be pointed with sufficient accuracy to enter the seeker optic, and achieve a large jammer-to-target ratio. Since the catalogue of threats includes a variety of potential colors, a multiband laser or group of lasers is required for full protection. Laser spectra can be very narrow, but it is preferred that the DIRCM laser has a relatively broad spectrum to defeat narrowband optical filters that could be inserted in the seeker optic to block a jammer.

Laser Jammers

Classification Issues

Again, according to the RAND Report, laser jammers are the most advanced form of directed infrared countermeasures (DIRCM). They work best against first and second-generation MANPADS. Their objectives are first to overwhelm the signal produced in the enemy missile’s seeker

Another concern with all the countermeasure systems discussed involves technology sharing and classification issues. Laser jam codes, sensor processing algorithms, and HEL systems are all sensitive technologies, which need to be guarded.16

12 | WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM

SPECIAL REPORT: ADVANCED MISSILE WARNING SYSTEMS FOR MILITARY FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

The Future is Now: It’s Integrated and Digital Mary Dub, Editor

P

REDICTING THE future can only be informed guesswork based on the present. The present offers many trends.

Firstly, software as the critical integrating factor.

In ‘Inside the Pentagon’, it was reported that the Common Missile Warning System’s Integrated Aircraft Survivability Equipment software update has passed a critical design review, marking the Army’s first steps in establishing integrated ASE, according to an official from BAE Systems, the CMWS contractor. The software allows multiple federated systems to be integrated through the CMWS’ missile warner “so pilots and aircrews get a single display” — the Pilot Vehicle Interface — “and controlled audio as well,” said Steve Johnson, BAE’s director of business development for threat management solutions. CMWS is in use on all Army helicopters.17 “The system’s open architecture also enables threat data to be integrated into multiple platforms without costly upgrades or additional equipment,” according to a 16 April 2014 company statement.

Future Upgrades on Track BAE and the US Army, in a separate program, are developing a next-generation Enhanced Ultra-Violet Threat Warning Sensor that improves CMWS’ detection capability, providing the system with better range and sensitivity, Steve Johnson explained. “It does its job better, it sees more things.” BAE has been testing the sensor “for some time with the Army,” Johnson noted. While the Army has not been specific on what it may want from a future warning system, it is anticipated the service will start to look at how it might upgrade its current suite of sensors in the 2017 and 2018 time frame, Johnson added.

Northrup Grumman Developing a Competitive Product Northrop Grumman is developing its Passive Infrared Cueing System (PICS) as a possible replacement for the Army’s CMWS, should the service decide to compete for a next-generation sensor in the future, according to statements by Northrop’s Jeff Palombo, vice president of the

company’s Land and Self Protection Systems Division, made last Sept. 23, 2013. Northrop is on contract with the Army to mature PICS and is looking toward a potential competition to replace CMWS between 2016 and 2017, Palombo said. The PICS system is a two-color infrared system, which adds discrimination capability.

BAE and Northrop are competing against each other to develop the Army’s Common Infrared Countermeasure system. A decision on which company will be chosen to proceed into the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the program is expected in December of this year.

Aircraft Self-Protection Equipment (ASE) for the Army, Navy and Marine Corps

The process of integration, software improvement and graphic user interface

BAE Systems (Nashua, NH) built the AN/AAR-57 (V) Common Missile Warning System (CMWS), the Army’s standard system for protecting its rotary wing aircraft from IR-guided missile threats.

The UV-sensor-based system incorporates an electronic control unit (ECU) to manage threat warning functions and the automatic dispensing of flare/chaff countermeasures. The Army has recently developed a new “Gen 3” ECU processor for CMWS that provides increased processing power for expansion of the system’s threat database. It has a new (Hostile Fire Capability) HFI, which is a software-only capability. The Army began the upgrade in early 2012 under a Quick Reaction Capability (QRC) program, and has just completed fielding of the new ECUs. Approximately 250 aircraft of all types are receiving the upgrade, including Chinooks, Black Hawks, Apaches and Kiowas.

US Col John Leaphart, Army Program Director, Aircraft Survivability Equipment, stated “It means, for the first time, our aircraft have the capability to see small arms and RPGs being fired at them.” Eventually, the Army plans to field the system across its entire fleet. Colonel Leaphart summarised how “We are scheduled to buy a total of 2,002 Gen 3 ECUs for the same number of aircraft.” In January 2014, BAE received an initial $39 million contract from the Army for 300+ Gen 3 CMWS systems.18

simplification is a goal for systems like the CMWS

WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM | 13

SPECIAL REPORT: ADVANCED MISSILE WARNING SYSTEMS FOR MILITARY FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

The military fixed wing aircraft of the future is the Joint Strike Fighter, F-35.

This aircraft of the 21st century will carry the latest integrated equipment

A Modular Approach to Architecture with the Goal of an Interchangeable System The process of integration, software improvement and graphic user interface simplification is a goal for systems like the CMWS. But to mark the commitment of the US military to achieving the highest standards of integration on this, FedBizOpps, a US government website, is calling for tenders to improve methods of developing and testing countermeasures. They want to develop a capability that delivers, in their own words ‘a baseline effectiveness measure for various radars, radar warning receivers, jammers, and platforms. The modular approach to this architecture with the goal of interchangeable systems and platforms necessitates flexible hardware/software/data collection components and methods that cover many scenarios. A simple, well-documented graphical user interface (GUI) for system interoperability and control is also essential.’19

The Aircraft of the Future – The Joint Strike Fighter F-35 The military fixed wing aircraft of the future is the Joint Strike Fighter, F-35. This aircraft of the 21st century will carry the latest integrated equipment.

