Defence`s Feeds

AMDR testbed
(click to view full)

The US Navy’s Dual-Band Radar that equips its forthcoming Gerald R. Ford class super-carriers replaces several different radars with a single back-end. Merging Raytheon’s X-band SPY-3 with Lockheed Martin’s S-band VSR allows fewer radar antennas, faster response time, faster adaptation to new situations, one-step upgrades to the radar suite as a whole, and better utilization of the ship’s power, electronics, and bandwidth.

Rather than using that existing Dual-Band Radar design in new surface combatant ships, however, the “Air and Missile Defense Radar” (AMDR) aims to fulfill DG-51 Flight III destroyer needs through a new competition for a similar dual-band radar. It could end up being a big deal for the winning radar manufacturer, and for the fleet. If, and only if, the technical, power, and weight challenges can be mastered at an affordable price.

AMDR: The Program

DDG-77 USS O’Kane
(click to view full)

Faced with a growing array of advanced threats, the US Navy confronted a need for more dual-band naval radars among its top-end surface warships. Both CG (X) and FSC were proposed for cancellation in the FY 2011 defense budget, but the “Air and Missile Defense Radar” (AMDR) is expected to continue as the radar centerpiece for their true successor: the DDG-51 Flight III Arleigh Burke Class.

Rather than extending or modifying the existing Dual Band Radar combination used on its DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class, aimed to fulfill these need through a re-opened competition. The resulting AMDR radar will have 3 components:

• The AMDR-S radar will provide wide-area volume search, tracking, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) discrimination, and missile communications. While top-tier air and missile defense vessels are “blue water” ships by nature, critical naval chokepoints and war scenarios don’t always give commanders a choice. As such AMDR requirements also call for defense against very low observable/very low flyer (VLO/VLF) threats in heavy land, sea, and rain clutter, where S-band has some advantages.

• The AMDR-X radar will provide horizon search, precision tracing, missile communications, and final illumination guidance to targets. It will be available in AMDR sets 13 onward. The first 12 ship sets will use an upgraded version of Northrop Grumman’s in-service SPQ-9B radar instead.

• The back-end Radar Suite Controller (RSC) will perform all coordination, ensuring that the radars work well together.

Design goals explicitly involve hardware and software modularity, future technology, insertion, and open architectures. The limitations of the DDG-51 ship design forced some flexibility all by itself, and the initial specification added that it’s “designed to be scalable to accommodate current and future mission requirements for multiple platforms.”

The 1st DDG 51 Flight III destroyer will be part of the FY 2013 – 2017 multi-year award, beginning with long-lead materials ordered in FY 2015, and built as the 2nd ship ordered in FY 2016 (DDG 123). By the end of the multi-year contract, which was issued in May 2013, the USN can contract for 3 AMDR/Flt III vessels with 14′ diameter AMDR-S radar faceplates, and integrated control involving the smaller rotating AN/SPQ-9B+ X-band radar. If AMDR-S isn’t ready, or other issues arise, the Navy could decide to delay the FLight III changes to FY 2017, or even to move them outside the contract. Even if orders begin on time, Flight III buys are expected to continue trough 2022, and possibly through 2031.

Budget documents to date are all for Research, Development, Testing & Evaluation:

AMDR: Opportunities and Challenges

DDG-1000 w. DBR
(click to view full)

The demand for adjustable size is the key to AMDR’s larger opportunity. If the adjustments can be taken far enough, it could give the Navy an opportunity to add or retrofit AMDR to some of its 60+ serving Arleigh Burke Class ships, DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class destroyers, or later carriers of the CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford Class.

On the smaller end, it’s very nice to have AMDR capabilities available in a common core system for a wider range of vessels. More ships mounting AMDR would reduce fleet-wide maintenance & training investments. It would also mean that each AMDR hardware or software improvement becomes available improve many more ships throughout the fleet.

At the larger end of the scale, it’s good news because the US Navy has determined that it needs a 20’+ diameter AMDR-S radar, in order to completely fulfill expected future ballistic missile defense and air defense needs. AMDR offers them the opportunity to find a suitable ship based on a known and understood core system.

The bad news is that any retrofit, or even installation in new “DDG-51 Flight III” variants, will be more complicated than it appears.

The visible face of a naval radar is only the tip of the iceberg. Most of its weight and space comes from its need for 2 things: power, and cooling. More powerful radars usually need more power to drive them, which can tax the limited 7.5 MW capacity an older ship like the DDG-51 Flight I/II/IIAs. More power also means more cooling much of the time. Power storage, power conversion, and cooling require weight and space. All of which are usually in short supply on a warship. Even if that space exists, the additional equipment and antennas must be installed without unduly affecting the ship’s balance and center of gravity, and hence its seakeeping abilities.

AEGIS operations
(click to view full)

In 2009, the US Congressional Research Services’ “Navy DDG-1000 and DDG-51 Destroyer Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress” report update (#RL32109) explained the potential impact:

“Multiple industry sources have briefed CRS on their proposals for modifying the DDG-51 design to include an active-array radar with greater capability than the SPY-1. If the DDG-51 hull is not lengthened, then modifying the DDG-51 design to include an improved radar would require removing the 5-inch gun to make space and weight available for additional equipment needed to support operations with the improved radar. Lengthening the hull might provide enough additional space and weight capacity to permit the 5-inch gun to be retained.75 Supporting equipment to be installed would include an additional electrical generator and additional cooling equipment.76 The best location for the generator might be in one of the ship’s two helicopter hangar spots, which would reduce the ship’s helicopter hangar capacity from two helicopters to one.”

An October 2008 report from the right-wing Heritage Foundation draws on other sources to note that weight shifts can also create issues:

“…SPY-1E [active array] radar could affect the stability of the upgraded Arleigh Burkes because the radar’s phased-array panels weigh more than the panels of the earlier SPY-1 radar, which it will replace. While the SPY-1E’s weight is concentrated more in the panels, freeing more space below deck,[78] this greater weight would be added to the ship’s superstructure. Combined with the DDG-51’s relatively narrow hull width and short length, this could cause stability problems, particularly when sailing in rough weather.”

Obviously, those kinds of trades are less than ideal, but they may be necessary. Whether, how many, and which trades end being necessary, depends on the precise technical details of Raytheon’s offering, and of expected ship changes in Flight III.

AMDR: The Contenders Raytheon

Raytheon on AMDR
click for video

Raytheon won. They went into AMDR with a lot of experience. First of all, they developed both the existing Dual-Band Radar’s Radar Suite Controller, and the accompanying SPY-3 X-band radars that are mounted on DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class battlecruisers and CVN-78 Ford Class supercarriers. The dual X/S band system that will equip the Cobra Judy (USNS Observation Island) Replacement vessel used to track missile launches and tests around the world also comes from Raytheon.

Phased array radars for wide-area air and ballistic missile defense are another strong point. Raytheon builds the AN/TPY-2 X-band radar used by the land-based THAAD missile system, the 280 foot high X-band array on the floating SBX missile defense radar, and the large land-based ballistic missile Upgraded Early Warning Systems like the AN/FPS-108 Cobra Dane and AN/FPS-115 PAVE PAWS. On the S-band side, the firm builds the S-band transmitters for Lockheed’s SPY-1 radar on board existing American destroyers and cruisers. Unsurprisingly, Raytheon personnel who talked to us said that:

“…leveraging concepts, hardware, algorithms and software from our family of radars provides a level of effectiveness, reliability and affordability to our proposed AMDR solution… The challenge for all the competitors will be to deliver a modular design. The requirements demand that the design be scalable without significant redesign… A high power active radar system requires significant space not only for the arrays themselves but also for the power and cooling equipment needed to support its operation. Finding space for additional generators and HVAC plants can be quite challenging for a backfit application. That is why power efficiency is a premium for these systems.”

Lockheed Martin – lost

Lockheed’s AMDR-S
click for video

Lockheed Martin stepped into the competition with several strengths to draw on. Their AN/SPY-1 S-band radar is the main radar used by the US Navy’s current high-end ships: DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers, and CG-47 Ticonderoga class cruisers. Lockheed Martin also makes the AEGIS combat systems that equips these ships, and supplies the advanced VSR S-band radar used in the new Dual Band Radar installations on board Ford class carriers. This strong S-band experience, and status as the supplier of the combat system that any DDG-51 fitting would have to integrate with, gave them leverage at multiple points. Some observers publicly wondered if they had so much leverage that the competition would become a mirage, especially since the US Navy insisted on keeping AEGIS as the combat system.

Nor were they devoid of X-band or ballistic missile defense experience. Their L-Band AN/TPS-59 long range radar has been used in missile intercept tests, and is the only long range 3D Radar in the Marine Air-Ground Task Force. It’s related to the AN/TPS-117, which is in widespread service with over 16 countries. Then, too, the firm’s MEADS air defense technology demonstrator’s MFCR radar will integrate an active array dual-band set of X-band and UHF modules, via a common processor for data and signal processing.

It was a strong array of advantages. In the end, however, it wasn’t enough.

Northrop Grumman – lost

NGC on AMDR
click for video

Northrop Grumman was a less obvious contender, despite its leadership position in advanced AESA active array radars for use on aircraft of all types and sizes. They’ve also developed unique software-driven land-based systems like the US Marines’ new Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR), which is specifically architected to switch between a wide range of radar performance modes and requirements.

It’s important to note that Northrop Grumman has shipboard radar experience. They’re the prime contractor for the AN/SPQ-9B track-while-scan X-band radar that’s guaranteed to be part of the initial AMDR set, and SPQ-9A/B radars already equip America’s Ticonderoga Class cruisers, Nimitz Class aircraft carriers, America Class escort carriers, Wasp Class LHD amphibs, and San Antonio Class LPD amphibs. AN/SPQ-9Bs can also be found on Australia’s Hobart Class Aegis air warfare destroyers.

On a less visible note, the firm has been working under several CRAD research programs from 2005 to the present, targeted at technology demonstrations, system risk reduction, and new integration techniques for advanced S-band shipboard radars. Finally, the firm has a partnership with Australia’s CEA Technologies, which is developing an advanced AESA X-band (CEAMOUNT) and S-band (CEAFAR) radar set that equips Australia’s upgraded ANZAC class frigates.

What did this team see as important? Beyond an open architecture approach, it was all about the SWaP:

“The ability to scale up to a potential future cruiser or down to a DDG-51 variant is fundamental to the Northrop Grumman radar architecture. Size, weight and power (SWaP) of the radar system are the key drivers… Minimizing the radar impact is key to an affordable surface combatant solution. We are focused on not just the radar technology, but to minimize the ship impact while allowing for scalable growth in the future. We are working closely with various elements in the Navy to address the ship impact of large AESA radars on the entire ship.”

AMDR: Contracts and Key Events FY 2018

Raytheon wins EMD phase; DRS will produce power conversion module; CRS and GAO reports point out issues.

AMDR engagement
click for video

December 21/18: Integration & Production Raytheon is being contracted to support the US Navy with Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) integration and production efforts. Priced at $114 million, the contract provides for continued combat system integration and test services including engineering and training; software and depot maintenance, as well as field engineering services and procurement of spare parts. The AMDR, designated AN/SPY-6(V), will fulfill integrated Air and Missile Defense requirements for multiple ship classes. The AN/SPY-6 is 30 times more sensitive than its predecessor, its additional sensitivity supercharges the vessel’s capabilities in anti-air warfare and ballistic missile defense. Work will be performed at multiple locations throughout the US. They include Marlborough, Massachusetts; Kauai, Hawaii; Portsmouth, Rhode Island; San Diego, California; Fair Lakes, Virginia and Moorestown, New Jersey. The contract includes options which could bring the total value of the order to $357 million and is expected to be completed by December 2019.

December 11/18: Power Units DRS Power & Control Technologies is receiving additional funding to exercise an option to support the Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. The contract modification is priced at $13.4 million and provides for the delivery of power conversion modules (PCM) for Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) production ship sets. Efforts covered under this contract include non-recurring engineering work, procurement of long-lead-time materials and of low-rate initial production units for testing. Up to 12 ship sets for the guided missile destroyers can be procured. PCMs support Raytheon’s AN/SPY-6 air and missile defense radar with the right power output. This contract supports DDG-51 Flight III ships. Work will be performed in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and is expected to be complete by April 2022.

October 3/18: LRIP continues The US Navy is ordering more production services for its Air and Missile Defense Radar from Raytheon. The awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee modification covers a number of engineering services and associated costs needed to support the low-rate initial production of the AN/SPY-6 at cost of $22.7 million. The new AMDR is being developed to fulfill integrated Air and Missile Defense requirements for multiple ship classes. The AMDR-S radar will provide wide-area volume search, tracking, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) discrimination, and missile communications; while the AMDR-X will provide horizon search, precision tracing, missile communications, and final illumination guidance to targets. It will equip various types of vessels such as DDG-51s in Flight III configuration and Gerald F. Ford-class aircraft carriers. Work will be performed at Raytheon’s Marlborough facility and is expected to be completed by November 2018.

May 15/18: Navy gets an extra punch Shipbuilder Huntington Ingalls recently announced that the first steps towards constructing the first Flight III Destroyer have been taken. The destroyer ‘Jack Lucas’ will join the Navy’s fleet in 2024. The vessel is modelled after the 73 Arleigh-Burke class destroyers already in service, but it will be a very different, more capable killer than its predecessors. ‘Jack Lucas’ gets its extra punch by adding Raytheon’s newly developed AN/SPY-6 air and missile defense radar. The Flight III is a major overhaul of the guided-missile destroyer. It required a 45 percent redesign of the hull, most of which was done to accommodate the AN/SPY-6 and its formidable power needs. The Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) has been procured through a competition between Raytheon, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. The AMDR-S provides wide-area volume search, tracking, Ballistic Missile Defense discrimination, missile communications and defense against very low observable and very low flyer threats in heavy land, sea, and rain clutter. In addition, the AMDR-X provides horizon search, precision tracing, missile communications, and final illumination guidance to targets. The AN/SPY-6 is 30 times more sensitive than its predecessor, its additional sensitivity supercharges the vessel’s capabilities in anti-air warfare and ballistic missile defense.

FY 2014

Sept 11/14: Sub-contractors. DRS Power & Control Technologies, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is being awarded a base $15.7 million firm-fixed-price, time-and-materials contract for DDG 51 Class Power Conversion Modules (PCM) to support AMDR with the right kind of power input. This contract provides for AMDR PCM non-recurring engineering, long-lead-time material buys, low rate initial production units for testing, associated engineering services and support, and up to 12 production ship sets for DDG 51 Flight III Class ships. Just $2.4 million in FY 2014 US Navy RDT&E funding is committed immediately, but options could bring the cumulative value of this contract to $88.9 million.

Work will be performed in Milwaukee, WI, and is expected to be complete by April 2015. This contract was competitively procured using full and open competitive procedures, with proposals solicited via FBO.gov, and 4 offers were received by contract manager US Navy NAVSEA in Washington, DC (N00024-14-C-4200).

July 23/14: Testing. Raytheon announces that their AMDR radar has completed its hardware Preliminary Design Review and Integrated Baseline Review. They look at the capabilities of the system, removal of technology risks so far, and the inherent innovation and flexibility of the design.

Successful completion keeps the program on schedule so far, but remember that this schedule has changed due to challenge delays, and that ship integration issues will present their own hurdle. Sources: Raytheon, “Raytheon completes key Air & Missile Defense Radar reviews”.

April 17/14: SAR. The Pentagon releases its Dec 31/13 Selected Acquisitions Report. AMDR enters the SAR with a baseline total program cost estimate of $5.8327 billion, based on 22 radars.

SAR baseline

April 8/14: CRS Report. The latest iteration of “Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress” offers a greater focus on the DDG-51 Flight III destroyers, which includes AMDR. Note that CRS reports aren’t made public directly, so it took until May 2014 for public copies to appear.

One big issue for AMDR is capability. The 14′ design expected on Flight III destroyers meets the US Navy’s minimum expectations for missile and air defense roles, but there’s some question whether it will be enough. CRS’ report includes the concept of a dedicated radar ship to augment task groups in high-risk areas. The other option?

“Building the Flight III DDG-51 to a lengthened configuration could make room for additional power-generation and cooling equipment, additional vertical launch system (VLS) missile tubes, and larger growth margins. It might also permit a redesign of the deckhouse to support a larger and more capable version of the AMDR than the 14-foot diameter version currently planned for the Flight III DDG-51. Building the Flight III DDG-51 to a lengthened configuration would increase its development cost and its unit procurement cost.”

There’s also some concern about AMDR’s timeline, and whether the 1st AMDR-S can be fully ready in time to support a ship ordered in FY 2016. AMDR-S entered system development 6 months late due to protests, and software development to integrate both the new S-band radar and the X-band SPQ-9B+ remains a concern (q.v. March 28/13). Ship power generation and cooling could also be an issue, depending on the final design. The good news? Because the Flight III is structured as an optional ECP change within a multi-year contract, the Navy can choose to delay issuing the ECP, shifting the start of Flight III procurement and AMDR orders to FY 2017 or later.

March 31/14: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs“. Which is actually a review for 2013, plus time to compile and publish.

“AMDR entered system development in October of 2013 with all four of its critical technologies approaching full maturity. This was 6 months later than planned, leading to a delay in many of the program’s future events…. Additionally, the delays might also hinder timely delivery of necessary information related to AMDR’s parameters, such as power, cooling, and space requirements needed for ongoing and planned design studies related to [DDG-51 destroyer] Flight III development.”

Despite this, the program is still promising delivery in time for a 2019 fit onto DDG 123. GAO describes AMDR’s components as almost mature, including 2 key technologies. With that said, they’re unhappy that AMDR proceeded to EMD development without fully mature technologies demonstrated in an operational environment, so the program would have a better idea of the required form, fit, and changes to its host ship. AMDR also didn’t complete a Preliminary Design Review before EMD, either, though they did have the competition and evaluations:

“All four of the AMDR’s critical technologies are approaching full maturity and were demonstrated using a [small scale] 1000-element radar array…. two technologies previously identified as the most challenging — digital-beam-forming and transmit-receive modules, have been demonstrated in a relevant environment…. digital-beam-forming is necessary for AMDR’s simultaneous air and ballistic missile defense mission. The AMDR’s transmit-receive modules… use gallium nitride [GaN] technology instead of the legacy gallium arsenide technology for potential efficiency gains. The other two critical technologies are related to software and digital receivers and exciters. Officials stated that software development will require a significant effort. A series of software builds are expected to deliver approximately 1 million lines of code and are designed to apply open system approaches to commercial, off-the-shelf hardware. Integrating the X-band radar will require further software development.”

Feb 25/14: Sub-contractors. General Dynamics Advanced Information Systems announces an contract to continue their AMDR-related with Raytheon. The sub-contract could be worth up to $250.1 million over 10 years, and builds on previous GD-AIS efforts involving AMDR-S Digital Receivers/Exciter (DREX) and Digital Beam Forming (DBF) subsystems. Sources: GD, “General Dynamics Awarded $250 Million Contract to Support U.S. Navy’s Air and Missile Defense Radar Program”.