14 | WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM

For example, the integration of EW sensors with the F-35’s AN/APG 81 active electronically scanned array (AESA), communications and electro-optical distributed aperture systems puts offensive, defensive, coms and datagathering sensors at the service of the pilot to process on-board and off-board data. The EW system employs a range of dedicated antennas and shares the AESA antenna for tasks such as electronic support measures or signals collection and analysis. Jon Waldrop, Lockheed Martin’s Director of International Programs summarized the capability “It is important to note that as F-35 pilots fly a mission, the integrated sensor suite provides full situational awareness. Sensor information includes, not only on-board radar, but Northrop Grumman’s EODAS 20 (Electro Optical Distributed Aperture System) and EW, but also off-board information. This could involve data from E-3 airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft, Joint STARS (E-8C ground surveillance) aircraft, data-linked air and ground intelligence, other combat aircraft, and both space- and sea-based elements. All the tactical/ defensive information, both on board and off board, is fed to the pilot through the F-35’s integrated core processor”.

SPECIAL REPORT: ADVANCED MISSILE WARNING SYSTEMS FOR MILITARY FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

References: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/world/crisis-in-ukraine-underscores-opposing-lessons-of-cold-war.html?action=click&contentCollection=Eur

1

ope&region=Footer&module=MoreInSection&pgtype=article

Crisis in Ukraine Underscores Opposing Lessons of Cold War By ALISON SMALEFEB. 8, 2015

2

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dc9a344e-a7eb-11e4-be63-00144feab7de.html#axzz3RFvDjNVL

January 29, 2015 8:25 pm RAF scrambles fighters to intercept Russian bombers

Sam Jones, Mark Odell and Elizabeth Rigby in London

3

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28357880 9 September 2014 Last updated at 10:32 GMT

BBC What we know about MH-17 being downed over Ukraine

4

http://link.vice.com/54a69b0a7cfe31185d8b456729hr7.6l7/VNinEEmOlgBatKoqBb5eb ASIA & PACIFIC

Kim Jong-un Touts North Korea’s ‘Ultramodern’ Navy After Test of New Anti-Ship Missile By Meredith Hoffman

February 8, 2015 | 2:45 pm

5

Research Paper Adam Quinn US Project | January 2015 Obama’s National Security Strategy

http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/field/field_document/20150109ObamaNationalSecurityQuinn.pdf?dm_i=1TYH,369ML,C3FYWI,BDC99,1

6

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/manpads MANPADS at a Glance Press Contact: Daryl Kimball, Executive Director, (202) 463-8270 x107

Updated: March 2013

7

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/manpads MANPADS at a Glance

Press Contact: Daryl Kimball, Executive Director, Updated: March 2013

8

http://www.military.com/video/defense-systems/air-defense/igla-manpad-takes-down-aircraft/2991339812001/

9

IGLA MANPAD TRAINING VIDEO IN RUSSIAN

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/manpads MANPADS at a Glance Press Contact: Daryl Kimball, Executive Director, (202) 463-8270 x107

Updated: March 2013

10

http://tiny.cc/6ptztx THURSDAY 2 FEBRUARY 2012 Bill Staib, Director of BAE Systems’ Survivability & Targeting Solutions Business

11

http://tiny.cc/6ptztx THURSDAY 2 FEBRUARY 2012 Bill Staib, Director of BAE Systems’ Survivability & Targeting Solutions Business

12

http://www.aviationtoday.com/the-checklist/BAE-Systems-MANPADS-System-Protects-US-Troops-from-MANPADS_83005.html#.VNd-KEvyD1o

13

Friday, September 5, 2014 BAE Systems MANPADS System Protects US Troops from MANPADS Juliet Van Wagenen http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2014-05-29/uk-military-orders-baes-gen-3-missile-warning-system

14

UK Military Orders BAE’s ‘Gen 3’ Missile Warning System by Bill Carey - May 29, 2014, 9:24 AM http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2005/RAND_OP106.pdf

15

Protecting Aviation against the Shoulder Fired Missile Threat http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2005/RAND_OP106.pdf

16

Protecting Aviation against the Shoulder Fired Missile Threat Chapter 6 http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2005/RAND_OP106.pdf

17

Protecting Aviation against the Shoulder Fired Missile Threat Chapter 6 BAe CMWS Survivability Inside the Pentagon’s pdf Inside the Army

www.InsideDefense.com an exclusive weekly report on Army programs, procurement and policymaking

From Vol. 26, No. 17, April 28, 2014 BAE’s CMWS Survivability Software Update Passes Critical Design Review

18

Journal of Electronic Defense March 2014 Steady Progress on Path to Integrated Rotorcraft ASE

19

20

By John Haystead

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=452556389cfcdf588dcc4ee640bcd453 Radio Frequency Electronic Warfare Technique Demonstration (REWTD) Request for Information (RFI) October 2014

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPKw3RksCcIs WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM | 15

SPECIAL REPORT: ADVANCED MISSILE WARNING SYSTEMS FOR MILITARY FIGHTER AIRCRAFT

Notes:

16 | WWW.DEFENCEINDUSTRYREPORTS.COM

Defence Industry Professionals Find Solutions To Their Technical And Operational Challenges With Defence Industry Reports

For the past decade, Defence Industry Reports has been helping the armed forces, primes and their subcontractors to find new solutions to their technical, commercial, and operational challenges.

Our Special Reports provide readers with an unparalleled depth of information on specialist subjects, which receive limited coverage in the mainstream defence media.

Each report is designed to help defence industry professionals to make more effective purchasing decisions, by providing a unique mix of: • Subject specific technical information • Insight and knowledge from internationally recognised key opinion leaders • Independent data and analysis • Unbiased editorial content

subscriptions@globalbusinessmedia.org www.globalbusinessmedia.org