Jan 10/14: Protest dropped. Defense News:

“Lockheed Martin protested the Navy’s award of the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) contract because we believed the merits of our offering were not properly considered during the evaluation process,” spokesman Keith Little said Jan. 10. “While we believe that we put forward an industry-leading solution, after receiving additional information we have determined it’s in the best interest of the Navy and Lockheed Martin to withdraw our protest.”

The move still leaves Lockheed Martin in charge of the Aegis combat system. Raytheon, who had been responsible for delivering SPY-1 radar transmitters to Lockheed, is now responsible for the entire AMDR S-band radar and dual-band controller, while Northrop Grumman’s AN/SPQ-9B acts as the initial X-band radar. Sources: Defense News, “Lockheed Drops AMDR Protest”.

Oct 22/13: Protest. Lockheed Martin filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), arguing that they “submitted a technically compliant solution at a very affordable price. We do not believe the merits of our offering were properly considered during the evaluation process.” Lawmakers from New Jersey, where Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Sensors is located, had sent a letter to the Navy Secretary a few days ago criticizing the award to Raytheon. The Navy subsequently issues a stop-work order, while the GAO has until the end of January 2014 to give its verdict.

Oct 10/13: EMD. Raytheon Company announces that they’ve won, receiving a $385.7 million cost-plus-incentive-fee contract for the AMDR-S and Radar Suite Controller’s (RSC) Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase.

The base $157 million contract begins with design work leading to Preliminary Design Review, and will finish with system acceptance of the AMDR-S and RSC engineering development models at the end of testing. AMDR-S is the large S-band radar, while the RSC provides S- and X-band radar resource management, coordination, and an interface to Lockheed Martin’s Aegis combat system. The full contract would produce initial ship sets that will work with Northrop Grumman’s AN/SPQ-9B as their X-band counterpart.

This contract also includes options for low-rate initial production systems, which could bring the cumulative value to $1.6 billion. These options would be exercised after a successful Milestone C decision, which the Pentagon plans to make in FY 2017. Sources: Raytheon, Oct 10/13 release.

Raytheon wins EMD contract

Oct 18/13: CBO Report. The Congressional Budget Office publishes “An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2014 Shipbuilding Plan“. With respect to AMDR:

“Adding the AMDR [to the DDG-51 design] so that it could operate effectively would require increasing the amount of electrical power and cooling available on a Flight III. With those changes and associated increases in the ship’s displacement, a DDG-51 Flight III destroyer would cost about $300 million, or about 20 percent, more than a new Flight IIA destroyer, CBO estimates. Thus, the average cost per ship [for Flight III DDG-51s] would be $1.9 billion…. Most of the decrease for the Flight III can be attributed to updated information on the cost of incorporating the AMDR into the Flight III configuration. The cost of the AMDR itself, according to the Navy, has declined steadily through the development program, and the Department of Defense’s Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office concurs in the reduced estimate…. Considerable uncertainty remains in the DDG-51 Flight III program, however.”

FY 2013

Major program shifts.

LMCO’s AMDR concept
(click to view full)

June 3/13: NAVSEA Clarifications. NAVSEA replies to some of our program questions, and clarifies the program’s structure. They clarifiy the GAO’s wording concerning “AMDR initially using an upgraded SPQ-9B radar,” by saying that the initial SPQ-9Bs will be off-the-shelf models, acquired under a separate program. SPQ-9A/B radars already equip America’s Ticonderoga Class cruisers, Nimitz Class aircraft carriers, America Class escort carriers, Wasp Class LHD amphibs, and San Antonio Class LPD amphibs.

The SPQ-9B will still be integrated with AMDR-S, but there are some differences in implementation between it and AMDR-X, hence the additional software required. The result will effectively create DDG-51 FLight III and Flight IIIA ships, as the Navy has no plans to backfit AMDR-X to Flight III ships that get the SPQ-9B.

The remaining question is when a winner will be picked. The GAO said (q.v. March 28/13) that an EMD winner and development award was expected in March 2013, and we’re past that. All NAVSEA would say is that the AMDR program office is still conducting evaluations. They also said that AMDR-X’s acquisition strategy isn’t set yet, which leaves the door open to a divided radar contract.

May 8/13: The US Senate Armed Forces Seapower subcommittee hears testimony [PDF] regarding US Navy shipbuilding programs. An excerpt:

“The Navy is proceeding with the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) program to meet the growing ballistic missile threat by greatly improving radar sensitivity and longer range detection for engagement of increasingly complex threats. This scalable radar is on track for installation on DDG 51 Flight III ships to support joint battle space threat awareness and defense, including BMD, area air defense, and ship self defense. The AMDR radar suite will be capable of providing simultaneous surveillance and engagement support for long range BMD and area air defense. The Navy intends to introduce AMDR on DDG 51 Flight III in Fiscal Year 2016.”

GAO documents have referred to AMDR’s introduction in FY 2019, but procurement buys will begin in FY 2016.

April 26/13: Real Competition? Aviation Week reports on the AMDR program. Beyond the materials in the GAO’s report, discussions with the US Navy offer cause for concern. They quote AMDR program manager Capt. Doug Small as saying that AMDR will be just an evolution of Aegis, providing better performance for “only slight more” weight, power, and coolant demands, and “a fraction of the resources needed to run all of dual-band radar (DBR) or even existing Aegis SPY radars to conduct similar missions.”

The SPY-3/ SPY-4 DBR comparison seems like a pretty big stretch, given that they haven’t picked their AMDR radar yet, much less tested it. Article author Michael Fabey’s concerns, on the other hand, lie in another area:

“….the Navy will have to take great pains to ensure the competitiveness of the AMDR program. The service can ill afford to have this effort be seen as just an extension of the “Aegis Mafia,” often seen as… the automatic property of Lockheed, the combat system’s creator and prime contractor throughout the decades.”

It’s a real dilemma. Commonality with an existing combat system makes cross-fleet upgrades much easier, while lowering overall maintenance and upgrade costs. In Aegis’ case it also leverages work that has been and will be done on Ballistic Missile Defense modes. On the other hand, Aegis’ existing inter-dependencies with Lockheed’s own SPY-1 design are a stumbling block. Can the Navy really deliver AMDR on budget, while swapping in an S-band radar from another company? If they say yes and it’s not actually doable, AMDR will flounder and may fail. If the Navy decides that they can’t risk it, then the whole AMDR-S competition was a waste of time.

An AMDR-S award to Raytheon might still be thinkable if the Navy goes with the lesser standard of fleet combat system commonality, using the Raytheon combat system that drives the 3-ship DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class, and leveraging Raytheon’s combat system and controller work integrating the CVN-78 Ford Class carriers’ Dual-Band Radar.

April 10/13: FY 2014 Budget. The President releases a proposed budget at last, the latest in modern memory. The Senate and House were already working on budgets in his absence, but the Pentagon’s submission is actually important to proceedings going forward. See ongoing DID coverage.

“Missile integration with AMDR-S radar for DDG 51 Flight III ships will include requirements review/updates and analysis, verification; technical documentation, design review and working group SME support, missile/radar integration, missile test hardware procurement, risk assessment, safety, test and evaluation planning, analysis, data collection. Deliverables include interface specs and engineering documents to support AMDR PDRs HW&SW (FY13) and CDRs HW&SW (FY14); EDM testing (FY15), interface specs and engineering documents to support AMDR/ACBNext for DDG 51 Flight III E3 Testing, Analysis and Reports. Missile variants: ESSM Block I; SM-2 Blk IIIB MU2, SM-6 Block I (Current Aegis Configuration).”

Meanwhile, the Cooperative Engagement Capability program plans to spend 2013 working on interfaces that will let it work with AMDR. The Standard and ESSM programs will have related items on their plate, and Flight III destroyers will gain an interesting benefit from a discontinued carrier program. The AN/SPS-74(V) CVN Periscope Detection Radar program was canceled on Dec 17/12, with FY 2012 – 2013 funding directed to develop the algorithms and interface for the AN/SPQ-9B Radar instead.

March 28/13: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs“. Which is actually a review for 2012, plus time to compile and publish. Its AMDR section gives a program cost of $6.57 billion total to develop & buy 22 radars. As one might imagine when comparing to last year’s report (q.v. March 30/12), the program’s $9.24 billion cost drop heralds some major shifts in the program.

Instead of using AMDR-X radars, the first 12 AMDR systems will use Northrop Grumman’s existing SPQ-9B radar as their X-band component. According to the Navy, the SPQ-9B radar fits better within the Flight III DDG 51’s sea frame, and “expected power and cooling.” That’s no surprise, given that the “Spook-9” is already set to operate beside the S-band SPY-1D radar on Australia’s smaller Hobart Class destroyers. The bad news is that additional software work will be required to integrate a 2nd radar (SPQ-9B) with the new active S-band radar. AMDR was already on the hook for about 1 million lines of developed code, and software development has bent quite a few DoD project schedules.

The Navy will also have to compromise on radar performance in several areas. The Navy has now settled on a forced scale-down from the 20-foot aperture needed to meet their AMDR specifications, to a 14-foot aperture that’s the largest they can safely fit in the DDG-51 design. On the X-band front, SPQ-9B will eventually be replaced by a new X-band design for the last 10 units (13 – 22), but until AMDR-X arrives, the system won’t perform as well in X-band against the most advanced threats.

Major program shifts

Nov 26/12: NGC. Northrop Grumman announces that their AMDR technology demonstration contract is done. The firm says that they achieved both contract objectives: demonstrating that the critical technology is mature, and advancing the design of the tactical system. Northrop Grumman also successfully completed far field range testing of the AMDR-TD prototype, which reportedly met performance goals and radiated at top power for all waveforms.

FY 2011 – 2012

Functional reviews from contenders. RFP proposals in.

NGC’s AMDR-TD
(click to view full)

Sept 10/12: NGC. Northrop Grumman announces that its AMDR prototype has successfully completed initial range testing. Near Field Range testing validated the AMDR’s digital beam forming performance, tuning techniques, and reliability. Subsequent Far Field Range testing at Northrop Grumman’s radar test site in Baltimore, MD included successful full-power operational demonstrations.

July 31/12: RFP Proposals in. Lockheed Martin announces that it has submitted its “AMDR-S” proposal. Northrop Grumman and Raytheon both confirmed to DID that they also submitted proposals. Lockheed Martin.

April 2/12: NGC. Northrop Grumman announces that they’ve successfully finished AMDR’s System Functional Review (SFR) in late December 2011, and Test Readiness Review (TRR) “several weeks later”. SFR is a multi-disciplined technical review conducted to ensure that the system under review is technically mature enough to proceed into preliminary design. TRR assesses the readiness of the system for testing configuration items.

During the SFR, Northrop Grumman demonstrated digital beamforming and advanced tactical software modes, using its pathfinder early testing radar with a prototype radar suite controller to successfully detect and track airborne targets.

March 30/12: GAO Report. The US GAO tables its “Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs” for 2011. AMDR is scheduled to enter system development in October 2012, and the current program envisions $15.837 billion to develop and field 24 radar sets on DDG-51 Flight III destroyers.

Program officials believe that digital beamforming in a radar of AMDR’s size will be the most significant technical challenge, and will likely take the longest time to mature. Unfortunately, that technology is necessary for AMDR’s simultaneous air and ballistic missile defense mission. Meanwhile, a 14-foot version of AMDR-S is the largest radar they can safely fit within the DDG-51 destroyer’s deckhouse, even though it would take a 20-foot diameter aperture to fully meet all of the Navy’s specifications. The Navy is still discussing the precise size for AMDR-S in Flight III ships, and the design is supposed to be scalable up or down in size to fit on smaller or larger ships.

Nov 16/11: Power problem. Jane’s Navy International is reporting that DDG-51 flight III destroyers with the new AMDR radar and hybrid propulsion drives could cost $3-4 billion each.

If that is true, it’s about the same cost as a DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class ship, in return for less performance, more vulnerability, and less future upgrade space. AMDR isn’t a final design yet, so it’s still worthwhile to ask what it could cost to give the Flight IIIs’ radar and combat systems ballistic missile defense capabilities – R&D for the function doesn’t go away when it’s rolled into a separate program. Indeed, if the Flight III cost estimate is true, it raises the question of why that would be a worthwhile use of funds, and re-opens the issue of whether continuing DDG-1000 production and upgrades might make more sense. DoD Buzz.

Sept 19/11: Raytheon. Raytheon touts the performance of its Gallium Nitride AMDR T/R modules, which demonstrated no degradation after more than 1,000 hours of testing. Raytheon is developing a technology demonstrator for the system’s S-band radar and radar suite controller, and says that their testing figures exceed Navy requirements.

June 12/11: Growth problems? Aviation Week reports that AMDR’s key platform may be hitting growth problems. Power, cooling, and weight distribution have always been seen as the most likely stumbling blocks to fitting AMDR on the DDG-51 hull, and:

“As the possible requirements and expectations continue to grow for the proposed DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class Flight III destroyers, so is the concern among defense analysts and contractors that the U.S. Navy may once again be trying to pack too much into one ship… And yet it is the need to field [AMDR] that is driving some of the additional requirements for the Flight IIIs… “Sometimes we get caught up in the glamour of the high technology,” Huntington Ingalls Industries CEO Mike Petters says. “The radars get bounced around. They get changed. Their missions get changed. The technology changes. The challenge is if you let the radars drive the ships, you might not get any ships built.”

June 7/11: Raytheon. Raytheon announces that it has conducted a system requirements review (SRR) for AMDR Phase II beginning May 17/11. Their release does not describe it as successful, offering only the less categorical claim that the “Navy’s feedback throughout the review was favorable,” and pointing out that the firm “matured its design ahead of schedule, surpassing customer expectations.” DID asked Raytheon about this. They said the review was successful, but they wanted to different phrasing for a change.

Raytheon is currently developing a technology demonstrator for AMDR’s S-band radar and radar suite controller, and the firm demonstrated hardware from that pilot array during the review. The SRR also included Raytheon’s understanding of AMDR’s requirements, how its design and architecture meets those requirements, and Raytheon’s its analysis of those requirements, including cost and performance trade studies. A System Functional Review will be held later in 2011.

June 1/11: AMDR Issues. An Aviation Week article looks at AMDR, and adds some cost estimates and perspective on the program.

“AMDR is the brass ring for Navy radar programs… Capt. Doug Small, program officer for Naval Sea Systems Command (Navsea), [says that] “We’re working hard to balance a tough set of requirements for this radar with its costs… BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) targets drive radar sensitivity. There’s no substitute for having detect-and-track [capability] at a long distance… [But] To do simultaneous air defense [and BMD], you have to spend less time doing air defense. It’s a radar resource issue… [Fortunately,] The ability to create multiple beams digitally [digital beamforming] means you spend less time doing certain other functions.” “

The article adds that Lockheed Martin demonstrated S-band digital phased-array antenna beam forming during recent NAVSEA tests of the Advanced Radar Technology Integrated System Test-bed, which combines multifunction S-band active phased-array radars. It’s a joint U.S.-U.K. radar effort spearheaded by Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems, and Lockheed Martin’s VP naval radar programs, Brad Hicks, says the technology is now ready to enter full engineering development.

May 19/11: Raytheon. Raytheon announces that it has produced the first group of S-band transmit/receive (T/R) modules for the U.S. Navy’s AMDR program.

FY 2009 – 2010

Initial studies, tech development contracts.

CG-49: USS Vincennes
(click to view full)

Sept 30/10: US Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington Navy Yard, DC solicits bids via the Federal Business Opportunities website, receives 3 offers, and issues 3 technology development contracts for the AMDR S-band radar and its radar suite controller (RSC). AMDR-S will provide volume search, tracking, ballistic missile defense discrimination and missile communications. The RSC will perform all coordination actions to ensure that both radars work together. This approach dovetails with the Pentagon’s focus on competitive prototypes, as a way of reducing long-term risks of failed development and cost overruns.

Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in Sudbury, MA received a $112.3 million fixed-price incentive (firm target) contract. Work will be performed in Sudbury, MA (81%), Fairfax, VA (18.3%), and New York, NY (0.7%), and is expected to be complete by September 2012 (N00024-10-C-5340). See also Raytheon.

Lockheed Martin Mission Systems and Sensors in Moorestown, NJ receives a $119.2 million fixed-price incentive (firm target) contract. Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ (86.2%); Clearwater, FL (5.5%); Fairfax, VA (3.5%); New Brighton, MN (2.5%); Clearfield, UT (1.3%); and Huntsville, AL (1%), and is expected to be complete by September 2012 (N00024-10-C-5358). See also Lockheed Martin.

Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems in Linthicum Heights, MD receives a $120 million fixed-price incentive (firm target) contract. This contract is incrementally funded, with $38.4 million placed on the contract at the time of award. Work will be performed in Linthicum Heights, MD (99.4%), and Arvonia, VA (0.6%), and is expected to be complete by September 2012 (N00024-10-C-5359). See also Northrop Grumman.

Tech development contracts

Aug 10/10: An opinion from the Information Dissemination article Happy Thoughts and DDG-1000:

“I love Chris, and I don’t think anyone in the Navy deserved their star more than Jim Syring… but this Navy Times article is just a bit too much happy half-the-story for me. Here is how half the story gets told… The real reason the Navy is dropping the VSR on DDG-1000 is because the Navy intends to put… AMDR on the DDG-1000… because the timeline works out. The thing is the Navy can’t actually say this because there is no official AMDR program yet and the DDG-1000 isn’t supposed to be a ballistic missile defense ship – remember? This story in Navy Times is what it is because when it comes to US Navy shipbuilding, the Navy under CNO Roughead is never completely honest with the American people about what the Navy is doing. Sorry if the truth hurts.”

June 2/10: DDG 1000 loses DBR. As expected, the Pentagon this week certifies that the DDG-1000 destroyer program is vital to national security, and must not be terminated, despite R&D loaded per-ship cost increases that put it over Nunn-McCurdy’s legislated limit. There will be at least one important change, however: the S-band SPY-4 Volume Search Radar will be deleted from the DDG-1000’s DBR.

Performance has met expectations, but cost increases reportedly forced the Navy into a cost/benefit decision. The Navy would not release numbers, but reports indicate possible savings of $100-200 million for each of the planned 3 ships. The X-band SPY-3 has reportedly exceeded technical expectations, and will receive upgrades to give it better volume search capability. The move will save weight and space by removing SPY-4 aperture, power, and cooling systems, and may create an opportunity for Raytheon’s SPY-3 to be upgraded for ballistic missile defense – or replaced by the winner of the BMD-capable AMDR dual-band radar competition.

The full DBR will be retained on the USS Gerald R. Ford [CVN 78] aircraft carrier, as the SPY-4 replaces 2 air search radars and will be the primary air traffic control radar. No decision has been made for CVN 79 onward, however, and AMDR’s potential scalability may make it attractive there as well. Gannett’s Navy Times | US DoD.

No DBR on DDG-1000

Feb 26/10: CRS Report. The US Congressional Research Service lays out what remains of AMDR’s opportunity, in an updated report. From “Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress” :

“The Navy’s FY2011 budget submission calls for procuring two DDG-51s in FY2011 and six more in FY2012-FY2015. The two DDG-51s that the Navy wants to procure in FY2011 received $577.2 million in FY2010 advance procurement funding. The Navy’s proposed FY2011 budget requests another $2,922.2 million in procurement funding for the two ships, so as to complete their estimated combined procurement cost of $3,499.2 million. The Navy’s proposed FY2011 budget also requests $48.0 million in advance procurement funding for the one DDG-51 that the Navy wants to procure in FY2012, and $186.3 million in procurement funding for DDG-1000 program-completion costs. The Navy’s FY2011 budget also proposes terminating the Navy’s planned CG (X) cruiser program as unaffordable. Rather than starting to procure CG (X)s around FY2017, as the Navy had previously envisaged, the Navy is proposing to build an improved version of the DDG-51, called the Flight III version, starting in FY2016. Navy plans thus call for procuring the current version of the DDG-51, called the Flight IIA version, in FY2010-FY2015, followed by procurement of Flight III DDG-51s starting in FY2016. Navy plans appear to call for procuring Flight III DDG- 51s through at least FY2022, and perhaps until FY2031. Flight III DDG-51s are to carry a smaller version of the new Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) that was to be carried by the CG (X). The Navy’s proposed FY2011 budget requests $228.4 million in research and development funding for the AMDR. Detailed design work on the Flight III DDG-51 reportedly is to begin in FY2012 or FY2013.”

June 26/09: The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC issues 3 firm fixed-price contracts, covering initial concept studies for the (AMDR) S-band and Radar Suite Controller (RSC) only. Deliverables will include the S-band and radar suite controller conceptual design, systems engineering studies and analyses, and a technology development plan. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities and Navy Electronic Commerce Online websites, with 3 offers received.

Northrop Grumman receives a $10 million contract. Work will be performed in Linthicum Heights, MD, and is expected to be complete by December 2009 (N00024-09-C-5398). See also NGC’s July 28/09 release.

Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors in Moorestown, NJ, receives a $10 million contract. Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ, and is expected to be complete by December 2009 (N00024-09-C-5312). See also Lockheed Martin’s July 14/09 release.

Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in Sudbury, MA receives a $9.9 million contract. Work will be performed in Sudbury, MA (94%); Fairfax, VA (4%); Bath, ME (3%); Andover, MA (3%); Tewksbury, MA (3%); and East Syracuse, NY (2%), and is expected to be complete by December 2009 (N00024-09-C-5313). See also Raytheon’s Aug 3/09 release.

Initial studies contracts

Additional Readings Background: AMDR

• FBO.gov (# N0002412R5315) – 58 – Synopsis for the AMDR-S/RSC Engineering and Manufacturing Development Contract with LRIP Options. Issued April 16/12, last modification May 14/13.

• USN Electronic Commerce Online – N00024-12-R-5315 AMDR EMD Solicitation.

• GlobalSecurity.org – Solid State SPY Radar/ Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR)/ Air & Missile Defense Radar (A&MD Radar)/ Next-Generation Maritime Air & Missile Defense/ Multi-Function Advanced Active Phased-Array Radar.

• Raytheon – Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR). Winner.

• Lockheed Martin feature, via WayBack – Lockheed Martin selected to demonstrate designs for next phase of Navy’s Air and Missile Defense Radar program.

• Northrop Grumman, via WayBack – Northrop Grumman Air & Missile Defense Radar (AMDR).

Background: Related Systems

• US Navy – AN/SPQ-9B Radar Set. AMDR’s initial X-band counterpart.

• DID – BMD in Bunches: The USN’s Multi-Year Destroyer Contract, FY 2013 – 2017. The contract includes options for AMDR-equipped destroyers in FY 2016 and FY 2017.

• DID – US Destroyers Get a HED: More Power to Them! Hybrid-Electric drive modifications might be needed, in order to solve the class’ power problems.

Official Reports

• US Congressional Research Services – Navy DDG-1000 and DDG-51 Destroyer Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress. April 8/14 update.

• US Congressional Budget Office (Oct 18/13) – An Analysis of the Navy’s Fiscal Year 2014 Shipbuilding Plan.

News & Views

• Aviation Week (June 12/11) – Potential DDG-51 Flight III Growth Alarms. Could have strong implications for AMDR.

• Aviation Week (June 1/11) – AMDR program sets big goals.

• Military & Aerospace Electronics (June 29/09) – Next-generation missile defense radar systems for Navy warships is goal of new study contracts

• Defense News (Feb 2/09) – New Destroyer Emerges in U.S. Plans: Options Mulled As DDG 1000 Hits $6 Billion [dead link]. Includes AMDR coverage.

• DID Spotlight – The US Navy’s Dual Band Radars. Covers the SPY-3/VSR combination aboard the new DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyers and CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers.

Bulgarian BMP-30 Infantry Fighting Vehicle

Americas

Lockheed Martin is being contracted to build a next-generation missile defense radar system on Hawaii. Awarded by the Missile Defense Agency, the $585 million fixed-price incentive delivery order provides for design, development and delivery of the Homeland Defense Radar – Hawaii (HDR-H). The HDR-H is able to autonomously acquire, track and discriminate incoming ballistic missiles and will increase the overall capability of MDA’s Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System. The radar system is built upon Lockheed’s Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR). LRDR combines proven solid-state radar technologies with proven ballistic missile defense algorithms, all based upon an open architecture platform. The radar provides precision metric data to improve ballistic defense discrimination. The contract is partially funded through FY2018 and FY2019 research development test and evaluation funds, amounting to $51.4 million. Work will be performed at Lockheed’s factory in Moorestown, New Jersey and at the radar site on Oahu, Hawaii. The HDR-H is expected to be completed by December 2023.

BAE Systems is being awarded with a five-year support contract covering the repair of countermeasure systems for various aircraft. The order is priced at $32 million and provides for the repair of 103 items of the ALQ-126B, and two items of the ALE-55 countermeasures systems. The US Navy’s AN/ALQ-126B is designed to secure aircraft communications by generating noise jamming for potential enemy listeners and defeat radar seekers of incoming missiles. The Navy uses the system on some of its aircraft platforms, such as the F/A-18 and E-6B Prowler. The AN/ALE-55 is a towed decoy comprised of an electronic frequency converter (EFC) and a fiber optic towed decoy (FOTD). It can suppress, deceit, and seduce enemy planes, launchers and missiles. Work will be performed in Nashua, New Hampshire; Jacksonville, Florida and Crane, Indiana.

The US Army is buying more Joint-Air-to-Ground missiles. Lockheed Martin is receiving a contract modification valued at $91 million that extends JAGM procurement as part of LRIP 3. The JAGM is an air-to-ground missile that provides advanced line-of-sight and beyond-line-of-sight capabilities and will eventually replace the Army’s inventory of Hellfire missiles. The missile is designed to engage a variety of targets, including heavy vehicles, patrol craft, bunkers and buildings. The Army expects to achieve JAGM’s IOC in early 2019. Work will be performed at Lockheed’s factory in Orlando, Florida and is expected to be completed by February 2022.

Middle East & Africa

Turkey is requesting the purchase of several Patriot batteries. The potential Foreign Military Sale calls for the delivery of 80 Patriot MIM-104E GEM-T missiles and 60 PAC-3 MSE missiles at a cost of $3.5 billion. The multi-billion deal also provides for four AN/MPQ-65 Radar Sets, four Engagement Control Stations, 10 Antenna Mast Groups, 20 M903 Launching Stations and Electrical Power Plant (EPP) III. The package also covers communications equipment, tools and test equipment, range and test programs, and some other services. PAC-2 GEM-T are optimised to target incoming ballistic missiles. PAC-3 MSE is designed to be a longer range missile that is more agile, and able to counter both tactical ballistic missiles and more conventional threats. Turkey is a NATO member and hosts the TPY-2 radar site which is crucial to the European Phased Adaptive Approach that seeks to protect allies and partners against Iranian ballistic missile threats. Main contractors will be Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.

The government of Kuwait is ordering several engines for its F/A-18E/F Super Hornets from General Electric. Awarded by the Naval Air Systems Command, the Foreign Military Sales contract calls for the procurement of 56 F414-GE-400-1A install engines; four F414-GE-400 spare engines; two spare engine containers and 12 spare engine modules at a cost of $257 million. The F414 is one of the newest and most advanced aircraft engines. It features an axial compressor with 3 fan stages and 7 high-pressure compressor stages, and 1 high-pressure and 1 low-pressure turbine stage. In March 2018 Kuwait agreed to purchase 28 Super Hornets at a cost of $1.2 billion. Work will be performed at GE’s factories in Lynn, Massachusetts; Hooksett, New Hampshire; Rutland, Vermont and Madison, Kentucky. Performance is expected to run through December 2020.

Europe

All of NATO’s 14 Boeing E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft have now been fitted with Global Air Traffic Management (GATM) technology. The majority of work was completed at Boeing’s Manching facility in southern Germany. Efforts covered under the upgrade program focused on a new flight management and flight safety avionics system, and the installation of 50 new ‘black boxes’. GATM allows the E-3A’s to fly in civilian airspace enabling the surveillance planes to operate worldwide. The E-3 is based on Boeing’s 707 family, and its ability to see and direct air operations within hundreds of miles provides vital strategic support. NATO formed its E-3A Component in 1982 and expects to keep the aircraft in service through 2035.

Asia-Pacific

India’s Space Research Organisation launches a new military communication satellite. Gsat-7A was launched from Sriharikota at 4:10pm on Wednesday and will be the Indian Air Force’s exclusive ‘eye in the sky’. The 5000 lbs satellite will link IAF fighter jets, transporters and tankers, AWACS platforms and UAVs and ultimately act as a force multiplier. The IAF expects Gsat-7A to strengthen its net-centric war fighting capability. Gsat-7A is India’s 35th communication satellite. The satellite flies in an eventual geostationary orbit allowing the IAF to expand its communication capabilities and boost some of its network-dependant warfare and drone capabilities.

Today’s Video

Watch: T-38 Talon Flight Over Northern California

Many have praised the parliamentary elections in Herat province in the far west of Afghanistan as second only to the capital Kabul in terms of turnout. There was indeed considerable enthusiasm and determination to vote from those who could get to the polls, but they were a restricted number, mainly those living in the provincial and district centres. In areas controlled or threatened by the Taleban, the vote either did not happen or was troubled. Elsewhere, numerous administrative and technical shortcomings and serious complaints of rigging hindered Heratis from exercising their franchise. AAN researcher Said Reza Kazemi, who observed the poll, reports that the description by provincial authorities that Herat’s election was ‘good’ suggests they must have very low standards.

Reinforced security measures

As election day, 20 October 2018, approached, the Afghan government boosted the strength and presence of its military forces in Herat province. These extraordinary security measures, which lasted for about a day before to a day after the poll, were mostly limited to the provincial capital, Herat city, and district centres because large swathes of territory in the province, particularly areas far from the provincial and district centres, are either contested or partially or completely controlled by the Taleban.

In Herat city, the bolstered security forces were clearly visible. Security forces were stationed at strategic entry points to and key intersections in the provincial capital and checked any suspicious movements. Many other members of the security forces could be seen constantly patrolling in Ranger-type vehicles.Additionally, the Office of the Provincial Police Chief banned the use of motorbikes and rickshaws in the city and the districts leading to it on 18 October. All traffic was banned on election day. As a result, as AAN observed, there were few vehicles in the city and the road leading to it from Guzara and Injil districts on polling day. More vehicles started coming out as the day went on when security measures were somewhat relaxed. The transport ban was a response to a number of small-scale vehicle-borne improvised electronic device (IED) attacks in Herat city in the lead-up to election day. The attacks did not cause many casualties and it is not clear whether or not they were directly linked to the approaching elections (for details, see the author’s pre-election dispatch here).

The Taleban push to disrupt elections in several districts

Although the city of Herat was generally safe around polling day thanks largely to the strengthened security arrangements, conditions were markedly different in several districts. The Taleban, as in previous years, set out to stop as much voting as they could (for a countrywide assessment, see pages 1-6 of this UNAMA report). According to residents and district Independent Election Commission (IEC) officials, the Taleban used a range of measures in several districts of Herat province. They warned local populations not to take part in the elections and threatened to cut off their fingers if they did so. This threat was not carried out, however. Also, as will be detailed below, they abducted figures of influence in various villages in a bid to scare local inhabitants away from the elections (but released them soon afterwards following local mediation), carried out small-scale IED and rocket attacks and used small arms fire, predominantly against polling centres or other nearby compounds and land, rather than people.

However, the Taleban insurgents were unable and unwilling to create a bloodbath. Shedding blood, especially of civilians, destroys whatever local relations they may have gradually established in areas under their influence or control (for a case study of Taleban relations with district residents, read the author’s recent case study on Herat’s Obeh district here and an introduction to the subject here). Examples of how the Taleban operated around elections in five districts of the province give a flavour of their tactics.

In the north-western district of Gulran that borders Turkmenistan in the north and Iran in the west, only one out of seven polling centres opened on election day and, even then, only the centre in the very centre of the district. The IEC official in charge of Gulran told AAN that the Taleban began shelling the district centre from the moment the polling centre opened “early in the morning to around 11 am.” The rockets did not hit the polling centre but amplified a previous Taleban warning to Gulran residents not to participate in the elections. “Nevertheless, polling went on throughout the day in the district centre,” said the official. Although no one was hurt, the Taleban did appear to have affected turnout. Out of around 5,500 registered voters, only about 1,200 cast their votes in Gulran.

The western, mainly desert district of Kohsan through which Herat is connected to Iran via the Islam Qala border crossing is considered a comparatively safe district by Herat standards. There, Taleban insurgents carried out small-scale IED attacks against four polling centres including three schools and one mosque, according to an IEC official based in the district. The attacks injured two people (see this media report), inflicted some physical damage on polling centre buildings and significantly lowered turnout. In one of the polling centres, only 29 people turned out to vote. However, there was much greater voting in the remaining 11 polling centres in Kohsan (15 polling centres in total). All in all, nevertheless, Taleban threats and IED attacks reduced turnout in the district: of around 26,000 registered voters, only about 14,000 people voted.

Security in the central district of Adraskan along the Herat-Kandahar highway was worse, given its adjacency to restive Shindand district and Farah province in the south and Farsi district in the east. According to a UNAMA report (see pages 5 and 6 here), on 19 October 2018, the Taleban “gathered” 45 elders and figures of influence from several villages “with the aim of intimidating the population into not participating in the elections” and released them only after the elections were over in the evening of 20 October. A district IEC official based in Adraskan told AAN that some 25 election employees informed him on 19 October that they would not turn up to work the following day due to Taleban threats. On election day itself, the Taleban fired rockets near to five polling centres. In total, of the six polling centres, only the one in the district centre escaped attack. The attacks injured a soldier and a woman and caused some physical damage. At the end of the elections, of some 6,600 registered voters in Adraskan, only about 1,900 had cast their ballots.

Further south, the insecure district of Shindand, which borders Farah province and has been divided into five smaller districts, also witnessed a patchy, insecure and, in some places, non-existent election, according to a district IEC official who spoke to AAN. In two of the newly-created districts, Pushtkoh and Zerkoh, which are largely under Taleban rule, no election took place. In central Shindand district, all 11 polling centres opened. However, polling in two centres was hampered by skirmishes between the Taleban and Afghan government security forces nearby, which left casualties on both sides. Additionally, at about 08:00 when polling started, the Taleban fired a rocket on Shindand district centre to frighten local residents off the elections. There were no casualties, however. At the end of the day, out of about 8,400 registered voters, only some 5,000 voted in central Shindand district. In the district of Kuhzur, the single designated polling centre managed to open and out of some 1,100 registered voters, only a small group of people consisting of election staff, Afghan government security forces and a few others cast their ballots. In Zavul district, the two designated polling centres opened and out of around 2,600 people who had registered to vote, some 1,000 cast their votes.

That elections were held in troubled Shindand at all came as a surprise, but this has something to do with competing Taleban factions in southern Herat province (read AAN background on the conflict in Shindand here). Local sources in Herat city and Shindand told AAN that followers of the splinter Mullah Rasul group led by Mullah Nangialay allowed elections to be organised in areas under their influence or control (for more on this breakaway Taleban faction, read AAN analysis here). Clashes have continued for several years between Mullah Nangialay’s forces and sympathisers of mainstream Taleban leader Mullah Hibatullah led by Mullah Samad in Shindand. The most recent battle left several members on both factions dead and injured in late November 2018 (see this media report).

The Taleban also threatened the elections in Pashtun Zarghun, a relatively green and fertile, but sparsely populated district in the east of Herat province. A district IEC official told AAN that all 19 designated polling centres opened and of about 18,000 registered voters, about 9,800 people cast their votes. He said that the Taleban, angry at this relatively high turnout, despite their warnings and threats, abducted elders from several villages and only released them following mediation by other local influential figures. Additionally, UNAMA says in its report (see page 6 here) that in Chiworshy village of Pashtun Zargun district, “on 20 October Taliban entered a private company where election materials were stored and burned the materials and the civilian building.”

There were similar security incidents (mostly small-scale rocket and IED attacks) in several other districts: eastern Obeh and northern Kushk-e Kuhna districts (see page 5 here) and northern Kushk-e Rubat Sangi, eastern Karukh and Chesht-e Sharif, western Ghoryan, southern Guzara and central Injil (see here).

Organisational failure across the province

Insecurity was not the only obstacle facing Heratis keen to vote. There was also widespread administrative shambles (for a countrywide assessment, read AAN reporting here , here and here).

The first problem on election day, experienced at least in and around Herat city, was related to access. AAN observed that the transport ban had knock-on effects on both electoral staff and voters. Many IEC employees, who had been mainly recruited from among local school staff, did not manage to arrive at many polling centres on time.

Voters waiting in a long queue to get in Masjid ul-Reza Mosque polling centre to vote. Located in Police District (PD) 3 of Herat city, the entrance to the mosque is surrounded by a concrete blast wall. A young man, echoing the words of several other men who had come to vote in this polling centre, told AAN, “Look at the long queue! It’s frustrating and it’s better that I go because I’ve got other things to do.” Photo: Author/2018

Voters faced a similar challenge. AAN saw large numbers of people walking to and from polling centres in Herat city and the neighbouring district of Injil. Some we spoke to did not know they had to vote in the polling centre at which they had registered; then, if they went to the wrong centre, it was difficult to rectify this mistake because of the transport ban.

Those affected by one of the major administrative failings of this election – the names of some voters who had registered not appearing on the list of the relevant polling centre – also found their attempts to vote exacerbated by the transport ban. Many of those who could not find their names at the centre where they had registered then trailed round several other centres in a sometimes vain attempt to find their names so that they could vote. In the most notorious case of this kind, the IEC sent some voter lists from Bamiyan province to Ghoryan district of Herat (see this media report).

The late arrival of staff and generally slow administration of voting led to large queues of voters forming outside many polling centres. People waited between one and six hours to vote, with some people deciding not to wait or waiting in vain as their polling centre did not open at all. “Look at the long queue! It’s frustrating and it’s better that I go because I’ve got other things to do,” a young man who had approached Masjid ul-Reza polling centre in Police District (PD) 3 told AAN, echoing the words of several other men who came to vote, but then left after seeing the long queue. Some people living nearby, however, paid two or more visits to the polling centre and finally managed to get in and vote when it was less crowded.

Similarly, in Khaja Muhammad Taki High School polling centre in PD 3 and Hatefi High School polling centre in PD 4, many people waited for a long time (an hour or more) to get inside to cast their votes, with some deciding to return home without voting at all. As the day went on, however, queues got shorter, especially from late afternoon onwards.

Such late starts were observed by or reported to AAN all over the province. However, in some places, the delays gave rise to speculation that the administrative chaos was deliberate, a move by the government to disenfranchise voters in particular areas of Herat city and the larger province.

Besides this, there was also chaos inside most polling centres across Herat province, according to various sources. AAN observed:

Voters struggled to find their names on voter lists in the Masjid ul-Reza polling centre because voter lists were either missing or wrong or had been misplaced. A middle-aged man said, “I’ve waited for an hour or so to get inside the polling centre but can’t find my name now that I’m in. They keep sending me to one polling station or another.”

A bustling but problematic polling process in Gawharshad High School polling centre in PD 1 of Herat city. There, a candidate agent told AAN: “Polling began late, voters have to wait for a long time to get in, they find their names with difficulty or don’t at all, biometric devices don’t work and so on. Candidate agents have filled out so many complaint forms that no more is left.” Photo: Author/2018

Confused voters in Gawharshad High School polling centre in PD 1 also struggled to find their names on voter lists amid a large crowd of candidate agents, who were looking for complaint registration forms that had already run out, and a large number of observers; altogether, the orderly administration of the election was hindered as a candidate agent told AAN:

“Polling began late, voters have to wait for a long time to get in, they find their names with difficulty or don’t at all, biometric devices don’t work and so on. Candidate agents have filled out so many complaint forms that no more is left.”

In some polling centres, especially in and around Herat city, polling continued well into the night to let all those standing in queues cast their votes. A candidate agent in Nasaji polling centre in Guzara district told AAN:

“The polling centre finally opened around 1 pm. There was a long queue outside the centre but many people got tired and went back to their houses. When polling began, my colleagues and I coordinated and encouraged people to return to vote. Polling continued well into the night. The candidate we were working for paid for vehicle owners to keep bringing people to vote and then returning them to their houses. We were in the polling centre till about midnight.”

In the districts, a range of similar administrative flaws were reported by the media (see Killid and page 5 of this issue of Hasht-e Sobh daily newspaper). They included delays in opening polling centres; missing, wrong or misplaced voter lists; inadequate numbers of complaint registration forms; biometric voter verification (BVV) devices unavailable, not working, not being charged or IEC staff struggling to operate them and; election materials not provided on time or not provided at all, especially in polling centres located in outlying areas.

The provincial IEC tried to address the inadequacies. According to provincial IEC head Ahmad Shah Qanuni, who spoke to AAN, a 10 to 12-member operational team at the provincial IEC headquarters was busy particularly throughout election day, attempting to resolve the myriad of problems. However, the organisational and technical shortfalls were numerous and simply unmanageable for the provincial IEC. “Technical problems played a greater role in disenfranchising voters in Herat than did insecurity,” was the frank admission of provincial IEC head Qanuni in an interview with AAN. This would appear certainly to be true on election day, itself, although many voters never even got the chance to register because of the Taleban controlling large areas of the province and beyond.

More disenfranchisement due to technical flaws than security incidents

In assessing October’s parliamentary poll, it should be stressed that, months before election day, many Heratis had already been disenfranchised. Out of an estimated one million voters in the province, only around half registered to vote; the shortfall appeared due mostly to security threats and widespread disillusionment with the last fraudulent and controversial presidential elections in 2014 (see the author’s pre-election dispatch here).

The IEC had planned to open 462 polling centres across Herat (see their list here). Prior to election day, it said it would only be able to open 300 of these following an assessment by the Afghan government security institutions (read this AAN dispatch). Then, on election day itself, it opened only 285. On the extra, second day of the elections, the IEC did plan to open the remaining 15 polling centres, but in practice only opened two, one in Kushk-e Rubat Sangi district and the other in Adraskan district (see also this media report). This means that, on the two election days, only 287 polling centres opened in Herat province, 175 polling centres (or almost 40 per cent) fewer than was planned. Only in Herat city and the immediate district of Injil did all designated polling centres open.

About a fifth fewer centres opened in 2018 than in the last parliamentary elections in 2010 when 351 polling centres opened (see their list here) and only 4 per cent of those planned to open failed to do so (see appendix 4 of this report; see also AAN reporting on the 2010 elections in Herat here and here). This is a consequence of the Taleban controlling or influencing more territory than they did eight years ago.

As for the number of people who cast their votes on the two election days, there are no exact figures yet, but available data does indicate that more than 215,000 registered voters did not exercise their franchise. Prior to the elections, the provincial IEC provided AAN with the following voter registration figures (see the author’s pre-election dispatch here):

• Total: 557,720 registered voters
• 308,613 men
• 247,434 women
• 1,673 kuchis (nomads)

After the election, on 28 November 2018, Qanuni, the provincial IEC head, provided the following figures of those who had voted:

• Total: 342,225 voters
• 184,180 men
• 157,190 women
• 855 kuchis

215,495 registered voters, almost 40 per cent (38.64 %), did not vote in Herat province. Individual reasons are not known, but potential voters faced technical shambles, closed polling centres and Taleban threats or were disinclined to vote. Compared to the 2010 parliamentary elections, there was actually little difference: overall 348,145 people (198,483 men, 145,050 women, 4,612 kuchis) voted in 2010; this includes both validated (291,625) and invalidated (56,520) ballots. This is just 5,920 more ballots than those who cast their votes in the recent elections.

Alleged rigging

Allegations of fraud have further undermined the parliamentary elections in Herat. As time has passed since the elections, the number of election complaints has steadily gone up: from 649 on 22 October 2018 (see page 5 here), to 792 on 24 October (see here) and to 999 on 28 November, according to the head of the provincial Election Complaints Commission (ECC), Fareshtah Hesham.

Hesham told AAN the provincial ECC had put the 999 complaints into three categories. The first category involves 649 complaints that have been found by the provincial ECC as “undocumented and therefore rejected.” The fact that there has not been much local reaction to the rejection of these complaints could show that the complaints were not solid. The second category comprises 150 complaints about organisational shortcomings such as late starts, missing or wrong or misplaced voter lists and dysfunctional BVV devices on polling day. These complaints have been referred by the provincial ECC to its headquarters in Kabul, for “these problems emanated from the centre [Kabul],” said Hesham.

The remaining 200 complaints are, in Hesham’s words, “evidence-based and serious.” These complaints relate to alleged cases of election manipulation such as ballot box stuffing, the use of fake tazkeras(national ID cards), campaigning for candidates near and even inside polling centres and general illegal interference by different actors in the electoral process. The provincial ECC investigation of these complaints is still under way.

As a result of the third category of complaints, Hesham said the provincial ECC has quarantined ballot boxes from 61 polling centres across the province for re-counting. These include 18 polling centres in Herat city; all polling centres in Chesht-e Sharif, Kushk-e Kuhna, Gulran, Shindand, Adraskan, Zavul and Farsi districts; and some polling centres in Zendajan, Guzara, Injil, Karukh and Obeh districts. The quarantined polling centres indicate that alleged fraud was perpetrated both in relatively safe and central districts such as Injil and insecure and faraway ones such as Farsi and, in other words, across the entire province.

Local observers told AAN that the recruitment of election staff from among the local population contributed to the fraud. For instance, an observer from Kohsan district told AAN that at least two polling centres in the district were staffed by individuals belonging to one kinship group who supported one of the candidates and purportedly engineered the election in favour of him. In other areas, according to local journalists, candidate agents and provincial IEC and ECC heads that AAN spoke to, various actors including locally-hired IEC staff, elders, commanders and candidate agents interfered in the elections in favour of their chosen candidates. Furthermore, the lack of candidate agents and observers in some polling centres situated in far-flung, insecure areas provided an environment conducive for rigging.

In addition, there are concerns among some local activists that electoral fraud at the central Kabul level could have undermined Herat province’s parliamentary elections even further. Some candidates immediately left Herat for Kabul following the elections, which contributed to speculation among journalists and local activists including observers and civil society representatives that they are allegedly “trying to increase their votes through the electoral bodies or are concerned about election manipulation by the electoral bodies” (see page 5 here). These local activists (see page 5 here) have further alleged that some candidates intentionally declared their victory prematurely by throwing parties in order to make Kabul-level vote manipulation possible later on. The provincial IEC and ECC have tried to assure the populace that due process of law was being followed, but the credibility of this assurance is under question. For example, on 7 December 2018, 25 parliamentary election candidates in Herat called for the complete invalidation of votes in the province, citing what they called “widespread electoral fraud and violations” including by the provincial IEC (see here).

In her interview with AAN, the provincial ECC head Hesham said she fully expected the announcement of preliminary results – which came out on 17 December (1) – would bring to them an even greater number of complaints.

Conclusion: what kind of an election did Herat have?

Enthusiasm by Heratis to take part in the elections was evident from the long queues of voters that formed outside polling centres in various parts of Herat province. Yet, many Heratis could not exercise their franchise, meaning the elections were far from representative of the population across the province. Insecurity primarily caused by the Taleban meant that polling was mostly limited to provincial and district centres; this was largely a vote of Herat’s urban population. That widening urban-rural divide, part of a countrywide pattern (read this AAN dispatch), raises questions as to how representative returning MPs to Afghanistan’s next parliament will be of the population as a whole. A vote constrained by insurgency was then further chipped away at by technical deficiencies. Even in safe areas, not every Herati managed to exercise their franchise.

Those twin problems – insecurity and organisational failure – were reflected in the voting statistics, the 175 polling centres that did not open and the 215,495 registered voters who did not vote. Given that half of Herat’s estimated eligible voters had already not or could not register, the figures look even worse. Actual voter turnout on the day was 342,225, or about a third of the estimated electorate.

These shortcomings were compounded by the 200 serious complaints of election rigging that cast serious doubts on how free and fair Herat’s parliamentary elections were. Although these complaints are still being investigated by the provincial ECC, convincing electoral stakeholders, particularly ‘losing’ candidates, to accept the final results could be a very hard task, given the messiness of these elections. It could have consequences for public order, given the commonplace practice of the ‘ill-used’, but influential, to bring supporters out onto the streets and block roads in and around the city of Herat and elsewhere. More importantly, these problematic parliamentary elections could further undermine public trust not just in the capacity of the electoral institutions but also in Afghanistan’s ‘democratic’ processes more broadly. This is particularly worrying given the approaching 20 April 2019 presidential elections.

Despite all these issues, however, according to the provincial authorities, Herat had a ‘good’ election. Muhammad Asif Rahimi, the outgoing provincial governor, said the elections were “relatively safe.” The Taleban failed to prevent the poll, he said, and the people of Herat, particularly the women, “created an epic by their high turnout” (see page 5 here). In her interview with AAN, the provincial ECC head, Hesham, put it more bluntly, “Compare Herat with Ghazni [province] that had no elections: the elections [in Herat] were good and things went safe and sound (bakhair ter shod).”

The enthusiasm on the part of those voters who could vote has to be acknowledged. Where voters could vote they largely did. However, many could not participate. They were let down by violent insurgents and incompetent authorities and, quite likely, cheats. This poses a serious question: how representative, free and fair can even a ‘good election’ in Afghanistan in current times be?

 

Edited by Danielle Moylan and Kate Clark

 

(1) The IEC announced the preliminary election results for Herat province on 17 December 2018 (see here). 161 candidates (their full list here) campaigned for Herat’s 17 seats in the parliament (five reserved for women). According to the preliminary results, of the 17 leading candidates (the first 12 are men and the last five women), eight are sitting MPs and the remaining nine new faces – who are referred to in bold:

1. Habib ul-Rahman Pedram, 16,796 votes
2. Muhammad Reza Khushak Watandost, 16,140 votes
3. Omar Nasir Mujaddedi, 10,929 votes
4. Haji Muhammad Sadeq Qaderi, 10,171 votes
5. Munavar Shah Bahaduri, 8,324 votes
6. Nesar Ahmad Faizi Ghoryani, 7,612 votes
7. Naqibullah Arwin, 7,306 votes
8. Ghulam Faruq Majruh, 7,004 votes
9. Ustad Hamidullah Hanif, 6,946 votes
10. Haji Shahpur Popal, 6,920 votes
11. Sayyed Azim Kabarzani, 6,582 votes
12. Al-Haj Ghulam Faruq Nazari, 6,263 votes
13. Rahima Jami, 3,686 votes
14. Masuda Karukhi, 2,822 votes
15. Simin Barekzai, 2,323 votes
16. Nahid Ahmadi Farid, 1,959 votes
17. Ustad Shirin Shahabi, 1,737 votes

F-14 Tomcat and F-4 Phantom Jets Among The Highlights of Iran International Air Show 2018 During the last week of November, Kish island hosted the 9th edition of the Iran International Air Show. More than [...]

Americas

The US Air Force is allocating a large amount of money in maintaining its AH-64E Apache’s LAIRCM countermeasure system. Northrop Grumman is being awarded with a $3.6 billion IDIQ contract supporting the service’s Large Aircraft Infrared Counter Measures (LAIRCM) equipment. This contract covers the delivery of LAIRCM line replaceable units and support equipment, and provides for logistics services; systems and sustaining engineering efforts and other activities. LAIRCM is a is a laser-based countermeasures system that can defend a wide range of aircraft from an infrared missile attack by automatically detecting a missile launch, determining if it is a threat, and activating a high-intensity system of pulsed lasers to track and defeat the threat by confusing its guidance head. The US Army used LAIRCM to protect its Apache gunships while operating against ISIS targets in Northern Iraq and Syria. This contract includes numerous sales to US allies as part of the Foreign Military Sales program. Work will be performed at the company’s facility in Rolling Meadows, Illinois, and is expected to be completed by December 2025.

The US Army is pouring $700 million into its Mobile Protected Firepower acquisition program. BAE Systems and General Dynamics will each deliver 6 prototype vehicles by February 2020. The US Army’s Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) program will provide the service with a new combat vehicle platform that allows US troops to disrupt, breach and break through enemy lines and defensive fortifications. The platform is required to be effective against hard targets such as bunkers, heavy machine gun nests and armored vehicles. UPI suggest that the MPF prototype offered by General Dynamics will be quite similar to the Ajax, developed for the UK; whereas BAE’s prototype could be a version of its M8 Buford Armored Gun System. The acquisition is part of the US Army’s 2015 combat vehicle modernization strategy, which will eventually see for the delivery of 504 vehicles. BAE is receiving $375 million, with work to be performed at its Sterling Heights, Michigan factory. General Dynamics is receiving $335 million, also working at Sterling Heights. The aggressive acquisition schedule wants the first prototypes tested within the next 16 months and expects the first vehicles to be fielded in 2025

Boeing and Embraer are forming a joint-venture on Embraer’s KC-390 multimission aircraft. The two companies announced that they will jointly “promote and develop new markets” for the KC-390. Embraer will have 51% stake in the joint venture, with Boeing owing the rest. This agreement is extending the companies partnership, with Boeing having gained a 80% stake in the Brazilian company’s commercial business in July 2018. A deal which cost Boeing $4.2 billion. The deal is pending approval by the Brazilian government – which holds a “golden share” – Embraer’s shareholders and regulatory agencies.

Middle East & Africa

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is increasing its stocks of Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles (ESSMs). Raytheon is being awarded with a cost-only contract that provides for the delivery of ESSMs and spares at a cost of $24.7 million. The ESSM is designed to protect navy ships from incoming missiles and aircraft. The RIM-162 Block 1 features a semi-active radar that is guided by reflected radiation from the ship’s radar. The missile is designed to counter supersonic maneuvering anti-ship missiles. The order includes Foreign Military Sales funds in the amount of $23.8 million. Work will be performed in Raufoss, Norway; Mississauga, Canada; Richmond, Australia. Performance is expected to run through December 2021. The ESSM will equip Saudi Arabia’s new Multi-Mission Surface Combatant (MMSC) ships.

Europe

The UK Royal Navy’s new Sea Venom/ANL missile faces a year-long delay. The missile is being developed under a $630 million contract issued by the UK and French governments. The missile will fulfil the UK’s Future Anti-Surface Guided Weapon (Heavy) requirement and will meet France’s national Anti Navire Léger requirement. The Sea Venom will eventually equip the Royal Navy’s Wildcat HMA2 helicopter and the French Navy’s Hélicoptère Interarmées Léger (HIL—Joint Light Helicopter) respectively. The delay means that the Royal Navy’s Wildcats will have to operate without their main anti-ship armament, ultimately limiting their ability to provide British ships – such as the HMS Queen Elizabeth – with an extended anti-ship capability until late 2021. The Sea Venom is a lightweight, subsonic sea-skimming missile guided by an IIR seeker. The missile is designed to counter a wide range of threats such as fast-moving patrol boats, corvettes and coastal targets.

Asia-Pacific

Taiwan’s Wan Chien stand-off cruise missile still doesn’t meet Republic of Korea Air Force requirements. The RoCAF conducted a number of missile tests with its F-CK-1 Ching Kuo Indigenous Defense Fighters earlier this year. During the tests the Wan Chien successfully completed a low-altitude drop, but repeatedly failed to correctly deploy when dropped at high-altitude. When launched at high-altitude the Wan Chien shows an unstable flight profile. This is caused by either a hardware or software error affecting the correct unfolding of the missile’s pop-out wings, leading to a turbulent air intake, delaying ignition of its engine. The Wan Chien can be compared to the US’s AGM-154 JSOW and is currently operational in small numbers. The RoCAF plans to hold a new series of trials sometime next year, pending a comprehensive examination of the missile’s software and hardware. The missile flies to a 150 mile range and allows Taiwan to strike targets on China’s southern-coast.

It is yet unclear when Indonesia will receive its first Su-35 fighter jets from Russia, due to an outstanding contract. Russia’s IRKUT defense contractor cannot start jet production until Jakarta signs a purchasing contract with Moscow. Russia’s ambassador to Indonesia, Lyudmila Georgievna Vorobieva expects to finalise the contract soon, however considering Indonesia’s recent financial troubles it is yet to be seen how soon. Indonesia’s Su-35 acquisition was finalised in February 2018 and sees for the delivery of 11 fighter jets at a cost of $1.14 billion. The Flanker E aircraft will replace the Asian-nation’s ageing fleet of F-5 Tiger IIs, some of which have been in service for almost four decades. The Su-35 is Russia’s most advanced fighter aircraft, which can compete with America’s upgraded ‘teen series’, the JAS-39, the Rafale and the Eurofighter.

Today’s Video

Watch: First Phalanx of Three is being fitted on the UK Aircraft Carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth